LA LA - Nanette Watson Krentel, 49, found dead in house fire, Lacombe, 14 Jul 2017

[Suzanne Harmson]

It’s just odd that she did not mention it to Steve or that he seemed completely unaware even though he claims to have left house at 7:40, talked to Mom and then called Nanette. She supposedly was back home by 9 a.m.
Does not add up.

 

[Elle*Bee]

It’s just odd that she did not mention it to Steve or that he seemed completely unaware even though he claims to have left house at 7:40, talked to Mom and then called Nanette. She supposedly was back home by 9 a.m.
Does not add up.

Do we know for sure Steve was unaware that Nanette left the house shortly after he did? It’s pretty vague.

My take (correct me if I’m wrong):
7:40 am - Steve leaves home for work
Shortly before 8:05 am - Steve calls Nanette after speaking to his mother
Unknown - time Nanette leaves the house
Shortly after 9:00 am - Nanette returns home.

My questions:
1) on which number did Steve call Nanette: landline or cell?
2) were the calls to Mom and Nanette regular occurrences?
3) speculation on my part: if she returned home shortly after 9 am, my guess is she had an early appointment, or shopped at a grocery or other large retail that opens early (or 24 hours).
4) Did she mention to Steve where she was going, or even to say she was running errands?

I’m not sure any of this matters unless someone wanted to sure Nanette would (or would not*) be in the house that morning. Was the fire set to cover her murder? *Or was arson (or burglary) the intent all along and she surprised someone? My guess is the former but....

 

[Suzanne Harmson]

The thing that strikes me as odd is that a wife who lays out her husbands clothes and fixes him mid morning pb&j snacks just does not seem like the same person who would with hold her plans to go into town. She was in communication with him either en route to Slidell or shortly before she would have left. It is illogical to think she would not have told him where she was going.

Another thing that I can not understand is how the reporter who interviewed Steve regarding the timeline did not pick up on this glaring inconsistency and ask the lingering question of how it is possible that he was not made aware of the morning plans and was this normal behavior of Nanette’s.

 

[Vail]

The thing that strikes me as odd is that a wife who lays out her husbands clothes and fixes him mid morning pb&j snacks just does not seem like the same person who would with hold her plans to go into town. She was in communication with him either en route to Slidell or shortly before she would have left. It is illogical to think she would not have told him where she was going.

Another thing that I can not understand is how the reporter who interviewed Steve regarding the timeline did not pick up on this glaring inconsistency and ask the lingering question of how it is possible that he was not made aware of the morning plans and was this normal behavior of Nanette’s.

Thankfully LE should be able to verify this one way or the other - either he is lying about the events of the morning and content of the call (or the call altogether) or he is lying about where he was that morning and is actually the one that went shopping. I hope they are checking walmart security cameras etc if they don't have verifiable video that it was her in the car (though it sounded like they did, not sure what kind of footage they have)

 

[Elle*Bee]

The thing that strikes me as odd is that a wife who lays out her husbands clothes and fixes him mid morning pb&j snacks just does not seem like the same person who would with hold her plans to go into town. She was in communication with him either en route to Slidell or shortly before she would have left. It is illogical to think she would not have told him where she was going.

Another thing that I can not understand is how the reporter who interviewed Steve regarding the timeline did not pick up on this glaring inconsistency and ask the lingering question of how it is possible that he was not made aware of the morning plans and was this normal behavior of Nanette’s.

Here’s how it works with me and my husband:

Me: I’m going to swing by the pharmacy to pick up your prescription, drop off the dry cleaning, hit the gym and meet your sister for lunch. Do you want me to bring home something for you to eat.

Him: Yes, please. (Tells me what he wants.)

Fifteen minutes later:
Someone: what’s Elle doing today?

Him: uh....errands? :dunno:

I guess I’m still not sure whether or not Steve knew her plans. Was it mentioned in the video perhaps? I’m not able to view it for some reason.

 

[Suzanne Harmson]

According to the video he did not have a clue she was going in to Slidell which is what is so frustrating. The reporter should not have left that vague but she was young and I am sure uncomfortable challenging him on this point.

It was all small talk about the dog having to see him leave so it would know Steve was gone for the day and not drive Nanette crazy looking for his return. Even this story seems contrived to me because every dog I have ever owned had an internal clock that knew what time people left and what time they returned.

And Elle I guarantee you that your husband would remember a little better than “errands” if something terrible happened and he was giving statements to the police, at least I hope so. Stevens statement regarding his last morning with Nanette comes off as scripted. I do not believe a word of it.

 

[Elle*Bee]

Drone footage and photos of the scene (taken after the scene was released by investigators).

"The Sheriff's Office also said that the first word of the fire that destroyed the Krentels' home was called in at 2:30 that afternoon.

A source familiar with the investigation said only one source of ignition in the house caused the fire."

http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orle...cle_c619b94a-f58d-11e7-b2d9-c3384d0d38a4.html

 

[MzOpinion8d]

Drone footage and photos of the scene (taken after the scene was released by investigators).

"The Sheriff's Office also said that the first word of the fire that destroyed the Krentels' home was called in at 2:30 that afternoon.

A source familiar with the investigation said only one source of ignition in the house caused the fire."

http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orle...cle_c619b94a-f58d-11e7-b2d9-c3384d0d38a4.html

Wow, only one source of ignition? It's almost like someone with a professional background in firefighting and arson investigations would be a suspect...

 

[talula]

http://www.nola.com/northshore/index.ssf/2018/02/slaying_of_north_shore_fire_ch.html
Nanette's story Will be on Crime Watch soon

 

[Witchy1]

Drone footage and photos of the scene (taken after the scene was released by investigators).

"The Sheriff's Office also said that the first word of the fire that destroyed the Krentels' home was called in at 2:30 that afternoon.

A source familiar with the investigation said only one source of ignition in the house caused the fire."

http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orle...cle_c619b94a-f58d-11e7-b2d9-c3384d0d38a4.html

My understanding is that typical arson has more than 1 ignition source - of this nature, designed to destroy evidence.
The thought is this is done to ensure the fire destroys the evidence or "takes".

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Suzanne Harmson]

This is more like a bombing than a fire, I can not believe this case remains unsolved. I am deeply burdened and grieved by it.

 

[keeponsearching]

I caught most of this story on crimewatch, as I cleaned. Some of the story line seemed confusing. I am going to read back and see if it was talked about here.

 

[Elle*Bee]

I watched the episode of Crimewatch. A few things that stood out to me (still forming opinions):

1). Hubby seemed genuinely emotional when walking the site of the fire with the reporter. I guess I didn’t expect that.

2). I liked the reporter. She asked a question of the sheriff (I forget what), he replied and I thought, “oh yeah, ask him about...” and she did.

3). I thought it odd that hubby says he did NOT ask his brother whether or not he was involved in the crime. (Nan’s family said she felt threatened by BIL and hubby alluded to that as well.)

4) Brother-in-law was interviewed by phone and said he and Nan never exchanged unpleasant words. (Contradiction of #3)

5). BIL laughed quite a bit during his phone interview. Nerves maybe, but I found it off putting.

6). The show seemed to offer another potential suspect (Nan’s stepson) but quickly abandoned that because he had an alibi. Not sure the purpose of bringing up stepson. Sort of seemed like grasping to me.

Still, I’m glad her story is out there.

 

[Elle*Bee]

My understanding is that typical arson has more than 1 ignition source - of this nature, designed to destroy evidence.
The thought is this is done to ensure the fire destroys the evidence or "takes".

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

I would’ve thought so too (multiple ignition sources), assuming one wasn’t trying to make it look like an accidental fire. There was nothing left standing of the house. Not a single beam.

 

[keeponsearching]

I thought I heard during the crimewatch, her father talking about how Nanette thought someone was following her, and he was concern because she is out there alone most of the day. But she had guns. I think this is super personal case, to shoot the animals too.

 

[keeponsearching]

I was really surprise over the drone view. Whoever started that fire was hoping to make it seem like it was just a fire. But thats thing, a shot to the head would show up, so unless this person was hoping it wouldn't be investigated, idk. I feel really sad for Nanette. I hate that these things happen.

 

[Elle*Bee]

I was really surprise over the drone view. Whoever started that fire was hoping to make it seem like it was just a fire. But thats thing, a shot to the head would show up, so unless this person was hoping it wouldn't be investigated, idk. I feel really sad for Nanette. I hate that these things happen.

Because of the gunshot wound, I always thought the fire was more of a case of destroying evidence (incl DNA, fingerprints on weapon, trace evidence) versus covering a crime.

 

[liltexans]

Link to the Crime Watch Daily coverage of this case:

https://crimewatchdaily.com/2018/02...und-dead-in-burned-home-with-gunshot-to-head/

 

[talula]

Look closely, no tears for SK

I watched the episode of Crimewatch. A few things that stood out to me (still forming opinions):

1). Hubby seemed genuinely emotional when walking the site of the fire with the reporter. I guess I didn’t expect that.

2). I liked the reporter. She asked a question of the sheriff (I forget what), he replied and I thought, “oh yeah, ask him about...” and she did.

3). I thought it odd that hubby says he did NOT ask his brother whether or not he was involved in the crime. (Nan’s family said she felt threatened by BIL and hubby alluded to that as well.)

4) Brother-in-law was interviewed by phone and said he and Nan never exchanged unpleasant words. (Contradiction of #3)

5). BIL laughed quite a bit during his phone interview. Nerves maybe, but I found it off putting.

6). The show seemed to offer another potential suspect (Nan’s stepson) but quickly abandoned that because he had an alibi. Not sure the purpose of bringing up stepson. Sort of seemed like grasping to me.

Still, I’m glad her story is out there.

 

[Elle*Bee]

Bumping for Nanette