Fire in upper NW?

[Anonymous]

wow that picture makes it look very clear that they kicked the door in. i wonder why up until this point, police were saying there was no sign of forced entry and then now they reveal this? Is it possible the police didn't notice this broken door and boot print until recently (i highly doubt this, surely this would be one of the first things they did was check all the doors and windows for signs of a break in)? or were they keeping this information to themselves til now for some reason? this is so obvious it seems crazy that the killer(s) didn't try to cover it up somehow since they did seem to try to cover their tracks otherwise, why not try to cover up the bootprint which could be traced to the shoes (and thereby, to the killer) worn during the crime?

strange. this case just gets weirder and weirder and sadder and sadder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's forced entry - French doors. Kicked in with a boot that was not matching up to any dc firefighter boots
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Savopoulos-murders-search-warrants-cell-phone-records-306025611.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_DCBrand

I'm thinking maybe this door was actually kicked in after the crime when Wint was leaving the scene since the murdered housekeeper's husband didn't apparently see any broken windows/doors or anything amiss when he went looking for her Thurs morning and also since the killer likely wouldn't want to have such a visible sign of something being wrong present for 20 hours or however long they were in the house. Maybe he kicked in the door on his way out to make it look like a forced entry.

That boot print is not from Wint. The police already have his shoes. They are looking for another person with boots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:wow that picture makes it look very clear that they kicked the door in. i wonder why up until this point, police were saying there was no sign of forced entry and then now they reveal this? Is it possible the police didn't notice this broken door and boot print until recently (i highly doubt this, surely this would be one of the first things they did was check all the doors and windows for signs of a break in)? or were they keeping this information to themselves til now for some reason? this is so obvious it seems crazy that the killer(s) didn't try to cover it up somehow since they did seem to try to cover their tracks otherwise, why not try to cover up the bootprint which could be traced to the shoes (and thereby, to the killer) worn during the crime?

strange. this case just gets weirder and weirder and sadder and sadder.

These aren't smart thugs. They weren't trying to cover anything up except with fire probably at the last minute. They didn't even do that well. No way we're they thinking "oh I should kick that door in to cover my tracks" on the way out.

Info is only coming out because the search warrants were unsealed. They police aren't revealing anything. They knew from the beginning about the door being kicked in. Just not sharing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's forced entry - French doors. Kicked in with a boot that was not matching up to any dc firefighter boots
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Savopoulos-murders-search-warrants-cell-phone-records-306025611.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_DCBrand

I'm thinking maybe this door was actually kicked in after the crime when Wint was leaving the scene since the murdered housekeeper's husband didn't apparently see any broken windows/doors or anything amiss when he went looking for her Thurs morning and also since the killer likely wouldn't want to have such a visible sign of something being wrong present for 20 hours or however long they were in the house. Maybe he kicked in the door on his way out to make it look like a forced entry.

That boot print is not from Wint. The police already have his shoes. They are looking for another person with boots.

Do you know this for sure or are you just guessing? Could Wint have changed shoes? The shoes the police have with the blood traced to the victim(s) and another pair that he wore to/from the crime scene? I mean, I know it sounds like a weird idea but everything about this is weird and it's not unfathomable that he could have changed shoes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:wow that picture makes it look very clear that they kicked the door in. i wonder why up until this point, police were saying there was no sign of forced entry and then now they reveal this? Is it possible the police didn't notice this broken door and boot print until recently (i highly doubt this, surely this would be one of the first things they did was check all the doors and windows for signs of a break in)? or were they keeping this information to themselves til now for some reason? this is so obvious it seems crazy that the killer(s) didn't try to cover it up somehow since they did seem to try to cover their tracks otherwise, why not try to cover up the bootprint which could be traced to the shoes (and thereby, to the killer) worn during the crime?

strange. this case just gets weirder and weirder and sadder and sadder.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:wow that picture makes it look very clear that they kicked the door in. i wonder why up until this point, police were saying there was no sign of forced entry and then now they reveal this? Is it possible the police didn't notice this broken door and boot print until recently (i highly doubt this, surely this would be one of the first things they did was check all the doors and windows for signs of a break in)? or were they keeping this information to themselves til now for some reason? this is so obvious it seems crazy that the killer(s) didn't try to cover it up somehow since they did seem to try to cover their tracks otherwise, why not try to cover up the bootprint which could be traced to the shoes (and thereby, to the killer) worn during the crime?

strange. this case just gets weirder and weirder and sadder and sadder.

That looks like an inside doo, not an exterior door. Look at the door knob.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow that picture makes it look very clear that they kicked the door in. i wonder why up until this point, police were saying there was no sign of forced entry and then now they reveal this? Is it possible the police didn't notice this broken door and boot print until recently (i highly doubt this, surely this would be one of the first things they did was check all the doors and windows for signs of a break in)? or were they keeping this information to themselves til now for some reason? this is so obvious it seems crazy that the killer(s) didn't try to cover it up somehow since they did seem to try to cover their tracks otherwise, why not try to cover up the bootprint which could be traced to the shoes (and thereby, to the killer) worn during the crime?

strange. this case just gets weirder and weirder and sadder and sadder.

These aren't smart thugs. They weren't trying to cover anything up except with fire probably at the last minute. They didn't even do that well. No way we're they thinking "oh I should kick that door in to cover my tracks" on the way out.

Info is only coming out because the search warrants were unsealed. They police aren't revealing anything. They knew from the beginning about the door being kicked in. Just not sharing.

OK, but what would be the police's reason for explicitly stating early on that there was no sign of forced entry when that is obviously not true? i can understand them not sharing information in general but why actually make false statements? if they were just trying to keep things under wraps then why say anything about forced entry or no forced entry at all?

[Anonymous]

Interior door. Look at the door. Look at the trim and the door knob.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interior door. Look at the door. Look at the trim and the door knob.

No, it was stated in the search warrant released that this is an exterior door: "The door is broken near the lock and a shoe or boot print is visible on the exterior, suggesting forced entry."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/signs-forced-entry-found-dc-mansion-murder-case/story?id=31506751

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interior door. Look at the door. Look at the trim and the door knob.

No, it was stated in the search warrant released that this is an exterior door: "The door is broken near the lock and a shoe or boot print is visible on the exterior, suggesting forced entry."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/signs-forced-entry-found-dc-mansion-murder-case/story?id=31506751

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interior door. Look at the door. Look at the trim and the door knob.

No, it was stated in the search warrant released that this is an exterior door: "The door is broken near the lock and a shoe or boot print is visible on the exterior, suggesting forced entry."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/signs-forced-entry-found-dc-mansion-murder-case/story?id=31506751

sorry for posting twice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow that picture makes it look very clear that they kicked the door in. i wonder why up until this point, police were saying there was no sign of forced entry and then now they reveal this? Is it possible the police didn't notice this broken door and boot print until recently (i highly doubt this, surely this would be one of the first things they did was check all the doors and windows for signs of a break in)? or were they keeping this information to themselves til now for some reason? this is so obvious it seems crazy that the killer(s) didn't try to cover it up somehow since they did seem to try to cover their tracks otherwise, why not try to cover up the bootprint which could be traced to the shoes (and thereby, to the killer) worn during the crime?

strange. this case just gets weirder and weirder and sadder and sadder.

These aren't smart thugs. They weren't trying to cover anything up except with fire probably at the last minute. They didn't even do that well. No way we're they thinking "oh I should kick that door in to cover my tracks" on the way out.

Info is only coming out because the search warrants were unsealed. They police aren't revealing anything. They knew from the beginning about the door being kicked in. Just not sharing.

Police miscommunicate by mistake and on purpose all the time.


OK, but what would be the police's reason for explicitly stating early on that there was no sign of forced entry when that is obviously not true? i can understand them not sharing information in general but why actually make false statements? if they were just trying to keep things under wraps then why say anything about forced entry or no forced entry at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow that picture makes it look very clear that they kicked the door in. i wonder why up until this point, police were saying there was no sign of forced entry and then now they reveal this? Is it possible the police didn't notice this broken door and boot print until recently (i highly doubt this, surely this would be one of the first things they did was check all the doors and windows for signs of a break in)? or were they keeping this information to themselves til now for some reason? this is so obvious it seems crazy that the killer(s) didn't try to cover it up somehow since they did seem to try to cover their tracks otherwise, why not try to cover up the bootprint which could be traced to the shoes (and thereby, to the killer) worn during the crime?

strange. this case just gets weirder and weirder and sadder and sadder.

These aren't smart thugs. They weren't trying to cover anything up except with fire probably at the last minute. They didn't even do that well. No way we're they thinking "oh I should kick that door in to cover my tracks" on the way out.

Info is only coming out because the search warrants were unsealed. They police aren't revealing anything. They knew from the beginning about the door being kicked in. Just not sharing.

Police miscommunicate by mistake and on purpose all the time.


OK, but what would be the police's reason for explicitly stating early on that there was no sign of forced entry when that is obviously not true? i can understand them not sharing information in general but why actually make false statements? if they were just trying to keep things under wraps then why say anything about forced entry or no forced entry at all?

Sorry my comment was buried in the quotes.

Police misscommunicate by mistake and on purpose all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow that picture makes it look very clear that they kicked the door in. i wonder why up until this point, police were saying there was no sign of forced entry and then now they reveal this? Is it possible the police didn't notice this broken door and boot print until recently (i highly doubt this, surely this would be one of the first things they did was check all the doors and windows for signs of a break in)? or were they keeping this information to themselves til now for some reason? this is so obvious it seems crazy that the killer(s) didn't try to cover it up somehow since they did seem to try to cover their tracks otherwise, why not try to cover up the bootprint which could be traced to the shoes (and thereby, to the killer) worn during the crime?

strange. this case just gets weirder and weirder and sadder and sadder.

These aren't smart thugs. They weren't trying to cover anything up except with fire probably at the last minute. They didn't even do that well. No way we're they thinking "oh I should kick that door in to cover my tracks" on the way out.

Info is only coming out because the search warrants were unsealed. They police aren't revealing anything. They knew from the beginning about the door being kicked in. Just not sharing.

Police miscommunicate by mistake and on purpose all the time.


OK, but what would be the police's reason for explicitly stating early on that there was no sign of forced entry when that is obviously not true? i can understand them not sharing information in general but why actually make false statements? if they were just trying to keep things under wraps then why say anything about forced entry or no forced entry at all?

again, if it is on purpose, what is the purpose? i'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to figure out why they would purposely lie about this, if that is what in fact happened? of course it could have been a mistake...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Looks like a workman's /construction boot.

What were those construction signs outside the house by the garage? Masonry and carpentry company??

Where did you find this photo?? that is not a French set of doors but a bedroom door No way would police allow their crime scene photos to be online for anyone to grab..just saying