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

[JayMac]

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.

In this quote, Bach is making an objection to what she regards as an irrelevant question by Ago who she sees as trying to suggest that if another person could be involved then that negates probable cause. That's why she's using this argument. I think people are making too much of it.

Bach is also trying to block Ago's attempts to get info on any witnesses the govt has used so far. She isn't about to let Ago know how she verified anything.

 

[rkf]

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.

Would there be any repercussions at trial if Owens put in his sworn affidavit that the officers who interviewed JW said JW "admitted he lied" when interviewed by LE, if JW had not admitted he lied? If the detectives who interviewed JW lied about JW's conflicting stories, would that have any effect on the detective's testimony at trial? SWs issued because of LE's statements? If Owens lied about what the detectives told him in his sworn affidavit, would that have any affect on Owen's testimony at trial and/or the SWs issued because of his affidavit? Does LE often state that a witness has made a mistake and lied during interviews? What about suspects? I am not privy to many affidavits, so I don't know what is normal/common. If LE lies under any of these circumstances, wouldn't they have to maintain the lie throughout the trial(s) to avoid undermining the prosecution's case? I know LE sometimes lies or makes mistakes themselves. I'm trying to understand if this is so common, that we should always assume it's a possibility equal to whatever LE swears was actually said during the interview. <modsnip>JMO

ETA: In the affidavit, Owens states "Wallace admitted that he lied when he stated the money was in a manila envelope..." and "Furthermore, Wallace admitted that he lied when he stated that the vehicle was locked..." I don't understand if Owens is swearing these things are true or swearing the detectives told him this was true.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/267776483...arrant-for-BMW

 

[FelicityLemon]

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

With a rebel yell, we cried MORE, MORE MORE... information, please

LOL, see this is what gets me about legalspeak. Reporters can no longer use the word "suspect" because that implies guilt, however nebulously. Instead we're offered Person Of Interest - isn't that the same thing? Different, but the same? :drumroll:

And, what the heck is wrong with people being suspect? It's natural to suspect everyone close to a murder victim until they're cleared. Common Sense and Standard Operating Procedure.

I can see being drawn to lawyering for those who love to strategize and win. But eeks, the means vs the ends...too precious.

 

[FelicityLemon]

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.

Ooh, I do wish they'd make up their minds!

There's also nothing to indicate that more than one person was involved in this crime. Other than people just *think* a lone person could have done it. There've been posts here about several crimes where a lone perpetrator controlled and ultimately killed multiple people.

I've got one leg on the fence but my butt carries a lot of weight and my butt is on the side of DW alone during the actual crimes in the home. Outside the home, I believe he had some brotherly love

 

[FelicityLemon]

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?

Genuine question here: what if there is a distinct advantage in having someone write the affidavit who is only getting the information second or third-hand? It leaves wiggle room for misunderstanding or hearing incorrectly and so "I wrote what I thought I heard. or I wrote my interpretation of what I was hearing and it was my interpretation that the W-1 lied." Loosey goosey. I'm not saying that's what happened here, just that I can totally see it happening that way in any case depending on the officers involved.

Also, the phrase "during the course of the investigation" could it have been during a single 45 minute interview even though the first thing that came to my mind is that the natural understanding of that phrase would be the entire investigation encompassing weeks and possibly multiple interviews of W-1.

 

[kammiemc]

Ooh, I do wish they'd make up their minds!

There's also nothing to indicate that more than one person was involved in this crime. Other than people just *think* a lone person could have done it. There've been posts here about several crimes where a lone perpetrator controlled and ultimately killed multiple people.

I've got one leg on the fence but my butt carries a lot of weight and my butt is on the side of DW alone during the actual crimes in the home. Outside the home, I believe he had some brotherly love

Just for clarification, I just arbitrarily brought up this quote by Bach as an example of how something could be misinterpreted as a declarative statement when it's not.

I do not think she was saying that she believed that more than one person did it in this statement. My whole point is that I would NOT read that into her statement because it was not a declaration of her belief.

Semi-relatedly, on the other hand, nothing indicates that LE no longer theorizes that more than one person did it. So I'm open!

 

[katydid23]

For some reason, I have always thought it was just DW. And I still think so, even though LE knows a million times more than I do about the actual facts of this case. But for some reason, I just feel like it was DW doing an impulsive thing and pulling off a one man home invasion. Good thing he is stupid but I wish he was not so violent.

 

[al66pine]

.... LE sometimes lies or makes mistakes themselves....LE swears was actually said during the interview. <modsnip>JMO
ETA: In the affidavit, Owens states "Wallace admitted that he lied when he stated the money was in a manila envelope..." and "Furthermore, Wallace admitted that he lied when he stated that the vehicle was locked..." I don't understand if Owens is swearing these things are true or swearing the detectives told him this was true.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/267776483...arrant-for-BMW

Longish answer
Last p. of affidavit at scribd link - to S/Wrrt for JW's car - says (paraphrasing)
Based on above info, Your affiant/I, Det. Darryl Richmond believes probable cause exists that inside the car, there is forensic & phys evd linking JW to this offense and asks J to issue S/W for car and to auth seizure of these (above listed)items as evd. linking JW to this offense.
Doc shows Det. Darryl Richmond as affiant, and siggie of Jeffrey Ragsdale, Asst. US Atty, and notation "Subscribed and sworn before me this" [day]w siggie of Judge who issued S/W.

Shorter answer
Det. Richmond swore to truth of info, not Det. Owens, re this affidavit, but may have also relied upon others - "members of the Major Crimes/Cold Case Homicide Unit" (paragraph 6, not clear whether Richmond himself was present during interview of JW).

BTW, ^affidavit was signed May 15, waaaaaay before DDW was ID'ed.
JM2cts, could be all wrong.

Off to check affidavit that I believe Owens signed.

 

[facundo]

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?)

Owns said that JW admitted that he had lied. Very clever to not actually quote how this was determined. They don't state that JW said I lied. They don't state that the officer breathing in JW face said "your story doesn't hold up, you weasel. Admit it -- YOU LIED! Isn't that right?" Well ok.. "There, you admit you lied."

 

[al66pine]

....Also, the phrase "during the course of the investigation" could it have been during a single 45 minute interview even though the first thing that came to my mind is that the natural understanding of that phrase would be the entire investigation encompassing weeks and possibly multiple interviews of W-1.

sbm Without knowing exact usage, I'd say it's context-specific, time-specific. Maybe LEO or source-specific.

I just posted above about affidavit for S/W for JW's car done on May 15. Det stating in affidavit at that point "during the course of the investigation" (IDT he actually used it, just a hypo) has waaaaaaaay less info than someone who signed affidavit for S/W in late July - like the one for S fam phones, discussed in P/Hearing.
And at trial (again, hypo), a det who testifies "during the course of the investigation" will presumably have waaaaay more info than an LEO making a statement today. I hope I'm interp'ing your question correctly; if not, let me know. BTW, who is using phrase "during the course of the investigation " a link, if handy.

Imo, LE & prosecutors gen'ly maintain vigilant control over who signs affidavits and the content. Not just 'any old' LEO (no disrespect intended) is allowed to compose an affidavit and go interrupt a judge to ask for a S/W, jmo.

 

[kammiemc]

In this quote, Bach is making an objection to what she regards as an irrelevant question by Ago who she sees as trying to suggest that if another person could be involved then that negates probable cause. That's why she's using this argument. I think people are making too much of it.

Bach is also trying to block Ago's attempts to get info on any witnesses the govt has used so far. She isn't about to let Ago know how she verified anything.

I just want to admit that I do overthink words because I have to. It's literally my job to scrutinize language to make it the most clear a compelling it can be. So I bring that with me. What might be overthinking to some brings home the bacon for me. I am sure I drive my team nuts as well!
#stuckinmyways


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FelicityLemon]

sbm Without knowing exact usage, I'd say it's context-specific, time-specific. Maybe LEO or source-specific.

I just posted above about affidavit for S/W for JW's car done on May 15. Det stating in affidavit at that point "during the course of the investigation" (IDT he actually used it, just a hypo) has waaaaaaaay less info than someone who signed affidavit for S/W in late July - like the one for S fam phones, discussed in P/Hearing.
And at trial (again, hypo), a det who testifies "during the course of the investigation" will presumably have waaaaay more info than an LEO making a statement today. I hope I'm interp'ing your question correctly; if not, let me know. BTW, who is using phrase "during the course of the investigation " a link, if handy.

Imo, LE & prosecutors gen'ly maintain vigilant control over who signs affidavits and the content. Not just 'any old' LEO (no disrespect intended) is allowed to compose an affidavit and go interrupt a judge to ask for a S/W, jmo.

I'll have to search. It was in msm articles (more than one) regarding LE saying that JW lied several times during the course of the investigation. I also thought Owens used a similar phrase about JW, but I could be wrong on that.

I was just beefing about how statements can be worded to imply something, but not exactly what we would naturally assume. Not sure I worded this correctly, lol.

Assuming W-1 lied, and lied several times during the course of the investigation. Did IT lie several times during a 15 min interview or did IT lie in a series of separate interviews during the entire ongoing investigation of 9 or 10 weeks? That first simple statement could mean either idea, with lying, then correcting it during the single interview being foolish, but lying repeatedly during several interviews over a period of weeks - extra bad.

 

[al66pine]

...ETA: In the affidavit, Owens states "Wallace admitted that he lied when he stated the money was in a manila envelope..." and "Furthermore, Wallace admitted that he lied when he stated that the vehicle was locked..." I don't understand if Owens is swearing these things are true or swearing the detectives told him this was true.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/267776483...arrant-for-BMW

] <aff by Det Darryl Richmond, May 15

Short answer:
Owens swore detectives told him this info was true, imo. {{ETA: Det Richmond wrote narrative & swore & signed that it was true.}}

Detail:
My line of reasoning: just a few days before, based on LEO interview w JW, Richmond signed affidavit re for S/W for JW's car, and Owens' affidavit echoed it for A/Wrrt. As always, could be wrong.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documen...on-dellon-dennis-charging-papers-may-2015.pdf <---- affidavit signed by Det. Owens May 19
Appears to me Owens' affidavit for A/Wrrt for DDW, repeats same language re
--- JW's "lies" re money in env. and locked car, as Richmond's affidavit for S/Wrrt several days earlier.
---beliefs re all info in affidavit. Last p. of A/Wrrt affidavit in ^ amazon link says (paraphrasing) Based on above info, Your affiant/I, Det. Owens believes probable cause exists to charge the defendant w First Degree Felony Murder While Armed and asks J to issue A/W for DDW.
Doc shows Det. Owens as affiant, and siggie of Jeffrey Ragsdale, Asst. US Atty, and notation "Subscribed and sworn before me this" [day] w Judge's siggie.

 

[rkf]

I'll have to search. It was in msm articles (more than one) regarding LE saying that JW lied several times during the course of the investigation. I also thought Owens used a similar phrase about JW, but I could be wrong on that.

I was just beefing about how statements can be worded to imply something, but not exactly what we would naturally assume. Not sure I worded this correctly, lol.

Assuming W-1 lied, and lied several times during the course of the investigation. Did IT lie several times during a 15 min interview or did IT lie in a series of separate interviews during the entire ongoing investigation of 9 or 10 weeks? That first simple statement could mean either idea, with lying, then correcting it during the single interview being foolish, but lying repeatedly during several interviews over a period of weeks - extra bad.

Since the affidavits were written within a few days of the murders, I don't think the lying remark covered weeks of interviews. JMO. BTW, good catch on the affidavits sworn to by different detectives al66pine. I started assuming they were all written by Owens as the lead detective, since he testified at the PH. Brain is turning to mush...

 

[kammiemc]

Since the affidavits were written within a few days of the murders, I don't think the lying remark covered weeks of interviews. JMO. BTW, good catch on the affidavits sworn to by different detectives al66pine. I started assuming they were all written by Owens as the lead detective, since he testified at the PH. Brain is turning to mush...

That is a great catch!!! Your mind hasn't turned to mush. Owens did say he prepared the affidavit. In the spirit of only saying what he needed to say, he might have chosen to not clarify that others also prepared it.

 

[al66pine]

I'll have to search. It was in msm articles (more than one) regarding LE saying that JW lied several times during the course of the investigation. I also thought Owens used a similar phrase about JW, but I could be wrong on that....
Assuming W-1 lied, and lied several times during the course of the investigation. Did IT lie several times during a 15 min interview or did IT lie in a series of separate interviews during the entire ongoing investigation of 9 or 10 weeks? That first simple statement could mean either idea, with lying, then correcting it during the single interview being foolish, but lying repeatedly during several interviews over a period of weeks - extra bad.

JW's stmts to LE, described in affidavit for S/W for car?
Pretty clear those stmts were made May 14, maybe 15th too, because discrepancies are set forth in affidavit dated May 15. Not a series of interviews over period of weeks. {{ETA: Whoops, rkf already pointed this out. Thx rkf}}

Pages 4/8 and 5/8 of affidavit of 11 page pdf linked several posts upthread laid out specific of lies quite clearly, imo.
(Details below, IIRC, no guarantees, wish I could C & P from affidavit)
Affidavit stated:
JW said this re time of 1st contact from SS, then said that diff time; LE said JW said he made a mistake.
JW said this re $ in env, then said that.
JW said this re unlocking car, then said he did not unlock it.
JW admitted he lied.

Also wish we could listen to or watch recordings now, if they exist.

 

[al66pine]

.... BTW, good catch on the affidavits sworn to by different detectives al66pine. I started assuming they were all written by Owens as the lead detective, since he testified at the PH. Brain is turning to mush...

sbm. Thx, rkf for the comment.:blushing:

From my TC book reading & ltd livestreamed hearing & trial-watch exp, it seems relatively common or at least not uncommon, for diff affidavits for a case to be signed by diff LE personnel, esp w specialized evd that may end up at trial eliciting testimony from an "expert witness." Ex: forensics, such as blood patterns, fingerprints, DNA, crime scene photographs, med examiner's A/Rpt or PM findings, etc. Can happen when investigation develops over years (changes in personnel on the PD force, what-ev). And another reason for diff LEOs to sign affidavits is simply lack of time for lead det to do and review everything personally.

JM2cts.

 

[BondGirl]

So will this really not go to trial for two years? Will we get any new info?

 

[al66pine]

That is a great catch!!! Your mind hasn't turned to mush. Owens did say he prepared the affidavit. In the spirit of only saying what he needed to say, he might have chosen to not clarify that others also prepared it.

Agreeing, these types of affidavits gen'ly tend to set out just the bare bones.

But in this affidavit, Owens as affiant makes it clear he relied on various LEOs for a lot, maybe most of investigation.
"Members of the Major Crimes/Cold Case Homicide Unit conducted an investigation into this offense. Members identified, located, and interviewed a person identified hereinafter as W-1" p 3/8 of affidavit. bbm
Cont's w Det's interviewing w W-2. p 5/8.
Ref's to pizza recovered by ATF, and DNA connection made thru FBI's CODIS, etc, p 7/8.

Shifts gears on p 8/8
"Your affiant has reviewed multiple cellular phone records and interviewed multiple witnesses that lead him to believe..." bbm
Owens clearly distinguishes ^ what he personally did, imo.

This is why, imo, in using affidavits and transcripts, we gen'ly reach more accurate conclusions than relying on MSM or SM, in their condensed versions, often w imprecise language. JMO.

 

[al66pine]

That is a great catch!!! Your mind hasn't turned to mush. Owens did say he prepared the affidavit. In the spirit of only saying what he needed to say, he might have chosen to not clarify that others also prepared it.

You know this, and I know this, but ppl reading quickly may not immed'ly grasp -
Owens' actual stmt in P/H that he prepared affidavit is not same as (hypo) stmt he personally conducted entire investigation and could personally testify to the truth of every piece of info in affidavit as being factual & accurate.