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

[mk4osu]

I too, have been wondering about the car situation. It is all so puzzling! First, I'm very surprised that Wint took a chance, on that particular day and time...so many vehicles in the driveway. Looking at the pics, it appears that the Mosler was in the garage (farthest stall to the right). In the driveway, was the red Audi, the tan Range Rover, and the white Range Rover. The white RR was parked parallel, behind the other two. I don't know if this was exactly how vehicles were parked when LE showed up, but it's the way they are parked in photos (crime scene taped around the outermost side of white RR). It's probable that one of the vehicles was driven by SS; therefore, not in the driveway when the initial break-in occurred. I just can't fathom that a perp would take such risks with several vehicles at the house. It's very likely Wint had been watching the property, so as to be familiar with vehicles, etc...but still so risky, IMO. Has anyone seen any photos of inside the garage, to see if any vehicle was parked inside the garage, in the left bay? I saw photos of LE looking at the safe in garage, but couldn't tell if there was a vehicle to the left. My assumption would be that Amy's vehicle would normally occupy that space, since it appears to be closest to the inside of the house. That is an assumption, but considering they owned so many vehicles, who knows? In the street, outside the front of the house, would be my least favorable place to park, being the woman of the house. It's very odd that the Porsche was parked there. I wonder if it was originally in the garage, but was moved, sometime during the night? I do also find it odd, that Wint didn't attempt to steal any of the other vehicles. They are all expensive. I'm sure SS would've given him the keys, if he demanded. Those cars could've been stolen early in the night, and long gone, by the next afternoon. I have been on the fence, as to whether Wint acted alone...I keep going back and forth. The fact that no other vehicles were stolen, tends to be another clue that makes me think that he might have been the sole perp. I don't know, but for some reason, the vehicles and their placement, keeps nagging at me...Among many other things!!!

Does anyone know if the porsche was likely to be the outermost car in the cluster of cars in the driveway? Was it the one SS drove? I found an electronic bulletin board post of his from long ago saying that he wanted to buy a new porsche because his wife was refusing to drive the old one because of some annoying problem with it. Or would that have been the one that SS drove home in when AS called him? Just wondering if there was a reason that car was chosen to drive away in (e.g., did it have an automatic transmission whereas some of the others had manual transmissions? DW liked it? It was the one at the end of the driveway? It was the one that had easy-to-find keys?).

 

[BondGirl]

No opn here about Porsche timeline, who was in car, etc. And agreeing DDW et al probably planned to & did steal Porsche.

I wonder - why abandon & torch the Porsche? Any reason besides destroying DNA, forensic evd tying to deaths?
Possibilities:
? They (who-ev) had arranged a sale to a certain buyer. Something went wrong.
? Buyer did not show at all? Buyer did not have full purchase price?
? Accident en route to meeting place? So much damage - buyer would either not pay agreed-on price or only a fraction?
? Anticipating buyer could return later & take damaged car for free, driver prevented this by torching car?
? Accident en route - a hit & run w pedestrian, or other vehicle? Wanted to destroy DNA, etc tying driver to H & R accident?
? Pure spite?
? What else?

Just possibilities, not even my opn on above.

Maybe once DW and Co killed the S family, someone involved in car theft but not murder freaked out knowing his part in the crime would now be linked and he could be charged with murder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TexMex]

Well we don't know if LE has not further interrogated every single person that was with SW the night of his arrest. I bet they have and I bet they are watching them. I think the lack of news on any of them is telling in itself.

Agree

 

[al66pine]

Maybe once DW and Co killed the S family, someone involved in car theft but not murder freaked out knowing his part in the crime would now be linked and he could be charged with murder.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^Another good possibility ^:goodpost: about why Porsche was torched.

 

[TexMex]

^Another good possibility ^:goodpost: about why Porsche was torched.

I tend to think DW drove around awhile trying to decide what to do...formed a plan then parked it and set it on fire to destroy evidence just like he did in the house.

 

[Paulas88]

^Another good possibility ^:goodpost: about why Porsche was torched.

Another question I've been so curious about is "where was the Porsche between 1:30 5:30?" Wint (whoever) took it somewhere.

 

[Skigirl]

I too, have been wondering about the car situation. It is all so puzzling! First, I'm very surprised that Wint took a chance, on that particular day and time...so many vehicles in the driveway. Looking at the pics, it appears that the Mosler was in the garage (farthest stall to the right). In the driveway, was the red Audi, the tan Range Rover, and the white Range Rover. The white RR was parked parallel, behind the other two. I don't know if this was exactly how vehicles were parked when LE showed up, but it's the way they are parked in photos (crime scene taped around the outermost side of white RR). It's probable that one of the vehicles was driven by SS; therefore, not in the driveway when the initial break-in occurred. I just can't fathom that a perp would take such risks with several vehicles at the house. It's very likely Wint had been watching the property, so as to be familiar with vehicles, etc...but still so risky, IMO. Has anyone seen any photos of inside the garage, to see if any vehicle was parked inside the garage, in the left bay? I saw photos of LE looking at the safe in garage, but couldn't tell if there was a vehicle to the left. My assumption would be that Amy's vehicle would normally occupy that space, since it appears to be closest to the inside of the house. That is an assumption, but considering they owned so many vehicles, who knows? In the street, outside the front of the house, would be my least favorable place to park, being the woman of the house. It's very odd that the Porsche was parked there. I wonder if it was originally in the garage, but was moved, sometime during the night? I do also find it odd, that Wint didn't attempt to steal any of the other vehicles. They are all expensive. I'm sure SS would've given him the keys, if he demanded. Those cars could've been stolen early in the night, and long gone, by the next afternoon. I have been on the fence, as to whether Wint acted alone...I keep going back and forth. The fact that no other vehicles were stolen, tends to be another clue that makes me think that he might have been the sole perp. I don't know, but for some reason, the vehicles and their placement, keeps nagging at me...Among many other things!!!

That's funny that the street would be your least favorite place to park. My driveway is a pain and although we have a garage, I always park on the street, by choice so I don't have to back out of it. Plus, with all of those vehicles, the constant vehicle shuffle would drive me insane and make me want to not deal with any of that mess

 

[facundo]

Maybe once DW and Co killed the S family, someone involved in car theft but not murder freaked out knowing his part in the crime would now be linked and he could be charged with murder.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can imagine this, suppose this unknown someone finally gets linked to the crime and has to stand trial. Then his attorney says, "Well my client was just stealing cars, he didn't know anyone was going to be murdered. He freaked out and abandoned the Porsche behind the church. He has no idea how it caught fire. " Now imagine this someone could be DW.

 

[SophieRose]

I've seen cases last years before an arrest was made and I'm still waiting for others. It all depends on the district attorney when someone is charged.

It's one thing to charge someone, it's another to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt. District attorneys will tell you, you get one bite at the apple so the case better be solid. Can you prove it or is the case circumstantial? They don't charge someone on a hunch. Charging someone starts the clock ticking especially if they request a speedy trial.

A hair match or eye-witness can be disputed by a good attorney. Lie detectors are not admissible. If and when a district attorney feels they have enough evidence they will charge someone. If not enough direct evidence exist, they won't charge.

Has a body been recovered? What condition is it in etc etc. In other words cases are different, one maybe a quick arrest, another may take years or not until they have enough evidence. On a rare occasion a trial may be conducted on circumstantial evidence but that's rare. I've learned I can hold my breath a LONG time. MOO

I would guess the evidence in most murder cases is circumstantial. Direct evidence would be a witness who saw the murder. DNA and fingerprints are circumstantial without a witness in the room watching the actual killing. Eyewitnesses, though, can also lie or be mistaken, and defense attorneys can try to impeach their testimony.

 

[rkf]

I can imagine this, suppose this unknown someone finally gets linked to the crime and has to stand trial. Then his attorney says, "Well my client was just stealing cars, he didn't know anyone was going to be murdered. He freaked out and abandoned the Porsche behind the church. He has no idea how it caught fire. " Now imagine this someone could be DW.

That someone better not have left DNA on a pizza crust or have victims' blood on his shoes... JMO

 

[facundo]

I would guess the evidence in most murder cases is circumstantial. Direct evidence would be a witness who saw the murder. DNA and fingerprints are circumstantial without a witness in the room watching the actual killing. Eyewitnesses, though, can also lie or be mistaken, and defense attorneys can try to impeach their testimony.

OK, "my client wasn't anywhere near Woodland Drive on the day of the murders. He has five witnesses who can vouch for his whereabouts. My client does not even like pizza. The Domino's delivery man said he left the pizza on the front porch, at 9:45 p.m. on the 13th and then he left. On the other hand W1 states that he actually entered the house at 10:25 on the 14th and delivered $40,000 to the red car in the garage. SS tried to call him on his cell phone at 11: 45 but he didn't respond to the call. Subsequently he was seen by police at the scene of the crime near the time of the fire. He also lied to the police investigating this crime." Now ladies and gentlemen, who are you going to believe?

 

[rkf]

OK, "my client wasn't anywhere near Woodland Drive on the day of the murders. He has five witnesses who can vouch for his whereabouts. My client does not even like pizza. The Domino's delivery man said he left the pizza on the front porch, at 9:45 p.m. on the 13th and then he left. On the other hand W1 states that he actually entered the house at 10:25 on the 14th and delivered $40,000 to the red car in the garage. SS tried to call him on his cell phone at 11: 45 but he didn't respond to the call. Subsequently he was seen by police at the scene of the crime near the time of the fire. He also lied to the police investigating this crime." Now ladies and gentlemen, who are you going to believe?

That is exactly why I think LE must have way more info on JW than us, because they presented a viable defense on a silver platter when they stated he lied more than once in interviews. (It may have been the truth, but if they thought he was uninvolved, it might have been better not to include that information. I guess there's not a good way around that, is there?) If LE were just mistaken about JW's involvement, they have inadvertently damaged the prosecutor's case. I will be surprised if LE was that impulsive. JMO

 

[rkf]

I just heard something abut a case on TV. The attorney said the reason the state only tries a suspect for one murder (of a multiple murder) is that if s/he is found innocent, the state can then try the suspect for another one. Do you think that could play into why DW has only been charged with one murder, or do you think LE is waiting to bring additional charges on another suspect/other suspects or DW himself? If they're waiting, what do you think they are they waiting for?

 

[Peliman]

I would guess the evidence in most murder cases is circumstantial. Direct evidence would be a witness who saw the murder. DNA and fingerprints are circumstantial without a witness in the room watching the actual killing. Eyewitnesses, though, can also lie or be mistaken, and defense attorneys can try to impeach their testimony.

Now days video evidence can be used too but a circumstantial case has to be built to make a conviction. I'm pointing out why some cases take time to charge a perp even when the perp is known. Having too few circumstances makes for a weak case.

In the case of wint what we know of is DNA and a blood match on the shoes of Wint. Very powerful circumstantial indicating Wint as a killer. More powerful than eyewitness testimony. IMO.

 

[facundo]

That is exactly why I think LE must have way more info on JW than us, because they presented a viable defense on a silver platter when they stated he lied more than once in interviews. (It may have been the truth, but if they thought he was uninvolved, it might have been better not to include that information. I guess there's not a good way around that, is there?) If LE were just mistaken about JW's involvement, they have inadvertently damaged the prosecutor's case. I will be surprised if LE was that impulsive. JMO

It was Vincent Cohen who moved to unseal the SW's and the DW Charging Document. Defense Atty would get all of these documents during discovery anyway. I hope there is some strategy to hanging all of this out in public.

 

[Paulas88]

I just heard something abut a case on TV. The attorney said the reason the state only tries a suspect for one murder (of a multiple murder) is that if s/he is found innocent, the state can then try the suspect for another one. Do you think that could play into why DW has only been charged with one murder, or do you think LE is waiting to bring additional charges on another suspect/other suspects or DW himself? If they're waiting, what do you think they are they waiting for?

Maybe a bargaining tool for a possible plea?

 

[Peliman]

I tend to think DW drove around awhile trying to decide what to do...formed a plan then parked it and set it on fire to destroy evidence just like he did in the house.

I think this was an important time gap in this crime. I've heard he ran to his sisters and didn't someone say he was on the front porch of his father, not clear on this.

But

Where did the DVR from the security cameras go?
Did LE obtain SW's for his sister and fathers house?
Was the DVR in the burned Porsche?
Were his sister and fathers phones collected or a S/W obtained?
Where was that Porsche in that missing time gap?

Just curious

 

[Skigirl]

I just heard something abut a case on TV. The attorney said the reason the state only tries a suspect for one murder (of a multiple murder) is that if s/he is found innocent, the state can then try the suspect for another one. Do you think that could play into why DW has only been charged with one murder, or do you think LE is waiting to bring additional charges on another suspect/other suspects or DW himself? If they're waiting, what do you think they are they waiting for?

That happens with serial killers. They get charged with one murder and prosecutors reserve the other murders in case he (almost always 'he') is acquitted. It would make sense to me in this case, too.

 

[al66pine]

I would guess the evidence in most murder cases is circumstantial. Direct evidence would be a witness who saw the murder. DNA and fingerprints are circumstantial without a witness in the room watching the actual killing. Eyewitnesses, though, can also lie or be mistaken, and defense attorneys can try to impeach their testimony.

SophieRose Thx for pointing that out. Good to remember.

This may be informative for some, to further distinguish and provide examples:

"Direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of innocence) directly, i.e., without an intervening inference.[SUP][1][/SUP] Circumstantial evidence, by contrast, consists of a fact or set of facts which, if proven, will support the creation of an inference that the matter asserted is true.[SUP][2][/SUP]For example: a witness who testifies that he saw the defendant shoot the victim gives direct evidence. A witness who testifies that he saw the defendant fleeing the scene of the crime, or a forensics expert who says that ballistics proves that the defendant’s gun shot the bullet that killed the victim both give circumstantial evidence from which the defendant’s guilt may be inferred.
In direct evidence a witness relates what he or she directly experienced. (Usually the experience is by sight or hearing, though it may come through any sense, including [smell,] touch or pain. State v Famber, 358 Mo 288, 214 SW2d 40.)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_evidence bbm

"Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out.
Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.[SUP][1][/SUP] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of fact in order to support the truth of an assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).
Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. For instance, a witness saying that she saw a defendant stab a victim is providing direct evidence. By contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence. It is the necessity for inference, and not the obviousness of a conclusion, that determines whether evidence is circumstantial.
Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually treated as circumstantial evidence. For instance, a forensic scientist may provide results of ballistic tests proving that the defendant’s firearm fired the bullets that killed the victim."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence <--- much longer article here.

 

[KEVINinTO]

I think this was an important time gap in this crime. I've heard he ran to his sisters and didn't someone say he was on the front porch of his father, not clear on this.

But

Where did the DVR from the security cameras go?
Did LE obtain SW's for his sister and fathers house?
Was the DVR in the burned Porsche?
Were his sister and fathers phones collected or a S/W obtained?
Where was that Porsche in that missing time gap?

Just curious

I know a SW was obtained for the fathers house because media reports showed LE carrying away lots of evidence from that home.

Likewise media reports showed LE searching his GF's home in Brooklyn.

I would hope they searched the sisters home as well as obtain warrants for all the electronic devices owned by anyone in contact with DW.

Finding the security system DVR is absolutely crucial! We know from the unsealed SW for JW's car that they recovered "external hardrives" but I suspect these were not the missing DVR's or JW would have been arrested long ago. If the DVR was in the burnt out Porsche I hope LE is able to recover data from it (they can do some amazing things).