I'd like to thank Kelly Glass & Mirror (of 257 Riddiford St, Newtown), who went zap, zap, zap, and cut me some identical glass panels at about 8:45am today for much a much more reasonable price than I was mentally prepared for. The panels are in, and I'll probably put in a pin to make sure that the window can't be levered open from the outside; I've put a nail in for the moment. (I'm vaguely considering bars, but I'm not sure it's worth it.)
The side-gate was unlocked during the party, so I suppose it's possible that someone snuck down the side of the house, took the panels out in preparation for breaking in, and was scared off, glass in hand, by an outbreak of loud laughter... but why wouldn't they try the french doors, which would seem to be much easier than climbing through a window? And wouldn't the fact that the lights were on and the lounge occupied dissuade them? Just... inexplicably odd. And apparently it happened after 2:30am, which is tres bizarre.
Anyway, I better get my invoice in before they take the box away. :)
Posted by svend at May 2, 2005 9:28 AM
It does seem pretty weird. Having the glass removed instead of broken is also strange.
I've not been to your place... would it be possible to get the door handle through the bits of glass?
It seems in rather poor taste to be a joke, but it also seems pretty darn ineffective to be criminal.
Cheers
Grant
Well criminals are dumb, haven't you ever watched Worlds Worst Criminals? Those people have a very low IQ, that's for sure. 1) because they can't pull off their heists, and 2) they're criminals to begin with!
Posted by: Sproke :0) at May 2, 2005 12:06 PMGlad to hear you were able to replace the glass at a price that was better than what you expected. Still, I'm sorry that you had to do it in the first place.
Unfortunately, I imagine if one of your guests did do it as a "practical joke" they'd be too embarassed now to fess up.
Posted by: Jackie at May 2, 2005 12:15 PMNo, you wouldn't be able to reach any door - you'd have to climb in the window and over the toilet. In fact, it's even dumber than that, since there's another slat window that's not through a garden gate, though my initial tests suggest that it's difficult to pry open from the outside - the other window may well have been left open.
I've pretty much decided to put it behind me, though I felt quite bileful on the night (and on having to get up relatively early the next morning), which I think coloured my previous post.
Posted by: Svend at May 2, 2005 12:37 PMHow did you get the timeline down to 2.30 am? (I've been in a similar situation with a broken toilet seat, so I'm curious how other amateur detectives work) ...
Posted by: hix at May 2, 2005 1:40 PMIt's fairly straightforward - if you trust the testimony of the respondant that says the latest time, then it's that time.
If that witness is unreliable, then look at the next previous reported time. If you've no reason to believe that the two witnesses were in collusion (if they're strangers, for example), then you have good grounds to believe this second, earlier time is definitely correct; you can then assess the believability of the later time in that light.
Off the top of my head. :)
Posted by: Svend at May 2, 2005 3:13 PMIt was I that went loo at 2:30am. I was one of the die-harders, that really, really didn't want to leave. Why? Coz Svends place is damn cool! And so was his party!
Posted by: Sproke :0) at May 3, 2005 8:22 AM