Fire in upper NW?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WTOP just reported that suspect worked for one of SS's companies.

smh

what does smh mean?

Disregard. I googled smh.

So, WTOP says suspect worked for one of father's companies. Police are not characterizing this crime as random because perp(s?) were employed by SS in some way.

I'm sorry to everyone who was all excited they were "right" about it being random but this seemed obvious from the get-go. They had to have knowledge of what assets the family had, what they thought they could reasonably get out of the family, etc. etc. There's no way someone's going to randomly pick a family to hold hostage on the vague hope and prayer that they can come up with an obscene amount of cash in a short amount of time.

Yes, it IS random. This sociopath picked this family, this man, out of all the prove he came across in His daily life.

Do you people not realize you don't need to be a business owner to be randomly targeted by a criminal? We ALL cross paths daily with people who could decide we are their next victim. The teenager who lives down the street and wants money for drugs, the guy who pumped your gas, the friend of your nephew who saw a picture of you on his Instagram account, the Son of the guy who cuts your lawn, the stranger sitting two table over from you at the Palm, the handsome Guy your friedm introduced you to at a fraternity party, the check out woman at the grocery store.

That this sociopath, this criminal, this Wint guy picked the S Family is random. He may have worked for the father's company at one point but that is not WHY he picked them to target. He wasn't looking for revenge. It wasn't because the Dad "did him wrong" or had shady business dealings. THAT is what I mean.

All those theories that made it a retaliatory strike against this family were all wrong. They were looking for some REASON it happened to this family. It is a way to make you feel like it couldn't be you. Well, that is wrong. It could be you. It could be me. It was RANDOM that the S family was chosen. They are innocent of causing this in any way, shape or form.

That is what I meant by RANDOM.

I don't think you understand the definition of random.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not much else new in the press conference. The chief says she's hoping to have him in custody soon.

Lanier said "Wint worked for AIW". This is new info. Others were speculating.

Lanier confirmed that police think it is Wint in video surveillance at burning car scene.

I'm thinking that Wint could possibly have been working alone -- he is certainly athletic enough to overpower the victims -- maybe one by one. The maid, son and mother. He could have overpowered them and just waited for SS to show up.

I think he could have acted alone.

But two pizzas were delivered on Wed night.

[Anonymous]

"random" being very liberally used I see

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Facebook page - Dillion Wint.

That's the suspect brother.

Are you sure? Look at profile pix

This is obviously where the police got his pictures. That's him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So gross to look at that guy's facebook page...using photos of cars as if he worships them and selfie's that show his cut body. A culture of surface level obsession with looks and brands and money but no substance. Why is it so hard to find this d-bag? Surely plenty of his FB friends and family are happy to try and get that $25K reward.

That could describe a lot of people here: concerned with appearances, but not concerned with how to actually achieve something for themselves.

+100000

It's weird how people say "but that person was like THAT, so different from me!" But really, you're actually very similar in many ways. I'd say that kind of materialism, superficiality, and status symbol obsession is rampant across people on this site, and many people in the DC area (note: I am actually from this area, and not a transplant). The people who want the perfect remodel, home renovations, fancy cars, engagement ring, North Arlington/Bethesda/McLean home, etc.

Lots of people in those areas are high achievers. There are people working to reach that level of achievement to join them. Why is that something to be condemned? This is the way the world works. Hard work should be rewarded. People should be able to celebrate their successes. The idea that successful people with nice things don't deserve those things or worse deserve bad things to happen to them runs rampant through this thread.

There is the very false idea that with hard work, comes success. Many people work very hard, but are never rewarded. Many people receive a lot, but don't work that hard.

There is also the idea that some people feel a sense of injustice "I work so hard, why can't I have x, y, z?" And may resort to unethical tactics to get x, y, and z. Most people just chalk it up to "life is unfair - c'est la vie."

But for me it also begs the question, why is worth or success attached to stuff? Things? Price? Label? For me it's such an inherently weird concept. I don't define "success" by those measures.

But it's not up to you to judge or define how others measure success. If a person is working hard and that effort is not yielding them success as they define it, they need to make a change. They can't just sit back and expect someone else to make a path for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WTOP just reported that suspect worked for one of SS's companies.

smh

what does smh mean?

Disregard. I googled smh.

So, WTOP says suspect worked for one of father's companies. Police are not characterizing this crime as random because perp(s?) were employed by SS in some way.

I'm sorry to everyone who was all excited they were "right" about it being random but this seemed obvious from the get-go. They had to have knowledge of what assets the family had, what they thought they could reasonably get out of the family, etc. etc. There's no way someone's going to randomly pick a family to hold hostage on the vague hope and prayer that they can come up with an obscene amount of cash in a short amount of time.

Yes, it IS random. This sociopath picked this family, this man, out of all the prove he came across in His daily life.

Do you people not realize you don't need to be a business owner to be randomly targeted by a criminal? We ALL cross paths daily with people who could decide we are their next victim. The teenager who lives down the street and wants money for drugs, the guy who pumped your gas, the friend of your nephew who saw a picture of you on his Instagram account, the Son of the guy who cuts your lawn, the stranger sitting two table over from you at the Palm, the handsome Guy your friedm introduced you to at a fraternity party, the check out woman at the grocery store.

That this sociopath, this criminal, this Wint guy picked the S Family is random. He may have worked for the father's company at one point but that is not WHY he picked them to target. He wasn't looking for revenge. It wasn't because the Dad "did him wrong" or had shady business dealings. THAT is what I mean.

All those theories that made it a retaliatory strike against this family were all wrong. They were looking for some REASON it happened to this family. It is a way to make you feel like it couldn't be you. Well, that is wrong. It could be you. It could be me. It was RANDOM that the S family was chosen. They are innocent of causing this in any way, shape or form.

That is what I meant by RANDOM.

YES! I was the one trying to explain that the opposite of random is not personal/revenge-fueled. This was likely not a personal attack on the family. He just happened to know the guy was rich and maybe that the business dealt in cash. It was not like he had some grievance against the guy and wanted to make him suffer, I bet. He wanted money and knew these people had it. Not random would be that it was the husband of a woman the victim was having an affair with. This is likely some guy who worked on one construction project for hourly wages at some point and didn't even really know the boss. So yeah, not totally random, but not exactly something all that easily avoided by any of us who employ people in any way (yes, I realize background checks might help).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Facebook page - Dillion Wint.

That's the suspect brother.

Are you sure? Look at profile pix

Check the facts thread for this case and you will see a link to the MPD website with the correct spelling if the suspects name.

[Anonymous]

The company had a number of government contracts and did a lot of high profile non-government work in the DC. Contractors (prime and sub) are required to have a certain number of minority sub-contractors and employees. Hiring minority workers and ex-cons may have been something that the business did either i) to make itself more attractive to prime contractors or ii) because he wanted to help the community in which the business was located

It's not minority workers - it's minority owned firms...And locally owned firms (DC proper).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not much else new in the press conference. The chief says she's hoping to have him in custody soon.

Lanier said "Wint worked for AIW". This is new info. Others were speculating.

Lanier confirmed that police think it is Wint in video surveillance at burning car scene.

I'm thinking that Wint could possibly have been working alone -- he is certainly athletic enough to overpower the victims -- maybe one by one. The maid, son and mother. He could have overpowered them and just waited for SS to show up.

I think he could have acted alone.

But two pizzas were delivered on Wed night.

If he was acting alone, he likely wouldn't untie his victims to let them eat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not much else new in the press conference. The chief says she's hoping to have him in custody soon.

Lanier said "Wint worked for AIW". This is new info. Others were speculating.

Lanier confirmed that police think it is Wint in video surveillance at burning car scene.

I'm thinking that Wint could possibly have been working alone -- he is certainly athletic enough to overpower the victims -- maybe one by one. The maid, son and mother. He could have overpowered them and just waited for SS to show up.

I think he could have acted alone.

But two pizzas were delivered on Wed night.

Is there any chance he let the victims eat??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about his accomplices? Any word from Lanier on that?

She said they would not rule it out.

I don't understand how one 5' 7" person could do this. There's no indication he even had a gun, right?

I think this is one of the things that rattles me the most.

[Anonymous]

Yea, that is the opposite of random.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pardon me while I stick my head in here-- I'm a DC *sub*urban mom, but only an occasional board reader. I'm also a novelist (for a living), and while I have no expertise with criminals or police business, a big part of my job is to give characters realistic motivation. So some of the suspicion being thrown toward Housekeeper #2 is bothering me (and yes, I know she is a real person, not a bit of make-believe).

What I speculate happened is that the perp, or perps, entered the home and took control of the scene and family. Once that had occurred, he-- let's assume one perp, for the moment-- did not want anyone else with a key coming in to disturb the scene. He demanded to know if anyone else would be coming. They're terrified, they want to cooperate because they've been told cooperation will be their best chance to stay alive, so they tell him Housekeeper #2 will be there the next day. At that point either he texts the housekeeper, or has the wife do it, to tell her to stay away. Given the weird phrasing, my guess is that the perp sent the text himself after extracting the necessary information from the wife. No chance for her to send some sort of secret signal, but it sure doesn't sound like her, either.

I would be *astonished* if Housekeeper #2 had anything to do with it. For one thing, it's been extensively noted in the press that she and Housekeeper #1 were close friends. Why would she set up a close friend of over a decade to be the victim of a brutal, horrifying murder? Secondly, if she had a role in it, why would she allow herself to be interviewed in the media? That would be an absurd thing to do. I think it's almost completely dismissible that either of the housekeepers had anything to do with it, except for the possibility that #1 let in a Bad Guy by mistake.

What I think is far more likely is that the father pissed somebody off in a business relationship-- someone's money didn't come through at the time promised, or someone was fired, or someone did not get work they believed there was an oral agreement about. Remember the Hasidic guy in Brooklyn last year who was murdered on the street? That was why he was targeted-- business agreement in which the little guy got screwed, and was going to get the money he was promised no matter what it took. Again, pure speculation, they took the family hostage once everyone was home from work and school, waited until the banks opened, got their money transferred or whatever, and then-- 1:15 PM-- set the house on fire. Note that the Porsche was abandoned 12 minutes by road from the Ironworks, in the same general area in terms of geography and infrastructure. That person drove past a ton of Metro stations, including hubs, to abandon that car. My guess is that he held out until he got to an area familiar to him, which-- I would guess-- is also fairly close to work.

Just some ideas. We'll see what comes of it. I hope the family gets justice.

It's me (the poster of this comment several days ago). They're now reporting that the suspect had previously worked at the ironworks, that he lived in Lanham, and that Savvas was on the phone with banks beginning at 7 AM on Thursday. Also, there is no indication poor slandered Housekeeper #2 had anything to do with it.

I'm very glad they have a suspect they're actively seeking. And also, I'm thinking of abandoning fiction writing and becoming a detective and/or a psychic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ON Facebook, if you link to the sister's (Seanna Wint) page, it appears that she has some sort of scar on her neck -- can anyone tell if that looks like a gunshot wound or knife wound?

I can't believe you people are for real. I might have to quit DCUM.

Yeah folks, c'mon. Are you all going to google the entire family and try to tie them to this horrendous act. That needs to stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about his accomplices? Any word from Lanier on that?

She said they would not rule it out.

I don't understand how one 5' 7" person could do this. There's no indication he even had a gun, right?

I think this is one of the things that rattles me the most.

I agree this is a bit odd. No gunshot wounds. It does look like he was using the kid as leverage *shudder*