DC - Savvas Savopoulos, family & Veralicia Figueroa murdered; Daron Wint Arrested #19

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheRidge said:
I agree, he may have been able to dial the last number dialed on his phone...also I read somewhere (may have been the 20/20 report) that SS was not bound when he was found..maybe the sword was used because he got to it and was trying to fight back...perhaps Wint started the psycho killing then...it doesn't make sense to hold people hostage that long then kill them (at least to me) ...

SS had to believe that they were going to live through this ... it's just so sad. His assistant's an idiot to drop $40,000 off in the car with no red lights going off in his head. The accountant as well. (unless the acct didn't know where the drop off was)
Just opinion. I know this has been hashed out...I'm disappointed more information wasn't forthcoming on Monday.
And why aren't we hearing more about the accountant? He played a role in this, at least in the chain of money being distributed...
Also, alas, the reporting on this case has been dismal.
Click to expand...

BBM

I am not sure that is fair to say without hearing what SS told JW. SS was 'the boss' and he probably told JW a believable story. Something like 'Amy is ill, Phillip is sleeping, so don't ring the bell---I have a 3 way conference call with the Puerto Rican investors---Please lock the envelope in my car so I don't forget to take it with me to the Dojo---thanks'

Would an employee call LE after hearing a believable explanation like that? I wouldn't have.
 
Bootsctr said:
BBM

I actually tend to give Wallace a break for alarms not going off in his head about the drop of $40,000 in the car. He had only worked for Mr. S for 6 weeks. The accountant - yes, I wonder about that person for sure.

It's the housekeeper of 20 years whom I'm having a hard time giving a break in this case. She's working with the boss at the dojo. He gets a call from his wife and says Amy is going out so he's leaving to go home. Same housekeeper later gets a voicemail from Mr. S telling her that Amy is sick and that she needs to call Vera's husband because Vera won't be coming home that night and that Vera's phone is dead and they don't have a charger to fit Vera's phone. I'm suspicious of her because:

1. She didn't listen to the voicemail until the next day (even if she didn't plan on returning the call and even though it was after 9 p.m. why wouldn't she at least listen to it that night???).

2. She didn't call Vera's husband after she received the voicemail. Maybe she didn't know Vera's husband's phone #. I don't know.

3. Why didn't she call Mr. S's mother when she couldn't reach Amy or Vera by phone when she heard that instead of "going out" the night before, Amy was "sick"? Mr. S's mother called Nellie when she heard about the house fire to make sure Nellie was okay. She probably cleaned their house too.

I think the assistant is just goofy. The accountant and housekeeper - not so much.
Click to expand...

It's possible that SS had taken out cash in large sums before and that could explain why the accountant didn't think it was most odd. I think it's most odd for someone to have a regular need for that sort of cash, since most people use credit cards and wires and checks for large purchases, but if my employer were regularly requesting cash, I suppose I would shrug after a while and decide that the reason was none of my business. We had a tax attorney on in earlier threads who was able to confirm that the accounting if an owner takes cash out of the business is simple and totally OK if it's a sole proprietorship or a closely held company. In a public company it would be damn near impossible to take out anything but petty cash from a business account, and if it was possible, there would have to be a clear reason and a clear trail for the auditors.
 
jjenny said:
In Petit family murders, perps hel hostages overnight, and killed them after getting the money mother brought in from the bank. Considering SS apparently knew DW, I don't see how DW could have planned to leave them alive, and get away with it. I believe murder was a part of the plan.
Click to expand...

He did not wear a mask and he tortured the boy. No way he could leave them as witnesses.
 
Bootsctr said:
I think DW's plan went wrong when he was unable to access the safes in the garage and Mr. S was then called home. There was little cash and not much jewelry. I don't know why anyone would break into a home where there were so many cars, but maybe he figured it was just the housekeeper home. I think he would have killed whomever no matter what. He was not going to leave a live witness.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think that the initial plan was to rob the house of jewelry and cash .Probably DW assumed that because they were wealthy they would have a lot of cash on hand . I think when SS was called home he used the 40,000 as a bargaining tool in the hope that it would buy time and save lives and that is why it went on until the next day. .
 
katydid23 said:
We would have to start a ******** page for that amount of $.
Click to expand...

I'd contribute! I wish we could know how many pages before buying it. If it wasn't too long, I'd do it all, but four hours might be an awful lot of pages yikes.
 
TexMex said:
He's not a suspect in this case. He's a witness who is going to be called to testify for the State, which is why the defense was attacking him Monday.

The prosecutor realizes this and had the detective testify that although he initially didn't tell all he knew he had fully cooperated after that and his story had been verified

Link to "Mr. Inside" who put the family in mortal danger?

The lead detective and U.S. Atty Bach said the man is not a suspect in this case
Click to expand...

Sorry, was that in the link? I thought what we had was a paraphrase of the detective's testimony. Maybe I missed it.
 
TexMex said:
I do too. He needs to be truthful, concise and respectful. The defense is going to go after him hard if Monday is any indication.
Click to expand...

I hope the prosecution does not have to rely upon JW as a major witness in this case. Because the defense is going to have a lot of ammo from the investigators publicly calling him a liar.
 
Skigirl said:
Sorry, was that in the link? I thought what we had was a paraphrase of the detective's testimony. Maybe I missed it.
Click to expand...

As requested


Detective Owens said the driver is not a “suspect” in the case, but he noted that the man “was told that he had more information than he was initially giving.”


Assistant U.S. Attorney Laura Bach noted during her questioning of the detective that the driver freely let police inspect his phone records and that his description of his movements from the time he delivered the money until he returned to the home after the fire was set had been corroborated.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz3gd0fI1yD
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
 
katydid23 said:
I hope the prosecution does not have to rely upon JW as a major witness in this case. Because the defense is going to have a lot of ammo from the investigators publicly calling him a liar.
Click to expand...

IMO he's going to have to testify. IMO between JW and the investigators testifying they can clear up the early case info. It's an investigation and things change..
But the defense will absolutely go after him...JW is the defense wet dream of a witness. Any defense atty worth his degree would go hard at him. With good reason
 
TexMex said:
As requested


Detective Owens said the driver is not a “suspect” in the case, but he noted that the man “was told that he had more information than he was initially giving.”


Assistant U.S. Attorney Laura Bach noted during her questioning of the detective that the driver freely let police inspect his phone records and that his description of his movements from the time he delivered the money until he returned to the home after the fire was set had been corroborated.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz3gd0fI1yD
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Click to expand...

Thanks, so Bach didn't say he wasn't a suspect. Just that his movements had been corroborated.
 
I am not sure I understand all of the suspicion and innuendo concerning JW's car being behind the police tape and him returning hours later.

I think LE has already corroborated his statement that he got a call from AIW about the house fire. If he had lied about that we would not be hearing him 'not' a suspect. So he drove quickly to the home and parked nearby just before the tapes went up.

I am pretty sure he stood around with others who were watching the tragedy unfold. At some point he had to see that his car was taped in. Where did he go? Wherever he went, he had to have explained it well because he was interrogated by detectives immediately upon his return. If he had been torching the Porsche or fencing stolen jewelry , imo, he would have been discovered. I think his whereabouts were able to be corroborated. JMO
 
Skigirl said:
Thanks, so Bach didn't say he wasn't a suspect. Just that his movements had been corroborated.
Click to expand...


If you have a transcript I'd love to see it!

Correct. She also noted he'd been cooperative.
She also according to this reporter did not argue the lead detective's statement that JW "is not a suspect in this case"

She also has not charged JW with any crime
 
I don't understand why everyone is so excited about this quote. This is what LE has been saying all along. It's not new. Is it because LE is still saying it that gives it more importance now than before?

stmarysmead said:
Let's be very careful about what we glean from this quote. JW was "told he had more information than he was initially giving."

This means he withheld information from LE. He lied and he withheld information.

His alibi the hours around the fire checked out.

That's all this says.

He may not be a "suspect" in the murders but he still could be Mr Inside who wittingly or unwittingly ran his mouth and put this family in mortal danger.

Then, even in light of the heinous crime that had been committed, for whatever reasons, he withheld information LE needed.

This is no hero or "poor boy."

There is so much more to be revealed.
Click to expand...
 
stmarysmead said:
I have been told on this website that LE is essentially cagey in court...answering "I don't know" in order to deny LE evidence or information they do not want disclosed at this point. So, I will take this into consideration in any MSM articles or quotes.


It may just be nothing more than strategy but indeed you are entitled to hold your own opinion. I just don't read these two statements as "expansively" or as "conclusively" as others may do. His whereabouts are confirmed for a few hours that day. But even that does not answer the curious question of his car inside the crime scene tape. Something still off to me. Just because they know where he was...isn't the whole story.

Not a suspect but someone withholding information. Gee, that's no endorsement.

I will be convinced when we have MUCH more information about how this horror transpired.
Click to expand...

From what we heard yesterday, sounds to me like the defense is planning to call JW as a witness...
 
TexMex said:
As requested


Detective Owens said the driver is not a “suspect” in the case, but he noted that the man “was told that he had more information than he was initially giving.”


Assistant U.S. Attorney Laura Bach noted during her questioning of the detective that the driver freely let police inspect his phone records and that his description of his movements from the time he delivered the money until he returned to the home after the fire was set had been corroborated.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz3gd0fI1yD
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Click to expand...

I get an error with the above link.

Try this one:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/20/suspect-in-dc-mansion-slayings-due-back-in-court/

:eek:ddsmiley:
 
stmarysmead said:
I have been told on this website that LE is essentially cagey in court...answering "I don't know" in order to deny LE evidence or information they do not want disclosed at this point. So, I will take this into consideration in any MSM articles or quotes.

It may just be nothing more than strategy but indeed you are entitled to hold your own opinion. I just don't read these two statements as "expansively" or as "conclusively" as others may do. His whereabouts are confirmed for a few hours that day. But even that does not answer the curious question of his car inside the crime scene tape. Something still off to me. Just because they know where he was...isn't the whole story.

Not a suspect but someone withholding information. Gee, that's no endorsement.

I will be convinced when we have MUCH more information about how this horror transpired.
Click to expand...

The Lead Detective was not cagey about whether or not JW is a suspect in this case. Despite his initial interview JW is not a suspect in this case.

At this stage, with DW going to trial soon, JW is nothing more than a witness who will be questioned under oath by the prosecution as well as the defense JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 95 more.
Total: 2,177 (members: 96, guests: 2,081)

Online statistics

Members online
96
Guests online
2,081
Total visitors
2,177
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,136
Messages
18,104,517
Members
230,991
Latest member
lyle.person1
Back
Top