DC - Savvas Savopoulos, family & Veralicia Figueroa murdered; Daron Wint Arrested #20

[SeesSeas]

I found this interesting and it could potentially have significance if there's a chain of custody issue with the pizza and in general it also raises the question as to who else would have their DNA on the pizza:

Which the detective is wrong in that means there was DNA found from multiple sources on the pizza - the scientific term being 'mixture.' It sounds like so far all the DNA evidence is 'mixture' evidence as the vest evidence is also mixture evidence where SS and DW were IDed as both 'major contributors' on the vest and a third DNA finding coming from elsewhere being the minor contributor.:

^ BBM, CBM

PH transcript excerpt, page 101:
Q Just to clarify, when you said, just now when you said consistent with, that's, just to close it out, that's your complete information concerning the DNA on the pizza; is that right?
A Pizza, single source profile consistent with the defendant, Daron Wint.
Q Okay, and that's all you have?
A That's the information given to me by the analyst.

 

[katydid23]

You're right that it's not an impossible scenario, but in this case, it was just the cover that SS gave to the AIW employee so that the employee would go along with cutting a check for cash. Detective Owen said it was considered an unusual request.

But that is exactly what I said. I said it would be a perfect cover for him to use as a reason that he might need cash. I never said it was anything other than a cover.

 

[SeesSeas]

That isn't what he testified to though he didn't know it. He testified that the analyst told him DW was the 'major contributor' and he thought that meant that DW's DNA was the only DNA found, but that isn't what the phrase means. What it sounds like the analyst told the detective was that there was only one major contributor and that the detective misunderstood that to mean there was only DNA from DW found, which if the analyst said 'major contributor,' that means DNA from multiple sources was found on the pizza and that DW was the predominate profile.

^ BBM, CBM

PH transcript excerpt, page 101:
Q Just to clarify, when you said, just now when you said consistent with, that's, just to close it out, that's your complete information concerning the DNA on the pizza; is that right?
A Pizza, single source profile consistent with the defendant, Daron Wint.
Q Okay, and that's all you have?
A That's the information given to me by the analyst.

 

[kammiemc]

Very true. He answers every question by Bach on direct and redirect. The prosecution wants to expose as little as possible about their case at this prelim. So whenever he can, under questioning by Ago, Owens answers "I don't know". IMO at trial these other detectives, who reported to Owens (who has been a detective on major crime unit since 2003) will give their testimony and then be cross examined by Ago

I know! It seemed like he barely reviewed the affidavit! He was not making an effort to be forthcoming with facts for the defense. But like Bach said in the bench convo, the facts around JW don't really matter for the defense, because they don't speak to probable cause. DW is toast no matter if it's just JW's word that he drove straight to the dojo or pings put him in the general vicinity or 100 people saw him there before he went to Lowes. I think the defense is smarter to go in a different direction. But Owens is fighting a losing battle. I hope!!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jjenny]

That isn't what he testified to though he didn't know it. He testified that the analyst told him DW was the 'major contributor' and he thought that meant that DW's DNA was the only DNA found, but that isn't what the phrase means. What it sounds like the analyst told the detective was that there was only one major contributor and that the detective misunderstood that to mean there was only DNA from DW found, which if the analyst said 'major contributor,' that means DNA from multiple sources was found on the pizza and that DW was the predominate profile.

"The major contributor in a DNA mixture refers to the individual contributing the highest amount of DNA in a mixture."
https://forensicdnaconsulting.wordpress.com/tag/dna-consulting/
"Sometimes,
analysts are able to determine if one
person’s DNA is present in a higher
concentration than the other person’s
DNA. In that case, the report may state
that there is a major contributor (the
person who contributed the most DNA)
and a minor contributor (the person
whose DNA is present in a lesser
concentration in a mixture)."
https://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/M...erPublications/documents/underTheScope3-2.pdf

He testified that analyst told him there was a single profile on the pizza.

 

[katydid23]

So what does this mean? Why weren't all search warrants executed?

Sometimes it takes awhile to find out who needs further investigating. Sounds like they think they know who has those stolen cell phones now. Which is shocking because who would want to have phones stolen from murdered people in their hands?

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Someone had to have prepared and baked the pizza. Maybe they got some of their DNA on it too.

I think the pizza had to have multiple contributors by definition of what pizza is, which pizza is made from ingredients (wheat, flour, tomatoes, etc.) that also contain DNA. The detective saying there was no other DNA found actually doesn't make sense even if no other person touched the pizza and is contradicted by the phrase the detective said the analyst used. The prosecution is going to have translate these things into something that is both truthful and understandable for the jury. What the detective said was wrong - though it sounds like he was wrong out of ignorance rather than out of deceit - but they're going to have to get that straightened out at trial as clearly the defense knows something about DNA and are ready to use it.

 

[jjenny]

I think the pizza had to have multiple contributors by definition of what pizza is, which pizza is made from ingredients (wheat, flour, tomatoes, etc.) that also contain DNA. The detective saying there was no other DNA found actually doesn't make sense even if no other person touched the pizza and is contradicted by the phrase the detective said the analyst used. The prosecution is going to have translate these things into something that is both truthful and understandable for the jury. What the detective said was wrong - though it sounds like he was wrong out of ignorance rather than out of deceit - but they're going to have to get that straightened out at trial as clearly the defense knows something about DNA and are ready to use it.

They were not interested in plant DNA when they analyzed the pizza. There was a single profile on the pizza from a human.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

^ BBM, CBM

PH transcript excerpt, page 101:
Q Just to clarify, when you said, just now when you said consistent with, that's, just to close it out, that's your complete information concerning the DNA on the pizza; is that right?
A Pizza, single source profile consistent with the defendant, Daron Wint.
Q Okay, and that's all you have?
A That's the information given to me by the analyst.

Exactly my point, 'single source profile' doesn't mean there must only be one source of DNA found and it doesn't contradict the detective also testifying to the analyst referencing 'major contributor.' You can form a 'single source profile' from a 'major contributor' in a 'mixture':
"In some cases DNA from one contributor to a mixed DNA profile may be present in a larger amount than DNA from another contributor. This component is sometimes referred to as originating from the major contributor and may be interpreted as a single source profile."
https://books.google.com/books?id=d...e source profile" and mixture and dna&f=false

 

[FelicityLemon]

Yeah, I was really shocked at how much stuff was in the affidavit that the lead detective just got from other LE - he apparently didn't even review tapes and notes. Also, interesting that he did not interview JW, when it now appears JW was a strong POI early in the investigation. If you're the lead homicide detective, wouldn't you want to talk to the only person LE thinks is involved in the crimes at that time? I'm really thrown by Owen's testimony because he seems pretty uninterested in the case and has apparently not followed up on much of anything. Is he just acting that way so he doesn't provide info to the defense from the stand? There were a lot of "follow up" questions not asked of witnesses that seem to be glaring omissions - didn't ask JW what happened to his red lined bag; didn't ask JW why he texted AS instead of calling/texting SS when he found out the house was on fire...

This stood out to me, too, why the LD wasn't more personally involved. I understand about delegation, trusting your detectives, etc. but as for witnesses in court, why not go with those who have first hand involvement and knowledge instead? Strategy, I'm sure, but what is the strategy? Maybe precisely because that even as lead detective, he can say "I don't know"?

The people involved directly in the witness interviews would have definitive and detailed answers.

I keep forgetting that this was just a hearing to determine if DW can be taken to trial.

Another question regarding W-1, why is he a crucial witness? To what? All he did was fulfill an order from his boss by delivering the cash. He didn't have any communication with DW.

All he can testify to is the communications between himself, SS and the AIW employee. I don't see why the defense would think that would in any way exonerate DW or negate his participation in any aspect of this murder.

I don't believe for a second that DW was on his way to turn himself in. Give me a break. Someone already posted that with everything involved there: the women unknown to DW, all that cash and the weapons - neat little package. As far as bro turning on bro? That's a lot of snitch for only $25k if that was the reward. I don't believe that. Were any of those people informants or undercover? Should I even say that here?

 

[SpanishInquisition]

He testified that analyst told him there was a single profile on the pizza.

Yes, he - like people on this board - are thinking that means something that it doesn't mean. Hearing the word 'single' in a phrase doesn't mean only as far as DNA is concerned, BBM:

If a sample appears to contain a predominance of one person’s DNA, a major profile may be
determined either by deducing a single source profile or allowing for genotype uncertainty. The
remaining part of the profile may be considered the minor profile with the understanding that
some of the minor profile may be masked by the major profile.

http://www.dfs.virginia.gov/wp-cont...-Manual-Modified-Random-Match-Probability.pdf

 

[SeesSeas]

Exactly my point, 'single source profile' doesn't mean there must only be one source of DNA found and it doesn't contradict the detective also testifying to the analyst referencing 'major contributor.' You can form a 'single source profile' from a 'major contributor' in a 'mixture':
"In some cases DNA from one contributor to a mixed DNA profile may be present in a larger amount than DNA from another contributor. This component is sometimes referred to as originating from the major contributor and may be interpreted as a single source profile."
https://books.google.com/books?id=d...e source profile" and mixture and dna&f=false

I'm trying to post the flow chart on page 324, but can't figure out how to do that. I realize the flow chart is simplified AND I do not know DNA scientific specifics, so SI, perhaps some of us WS'ers are thinking single source profile "means something that it doesn't mean".

https://books.google.com/books?id=-...onepage&q="single source" mixture dna&f=false

 

[FelicityLemon]

Also I think they're saying this took place on or around the 15th, but it was still considered a crime scene for way longer than that with the home not being released back to the family and the crime scene tape not coming down until June. This would seem to be needlessly setting up an OJ-type defense where we already got that hinted at with chain of custody as to where the DNA pizza actually came from. It sounds like there was more than one person's DNA found on the pizza and rightly or wrongly the defense could use the DNA mixture to bolster their claim the pizza was found outside rather than inside and that there was no proof DW actually was ever inside. With the unhelpful/unknowledgeable detective, I really haven't heard strong evidence against DW. I think some or all of the DNA evidence may be from a Wint family member and as such I think DW is guilty of felony murder, just so far it seems like the prosecution potentially has a weak case unless they get back stronger evidence in the course of the other evidence being processed.

This is something else that doesn't sound right. A crime scene is a crime scene. The point is to collect evidence, not leave any. That's why they dress in protective clothing, booties, haircovers. It doesn't seem right that any person who was there in a professional capacity would eat while on the scene, forget about ordering Domino's specifically, unless it was part of an experiment. But while they may order, they wouldn't have eaten it there and if they did, they shouldn't have.

 

[SeesSeas]

Yes, he - like people on this board - are think that means something that it doesn't mean. Hearing the word 'single' in a phrase doesn't mean only as far as DNA is concerned, BBM:

If a sample appears to contain a predominance of one person’s DNA, a major profile may be
determined either by deducing a single source profile or allowing for genotype uncertainty. The
remaining part of the profile may be considered the minor profile with the understanding that
some of the minor profile may be masked by the major profile.


http://www.dfs.virginia.gov/wp-conte...robability.pdf

I read the above to mean that, for example on the pizza crust, DW's DNA was the major profile (by deducing a single source profile); and perhaps there was also a minor profile.

I'm not saying these are the facts of the case, nor what LE has said.
I am just relating the pizza example to the scientific quote provided.
Dunno. :thinking:

 

[Skigirl]

I think the pizza had to have multiple contributors by definition of what pizza is, which pizza is made from ingredients (wheat, flour, tomatoes, etc.) that also contain DNA. The detective saying there was no other DNA found actually doesn't make sense even if no other person touched the pizza and is contradicted by the phrase the detective said the analyst used. The prosecution is going to have translate these things into something that is both truthful and understandable for the jury. What the detective said was wrong - though it sounds like he was wrong out of ignorance rather than out of deceit - but they're going to have to get that straightened out at trial as clearly the defense knows something about DNA and are ready to use it.

Erggh, forensic testing for DNA looks at regions that are uniquely human. They are not sequencing the entire genome, so you don't have to worry about wheat, tomato and cheese donors. They are amplifying specific regions and probing for very specific loci. Once you have those identified, you use use frequency estimates to determine how rare a specific profile is.

 

[FelicityLemon]

I think the pizza had to have multiple contributors by definition of what pizza is, which pizza is made from ingredients (wheat, flour, tomatoes, etc.) that also contain DNA. The detective saying there was no other DNA found actually doesn't make sense even if no other person touched the pizza and is contradicted by the phrase the detective said the analyst used. The prosecution is going to have translate these things into something that is both truthful and understandable for the jury. What the detective said was wrong - though it sounds like he was wrong out of ignorance rather than out of deceit - but they're going to have to get that straightened out at trial as clearly the defense knows something about DNA and are ready to use it.

EW. I have to speak to this, lol! Theoretically, the produce is washed before using. Legally, at least in my state, all employees are supposed to be wearing gloves and hair container (including beard/moustache) while handling food. It's just too gross to think that if any employee's DNA is found on my food, it's tears, snot, saliva, loose hair -

uke:

raying:

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I'm trying to post the flow chart on page 324, but can't figure out how to do that. I realize the flow chart is simplified AND I do not know DNA scientific specifics, so SI, perhaps some of us WS'ers are thinking single source profile "means something that it doesn't mean".

https://books.google.com/books?id=-...onepage&q="single source" mixture dna&f=false

OK, I think reading the contents of page 324 helps as it basically uses all the phrases the detective said the analyst used. It says that in Type B mixtures the major component can be treated as the single source profile. So specifically the type of mixture involved may have been a Type B mixture, if the analysts performing this were following the German Stain Commission, which it is not saying single source profiles aren't derived from mixtures but instead cites the specific type of mixture they may be found in.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Erggh, forensic testing for DNA looks at regions that are uniquely human. They are not sequencing the entire genome, so you don't have to worry about wheat, tomato and cheese donors. They are amplifying specific regions and probing for very specific loci. Once you have those identified, you use use frequency estimates to determine how rare a specific profile is.

So that would mean that the minor contributor(s) to the pizza DNA were human rather than plant DNA.

 

[FelicityLemon]

Erggh, forensic testing for DNA looks at regions that are uniquely human. They are not sequencing the entire genome, so you don't have to worry about wheat, tomato and cheese donors. They are amplifying specific regions and probing for very specific loci. Once you have those identified, you use use frequency estimates to determine how rare a specific profile is.

"...pizza ingredients, which themselves have their own distinctive molecules.” - Robin Ficker

:hilarious:

 

[FelicityLemon]

I'm trying to post the flow chart on page 324, but can't figure out how to do that. I realize the flow chart is simplified AND I do not know DNA scientific specifics, so SI, perhaps some of us WS'ers are thinking single source profile "means something that it doesn't mean".

https://books.google.com/books?id=-...onepage&q="single source" mixture dna&f=false

This one? If not, tell me and I'll delete it.