DC - Savvas Savopoulos, family & Veralicia Figueroa murdered; Daron Wint Arrested #17

[Skigirl]

The Mosler is not mentioned. No need to take it away if it is locked up in the garage.

Wouldn't it be easier to process it in a police facility? I thought that's why they usually haul items off instead of inspecting them in situ. Nevermind, I don't even really care about the answer to that. I hope we learn something more on the 20th.:desert:

 

[facundo]

Thank you! I was wondering about that. I know a suspect has to sign a confession, but wasn't sure if a witness has to sign his/her statement. Of course, now that you've told us, it seems obvious, but that was really niggling me.

At the time of the interview LE didn't know if JW was a suspect, witness, or POI. They didn't document this for us but IMO they surely suspected him and were treating him as such.

 

[rkf]

SW for JW’s BMW:
6. Members of the Major Crimes/Cold Case Homicide unit conducted an investigation into this offense and interviewed a person identified as Jordan Wallace..
7. Wallace stated he received a call from Mr. Savopoulos on Thursday morning, May 14, 2015 and was directed to report to the office..
8. As detectives continued to question Wallace, Wallace changed his account ..
It is not stated in the SW where the interview(s) took place. Was it at the scene of the crime? Was it at a police facility? Was the interview referenced in paragraph 6 at the scene of the crime and the continued paragraph 8 in the police facility? In either case there seems to be no logical reason for JW to lie about the manila envelope and the Mosler being locked or unlocked. By the same token, there is no logical reason for LE to omit reference to the time and place of the interview(s). We can only conjecture and form our own opinions of both.

At the time of the interview LE didn't know if JW was a suspect, witness, or POI. They didn't document this for us but IMO they surely suspected him and were treating him as such.

If they interviewed him anywhere other than the police station, LE wouldn't have video to back up what they wrote in the affidavit. I also imagine it would be hard to type out a witness statement for JW to read/sign. I hope the statements in the affidavit were all made at the station.

 

[kammiemc]

Interesting that that didn't include the Mosler.

Maybe LE discovered that the Mosler had been locked (and not unlocked) since long before the crime, so there was no reason to search it. (It sounds like based on people's research there is a chance that it might have had the kind of locking device that would record when it had last been opened.)
Remember the ONLY person who says JW dropped the money in the Mosler is JW, an unreliable source of information. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that JW was never directed to put money in the Mosler and that's why he couldn't tell LE whether it was locked or unlocked. In fact, I think it's highly likely!

 

[kammiemc]

Well, one thing cleared up for me in this story, if we can believe it. It's so frustrating that so much misinformation has been disseminated at all via MSM. This is a clear and emphatic statement: "In fact, he was given four bundles of cash,"

I WILL NEVER understand a bank or the AIW employee just giving four bundles of cash without an envelope or even an an old Taco Bell bag.

Are you talking about this paragraph? I read this as MSM giving JW's second account as what actually happened, compared to this first account. (That is the way the info was handled in more than a couple of articles--"what actually happened" but it was actually just JW's second account.) I read the article twice, but I am missing the part where it says that the bank handed the acct four bundles not in an envelope or bag! That said, I do know that the accountant said he took out $40k from BofA. Sorry, if I missed something in the article. I've had just one cup of tea.

 

[BellaVita]

Well, one thing cleared up for me in this story, if we can believe it. It's so frustrating that so much misinformation has been disseminated at all via MSM. This is a clear and emphatic statement: "In fact, he was given four bundles of cash,"

I WILL NEVER understand a bank or the AIW employee just giving four bundles of cash without an envelope or even an an old Taco Bell bag.

According to the warrant, the money was placed directly into a bag possessed by JW after the accountant removed it from his pockets. I think it likely the bank was very discrete. The cash may have been dispersed in a manager's office rather than in the main lobby. Then again, it's been reported that the transaction took place slightly before opening time. I know in fact, from personal experience, that a bank WILL allow a known, trusted client into the bank before official opening time. There is a circumstance under which it is very reasonable for the money to be in pockets. Manila envelope could attract attention leading a thief to suspect a large amount of cash was being carried. Pockets more discrete, IMO. The warrant doesn't state if JW entered the bank with the accountant or waited in the parking lot. I tend to think JW waited in the parking lot as he was not required to be present for the withdrawal. I believe the accountant may have gotten into the car with JW or vice versa and that is when the money was given to JW.

 

[Skigirl]

At the time of the interview LE didn't know if JW was a suspect, witness, or POI. They didn't document this for us but IMO they surely suspected him and were treating him as such.

I don't know what they knew, but they were calling him "witness", just like the other two people in the charging documents.

 

[BellaVita]

Maybe LE discovered that the Mosler had been locked (and not unlocked) since long before the crime, so there was no reason to search it. (It sounds like based on people's research there is a chance that it might have had the kind of locking device that would record when it had last been opened.)
Remember the ONLY person who says JW dropped the money in the Mosler is JW, an unreliable source of information. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that JW was never directed to put money in the Mosler and that's why he couldn't tell LE whether it was locked or unlocked. In fact, I think it's highly likely!

BBM: And the SW states that JW CALLED, not texted SS phone 10 minues out from the house. So there is no official record of what SS told him to do with the money.

 

[kammiemc]

According to the warrant, the money was placed directly into a bag possessed by JW after the accountant removed it from his pockets. I think it likely the bank was very discrete. The cash may have been dispersed in a manager's office rather than in the main lobby. Then again, it's been reported that the transaction took place slightly before opening time. I know in fact, from personal experience, that a bank WILL allow a known, trusted client into the bank before official opening time. There is a circumstance under which it is very reasonable for the money to be in pockets. Manila envelope could attract attention leading a thief to suspect a large amount of cash was being carried. Pockets more discrete, IMO. The warrant doesn't state if JW entered the bank with the accountant or waited in the parking lot. I tend to think JW waited in the parking lot as he was not required to be present for the withdrawal. I believe the accountant may have gotten into the car with JW or vice versa and that is when the money was given to JW.

It could be that the bank gave the acct four bundles of cash from hand to hand without an envelope. But the accountant, as far I know from the docs, has never once stated that to be the case (or stated otherwise). The only person who has said the cash was not inside anything (except the acct's pockets) was JW in his second account. And in the doc is clearly written as something that JW stated. So, the other pieces of the puzzle COULD fall into place to make his story true. But there's nothing we know of (aside from no additional arrests eight weeks later) that confirm that his second accounts are accurate.

 

[kammiemc]

BBM: And the SW states that JW CALLED, not texted SS phone 10 minues out from the house. So there is no official record of what SS told him to do with the money.

That's exactly right. We are relying 100% on JW's truthful and accurate account of the conversation he had with SS on the phone at 10:10 AM—the call in which he says he was instructed to drop the money in the red car in the garage.
That's why I think JW's conflicting accounts about whether the car was locked and required him to find a key vs unlocked were significant to LE. The story is pretty odd, so they asked him details he would have certainly known and he didn't pass the truth test. This told them that there was very likely no direction at all from SS to JW to drop the money in the car and there was, in fact, no money dropped in the car, at all, ever.

ETA: Weirdly, the only other person (people) in the universe who could corroborate that JW dropped the money in the car is DW (and Co).

 

[BellaVita]

Are you talking about this paragraph? I read this as MSM giving JW's second account as what actually happened, compared to this first account. (That is the way the info was handled in more than a couple of articles--"what actually happened" but it was actually just JW's second account.) I read the article twice, but I am missing the part where it says that the bank handed the acct four bundles not in an envelope or bag! That said, I do know that the accountant said he took out $40k from BofA. Sorry, if I missed something in the article. I've had just one cup of tea

.

BBM: I don't think it's been definitively stated exactly how the accountant received the money from the bank. In post #673 I give a scenario of how the transaction may have happened. For JW's self-interest, hopefully his second account matches with that of the accountant. Some may say how do we know the accountant is telling the truth. Two things: Whatever story he has given will be verified by bank personnel and the accountant has so far not been implicated in any way as misrepresenting anything. If JW's 2nd version is incorrect, then he has worse problems than I thought. The thing is, if nobody was there to witness the money exchange, whose story has more veracity?

 

[BellaVita]

It could be that the bank gave the acct four bundles of cash from hand to hand without an envelope. But the accountant, as far I know from the docs, has never once stated that to be the case (or stated otherwise). The only person who has said the cash was not inside anything (except the acct's pockets) was JW in his second account. And in the doc is clearly written as something that JW stated. So, the other pieces of the puzzle COULD fall into place to make his story true. But there's nothing we know of (aside from no additional arrests eight weeks later) that confirm that his second accounts are accurate.

Correct! I know JW has problems with the truth but you would really think and hope that the 2nd account matches that of the accountant because otherwise there is more problems with his story than many want to believe. Until I see any evidence of the accountant having issues with the truth either before the crime or since, his is the account I would go with based on what I know of JW.

 

[kammiemc]

.

BBM: I don't think it's been definitively stated exactly how the accountant received the money from the bank. In post #674 I give a scenario of how the transaction may have happened. For JW's self-interest, hopefully his second account matches with that of the accountant. Some may say how do we know the accountant is telling the truth. Two things: Whatever story he has given will be verified by bank personnel and the accountant has so far not been implicated in any way as misrepresenting anything. If JW's 2nd version is incorrect, then he has worse problems than I thought. The thing is, if nobody was there to witness the money exchange, whose story has more veracity?

Totally agree. Anything the acct says happened in the bank can easily be corroborated by bank personnel and probably video. But whatever happened in the exchange outside is just the accountant's account vs JW's account. If the accountant relayed other details about the day accurately, then his account of the exchange might be more believable to LE than JW's if there was a discrepancy (just because of JW's other inaccuracies).
It would be interesting to know where the accountant thought the money was being delivered to SS. The house? The dojo? I'm guessing that if he found out that drop off plan changed and that JW was suddenly going to drop it into a car he would have intervened.

 

[TexMex]

Bottom line is that it appears LE verified JW account through other witnesses and evidence.
So however strange it sounds LE made sense of it since they have access to the whole picture

 

[Skigirl]

Bottom line is that it appears LE verified JW account through other witnesses and evidence.
So however strange it sounds LE made sense of it since they have access to the whole picture

Doesn't appear that way to me, in any case.

 

[TexMex]

Doesn't appear that way to me, in any case.

How so? It's almost nine weeks and JW is a witness not a defendant. IMO that means his story checked out via other evidence gathered in the investigation

 

[FelicityLemon]

Are you talking about this paragraph? I read this as MSM giving JW's second account as what actually happened, compared to this first account. (That is the way the info was handled in more than a couple of articles--"what actually happened" but it was actually just JW's second account.) I read the article twice, but I am missing the part where it says that the bank handed the acct four bundles not in an envelope or bag! That said, I do know that the accountant said he took out $40k from BofA. Sorry, if I missed something in the article. I've had just one cup of tea.

View attachment 77946

Yes, that's the paragraph. Just so's ya know, I didn't deliberately edit out the rest of the para to deliberately mislead anyone. My focus was on that single sentence because I took it as a simple statement of *alleged* fact.

Because of the way it's worded, I understood it to mean that the article was stating that this was true account as opposed to the first sentence.

I don't know if the man in the moon gave JW four bundles of cash. If JW was given four bundles of cash, someone gave it to him. Again, I'm just responding to what's written.

This wasn't my intention, but after reading your understanding of it as opposed to my own, this fits as yet one more example of how information true or false can be interpreted differently depending on who is receiving the info, lol!

 

[FelicityLemon]

I'm dying to know what the bank employee has to say. The one who actually spoke with SS. When did that first call occur? Was there more than one call? Did he call the bank employee at home if it was outside of banking hours? We haven't heard a peep about or from the bank employee, as far as I know.

 

[facundo]

IMO, LE had to have a reason to secure his car at the scene of the fire, perhaps even before they interviewed him. It was the same day as the fire, but it's not clear when it was "towed" relative to JW speaking to LE. Did the accountant call LE to relay the morning's events as soon as he heard about the fire?

I wouldn't be surprised to find that LE thoroughly searched the S family's and NG's cars. Maybe they didn't need SWs because they had permission, or maybe those SWs are still sealed. If LE received permission from JW or his mom to search the BMW, would LE still want a SW if they expected to find evidence? It seems like LE waited an awfully long time to conduct the search after the SW was issued. Why would they wait so long if they thought the car contained evidence? Doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.

IMO In a murder case, time is of the essence. Police on the scene can search the car with permission or without it because they have reasonable suspicion. They can also rapidly obtain a search warrant via communication with a judge using their police vehicle on-board computers. During a field search police would be looking for the obvious things such as weapons, stolen property, e.g. $40,000, red bags, etc. Not finding the obvious they would want to do a more thorough search for forensic evidence, i.e. DNA evidence requiring swabs, lab tests, etc. The search warrant was issued on 05/15 and evidence collection was concluded on 05/21/2015.

 

[facundo]

If they interviewed him anywhere other than the police station, LE wouldn't have video to back up what they wrote in the affidavit. I also imagine it would be hard to type out a witness statement for JW to read/sign. I hope the statements in the affidavit were all made at the station.

They likely kept notes at the scene of the crime. These notes could be incorporated with the interview at the police station. It's not hard to type a witness statement. I could do it in five minutes even at my typing speed. It doesn't matter when the statements were made. Once they are typed they become cold hard facts.