Long time reader, but I had to register to share some theories I haven’t seen much here or anywhere else online.
These deal with two main issues: cameras and the timeline (40+ minutes). IMO major possibilities are being overlooked in both cases. When something doesn’t make sense, that usually means we just haven’t found the right explanation yet. IMO the explanation I will offer below makes a lot of seemingly confusing data points fit perfectly.
This is all just my opinion based on things we have heard.
Topic #1: Cameras
First, cameras: IMO this guy WANTED to be seen. In fact, it was a key part of his strategy. Both times, but especially the first time he showed up. As someone who has these types of cameras as part of my home security system and understands them extremely well, it actually makes perfect sense that he would want to trigger them AND appear in the image.
Think of a camera as an early warning system as much as it is a camera. Some people silence them all night and rely on them to provide retroactive evidence of a crime. Others want the alerts to wake them up so they have early warning of danger. Some do both. That makes all the difference in this crime.
One of the underappreciated aspects of Blink, Nest, Ring, and the like is that in addition to being cameras and microphones, they also act as perimeter annunciators. What I mean by that is that it is practically impossible to disable them without first triggering them, which sends an immediate alert to someone’s phone (sometimes multiple people’s phones, depending on the setup). You can rip the camera off the wall and destroy it but it’s already too late: it has served its purpose and alerted the owner, who is possibly now awake and taking any number of actions. The criminal’s element of surprise is gone and their presence is known. That is, unless the homeowner silences alerts at night and just checks in the morning (as most people do because they don’t want to wake up every time a cat walks across their porch in the middle of the night).
In this scenario, he didn’t care about being filmed per se. He’s well disguised anyway and likely assumes he will be filmed somewhere by a camera he missed. IMO his concern was 100% about whether the alerts would wake Nancy up before he got inside and spoil his plan.
He needed the element of surprise. An 84 year old woman is definitely going to dial 911 if she is awakened by a break- in in progress. Even if he gets her out before police arrive, the police are now aware of a break-in/kidnapping in progress and will be swarming the entire neighborhood. The criminal might even drive past a responding officer, who will afterwards recall seeing the vehicle leaving the neighborhood as they responded. They might even call it in and have another officer stop that vehicle in case it is the perp. Risk goes way, way up if Nancy wakes up at any point before he gets inside and can stop her from calling 911.
Let’s assume this new timeline of photos is correct: he was there beforehand, likely an earlier date. I have thought since the photos first emerged that they must have been taken on different nights. Most people have focused on the shoes, lack of backpack, lack of holster… but the first thing I noticed was the distinct lack of a shadow (his shadow is clearly visible on the night he wore the backpack and holster, but absent in the photo where he is not wearing them).
This suggests a pitch black night in the earlier timeframe photo, perfect for recon. He wears his same gear that he’ll wear later because he is doing a dry run and wants it to feel as much like the real thing as possible, and he also does not want to be identified. He also wants to appear as menacing as possible for the camera as mentioned above.
He has to know what to expect, if anything, when the camera is triggered. And he would understand that triggering it is unavoidable.
Even if the criminal has a wifi jammer most systems will then alert the owner that all the modules are down. So they’re now awake at a minimum and likely to notice sounds outside or even to look out the windows to investigate, because that is suspicious.
These alerts could very well be loud and wake the person up. The person might then turn lights on in the house, go to live view to see what is going on, or dial 911 or text a family member depending on the circumstances. Or grab a firearm that they have for protection. Maybe all of the above. The criminal has no idea what is going on, if anything at all. Almost all of these systems will send an immediate thumbnail before recording so that even if the camera is disabled before the video is uploaded to the cloud you have an image of whatever set it off on your phone.
IMO this guy is almost posing for the camera on the earlier date. He needs to find out: what happens if the camera alerts AND the image in the thumbnail or on the phone is of a terrifying man in a mask and gloves? Notice he stands far enough away that you can see he looks terrifying but can’t make out much in terms of ID. It’s no good if it alerts and the image is some strange blur or nothing at all, because those of us who have these cameras see that stuff all the time. Cats, rabbits, the wind.. All cause triggers. You’re not raising the alarm so to speak, for every single time it notifies you of motion.
He needs the person inside to see a central casting bad guy so that they will react however they are going to react. That reaction will then be taken into account in whatever plans he has for the actual night of the kidnapping. Thus the need for a 2-part plan.
Now imagine you are 84. Your phone alerts and wakes you up in the middle of the night. You see THAT on your screen. You are almost certainly going to react. You likely dial 911. You turn on lights in the house because you are definitely not going to want to sit in the dark until cops come. You text or call family or neighbors for help right after 911. In short, ruckus ensues.
Or maybe your family also gets the alerts. It’s not yet 2AM on a Saturday. It’s not impossible that someone else also gets the alert who is actually still awake, watching TV, playing video games, whatever. They see that nightmare on grandma’s front door, or mom’s front door. Obviously action will be taken of some type.
So he poses to ensure that he has triggered the camera, then quickly retreats down the street into the brush somewhere to hide. Do lights come on? Do police arrive? Does a dog bark? Is there any activity at all?
Hmm, nothing. Nothing happens at all he notices. So he slinks away into the darkness, confident that the cameras are no real threat. The biggest threat of the cameras is that they wake Nancy up before he can get inside, meaning 911 is called.
So he waits a couple weeks and watches off and on. Are more visible security measures taken? Do new cameras appear?
Now, here’s the thing: he is likely feeling better in terms of not alerting anyone inside based on previous recon. But that could be a one-off. Maybe she silenced her phone that night but not this one. So he needs a quick repeat on the night of.
This is where the timeline comes in.
Topic #2: Timeline on the Night of the Kidnapping
I do not believe at all that he was inside the house for 40+ minutes as we keep hearing almost everywhere. That makes zero sense for a kidnapping, where every moment spent at the scene in contact with the victim= increased risk.
In this scenario I have described he returns a couple of weeks later, fairly confident that the cameras pose no real threat. He likely now assumes Nancy has her phone on silent so that every time a cat or other animal walks by at night she doesn’t wake up.
However, he has to make sure, just in case she woke up the next morning (from the earlier recon) and saw that image and NOW takes more security steps, such as having her alerts on loud enough to wake her up. Maybe a neighbor or someone else is also now getting them as a backup. He doesn’t know, so he goes up to the porch, knowing the camera will activate. Of course he ducks his head just in case (why over expose himself to being filmed?).
This is a test… What will happen?
The lantana also serves a purpose: it looks even more scary/wrong. If anyone is seeing someone do that they are raising the alarm 100% for sure. It escalates from a simple prowler on the porch to likely intent to cause harm.
But nothing happens. He slinks to the shadows again and waits. No lights come on. No cops show up. This could account for a solid 15-20 minutes of that 40 minute timeline we keep hearing about. Again, there is no real rush here. If he is detected he will escape into the pitch black and brush unseen. If he is not detected then it’s like he just arrived. It’s likely he has a getaway driver close by but not so close that if police suddenly come flying down the street his car isn’t sitting there parked suspiciously. It’s not like he can hop into a car and take off 2 houses down at 2:30 AM or so when the police are responding to a suspicious man trying to break into a house.
We have also heard about a second motion detection after 2, about 15 minutes or so before Nancy’s pacemaker disconnected from her watch. This could be the kidnapper(s) proceeding to gain entry into the house, meaning they would have only been inside for 10 minutes or less in total, which makes a lot more sense. One restrains her while the other goes and gets the car OR signals the getaway driver that it’s time, which obviously would not be in the driveway to begin with in case their camera test resulted in their presence being detected. So that takes a few minutes, as does getting her into the car, situated, and leaving.
If you take all that into account, we could be talking 5-10 minutes or even less in the house in total. If they were there for 40 minutes they would have cleaned up all the blood drops. Instead, IMO, they got in as quietly as possible after making sure the cameras didn’t wake anyone up, and got her out as quickly as possible, because who knows what little hidden cameras or security items they could miss. Kidnappers act fast. They don’t stick around the scene any longer than needed once the crime is in motion.
Just my theory, but I think it explains this person’s actions. Far from being a bumbling amateur, this was IMO a clever test to see what alerts, if any, would result from the camera before proceeding into the house.
PERCENT stand by his reporting.
