The odd behavior of the front porch intruder can be explained by assuming that a change had to be made to the kidnapper’s original plan to exit the house by the same path used to enter the house; namely, by the back door. The following paragraphs explain this further.
The first figure shows the first frame of video from the front door camera that shows the intruder approaching the front porch. Notice that the intruder is stepping onto the front walk from a position to the left, and not from the right or from straight ahead. Therefore, it is unlikely that he came up the front walk steps where the hand rail is located. So, where could he be coming from?
View attachment 647008
The answer can be found by looking at the second figure, which shows an aerial view of the front of the house.
View attachment 647010
This view shows the intruder’s position with a red rectangle. It is immediately in front of a white circular stepping stone that can be seen in both the door camera video and the aerial view of the house. Now, this position is approached most easily by a clear path to the corner of the house as shown by the red dots in the aerial view. It is unlikely that the intruder entered this bath from any point short of the corner of the house because he would have had to climb over a two-foot high pile of rocks to reach the path as shown in the third figure – something not impossible, but a hassle that one would have preferred to avoid especially at night.
View attachment 647011
Therefore, it appears that the intruder came to the front door from a point beyond the corner of the house. This point was most likely the point of entry into the house, which we are told by authorities was the door to the back porch. If this is the case, then most likely the intruder came from inside the house before he approached the front door.
Now, let’s assume that that the original plan was to for the kidnapper(s) to exit the house by walking out the back door with their victim walking beside them to their vehicle located somewhere down the street. This would have been their safest option to avoid other cameras. And parking the vehicle on the street would have made it easier for a fast getaway than parking in the driveway, where they could have been blocked in. Unfortunately, while they were inside the house it became apparent to them that it was impossible for Nancy to walk to the vehicle where it was, either because Nancy told them she couldn’t walk that far or because they could see for themselves that she couldn’t walk that far (they could have spotted the walker she used inside the house). Therefore, they were forced to make a change in their exit plan and to bring the vehicle closer to the house so Nancy wouldn’t have to walk as far. The front door was decided to be the best option for doing this.
Therefore, while one of the kidnappers remained with Nancy to ensure that she didn’t call the police, the other kidnapper exited out the back door to get the vehicle. While on his way to get the vehicle, he remembered that there was a front door camera that could see the vehicle approach the front of the house, watch them enter the vehicle, and make their getaway. He knew this camera existed because of his reconnaissance of the house a few weeks earlier, when he was spotted unknowingly by the front door camera. Therefore, he had to either cover up the camera or remove it entirely before bringing the vehicle to the house. So, he went directly from the back porch to the front porch to disable the camera.
One can see on the camera video that he knew the camera existed because he held his head down while approaching the camera from the side. When he was unable to remove camera easily, he decided to temporarily cover it up with something so that it could not see the vehicle, assuming he could find a tool later in the vehicle or in the house that would help him remove the camera while they were exiting through the front door. So, he decided to use some nearby vegetation to disable the camera. While covering it with vegetation appears to most people to be a sign of gross incompetence, it actually served his purpose quite well because the camera was unable to see him later bring the vehicle to the front steps, get out, and approach the camera once more to remove it, either by approaching it from outside the house or from the inside. Then, after the camera was removed, no one could see them take Nancy down the front walk, put her in the vehicle, and then leave in the vehicle. And we know that they exited this way because of the blood on the front porch that wasn’t there when the intruder approached the camera the first time.
So this change of exit plan explains the following:
1) The front door video occurs while leaving the house and not while entering the house.
a. The intruder at the front door was inside the house prior to going to the front door and was likely the driver of the vehicle.
b. This explains the full backpack used by the intruder at the front door. It contains objects taken from inside or outside the house like possibly cameras, and other objects of value, and not just tools for entering the house.
c. It explains why covering the camera with vegetation was an effective action and not a sign of gross incompetence.
2) The intruder on the video at the front door likely had an accomplice.
a. Someone had to guarantee that Nancy would not call the police while the intruder was at the front door.
b. Someone had to guarantee that Nancy would not call the police while someone else disabled cameras and flood lights before exiting the house, which could have caused sounds that Nancy might have heard. (Nancy was hard of hearing and used hearing aids, but the kidnappers likely did not know this ahead of time).
c. The intruder appears to not have full use of his right hand, right elbow, and right leg, making it difficult for him to climb to the roof to remove cameras.
d. If the intruder did not have an accomplice, then he had to ensure that Nancy could not call the police while he was absent by tying her up with tape or cord. But it still would have been risky to leave her alone.
3) Change of exit plan does not depend upon how Nancy entered her house prior to her kidnapping.
4) Change of exit plan does not depend upon how the kidnappers entered the house.
a. Either Nancy left the back door unlocked, or
b. Someone else had left the back door unlocked, or
c. The kidnappers picked the lock on the back door. (There was no forced entry).
d. The kidnappers could have entered the house via a sliding door to the bedroom. In this case they would have still planned to exit via the back door because exiting via the sliding door would have required the victim to climb over a low brick wall. The rear porch did not have a sliding door.
5) The camera removed by the FBI from the roof of the guest house would have seen all entry and exit movements by any intruders via the back door. This camera was overlooked by the kidnappers because it was not on the roof of the main house. At this time only the FBI knows how much of this video data was stored within this camera, stored onsite in the house, or transmitted to the cloud. Perhaps some data was stored. Perhaps none was stored.
