Fire in upper NW?

[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."

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.

It's rare for it to happen in that part of the city. Home invasions have happened many times in Capitol Hill and other parts of the city.

For it to happen in a $4.5 million home in this part of the DC was unheard of---hence the coverage. Yes- the everyday violence in dangerous parts of the city does not get traction.

The coverage has a lot to do with crimes that normally don't happen in this part of the city and are so egregious. The Cheshire, CT home invasion had National Coverage as well. I have relatives from Cheshire and visited a lot as a kid. It's a sleepy town so the Petitt case was also incredulous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If they pre-cased the house, cutting alarms, I'd suspect that the dogs were drugged.

[Anonymous]

the dogs knew the killer? or one of the killers? I continue to believe that housekeeper #2 is involved directly or indirectly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Very good point. Seems like she would have answered if the boss called, and would have texted back to the mom's text. Also that is very odd about the dogs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I didn't post that, but I think he was obviously a very serious and competitive dude, whether it be in business or martial arts. Some people don't respond well to losing. I don't understand the connection between blunt force trauma and Latinos either. Maybe the connection is Latinos and construction.

[Anonymous]

Your cell phone can be in one place and you can be in another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the dogs knew the killer? or one of the killers? I continue to believe that housekeeper #2 is involved directly or indirectly.

Even if my dogs know someone, as soon as they think one of us is in trouble, they go into action. They are pacifists, they do not like any raised voices or aggression.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I didn't post that, but I think he was obviously a very serious and competitive dude, whether it be in business or martial arts. Some people don't respond well to losing. I don't understand the connection between blunt force trauma and Latinos either. Maybe the connection is Latinos and construction.

I can't find DCist commenter you alluded to. Can you post the link, please.

[Anonymous]

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 thought it autocorrected "tom" (meaning tomorrow) to from. So it might have been trying to say if you could come in tom or Monday that would be great. Same difference...

[Anonymous]

Another update: nbc4dc.com/XcJieXX

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Very good point. Seems like she would have answered if the boss called, and would have texted back to the mom's text. Also that is very odd about the dogs.

I also have many questions about her, however it does make sense that she was called to keep housekeeper 1's family away from the house that night if you assume 1 only spoke Spanish to her husband and the killer did not. More than being concerned about no 2 showing up on Thursday they probably didn't want no. 1's family coming around on Wednesday. Still her reaction in front of the house/crime scene seems odd. If the little boy and parents I had worked for, not to mention my long time friend, were brutally murdered hours earlier, I think I would be a little more out of my mind. But maybe she was and they caught up to her later. I don't know. I guess it just goes back to her tidy alibi and all.

[Anonymous]

This is a stretch, but I would hope MPD has done at least the following: Subpoena Google or Apple to hand over any phones that reported GPS coordinates in the Woodley Park area and then reported again to the area where the Porsche was left burning. I can't imagine there being many phones that travel between Woodley Park and PG County that day. This is assuming the perpetrators had Android phones and GPS turned on, but you never know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This is the pp. re your questions:
1. I have had housekeepers and other household employees. I've run my own business. It would never occur to me to mix the household employees with the business employees. I would only do that if I was desperate - ie, low on funds or time. Maybe it was a time issue, but still very odd to me. Also high flying entrepreneurial types almost always claim to have money issues. He surely had a lot of outlays. Couldn't find how much he earned as CEO because American Ironworks appears to be privately held.

2. Assuming it was money problem that led him to have her help out, it does raise a flag that he was having work done on the house.

3. Re angry contractor, see the DCist comments about what it was like to work for him. He was called the worst in this area and worse but I won't repeat it here.

4. Also re his threats, see Google groups threads.

5. Re Latinos & martial arts, I meant that because Savvos was into the martial arts, he had knives and swords. They suffered blunt force trauma consistent with knife wounds. The former DC detective on Fox said that nearly all knife and blunt force trauma in District is inflicted by Latinos, as handguns are the weapon of choice in DC.

Does that clear up my line of thinking?
$ problems + pissed off subcontractors at house + knives = Latino suspect in construction trade, maybe even gang related. We'll know soon enough, hopefully.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Very good point. Seems like she would have answered if the boss called, and would have texted back to the mom's text. Also that is very odd about the dogs.

I also have many questions about her, however it does make sense that she was called to keep housekeeper 1's family away from the house that night if you assume 1 only spoke Spanish to her husband and the killer did not. More than being concerned about no 2 showing up on Thursday they probably didn't want no. 1's family coming around on Wednesday. Still her reaction in front of the house/crime scene seems odd. If the little boy and parents I had worked for, not to mention my long time friend, were brutally murdered hours earlier, I think I would be a little more out of my mind. But maybe she was and they caught up to her later. I don't know. I guess it just goes back to her tidy alibi and all.

And why did she release the voicemail? Someone implied it was sold to ABC news. Again, odd to profit off of this murder of her employers. Maybe it was done by some friends of hers - they thought the house was an easy mark?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a stretch, but I would hope MPD has done at least the following: Subpoena Google or Apple to hand over any phones that reported GPS coordinates in the Woodley Park area and then reported again to the area where the Porsche was left burning. I can't imagine there being many phones that travel between Woodley Park and PG County that day. This is assuming the perpetrators had Android phones and GPS turned on, but you never know.

Someone must know if they do this routinely or you could send in on the tipline.