Fire in upper NW?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the housekeeper did receive a text from the "mother's phone", asking her not to come into work that day (and there is no reason to think she didn't), it suggests essentially two possibilities:

(1) the mother had the foresight to prevent her housekeeper from stumbling into a dangerous situation, and was able to convince the perpetrator(s) that it was in his best interest to keep other parties away; and

Never. Not even remotely a possibility. What mother would ruin the best possible chance of saving her 10 year old son's life (and her own) by warning off someone due at the house shortly. That hope is the only thing that would keep me going in a situation like that.

You must not be a parent, PP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the housekeeper did receive a text from the "mother's phone", asking her not to come into work that day (and there is no reason to think she didn't), it suggests essentially two possibilities:

(1) the mother had the foresight to prevent her housekeeper from stumbling into a dangerous situation, and was able to convince the perpetrator(s) that it was in his best interest to keep other parties away; and

Never. Not even remotely a possibility. What mother would ruin the best possible chance of saving her 10 year old son's life (and her own) by warning off someone due at the house shortly. That hope is the only thing that would keep me going in a situation like that.

You must not be a parent, PP

Not PP to whom you are responding. Here's another scenario. The attacker asked if they were expecting anyone else at the house that day. The attacker threatened to harm the child if they lied. The parent(s) told them about the other maid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the housekeeper did receive a text from the "mother's phone", asking her not to come into work that day (and there is no reason to think she didn't), it suggests essentially two possibilities:

(1) the mother had the foresight to prevent her housekeeper from stumbling into a dangerous situation, and was able to convince the perpetrator(s) that it was in his best interest to keep other parties away; and

Never. Not even remotely a possibility. What mother would ruin the best possible chance of saving her 10 year old son's life (and her own) by warning off someone due at the house shortly. That hope is the only thing that would keep me going in a situation like that.

You must not be a parent, PP

No need to criticize the other poster! Geez.

But I agree that if I was being held hostage and I knew that someone from outside was about to show up I might not think to warn them to stay away. I would just be so relieved that someone else was coming and could potentially help me.

I guess this is selfish but I'm honestly not sure which way I would lean in this sort of situation.
Perhaps it was a hostage situation and the mom thought that things would work out okay---the money was on it's way or whatever---and she didn't want the housekeeper interrupting things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the housekeeper did receive a text from the "mother's phone", asking her not to come into work that day (and there is no reason to think she didn't), it suggests essentially two possibilities:

(1) the mother had the foresight to prevent her housekeeper from stumbling into a dangerous situation, and was able to convince the perpetrator(s) that it was in his best interest to keep other parties away; and

Never. Not even remotely a possibility. What mother would ruin the best possible chance of saving her 10 year old son's life (and her own) by warning off someone due at the house shortly. That hope is the only thing that would keep me going in a situation like that.

You must not be a parent, PP

I am a mother of three children who has had the same nanny with our family for fifteen years. She is a beloved member of our family, and she is also a small, older woman, who would have little to no chance of successfully fighting off a perpetrator who had already subdued three other adults (assuming that is what happened).

In that situation, you can see how a mother might want to keep away a beloved housekeeper to spare her the same fate. Also, if that is what happened, there was probably the strong hope that the unusual nature of the text (had the family ever told her to stay away because everyone was so sick at once!), written under the careful supervision of the perpetrator, would cause the housekeeper to follow up somehow. Which she apparently did, with the unanswered, follow-up call.

[Anonymous]

So bizarre

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the housekeeper did receive a text from the "mother's phone", asking her not to come into work that day (and there is no reason to think she didn't), it suggests essentially two possibilities:

(1) the mother had the foresight to prevent her housekeeper from stumbling into a dangerous situation, and was able to convince the perpetrator(s) that it was in his best interest to keep other parties away; and

Never. Not even remotely a possibility. What mother would ruin the best possible chance of saving her 10 year old son's life (and her own) by warning off someone due at the house shortly. That hope is the only thing that would keep me going in a situation like that.

You must not be a parent, PP

I am a mother of three children who has had the same nanny with our family for fifteen years. She is a beloved member of our family, and she is also a small, older woman, who would have little to no chance of successfully fighting off a perpetrator who had already subdued three other adults (assuming that is what happened).

In that situation, you can see how a mother might want to keep away a beloved housekeeper to spare her the same fate. Also, if that is what happened, there was probably the strong hope that the unusual nature of the text (had the family ever told her to stay away because everyone was so sick at once!), written under the careful supervision of the perpetrator, would cause the housekeeper to follow up somehow. Which she apparently did, with the unanswered, follow-up call.

It seems like the value of someone else showing up at the house is not so much to overpower the perp/s, but rather that the person would see or sense something was wrong or cause enough of a distraction to create an opportunity.

If you are being held hostage in your home with your child/ren, it is unlikely that things will 'work out'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They were a totally normal, albeit rich, family like many others in NWDC. Kids in local privates and boarding. Parents happily married. Very social. Dad was a CEO of a local company. They both sat on some boards, I believe the reference to a company in Puerto Rico was a new board position, not a "job" per se. . Basically super nice people. Nothing shady or weird. The whole thing is shocking.

I am betting it was, most likely, a home invasion. Fire started to cover up other crimes. We live relatively close to them, in NWDC as well, and my kids are really blasé about locking doors. I tell them all the time that this is a dangerous habit. Home invasions happen and there were several just a few years ago in CCMD and one in Palisades/Berkley area. They are not always about burglary.

y

Thanks for posting that. Sad.

[Anonymous]

Yes, the message was odd. Housekeeper said she was expecting to go in, and the message was something like: just want to be sure you are not coming into today. Come on Monday, or some other day. Perhaps she was hoping it was off-balance enough to raise some kind of flag.

[Anonymous]

Guarantee the perps are from se or pg. NW is nice but too close to the criminal savages

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guarantee the perps are from se or pg. NW is nice but too close to the criminal savages

absurd! That neighborhood is accessible by car only (not Metro).

My theory is it was an ex-con construction worker associated with the company.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guarantee the perps are from se or pg. NW is nice but too close to the criminal savages

absurd! That neighborhood is accessible by car only (not Metro).

My theory is it was an ex-con construction worker associated with the company.

Oh and I meant it is absurd to criticize two entire areas like that! I lived in FH, which seemed to have some crime near the Metro stops. Criminals are everywhere not just SE or PG County.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guarantee the perps are from se or pg. NW is nice but too close to the criminal savages

thanks for your moronic contribution to the thread

[Anonymous]

Wow! This is so bizarre. They were an attractive couple from that UK daily mail article somebody posted.

I find the wife saying 'come any day--but not today" today to the housekeeper chilling. It makes me think they were in there being held hostage or made to say this, etc.

[Anonymous]

My theory is it was an ex-con construction worker associated with the company.

This is likely how it will pan out, although I'd broaden the class to include non-construction people. Like small business owners / suppliers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow! This is so bizarre. They were an attractive couple from that UK daily mail article somebody posted.

I find the wife saying 'come any day--but not today" today to the housekeeper chilling. It makes me think they were in there being held hostage or made to say this, etc.

It's "bizarre" that attractive people were targeted (because usually, it's the ugly people) ?