DC - Savvas Savopoulos, family & Veralicia Figueroa murdered; Daron Wint Arrested #9

[jjenny]

I wonder if he started out in boots, changed them before he left so he could dispose of them and somehow managed to get one of the victims blood on the shoes he wore out of the house.

The warrant was before DW was arrested. So we don't know if his shoes match to the footprint or not.

 

[corundogs]

Where did it say he didn't give it to them?

During the course of the interview, MPD detectives requested that W-1 provide IT's cellular phone to them. During the interview, W-1 showed detectives a number of text messages and incoming and outgoing calls with Mr. Savopoulous.

I typed it out above...and it is on page 8 from here
http://www.documentcloud.org/docume...n-dellon-dennis-charging-papers-may-2015.html

 

[Paulas88]

LE is just crossing their i's and dotting their T's or is it dotting their i's as they should be. That's my story and I'm stickin to it. Interesting info, so did DW have a car and truck? Wonder where it was located.

I'm thinking it was the car he found in on his arrest & of course the Amerit truck ? Idk

 

[corundogs]

Yes, I'm trying to figure out how they could do forced entry without someone in the house at least using their phone to call for help before they could take over...I'd think even PS would have his own cell phone and could call on it for help unless he was totally incapacitated by his injury (which would be surprising that he'd have suffered that bad of a set-back unless he re-injured himself at school that Tuesday)...it seems like you'd have to have a lot of people to hurry up and run into all the rooms to subdue the occupants before they could call for help. This goes into more detail, where it sounds like they got there through someone else's property and then went in their yard as neither their garage door entryway nor the front door have French doors:

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...ch-warrants-cell-phone-records-306025611.html
Maybe the forced entry into an occupied house is why LE is certain DW had accomplices.

It is very likely doors out to the backyard have French doors. There is a walkway from the street to their backyard.

 

[katydid23]

I know a lot of LE officers. Let me say this: IF they were interrogating JW with the thoughts that he was involved in this brutal crime, AND he was sitting there holding his cell and showing them calls on the log, and IF they wanted his phone, THERE IS NO WAY JW LEFT WITH PHONE IN HAND. Just sayin....LOL

 

[KALI]

Wonder if door was in back yard where the dogs were? My dog would have gone bananas if someone did that in my backyard.

 

[i.b.nora]

In addition, police said Wednesday that there is evidence that someone forcibly entered the Northwest Washington home by breaking a window pane in a set of french doors. Detectives found a boot print and are searching for footwear that might match the tread pattern.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...1c5d44e_story.html?postshare=5361433357837407

This is interesting from that article:

"D.C. police did not charge the four people who they said were with Wint, and released them within hours. Authorities provided no explanation. In the search warrant application for the vehicles, police said they were looking for a red bag used to hold the ransom money, clothing or shoes with blood on them, credit cards and other paperwork from the Savopoulos home, weapons “that could be used to inflict blunt force trauma,” duct tape used to bind hands and feet, digital recordings from surveillance cameras in the home and money wrappers.

Police have not said whether any of these items have been found."​

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...1c5d44e_story.html?postshare=5361433357837407

So, where is the red bag? If he put the money in a manilla envelope, where is the red bag?

 

[yepitsme]

Even with customers consent, LE will still get a SW. With consent they are able to begin looking at the phone immediately, but if they want to use any info in a trial , for example, they need a legal warrant, not just consent. JMO

This isn't true. The warrant is to gain access to the information, legally, so it can be introduced at trial, but consent is another way to get the access legally. If consent wasn't sufficient, a warrant wouldn't cure the problem enough to allow evidence gathered before the warrant was obtained to be introduced at trial.

Consent would be sufficient.

 

[yepitsme]

But if they want to use any of the retrieved info in a trial, they need a SW, imo. They would not go forward without one because a person can rescind their authorization at any time.

No that isn't true. There are no take backs on lawfully acquired evidence. if they obtained it through consent, they have it fair and square for trial.

 

[katydid23]

This isn't true. The warrant is to gain access to the information, legally, so it can be introduced at trial, but consent is another way to get the access legally. If consent wasn't sufficient, a warrant wouldn't cure the problem enough to allow evidence gathered before the warrant was obtained to be introduced at trial.

Consent would be sufficient.

But consent is not sufficient to get the ping map info, is it? And can't consent be revoked at any time? That is what my defense attorney father always said.

ETA: I just went and looked it up. I see that it can be revoked DURING the search, but not afterwards. But I still think it makes more sense to get a legal SW to get the cell pings etc.

 

[runnergal]

From your link:

A bootprint found on the door was not consistent with the boots worn by D.C. firefighters, authorities said.

Thank you so much! I actually edited my post to include this exact same sentence that you honed in on too.

 

[MyBelle]

Yes, I'm trying to figure out how they could do forced entry without someone in the house at least using their phone to call for help before they could take over...I'd think even PS would have his own cell phone and could call on it for help unless he was totally incapacitated by his injury (which would be surprising that he'd have suffered that bad of a set-back unless he re-injured himself at school that Tuesday)...it seems like you'd have to have a lot of people to hurry up and run into all the rooms to subdue the occupants before they could call for help. This goes into more detail, where it sounds like they got there through someone else's property and then went in their yard as neither their garage door entryway nor the front door have French doors:

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...ch-warrants-cell-phone-records-306025611.html
Maybe the forced entry into an occupied house is why LE is certain DW had accomplices.

The forced entry may have been while only Vera was home. It does sound like that entry was on the back of the house.

JMO

 

[epiphany]

But consent is not sufficient to get the ping map info, is it? And can't consent be revoked at any time? That is what my defense attorney father always said.

ETA: I just went and looked it up. I see that it can be revoked DURING the search, but not afterwards. But I still think it makes more sense to get a legal SW to get the cell pings etc.

The search warrant applications say the cellphones of Savvas and Amy Savopoulos and Figueroa were stolen. Police received permission to track the phones for 30 days, starting May 10, four days before the killings, trying to pinpoint the locations of the phones through cell towers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...1c5d44e_story.html?postshare=5361433357837407

 

[katydid23]

No that isn't true. There are no take backs on lawfully acquired evidence. if they obtained it through consent, they have it fair and square for trial.

I see what you are saying now. The ability to revoke consent is limited to the time of the search, not afterwards.

 

[kammiemc]

Kicked the door in? Maybe not such an 'inside' job then?

All that means is that the insider didn't escort the captors into the house. Unless it is the insider's boot. But assuming the insider wanted the crime to appear unrelated to an insider and for the family not to see him or her, it was in his or her best interest to make it look like (actually BE) a break in. If I made a deal with DW to hold my boss hostage so we could split the loot, I would definitely say, "Make it look like a break in." i always assumed the house was broken into by the intruders AND an insider was involved in the money part of it.

 

[katydid23]

All that means is that the insider didn't escort the captors into the house. Unless it is the insider's boot. But assuming the insider wanted the crime to appear unrelated to an insider and for the family not to see him or her, it was in his or her best interest to make it look like (actually BE) a break in. If I made a deal with DW to hold my boss hostage so we could split the loot, I would definitely say, "Make it look like a break in." i always assumed the house was broken into by the intruders AND an insider was involved in the money part of it.

So you would figure out details like that and be organized and preplan, yet you would take a selfie with the cash, text it to your girl, and lie about silly details when being interviewed by the detectives? :waitasec:

 

[yepitsme]

Several thoughts:

1. The search warrant goes back several days before the crime. Could be because it was early days and they wanted to err on the side of inclusiveness because they didn't know what they were dealing with.
2. The Secret Service guards the President/VP/families and investigates currency crimes. I assume they were there because of the money.
3. JW did not give them his phone, he showed them his phone. Whatever the persuasive powers of LE, if he had given them his phone it would have said so. This is the information going to the judge. It doesn't mean he is involved but it does mean he was not cooperating completely, at least in the first day or two.

 

[katydid23]

This isn't true. The warrant is to gain access to the information, legally, so it can be introduced at trial, but consent is another way to get the access legally. If consent wasn't sufficient, a warrant wouldn't cure the problem enough to allow evidence gathered before the warrant was obtained to be introduced at trial.

Consent would be sufficient.

To obtain cellphone location records, warrant is needed ...
www.washingtonpost.com/...cellphone...warrant.../a...
The Washington Post
Jun 11, 2014 - “We hold that cell site location information is within the subscriber's ... Cell tower location records were used to place Davis and five others near the ... expectation of privacy, it is our policy to obtain a search warrant,” he said.


I believe that most detectives feel safer obtaining a warrant, JMO.

 

[corundogs]

Several thoughts:

1. The search warrant goes back several days before the crime. Could be because it was early days and they wanted to err on the side of inclusiveness because they didn't know what they were dealing with.
2. The Secret Service guards the President/VP/families and investigates currency crimes. I assume they were there because of the money.
3. JW did not give them his phone, he showed them his phone. Whatever the persuasive powers of LE, if he had given them his phone it would have said so. This is the information going to the judge. It doesn't mean he is involved but it does mean he was not cooperating completely, at least in the first day or two.

How do you know that the detectives asked to keep his phone?

 

[yepitsme]

Cells phones are tools or records. Were they stolen as tools (a means to get additional money?) or as records of what happened. I don't believe they were stolen for their value with all that was in that house. If they were stolen as records it means either they didn't realize the crime would otherwise be reconstructed or because the contacts made are incriminating.