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

[SeesSeas]

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

^BBM, CBM
Think again about cooked pizza being touched by ungloved hand. View this Dominos Pizza video at 3:53: https://youtu.be/bcae5RvSUVY?t=233

Dirty Dining is prevalent in Fast Food places (pizza, burgers).

 

[FelicityLemon]

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.

I thank you for finding the chart!
I'm a visual person and always appreciate charts and graphics and spreadsheets

Good to use in court to help jurors understand some things. As a juror, I know I would appreciate it!

 

[Peliman]

^BBM, CBM
Think again about cooked pizza being touched by ungloved hand. View this Dominos Pizza video at 3:53: https://youtu.be/bcae5RvSUVY?t=233

Dirty Dining is prevalent in Fast Food places (pizza, burgers).

Haha point taken, I hope they're doing mitochondrial DNA.

 

[SeesSeas]

I thank you for finding the chart!
I'm a visual person and always appreciate charts and graphics and spreadsheets

Good to use in court to help jurors understand some things. As a juror, I now I would appreciate it!

Actually it was SI who found the chart, although his/her emphasis was on the narrative instead of the chart. I was having a difficult time following the narrative, and thus I focused on the chart. I agree that these type of visuals are helpful to jurors.

 

[rkf]

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

Haha! I just saw this and it made me laugh out loud!

 

[rkf]

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.

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:

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:

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:

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:

I believe DW was there the whole time, but I think it's most important that he be there on the 14th when the money was delivered, victims murdered, house set on fire and Porsche stolen. They left out a lot of stuff that even we have heard about (blood on shoes, etc.) Hopefully, they left out a ton of stuff that they already know and will have even more by trial.

 

[JayMac]

Doesn't the prosecution have to turn over evidence that confirms JW's whereabouts during the crime, or no? Why the fishing expedition if the defense will receive all this information anyway?

I'm just reading starting back at page 8 so forgive me repeating if already answered.

Short answer: no.

I was trying to think why the defense would be entitled to this via the normal rules of discovery. Unless this information is somehow Brady information or somehow impeachment evidence against JW as in he lied under oath or otherwise about being someplace and is now going to say under oath something else. This is evidence that will come out at trial.

During PHs defense counsel are regularly admonished "This is not discovery, Counsel. Ask your next question."

 

[rkf]

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

Wouldn't have been until he was arrested. I'm assuming they took his clothes and shoes then.

 

[JayMac]

Judge sounds pretty tough "You will not make speeches in my courtroom"

She's not but it IS her courtroom. Most judges in Superior Court hate speaking objections. It is funny though that all Bach was going to say was she wanted to make an ex parte proffer.

 

[katydid23]

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.

But if we could hear PS screaming, doesn't that mean he had to be in the same room as his dad when the call was made?

I thought he was screaming ' NO SHE'S NOT' because SS was saying on the phone: Amy is sick and needs to rest [ or something like that]

 

[rkf]

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.

They may have eaten it outside, since that's where it was found in the trash. Also, as for the photos, I believe that the crime scene photos are taken as soon as possible after it's declared a crime scene. LE wouldn't even let the ME in to take her own photos for at least a day. Once the crime scene photos are taken, they have documented what was where to the best of their ability, which then allows other investigators to come in to do their jobs. I would hope they wouldn't eat pizza in the crime scene, even after it's documented. That would be crazy! But any photos taken after the official crime scene photos can't be used to document where things were, etc., because there's a chance an item was moved during the investigation. Some movement of evidence can obviously take place when they're fighting a fire, but they try to freeze the scene as early as possible through photos. At least that's the way I understand it.

The problem with Ago and his pizza photo is that he was trying to use it to show the pizza with DW's DNA on it was found outside in the trash. If there was pizza in the outside trash in the crime scene photos, he would have had something. Since it was taken by the ME after the scene was open to others, it didn't/couldn't mean what he wanted it to. Pretty sneaky...

 

[rkf]

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.

There are other felonies that make it felony murder, including arson. Also, DW took the car, assuming they can prove that with W3 and DNA on vest (if that was his reward). It doesn't matter what he did with it after he took it.

 

[rkf]

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.

At the PH, it was stated that Ago's photo was only of crust in the outside garbage - no box. FWIW

 

[rkf]

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.

Reasonable doubt.

 

[JayMac]

Let me add my thanks for your efforts in securing the transcript. Good work!

 

[jjenny]

At the PH, it was stated that Ago's photo was only of crust in the outside garbage - no box. FWIW

Why were they even taking photos of the pizza they were eating?

 

[Keefer]

But if we could hear PS screaming, doesn't that mean he had to be in the same room as his dad when the call was made?

I thought he was screaming ' NO SHE'S NOT' because SS was saying on the phone: Amy is sick and needs to rest [ or something like that]

I don't think we can absolutely positively deduce who Philip was screaming at, but it is more likely because of the large difference in volume between the noise he is making and S.S. That he is in another room perhaps down the hallway and the door open but with some walls partially buffering the sound.
We also know that Philip was found in a different room than everyone else. It's very doubtful that any of the victims were allowed to go anywhere once they were bound with duct tape except S.S.
I can think of several reasons to keep Philip in a seperate room.

 

[kammiemc]

She's not but it IS her courtroom. Most judges in Superior Court hate speaking objections. It is funny though that all Bach was going to say was she wanted to make an ex parte proffer.

And thank you for reminding everyone that the judge is a woman!

 

[JayMac]

Is amending charges possible?

Keep in mind DW hasn't been indicted yet. Even after indictment you can amend it with a superseding indictment.

 

[katydid23]

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...

And I bet they can ask the legal secretary, that probably accepted the payment and wrote up the receipt, if he paid her in fresh hundreds.