Fire in upper NW?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I read through all of this stuff, I think I am subconsciously hoping that I'm going to find the loophole, revise something, and it turns out that the 4 of them escape. Some different phone call. Some random stroke of good luck. Does anyone else find themselves reading and hoping they can somehow revise the ending?

Yes. I keep wishing it was a mistake and they are all alive.

[Anonymous]

I apologize if I am repeating (I've read most of this thread but not all)

The housekeeper was supposed to leave at 3:00 and I read in an article that they believe the suspect entered the home around 6:00? Why was the housekeeper still there? Or do we not have a confirmed time they believe the suspect entered the home?
I thought for sure they were going to say the suspect entered the home earlier in the afternoon explaining why she was still there and possibly the suspect was the one who directed Mrs S to call Mr S to come home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't you think the defense will want a change of venue?

There is no basis for a change of venue request by the defense. All you need is one jury pool of people who aren't familiar with the case. Many people in DC do not watch the news or read the paper, so this will not be an issue. For example, my wife is completely unaware of this case (why would I want to tell her?). Most of my colleagues at work are busy working and aren't aware of it.

I think we should all be tried by educated judges. no offense to your wife. why is it the goal to find people who don't tune in? I get not reading the news (sometimes I check out) but people who do read the news should not be dismissed outright.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:now that he has been caught and arrested along with his brother and several other people, is it reasonable to assume that he had accomplices? I am thinking he and his brothers were the ones actually in the house/who committed the kidnapping, extortion, torture, murder, arson, robbery and then there was someone else (I am guessing one of the women, for no particular reason just a hunch since women are generally seen as less threatening than men) who drove the suspects to the S house or was somehow involved in helping the other suspect(s) (the one(s) who did not take the Porsche) get away from the scene.

Here is what I think happened (no revelations here, just what seems to me to be pretty obvious based on what we know): DW and/or his brother went up to the door Wed afternoon, possibly wearing some type of uniform/disguise--dressed to appear as utility workers or construction workers or delivery men, etc-- Housekeeper (VF) was home w/ Philip. Housekeeper answered the door and they pushed past her into the house, leaving no sign of a forced entry. They quickly subdued/tied up VF and PS, forced VF to call AS and tell her there was some emergency w Philip. AS rushes home in the Porsche (which is why it was reportedly seen speeding Wed afternoon). AS returns, DW subdues her, forces her to call SS and get him home ASAP, he receives call while at dojo in Chantilly, goes home earlier than planned, telling other housekeeper (NG) that AS needs him to watch Philip because AS is going out Wed night. SS returns home and finds AS, PS and VF bound, being threatened, he doesn't attempt to fight off DW/accomplice for fear of them hurting the others if he resists them. The whole ordeal plays out over Wed. night and Thurs morning, with SS desperately and repeatedly attempting to get DW/accomplice what they want ($$, valuables). They use threats/torture of PS, AS, VF to compel/force SS to make all these calls in attempts to get as much $$ as possible together, they also ask him who might be showing up at the house Thurs. who could potentially interrupt/interfere with the $$ drop so that is why SS is allowed/forced to call NG and tell her not to come Thurs. SS tries til the end to get them more and more $$ but he is not able to get more than the 40k delivered and DW/accomplice are upset that they can't get more out of him and possibly feel that they need to wrap the whole thing up and get out of there finally (perhaps having VF's husband come by the house spurs them to get out faster as well) so, being the psychopaths and hateful, worthless people that they are, they murder everyone and set the house on fire. DW drives off in the Porsche, i wonder if he was anticipating that he might get caught even sooner than he did, maybe even that he'd be caught while driving the Porsche and he thought that would be a dramatic way to go out. The accomplice(s) either take off in another vehicle (someone--I'm guessing a woman--picked any accomplice(s) of DW's up in a different car). They all meet back up afterward in MD and go and immediately spend their cash on whatever...drugs, strip club, prostitutes, something not easily traced...the end?

Late on this but I think you've nailed it. They may also have hidden some of the money.

I think this is exactly what happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I read through all of this stuff, I think I am subconsciously hoping that I'm going to find the loophole, revise something, and it turns out that the 4 of them escape. Some different phone call. Some random stroke of good luck. Does anyone else find themselves reading and hoping they can somehow revise the ending?

Yes. I keep wishing it was a mistake and they are all alive.

Yes. The would've, should've, could've is constantly running through my head. I feel terrible for the people were in contact with this family during this horrible ordeal because I imagine they are playing that over in their head endlessly. So terrible.

[Anonymous]

I think that is why I am obsessed with this. If I keep reading and gathering facts, I may be able to save them. That I cannot (obviously) is so gut-wrenchingly sad. Sometimes, nothing will break your way. A million little things will all line up against you, and the result is so, so horrible.

[Anonymous]

I don't live in DC, if I did, (and you all represent a group who could do something) I would be pressing my policy and prosecutor on why the five found with Wint are not being held on aiding and abetting. This is outrageous. How are people to feel safe?

[Anonymous]

I interpret the assistant's lies as an attempt to avoid questions/criticism for not figuring out that something bad was going down.
Claiming that text request came Thursday morning when it really came Wednesday night and that the money was already in an envelope instead of that he helped stuff it in the envelope and knew how much was in there may be poor attempts to absolve himself for not calling the cops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can the defense waive a jury trial if he doesn't plead guilty? I can't imagine how anyone on his legal team would think bringing this in front of a jury would be a smart move.

The three Robert Wone murderers successfully used that approach a few years ago. They correctly guessed that the judge would find that they had committed the murder, but that there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt against any of them individually, since it was possible that it was the other two/one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The assistant admitted lying to the police about when to get and where to leave the package. Why would they do this?

Assistant sent a text to a friend of the stack of cash he was to transport.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that he F-ed up and delayed the drop. He lied about what he did, when he did it, and how he handled it. Again, maybe my temper has me thinking unclearly.

Me again, the inconsistent media reports about the money, as relayed by surviving maid whom I felt certain would know the Assistant, are what caused me to view NG with suspicion. And also, don't forget that Cathy Lanier clearly said this was done by someone with intimate knowledge of the daily affairs of the victims.

[Anonymous]

Not charging the others now may be a tactical move to make sure they cooperate. If they aren't charged they can't take the 5th Amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't you think the defense will want a change of venue?

There is no basis for a change of venue request by the defense. All you need is one jury pool of people who aren't familiar with the case. Many people in DC do not watch the news or read the paper, so this will not be an issue. For example, my wife is completely unaware of this case (why would I want to tell her?). Most of my colleagues at work are busy working and aren't aware of it.

I think we should all be tried by educated judges. no offense to your wife. why is it the goal to find people who don't tune in? I get not reading the news (sometimes I check out) but people who do read the news should not be dismissed outright.

The goal is to find people who are going to make their determination solely based on what is presented in court, not because of evidence presented outside of that context. People who read the news are not dismissed outright - it's people who are familiar with the case who are dismissed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not charging the others now may be a tactical move to make sure they cooperate. If they aren't charged they can't take the 5th Amendment.

That's right. There's some strategy at play here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not charging the others now may be a tactical move to make sure they cooperate. If they aren't charged they can't take the 5th Amendment.

You don't need to be charged to take the 5th Amendment. In fact, you can refuse to speak to police and investigators any time, whether you are charged or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not charging the others now may be a tactical move to make sure they cooperate. If they aren't charged they can't take the 5th Amendment.

That's right. There's some strategy at play here.

One may hope.