Fire in upper NW?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Couldn't they charge the hostage holding as kidnapping, which is a federal crime. With murder associated with the kidnapping, that would make the lowlife eligible for the death penalty.

I believe the federal kidnapping statute requires a victim to be transported across state lines. There is also a Hostage Taking statute, but it has other potentially problematic requirements that might not be met here.

In any event, the fact that a state/district doesn't have the death penalty in its criminal statute is not a reason to strain to find a federal charge. If they people of the District wanted to the death penalty for heinous murder, they could have the DC Council legislate that.

There is a Federal Death penalty for Murder that combines either Arson, Murder of a Child, or Kidnapping. The interstate nexus is clear.

The feds could in theory step in, take him from DC's jurisdiction, and fry him if they chose, as they did with Timothy McVeigh and will with the Marathon Bomber.

Will they? Normally I would say no. But the crime was so heinous, I would bet he gets indicted by both DC and the feds, as VA and MD did with the DC Snipers, so if an error is made that gets him clear, the second separate trial will be in train. Having a Federal death penalty case lined up behind DC's is certainly an incentive to cooperate.

Great info/point!

[Anonymous]

If the Steele Detective Agency is ever hiring, sign me up. Jeff Steele's posts are really calm, reasonable, and convincing. A few thoughts:

1. I won't speak to whether DW's companions should or will be charged with something at this point. However, on the issue of whether DW could plausibly make the case to that he was "on his way to turn himself in," a thought: DW had asked one or more of the women sharing the car with him to use the cash to buy money orders AFTER he returned to DC. To me, this would suggest (and it's a fair inference to argue to a jury) that a man who is trying to convert/hide his ill-gotten cash after returning to DC is not one who is planning in the near future to turn himself in.

2. Why the money orders? I am assuming it was to try to get rid of cash that DW feared could tie him even more closely to the killing. He may have feared that the serial numbers had been noted by the bank, for example.

3. On the assistant -- this responds to the person who thinks perhaps s/he was a "Mastermind." There's no evidence yet tying him to DW, but there IS evidence tying DW to the S family through former employment. Moreover, the assistant contacted the police about the cash payment, it appears from documents -- s/he came forward. Finally, I can see a couple possibilities for the factual errors in the accounts from the assistant to the police:

a. The assistant deliberately lied. NOT because s/he was connected with the murder, but because s/he was (i) embarrassed and appalled about not realizing that extortion was going on, and changing the timeline to Thursday morning would raise fewer questions about whether the assistant could have changed the outcome by contacting the authorities. Similarly, I could imagine that the assistant deliberately told a false story because of being very embarrassed about texting a photo of the cash to a friend -- there s/he was having fun with the wads of cash and not thinking about potentially bad scenarios.

b. The assistant did NOT intentionally mislead police, but was shocked and upset and mixed up details. The police have said that Mr. S. did call the assistant multiple times on Thursday morning, and perhaps the assistant was focusing on those phone calls with final instructions rather than the initial text.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fox5DC on internet dropped hints about the Assistant.I wonder if he was a mastermind of some sort.

Please clarify your post or provide the link

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/29135187/daron-wint-court

The assistant told two very different versions of how he picked up and then dropped off the money. He only changed his story when confronted by police with text messages that contradicted his first version.

What was the assistant's motive for not telling the truth to the police the first time??

No one will believe me but... The husband once told me he was spending a year in the carribean to avoid certain tax issues. My guess is either a) the assistant was accustomed to some cash dealings and spoke before he knew of the murder, b) the assistant assumed hed be fired if he told the truth

on b) theory, fired if he told the truth? to the police? after they were murdered? huh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What happens now with the two daughters? Where will they live, who will take care of them, how will their school be paid? I believe there are relatives in Florida, perhaps they'd move down there? Just so heartbreaking for them. I pray they'll be able to move onward and get the help they need, emotionally, spiritually, monetarily. I couldn't imagine being in their shoes. Those poor girls.

.


Their lives are destroyed. They will never ever recover from this. Even if they are shielded somehow from the worst details of what happened to their family they will find out one day. I wish with all my heart those scumbags had been aborted, hit by a car, whatever.

You are wrong. Read the recent interview with Irma Goff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I served as a juror on a federal drug case here in DC. Repeat offender sold crack within 1000 feet of a school. Prior record. Eye witnesses. No question he was guilty. We could not get unanimous vote...one woman stated..."he has seen my coat".
Hung jury. No amount of convincing would sway her. We pleaded for hours. Hope they move this trial.

Did you tell the judge? The "he has seen my coat" quote in the context you're describing should be grounds for removal.

This is one of those circumstances when they should call the Baltimore cops for a little outsourcing job, namely to take the defendant on a rough ride.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fox5DC on internet dropped hints about the Assistant.I wonder if he was a mastermind of some sort.

Please clarify your post or provide the link

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/29135187/daron-wint-court

The assistant told two very different versions of how he picked up and then dropped off the money. He only changed his story when confronted by police with text messages that contradicted his first version.

What was the assistant's motive for not telling the truth to the police the first time??

No one will believe me but... The husband once told me he was spending a year in the carribean to avoid certain tax issues. My guess is either a) the assistant was accustomed to some cash dealings and spoke before he knew of the murder, b) the assistant assumed hed be fired if he told the truth

woa

[Anonymous]

Just checking in and catching up. So SS assistant was a female?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Couldn't they charge the hostage holding as kidnapping, which is a federal crime. With murder associated with the kidnapping, that would make the lowlife eligible for the death penalty.

I believe the federal kidnapping statute requires a victim to be transported across state lines. There is also a Hostage Taking statute, but it has other potentially problematic requirements that might not be met here.

In any event, the fact that a state/district doesn't have the death penalty in its criminal statute is not a reason to strain to find a federal charge. If they people of the District wanted to the death penalty for heinous murder, they could have the DC Council legislate that.

That was true in Massachusetts also, but it didn't stop the feds from seeking the death penalty, which the jury imposed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Couldn't they charge the hostage holding as kidnapping, which is a federal crime. With murder associated with the kidnapping, that would make the lowlife eligible for the death penalty.

I believe the federal kidnapping statute requires a victim to be transported across state lines. There is also a Hostage Taking statute, but it has other potentially problematic requirements that might not be met here.

In any event, the fact that a state/district doesn't have the death penalty in its criminal statute is not a reason to strain to find a federal charge. If they people of the District wanted to the death penalty for heinous murder, they could have the DC Council legislate that.

There is a Federal Death penalty for Murder that combines either Arson, Murder of a Child, or Kidnapping. The interstate nexus is clear.

The feds could in theory step in, take him from DC's jurisdiction, and fry him if they chose, as they did with Timothy McVeigh and will with the Marathon Bomber.

Will they? Normally I would say no. But the crime was so heinous, I would bet he gets indicted by both DC and the feds, as VA and MD did with the DC Snipers, so if an error is made that gets him clear, the second separate trial will be in train. Having a Federal death penalty case lined up behind DC's is certainly an incentive to cooperate.

I forget all the details of some of these cases now, but with the DC Snipers, they committed separate murders in separate states. There's no double jeopardy issue trying them multiple times because their separate events. I'm forgetting my double jeopardy rules now, but in this case wouldn't it apply (at least to the extent you're trying murder under a federal statute)?

Also, for TM and the BBs, weren't there terrorism statutes involved (or other types of statutes that wouldn't apply here)?

I hadn't thought about the fact that the ransom came from MD, so that would provide an interstate nexus.

I agree that given how heinous it was there will be greater chance of a federal case of they can find a basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just checking in and catching up. So SS assistant was a female?

One article I read consistently uses "he."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just checking in and catching up. So SS assistant was a female?

I don't think we know for sure (the affidavit says "W-1" or "Witness 1") but news articles have been saying "he."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the Steele Detective Agency is ever hiring, sign me up. Jeff Steele's posts are really calm, reasonable, and convincing. A few thoughts:

1. I won't speak to whether DW's companions should or will be charged with something at this point. However, on the issue of whether DW could plausibly make the case to that he was "on his way to turn himself in," a thought: DW had asked one or more of the women sharing the car with him to use the cash to buy money orders AFTER he returned to DC. To me, this would suggest (and it's a fair inference to argue to a jury) that a man who is trying to convert/hide his ill-gotten cash after returning to DC is not one who is planning in the near future to turn himself in.

2. Why the money orders? I am assuming it was to try to get rid of cash that DW feared could tie him even more closely to the killing. He may have feared that the serial numbers had been noted by the bank, for example.

3. On the assistant -- this responds to the person who thinks perhaps s/he was a "Mastermind." There's no evidence yet tying him to DW, but there IS evidence tying DW to the S family through former employment. Moreover, the assistant contacted the police about the cash payment, it appears from documents -- s/he came forward. Finally, I can see a couple possibilities for the factual errors in the accounts from the assistant to the police:

a. The assistant deliberately lied. NOT because s/he was connected with the murder, but because s/he was (i) embarrassed and appalled about not realizing that extortion was going on, and changing the timeline to Thursday morning would raise fewer questions about whether the assistant could have changed the outcome by contacting the authorities. Similarly, I could imagine that the assistant deliberately told a false story because of being very embarrassed about texting a photo of the cash to a friend -- there s/he was having fun with the wads of cash and not thinking about potentially bad scenarios.

b. The assistant did NOT intentionally mislead police, but was shocked and upset and mixed up details. The police have said that Mr. S. did call the assistant multiple times on Thursday morning, and perhaps the assistant was focusing on those phone calls with final instructions rather than the initial text.[/quote

Makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Wonder what the odds are that the NY girlfriend turned him in? Seems fairly obvious he called her that he was coming up for a 'visit' on a burner phone, and that's how they tracked him. Her heads up, or already had a warrant on her phone? Seems like they knew exactly where he was plus or minus 15 minutes since the now unsealed warrant was issued....cannot think of how that's possible unless he made a call and the phone was instantly tagged. But if that's right, why take the 4 hour risk and not try to pick him up on the trip back to DC?

Happy to have DW share a cell with Snowden, but given all the real time capabilities that are now disclosed, and don't get me wrong, the casework was genius, but once they had the name, and the circle of friends, why did it take so long to pick him up? They had to be tracking a burner phone for 24 hours before they picked him up.

And after his name was publicly released, in the context of the above, how could he be so dumb to hand with family, or them with him?

He just seems way to stupid and way to impulsive to do an 18 hour heist in a high risk environment. Cannot see the partners as braniacs either, but they aren't caught and he is.

In the death penalty debate, people talk about the cost, morality, possibility of error, but I have never heard a discussion of its power in terms of willingness to cooperate. It would be useful here......especially if the evidence was so clear you could carry it out in 90 days....absent a deal to tell all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Couldn't they charge the hostage holding as kidnapping, which is a federal crime. With murder associated with the kidnapping, that would make the lowlife eligible for the death penalty.

I believe the federal kidnapping statute requires a victim to be transported across state lines. There is also a Hostage Taking statute, but it has other potentially problematic requirements that might not be met here.

In any event, the fact that a state/district doesn't have the death penalty in its criminal statute is not a reason to strain to find a federal charge. If they people of the District wanted to the death penalty for heinous murder, they could have the DC Council legislate that.

There is a Federal Death penalty for Murder that combines either Arson, Murder of a Child, or Kidnapping. The interstate nexus is clear.

The feds could in theory step in, take him from DC's jurisdiction, and fry him if they chose, as they did with Timothy McVeigh and will with the Marathon Bomber.

Will they? Normally I would say no. But the crime was so heinous, I would bet he gets indicted by both DC and the feds, as VA and MD did with the DC Snipers, so if an error is made that gets him clear, the second separate trial will be in train. Having a Federal death penalty case lined up behind DC's is certainly an incentive to cooperate.

Great info/point!

Easy.....Murder plus two Arsons...one in MD one in DC making it interstate, toss in hostage taking and murder of a child, and he is 100% eligible for a federal execution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just checking in and catching up. So SS assistant was a female?

One article I read consistently uses "he."

I assumed it was a "he" until I read this article stating "she"?

According to Washington Post, Savopoulos’ personal assistant delivered a package with 40,000 dollars in cash to her employer’s home on May 14. A few hours later, the house had caught on fire and the four victims had already been killed.


This information further complicates the case that has upset both the United States and Greece. It is still unclear whether the assistant made contact with the assailant, who was at the house at the moment of her arrival. - See more at: http://usa.greekreporter.com/2015/05/21/police-have-a-suspect-in-savvopoulos-family-murder-case/#sthash.0DYpl7Nq.dpuf