Inthedetails
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2014
- Messages
- 24,241
- Reaction score
- 142,476
What evidence?Just this evidence, makes DW Guilty.
What evidence?Just this evidence, makes DW Guilty.
Melanie Alnwick FOX 5 DC
Melanie Alnwick FOX 5 DC
4 hrs ·
LAST DAY OF TESTIMONY in the #MansionMurders Trial!
We saw the return of several witnesses, including Special Agent Richard Fennern member of FBI’s Cellular Analysis Team.
He brought a series of charts showing Darrell Wint’s cell phone location data. The data corresponded to the locations that Wint testified he was at on May 13 and May 14, 2015 - Gaithersburg, Takoma Park, and Silver Spring - not near the crime scene on Woodland Drive NW.
One ping did show his phone in NE DC, near Florida Avenue from 1:32-2:01pm on 5/13 — a location near where Wint testified his girlfriend worked and that he sometimes brought her lunch. Fennern said that still showed the phone was far away from the Savopolous’ home.
A witness from La Fontaine Bleue was also brought back.
Laurie Atkinson watched surveillance video of the shopping center parking lot, recorded around 5pm on May 14.
This was shortly after she testified she saw Daron Wint pacing around the lot and said his behavior made her and a coworker nervous. Atkinson identified her car, and her co-worker’s car in the video, leaving the parking lot. She was asked twice if she saw a minivan in that video. Atkinson said no.
When Daron testified in his defense, he admitted he was the man seen by Atkinson pacing around the parking lot, but he claimed it was after he had his minivan towed there & was looking for the keys.
Amy’s stolen Porsche was found on fire in an adjacent lot - around 5:30 that evening.
A key part of Daron Wint’s alibi is that he was stranded at a friend’s house at 16 Atlantic Street SE on May 13 without his phone or van, that he starting drinking, and that he was sleeping until 10am May 14.
Turns out - DC police responded to that location on May 14 for a report of shots fired that came from the shotspotter system. It was 9:38 am.
Former DC Police Officer Matthew Erd testified he arrived at the location around 10am. Erd, now an officer with Fairfax County, had to rely on his written report because the day, he testified, was not particularly memorable to him. But, Erd said - he was careful about his reports because his supervising officers were very nitpicky.
The report narrative was only 1 line though, saying he responded to the location & found no evidence or witnesses.
Erd told the jury that normal procedure would call for an officer to canvass the scene, then go knock on the door of the address. “How do you knock?” asked prosecutor Christopher Bruckmann. “Loud enough that I can usually wake up an entire apartment building,” responded Erd - demonstrating the motion with a large metal baton.
The report Erd filed that day had no indication that anyone answered the door.
During Daron Wint’s testimony he told prosecutor Laura Bach that he wasn’t “passed out” that morning of May 14 - and would have heard sounds like footsteps or gunshots.
Defense attorneys pointed out that the officer can’t say that he actually knocked on the door if it wasn’t specifically written down in the report.
A witness from American Iron Works verified that Phillip Savopoulous was living in St Croix for many years - because AIW had opened another company there. He said Savvas was the one running the company in Hyattsville during the time Daron Wint was working there.
Finally, Detective Mike Pavero was called back to the stand. He verified the photo of Steffon Wint (with no hair) that the jury has seen - was taken on July 4, 2015.
Pavero also testified about a “burn pile” that was located about 100ft from where the minivan was torched at 51st & Frolich.
The pile had charred remnants of black zip ties, and several metal snaps (like you might find on jeans?) and grommets.
The zip ties were tested for DNA - with no results. Pavero testified that fire often destroys DNA evidence. Fox 5 DC
I have a question.
What garbage company serviced the S house?
And what day is trash day?
JMO and wondering
I think the state has put on a good case throughout the long weeks trial. I wish we had had word for word transcripts of actual sworn testimony each day
Patriciah has been the most help of all. The condensed versions of tweets and bloggers or podcast omits so much of the complete word for word testimony.
I think they have successfully shutdown the defense claims which the defense really showed no concrete evidence or proof of anything anyway.
The jury heard from 70 witnesses and the majority refuted the defense claims. I thought their witnesses didn't prove anything that helped DW. They know no one has a more vested interest to lie than the one on trial.
In this most serious case the jury will have expected the defense to show them proof of such claims..
In order for them to believe Wints claim the defense evidence must be stronger than the states evidence/witnesses against the defendant.
It would have to be enough to convince them they are to totally disregard all of the voluminous testimonial witnesses and all evidence the state entered showing he was the sole prepetrator behind the horrible murders of 4 innocent people.
In the end no matter who the defense tried to blame the jury only has evidence of him being inside of the home while the hostage and murders were happening.
They will go by what the evidence shows them and imo all of it will show them that Wint and only Wint was the sole mastermind and doer of these horrific crimes.
I fully expect a guilty verdict.
I think the prosecutor will bring all of the evidence together in a concise manner during closing arguments.
Imo they certainly aren't going to believe he was just hanging out eating pizza and is an innocent little victim in all of this.
IMOO
I think the state has put on a good case throughout the long weeks trial. I wish we had had word for word transcripts of actual sworn testimony each day
Patriciah has been the most help of all. The condensed versions of tweets and bloggers or podcast omits so much of the complete word for word testimony.
I think they have successfully shutdown the defense claims which the defense really showed no concrete evidence or proof of anything anyway.
The jury heard from 70 witnesses and the majority refuted the defense claims. I thought their witnesses didn't prove anything that helped DW. They know no one has a more vested interest to lie than the one on trial.
In this most serious case the jury will have expected the defense to show them proof of such claims..
In order for them to believe Wints claim the defense evidence must be stronger than the states evidence/witnesses against the defendant.
It would have to be enough to convince them they are to totally disregard all of the voluminous testimonial witnesses and all evidence the state entered showing he was the sole prepetrator behind the horrible murders of 4 innocent people.
In the end no matter who the defense tried to blame the jury only has evidence of him being inside of the home while the hostage and murders were happening.
They will go by what the evidence shows them and imo all of it will show them that Wint and only Wint was the sole mastermind and doer of these horrific crimes.
I fully expect a guilty verdict.
I think the prosecutor will bring all of the evidence together in a concise manner during closing arguments.
Imo they certainly aren't going to believe he was just hanging out eating pizza and is an innocent little victim in all of this.
IMOO
Prosecutors never said DW was alone
Has anyone figured out what BTDUZ means?BTDUZ
^^snipall evidence the state entered showing he was the sole prepetrator behind the horrible murders of 4 innocent people.
And, this week, prosecutors argued successfully to include "aiding and abetting" in jury instructions.Prosecutors never said DW was alone
I respectfully disagree. Every witness for the state was to show no one else was involved. In fact that is why they had rebuttal witnesses to further refute the defense claims of someone else being there or being involved.
The state entered witness testimonies/evidence showing the defense claim of SODDI was a bunch of baseless unsupported baloney.
The only one who weakly claimed someone else was inside the home and did the crimes were made by the defense.
I realize and totally agree with Patriciah..the defense did the best they could when dealt a very bad hand from the beginning.
They ..like most defense attorneys tried to throw spaghetti against the wall hoping it would stick. Epic fail imo. Smoke and mirrors rarely ever works but I do understand they had to have a defense strategy of some kind. Often its the same old tired SODDI defense they used in this case too.
The most preposterous claim was Wint saying he was totally innocent in all of it. He pushed his claim to the ridiculous side.
Jmo
It apparently means, "by the way."Has anyone figured out what BTDUZ means?
. . . both bats found in the home may have been used, which was part of why the judge allowed it as the judge ruled there's evidence that more than one person may have been involved.
Prosecuors acknowledge 'Mansion Murders' suspect may have had help
I don't think it matters, either, if others were involved. DW alone is on trial for the murders of 4 people. There is sufficient DNA evidence and witness testimony to place him at the Savopoulos mansion at the time of the confinement and murders. Because he was complicit, whether or not he actively killed one person he is still equally guilty of the murders.I don't think it matters for the sake of the trial whether others were involved if the jury believes that DW killed at least one person.
BBMComplicity is the act of helping or encouraging another individual to commit a crime. It is also commonly referred to as aiding and abetting. One who is complicit is said to be an accomplice. But, even though an accomplice does not actually commit the crime, his or her actions helped someone in the commission of the crime.
The concept of accomplice liability means an accomplice faces the same degree of guilt and punishment as the individual who committed the crime. Indeed, accomplices can face the same penalties, including prison time. The key consideration is whether the individual intentionally and voluntarily encouraged or assisted in the commission of the crime, or (in some cases) failed to prevent it.
I think the jury members will be convinced he was at the house and took part in the crimes. I just hope they fully understand that even if there are lingering questions about others' involvement, those questions don't have to be answered in order to convict DW. I'm remaining confident the jury realizes this, but I do have moments of worry.I don't think it matters, either, if others were involved. DW alone is on trial for the murders of 4 people. There is sufficient DNA evidence and witness testimony to place him at the Savopoulos mansion at the time of the confinement and murders. Because he was complicit, whether or not he actively killed one person he is still equally guilty of the murders.
What is Complicity or Accomplice Liability? - FindLaw
BBM
IMO, I don't think anyone is convinced DW didn't take part in the crimes.
Shouldn't that be explained to them in the jury instructions? I know even that won't preclude a jury from failing to understand the instructions, but this is D.C. not FLA. JMOI think the jury members will be convinced he was at the house and took part in the crimes. I just hope they fully understand that even if there are lingering questions about others' involvement, those questions don't have to be answered in order to convict DW. I'm remaining confident the jury realizes this, but I do have moments of worry.
jmo
What lower charge? Aiding and abetting is not a separate charge. It is a theory of the case and how the defendant could be found guilty. You never know what a jury is thinking and you need to cover all your bases in terms of jury instructions to help the jury analyze the evidence and reach the conclusion you want.
I don't think it matters for the sake of the trial whether others were involved if the jury believes that DW killed at least one person.