Theory Theory - Theories about why - Burglary gone wrong

[Ghostwheel]

This topic is about theories assuming Burglary.

 

[Lebowski]

burglary/robbery gone wrong is what i have tended to think. AIUI, burglary is the most common home invasion crime.

specifically, i think it was a semi-planned burglary aimed at something specific like hidden valuables or a safe. this could explain three unusual features of the crime: Lantana Man bringing a weapon, the long time (40 minutes?) spent at the home, and the fact that they woke her (intentionally or not) and then they didn't just take what they wanted and leave. the weapon suggests they expected to confront her and saw a need to coerce or intimidate her. the long time on site and fact that they woke her may have been because they needed information from her (location of valuables? safe combination?), and she wouldn't give it up. if it was about a safe in particular, that might further explain the odd fact that they took her: they wanted to get out of there, but needed more time to get the combination out of her.

kidnappings for ransom are exceedingly rare nowadays, and i have seen nothing so far that makes me think the ransom demands are legimitate. as far as kidnappings more generally, NG is a highly unusual target. ...and what would be the motive?

murder is possible, but rarer than burglary, and why take the victim with you? same goes for home invasion SA.

the main problem with this theory (AFAIK) is the sheriff has said it is not a burglary gone wrong. but we don't know what he's basing that on, so i don't know how much weight to give to his say so.

 

[justtrish]

burglary/robbery gone wrong is what i have tended to think. AIUI, burglary is the most common home invasion crime.

specifically, i think it was a semi-planned burglary aimed at something specific like hidden valuables or a safe. this could explain three unusual features of the crime: Lantana Man bringing a weapon, the long time (40 minutes?) spent at the home, and the fact that they woke her (intentionally or not) and then they didn't just take what they wanted and leave. the weapon suggests they expected to confront her and saw a need to coerce or intimidate her. the long time on site and fact that they woke her may have been because they needed information from her (location of valuables? safe combination?), and she wouldn't give it up. if it was about a safe in particular, that might further explain the odd fact that they took her: they wanted to get out of there, but needed more time to get the combination out of her.

kidnappings for ransom are exceedingly rare nowadays, and i have seen nothing so far that makes me think the ransom demands are legimitate. as far as kidnappings more generally, NG is a highly unusual target. ...and what would be the motive?

murder is possible, but rarer than burglary, and why take the victim with you? same goes for home invasion SA.

the main problem with this theory (AFAIK) is the sheriff has said it is not a burglary gone wrong. but we don't know what he's basing that on, so i don't know how much weight to give to his say so.

One of the issues I have with a burglary gone wrong is the seemingly carefree way the lantana man seems to be hanging out. How did he know that police were not on the way? How did he know that camera didn't alert someone inside or someone outside of that home to the fact he was on the porch? How did he know there were no other cameras? If we see him and it isn't till 40ish minutes later Nancy's pacemaker is away from her phone, then that is a LONG time to be hanging around not knowing if police or a neighbor or family member has been alerted via the front camera. In my old neighborhood all us neighbors shared camera access with the others. If it was a burglary gone wrong, wouldn't they want to get the heck out of there? Why take 40 more minutes? Did he or any accomplices somehow know that nobody was alerted?

 

[Lebowski]

One of the issues I have with a burglary gone wrong is the seemingly carefree way the lantana man seems to be hanging out. How did he know that police were not on the way? How did he know that camera didn't alert someone inside or someone outside of that home to the fact he was on the porch? How did he know there were no other cameras? If we see him and it isn't till 40ish minutes later Nancy's pacemaker is away from her phone, then that is a LONG time to be hanging around not knowing if police or a neighbor or family member has been alerted via the front camera. In my old neighborhood all us neighbors shared camera access with the others. If it was a burglary gone wrong, wouldn't they want to get the heck out of there? Why take 40 more minutes? Did he or any accomplices somehow know that nobody was alerted?

bbm

well, the bold stuff is why i think they were after something specific and had trouble getting it. agreed, 40 minutes is an eternity for a burglar. my understanding of the stats and criminology (as guided by AI, *blush*) is that when there's a violent burglary and the perp(s) stay on site for more than 10 minutes or so, it's either because they're after something specific and having troubling getting it, or they had trouble controlling the victim/resident and had to do unplanned things responsive to that. i don't see them having much trouble controlling NG. so, IF it's a burglary, i think they were after something specific and had trouble getting it.

i do agree lantana man appears oddly unhurried for someone who had been there 40 minutes committing crimes worth decades in prison. that's a problem for my theory. but i think it's equally a problem for any other theory... right? i mean, is there anyone who doesn't think lantana man had committed serious crimes of one kind or another? and is there any scenario on the table where he wouldn't want to be out of there as fast as possible, especially after having been on site so long?

 

[Ghostwheel]

I like Burglary gone wrong up until the point where NG is spirited away. The average burglar just wants whatever stuff they want. If someone throws a monkey wrench into getting that "stuff", the average burglar cuts his losses and runs, they don't stop to take someone.

Assume NG was accidentally killed. Would a burglar take the time, take the risk of getting her DNA on himself,clothes, car, whatever? They are a burglar, not a murderer, I would think they would panic and flee.

Secondly who burgles in gloves like those? Vinyl or latex or nitrile or neoprene ONLY? Sure. But with a big bulky glove under it? You aren't getting anything that requires any dexterity with those, IMO. And if you end up forced to take it off, then that runs the risk of DNA getting somewhere.

BUT, if it was a targeted burglary specific to NG, by a person who maybe knows her or has been in her house or has worked for her, that changes things a bit for me. If someone in the neighborhood, they could have known NG's habits. If someone who worked on something inside her house, they might have also known her habits. I think of the re-pipers who were in my house for five days. They were in my bedrooms, they were in my family room they were in my kitchen they were in my garage and I was working from home in the front room. They pretty much knew everything about me. (They know I have an arsenal of swords and knives on my wall....). If NGs kidnapper plotted and planned a burglary for a long time and NG got in the way, they might have been so angry that bad things happened and the anger caused the removal of NG. Just some thoughts. There is a lot here that is bothering me I cant quite pin down. I think it may be that I think the person who committed this is sociopathic, so that makes motive harder to pin down for me.

 

[wibbleflea]

There is a lot here that is bothering me I cant quite pin down. I think it may be that I think the person who committed this is sociopathic, so that makes motive harder to pin down for me.

Good point. I think it’s easier to work out apparent characteristics of the perp or perps (callousness, sociopathy, apparent ability to think and plan carefully, intellect) than it is their motivation.

 

[warp3dwing]

I like Burglary gone wrong up until the point where NG is spirited away. The average burglar just wants whatever stuff they want. If someone throws a monkey wrench into getting that "stuff", the average burglar cuts his losses and runs, they don't stop to take someone.

Assume NG was accidentally killed. Would a burglar take the time, take the risk of getting her DNA on himself,clothes, car, whatever? They are a burglar, not a murderer, I would think they would panic and flee.

Secondly who burgles in gloves like those? Vinyl or latex or nitrile or neoprene ONLY? Sure. But with a big bulky glove under it? You aren't getting anything that requires any dexterity with those, IMO. And if you end up forced to take it off, then that runs the risk of DNA getting somewhere.

BUT, if it was a targeted burglary specific to NG, by a person who maybe knows her or has been in her house or has worked for her, that changes things a bit for me. If someone in the neighborhood, they could have known NG's habits. If someone who worked on something inside her house, they might have also known her habits. I think of the re-pipers who were in my house for five days. They were in my bedrooms, they were in my family room they were in my kitchen they were in my garage and I was working from home in the front room. They pretty much knew everything about me. (They know I have an arsenal of swords and knives on my wall....). If NGs kidnapper plotted and planned a burglary for a long time and NG got in the way, they might have been so angry that bad things happened and the anger caused the removal of NG. Just some thoughts. There is a lot here that is bothering me I cant quite pin down. I think it may be that I think the person who committed this is sociopathic, so that makes motive harder to pin down for me.

I wonder if the FBI has data on how much surveillance is usually performed on a person and their property before such a targeted attack. Could the suspect have only visited once before? Would that really be enough to confidently pull this off?

In addition to the issues you pointed out, the position of the gun also seems to point away from burglary gone wrong. Bringing a gun to a burglary would greatly increase the punishment if caught, so why flaunt it - on camera, no less? The holster positioning would be terrible for being stealthy or making a quick escape.

Would it really be necessary for the gun to be in the open? I don’t think so. It wouldn’t be necessary to subdue Nancy. And could she even see it in the dark, without glasses? It only takes a second to remove a gun from a proper concealed holster if it becomes necessary. I think the only “eye” that was meant to see the gun was the Nest camera.

I also think the suspect might’ve meant for the video footage to be found easily and released ASAP, and they might’ve been surprised that it required a deep dive at Nest to recover it. Personally, I would’ve assumed that someone with Nancy’s means would’ve had a Nest subscription, and maybe they did too.

If he entered through the rear to commit a burglary, I fail to see why it would be necessary to disable the front camera at all. Just go back out the rear. While it’s true that we don’t know whether the suspect had already been in the house when the video was captured, I suspect not. I think he patiently prepped the scene before very quickly subduing and abducting Nancy.

 

[Napoli]

SG Stalker. NG is the trophy to get SG's attention. Not a burglary gone wrong. JMO

 

[wibbleflea]

I wonder if the FBI has data on how much surveillance is usually performed on a person and their property before such a targeted attack. Could the suspect have only visited once before? Would that really be enough to confidently pull this off?

In addition to the issues you pointed out, the position of the gun also seems to point away from burglary gone wrong. Bringing a gun to a burglary would greatly increase the punishment if caught, so why flaunt it - on camera, no less? The holster positioning would be terrible for being stealthy or making a quick escape.

Would it really be necessary for the gun to be in the open? I don’t think so. It wouldn’t be necessary to subdue Nancy. And could she even see it in the dark, without glasses? It only takes a second to remove a gun from a proper concealed holster if it becomes necessary. I think the only “eye” that was meant to see the gun was the Nest camera.

I also think the suspect might’ve meant for the video footage to be found easily and released ASAP, and they might’ve been surprised that it required a deep dive at Nest to recover it. Personally, I would’ve assumed that someone with Nancy’s means would’ve had a Nest subscription, and maybe they did too.

If he entered through the rear to commit a burglary, I fail to see why it would be necessary to disable the front camera at all. Just go back out the rear. While it’s true that we don’t know whether the suspect had already been in the house when the video was captured, I suspect not. I think he patiently prepped the scene before very quickly subduing and abducting Nancy.

The position of the gun may have been for NG’s benefit, too, not just for video.

Exit through the front entrance may have been a change from the original plan, the abductor finding it necessary only after interaction with NG. Lights could have been turned on by the perp in NG’s room.

There were early reports of a rear door being found wide open, and the rear floodlights were smashed, so exit through the rear would likely have been the original plan. The blood on the porch tiles is NG’s and wasn’t visible in the video, suggesting she did leave that way.

 

[diggndeeperstill]

Is it possible perp became aware of the camera that was later removed on roof by LE and didn’t want to risk going out the back? Maybe it was unknown or not susceptible to a WiFi jammer as it was possibly wired?