DC - Savvas Savopoulos, family & Veralicia Figueroa murdered; Daron Wint Arrested #17

[SeesSeas]

ETA: The witness may be innocent of the crime being discussed, but they are not innocent of lying to LE. Depending on the crime, the lying may be more or less serious than the crime s/he is at the PD to discuss. Also, AFAI can tell, the video focused on people who were suspects in a crime, not people who were there as "witnesses", not suspected of any crime.

I recall there were examples of 'witnesses' who turned into being 'suspects' based on what they said when they TALKED TO THE POLICE. But I'm not inclined to watch the entire video again right now to find those parts.

It IS a great video. Glad you enjoyed it!

 

[TexMex]

I recall there were examples of 'witnesses' who turned into being 'suspects' based on what they said when they TALKED TO THE POLICE. But I'm not inclined to watch the entire video again right now to find those parts.

It IS a great video. Glad you enjoyed it!

IIRC they showed this stat

Astonishingly, more than 1 out of 4 people wrongfully convicted but later exonerated by DNA evidence made a false confession or incriminating statement.

See more at: http://www.innocenceproject.org/cau...onfessions-or-admissions#sthash.8twDOv4p.dpuf

 

[al66pine]

Many posts analyzed JW's 'noted' 3 points, w some implicitly assuming JW's V.2 was truthful & accurate. Do we know that? Has LE concluded that and if so based on what? Does LE know who is telling the truth and if so, how?

Hypo, in which I/we azz-ume the following chronology, for sake of discussion.
- First, LE interviewed acct'ant before JW.
- AIW acct'ant gave Version.A, on the 3 points, different info from what JW later gave.
- Second, LE secured some e-trail w pix of currency in red bag, some texts, incoming & outgoing cell calls, VMs, BoA surv cam, etc. Maybe other forensics.
I'm trying to find neutral language to summarize JW's interview. How's this?
- Third, JW gave V.1 re the 3 points. After those 3 points, LE re-posed questions, showed $-pix, likely showed or told him info from other sources, likely acct'ant, then -
- JW gave V.2 re the 3 points.
Pls. ATM, let's disregard whether V.1 & V.2 differences were inadvertent misstatements or deliberate lies on JW's part.

Discussion
1. Does LE know acct'ant's Version.A of the 3 points is true and if so, how?
2. Does LE know acct'ant's V.A of other points/info is true and if so, how?

^My thought, jmo: LE wd know only if corroborated, w better/best corrob being e-trail or other forensics.
Other poss corrob =
-interviews w BoA emp's re actions they witnessed, but not inc. all 3 pts, b/c cd/not hv/seen.
-interviews w AIW emps re actions they witnessed.
What if ^ AIW emps participated in scheme to secure $$$ or kill S fam? Then not reliable as corrob.

3. Does LE know JW's V.1 of the 3 points is false &/or inaccurate & if so, how? What if acct'ant lied? Could V.1 be true?
4. Does LE know JW's V.2 re other info is true or false and if so, how?

^My thought, jmo: same as ^. LE wd know only if corroborated, w better/best corrob being e-trail or other forensics.
Other poss corrob = same as ^

Has JW's V.2 re 3 points bn corroborated by e-trail or other forensics? By acct'ant stmts? Until LE reveals something to this effect, who knows if V.2 is accurate. Could be accurate, IDK. Does LE know who is telling the truth and if so, how?

Hoping others will respond & post their opinions on these ^questions. Thx in adv.

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

Yes, that is what could have happened. But I don't believe that is what happened. I think LE mischaracterized JW's statements.

I agree. I think LE focused on him initially, because of the money transport. I don't think simply delivering money by itself would give them sufficient probable cause to get a warrant for the car... to seize and search private property, they need a reason to believe that they will find incriminating evidence. I think that, in order to show probable cause, LE interpreted his statements and errors in his narrative in the worst possible light. I don't think LE lied, per se, just presented an incriminating view of his statements so that they could get a search warrant.

Sent from my KFJWI using Tapatalk

 

[Skigirl]

I agree. I think LE focused on him initially, because of the money transport. I don't think simply delivering money by itself would give them sufficient probable cause to get a warrant for the car... to seize and search private property, they need a reason to believe that they will find incriminating evidence. I think that, in order to show probable cause, LE interpreted his statements and errors in his narrative in the worst possible light. I don't think LE lied, per se, just presented an incriminating view of his statements so that they could get a search warrant.

Sent from my KFJWI using Tapatalk

This makes sense if you assume they thought the car was worth searching, but if all he did was take a manilla envelope with money in it and put it in the SS house, why would they have been interested in searching his car? It doesn't seem they did more than a cursory search of even the Savopoulos' other vehicles nor does it seem they tried to search anything belonging to NG, even though she was there at the dojo the night of the crime.

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

This makes sense if you assume they thought the car was worth searching, but if all he did was take a manilla envelope with money in it and put it in the SS house, why would they have been interested in searching his car? It doesn't seem they did more than a cursory search of even the Savopoulos' other vehicles nor does it seem they tried to search anything belonging to NG, even though she was there at the dojo the night of the crime.

They had someone who was directly involved in the sequence of events that eventually ended in the murders. NG was not, she was just at the dojo, I'm sure along with others. No reason to search her vehicle. The S vehicles were towed away for searches, so I'm sure that was more than just cursory.

At the beginning of the investigation, before the DNA and DW, JW certainly would have been a focus because of the money delivery, and LE would have wanted to rule him in or out. Best way to do that is to investigate him, including a search of his vehicle.

Sent from my KFJWI using Tapatalk

 

[BellaVita]

I think JW "made a mistake about when It was first told to get the package". I think that with busy lives, numerous texts, emails, calls from friends, family, racers, etc. the SS message to pick up the package wasn't accurate in his memory as to that timing.

I still don't understand being so inaccurate about this recollection. Receiving a text on Wednesday evening is way different than getting a phone call on Thursday morning. A person should be able to recall that info. As an employee getting that text on Wednesday evening, I'd be making mental notes to myself about possibly having to re-arrange my schedule, setting my alarm clock for a different time, personal activities, etc. due to the unexpected request of my employer. I'd get up on Thursday morning knowing that I'd be handling the task requested of me the previous evening. Now, if police questioned me weeks or months later, I'd have to consult my phone records. But not if questioned a day later. Was there also a call from SS to JW on Thursday morning? Possibly. In both accounts, he was instructed to meet the accountant in Hyattsville.

From that point, I think the remaining events were confusing with the cash and the car. The supposed 'innocent' participants (JW, accountant, assistant, banker, and who knows who else) could have even changed their plans, which would have made recalling it all even more confusing.

Who is the assistant? I don't believe there is any such person in the affidavit. Maybe I missed it? The instructions to JW were consistent in both versions of his story: meet the accountant in Hyattsville. There didn't seem to be confusion on this point.

Just an idea of what 'could' have happened... the accountant could have told his assistant to tell JW to meet at the bank to pick up the package; then he/she contacted JW a bit later and requested that JW instead meet the accountant at the office

.

Again, no reference to an assistant that I can see. There is a lot of unfounded speculation here. The details are in the search warrant. None of the above happened. Text from SS told JW to meet accountant at the office in Hyattsville. That was Wednesday night. In JW's 1st story, he said he first got those instructions on Thursday morning.

At the office, the accountant could have pulled the cash from his pockets and handed the cash to JW; then the accountant decided it would be better to have the cash in a manila envelope, so the accountant grabbed a manila envelope from his desk drawer. JW or the accountant puts the cash in the envelope and JW leaves the office with the manila envelope filled with cash. Then the accountant quickly remembers that he has a handy bank bag in his drawer and thought that would be a better way to transport the cash, so he hurries down the office hall to give JW the bank bag, so the cash was again moved. DUNNO!

Again, nothing like that happened. It's in the warrant. It's very clear cut. JW met the accountant at the office and they each drove to BOA. JW did not receive the money at an office. There was no grabbing of a manila envelope by the accountant. Nor quickly remembering a handy bank bag. No hurrying down the office hall. JW received the money at the bank and then drove to the S home. It is other details clearly outlined in the warrant that do not match up.

JW describing these events could have been misconstrued by LE as lies. It could be that his explanations were indeed inconsistent because everything was confusing and kept changing. AND, he could have even said the words "I lied", but meant “my bad” and "I explained that wrong. Let me explain again as I try to recall ALL the details."

Some were characterized as lies by the police. The inconsistency regarding the day of the text was characterized as a mistake by JW. An odd mistake to make, IMO. I don't believe things were all that confusing. It seemed rather straightforward to me.

 

[Skigirl]

I wonder what search warrants haven't been unsealed yet. Have we even seen a search warrant for SS and AS' cell and landline phone records? Don't they just cover finding AS and SS's actual, physical phones plus pings showing where they are located? Not VMs or call records?

I don't think we've seen SWs for JWs or DW's phone/text records. I have trouble believing that they didn't get a SW for DW's and JW's phones. Am I misremembering the SWs?

 

[popsicle]

This makes sense if you assume they thought the car was worth searching, but if all he did was take a manilla envelope with money in it and put it in the SS house, why would they have been interested in searching his car? It doesn't seem they did more than a cursory search of even the Savopoulos' other vehicles nor does it seem they tried to search anything belonging to NG, even though she was there at the dojo the night of the crime.

BBM They did more than that. They towed them away when they did their search so I imagine it was thorough and complete.

 

[BellaVita]

I wonder what search warrants haven't been unsealed yet. Have we even seen a search warrant for SS and AS' cell and landline phone records? Don't they just cover finding AS and SS's actual, physical phones plus pings showing where they are located? Not VMs or call records?

I don't think we've seen SWs for JWs or DW's phone/text records. I have trouble believing that they didn't get a SW for DW's and JW's phones. Am I misremembering the SWs?

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...ch-warrants-cell-phone-records-306025611.html

 

[Skigirl]

BBM They did more than that. They towed them away when they did their search so I imagine it was thorough and complete.

Did they tow all of the vehicles away, or just some of them? Do we know which ones if not all?

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

I wonder what search warrants haven't been unsealed yet. Have we even seen a search warrant for SS and AS' cell and landline phone records? Don't they just cover finding AS and SS's actual, physical phones plus pings showing where they are located? Not VMs or call records?

I don't think we've seen SWs for JWs or DW's phone/text records. I have trouble believing that they didn't get a SW for DW's and JW's phones. Am I misremembering the SWs?

There's a lot that hasn't been released.

Sent from my KFJWI using Tapatalk

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

Did they tow all of the vehicles away, or just some of them? Do we know which ones if not all?

IIRC, all of them.

Sent from my KFJWI using Tapatalk

 

[SeesSeas]

This makes sense if you assume they thought the car was worth searching, but if all he did was take a manilla envelope with money in it and put it in the SS house, why would they have been interested in searching his car? It doesn't seem they did more than a cursory search of even the Savopoulos' other vehicles nor does it seem they tried to search anything belonging to NG, even though she was there at the dojo the night of the crime.

But it wasn't as simple as "all he did was take a manilla envelope with money in it". It wasn't just 'any' money. LE suspected it was ransom money, or in some way related to the murders at the house. The house is the primary crime scene. JW's car would also be considered a crime scene because JW apparently told LE that he transported the 'manila envelope with money in it' in his car. The car is then a crime scene, but that doesn't mean the driver of the car is a criminal. Obvious next step is that LE wants to search all crime scenes. JW's car is a crime scene.

 

[facundo]

That makes me even more curious where his previous attorney got the "wait until you hear who else was there" line of defense.

Hanover picked up on comments previously made by Ficker. IMO Wint wasn't telling Hanover anything. For example one of Hanover's first public remarks was about Wint being set up. On May 21, Ficker said that he was set up and then inferred that other employees at AIW were involved. Neither attorney's remarks actually quoted Wint.

http://www.people.com/article/dc-mansion-murders-who-is-daron-dylon-wint
http://abcnews.go.com/US/dc-mansion-murder-suspect-daron-wint-thinks-set/story?id=31825943

 

[SeesSeas]

I still don't understand being so inaccurate about this recollection. Receiving a text on Wednesday evening is way different than getting a phone call on Thursday morning. A person should be able to recall that info. As an employee getting that text on Wednesday evening, I'd be making mental notes to myself about possibly having to re-arrange my schedule, setting my alarm clock for a different time, personal activities, etc. due to the unexpected request of my employer. I'd get up on Thursday morning knowing that I'd be handling the task requested of me the previous evening. Now, if police questioned me weeks or months later, I'd have to consult my phone records. But not if questioned a day later. Was there also a call from SS to JW on Thursday morning? Possibly. In both accounts, he was instructed to meet the accountant in Hyattsville.



Who is the assistant? I don't believe there is any such person in the affidavit. Maybe I missed it? The instructions to JW were consistent in both versions of his story: meet the accountant in Hyattsville. There didn't seem to be confusion on this point.

.

Again, no reference to an assistant that I can see. There is a lot of unfounded speculation here. The details are in the search warrant. None of the above happened. Text from SS told JW to meet accountant at the office in Hyattsville. That was Wednesday night. In JW's 1st story, he said he first got those instructions on Thursday morning.




Again, nothing like that happened. It's in the warrant. It's very clear cut. JW met the accountant at the office and they each drove to BOA. JW did not receive the money at an office. There was no grabbing of a manila envelope by the accountant. Nor quickly remembering a handy bank bag. No hurrying down the office hall. JW received the money at the bank and then drove to the S home. It is other details clearly outlined in the warrant that do not match up.




Some were characterized as lies by the police. The inconsistency regarding the day of the text was characterized as a mistake by JW. An odd mistake to make, IMO. I don't believe things were all that confusing. It seemed rather straightforward to me.

We don't know if there were other players or other actions not mentioned in the affidavit.
I was providing an idea of what 'could' have happened which is what I stated in my post.
I don't know what happened. You don't know what happened.
None of us on WS (to my knowledge) know what happened.
We read the words LE put in the affidavit, but there isn't 100% certainty that what LE wrote is what actually happened.

As this investigation unfolds, I think we will all be very surprised at new details and corrected details.

Like you, within a mere day, I would have probably remembered most of my actions regarding this event. But JW, along with countless other functioning adults, might not have a keen memory. Or, maybe he made some errors in recollection, like we all do. I am not perfect.

 

[facundo]

Did they tow all of the vehicles away, or just some of them? Do we know which ones if not all?

Range Rover, Land Rover and Audi
http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/29185043/exclusive-police-tow-vehicles-dc-quadruple-murder.

Later, when fence was installed, family cars were driven away from the house. (No detail on exact cars.)
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2015/0...ice-continue-murder-investigation-114545.html

 

[SeesSeas]

<modsnip>

IIRC, LE wrote that they 'recovered' JW's car. I presume they used the word 'recovered' because they considered JW's car part of the crime scene (because the car transported the alleged 'ransom' cash). Whether he agreed to a search of his car, or not, I think LE would have gotten a SW regardless - just to be sure there ducks were all in a row, rather than having something later tossed as inadmissable in court if they failed to follow constitutional procedure.

I'll repeat what I wrote on a previous post:
LE suspected it was ransom money, or in some way related to the murders at the house. The house is the primary crime scene. JW's car would also be considered a crime scene because JW apparently told LE that he transported the 'manila envelope with money in it' in his car. The car is then a crime scene, but that doesn't mean the driver of the car is a criminal. Obvious next step is that LE wants to search all crime scenes. JW's car is a crime scene.

 

[BellaVita]

We don't know if there were other players or other actions not mentioned in the affidavit.
I was providing an idea of what 'could' have happened which is what I stated in my post.

Of course there are other people questioned who are not in this particular affidavit. However, the accountant and JW are surely primary in regard to that particular Wednesday/Thursday events as I don't recall anybody else except JW girlfriend being mentioned in any other warrants/affidavits including those issued for DW. They are most relevant by far, IMO. I know you were providing an "idea" of what "could" have happened but IMO, that speculation is not necessary because the BMW warrant and all subsequent warrants issued, even those weeks later, still lay out the same narrative as the original. JW met accountant at office, both traveled to BOA, JW delivered money to SS. That narrative has not changed so IMO, we DO know something. If original warrant was materially incorrect, later ones would have mentioned something to the effect of "in light of the new information learned".

I don't know what happened. You don't know what happened.
None of us on WS (to my knowledge) know what happened.
We read the words LE put in the affidavit, but there isn't 100% certainty that what LE wrote is what actually happened.

If you believe the 2nd story of JW, then you at least think you know what happened. At least as to those particular details. LE writes the warrant as so-and-so stated for those points which can't be proven factually. Police can sometimes be imprecise but the warrant has to be filed in good faith that the details stated within are substantially true or thought to be true. It's not just a document filled with make-believe about what LE think MAY have happened. The biggest uncertainty about the warrant is whether what witness JW "stated" is true or not.

As this investigation unfolds, I think we will all be very surprised at new details and corrected details.

Like you, within a mere day, I would have probably remembered most of my actions regarding this event. But JW, along with countless other functioning adults, might not have a keen memory. Or, maybe he made some errors in recollection, like we all do. I am not perfect.

BBM: Agree

 

[Skigirl]

Range Rover, Land Rover and Audi
http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/29185043/exclusive-police-tow-vehicles-dc-quadruple-murder.

Later, when fence was installed, family cars were driven away from the house. (No detail on exact cars.)
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2015/0...ice-continue-murder-investigation-114545.html

Interesting that that didn't include the Mosler.