Fire in upper NW?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying this may make some here very angry, but a decent defense attorney will shred that blood on the shoes evidence. Although I'd be very surprised if along with the pizza crust that's all they have tying him to the crime scene.

not trying to be argumentative but what would the DA say to 'shred' the blood on shoes evidence? that to me (non-lawyer or police person here) seems like pretty solid evidence?

I've been away from this type stuff for years but I would think they're going to have a field day creating doubt that he was wearing those shoes that evening (and not someone else) since there are no eyewitnesses.

No jury will buy that.

I would hope you are right, but it just takes one, you know. that is just one way to attack--there could be chain of custody issues--technicalities that might seem trivial to you--but judges rule on the admissibility of evidence, not jurors.

So the alternate scenario you'd pose as a defense attorney is that someone else wore those shoes during the period the victims were held hostage and myrdered, then Wint came into possession of those shoes after the fact? Highly implausible. You can concoct an alternate story for anything, but it has to be plausible to create reasonable doubt. As far as I can tell, the only way the blood DNA evidence on the shoes Wint was wearing at the time of the arrest would be weak is if the profile is a partial or is an mtDNA match to the victim, thus having a low enough statistic that one could argue convincingly enough that it is someone else's blood (that is, not one of the victims in this case).

Chain of custody is a completely separate issue, and I imagine it's what defense attorneys frequently try to attack when the DNA evidence itself is strong. But a defense attorney *trying* to have the evidence ruled inadmissible on chain of custody issues is FAR from "shredding" the blood evidence.

Thank-you for your legal expertise. This is comforting to read!

Unfortunately, I have zero legal expertise! Just some forensic DNA expertise, as a scientist who works in this field. I don't work on criminal cases, though, which is why I asked a question (not the one quoted above) of the poster who stated a defense attorney would "shred" the DNA evidence. I'm truly curious as to whether there is something I'm not thinking of here.

Well, I am the one who used the shred language--perhaps a little strong! But not to belittle your expertise-you're not a lawyer. I wasn't referring to the blood on its own. (although that could fail) but more the shoes. I stand by the statement that the shoe evidence will be vigorously and possibly successfully thrown out depending on prosecutions's ability to show they were on DW's feet at the time of the crime. This is silly to argue in a vacuum I think though, as they probably have mounds of other evidence!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying this may make some here very angry, but a decent defense attorney will shred that blood on the shoes evidence. Although I'd be very surprised if along with the pizza crust that's all they have tying him to the crime scene.

not trying to be argumentative but what would the DA say to 'shred' the blood on shoes evidence? that to me (non-lawyer or police person here) seems like pretty solid evidence?

I've been away from this type stuff for years but I would think they're going to have a field day creating doubt that he was wearing those shoes that evening (and not someone else) since there are no eyewitnesses.

No jury will buy that.

I would hope you are right, but it just takes one, you know. that is just one way to attack--there could be chain of custody issues--technicalities that might seem trivial to you--but judges rule on the admissibility of evidence, not jurors.

So the alternate scenario you'd pose as a defense attorney is that someone else wore those shoes during the period the victims were held hostage and myrdered, then Wint came into possession of those shoes after the fact? Highly implausible. You can concoct an alternate story for anything, but it has to be plausible to create reasonable doubt. As far as I can tell, the only way the blood DNA evidence on the shoes Wint was wearing at the time of the arrest would be weak is if the profile is a partial or is an mtDNA match to the victim, thus having a low enough statistic that one could argue convincingly enough that it is someone else's blood (that is, not one of the victims in this case).

Chain of custody is a completely separate issue, and I imagine it's what defense attorneys frequently try to attack when the DNA evidence itself is strong. But a defense attorney *trying* to have the evidence ruled inadmissible on chain of custody issues is FAR from "shredding" the blood evidence.

Thank-you for your legal expertise. This is comforting to read!

Unfortunately, I have zero legal expertise! Just some forensic DNA expertise, as a scientist who works in this field. I don't work on criminal cases, though, which is why I asked a question (not the one quoted above) of the poster who stated a defense attorney would "shred" the DNA evidence. I'm truly curious as to whether there is something I'm not thinking of here.

Well, I am the one who used the shred language--perhaps a little strong! But not to belittle your expertise-you're not a lawyer. I wasn't referring to the blood on its own. (although that could fail) but more the shoes. I stand by the statement that the shoe evidence will be vigorously and possibly successfully thrown out depending on prosecutions's ability to show they were on DW's feet at the time of the crime. This is silly to argue in a vacuum I think though, as they probably have mounds of other evidence!

The shoes he was wearing can be supported by the enhanced video of him running behind La Fontaine Bleue Catering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else see this? Was it reported in local papers? Only find it on Nate Thayer blog.


In addition, June 5 interviews with contractors who were working on the Savopoulos garage at the time of the murders raised more questions about the accuracy of Wallace’s account of his delivering what the police call “ransom money” immediately before the murders and arson.
The contracting company who was hired by Savopoulos to enlarge the garage say that accessing it required using a coded electronic remote control system. “This I know for sure–you could not manually open or close those garage doors,” said Bill Davies, president of BDC Companies, a Washington, D.C. general contractor hired by Savopoulos to expand the garage from a two to three car bay structure. “You had to use an automatic remote control. It might have had a keypad but I don’t remember seeing one, I never entered from the garage doors, and I never knew an access code number.”

Davies, who confirmed that the garage housed one car–Savopoulos’s $700,000 red Mosler racing car–said that when he accessed the garage, he would enter the front door of the Savopoulos residence and enter the garage from the kitchen. “Even the door inside the house to the garage was locked and required a remote control to enter the garage.”


http://www.nate-thayer.com/savopoulo...-murder-probe/

Maybe the assistant was given a remote control so he could retrieve the cars as needed? Mr. Savapoulos wouldn't have wanted to have to open the garage for him each time. It makes sense he would have given one to JW.

Besides if JW and Wint were really in on this together, wouldn't Wint have ratted on his buddy by now? What possible motivation could there be to keep JW 's involvement secret?

Who is to say that DW didn't already "rat" on JW? Due dilligence still needs to be done to prove that JW's story is false, i.e., that could not have delivered the cash as he said. Otherwise it's one person's word against the other, and any lawyer would argue that DW is not a reliable source to be believed.

Is LE wants to show JW's involvement they need a lot of evidence against him - especially since mostof it seems circumstantial. Just being involved in the conspiracy would make him just as culpable as being in the house that night. They need an airtight case so this dude does not walk (that it, if he is even involved).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying this may make some here very angry, but a decent defense attorney will shred that blood on the shoes evidence. Although I'd be very surprised if along with the pizza crust that's all they have tying him to the crime scene.

not trying to be argumentative but what would the DA say to 'shred' the blood on shoes evidence? that to me (non-lawyer or police person here) seems like pretty solid evidence?

I've been away from this type stuff for years but I would think they're going to have a field day creating doubt that he was wearing those shoes that evening (and not someone else) since there are no eyewitnesses.

No jury will buy that.

I would hope you are right, but it just takes one, you know. that is just one way to attack--there could be chain of custody issues--technicalities that might seem trivial to you--but judges rule on the admissibility of evidence, not jurors.

So the alternate scenario you'd pose as a defense attorney is that someone else wore those shoes during the period the victims were held hostage and myrdered, then Wint came into possession of those shoes after the fact? Highly implausible. You can concoct an alternate story for anything, but it has to be plausible to create reasonable doubt. As far as I can tell, the only way the blood DNA evidence on the shoes Wint was wearing at the time of the arrest would be weak is if the profile is a partial or is an mtDNA match to the victim, thus having a low enough statistic that one could argue convincingly enough that it is someone else's blood (that is, not one of the victims in this case).

Chain of custody is a completely separate issue, and I imagine it's what defense attorneys frequently try to attack when the DNA evidence itself is strong. But a defense attorney *trying* to have the evidence ruled inadmissible on chain of custody issues is FAR from "shredding" the blood evidence.

Thank-you for your legal expertise. This is comforting to read!

Unfortunately, I have zero legal expertise! Just some forensic DNA expertise, as a scientist who works in this field. I don't work on criminal cases, though, which is why I asked a question (not the one quoted above) of the poster who stated a defense attorney would "shred" the DNA evidence. I'm truly curious as to whether there is something I'm not thinking of here.

Well, I am the one who used the shred language--perhaps a little strong! But not to belittle your expertise-you're not a lawyer. I wasn't referring to the blood on its own. (although that could fail) but more the shoes. I stand by the statement that the shoe evidence will be vigorously and possibly successfully thrown out depending on prosecutions's ability to show they were on DW's feet at the time of the crime. This is silly to argue in a vacuum I think though, as they probably have mounds of other evidence!

Thanks for replying - I truly was curious! I have no doubt that every important piece of evidence that can be, will be vigorously argued with regard to admissibility - that's a defense attorney's job. It doesn't seem to me that arguing the shoes are irrelevant would be successful given the (admittedly limited) facts we're aware of; instead, it seems it would be left to a jury to determine the weight of that evidence, i.e. the likelihood that Wint was wearing those shoes at the time of the crime vs. some alternate scenario. But again, I'm not an attorney, and I agree it's pretty pointless to consider this one piece of evidence in a vacuum! I appreciate the conversation though since I don't work on the criminal side of forensics. It's always nice to learn something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Savopoulos called Wallace at 11:54 a.m on Thursday, May 14, but the call was not answered, records show. It was the last incoming or outgoing call Savopoulos made or answered before the fire and his murder, which police say occurred sometime between noon and 1:24 P.M Thursday, when Washington emergency personnel were dispatched after reports of a house fire.

http://www.nate-thayer.com/owner-docs-of-savopoulos-700000-race-car-seized-from-jordan-wallace-in-d-c-murder-probe/

Thanks for the link. If true, I agree that is highly suspicious behavior on the assistant's part. If innocent, wouldn't he have immediately responded to his boss' text? Even if driving, wouldn't he have pulled over to respond to his boss' text ?? After dropping off $40,000??!!

But, Please help me understand this:

We can presume that all the texts/calls from Mr. Savapoulos' phone at that point were either made under duress or by Wint himself. If JW was an accomplice, he would have known the calls weren't coming from Mr. Savapoulos himself, but from Wint. Wouldn't he have picked up the call so he could talk with his co-conspirator?

I am very torn about this!

I think you can safely assume that he didn't hear the phone ringing. I know that when I am at Home Depot or Lowes, it is near impossible to receive or make calls because of the steel building construction.

In that scenario, wouldn't JW have checked his phone the moment he left Home Depot/Lowe's to see if his boss had tried to contact him?
Rather than waiting until he heard about the fire to contact them?

If it were just a missed call, with no voicemail or text, wouldn't you assume it wasn't important and didn't require follow up?

Perhaps. But again, why would that contact have been a regular call versus text message? Since the call was either made under duress by Mr. Savapoulos, or by Wint, why a voice call at that time? At that point, Wint or accomplice would have been able to check the garage and seen the money was there. Why else would they need to call JW?
Unless maybe the phone was dropped and automatically redialed the previous number?

Maybe SS called JW to ask why all the money wasn't in the bag.

Maybe DW was communicating with JW through SS's phone.

That is why he got the stories confused..as to the timelineo of when SS first contacted him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Get a life people. Seriously.
Was this a tragedy? Yes. What are the odds of this happening to any of you? 0.00001%.

+ a million

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you think that Wint was mentally thrown off from being kicked out of the Marines and he has been angry ever since? He could have equated Marines with being physically and mentally some of the best and want to be part of that organization especially after 9/11 It seems he was caught up with his physical appearance in photos of himself and him trying to outwit LE. Unsure if he had criminal record before that time. Wonder if LE went to his home country and inquired about his behavior back then.

omg stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think that Wint was mentally thrown off from being kicked out of the Marines and he has been angry ever since? He could have equated Marines with being physically and mentally some of the best and want to be part of that organization especially after 9/11 It seems he was caught up with his physical appearance in photos of himself and him trying to outwit LE. Unsure if he had criminal record before that time. Wonder if LE went to his home country and inquired about his behavior back then.

omg stop.

+1 Dude is a crazy monster who was after the rich guy's money -- he thought all rich people keep cash handy and went crazier when he thought he was being held out on. This isn't rocket science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saying this may make some here very angry, but a decent defense attorney will shred that blood on the shoes evidence. Although I'd be very surprised if along with the pizza crust that's all they have tying him to the crime scene.

not trying to be argumentative but what would the DA say to 'shred' the blood on shoes evidence? that to me (non-lawyer or police person here) seems like pretty solid evidence?

I've been away from this type stuff for years but I would think they're going to have a field day creating doubt that he was wearing those shoes that evening (and not someone else) since there are no eyewitnesses.

No jury will buy that.

I would hope you are right, but it just takes one, you know. that is just one way to attack--there could be chain of custody issues--technicalities that might seem trivial to you--but judges rule on the admissibility of evidence, not jurors.

So the alternate scenario you'd pose as a defense attorney is that someone else wore those shoes during the period the victims were held hostage and myrdered, then Wint came into possession of those shoes after the fact? Highly implausible. You can concoct an alternate story for anything, but it has to be plausible to create reasonable doubt. As far as I can tell, the only way the blood DNA evidence on the shoes Wint was wearing at the time of the arrest would be weak is if the profile is a partial or is an mtDNA match to the victim, thus having a low enough statistic that one could argue convincingly enough that it is someone else's blood (that is, not one of the victims in this case).

Chain of custody is a completely separate issue, and I imagine it's what defense attorneys frequently try to attack when the DNA evidence itself is strong. But a defense attorney *trying* to have the evidence ruled inadmissible on chain of custody issues is FAR from "shredding" the blood evidence.

Thank-you for your legal expertise. This is comforting to read!

Unfortunately, I have zero legal expertise! Just some forensic DNA expertise, as a scientist who works in this field. I don't work on criminal cases, though, which is why I asked a question (not the one quoted above) of the poster who stated a defense attorney would "shred" the DNA evidence. I'm truly curious as to whether there is something I'm not thinking of here.

Well, I am the one who used the shred language--perhaps a little strong! But not to belittle your expertise-you're not a lawyer. I wasn't referring to the blood on its own. (although that could fail) but more the shoes. I stand by the statement that the shoe evidence will be vigorously and possibly successfully thrown out depending on prosecutions's ability to show they were on DW's feet at the time of the crime. This is silly to argue in a vacuum I think though, as they probably have mounds of other evidence!

The shoes he was wearing can be supported by the enhanced video of him running behind La Fontaine Bleue Catering.

maybe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think that Wint was mentally thrown off from being kicked out of the Marines and he has been angry ever since? He could have equated Marines with being physically and mentally some of the best and want to be part of that organization especially after 9/11 It seems he was caught up with his physical appearance in photos of himself and him trying to outwit LE. Unsure if he had criminal record before that time. Wonder if LE went to his home country and inquired about his behavior back then.

omg stop.

+1 Dude is a crazy monster who was after the rich guy's money -- he thought all rich people keep cash handy and went crazier when he thought he was being held out on. This isn't rocket science.

Yes. Follow the money. Not rocket science for sure.
Was looking at his mind and his thoughts. Was speculating on what made him decide WHEN to follow SS's money that day? What might have been the turning point for him to go the route he did that day rather than continue his garden variety criminal stuff? Why then? Curious as to what led up to his thinking prior to that. Guess we will never know unless he tells it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get a life people. Seriously.
Was this a tragedy? Yes. What are the odds of this happening to any of you? 0.00001%.

+ a million

It is possible to feel deep empathy for others without being remotely likely to experience the same trauma. Are you really that concrete?

[Anonymous]

This thread has been taken over by websleuths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get a life people. Seriously.
Was this a tragedy? Yes. What are the odds of this happening to any of you? 0.00001%.

+ a million

It is possible to feel deep empathy for others without being remotely likely to experience the same trauma. Are you really that concrete?

empathy for others is not the same as paranoia for yourself. see e.g. collage-making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think that Wint was mentally thrown off from being kicked out of the Marines and he has been angry ever since? He could have equated Marines with being physically and mentally some of the best and want to be part of that organization especially after 9/11 It seems he was caught up with his physical appearance in photos of himself and him trying to outwit LE. Unsure if he had criminal record before that time. Wonder if LE went to his home country and inquired about his behavior back then.

omg stop.

+1 Dude is a crazy monster who was after the rich guy's money -- he thought all rich people keep cash handy and went crazier when he thought he was being held out on. This isn't rocket science.

Yes. Follow the money. Not rocket science for sure.
Was looking at his mind and his thoughts. Was speculating on what made him decide WHEN to follow SS's money that day? What might have been the turning point for him to go the route he did that day rather than continue his garden variety criminal stuff? Why then? Curious as to what led up to his thinking prior to that. Guess we will never know unless he tells it.

Impossible to understand the mental workings of a criminal psycho like this, so why even try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think that Wint was mentally thrown off from being kicked out of the Marines and he has been angry ever since? He could have equated Marines with being physically and mentally some of the best and want to be part of that organization especially after 9/11 It seems he was caught up with his physical appearance in photos of himself and him trying to outwit LE. Unsure if he had criminal record before that time. Wonder if LE went to his home country and inquired about his behavior back then.

omg stop.

+1 Dude is a crazy monster who was after the rich guy's money -- he thought all rich people keep cash handy and went crazier when he thought he was being held out on. This isn't rocket science.

Yes. Follow the money. Not rocket science for sure.
Was looking at his mind and his thoughts. Was speculating on what made him decide WHEN to follow SS's money that day? What might have been the turning point for him to go the route he did that day rather than continue his garden variety criminal stuff? Why then? Curious as to what led up to his thinking prior to that. Guess we will never know unless he tells it.

Impossible to understand the mental workings of a criminal psycho like this, so why even try.

+1000 Let the police do their detective work.
It is almost as if some of you relish the thought of being able to say, “See - I told you so!!!"