I believe the authorities said they thought this was not random, but targeted. I interpret targeted to mean a prior knowledge of occupants, their resources and their daily routine. It is likely that only the two women and the child were at home when taken hostage. I would think those targeting the family also knew the activity level of the neighborhood at the time of day they chose as well as how to approach the house without raising suspicions. So, yes, NG who mentioned she felt the perpetrator/s had some inside-track information is plausible. Naturally, given that she has been interviewed, she likely knows a bit more about the crime from law enforcement (and certainly family habits, level of security) than we do. But the question becomes how did perps come by this knowledge and what motivated their going to the trouble they did to choreograph their crime, take risks in such a protected and active area, while at the same time we know they made foolish, stupid, and blatant mistakes facilitating capture--or at least DW did in coming back, taking an expensive cab ride, not bothering to disguise himself in any way, donning gloves for dinner but donating saliva, while setting the fire in the middle of the day was completely unnecessary. Does this mean a smarter person engaged him and/or his crew, but their follow through was flawed, they lost control of themselves and the scene? If we speculate that some AIW employee with inside knowledge contracted DW and any accomplices to allegedly put a plan into lethal action, how would such a person be able to contact them and know they/he would be wiling to pull this off (or try to?)? If, in a reverse direction, the alleged participant DW were to have been connected in some way to the putative insider, how? Baffling to many the seeming disconnect between planning to gain access and to control contingencies. while following through with "overkill," and then reckless mismanagement in aftermath, a kind of self-implosion or destruction. I propose two things: if DW was a chief participant, chosen for his willingness and ability to terrify, he was all wrong for the job as his rage, violent impulse, and lack of caution overtake him. But if instead, DW, alleged perpetrator, possible "ring-leader," somehow bartered for intel, who and why would his source supply him with same? Maybe he heard it "through the grape-vine." JMO, humbly offered. Perhaps one is inclined to occupy oneself with puzzling this case because otherwise one goes mad being occupied by near-unimaginable horror one is helpless to have stopped, just as the victims were.
