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

[rkf]

Probably because he's declared in court as NOT being a suspect. Yay!

In my opinion, the main disappointment (for a thankfully short list) might be that he is off limits for the unnecessary mean and cruel comments.

I'll repeat this 'just because':
I think there's a huge difference between sleuthing/making neutral observations of someone's social media behavior and being intentionally and unnecessarily unkind.

Declaring JW "not a suspect" is not a change of verbiage for LE. JW has never been declared a suspect by LE. Lots of people are not suspects, but it appears LE still believes others are involved (and hopefully they will bring more charges soon.) Lots of people have not been "called out" by LE for lying to them in interviews. Whether others have lied to them or not, we don't know at this time.

I agree, there is a big difference between sleuthing and "flaming" someone. Not everyone has the same definition of unnecessary or unkind. Talking about someone's behavior can be seen by some as unnecessary and unkind, but if it's substantiated, it can be seen as part of sleuthing for others. JMO

 

[BondGirl]

Who said we can't sleuth JW? I missed that!

I thought a moderator said that after PH.

 

[kammiemc]

Yeah, it's odd - the wording. I agree that JW's behavior in the initial interview absolutely would have made him a suspect (*cough* or POI as the new pc version I guess). I don't see anything wrong with LE considering him a suspect early on until they checked him out thoroughly.

A frustrating and annoying thing to me is that in court, soooo many answers depend on exactly how the question is worded. Everything seems to be strategy and it's hard to know what exactly is meant sometimes. It seems as though a witness can be deliberately misleading just by wording the answer to exactly match the question. You ask a question in a very specific way, you get a very specific answer.

Again, an example using malevolent SIL:

Q: "Rhoda, why did you cut the plug off the cord of my floor lamp?"
A: "I did not cut off the plug of your floor lamp."

The reality is that she DID cut the plug off the lamp (we have video), but since she considers everything DH and I bring into the house as her property (Dad's leaving her the house, but he's still alive and well and living here) she felt perfectly at ease answering exactly the way she did and insists she's telling the truth and doesn't lie. This was after we confronted her by showing her the video. Crap, I do wonder how she'd do with a Polygraph. :thinking: I'm using Rhoda because that's not her name, but it is the name of the subject in "The Bad Seed".

I totally agree. It's like a game of chess. In the PH, each atty had a motive to get out specific facts and try to downplay other facts (or even try to prevent them from being discussed). So it seems one has to take all that into consideration. I know the public doesn't have a right to every detail in every case....but frustrating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TexMex]

07-31-2015, 07:15 AM #303 Coldpizza
WS Super Moderator
Join Date
Aug 2009
Location
CA always, FL now
Posts
14,973
Quote Originally Posted by BellaVita View Post
I'm pretty sure JW can be sleuthed though.

Coldpizza
No, the only sleuthing of JW is what can be gleaned from the Transcript, other Docs and MSM.

 

[rkf]

IIRC neither Bach nor anyone else has ever said there was any evidence that is was committed by more than one person. So far as we know, the more-than-one-person scenario has always just been a theory.

ETA it's important to rule people out and that includes people who some would feel it unseemly to even consider. But that's what needs to be done. So in the beginning everyone and anyone could be considered a potential suspect.

Has LE said anything to indicate they have "ruled out" anybody? It seems like they have continued to be very tight-lipped about everything. We don't know who they have investigated, other than JW. And we don't (or I don't ) know the results of any investigations.

 

[kammiemc]

IIRC neither Bach nor anyone else has ever said there was any evidence that is was committed by more than one person. So far as we know, the more-than-one-person scenario has always just been a theory.

ETA it's important to rule people out and that includes people who some would feel it unseemly to even consider. But that's what needs to be done. So in the beginning everyone and anyone could be considered a potential suspect.

My point was more about how easy it is to interpret a non-declarative statement as declarative.

In the PH, Bach actually said (and this is what I wrote) that there was no evidence showing that only one person committed the crime. That COULD be interpreted by people who strongly believe that DW had co, that Bach was saying she believed that others were involved, even though she didn't actually declare that in those words. It's easy to jump to assumptions. That's all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[al66pine]

I may be wrong, but I think ATL was making a funny; the phrase "Who Is John Galt" has been a thing. 25 years ago, a bumper sticker on neighbor's car.

LOL, I honestly meant to put (sexy) Gary Cooper because that's who was on my brain because The Fountainhead was just on and JG Freudian Slipped out of my fingers

FelicityLemon,
Yes, I see what you're saying. ATL was prolly making a funny.

atthelake
Apologizing for being reading your post literally. Hope it did not offend.

/s/ Densest poster of the day, al66pine

 

[AmazonianAbroad]

"Originally Posted by Skigirl Wasn't "exactly" a suspect ;-)"


A matter of timing?
IIUC, def team's asking if JW was told he was a suspect - at time of hearing - wd/be objectionable, because it's outside scope of affidavits & charging doc's re DDW, so ct wd sustain, so det's answer wd/not be admissible.
OTOH, may be permissible to ask if JW was told he was a suspect at time of his interviews. JM2cts, could be wrong.

It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

 

[kammiemc]

That may be true, but you and other fonts have made this into a suspect issue. Over and over. If you get it, then why keep bringing it up?

I mean that I get that we don't have all the info and we may never. I wasn't saying that I assume for sure that JW didn't have any info or share any info in this whole thing.

The reason I am interested in JW is because he is a critical witness who lied to LE and also because a lot of the PH focused on him. I am looking at all sides until we know more and trying not jump to conclusions with the very little we know. But I don't think I am obligated to explain why I personally might be slightly suspicious of JW or why I would discuss him as long as I am abiding by TOS, right? I know some other things are against TOS, like addressing the poster instead of the post, being rude and snarky, etc. but I don't think being open-minded is against TOS.

PS-what's a font? In my line of work it applies to type--like bold or italic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SeesSeas]

The reason I am interested in JW is because he is a critical witness who lied to LE and also because a lot of the PH focused on him.

During the PH, Ago stated W-1 (JW) is a crucial witness.

JW 'might' have lied to LE, or JW might have told LE the total truth.
We don't know if JW lied to LE, or if LE was confused while interviewing JW, or perhaps LE unfairly mischaracterized JW's statements to them.

PH, Page 51 - MR. AGO: W-1 is a crucial witness in this case. . .
http://www.scribd.com/doc/272950986/D-Wint-Savopoulos-Preliminary-Hearing

 

[kammiemc]

"Originally Posted by Skigirl Wasn't "exactly" a suspect ;-)"


A matter of timing?
IIUC, def team's asking if JW was told he was a suspect - at time of hearing - wd/be objectionable, because it's outside scope of affidavits & charging doc's re DDW, so ct wd sustain, so det's answer wd/not be admissible.
OTOH, may be permissible to ask if JW was told he was a suspect at time of his interviews. JM2cts, could be wrong.

I think you are exactly right. Also, likely why Ago asked if JW had been told at that time that LE believed he had more involvement in the crime than he was saying. (And then Owens corrected him that LE told him they thought he had more information about the crime than he was saying. That Ago is a sneaky one!! But the man has a hard job with this one. He's gotta try something I guess.)

 

[kammiemc]

During the PH, Ago stated W-1 (JW) is a crucial witness.

JW 'might' have lied to LE, or JW might have told LE the total truth.
We don't know if JW lied to LE, or if LE was confused while interviewing JW, or perhaps LE unfairly mischaracterized JW's statements to them.

PH, Page 51 - MR. AGO: W-1 is a crucial witness in this case. . .
http://www.scribd.com/doc/272950986/D-Wint-Savopoulos-Preliminary-Hearing

I'm just going off the affidavit that Owens, himself, wrote that said JW lied multiple times. Maybe Owens was wrong about his assertion in the affidavit. If so, he didn't clarify that fact. I guess you could assume that he is wrong and that his teammates mischaracterized JW. But I am not going to assume that at this point because nothing at all even slightly has indicated that JW told the total truth. However it has been indicated in a sworn statement by the lead detective that he lied.
Anyone is free to question the judgment of Owens and his team, or the veracity of their assertions. (That doesn't mean I have to if I am not skeptical of the LE involved.)

IMO, JW is a critical witness. Critical and crucial have very similar definitions, so I am in alignment with Ago's statement. I would also be in alignment if he had said important. I was not quoting anyone, just giving my own opinion.

Gotcha! You said critical and the lawyer said crucial! Seriously?

 

[SophieRose]

I'm just going off the affidavit that Owens, himself, wrote that said JW lied multiple times. Maybe Owens was wrong about his assertion in the affidavit. If so, he didn't clarify that fact. I guess you could assume that he is wrong and that his teammates mischaracterized JW. But I am not going to assume that at this point because nothing at all even slightly has indicated that JW told the total truth. However it has been indicated in a sworn statement by the lead detective that he lied.
Anyone is free to question the judgment of Owens and his team, or the veracity of their assertions. (That doesn't mean I have to if I http://www.websleuths.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=11982915am not skeptical of the LE involved.)

IMO, JW is a critical witness. Critical and crucial have very similar definitions, so I am in alignment with Ago's statement. I would also be in alignment if he had said important. I was not quoting anyone, just giving my own opinion.

Gotcha! You said critical and the lawyer said crucial!

I believe it was mentioned in an earlier thread that LE might have used the word "lie" to get the search warrant.

 

[Sparky]

Ok....this is it from the higher ups.

It's true the lead investigator has stated he is not a "suspect", but also added that JW “was told that he had more information than he was initially giving.”, and his version of events has varied during the investigation. In other words, he hasn't been given a gold seal of approval, and you can't un-ring a bell. A reasonable amount of doubt and speculation at this time is acceptable.

The only sleuthing of JW is what can be gleaned from the Transcript, other Docs and MSM. Don't bring his family or Girlfriend here.

Remember to scroll and roll if you don't like the post, use your ignore button or pm one of us. We're more than happy to help.

:tyou:

 

[kammiemc]

I believe it was mentioned in an earlier thread that LE might have used the word "lie" to get the search warrant.

If they only used that word and didn't, in fact, believe at all that JW lied, that would mean Owens lied in the affidavit. That would be a stinky thing. Not only because you'd hope that LE would be truthful in its assertions in a sworn statement, but also because that document got unsealed and repeated in MSM. It seems really irresponsible to officially call someone a liar in a quadruple homicide in you know that isn't true.

 

[rkf]

I believe it was mentioned in an earlier thread that LE might have used the word "lie" to get the search warrant.

If they can't back up that assertion with tapes/transcripts/signed statements, I think LE would have a real problem saying JW lied just to get a SW. I'm not sure why it would be necessary for JW to lie for a SW. He dropped off ransom money (knowingly or unknowingly) before four people were brutally murdered. I think that might be enough for probable cause, combined with JW's texts/photos. There's a reason LE said JW made a mistake about the time SS first contacted him about the package, but lied about details of picking up and dropping off the money. If they just wanted to paint him as a liar, why not call his mistake a lie as well? LE said JW admitted he lied. Does JW have to sign a written statement describing his oral account to LE? Or is that only for suspects?

 

[khaki]

IIRC neither Bach nor anyone else has ever said there was any evidence that is was committed by more than one person. So far as we know, the more-than-one-person scenario has always just been a theory.ETA it's important to rule people out and that includes people who some would feel it unseemly to even consider. But that's what needs to be done. So in the beginning everyone and anyone could be considered a potential suspect.

In the PH, BACH said the following:

MS. BACH: This is our point, we think this goes beyond what is relevant here at the preliminary hearing. There is nothing to indicate that only one person was involved in this crime.

 

[JayMac]

I'm just going off the affidavit that Owens, himself, wrote that said JW lied multiple times. Maybe Owens was wrong about his assertion in the affidavit. If so, he didn't clarify that fact.

Remember that Owens didn't interview JW and he was going on hearsay from those who did. We don't even know if the officers who interviewed JW used the word "lie" or that was just an impression Owens got from what he was told. He didn't even review the videotapes.

Neither Owens nor Bach - nor Ago for that matter - are going to clarify anything for the other. They don't need to and they don't want to. The only time they need to be clear is when they want something from the judge and she makes them clarify.

I realize people are trying to analyze words used, etc., but trust me players in this are not trying to speak in code or send secret messages. LE aren't usually English majors and they often prepare affidavits, notes and police reports that leave much to be desired in clarity and accuracy.

 

[SeesSeas]

If they only used that word and didn't, in fact, believe at all that JW lied, that would mean Owens lied in the affidavit. That would be a stinky thing. Not only because you'd hope that LE would be truthful in its assertions in a sworn statement, but also because that document got unsealed and repeated in MSM. It seems really irresponsible to officially call someone a liar in a quadruple homicide in you know that isn't true.

Unfortunately, LE lie. Not ALL of the time, but all-too-often IMO.

There are lots of legal writings on false claims by LE. Example:
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/...n=display_arch&article_id=439&issue_id=112004
Excerpt:
Civil Liability for False Affidavits
By Bryan R. Lemons, Branch Chief, Legal Division, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Glynco, Georgia

Liability for False Affidavits

Before a search or arrest warrant is issued, the Fourth Amendment requires a truthful factual showing in the affidavit used to establish probable cause.[SUP]10[/SUP] Because “the Constitution prohibits an officer from making perjurious or recklessly false statements in support of a warrant,”[SUP]11[/SUP] a complaint that an officer knowingly filed a false affidavit to secure a search or arrest warrant states a claim under section 1983.[SUP]12[/SUP] Further, “where an officer knows, or has reason to know, that he has materially misled a magistrate on the basis for a finding of probable cause . . . the shield of qualified immunity is lost.”[SUP]13[/SUP]

Law Enforcement Officer Liability

State and local law enforcement officers may be sued for violating a person’s Fourth Amendment rights under section 1983. When such suits are brought, officers may be entitled to qualified immunity in situations where a valid search or arrest warrant existed. However, qualified immunity will not be granted in those cases where the judge issuing the warrant was misled by information contained in the affidavit that the affiant either (1) knew was false or (2) would have known was false had he not recklessly disregarded the truth.

 

[kammiemc]

If they can't back up that assertion with tapes/transcripts/signed statements, I think LE would have a real problem saying JW lied just to get a SW. I'm not sure why it would be necessary for JW to lie for a SW. He dropped off ransom money (knowingly or unknowingly) before four people were brutally murdered. I think that might be enough for probable cause, combined with JW's texts/photos. There's a reason LE said JW made a mistake about the time SS first contacted him about the package, but lied about details of picking up and dropping off the money. If they just wanted to paint him as a liar, why not call his mistake a lie as well? LE said JW admitted he lied. Does JW have to sign a written statement describing his oral account to LE? Or is that only for suspects?

Also, Owens said that JW admitted that he had lied. I don't think that is something LE would just interpret. Or, if they did, they would have to know that at some point it would come out in the recording or video that he didn't admit he lied. What would that mean for the stuff they recovered in the search warrant. (Would the SW be thrown out?)