DC - Savvas Savopoulos, family & Veralicia Figueroa murdered; Daron Wint Arrested #18

[BondGirl]

She opened the text for them to view, but they don't say what time the text was sent. Approximately 9 am is based on recollection of W2. They don't give exact time, and they don't say what time the text was actually sent.

I assume if the time didn't match up she would've been treated as JW was when he was wrong about when SS contacted him about picking up a package. So I assume the time stamp matched what she told the cops.

 

[rkf]

He stated he called at 10:10 AM. I don't think it was ever given as an objective fact in the docs by LE (IIRC).

I found on the 20/20 episode that JW texted the message "Package delivered" at 10:26 am. I don't know where ABC got the info.

(at 15:21 [video=youtube;zM-8yplxtm0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM-8yplxtm0[/video])

 

[BondGirl]

Huh ? Alarm disarmed in first part

..then armed later ?

Not following logic

Makes sense to me. Even with alarm disarmed if you open window or glass breaker notes loud noise system responds and it is recorded in logs.

 

[BondGirl]

I found on the 20/20 episode that JW texted the message "Package delivered" at 10:26 am. I don't know where ABC got the info.

(at 15:21 [video=youtube;zM-8yplxtm0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM-8yplxtm0[/video])

Just because JW texted it was delivered that does not mean it was or that was the exact time. I don't trust anything he says.

 

[kammiemc]

Interesting. A 6:00 departure time for SS is new, today. Previously, the time reported was 5:30 (by NG). I wonder what time that would have gotten him home. I would imagine it was still rush hour at 6.

This 6 PM sighting was reported before and the time I always thought SS left the Dojo. (IIRC!) I thought 5:30 was the time that SS got a call from AS. NG said she overheard part of the conversation and also relayed what SS told her.

 

[jjenny]

I assume if the time didn't match up she would've been treated as JW was when he was wrong about when SS contacted him about picking up a package. So I assume the time stamp matched what she told the cops.

Well, you assume wrong, because the exact time is 9:57 am.

 

[rkf]

First, I would not enjoy that commute but I imagine at least an hour in 6 pm traffic from Chantilly to the middle of DC.

It's very interesting since the affidavit with the DW charging docs say: Your affiant has reviewed multiple cellular phone records and interviewed multiple witnesses that lead him to believe that this offense began sometime shortly after 6:00 pm on Wednesday May 13, 2015 and continued through the afternoon hours of Thursday, May 14, 2015.

Now, we can debate what "shortly after" means, but if 6:00 is accurate for both when SS left the dojo and when LE believes the crime began, that introduces the possibility that the crime began for him around the time SS left the dojo.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/266278174/Daron-Dylon-Wint-Charging-Documents

 

[kammiemc]

I assume if the time didn't match up she would've been treated as JW was when he was wrong about when SS contacted him about picking up a package. So I assume the time stamp matched what she told the cops.

I am not so sure about that. It seems LE really did put some things in the doc that were literally "witness stated" without verifying or contradicting the validity of those facts. This stands out most in JW's statements. Based on today, his first account of the bank experience sounds closer to the truth than his second, but LE did not clarify the actual facts. They just left it as what he stated last. I have NO idea why they would do this, but it seems to be so. That said, BondGirl, you are in DC and were one of the most vocal about the time it would take to get from the bank to the house. You were saying it would easily take an hour and 15 mins to get to the house vs what BelleVita found on google and Gaze, which was more like 28 mins. People made it seem impossible to make that trip within an hour. Is that still true?

 

[facundo]

It's very interesting since the affidavit with the DW charging docs say: Your affiant has reviewed multiple cellular phone records and interviewed multiple witnesses that lead him to believe that this offense began sometime shortly after 6:00 pm on Wednesday May 13, 2015 and continued through the afternoon hours of Thursday, May 14, 2015.

Now, we can debate what "shortly after" means, but if 6:00 is accurate for both when SS left the dojo and when LE believes the crime began, that introduces the possibility that the crime began for him around the time SS left the dojo.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/266278174/Daron-Dylon-Wint-Charging-Documents

I would be inclined to adjust that time to say the crime began before AS called SS because it was such an urgent call for him to come home that he interrupted his work on the dojo.

 

[katydid23]

Since it's new information to me that JW and the accountant were at the bank at 9:45/9:50, if the text of $20,000 was sent at 9:00 am (as we've believed from the docs all along) it opens the possibility that the photo of the money was not of the $40,000 withdrawn from the bank. JW's lies never made sense and taking a photo of $20K when you could photograph $40K never made sense to me. But if the accountant gave him a manila envelope when JW arrived at AIW and then JW overheard him making arrangements over the phone for the $40,000 they were to pick up at the bank, all JW's stories about receiving the money could be true, in a mixed up kind of way. IF JW took a photo of $20,000 at 9 am, what was going on between then and JW and the accountant's arrival at BoA?

It has no bearing on the SW or whether DW is guilty as sin, but if the affidavit is incorrect and the investigator wasn't aware of this until today's hearing, it certainly brings into question LE's attention to detail. Anything said in the prelim can be used in the trial, so it matters if the investigator's testimony is wrong. If the times are correct, it opens up other possibilities to how much money SS was able to put together at the last minute, whether the $40,000 was prearranged for the dojo or part of the ransom (before I always assumed it was straight out ransom), and whether JW could have been involved in the crime or skimming some of the money.

For holding DW over for trial, 9:00 vs 9:57 doesn't matter. But as it relates to LE's accuracy in the investigation and the possibility that stuff happened of which LE is aware but we are not, it makes a big difference. That LE reiterated in today's prelim that they still think DW had help means to me that they haven't changed their mind on that point. They must have evidence that makes them believe that even if they haven't shared it with the public. Either the 9:00/9:57 statement is a big mistake or it's a chink in the armor of this iron-clad investigation. They may have inadvertently shown us something that indicates the case is not what it seems.

"....if the text of $20,000 was sent at 9:00 am (as we've believed from the docs all along..."


Personally, I never thought the text was sent AT 9:00 AM. It said APPROXIMATELY. AND we all knew that the bank didn't open until 9 am. So I never assumed that the text actually went out at 9 am. I took them at their word when they said APPROXIMATELY. JMO

So that whole thing about there being another clump of cash is a huge stretch, imo.

"but if the affidavit is incorrect and the investigator wasn't aware of this until today's hearing, it certainly brings into question LE's attention to detail..."

Why would we think the investigator didn't know what time the text was sent until today? Where is that coming from? They had all of the cell records and logs for quite awhile already.

"But as it relates to LE's accuracy in the investigation..."

Again, how is LE's 'accuracy' questioned when they used the modifier= APPROXIMATELY in their statement? The time of the text had no bearing on the request for the SW. So they went with the APPROXIMATE time given by the witness. And I am pretty sure it was a long series of texts that probably began around 9 am, which is where she got her time reference.


IN REALITY, the prosecution testified in response to the defense claims, and clarified that the actual time was 9:57 am. That does not mean they made a mistake. It just means they used an approximate time because the exact time had no bearing on the Search Warrant request. JMO

 

[kammiemc]

Could the time on JW'S phone be haunted? On multiple occasions the face (front) of my smartphone has said 2 different times simultaneously. One hour apart exactly. I am NOT near 2 timezones. My carrier could not be explain it. It would come and go like that off and on. No one ever figured out why. :gaah:

Maybe, but the records wouldn't be haunted, just the hardware.

 

[1&2&3]

After reading everything posted today, I am more confused than when I started!

One thing for sure, we need to be thankful that DW took a bite of that pizza or we would have no knowledge of who committed these horrendous murders!

 

[atthelake]

Red herring. It wasn't before, it was after. Text send at 9:57 am.

"The prosecution said the text actually came after the bank pick up, at 9:57. It noted that the text said, "my job is insane, don't tell anyone," which they said indicated that Wallace was surprised about what he was being asked to transport."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/detective-2-d-c-mansion-murder-victims-were-strangled/

I am shocked we don't have any locals here at WS attending Prelim

:notgood:

 

[rkf]

"....if the text of $20,000 was sent at 9:00 am (as we've believed from the docs all along..."


Personally, I never thought the text was sent AT 9:00 AM. It said APPROXIMATELY. AND we all knew that the bank didn't open until 9 am. So I never assumed that the text actually went out at 9 am. I took them at their word when they said APPROXIMATELY. JMO

So that whole thing about there being another clump of cash is a huge stretch, imo.

"but if the affidavit is incorrect and the investigator wasn't aware of this until today's hearing, it certainly brings into question LE's attention to detail..."

Why would we think the investigator didn't know what time the text was sent until today? Where is that coming from? They had all of the cell records and logs for quite awhile already.

"But as it relates to LE's accuracy in the investigation..."

Again, how is LE's 'accuracy' questioned when they used the modifier= APPROXIMATELY in their statement? The time of the text had no bearing on the request for the SW. So they went with the APPROXIMATE time given by the witness. And I am pretty sure it was a long series of texts that probably began around 9 am, which is where she got her time reference.


IN REALITY, the prosecution testified in response to the defense claims, and clarified that the actual time was 9:57 am. That does not mean they made a mistake. It just means they used an approximate time because the exact time had no bearing on the Search Warrant request. JMO

BBM so I can respond to your points.

You may not have thought the text was sent a little after 9 am (which is what approximately means to me - either that or a little before. I think anything over 15 minutes is outside approximately, but that is ONLY my opinion), but I remember a discussion on here where we were trying to figure out if the bank would open early for the accountant because JW sent that text at approximately 9 am.

I agree that another clump of money is a stretch!

I was getting the investigator didn't know that the text of the money was sent at 9:57 since he replied "I don't know" when asked how the text could have been sent at approximately 9 am if JW wasn't at the bank until 9:45. If he knew the text was actually sent at 9:57, it would have been easy for him to say that.

If the investigator was not aware of the actual time of the text, given that they've had plenty of time to corroborate the time W2 said she received the text and the time they saw that the text was sent when W2 showed it to them with phone records, if the discrepancy wasn't noted by today, I think that's a lack of attention to detail. I think LE tries to be as accurate as possible, especially when the information is readily available to them. Since they did not have to rely on when W2 thought she received the text, because she showed them when she received the text, I would think if the time of the text was closer to 10 am, they would have said "approximately 10 am". In re-reading it, LE does say "W2 stated IT received a text... at approximately 9:00 am" but doesn't say what time they saw the text was actually sent when the viewed it. So if I read it as literally as possible, LE doesn't actually say what time the text was sent, just what W2 stated. Given that they were very specific about what was visible in the text photo, I must have been assuming that if W2's statement was inaccurate, they would have stated the time the text was actually sent if it differed substantially from W2's statement. My bad. The approximately 9:00 am referred directly to the text of the money, not some other unmentioned text per the affidavit.

I'm not sure who said in court today that the text was sent at 9:57. Was it the prosecutor? In which case, he can't testify, but can suggest, imply and state opinions of fact, when questioning a witness. It doesn't sound like Owens was the one who said the text was at 9:57, but rather that the prosecutor responded to the defense's question with that information. The defense obviously thought approximately 9:00 am did NOT mean 9:57 or they wouldn't have played "gotcha" with the bank photo. Kind of takes the wind out of one's sails if the witness says "Oh, yeah, well by approximately 9:00 we meant any time within an hour or so".

I don't think we need to keep arguing about what approximately means. I don't think it means the same thing you and other people do, and that's okay. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that my definition is the right one. Perhaps in the trial, LE will say they just included the time that W2 stated in the affidavit, but they knew all along the text was sent at 9:57.

 

[rkf]

I am not so sure about that. It seems LE really did put some things in the doc that were literally "witness stated" without verifying or contradicting the validity of those facts. This stands out most in JW's statements. Based on today, his first account of the bank experience sounds closer to the truth than his second, but LE did not clarify the actual facts. They just left it as what he stated last. I have NO idea why they would do this, but it seems to be so. That said, BondGirl, you are in DC and were one of the most vocal about the time it would take to get from the bank to the house. You were saying it would easily take an hour and 15 mins to get to the house vs what BelleVita found on google and Gaze, which was more like 28 mins. People made it seem impossible to make that trip within an hour. Is that still true?

I'm not Bondgirl, but if JW left Hyattsville at 10:00 am, if there wasn't an accident or construction, he could have made it to the S house much faster than if he left the bank at 9:00. JMO

 

[BondGirl]

I am not so sure about that. It seems LE really did put some things in the doc that were literally "witness stated" without verifying or contradicting the validity of those facts. This stands out most in JW's statements. Based on today, his first account of the bank experience sounds closer to the truth than his second, but LE did not clarify the actual facts. They just left it as what he stated last. I have NO idea why they would do this, but it seems to be so. That said, BondGirl, you are in DC and were one of the most vocal about the time it would take to get from the bank to the house. You were saying it would easily take an hour and 15 mins to get to the house vs what BelleVita found on google and Gaze, which was more like 28 mins. People made it seem impossible to make that trip within an hour. Is that still true?

Depends on when he left the bank. If 10am it would be much quicker than if he left at 9am.

 

[Peliman]

<modsnip>

I am reading the affidavit itself which states: "Detectives interviewed a witness, hereafter referred to as W2 which stated IT received a text from W1 on Thursday, May 14, 2015 at approximately 9:00 am. W2 opened the text for detectives to view. The text contained dialogue and photos of a red lined bag with what appeared to be two bundles of cash, one of which had visibly displayed a white money wrap."
BBM

https://www.scribd.com/doc/266278174/Daron-Dylon-Wint-Charging-Documents

LE was not just going on W2's recollection. W2 actually opened the text for LE to view, which would have included the time of the text. They would have also seen the text on JW's phone, unless he had erased it. Regardless, the time of that text would have shown up in the phone records. I'm assuming the investigators are the ones who would have reviewed the phone records, so if the text was sent at 9:57, when Owens was asked about the 9:00 am text, he could have simply replied that the time given in the affidavit was approximate, and the actual time was 9:57. Instead he said "I don't know" which makes me think he was not aware that the time of the text was off by about an hour from what was stated in the affidavit.

LE wrote the 9 am time over and over again in SW and other docs, so if it's incorrect, that proves that just because something is written over and over doesn't mean it is accurate. MSM has gotten so much wrong in this case that I don't feel confident they have this detail right, yet. Could someone direct me to a link where LE says the text containing the photo of the money was sent at 9:57 am? TIA.

Came in testimony today, Owens was testifying for the prosecution.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/detective-2-d-c-mansion-murder-victims-were-strangled/#pq=uk6CKO

 

[katydid23]

BBM so I can respond to your points.

You may not have thought the text was sent a little after 9 am (which is what approximately means to me - either that or a little before. I think anything over 15 minutes is outside approximately, but that is ONLY my opinion), but I remember a discussion on here where we were trying to figure out if the bank would open early for the accountant because JW sent that text at approximately 9 am.

I agree that another clump of money is a stretch!

I was getting the investigator didn't know that the text of the money was sent at 9:57 since he replied "I don't know" when asked how the text could have been sent at approximately 9 am if JW wasn't at the bank until 9:45. If he knew the text was actually sent at 9:57, it would have been easy for him to say that.

If the investigator was not aware of the actual time of the text, given that they've had plenty of time to corroborate the time W2 said she received the text and the time they saw that the text was sent when W2 showed it to them with phone records, if the discrepancy wasn't noted by today, I think that's a lack of attention to detail. I think LE tries to be as accurate as possible, especially when the information is readily available to them. Since they did not have to rely on when W2 thought she received the text, because she showed them when she received the text, I would think if the time of the text was closer to 10 am, they would have said "approximately 10 am". In re-reading it, LE does say "W2 stated IT received a text... at approximately 9:00 am" but doesn't say what time they saw the text was actually sent when the viewed it. So if I read it as literally as possible, LE doesn't actually say what time the text was sent, just what W2 stated. Given that they were very specific about what was visible in the text photo, I must have been assuming that if W2's statement was inaccurate, they would have stated the time the text was actually sent if it differed substantially from W2's statement. My bad. The approximately 9:00 am referred directly to the text of the money, not some other unmentioned text per the affidavit.

I'm not sure who said in court today that the text was sent at 9:57. Was it the prosecutor? In which case, he can't testify, but can suggest, imply and state opinions of fact, when questioning a witness. It doesn't sound like Owens was the one who said the text was at 9:57, but rather that the prosecutor responded to the defense's question with that information. The defense obviously thought approximately 9:00 am did NOT mean 9:57 or they wouldn't have played "gotcha" with the bank photo. Kind of takes the wind out of one's sails if the witness says "Oh, yeah, well by approximately 9:00 we meant any time within an hour or so".

I don't think we need to keep arguing about what approximately means. I don't think it means the same thing you and other people do, and that's okay. I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that my definition is the right one. Perhaps in the trial, LE will say they just included the time that W2 stated in the affidavit, but they knew all along the text was sent at 9:57.

BBM

I don't think we can assume that the investigator did not know what time the text was actually sent, just because he answered that question with 'IDK.' The 'I Don't Know' answer is used to shut down the defense if the line of inquiry is something the state does not want to get trapped into during the preliminary hearing. Their goal is to give as little info as possible, answer as few questions as possible, so they are not hemmed up by their testimony later on in the trial. So IDK is sometimes a strategic answer, not a ' we are too dumb to know' answer, imo.

So I disagree that they always try to be as accurate as possible in the preliminary in that they are also trying to hold a lot of things close to the vest. So when an 'uninformed' defense attorney says " How did JW text at 9 am when he didn't even get the cash yet?" ----the investigator is NOT going to go out of his way to correct their mistake. he just shrugs and says ' IDK'---Because if he answers and says the text was actually at this time, it opens the door for the defense to keep going further down that road, and asking for more verification and evidence from the state. The investigator would rather shrug and shut it down.

Then later in the hearing the state has their own chance to clarify, which they did.

 

[jjenny]

It sounds to me that detective Owens didn't know what time the text was actually send, defense jumped on it, and prosecution had to correct it.

 

[rkf]

Came in testimony today, Owens was testifying for the prosecution.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/detective-2-d-c-mansion-murder-victims-were-strangled/#pq=uk6CKO

"The prosecution said the text actually came after the bank pick up, at 9:57. It noted that the text said, "my job is insane, don't tell anyone," which they said indicated that Wallace was surprised about what he was being asked to transport."

I don't know if this means that Owens said the text was actually at 9:57 or if the prosecutor said it. I thought Owens was quoted as saying "I don't know" when asked how the text could have been sent at 9:00 am when JW wasn't seen on the bank video until 9:45. It's really hard when we have to rely on reporters to give us the story when they've done a pretty abysmal job of relaying the facts accurately in this case. Following this case has made me much less trusting of the media's accuracy in general.

ETA: In this same article "Defense attorneys said there was $13,000 in money orders and $7,000 in cash near Wint's brother. They said the suspect's brother had ordered other people, who defense attorneys say had no connection to Wint, to get the money." The reporter left off $10,000 in money orders found with Wint in the Chevy Cruze, bringing the total money found to $30,000.