Spain Spain - Ana Knezevich, 40, from Florida, going through divorce, missing under suspicious circumstances on trip to Madrid, 5 Feb 2024 *Arrest*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Information about him is primarily coming from MSM sleuthing him or from MSM interviews with Ana's friends, family, their representatives or his attorney. All is fair game for discussion, but we can't automatically treat that information as factual. (IMO)
That's a fair point. But if Telecinco or El País -one of the finest newspapers in the world IMO- reports on something (whether they name their sources or not) I also think it's reasonable to believe it until there is reason to disbelieve.
 
That's a fair point. But if Telecinco or El País -one of the finest newspapers in the world IMO- reports on something (whether they name their sources or not) I also think it's reasonable to believe it until there is reason to disbelieve.
Is there specific information in question? I'm having trouble finding opinions / nonsense posted in MSM.
 
Examples: Information about their properties being sold was dug up by the media. Her family says he's not cooperative, but his lawyer claims he is. Both can't be true.
Both can be true. "Cooperative" has various definitions.

What's been stated is that David has cooperated with authorities by providing information about credit cards at the beginning of the investigation. No further cooperation has been mentioned by David's lawyer.

It has also been stated that David is not cooperating with the family and refusing to help the investigation.

In my opinion, there is much more useful information than just credit cards.

Her family, i.e. victims, has mentioned the selling of properties.
 
Last edited:
Is there specific information in question? I'm having trouble finding opinions / nonsense posted in MSM.
Whene MSM interviews a civilian, they give their take on the situation. That doesn't mean that they (the source) were able to verify the information or that they are unbiased. Defense attorneys often put a spin on it.
 
Both can be true. "Cooperative" has various definitions.

What's been stated is that David has cooperated with authorities by providing information about credit cards at the beginning of the investigation. No further cooperation has been mentioned by David's lawyer.

It has also been stated that David is not cooperating with the family and refusing to help the investigation.

In my opinion, there is much more useful information than just credit cards.

Her family, i.e. victims, has mentioned the selling of properties.
I'd like to hear from the police if he's cooperating. Then I'll believe it.
 
Whene MSM interviews a civilian, they give their take on the situation. That doesn't mean that they (the source) were able to verify the information or that they are unbiased. Defense attorneys often put a spin on it.
It is the job of both lawyers to spin the narrative.

What information has the civilians not verified? And who are the civilians?
 
I'd like to hear from the police if he's cooperating. Then I'll believe it.
The police are maintaining silence as not to affect the investigation. This is common practice.

Also, police are not required to tell the truth to the media.
 
Examples: Information about their properties being sold was dug up by the media. Her family says he's not cooperative, but his lawyer claims he is. Both can't be true.
The police in this country will never (or at least almost never) give a press conference or some such during an ongoing investigation. Detectives aren't going to go on the record.

But it's not just the family; Joaquín Amills is saying it. As I've said before, one of the most respected figures in Spain in this space, running a non-profit. He speaks frequently with the Policía Nacional and has said at various points that, in this case, "contact with the husband is zero."

Does his word weigh more than the husband's lawyer? No. But why would would he lie about this? To what end? Unlike Mr. Padowitz (I assume), Joaquín Amills receives no financial recompense. Moreover, if this were a lie, it would be very simple for it to be refuted if the husband were indeed in contact with the Policía Nacional. JMO
 
It is the job of both lawyers to spin the narrative.

What information has the civilians not verified? And who are the civilians?
Anyone not in an official capacity, e.g. family, friends or witnesses. As opposed to the investigative authorities that actually have the information.
 
Her best friend SR was interviewed for Serbian media. Ana's husband told her that he was in contact with Ana on the day she disappeared. They were still on speaking terms. When he talked to Ana's friend, he was in Florida, but later left for Serbia. According to the friend, there was no history of domestic violence in the marriage.

Yea but David's lawyer says David was in Serbia the entire time.
 
According to Ana's brother, her husband first traveled to Serbia on Jan 17, but must have returned to Florida, since on Jan 25 he reported a theft of gear worth $6k from his Mercedes. On that day he met with police. When the brother contacted the husband on Feb 6, the latter only replied that Ana was missing. The police went to the couple's Florida home on Feb 7. Nobody was home and Amazon packages were piled outside.

David's lawyer said David was in Serbia at the time. So how could he have met with police if he was in Serbia?
 
From what I'm reading here, it sounds like the husband left the U.S. and travelled to Serbia after the news of Ana's disappearance. So if he is involved it appears that his involvement is from a distance. It sounds like there is no evidence he was travelling before Ana disappeared, so it is unlikely that he was in Madrid when Ana went missing.
David's lawyer says David was in Serbia before she went missing.

 
David's lawyer says David was in Serbia before she went missing.

The post that you quoted from me was posted before the article you are referring to regarding DK's lawyer's statement that was referred to in MSM on February 20th.

My post that you are quoting was posted on February 17th based on the information that we had at that time.
 
As a reminder,

Members may sleuth victims and suspects/POIs in a case. Sleuthing anyone who has not been officially designated by law enforcement or in mainstream media as a Person of Interest or suspect is not allowed. (I have read the Spanish articles and do not see where anyone has officially been declared as such.)

If you have a question about a particular rule here at WS, report any post to ask us rather than discussing it on the thread.

Don’t be rude to one another.
 
Missing poster - linked upthread
 

Attachments

  • 1710898985450.png
    1710898985450.png
    49.9 KB · Views: 7
  • 1710899129027.png
    1710899129027.png
    308.7 KB · Views: 6

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
125
Guests online
207
Total visitors
332

Forum statistics

Threads
609,019
Messages
18,248,555
Members
234,523
Latest member
MN-Girl
Back
Top