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

[CoreyRocks]

Someone posted in a previous thread about what if DW carjacked Amy and got into the house that way. Remember Porsche seen driving fast and erratically through neighborhood that Wednesday. What if what @rkf said about the Beltsville address was true and DW was supposed just carjack the Porsche and then he went off script?

I am not understanding the Beltsville part even when it was mentioned yesterday. Will someone help me ? TIA.

 

[mk4osu]

Neither was VF.

BBM: PS wasn't dead before the fire started.

 

[al66pine]

Like a knife listed in sec. 22-4502 below?

Charging Doc, DDW. First Degree Felony Murder While Armed, violation of 22 D.C Code, Sections 2101, 4502 (2001 ed.)
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documen...on-dellon-dennis-charging-papers-may-2015.pdf

Sec. 22-2101, excerpt
"Whoever, being of sound memory and discretion,... or without purpose to do so kills another
- in perpetrating or in attempting to perpetrate any arson, as defined in § 22-301 or § 22-302, first degree sexual abuse, first degree child sexual abuse, first degree cruelty to children, mayhem, robbery, or kidnaping, or
- in perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate any housebreaking while armed with or using a dangerous weapon, or ...
is guilty of murder in the first degree...." * (bbm ubm & line-breaks & hyphens added)

Sec. 22-4502
(a) Any person who commits a crime of violence, or a dangerous crime in the District of Columbia when armed with or having readily available any pistol or other firearm (or imitation thereof) or other dangerous or deadly weapon (including a sawed-off shotgun, shotgun, machine gun, rifle, dirk, bowie knife, butcher knife, switchblade knife, razor, blackjack, billy, or metallic or other false knuckles):...." http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/dccode/layout.htm
Continues w specifics for enhanced sentences, first time offenders, repeat offenders, etc.


___________________________________________________________________
* The entire section
Chapter 21. Murder; Manslaughter. D.C. Code § 22-2101 (2015)
§ 22-2101. Murder in the first degree -- Purposeful killing; killing while perpetrating certain crimes.

"Whoever, being of sound memory and discretion,
kills another purposely, either of deliberate and premeditated malice or by means of poison, or in perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate an offense punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary,

or without purpose to do so kills another
in perpetrating or in attempting to perpetrate any arson, as defined in § 22-301 or § 22-302, first degree sexual abuse, first degree child sexual abuse, first degree cruelty to children, mayhem, robbery, or kidnaping, or

in perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate any housebreaking while armed with or using a dangerous weapon, or

in perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate a felony involving a controlled substance,

is guilty of murder in the first degree.
For purposes of imprisonment following revocation of release authorized by § 24-403.01(b)(7), murder in the first degree is a Class A felony." *
* http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/dccode/layout.htm

 

[Peliman]

Why? Mitochondrial DNA is less accurate than nuclear DNA. If they got nuclear DNA off the pizza, it's not likely they will do mitochondrial DNA tests.

I thought CODIS was done by familial DNA, I was incorrect. Told ya once, I know enough about DNA to get myself in hot water.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/codis/codis_brochure

 

[jjenny]

Reading the hearing right now... and oh my. It is stated AGAIN about the partial match on the DNA. :thinking: a "partial match" infers it is matching something else :doh: therefore...

I'm thinking it's a mitochondrial match perhaps. (The DNA of the mother) Part of one of the DNA is matching........ I'll :lala: for now as is against TOS to go further.

Here is just one site on cases with "partial DNA matches" -- think "familial" :moo: http://www.denverda.org/DNA/DNA_Partial_Match_DNA_Cases.htm

lol, I'm days behind in reading as all this may have been discussed upthread. I'm only 73 pages into the hearing so far.

:researching:

Partial means incomplete, but reading from the hearing, appears to be that defense lawyer is trying to confuse det Owens (which isn't hard, since det Owens doesn't seem to know much about DNA testing).
Defense lawyer is the one who first asked Owens if DNA on the vest was a partial profile, then later on claimed Owens testified that it was only a partial profile (which Owens didn't).
As much as I understand Owens testimony, DNA analyst told him that DNA on the vest was a mix from 3 people, 2 complete from SS and DW, and one partial from unknown individual. So partial profile was in fact from unknown individual.

 

[JayMac]

In murder trials, when there are multiple victims, prosecutors can charge with one victim at a time. In case something goes wrong with the trial, they can charge the suspect again for another victim. For instance, Darlie Routier went on trial for only one son (even though both were killed).

DC doesn't play these games and IMO that's all that is when prosecutors do that. In fact, I'm not even sure they can do that.

Again, he hasn't been formally charged yet. That will come after he is indicted and at his formal arraignment. The indictment should include all the charges possible.

If they find more charges after the indictment they can go back to the Grand Jury and get a superseding indictment. Which would be a PITA. He would then be arraigned anew on the new indictment.

 

[jjenny]

DC doesn't play these games and IMO that's all that is when prosecutors do that. In fact, I'm not even sure they can do that.

Again, he hasn't been formally charged yet. That will come after he is indicted and at his formal arraignment. The indictment should include all the charges possible.

If they find more charges after the indictment they can go back to the Grand Jury and get a superseding indictment. Which would be a PITA. He would then be arraigned anew on the new indictment.

Like I said, it's been done. I gave an example of Routier case. She was only charged with one murder. There are other cases too.

 

[rkf]

You are absolutely correct. The complaint can be amended to change the felony, add a new felony, add victims, etc. The charge can also be amended to "plain old murder" instead of felony murder with the District having to prove intent, malice aforethought, depraved indifference - whatever the statute requires for a charge of murder 1.

Interesting question you raise about arson. I am not sure about arson, because I believe felony murder requires that the victim died as a result of the violent felony. I thought the standard was that the death had to be a forseeable result of the felony. If someone were dead before the fire started I am not sure that meets the standard, but I honestly do not know the answer to that. Trust me, I could be absolutely wrong. Wouldn't be the first time today and it isn't even 8:30 am, LOL.

Please do not think I buy the defense arguments for a second (you can't prove he was in the car, he didn't really get the money because JW took it, the money belonged to some other dude, etc.). Neither did the judge. I was just pointing out where I think defense was going, and why they are so keen on making JW an issue - to cast reasonable doubt on DW's participation in the underlying felony, whatever that felony turns out to be.

Oh no - I didn't think you were buying the defense argument. I also like to play "devil's advocate" or at least try to figure out what someone else was thinking. I wonder if PS' death by thermal injuries will be used for felony murder when those charges are made.

I am not a lawyer - just have a lot of not necessarily well-supported opinions/thoughts. the way I read the DC statutes, the perpetrator only had to be guilty of participating in a felony at the time (entire time frame of the crime) of the murder for it to be felony murder. So if I kidnap someone, if my friend flips out and shoots our kidnap victim, I go down for felony murder. I guess that's what you're saying - if we hadn't kidnapped the victim, he wouldn't have been in a position to be shot. Also, the crime would have included a deadly weapon. I thought I read if arson is committed during the time of a murder, it qualifies for felony murder. But I'm on my iPad and can't check. What if I burst into someone's house to rob them with a gun (violent felony) and the home owner has a heart attack? Can that be felony murder?

 

[Skigirl]

Reading the hearing right now... and oh my. It is stated AGAIN about the partial match on the DNA. :thinking: a "partial match" infers it is matching something else :doh: therefore...

I'm thinking it's a mitochondrial match perhaps. (The DNA of the mother) Part of one of the DNA is matching........ I'll :lala: for now as is against TOS to go further.

Here is just one site on cases with "partial DNA matches" -- think "familial" :moo: http://www.denverda.org/DNA/DNA_Partial_Match_DNA_Cases.htm

lol, I'm days behind in reading as all this may have been discussed upthread. I'm only 73 pages into the hearing so far.

:researching:

I am pretty sure "partial match" can mean that not all of the loci are present in the sample. Although... people with the same mother... will have the same mitochondrial DNA. Just sayin' :waitasec:

 

[rkf]

You are absolutely correct. The complaint can be amended to change the felony, add a new felony, add victims, etc. The charge can also be amended to "plain old murder" instead of felony murder with the District having to prove intent, malice aforethought, depraved indifference - whatever the statute requires for a charge of murder 1.

Interesting question you raise about arson. I am not sure about arson, because I believe felony murder requires that the victim died as a result of the violent felony. I thought the standard was that the death had to be a forseeable result of the felony. If someone were dead before the fire started I am not sure that meets the standard, but I honestly do not know the answer to that. Trust me, I could be absolutely wrong. Wouldn't be the first time today and it isn't even 8:30 am, LOL.

Please do not think I buy the defense arguments for a second (you can't prove he was in the car, he didn't really get the money because JW took it, the money belonged to some other dude, etc.). Neither did the judge. I was just pointing out where I think defense was going, and why they are so keen on making JW an issue - to cast reasonable doubt on DW's participation in the underlying felony, whatever that felony turns out to be.

Correct. But DW hasn't been charged with the death of PS (yet). As far as I know, DW has been charged only with the death of SS. That is really all I was speaking to - the charges as they currently stand and why the defense argued what they did. I am sorry if I wasn't clear.

ETA: with all the different things going on, and the number of bad acts I believe DW committed, I wonder how/why this was the first charge. Why against SS only? Why that felony? I am not a criminal lawyer or even a trial lawyer so charging, and the timing of charges, and the picking and choosing of charges, is fascinating to me.

I think it's because the others, at least PS, are easy federal crimes. If DC gets a conviction on SS' murder, they will probably keep the other trials. If they can't convict, it will be easy for them to change jurisdiction (depending on what else was done to the women.) From what we know, the worse (if I can even say that) murder charges are still pending, so there might be some incentive for DW to plead guilty to all of them in DC rather than face the DP in Federal. This is just a wild guess.

ETA: Nevermind... What JayMac said.

 

[rkf]

omg, could it be that DW was so ********* that he was casually eating a slice on his way downstairs and out, stopped by the trash to pop a crust in there?

Sneaky lawyer not good.

Why would he throw it in the trash? Also, if he did, a photo of the crust in the garbage would have to have been taken by mobile crime with the other crime scene photos. Doesn't help Ago if the photo was taken days later by ME. If it was his crust, that would be in addition to the crust found in the upstairs bedroom, so if they found his DNA on it, it doesn't help DW.

 

[rkf]

Reading the hearing right now... and oh my. It is stated AGAIN about the partial match on the DNA. :thinking: a "partial match" infers it is matching something else :doh: therefore...

I'm thinking it's a mitochondrial match perhaps. (The DNA of the mother) Part of one of the DNA is matching........ I'll :lala: for now as is against TOS to go further.

Here is just one site on cases with "partial DNA matches" -- think "familial" :moo: http://www.denverda.org/DNA/DNA_Partial_Match_DNA_Cases.htm

lol, I'm days behind in reading as all this may have been discussed upthread. I'm only 73 pages into the hearing so far.

:researching:

I wouldn't get too hung up on the DNA in the transcript. It's really frustrating hearing Owens talk about it! I think they will have more before the trial and they will have DNA experts explain what the findings mean. The detective was tripping all over himself with his DNA testimony.

 

[rkf]

DC doesn't play these games and IMO that's all that is when prosecutors do that. In fact, I'm not even sure they can do that.

Again, he hasn't been formally charged yet. That will come after he is indicted and at his formal arraignment. The indictment should include all the charges possible.

If they find more charges after the indictment they can go back to the Grand Jury and get a superseding indictment. Which would be a PITA. He would then be arraigned anew on the new indictment.

Stupid question: that wouldn't prevent prosecutors from charging someone else with the same crimes if they identify another suspect, would it?

 

[jjenny]

I wouldn't get too hung up on the DNA in the transcript. It's really frustrating hearing Owens talk about it! I think they will have more before the trial and they will have DNA experts explain what the findings mean. The detective was tripping all over himself with his DNA testimony.

It was frustrating to hear Owens talk about a lot of things. I don't think Owens knew what he was talking about in regards to DNA, and defense lawyer was trying to trip him (which wouldn't take a lot of effort).

 

[Skigirl]

((skigirl and OP))) Not meaning to say anything about those that helped OP distribute, just that OP gets recognition as it may be carried all over the net and OP deserves the recognition and a big :tyou: (as do you here for helping to post here at WS)

:blowkiss: to folks helping to obtain and share it with everyone!

Thanks - I deserve no recognition, I did nothing but start yammering about what was in it when I got my copy -- but agree that Blessed does!!!

 

[blessedlife]

Just now getting to read the wonderful hearing transcript as was too difficult to view on the phone previously!

:tyou: :tyou: :tyou:

I wonder if others on the net have done copies of it, and if that is ok with the OP? In future, how do you protect from such? Watermark?

I'm :escape: off to read it on the computer!

Absolutely okay with me!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[blessedlife]

Thanks - I deserve no recognition, I did nothing but start yammering about what was in it when I got my copy -- but agree that Blessed does!!!

Graci, graci. [emoji8]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Crosscntrymom]

Has anyone pulled together a comprehensive outline and timeline of what we know via PH transcript and other docs? Updated since we have learned some info from PH? NOT volunteering--I'm still trying to piece it all together!

 

[FelicityLemon]

Why would he throw it in the trash? Also, if he did, a photo of the crust in the garbage would have to have been taken by mobile crime with the other crime scene photos. Doesn't help Ago if the photo was taken days later by ME. If it was his crust, that would be in addition to the crust found in the upstairs bedroom, so if they found his DNA on it, it doesn't help DW.

LOL, I was just joshin' at thinking what what Ago might have been aiming for: DW did eat pizza, but brought his own, stayed outside, never went in the house, nor did he know anything about what was going on in there? Still think that Ago might be trying to riff off of previous attorney statement that DW thinks he was set-up.

He just doesn't have anything to work with for a defense, so he's grasping at pizza crusts. Outside. In the trash can. That may or may not have been at the SS home. I call shenanigans that the picture even made it into the court pile. Either he's a good actor or even he lost track of where he was going with that.

 

[FelicityLemon]

It was frustrating to hear Owens talk about a lot of things. I don't think Owens knew what he was talking about in regards to DNA, and defense lawyer was trying to trip him (which wouldn't take a lot of effort).

Det. Owens knew enough that it helped weight the scales toward indictment.
ddsmiley: :happydance: