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

[CrimeNeverPays]

What to drive to Lowe's Chantilly to see if I have reception and see how long drive takes? Too bad there isn't a way for folks to paypal or buy a websleuther a coffee in exchange for this type of thing, but not even sure you could pay me to drive way out there! LOL

What a GREAT idea!!!! If I were local I would drop everything to do it--Clever idea.

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

Agreed. I am in the DC area, and was about to respond saying that the only experiment that would happen is how much of a mess 66 can surprise you with! In perfect conditions, it would take 40-45 minutes to get from Chantilly to the house, but 66 can be a nightmare in no time at all. Like you said, one car pulled over, a glimpse of a construction vehicle, or an actual incident and you can be delayed rather quickly. The road is such a mess that entire portions of the road are HOV only during certain hours (not during the time frame that JW would have theoretically been driving on it, but portions of inbound 66 are HOV only during morning rush).

Of course, he could have gone up to the toll road... might be faster...

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Millhouse]

I believe he would have been arrested if anything was found to incriminate him. He was put under a microscope in the beginning (before they found the damning evidence from DW).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. They have searched his car and belongings from that day, and his cell phone records for at least the day of the crime (and if IIRC, a few days before and some time after- sorry if this is a mistake) and still nothing. I mean, anything is possible, but to me this is a sign that LE isn't too interested in him as a suspect at this point.

The fact that the defense in yesterday's hearing kept trying to cast doubt on him with the same old information makes me think that they don't have anything newer on him. Also, I don't know what is allowed or not allowed to be said in these hearings, or what the defense would know at this point, but it was stated that there was a 3rd person's DNA found. Wouldn't someone say if it was, or wasn't, JW's? Would the defense call him out for not submitting DNA?

 

[Millhouse]

Of course, he could have gone up to the toll road... might be faster...

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Very true... might be faster, and is much less variable. I avoid 66 like the plague but it's the most direct artery in to the city and I know people who take it no matter what. I just don't understand! It's so frustrating.

With all of the traffic cameras around the DC area, I'm hoping that this is information LE already knows. The video quality on those isn't great, but I'm hoping some targeted video searching, along with the fact that his car was green and the family's cars were unique in appearance, leads to information on his route, timing, etc. They got JW's cell phone data, so I'm sure they have general pings, and could supplement with footage and information from traffic cameras. Hopefully, at least...

 

[pinkandgreenmom]

Of course, he could have gone up to the toll road... might be faster...

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I wondered that, too. I lived in western Loudoun County for years and that is how I would have gone from Chantilly to NW (Toll Road, exiting before 66 and crossing into DC via the Chain Bridge). But I am not sure if that is what people in DC proper (or JW for that matter) would do.

 

[facundo]

I don't know. Would they need a warrant. Would an attorney advise him to comply without a subpoena?

All they had to do is give him a glass of water to drink while he was being questioned and then get his DNA from the glass.

 

[WilsonVB]

I wondered that, too. I lived in western Loudoun County for years and that is how I would have gone from Chantilly to NW (Toll Road, exiting before 66 and crossing into DC via the Chain Bridge). But I am not sure if that is what people in DC proper (or JW for that matter) would do.

Wonder if he had an EZ Pass?

 

[Canaille]

Sigh.

Once again, I'm trying to get caught up on posts.

Has this been addressed, yet?

BBM

"Owens testified that Wint’s DNA wasn’t the only evidence found on the vest. Savvas Savopoulos’s DNA along with a third person’s DNA were also detected, the detective said."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...31d64c-2cc4-11e5-a5ea-cf74396e59ec_story.html

 

[jjenny]

Sigh.

Once again, I'm trying to get caught up on posts.

Has this been addressed, yet?

BBM

"Owens testified that Wint’s DNA wasn’t the only evidence found on the vest. Savvas Savopoulos’s DNA along with a third person’s DNA were also detected, the detective said."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...31d64c-2cc4-11e5-a5ea-cf74396e59ec_story.html

Third person's DNA from an unknown person doesn't necessarily mean that the person was involved in anything. It could be somebody who wore the vest prior to the crime. Unless they match it to somebody it's impossible to say if it's relevant or not.

 

[jjenny]

I believe he would have been arrested if anything was found to incriminate him. He was put under a microscope in the beginning (before they found the damning evidence from DW).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Detecive already testified they don't have any actual evidence anybody other than DW was involved. So pretty clearly there is no evidence against JW.

 

[stmarysmead]

Well, there certainly are a lot of "known-unknowns" in this case.

We "know" what we know from the SW's but some think those documents can be in error or outdated.

We "know" what was written or said when warrants were issued, but some think that any and all parts of those "knowns" may no longer be relevant.

We "know" what we know from the media except their articles often contradict each other on crucial details and what is stated in one article can be debated by posting part of another.

We "know" what was testified to yesterday except it may be deceptive because LE wants to surprise the Defense at trial.

So everything we "know" may be in error, outdated, intentional deception, or a legal strategy.

All we really know is that four good people died horrendous deaths and two families have been decimated.

 

[Skigirl]

I agree that most likely they have gotten a set of prints and DNA since the return/ and affidavit indicate forensics and wet/dry swabs.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If they swabbed the car, they couldn't identify the DNA as his for sure unless he either agreed to, or was compelled to, contribute a known DNA sample, so I don't think the swabs and fingerprints they were looking for were JW's. I think they wanted to know who else might have been in his car. JMO.

 

[jjenny]

To know if anybody esle was in the car, they would need to eliminate JW's prints and DNA first, and the only way to do that is to collect his fingerprints and DNA samples. If he didn't volunteer his DNA, LE would get a search warrant. I don't see any chance his DNA hasn't been collected.

 

[CoreyRocks]

Megan Cloherty ‏@ClohertyWTOP 5m5 minutes agoWashington, DC
Police timeline #Savopoulos fam, Figueroa held starting at 6p on 5/13 partially based on security system detecting glass broken at 5:56p

Ok ... if VF normally left at 3pm which we thought was her usual time .... why was she leaving around 6pm and didn't call her husband. She would have had time between 3 and roughly 6 pm before DW broke it. IMHO that time seems too late for the break-in.

 

[rkf]

Unknown DNA could belong to the person in china who put the vest in a package.

Could that really be possible?

 

[BondGirl]

Very true... might be faster, and is much less variable. I avoid 66 like the plague but it's the most direct artery in to the city and I know people who take it no matter what. I just don't understand! It's so frustrating.

With all of the traffic cameras around the DC area, I'm hoping that this is information LE already knows. The video quality on those isn't great, but I'm hoping some targeted video searching, along with the fact that his car was green and the family's cars were unique in appearance, leads to information on his route, timing, etc. They got JW's cell phone data, so I'm sure they have general pings, and could supplement with footage and information from traffic cameras. Hopefully, at least...

Yes, DC, NYC and some other major cities which are known terror targets have this sort of license plate tracking. They can tell where you typically go, frequent stops, etc. http://wamu.org/news/13/12/10/licen...s_capturing_millions_of_license_plate_numbers

 

[rkf]

Isn't it important to be as accurate as possible? Why not just say the text occurred sometime on the morning of the 14th if accuracy is not important? SWs are supposed to be based on facts presented in good faith. This seems to be a situation that LE had no reason not to be accurate.

If I was being investigated and my belongings were being searched, I'd sure want that to be based on true info. Whether I was innocent or not.

That's what I was thinking because the affidavit is used at trial (and in the prelim). We saw the defense used it as a factual document, since they sprung that "gotcha" on Owens. I understand the exact time isn't necessary for the warrants and it didn't matter regarding holding DW for trial. One thing that a few people have mentioned, that I keep forgetting, is that we have to read the docs very literally, paying close attention to when LE says a witness states something vs. LE averring it. That text is a good example because of how LE says the witness stated the time, but LE never says that is the time. I find it odd that they wouldn't note that the actual time was xyz, but maybe they include as few facts as possible so they don't get boxed in at trial. I think when the affiant eventually does state what s/he believes in asking for the warrant, s/he would need to have reasons for that belief. I've assumed that belief was in large part due to the statements given by the witnesses in the affidavit, but maybe it's due to information they didn't include and LE knows the reader (judge?) will assume the conclusion is based on the information given in the affidavit. Maybe a little of each. It's really interesting to me how little fact or evidence is actually included in the affidavit.

 

[rkf]

To obtain a warrant, law enforcement officers must show that there is probable cause to believe a search is justified. Officers must support this showing with sworn statements (affidavits), and must describe in particularity the place they will search and the items they will seize. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/search_warrant#Obtaining_a_Search_Warrant

That was her statement so that is what they used in the SW.

But if you have something better than the witness' statement, like seeing something with your own eyes, why wouldn't you put that in the affidavit? I'm REALLY not trying to be argumentative. I may be a little thick-headed, but I'm trying to learn. I think it's fascinating - I wasn't previously aware that there is so much skill and strategy involved!

 

[rkf]

I think it's pretty obvious DW is the one who drove the Porsche. His DNA was found on the vest. He does wear his braids in a pony, he even did so in court.

SS' DNA was also on the vest, but he wasn't driving the Porsche. There is a third unnamed person whose DNA was also on the vest. That person could be unknown or LE could be keeping that information to themselves at this point. If the DNA belongs to someone who could have come in contact with the vest in some legitimate way (used it for work or play, picked it up when s/he was in the garage, etc.) it would not necessarily indicate the person was involved in the crime, whether s/he was or not.

DW definitely could have been driving the Porsche, but someone else could have also driven it that day or the day before. If someone drove it that day who had a legitimate reason to drive it in the past, again that would not indicate that person was involved in the crime. When someone's DNA is found and there is no legitimate reason for it to be there, that's when it has forensic value. Otherwise, it might keep LE from ruling someone out, but it doesn't definitively rule them in. JMO

 

[Peliman]

Could that really be possible?

Touch DNA doesn’t require you to see anything, or any blood or semen at all. It only requires seven or eight cells from the outermost layer of our skin.

Here’s how it works: Investigators recover cells from the scene, then use a process called polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to make lots of copies of the genes. Next, scientists mix in fluorescent compounds that attach themselves to 13 specific locations on the DNA and give a highly specific genetic portrait of that person. The whole process takes a few days, and forensic labs are often backed up analyzing data from other cases.

These 13 locations were carefully chosen because they are highly variable between people and do not give away any specific information, such as race, gender, personal health or genetic disease. The reason: authorities don’t want personal health information being used for law-enforcement purposes, such as interrogations. The chance of DNA profiles from two different people having the same genetic signature is vanishingly small.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/experts-touch-dna-jonbenet-ramsey/