Fire in upper NW?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if they take the 5th and do not cooperate, they can easily be charged with aiding and abetting. So, they essentially have the choice of either cooperating or being charged.

Based on what we know right now, I think it's a stretch to say they can easily be charged with aiding and abetting. First, you would have to prove that they knew DW had committed a crime. For that to be proved, evidence will need to be found demonstrating that, and we don't know whether the police possess any such evidence. Further, if they refuse to cooperate (which is different than taking the 5th), that fact can't be used against them because it's not in and of itself inculpatory.

The guys in the truck had the cash, so that puts charges in play.

Holding cash, whether in a truck or in your pocket, is not in and of itself criminal.

But they were just holding cash. They were holding cash and hiding out and traveling with someone they had to have known was a fugitive who got the cash in a brutal quadruple murder.

You're making an assumption that they "had to have known [he] was a fugitive." OK, please prove that. Now you see the problem.

[Anonymous]

This is when I'd really like to have the ancient practice of "an eye for an eye" back on the books. Karma. Hope this bastard rots in hell, and has a miserable life of being in fear and pain before it's his time to go. And any others that were involved as well. Good riddance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not suggesting that refusing to cooperate would be used against them officially in the charges, but the practical situation is they can cooperate and tell what they know about Daron's actions or they can not cooperate and risk being treated as conspirators.

Truthfully, their odds of being treated as conspirators is not any lower if they cooperate. Cooperation just provides more facts for the prosecution, and that is always a good thing for a prosecution. The most successful criminal defense tactic is to try to limit the admission of evidence and assert that the prosecution hasn't proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

It may be that there is evidence out there (texts, etc.) that will prove their guilt regardless, but the notion that you can talk your way out of charges by "cooperating" if you're involved is naive.

[Anonymous]

Family and friends convincing/helping him turn himself in without being injured or killed maybe? Also, need more info on SS assistant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the charging docs. I don't think they mean the boy was burned alive (at least not purposely). I think the intent was to kill everyone and then douse them all with gasoline and burn them and any evidence. But they were in separate rooms and the fire started in the child' bedroom and then didn't fully ignite the other room. It is clear that the other three were killed by trauma because their bodies were never consumed in flame. The child is unclear at best, but likely also beat (please, god quickly) and dead or nearly so (i.e. unconscious) when fire started.

I'd like to think he was in the other room, his bedroom, in bed out of kindness. They were letting the kid lie down.

Out of kindness? It would be nice to believe that, but I don't. Phillip's cause of death was thermal injuries: BURNS and sharp force injuries: STAB wounds. No kindness involved. It was sick, sadistic behavior. How horrifying for his family to have to know these details.

Yes, this "out of kindness" language is really odd. There is absolutely nothing about the child's experience that suggests the murderers were acting "out of kindness." Sorry reality in this case isn't isn't what you want, OP. Please know that I'm genuinely sorry, not sarcastically sorry. As you probably are, I'm utterly sickened and devastated, knowing what these innocents suffered. To the point where I'm unable to stop crying.

it's a horrible horrible situation, but it's a little odd to be unable to stop crying about this, if it's not your fam/friends

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I keep on thinking DW is Dear Wife....I need a break from this thread.

Same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the affidavit, the bed was set on fire while the child was lying on it and stabbed but alive. He died of burns and lacerations. The mattress was nearly completely consumed and the most damaged item in the room which means someone threw gasoline on it and set it on fire. Probably the reason the child was the last person identified.

Not the PP from this string, but without going back and reading it, I don't believe the affidavit stated that the child was alive. When they describe the cause of death as thermal and blunt trauma, it may be that his remains were too destroyed to narrow the exact cause of death, whereas they could do so with the others. It's certainly possible that he was still alive, but I think we need to wait and see more definitive findings from an autopsy before we rush to judgment on that question either way. Further, being alive is different than being conscious.

In any event, my point is not that killers are anything other than sadistic. However, I do hold out hope that the boy did not experience anything to do with the burning nor know it was coming.

The document was clear. Why are you trying so hard not to understand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:now that he has been caught and arrested along with his brother and several other people, is it reasonable to assume that he had accomplices? I am thinking he and his brothers were the ones actually in the house/who committed the kidnapping, extortion, torture, murder, arson, robbery and then there was someone else (I am guessing one of the women, for no particular reason just a hunch since women are generally seen as less threatening than men) who drove the suspects to the S house or was somehow involved in helping the other suspect(s) (the one(s) who did not take the Porsche) get away from the scene.

Here is what I think happened (no revelations here, just what seems to me to be pretty obvious based on what we know): DW and/or his brother went up to the door Wed afternoon, possibly wearing some type of uniform/disguise--dressed to appear as utility workers or construction workers or delivery men, etc-- Housekeeper (VF) was home w/ Philip. Housekeeper answered the door and they pushed past her into the house, leaving no sign of a forced entry. They quickly subdued/tied up VF and PS, forced VF to call AS and tell her there was some emergency w Philip. AS rushes home in the Porsche (which is why it was reportedly seen speeding Wed afternoon). AS returns, DW subdues her, forces her to call SS and get him home ASAP, he receives call while at dojo in Chantilly, goes home earlier than planned, telling other housekeeper (NG) that AS needs him to watch Philip because AS is going out Wed night. SS returns home and finds AS, PS and VF bound, being threatened, he doesn't attempt to fight off DW/accomplice for fear of them hurting the others if he resists them. The whole ordeal plays out over Wed. night and Thurs morning, with SS desperately and repeatedly attempting to get DW/accomplice what they want ($$, valuables). They use threats/torture of PS, AS, VF to compel/force SS to make all these calls in attempts to get as much $$ as possible together, they also ask him who might be showing up at the house Thurs. who could potentially interrupt/interfere with the $$ drop so that is why SS is allowed/forced to call NG and tell her not to come Thurs. SS tries til the end to get them more and more $$ but he is not able to get more than the 40k delivered and DW/accomplice are upset that they can't get more out of him and possibly feel that they need to wrap the whole thing up and get out of there finally (perhaps having VF's husband come by the house spurs them to get out faster as well) so, being the psychopaths and hateful, worthless people that they are, they murder everyone and set the house on fire. DW drives off in the Porsche, i wonder if he was anticipating that he might get caught even sooner than he did, maybe even that he'd be caught while driving the Porsche and he thought that would be a dramatic way to go out. The accomplice(s) either take off in another vehicle (someone--I'm guessing a woman--picked any accomplice(s) of DW's up in a different car). They all meet back up afterward in MD and go and immediately spend their cash on whatever...drugs, strip club, prostitutes, something not easily traced...the end?

Late on this but I think you've nailed it. They may also have hidden some of the money.

I think this is exactly what happened.

It is doubtful that the murders were committed because the criminals were "upset" about not getting more money. Do you think if SS had gotten $200k delivered that they criminals would have just said, "thanks, we're going to leave now, please don't tell anyone about this"?

The end result (murder) was probably inevitable from the outset, as it was the strategic move that made the most sense for the criminals given that the victims almost certainly knew their faces/voices/build, if not their actual identities. I'm sure that they expected that they would get away with it (and perhaps they would have if not for the mistake when eating the pizza).

I am the poster of the long detailed account above. Yeah, you are right, I think they would have murdered everyone regardless of how much $$ they got. I guess I was thinking of it from the perspective of the S family, thinking maybe, possibly if they raised more $$, their lives might be spared. Like another PP, I just keep thinking about this crime over and over in my head and all the missed opportunities and what ifs...so I guess that was my 'what if they had been able to get more $$ together,' but you are right. Realistically, I'm sure the end result of murder (and even of the fire as a cover up) was inevitable and what the perps planned all along

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the charging docs. I don't think they mean the boy was burned alive (at least not purposely). I think the intent was to kill everyone and then douse them all with gasoline and burn them and any evidence. But they were in separate rooms and the fire started in the child' bedroom and then didn't fully ignite the other room. It is clear that the other three were killed by trauma because their bodies were never consumed in flame. The child is unclear at best, but likely also beat (please, god quickly) and dead or nearly so (i.e. unconscious) when fire started.

I'd like to think he was in the other room, his bedroom, in bed out of kindness. They were letting the kid lie down.

Out of kindness? It would be nice to believe that, but I don't. Phillip's cause of death was thermal injuries: BURNS and sharp force injuries: STAB wounds. No kindness involved. It was sick, sadistic behavior. How horrifying for his family to have to know these details.

Yes, this "out of kindness" language is really odd. There is absolutely nothing about the child's experience that suggests the murderers were acting "out of kindness." Sorry reality in this case isn't isn't what you want, OP. Please know that I'm genuinely sorry, not sarcastically sorry. As you probably are, I'm utterly sickened and devastated, knowing what these innocents suffered. To the point where I'm unable to stop crying.

it's a horrible horrible situation, but it's a little odd to be unable to stop crying about this, if it's not your fam/friends

Agreed. And I've def felt creeped out all week but crying nonstop? No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if they take the 5th and do not cooperate, they can easily be charged with aiding and abetting. So, they essentially have the choice of either cooperating or being charged.

Based on what we know right now, I think it's a stretch to say they can easily be charged with aiding and abetting. First, you would have to prove that they knew DW had committed a crime. For that to be proved, evidence will need to be found demonstrating that, and we don't know whether the police possess any such evidence. Further, if they refuse to cooperate (which is different than taking the 5th), that fact can't be used against them because it's not in and of itself inculpatory.

The guys in the truck had the cash, so that puts charges in play.

Holding cash, whether in a truck or in your pocket, is not in and of itself criminal.

But they were just holding cash. They were holding cash and hiding out and traveling with someone they had to have known was a fugitive who got the cash in a brutal quadruple murder.

You're making an assumption that they "had to have known [he] was a fugitive." OK, please prove that. Now you see the problem.

I said it makes charges in play. It certainly is enough to detain and question them. In the charging documents, one of the women in the car said she was given a stack of cash by one of the men in the truck and went and purchased money orders. There was cash and money orders in both vehicles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep on thinking DW is Dear Wife....I need a break from this thread.

Same.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what are the odds there are still some killers on the loose and in our midst? Have the police given any indication whether people should be on alert?

[Anonymous]

I am depressed over this case. I truly am heartbroken. I can't sleep at night. I wish I didn't listen to the Voicemail. The little boys voice rings in my ear every second.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if they take the 5th and do not cooperate, they can easily be charged with aiding and abetting. So, they essentially have the choice of either cooperating or being charged.

Based on what we know right now, I think it's a stretch to say they can easily be charged with aiding and abetting. First, you would have to prove that they knew DW had committed a crime. For that to be proved, evidence will need to be found demonstrating that, and we don't know whether the police possess any such evidence. Further, if they refuse to cooperate (which is different than taking the 5th), that fact can't be used against them because it's not in and of itself inculpatory.

The guys in the truck had the cash, so that puts charges in play.

Holding cash, whether in a truck or in your pocket, is not in and of itself criminal.

But they were just holding cash. They were holding cash and hiding out and traveling with someone they had to have known was a fugitive who got the cash in a brutal quadruple murder.

You're making an assumption that they "had to have known [he] was a fugitive." OK, please prove that. Now you see the problem.

I said it makes charges in play. It certainly is enough to detain and question them. In the charging documents, one of the women in the car said she was given a stack of cash by one of the men in the truck and went and purchased money orders. There was cash and money orders in both vehicles.

Also I don't think it would be hard to find evidence that they knew he was a fugitive. There are bound to be a flurry of texts and phone calls beginning immediately after the police released his name as a suspect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is when I'd really like to have the ancient practice of "an eye for an eye" back on the books. Karma. Hope this bastard rots in hell, and has a miserable life of being in fear and pain before it's his time to go. And any others that were involved as well. Good riddance.

What, like the Islamic state, and sharia law? No thanks.