GUILTY DC - Savvas Savopoulos, family & Veralicia Figueroa murdered; Daron Wint Arrested #23

[SeesSeas]

Thanks for your great recap -- it's so appreciated. I thought I posted it here but don't see it but were you in court when the Prosecutor asked him about his cell phone and if "ferries" paid his cell phone bill for him? (It was quoted in news report). Thanks again for taking one for the team!

Here is the WaPo report about the "fairies":
Prosecutor accuses man charged with D.C. quadruple killing of fabricating story
October 11 at 6:36 PM
[...]
Bach asked Wint what he did for work in 2015. He said that family members gave him money and that he found day jobs. Wint said he struggled financially. He said his brother gave him a cellphone, and Bach asked him who paid his cellphone bills.

“I don’t know, ma’am,” Wint replied.

“You don’t know? Did the fairies pay it?” Bach responded.

“I don’t know, ma’am,” Wint said.

 

[zencompass]

@patriciah,

Did you hear DW's answer when asked about the knife propping open the basement window?

If so, how did his answer sound to you?

Did he seem to hesitate at this question or just plainly say he didn't know?

Thanks in advance. Greatly appreciate your generosity in sharing details of what you saw and heard at the trial.

 

[zencompass]

That's what I miss about seeing and hearing a trial on livestream. We miss the nuances, the hesitations, the body language, the behavior and the tone of the person's voice when answering certain questions.

 

[patriciah]

Thanks for your great recap -- it's so appreciated. I thought I posted it here but don't see it but were you in court when the Prosecutor Bach asked him about his cell phone and if "fairies" paid his cell phone bill for him? (It was quoted in news report). Thanks again for taking one for the team!

Yes, Bach was asking him who gave him the LG phone, and he said Steffon. The LG phone was the phone he used only on wifi, but he said he had cell service for a time, and she asked who paid for it, and he said he didn't know, or didn't remember. When she asked if fairies paid the bill, the defense objected and it was sustained.
edited to add - he answered the question that he didn't know, but the defense objected at the same time. I thought the fairies question was a little over the top and unnecessary, imo.

 

[patriciah]

@patriciah,

Did you hear DW's answer when asked about the knife propping open the basement window?

If so, how did his answer sound to you?

Did he seem to hesitate at this question or just plainly say he didn't know?

Thanks in advance. Greatly appreciate your generosity in sharing details of what you saw and heard at the trial.

Yes, he denied ever being in the basement, said he was in the room where he ate the pizza, and the garage only. When Bach asked how his dna got on the knife he said he didn't know. I don't think he hesitated at any questions. Sometimes he asked her to repeat questions, or he would say he didn't understand a question, but he didn't hesitate. He answered with "ma'am" for pretty much every question too - "yes ma'am," "no, ma'am," "I don't know, ma'am." He was very calm and polite.

 

[Sunshine99]

There is also the picture of two iphones on a granite counter that was sent to Vanessa Hayles. As I recall, smart phones have GPS and tag photos with the location a photo is taken at, and possibly that photo was taken at 3201 Woodland Dr. Also, would the GPS coordinates of the deleted photos on daron wints phone still be stored or recorded somewhere?

 

[patriciah]

There is also the picture of two iphones on a granite counter that was sent to Vanessa Hayles. As I recall, smart phones have GPS and tag photos with the location a photo is taken at, and possibly that photo was taken at 3201 Woodland Dr. Also, would the GPS coordinates of the deleted photos on daron wints phone still be stored or recorded somewhere?

I was hoping they had the deleted photos and would introduce them into evidence, but they didn't, at least not yesterday. They showed a couple photos yesterday - maps of the shopping center area to show the proximity to Samantha's and Steffon's apartments and the short cut path, a picture of the LG phone, and they showed a photo of the "blue" receiving room where DW says he ate the pizza. Very nice looking room with a small dining table and blue chairs, and some artwork. No sign of pizza in the picture, very nice looking room and it made me sad to see it.

 

[zencompass]

Yes, he denied ever being in the basement, said he was in the room where he ate the pizza, and the garage only. When Bach asked how his dna got on the knife he said he didn't know. I don't think he hesitated at any questions. Sometimes he asked her to repeat questions, or he would say he didn't understand a question, but he didn't hesitate. He answered with "ma'am" for pretty much every question too - "yes ma'am," "no, ma'am," "I don't know, ma'am." He was very calm and polite.

Dear Patriciah,

Thank you for giving us such a clear picture of his testimony.

I'm intrigued at how calm and collected he seemed to be. Not even hesitating before he answered.

You make a great point as to whom the rebuttal witnesses could be. I wonder, as well, what additional evidence will be forthcoming. (I quoted your statement below).

In one of your posts (#643), you wrote: "Maybe more evidence will come in next week. I'm thinking that the prosecution will call Darrell as a rebuttal witness next week, on Monday or Tuesday."

 

[SeesSeas]

I thought the fairies question was a little over the top and unnecessary, imo.

Yes, Prosecutor asking "Did the fairies pay it?" is sarcastic and unacceptable. If the government has a solid case, I don't understand why the need to resort to unprofessional tactics. It is disrespectful of the judicial system, IMO.

A decade ago, I was a defense witness for a misdemeanor trespass case. The prosecutor was out of bounds with many comments and was blatantly rude while questioning me. I was appalled but maintained my composure. During this time, I looked over at the jury and saw two jurors rolling their eyes at the prosecutor. Then one of the jurors called out to the prosecutor "You're acting like an A$$." I was surprised, but glad, that the juror spoke out. Defendant was acquitted.

 

[patriciah]

Yes, Prosecutor asking "Did the fairies pay it?" is sarcastic and unacceptable. If the government has a solid case, I don't understand why the need to resort to unprofessional tactics. It is disrespectful of the judicial system, IMO.

A decade ago, I was a defense witness for a misdemeanor trespass case. The prosecutor was out of bounds with many comments and was blatantly rude while questioning me. I was appalled but maintained my composure. During this time, I looked over at the jury and saw two jurors rolling their eyes at the prosecutor. Then one of the jurors called out to the prosecutor "You're acting like an A$$. I was surprised, but glad, that the juror spoke out. Defendant was acquitted.

I agree, I found it off-putting. It had to be frustrating to her to not get the answers that she wanted, but sometimes she took it too far. Obviously Steffon, or other family paid the bill for a time.

I felt like Bach also got overly aggressive questioning about the timeline of the 4/1 argument with Steffon, and the ensuing voicemails. Was the argument in the afternoon or the evening, was DW at Steffon's house or Dennis's house when he left the messages. She seemed to want DW to say he was angry, and he would only admit to being upset. She grilled DW on this, and the reason wasn't clear to me and I felt like the jury looked lost as well. Also, reading the content of the voicemails in the media, they looked very menacing to me. But hearing them was another thing. Maybe it's just his voice but I didn't feel like he was super angry listening to them. Maybe there's a reason that I'm missing, but I didn't understand why she was belaboring this point.

 

[Inthedetails]

I agree, I found it off-putting. It had to be frustrating to her to not get the answers that she wanted, but sometimes she took it too far. Obviously Steffon, or other family paid the bill for a time.

I felt like Bach also got overly aggressive questioning about the timeline of the 4/1 argument with Steffon, and the ensuing voicemails. Was the argument in the afternoon or the evening, was DW at Steffon's house or Dennis's house when he left the messages. She seemed to want DW to say he was angry, and he would only admit to being upset. She grilled DW on this, and the reason wasn't clear to me and I felt like the jury looked lost as well. Also, reading the content of the voicemails in the media, they looked very menacing to me. But hearing them was another thing. Maybe it's just his voice but I didn't feel like he was super angry listening to them. Maybe there's a reason that I'm missing, but I didn't understand why she was belaboring this point.

Playing armchair analyst here - I would guess that the sarcasm with the "fairies" question is showing the jury that the prosecution thinks DW's testimony is worthy of disdain and sarcasm. In other words, she is displaying that his story is fantasy.

The aggressive questioning about the messages might have been an effort to get him angry so the jury could see that side of him.

jmopinion

 

[patriciah]

Playing armchair analyst here - I would guess that the sarcasm with the "fairies" question is showing the jury that the prosecution thinks DW's testimony is worthy of disdain and sarcasm. In other words, she is displaying that his story is fantasy.

The aggressive questioning about the messages might have been an effort to get him angry so the jury could see that side of him.

jmopinion

True, I get that, I just don't think it was necessary. I thought it was obvious DW was being disingenuous when he kept saying he didn't know who paid the bill. I thought that Bach did a good job for most of the cross. It was just the couple times I mentioned, that it seemed like she took it a little too far and maybe lost the jury a little. Of course, I don't know what the jury was thinking, that was just my impression.

 

[Sunshine99]

His story is fantasy. And who in the hell smashes a mothers head to bits and stabs a little boy?!?!

 

[Inthedetails]

True, I get that, I just don't think it was necessary. I thought it was obvious DW was being disingenuous when he kept saying he didn't know who paid the bill. I thought that Bach did a good job for most of the cross. It was just the couple times I mentioned, that it seemed like she took it a little too far and maybe lost the jury a little. Of course, I don't know what the jury was thinking, that was just my impression.

I hear ya and agree. I think the sarcasm was uncalled for too.

jmo

 

[zencompass]

Playing armchair analyst here - I would guess that the sarcasm with the "fairies" question is showing the jury that the prosecution thinks DW's testimony is worthy of disdain and sarcasm. In other words, she is displaying that his story is fantasy.

The aggressive questioning about the messages might have been an effort to get him angry so the jury could see that side of him.

jmopinion

Dear Inthedetails,

I agree that the prosecutor was possibly attempting to get DW to show his anger.

Looks like DW tucked his rage, handiness with knives and violence away during his testimony. Sounds like a well-rehearsed performance. In my opinion.

His testimony makes me wonder if DW thought he could "talk" his way through and around his violent crimes during the renewal process for his green card.

When DW thought he was in the "clear" and hired an immigration lawyer to start the process to renew his green card, I don't think he would have been successful in fighting deportation.

The immigration law firm accepted his money as a retainer, however, every arrest record would have shown up during the procedure.

I found the following article interesting, especially these excerpts:
"Although not every crime creates an outright bar to receiving U.S. citizenship, some do, while others will raise serious questions about whether you have the necessary good moral character."

"In making its judgment on your character, USCIS considers such factors as whether anyone was injured, whether you cooperated with the police and the courts, and whether you were drinking or carrying an illegal weapon.

Crimes That Will Prevent You From Receiving U.S. Citizenship

 

[Inthedetails]

Dear Inthedetails,

I agree that the prosecutor was possibly attempting to get DW to show his anger.

Looks like DW tucked his rage, handiness with knives and violence away during his testimony. Sounds like a well-rehearsed performance. In my opinion.

His testimony makes me wonder if DW thought he could "talk" his way through and around his violent crimes during the renewal process for his green card.

When DW thought he was in the "clear" and hired an immigration lawyer to start the process to renew his green card, I don't think he would have been successful in fighting deportation.

The immigration law firm accepted his money as a retainer, however, every arrest record would have shown up during the procedure.

I found the following article interesting, especially these excerpts:
"Although not every crime creates an outright bar to receiving U.S. citizenship, some do, while others will raise serious questions about whether you have the necessary good moral character."

"In making its judgment on your character, USCIS considers such factors as whether anyone was injured, whether you cooperated with the police and the courts, and whether you were drinking or carrying an illegal weapon.

Crimes That Will Prevent You From Receiving U.S. Citizenship

Just had a thought....

Perhaps he did want $$ for the immigration lawyer, but knowing his chances were slim for citizenship, maybe most of the money was for one last "hurrah" before being deported. He would spend it as long at it lasted - he did go on a spending spree buying things for his fiance and giving away money, perhaps to people who had given to him in the past.

jmo, thinking aloud

 

[zencompass]

I am intrigued as to witnesses and evidence presented next week in court.

Thank you, everyone, for your invaluable insights and discussions on evidence and testimony so far.

Tomorrow morning I plan to revisit this thread and read over all of Patriciah's notes again. There are so many excellent details in them.

Thanks again @patriciah for being our WS court reporter! You are greatly appreciated!

 

[patriciah]

I am intrigued as to witnesses and evidence presented next week in court.

Thank you, everyone, for your invaluable insights and discussions on evidence and testimony so far.

Tomorrow morning I plan to revisit this thread and read over all of Patriciah's notes again. There are so many excellent details in them.

Thanks again @patriciah for being our WS court reporter! You are greatly appreciated!

No problem! I'm glad I was finally able to go. I'm curious to see if the prosecution calls Darrell next week. I'd like to see that, and closing arguments. Not sure if I'll be able to make both, if both happen in the same week. I'll do what I can though. If anyone is in the area and plans to attend next week I'd recommend getting there early. Most of the seats in the courtroom were reserved, and they kicked out the people standing in the back.

 

[SeesSeas]

On the day of the murders and fire, DW has admitted that he entered the garage as described by the two Australian Ambassador workers.
This was "shortly after noon" which was about one hour before the fire.
All of the victims were likely still alive at this time. IMO

For those who believe that Daron Wint is the sole perpetrator of these horrific crimes spanning two days. . .
I would like thoughts on what DW would have been doing outside of the home "shortly after noon" "walking down the sidewalk" with "a drawstring bag on his back" and then entering through the garage.
Why would DW have left the house and walked outside, down the sidewalk, with his backpack, and then walked back into the house through the garage which "looked like it opened for him".

I don't think DW was the sole perp, but many do; and I'm curious to know how his being outside "shortly after noon" fits with being the sole perp. That means DW would have left the victims (alive, IMO) alone in the house.

saw the man walking down the sidewalk
shortly after noon when they both saw the man approach the house
the man walked directly to the right-side door of the two-car garage. It raised about halfway open, and the man slipped inside.
He appeared to have a drawstring bag on his back, they said.

Hours before bodies were discovered inside burning mansion, neighbors saw man slip inside | WTOP
September 18, 2018 4:41 pm
Marc Stephen Geaghan, who worked as a landscaper at the ambassador’s residence, told jurors Tuesday they saw the man walking down the sidewalk near the house at Woodland Drive and 32nd Street in the Woodley Park section. Geaghan said the man walked directly to the right-side door of the two-car garage. It raised about halfway open, and the man slipped inside.

Geaghan said he couldn’t see whether someone else was on the other side, but the garage door “looked like it opened for him.”

Andrew Tierney, who worked as the residence manager, was chatting with Geaghan shortly after noon when they both saw the man approach the house, Tierney testified. He said he remembered finding the visitor strange and even made a comment about it being “unusual” to Geaghan at the time.

Tierney testified the man walked to the garage door without hesitation. “There was real purpose to it,” he said. He seemed to know which door to approach, he said. Tierney said he couldn’t say whether someone inside opened the door or whether the man had a garage-door opener.

Both workers described the man as about 5 feet, 5 inches to 5 feet, 7 inches tall and dark-complexioned with shoulder-length dreadlocks. He appeared to have a drawstring bag on his back, they said.
[...]

 

[OTPTarheel2018]

On the day of the murders and fire, DW has admitted that he entered the garage as described by the two Australian Ambassador workers.
This was "shortly after noon" which was about one hour before the fire.
All of the victims were likely still alive at this time. IMO

For those who believe that Daron Wint is the sole perpetrator of these horrific crimes spanning two days. . .
I would like thoughts on what DW would have been doing outside of the home "shortly after noon" "walking down the sidewalk" with "a drawstring bag on his back" and then entering through the garage.
Why would DW have left the house and walked outside, down the sidewalk, with his backpack, and then walked back into the house through the garage which "looked like it opened for him".

I don't think DW was the sole perp, but many do; and I'm curious to know how his being outside "shortly after noon" fits with being the sole perp. That means DW would have left the victims (alive, IMO) alone in the house.

saw the man walking down the sidewalk
shortly after noon when they both saw the man approach the house
the man walked directly to the right-side door of the two-car garage. It raised about halfway open, and the man slipped inside.
He appeared to have a drawstring bag on his back, they said.

Hours before bodies were discovered inside burning mansion, neighbors saw man slip inside | WTOP
September 18, 2018 4:41 pm
Marc Stephen Geaghan, who worked as a landscaper at the ambassador’s residence, told jurors Tuesday they saw the man walking down the sidewalk near the house at Woodland Drive and 32nd Street in the Woodley Park section. Geaghan said the man walked directly to the right-side door of the two-car garage. It raised about halfway open, and the man slipped inside.

Geaghan said he couldn’t see whether someone else was on the other side, but the garage door “looked like it opened for him.”

Andrew Tierney, who worked as the residence manager, was chatting with Geaghan shortly after noon when they both saw the man approach the house, Tierney testified. He said he remembered finding the visitor strange and even made a comment about it being “unusual” to Geaghan at the time.

Tierney testified the man walked to the garage door without hesitation. “There was real purpose to it,” he said. He seemed to know which door to approach, he said. Tierney said he couldn’t say whether someone inside opened the door or whether the man had a garage-door opener.

Both workers described the man as about 5 feet, 5 inches to 5 feet, 7 inches tall and dark-complexioned with shoulder-length dreadlocks. He appeared to have a drawstring bag on his back, they said.
[...]

And DW was AWARE he had been seen and could be identified by the 2 men across the street.

Assuming AS, SS, PS and VF are still alive based on AS phone call to sprinkler company at time DW seen going into garage.

Why on earth would DW kill them and set the house on fire knowing he had been seen by the 2 employees of the Australian ambassador???

He could be charged with B & E or burglary at this point. But not murder.

DW didn’t attempt to kill those 2 workers did he??

JMO. Puzzle pieces not fitting for me.