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

[Peliman]

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.

Respectfully I don't think so and here's why. While making the raw pizza others DNA may have touched the pizza, which I believe would be destroyed in the pizza oven. I don't think the pizza is touched after leaving the oven. It's on an oven slider, sliced and slid in a box. IMO

 

[Skigirl]

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

Yes. If there are two donors (contributors) you can have one that has contributed lots of DNA (major) and another that has contributed relatively little (minor) or they can be equal. Either way, they are not really a problem for the lab. The tell-tale sign is if you see two different alleles at a specific locus (since a human will only have one at each location -- an allele is basically just a certain variant of a gene). But you don't have to worry about non-human contributors, just human ones.

 

[pinkandgreenmom]

I agree that there is no way DW was going to turn himself in. I am baffled by the fact that he had been in contact with MPD. I wonder if that was actually him or someone pretending to be him.

As to why the defense is eager to make JW a crucial witness (I am not a criminal lawyer) - the charge DW is brought up on is felony murder, with the underlying felony being kidnapping. I believe the DC statute for kidnapping boils down to (a) holding someone against their will (b) in order to gain ransom or reward. You have to prove both parts.

Among other things, I think the defense is trying to say DW didn't commit a kidnapping (under the statute) because he never got a ransom or reward. No car, that was burned. Nothing found on him from the S house (per Detective Owens), so he didn't gain anything there. No cash, because (a) you cannot prove it was his (hence the trying to argue it was in closer to proximity to someone else - insert eye roll here) or in the alternative, (b) JW lied and never really dropped it off (and the money in the car came from "somewhere else"). I am not saying these are stellar arguments, just that these are the arguments the defense was throwing out there.

No ransom or reward, means no kidnapping occurred (under the statue), and if no kidnapping occurred, DW cannot be held on felony murder charge (District would have to try him for "plain old murder 1" which is a lot harder to prove than felony murder). I think the defense is trying to paint JW as a liar, and therefore why should you believe he actually dropped the money off in the first place. Or at least, that is part of the argument they will make.

And IIRC, it was said by Owens that there was no connection between JW and DW (I think he said this). If there is no nexus between the two, the part one plays in the felony cannot be attributed to the other under the statute (so if one did the holding and one got the reward, they can only be tied together under the felony murder statute if there was a "meeting of the minds" so to speak and if there is no connection between the two there could be no "meeting of the minds").

IMO, from what I learned in law school regarding felony murder.

 

[Skigirl]

I agree that there is no way DW was going to turn himself in. I am baffled by the fact that he had been in contact with MPD. I wonder if that was actually him or someone pretending to be him.

As to why the defense is eager to make JW a crucial witness (I am not a criminal lawyer) - the charge DW is brought up on is felony murder, with the underlying felony being kidnapping. I believe the DC statute for kidnapping boils down to (a) holding someone against their will (b) in order to gain ransom or reward. You have to prove both parts.

Among other things, I think the defense is trying to say DW didn't commit a kidnapping (under the statute) because he never got a ransom or reward. No car, that was burned. Nothing found on him from the S house (per Detective Owens), so he didn't gain anything there. No cash, because (a) you cannot prove it was his (hence the trying to argue it was in closer to proximity to someone else - insert eye roll here) or in the alternative, (b) JW lied and never really dropped it off (and the money in the car came from "somewhere else"). I am not saying these are stellar arguments, just that these are the arguments the defense was throwing out there.

No ransom or reward, means no kidnapping occurred (under the statue), and if no kidnapping occurred, DW cannot be held on felony murder charge (District would have to try him for "plain old murder 1" which is a lot harder to prove than felony murder). I think the defense is trying to paint JW as a liar, and therefore why should you believe he actually dropped the money off in the first place. Or at least, that is part of the argument they will make.

And IIRC, it was said by Owens that there was no connection between JW and DW (I think he said this). If there is no nexus between the two, the part one plays in the felony cannot be attributed to the other under the statute (so if one did the holding and one got the reward, they can only be tied together under the felony murder statute if there was a "meeting of the minds" so to speak and if there is no connection between the two there could be no "meeting of the minds").

IMO, from what I learned in law school regarding felony murder.

Wow, I did not realize you had to be a monetarily successful kidnapper to be convicted of kidnapping!

 

[pinkandgreenmom]

Wow, I did not realize you had to be a monetarily successful kidnapper to be convicted of kidnapping!

I honestly do not know what the case law says on this matter. I am sure if you "try" to get money that is probably enough under the statue. But the District was saying DW "DID" get money so I think defense was trying to counter that point.

 

[FelicityLemon]

I agree that there is no way DW was going to turn himself in. I am baffled by the fact that he had been in contact with MPD. I wonder if that was actually him or someone pretending to be him.

ETA: sorry, bbm because I think you're brilliant!

As to why the defense is eager to make JW a crucial witness (I am not a criminal lawyer) - the charge DW is brought up on is felony murder, with the underlying felony being kidnapping. I believe the DC statute for kidnapping boils down to (a) holding someone against their will (b) in order to gain ransom or reward. You have to prove both parts.

Among other things, I think the defense is trying to say DW didn't commit a kidnapping (under the statute) because he never got a ransom or reward. No car, that was burned. Nothing found on him from the S house (per Detective Owens), so he didn't gain anything there. No cash, because (a) you cannot prove it was his (hence the trying to argue it was in closer to proximity to someone else - insert eye roll here) or in the alternative, (b) JW lied and never really dropped it off (and the money in the car came from "somewhere else"). I am not saying these are stellar arguments, just that these are the arguments the defense was throwing out there.

No ransom or reward, means no kidnapping occurred (under the statue), and if no kidnapping occurred, DW cannot be held on felony murder charge (District would have to try him for "plain old murder 1" which is a lot harder to prove than felony murder). I think the defense is trying to paint JW as a liar, and therefore why should you believe he actually dropped the money off in the first place. Or at least, that is part of the argument they will make.

And IIRC, it was said by Owens that there was no connection between JW and DW (I think he said this). If there is no nexus between the two, the part one plays in the felony cannot be attributed to the other under the statute (so if one did the holding and one got the reward, they can only be tied together under the felony murder statute if there was a "meeting of the minds" so to speak and if there is no connection between the two there could be no "meeting of the minds").

IMO, from what I learned in law school regarding felony murder.

ETA: sorry, bbm because I think you're brilliant!

Thank you, you explained this very well and it makes sense! It's like reverse engineering and fun to figure out. I get the sense that some lawyers think this way, who has the best strategy. If it wasn't for human beings being murdered.

It's so interesting learning, discovering, being shown new ways to look at things you assume are one way.

AND HOLY COW! I never thought that it might have been someone else impersonating DW who made that call to LE asking "whassup?" O M G Brilliant!

Man, I wish I could give you a buncha thumbs-up and lightbulbs for this. :loveyou:

 

[kammiemc]

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?

Does that open the door to a future arrest, despite that no charges have been brought on anyone else at this point in the investigation. It seems apparent who they are aiming at--the truck passenger who shall be nameless. I am trying to sort out what JayMac said about the order/timing of how things go when they bring in a witness who is also facing charges. I was wondering if there was a strategic reason to wait until after the PH to make an arrest. Based on how things went, I can see why the prosecution would hold off on dong so in order not to give the defense more ammunition! Any legal folks know?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SophieRose]

That's apparently what happened. Bach said it was pizza ordered by ATF while they were working at the scene. Photos were not taken by mobile crime, but possibly by the ME on May 15th or 16th. Not crime scene photos.

I remember seeing a picture taken outside the garage of a garbage can (I think it was made out of brown cardbox) that had pizza boxes on top of it. Posters said it was an evidence collection bin. Robin Ficker, DW's old attorney from 2005, also commented on the news about the pizza boxes found in garbage cans, so he must have seen the photo too.

 

[TexMex]

Wow, I did not realize you had to be a monetarily successful kidnapper to be convicted of kidnapping!

Plus there was testimony that the jobless DW had a receipt of an $1,100 cash payment to an immigration lawyer in a bag of his recovered in a search of his fathers home where DW stayed after the murders. This payment was two days after the ransom was delivered to the home where he ate pizza...

 

[jjenny]

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

There were no other contributors to DNA on the pizza. Det Owens said very clearly there was a single source of DNA consistent with DW.
The vest had DNA from 3 contributors, two being SS and DW, and third one unknown.

 

[jjenny]

Respectfully I don't think so and here's why. While making the raw pizza others DNA may have touched the pizza, which I believe would be destroyed in the pizza oven. I don't think the pizza is touched after leaving the oven. It's on an oven slider, sliced and slid in a box. IMO

There was no other source. Det said very clearly DNA on pizza came from a single source.

 

[jjenny]

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

View attachment 79062

Exactly. Single source profile means DNA from one person. DNA on pizza was a single source profile.
DNA on the vest was a mixture from 3 profiles (persons).

 

[SophieRose]

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?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/mansion-fire-friend-dc-blaze-victim-calls-devoted/story?id=31178190

D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department is still investigating the case and has offered a reward of up to $100,000, $25,000 for each of the four victims, to anyone who gives a tip that leads to the arrest and conviction of a suspect.

 

[al66pine]

I agree that there is no way DW was going to turn himself in. I am baffled by the fact that he had been in contact with MPD. I wonder if that was actually him or someone pretending to be him....

Turn himself in? Agreeing. LOL.

What phone # would these upright, law-abiding citizens (yes, snark) have called? 911? Special tip line? Recorded line?
DIIRC, transcript said X and Y in car-truck convoy actually spoke w detectives? Or was I imagining it? Ditto DDW?
Voice prints/speaker identification?
From below, appears expert testimony about match may not be admitted, apparently would not be offered by FBI, but I wonder if jury could listen to recordings, if avail, if there is a question about calls.

_________________________________________________________________________________
In a pre-trial hearing to determine whether expert testimony would be allowed at trial on the identity of the person screaming in the background of a certain 911 call in Zimmerman case in 2013. Dr. Hirotaka Nakasone, PhD, Senior Scientist, FBI, Voice Recognition Program, testified about the science of speaker identification.

"The FBI uses a SOP of quality assessment followed by a two-stage analysis...."...the highest confidence match, neither the report nor the experts involved are permitted to testify to that finding in a trial setting. The findings are considered sufficiently robust only for investigative, not prosecutorial, purposes. Trial use of these speech methods and findingsremains years away."
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/0...-fbi-and-the-low-quality-3-second-audio-file/

Pls let's not get sidetracked on other case. Just linking for Dr. N's summary re science of speaker recognition & FBI as of 2013.

 

[Rosejs]

If the DNa was found on the crust that would suggest that the rest of those ingredients would be in the stomach of the person eating it along with those other potential sources from those who made the pizza, right?

 

[Keefer]

Some have said they thought they heard Philip screaming, "no she's not" on the recording. Maybe someone was trying to placate him by telling him his mom was ok and he knew she wasn't.
One of the reasons to keep Philip in a separate room could have been to save him for last if S.S. Didn't give them what they wanted. I also cannot imagine someone letting S.S. Make any call without someone right next to him to monitor the conversation. I also can't imagine ever un duct taping S.S. Unless it was to take him in another room to acess something, so likely someone was holding his phone for him while he talked. It didn't sound like Philip was in the same room when S.S. Called the maid. So, by this reasoning someone would be in another room with Philip placating him while another monitors S.S. And the phone.

 

[SeesSeas]

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

View attachment 79062

Yes! :tyou: Sorry so late responding ... I went offline for a few hours.
I think the flow chart explains the "single source DNA" and "mixed DNA" better than a narrative (for me, anyway). I am far from scientific, although I find this stuff fascinating.
It will be interesting to see how all of the DNA gets explained at trial.

 

[al66pine]

I honestly do not know what the case law says on this matter. I am sure if you "try" to get money that is probably enough under the statue. But the District was saying DW "DID" get money so I think defense was trying to counter that point.

Is amending charges possible?

Is 'confining' met? ITS, by condition of Mr S when found after fire - evd of taping and/or binding.
What about 'intent to hold or detain for ransom or reward.'
If Mr S had said in phone contact(s), texts, 'Bring $*advertiser censored* to my home, so he will let us go' wd/h/bn better evd of DDW's 'intent to hold for ransom or reward.'
That #@!~& may claim, Mr S invited DDW to go to auction w him - to help find deals on welding equipment.
So, no intent to collect ransom or reward. What about "otherwise." Hmmm.

"Whoever shall be guilty of, or of aiding or abetting in, seizing, confining, inveigling, enticing, decoying, kidnapping, abducting, concealing, or carrying away any individual by any means whatsoever,
and holding or detaining, or with the intent to hold or detain, such individual for ransom or reward or otherwise,.... shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not more than 30 years...." *

JM2cts, could be all wrong.
____________________________________________________________________________________
* Current through laws in effect as of April 23, 2015 and through DC Act 20-592. Chapter 20. Kidnapping.
D.C. Code § 22-2001 (2015) § 22-2001. Definition and penalty; conspiracy.

Following above excerpt: ".... This section shall be held to have been violated if either the seizing, confining, inveigling, enticing, decoying, kidnapping, abducting, concealing, carrying away, holding, or detaining occurs in the District of Columbia. If 2 or more individuals enter into any agreement or conspiracy to do any act or acts which would constitute a violation of the provisions of this section, and 1 or more of such individuals do any act to effect the object of such agreement or conspiracy, each such individual shall be deemed to have violated the provisions of this section. [fine]." bbm

"A. Kidnapping Kidnapping includes the seizing, confining, or detention of another. D.C.Code § 22-2101 (1989). "The involuntary nature of the seizure and detention is the essence of the crime of kidnapping." Head v. United States, 451 A.2d 615, 624 (D.C. 1982) (citing cases).
Butler was convicted of kidnapping both King and Queen. He now contends that there was insufficient evidence that either King or Queen was involuntarily transported, and that his conviction must therefore be reversed. This contention is without merit because "[a]sportation is not an essential element of the kidnapping statute." Catlett v. United States, 545 A.2d 1202, 1215 n. 29 (D.C.1988), (citation omitted), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1017, 109 S.Ct. 814, 102 L.Ed.2d 803 (1989).[15]" bbm. http://law.justia.com/cases/district-of-columbia/court-of-appeals/1992/89-cf-1149-5.html
IOW, moving the vic is not necessary.

 

[BondGirl]

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.

It really is unbelievable if true especially with the horror of the tragedy so recent and a domino's pizza being involved in murders. Unprofessional and disrespectful imo.

 

[BondGirl]

I agree that there is no way DW was going to turn himself in. I am baffled by the fact that he had been in contact with MPD. I wonder if that was actually him or someone pretending to be him.

As to why the defense is eager to make JW a crucial witness (I am not a criminal lawyer) - the charge DW is brought up on is felony murder, with the underlying felony being kidnapping. I believe the DC statute for kidnapping boils down to (a) holding someone against their will (b) in order to gain ransom or reward. You have to prove both parts.

Among other things, I think the defense is trying to say DW didn't commit a kidnapping (under the statute) because he never got a ransom or reward. No car, that was burned. Nothing found on him from the S house (per Detective Owens), so he didn't gain anything there. No cash, because (a) you cannot prove it was his (hence the trying to argue it was in closer to proximity to someone else - insert eye roll here) or in the alternative, (b) JW lied and never really dropped it off (and the money in the car came from "somewhere else"). I am not saying these are stellar arguments, just that these are the arguments the defense was throwing out there.

No ransom or reward, means no kidnapping occurred (under the statue), and if no kidnapping occurred, DW cannot be held on felony murder charge (District would have to try him for "plain old murder 1" which is a lot harder to prove than felony murder). I think the defense is trying to paint JW as a liar, and therefore why should you believe he actually dropped the money off in the first place. Or at least, that is part of the argument they will make.

And IIRC, it was said by Owens that there was no connection between JW and DW (I think he said this). If there is no nexus between the two, the part one plays in the felony cannot be attributed to the other under the statute (so if one did the holding and one got the reward, they can only be tied together under the felony murder statute if there was a "meeting of the minds" so to speak and if there is no connection between the two there could be no "meeting of the minds").

IMO, from what I learned in law school regarding felony murder.

Impressive!!! Thank you!!