Fire in upper NW?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/why-were-riveted-when-bad-things-happen-to-rich-people/2015/05/18/53157fd6-fd71-11e4-805c-c3f407e5a9e9_story.html?wpisrc=nl_buzz

Not interesting/insightful and WAY TOO SOON.

Agree. This piece is garbage. Sounds like the writer is speaking for herself. Honestly, people are simply scared and intrigued by dramatic, difficult to solve events like this. There is a reason that the unsolved mystery shows have been around for years - and not all of the people featured in those shows are wealthy. And when it happens in your own neighborhood or town, people follow even more closely. The fact that this family is wealthy may be why they were targeted and is most likely part of the reason it got instant media coverage, but the real draw and reason people follow it is the highly unusual and dramatic circumstances and the outstanding big questions of who and why. I do not believe most people are gross enough to follow it for some kind of sick sense of "schadenfreude."

I am pretty sure I've read before that Petula (the writer) reads DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/why-were-riveted-when-bad-things-happen-to-rich-people/2015/05/18/53157fd6-fd71-11e4-805c-c3f407e5a9e9_story.html?wpisrc=nl_buzz

Not interesting/insightful and WAY TOO SOON.

Agree. This piece is garbage. Sounds like the writer is speaking for herself. Honestly, people are simply scared and intrigued by dramatic, difficult to solve events like this. There is a reason that the unsolved mystery shows have been around for years - and not all of the people featured in those shows are wealthy. And when it happens in your own neighborhood or town, people follow even more closely. The fact that this family is wealthy may be why they were targeted and is most likely part of the reason it got instant media coverage, but the real draw and reason people follow it is the highly unusual and dramatic circumstances and the outstanding big questions of who and why. I do not believe most people are gross enough to follow it for some kind of sick sense of "schadenfreude."

Also, it was a bit disingenuous given that this is first and foremost a LOCAL crime. As someone else posted, they were very active and beloved in the community. While I didn't know them, I see by FB it's just one or two degrees of separation for me. I know people who knew Amy, and even more friends of friends who were connected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/why-were-riveted-when-bad-things-happen-to-rich-people/2015/05/18/53157fd6-fd71-11e4-805c-c3f407e5a9e9_story.html?wpisrc=nl_buzz

Not interesting/insightful and WAY TOO SOON.

Agree. This piece is garbage. Sounds like the writer is speaking for herself. Honestly, people are simply scared and intrigued by dramatic, difficult to solve events like this. There is a reason that the unsolved mystery shows have been around for years - and not all of the people featured in those shows are wealthy. And when it happens in your own neighborhood or town, people follow even more closely. The fact that this family is wealthy may be why they were targeted and is most likely part of the reason it got instant media coverage, but the real draw and reason people follow it is the highly unusual and dramatic circumstances and the outstanding big questions of who and why. I do not believe most people are gross enough to follow it for some kind of sick sense of "schadenfreude."

I am pretty sure I've read before that Petula (the writer) reads DCUM.

Well, we're disappointed and know you can do better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, perhaps the killer knew the housekeeper & the call was made as a set up: she's in on it?

This actually kind of makes sense given:

1) That it only really serves as an alibi for her. It didn't serve to keep the crime from being discovered because setting the fire made sure that the cops came quite soon after the killer(s) left;
2)Her failure to call the cops or stop by the house to see if everything was ok after she grew suspicious; and
2) Her odd statement that God saved her instead of saying more about the family that was brutally murdered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just saw this posted on another forum..some audio from the voicemail left for housekeepr:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/mansion-fire-mysterious-voicemail-latest-clue-dc-blaze/story?id=31121535

In the voicemail it sounds like you can hear a child cry out at one point..

it does! I really hope they have more by now than that crappy grainy video of a person moving thru an alley. Didn't she say before the dad said the little boy was injured in his go kart. on the tape he says "we are going through some stuff with Philip." Whoever it was sure wanted to keep that housekeeper away. And the text is either misspelled or esl.

Actually, the text looks like autocorrect--the person typed "fr" and it corrected to "from" instead of "Friday." Agree?

agree

I noticed that too... Wondered if it was a signal, but yes, probably autocorrect.

Did his voice sound stressed to you? I thought he sounded distracted, but not necessarily stressed. I don't know what I'm expecting though. I guess I just keep going back to housekeeper. It now makes sense that she was warned away because they probably had to call her to get the message to housekeeper 1's husband. Maybe it's just bad reporting but her story seems inconsistent. I really don't think I would have picked up on any stress in his voice and she mentioned that to reporters. I also was wondering about the little boy. I hate to talk about it, but doesn't it seem strange that they may be hurting him while dad is calling? Or maybe he is screaming for help. In that case, you would of thought they would have anticipated that. Certain things seem so random and some professional/business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/why-were-riveted-when-bad-things-happen-to-rich-people/2015/05/18/53157fd6-fd71-11e4-805c-c3f407e5a9e9_story.html?wpisrc=nl_buzz

That's a stupid article. People ar obsessed with royal pregnancies, murders of inner city men, etc. It's not their social status that makes this interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one is 100% safe anywhere. Period.

My family's home was robbed on Christmas Eve my junior year of college. Upscale neighborhood similar to Great Falls or Potomac (not in this region though) but closer to town than either of those communities.

All the homes sat on 5 acres of land. We left the house at 6pm for Christmas Eve dinner at my grandmother's, and returned to a house that had been ransacked, everything but the furniture was taken. They stole my dad's SUV to help carry everything away. They beat up our dog and used a gun to blast a window out in order to get in. Our window's didn't have sensors on them.

None of our neighbors heard or saw a thing.

Fast forward to living on Capitol Hill a few years later. It was August recess and most of us in the neighborhood were gone. My neighbors who lived in a brownstone and within the Capitol Hill police jurisdiction, had the entire contents of their home stolen while they were on vacation. A moving van pulled up and the thieves took everything, silverware -- everything.

This is why we always leave the dogs at our house with a housesitter when we travel.

+10000

We have no problem telling people when we are away. First of all, nothing is kept in the house. Second of all, we have dogs that would be more than happy to eat them. Third of all, we have an amazing silent alarm system. Fourth of all, we always have more than one house sitter, so you would never know who should be where - nor do the house sitters, for that matter. Plus, there are other things in place that no one would ever consider in a million years. There is no being careful enough. We have nothing to take, we just don't like strange people near our people. Hell, I would dare a disgruntled neighbor to come near the place. They would be in for a huge, unexpected surprise!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in Woodley adjacent to that neighborhood and walk my dog on Woodland. The private security is someone in a black "urban alarm" SUV. I dont know what they do other than drive up and down that street. I also have never seen the SUV go as far up Woodland as the Savopoulos home. I see it on the southern end of Woodland and on McGill Terrace. I assumed it was affiliated with the [b]Argentina ambassador residence since that is the area in which the van consistently is patrolling.

So Argentinian Ambassador lives down the street? Noticeable black SUV patrolling street and neighborhood? With this level of security activity, why on earth would criminals randomly pick Savopoulos home (unless criminals were completely unaware)?

There are plenty of reasons they could have picked that reason. Maybe the housekeeper working there left the door unlocked or opened it for whoever knocked. Houses with cameras and dogs would be avoided. Maybe they thought the family kept a lot of cash in the house?

I know some amazingly rich people, and no one leaves cash or jewelry in the house. I don't understand thinking that anything worthwhile (that can easily be carried) would be in anyone's house?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in Woodley adjacent to that neighborhood and walk my dog on Woodland. The private security is someone in a black "urban alarm" SUV. I dont know what they do other than drive up and down that street. I also have never seen the SUV go as far up Woodland as the Savopoulos home. I see it on the southern end of Woodland and on McGill Terrace. I assumed it was affiliated with the [b]Argentina ambassador residence since that is the area in which the van consistently is patrolling.

So Argentinian Ambassador lives down the street? Noticeable black SUV patrolling street and neighborhood? With this level of security activity, why on earth would criminals randomly pick Savopoulos home (unless criminals were completely unaware)?

There are plenty of reasons they could have picked that reason. Maybe the housekeeper working there left the door unlocked or opened it for whoever knocked. Houses with cameras and dogs would be avoided. Maybe they thought the family kept a lot of cash in the house?

I know some amazingly rich people, and no one leaves cash or jewelry in the house. I don't understand thinking that anything worthwhile (that can easily be carried) would be in anyone's house?

Really? My parents keep a ton of cash in a safe ever since 911.

[Anonymous]

I don't typically watch Fox News, but they had an interview with a former DC detective who said the blunt force trauma / knives was highly unusual and typically used by Latinos. Combine that with the links to the threats Savvas made on the Google group dedicated to martial arts, and the DCist commenter who posted that a fellow contractor said Savvas was the worst client ever and most likely to be murdered. Note that they were having contracting work done, yet he was also asking a housekeeper to help out at his new martial arts studio ... seems to suggest he had money problems with an angry contractor or subcontractor. And the impending move to PR seems strange too. This is a sad case. No one deserves this. I hope they catch the killers very very soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, perhaps the killer knew the housekeeper & the call was made as a set up: she's in on it?

Makes one wonder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't typically watch Fox News, but they had an interview with a former DC detective who said the blunt force trauma / knives was highly unusual and typically used by Latinos. Combine that with the links to the threats Savvas made on the Google group dedicated to martial arts, and the DCist commenter who posted that a fellow contractor said Savvas was the worst client ever and most likely to be murdered. Note that they were having contracting work done, yet he was also asking a housekeeper to help out at his new martial arts studio ... seems to suggest he had money problems with an angry contractor or subcontractor. And the impending move to PR seems strange too. This is a sad case. No one deserves this. I hope they catch the killers very very soon.

I don't understand why you think it's suspicious that he got help opening the studio from someone who already worked for him, particularly because I haven't read anywhere what she was helping WITH. Maybe it was, you know, cleaning. We got our house deep cleaned after we closed on it because there was a ton of dust and random detritus from renovation leftover. I don't understand why this looks like money problems to you, or an angry contractor issue. I also don't see why you are making a connection between Latinos and martial arts. Maybe your point got lost somewhere, but you know that "martial arts" usually applies to Asian traditions, not Central/South American ones, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't typically watch Fox News, but they had an interview with a former DC detective who said the blunt force trauma / knives was highly unusual and typically used by Latinos. Combine that with the links to the threats Savvas made on the Google group dedicated to martial arts, and the DCist commenter who posted that a fellow contractor said Savvas was the worst client ever and most likely to be murdered. Note that they were having contracting work done, yet he was also asking a housekeeper to help out at his new martial arts studio ... seems to suggest he had money problems with an angry contractor or subcontractor. And the impending move to PR seems strange too. This is a sad case. No one deserves this. I hope they catch the killers very very soon.

I don't believe the murderer in the Rockville case was Latino.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, perhaps the killer knew the housekeeper & the call was made as a set up: she's in on it?

This actually kind of makes sense given:

1) That it only really serves as an alibi for her. It didn't serve to keep the crime from being discovered because setting the fire made sure that the cops came quite soon after the killer(s) left;
2)Her failure to call the cops or stop by the house to see if everything was ok after she grew suspicious; and
2) Her odd statement that God saved her instead of saying more about the family that was brutally murdered.

Yes, housekeeper's statement came across as odd. When all is said and done, she doesn't come across very well. Another poster wrote she seemed cold, and she does. And contacting her - not just by voicemail but also text - just doesn't seem consistent with the other details of this crime. Why was it so important that she *not* be there? It's interesting that both methods of contact conveying that insistent directive to not come to the house involve no direct conversation. Instead, both messages might be said to serve the purpose of providing an electronic record of the fact that the housekeeper absolutely wasn't at the scene of the crime.

Another thought: the housekeeper's wearing very dark glasses. They do a good job of preventing you from seeing her eyes. Of course, it's a bright day, so there's that. But people often wear dark glasses when they're in mourning to hide distress/tear-stained eyes. Based on the way her voice sounds, she's not wearing glasses to hide tear-stained eyes.

And I can't help wondering why the dogs weren't murdered, too. You'd think they'd be the first to be killed. If they were kept inside the house, then surely they'd be a liability because they'd be barking, making sounds of distress drawing the attention of passers-by, even if they were locked in another part of the house - they'd sense/hear enough to know something was wrong. I think it's interesting that the dogs weren't killed.

[Anonymous]

Knives and blunt force trauma being a Latino thing seems to be a stretch. What they seem to be, more logically, are the weapons someone can find in a house (knives, candlesticks, hammers, etc) as opposed to the weapons that someone would bring with them (guns). Makes it seem like maybe whoever went there was not originally planning to kill anyone.