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

[jjenny]

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...

I wasn't impressed with his testimony either. He needs to be better prepared if he is going to testify at trial. I also think he was wrong about JW not calling SS. JW actually called SS at 1:40 pm but got no answer, from what was reported.

"The assistant, who did not return messages left on his cellphone Wednesday, tried to call Savvas Savopoulos about 1:40 p.m. but got no answer, the police documents show."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...00af9e-ff07-11e4-8b6c-0dcce21e223d_story.html

 

[jjenny]

Because the crime scene photos were taken before the ATF ordered and ate their pizza. (ME = medical examiner) ME photos are not crime scene photos, as they were taken after the scene could have been (obviously was) contaminated.

I don't understand why ATF would go to the crime scene, order a pizza and eat it there. And take photos of it.

 

[jjenny]

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

I seriously think most of us know more details (at least the ones that have been reported) and are more familiar with the timeline that the lead detective. He needs to be better prepared for the trial if he is going to testify.
:laughing:

 

[Peliman]

I seriously think most of us know more details (at least the ones that have been reported) and are more familiar with the timeline that the lead detective. He needs to be better prepared for the trial if he is going to testify.
:laughing:

Yeah Yeah...

 

[Paulas88]

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...

I was pretty disillusioned with him too. I vote rkf for lead detective!

 

[observation]

In reading the transcripts Owen "read" much more fluid when questioned by Bach. When questioned by Ago "reads" different to me. For the PH they were only addressing the affidavits which must have difficult since so much has happened since they were executed. Likely, Owens didn't want to get ahead of himself and Ago was really pushing the envelope.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SpanishInquisition]

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:

BY MR. AGO:
Q I'm sorry, from the pizza?
THE COURT: From the pizza.
THE WITNESS: Correct.
BY MR. AGO:
Q You don't have that information?
A The information I have is major contributor, not
partial, but as far as statistics I don't have that.
Q A major contributor, detective, means that there's a
minor contributor, right?
A Not to my knowledge, I'm going -- using the wording
that was told to me. Or consistent with, consistent with the
DNA profile of the defendant.

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.

I also think we'll be hearing more about this in the future as this doesn't explain how JW was able to close the garage when LE is now affirmatively stating JW didn't have any codes or keys for closing the garage door:

Q Let me clarify. Did he have a code or a key to
enter either the home or the garage all the way up until May
14th?
A No.

This also seems to be begging for trouble if they're intending to use JW as a key witness as they should have at least tried to find the red bag, which wasn't JW's car that day and they didn't follow up with JW to ask him where it was...there could be a perfectly good explanation, just it's not having an explanation at all provides ammunition for the defense as they'll fill in the holes that LE left in a light that is best for DW:

Q Have you asked W-1 what happened to the red bag?
MS. BACH: Your Honor, objection.
THE COURT: You can answer that yes or no.
THE WITNESS: No.

This could also present trouble, unless they have additional evidence besides the pizza to back it up as all they do know based on what was testified to at the prelim was that sometime before LE arrived during the afternoon of the 14th that 3/4 of a pizza was consumed, which it is an assumption that any or all of it was eaten by DW or anyone else on the 13th as I'm not seeing any temporal evidence that actually places DW there on the 13th rather than a generic kidnapper being placed there because of the pizza delivery:

MS. BACH: And, Your Honor, just with respect to the
legal argument, the way the complaint reads, is that Mr.
Savopoulos was killed during the course of the kidnaping.
What we know is that Mr. Wint was in the home on May 17th
[sic] when the pizza is ordered and then on the 14th, um, we
would argue the evidence shows that he was there after the
delivery of the money, and the Porsche is taken on the 14th.
So I think that clearly shows he's there throughout
the entire -- entirety of the event.

This I found interesting, though I don't know if it will amount to any significance, but it was something I had wondered about and it turns out that it is just a guess:

Q And so you don't have any factual basis for saying
that the homicides occurred after the money is delivered?
A No.

 

[observation]

Another thought is as the lead detective may be a little less hands on and generally serves in an admin. capacity. Maybe that made him a good witness since they didn't want to reveal all their cards. Just a thought.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jjenny]

My understanding of the testimony, there was only one profile of DNA on the pizza.
A mixture was on the green vest. Mixture from 3 people, 2 full profiles from SS and DW, and one partial from unknown person.
Dect Owens doesn't seem to know much about DNA testing, so he could be using wrong terminology, leading to confusion.
But there was only one profile on the pizza, belonging to DW, from what I can tell.

 

[jjenny]

In reading the transcripts Owen "read" much more fluid when questioned by Bach. When questioned by Ago "reads" different to me. For the PH they were only addressing the affidavits which must have difficult since so much has happened since they were executed. Likely, Owens didn't want to get ahead of himself and Ago was really pushing the envelope.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Defense lawyer was jumping on any discrepancy, real or made up.

 

[observation]

Defense lawyer was jumping on any discrepancy, real or made up.

Exactly!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TexMex]

In reading the transcripts Owen "read" much more fluid when questioned by Bach. When questioned by Ago "reads" different to me. For the PH they were only addressing the affidavits which must have difficult since so much has happened since they were executed. Likely, Owens didn't want to get ahead of himself and Ago was really pushing the envelope.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

 

[al66pine]

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...

bbm
Giving just enough info.
Defense will get more thru discovery.
JMO.

 

[Peliman]

We didn't hear anything about blood found on Wints shoes. Should I assume the mobile unit took crime scene photos and when?

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I don't understand why ATF would go to the crime scene, order a pizza and eat it there. And take photos of it.

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.

 

[i.b.nora]

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

 

[jjenny]

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

There was only one profile on the pizza. It's the vest that had a mixture of 3 profiles.

 

[i.b.nora]

There was only one profile on the pizza. It's the vest that had a mixture of 3 profiles.

Ah, okay. Thanks for the correction.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

My understanding of the testimony, there was only one profile of DNA on the pizza.
A mixture was on the green vest. Mixture from 3 people, 2 full profiles from SS and DW, and one partial from unknown person.
Dect Owens doesn't seem to know much about DNA testing, so he could be using wrong terminology, leading to confusion.
But there was only one profile on the pizza, belonging to DW, from what I can tell.

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

 

[FelicityLemon]

I think that's really overthinking it. Sometimes people do things just because. If you are told to pick a number between 35 and 50, somebody might pick 40, somebody might pick 45, etc. They picked 40.

Yes, true, but this wasn't a magic trick: pick a number between 35 and 50.