Interpreting the "evidence"

[RedChief]

Perhaps the medium is the real message here: the daughter was the medium through which the mother demonstrated her values.

skybluepink,

Yes, all of what you say may be true. The fake kidnapping is still very much on the table.

But, why go to all that trouble to avoid the trip? Why not just tell John, NO! Wouldn't that have been a lot simpler? Also, she'd have to arrange for a perp on pretty short notice. And surely there would have been more attractive alternatives to the unforseen perp recognition crisis. How long had the polar expedition been on the drawing board?

John wasn't paying her the attention and respect that she deserved? Maybe a little narcissistic misperception operating here? Or is that the hysterical personality?

Feeling powerless to object? Patsy was a free spirit. She did what she wanted when she wanted.

Amen on the early am trip planning echo. That "early stuff" is puzzling, to say the least. It seems so out of place following immediately upon the heels of the definite "I will call you between 8 and 10 am..." It smacks of afterthought and originality too. Sure makes you wonder if the writer had knowledge of the planned early am trip alright.

The cartharsis: yes, I can see that too. I believe an FBI agent mentioned that as a possibility. Do you think the writer was trying to "stick it to" John via the note? The catharsis was after the fact?

The "attache" and the "be rested" could well have been adopted from the movies. Do you see a copyright infringement here?

The fake kidnapping: does that sound like Patsy to you? Criminy!

The daughter was the medium...: It would seem so, but hey, I'm no psychologist. People do screwy things; that's my diagnosis.

 

[skybluepink]

Just postulating--Saying no could create conflict, whereas taking subversive action could have many advantages. Again, the root cause c/b the traumatic bout w/cancer. She could have DIED, but everyone who sympathized & comforted her in those dark days eventually considered her cured & became much less solicitous. She was supposed to get over it, but she harbored fear & sorrow & was desperate for comfort. Meanwhile, her formerly concerned husband wants to round up the stepkids & hit the slopes--& maybe toss 'em some of that bonus money as X-mas gifts.

The kidnapping ploy probably started as a private fantasy, & the mental exercise was emboldening. It gradually took form. She could sedate JB, sneak into her room, blindfold & gag her, wrap her in a blanket, carry her to the basement, & bind her hands & feet. Later in the day, JB would be miraculously found--dazed but fine. The crime, such as it was, goes unsolved.

During the wait, the mother will be surrounded by people offering the comfort for which she's been longing. She can even bolster her husband & son, to the admiration of all. The timing is perfect, since her home will be divinely decorated for the holidays--after all, they'll be "under constant scrutiny" (just like beauty pageant contestants). It could also be good promotion for JB's career.

Consider: "You stand a 99% chance . . . you stand a 100% chance . . . " is how doctors talk to cancer patients. Similarly, "if you want her to see 1977" c/b an inadvertent expression of the writer's own shortened life expectancy. The elaborate instructions about the bank, etc., convey secret satisfaction in anticipation of watching the harried recipient dutifully comply. She's the one who will "monitor."

However, during the fake kidnapping, JB soils her pants, & mother of course doesn't want to leave her in that condition for hours or have her found that way, so she must clean her up. That's when it all erupts--JB recognizes her. She panics & doesn't see any other way out. . .

 

[mihaff]

Just postulating--Saying no could create conflict, whereas taking subversive action could have many advantages. Again, the root cause c/b the traumatic bout w/cancer. She could have DIED, but everyone who sympathized & comforted her in those dark days eventually considered her cured & became much less solicitous. She was supposed to get over it, but she harbored fear & sorrow & was desperate for comfort. Meanwhile, her formerly concerned husband wants to round up the stepkids & hit the slopes--& maybe toss 'em some of that bonus money as X-mas gifts.

The kidnapping ploy probably started as a private fantasy, & the mental exercise was emboldening. It gradually took form. She could sedate JB, sneak into her room, blindfold & gag her, wrap her in a blanket, carry her to the basement, & bind her hands & feet. Later in the day, JB would be miraculously found--dazed but fine. The crime, such as it was, goes unsolved.

During the wait, the mother will be surrounded by people offering the comfort for which she's been longing. She can even bolster her husband & son, to the admiration of all. The timing is perfect, since her home will be divinely decorated for the holidays--after all, they'll be "under constant scrutiny" (just like beauty pageant contestants). It could also be good promotion for JB's career.

Consider: "You stand a 99% chance . . . you stand a 100% chance . . . " is how doctors talk to cancer patients. Similarly, "if you want her to see 1977" c/b an inadvertent expression of the writer's own shortened life expectancy. The elaborate instructions about the bank, etc., convey secret satisfaction in anticipation of watching the harried recipient dutifully comply. She's the one who will "monitor."

However, during the fake kidnapping, JB soils her pants, & mother of course doesn't want to leave her in that condition for hours or have her found that way, so she must clean her up. That's when it all erupts--JB recognizes her. She panics & doesn't see any other way out. . .

Maybe. But I believe there was some outburst or accident that led to the skull fracture. The garote was staging on what Patsy (in my humble opinion only) may have believed a kidnapping might look like. The note was totally bogus but was meant to convince John (still in my opinion) to leave the house that morning so she could load the staged body into the car and dump it. If John was also involved, the body would have been dumped before the police arrived. Clearly if an outsider was involved the live girl would have been removed from the house. John reacted correctly and made patsy call the police...but somehow realized it was a scam soon before or after the police arrived. ( of course this may be totally fiction). He decided to cover up. why I don't know. Notice the note never mentions Patsy. It seems to be begging John to leave the house and not call the Police. It was way too personal for a kidnapper. But who knows? perhaps aliens did it. IMHO

 

[skybluepink]

Yeah--I pretty much agree w/everything you said, except for WHY she wanted him out of the house. I don't think she ever planned to hurt JB (who'm she'd essentially subsumed); she likely wanted to "find" her--alive & well--while he was gone. Like you, I suspect JB injured herself at first, perhaps by flailing, & what with the darkness, late hour, adrenalin, & need for haste, the resulting actions culminated in unintentional fatality.

She wrote the note beforehand--& took satisfaction in the digs about him; her obvious absence from mention (in the final draft) is telling.

I think he chose to cover up & lawyer up because of implications, maybe by the cops, that the son was involved.

Let's all keep sifting till we strike gold.

 

[RedChief]

Yeah, the cancer was quite an ordeal alright. Patsy had her laparotomy on Dec 26, 1993, one day after Christmas. "I agonized in extreme pain and needed frequent doses of morphine", she said. It was a "stem to stern" incision from breastbone to pelvis. She could have suffered from PTSD and had flashbacks for several Christmases thereafter.

Were they planning to hit the slopes? What was the real reason for travelling to Charlevoix? Was it done on a whim? Maybe it was a fake trip, and JB's murder was premeditated?

The fake kidnapping scenario that you've outlined is OK, except that Patsy has denied it. Surely she wouldn't lie about her participation in such a brilliant scheme. For that matter, surely she wouldn't lie about her authorship of the stupendous ransom note. If only she had used a larger dose of sedative.

"If you want her to see 1997..." This analysis sounds like Hodges. The percentages are also characteristic of John; especially the 100%. He says that a lot. Also, do doctors really tell patients there is a 100% certainty or 99% certainty of success or failure? I think they prefer to linger in the lower percentage ranges--50%, 60%, 70%. I've often wondered, why would anyone want to allow for the 1% possibility that JB wouldn't be killed if John didn't comply? I think this should have been 100% also. What was the writer thinking?

Patsy would derive pleasure from seeing John in dire straits? Wow, no wonder the killing was so sadistic! John is so perfect and indomitable.

The child soils her pants: so Mom is checking on her periodically throughout the night, and taking the risk that her blindfold has slipped? Guess John was really zonked, huh. And Burke. What about those pull ups; perfect for just this sort of situation? If the child is found with soiled pants, doesn't that just reinforce the idea that she had been restrained or held hostage? When she showed her face, Mom goofed big time. She couldn't offer as an explantion for all those concerned, that she, herself had found the girl in the wine cellar? Instead she had to snuff out her life? Incredible!

Now, the blindfold: where was that? There was no evidence of that. One more "missing" item.

This is an entertaining hypothesis, but I think if Patsy had adopted this ruse, she'd have been able to carry it out no problem, and with minimal injury to the child. A buggered up child can't perform in pageants. Neither can a dead one. Who will fill JonBenet's shoes....ah, Burke! A gender obstacle?

 

[RedChief]

The question has been raised whether JonBenet was breathing when (a.) she was whacked on the head or (b.) she was strangled.

It's a well known fact that the experts haven't been able to agree on which came first; the head/brain injury or the strangulation injury. They apparently happened contemporaneously.

A popular theory is that JB was first whacked on the head and later strangled to death. A premise of that theory is that the parent/s didn't realize she was still alive when the ligature was applied. A slight variation of that premise is that the parent/s did know she was alive, but figured she'd soon die, so opted for the ligature staging.

For the ligature staging to be effective, some evidence of strangulation would be necessary. No medical examiner is going to be fooled by a rope around the neck of a person who was obviously dead when the rope was placed there.

In JB's case, she wasn't dead when the ligature was applied. There is ample evidence to support the finding of ligature strangulation as a cause of death.

In my view, she must have been breathing when the ligature was applied. I'll grant that the breathing could have been shallow, but it could have been detected by an ordinary person without great effort and without high technology. Her heart was pumping; the petechiae are a testament to that. Hearts don't continue to pump unless they are receiving a continual supply of oxygen. It is the cutoff of oxygen via the strangulation process that stops the heart. Once the heart stops, life stops. Death is always accompanied by cardiac arrest as the proximal cause no matter what the distal cause. It is not even necessary for the breathing to cease in order to cause death. Once death occurs, there is no question that the breathing ceases, because the brain also dies and the signals necessary for breathing are no longer generated.

Now, suppose she were strangled first. Death from accidental strangulation is not unheard of. It even happens with children during play. A cord is fastened innocently around someone's neck and before you know it, that someone is dead. That's one of the many reasons that children need supervison during play.

So, let's assume she's being strangled; the ligature is in place and she may or may not be gasping for breath. My guess is that JonBenet wasn't gasping for breath. The ligature wasn't that tight. But, it was tight enough to asphxiate her. But, if you insist, let's assume that she couldn't breath during the asphyxiation process. Her heart was pumping when she was whacked on the head. This is evidenced by the intracranial hemorrhaging and the scalp hemorrhaging. Such hemorrhaging doesn't occur unless there is a pumping heart to drive it. And, the heart doesn't pump when it runs out of oxygen, so the heart hadn't run out of oxygen when the head injury was inflicted.

Whether the cord interrupted JonBenet's breathing may be relevant only to the extent of it's contribution to the asphyxiation process. We know that the blood supply to the brain had been interfered with by the ligature. So, the child remained alive long enough after the head injury had been inflicted to be asphyxiated, or long enough after the asphxiation process had begun to receive a fatal blow to the head.

Either way, she was alive and that should have been obvious to any adult person who was in attendance.

So, it's not likely that Patsy or John brained JB, then strangled her, nor that either of them tightened the loop around her neck, then whacked her over the head.

That's how I see it....

 

[bensmom98]

The question has been raised whether JonBenet was breathing when (a.) she was whacked on the head or (b.) she was strangled.

It's a well known fact that the experts haven't been able to agree on which came first; the head/brain injury or the strangulation injury. They apparently happened contemporaneously.

A popular theory is that JB was first whacked on the head and later strangled to death. A premise of that theory is that the parent/s didn't realize she was still alive when the ligature was applied. A slight variation of that premise is that the parent/s did know she was alive, but figured she'd soon die, so opted for the ligature staging.

For the ligature staging to be effective, some evidence of strangulation would be necessary. No medical examiner is going to be fooled by a rope around the neck of a person who was obviously dead when the rope was placed there.

In JB's case, she wasn't dead when the ligature was applied. There is ample evidence to support the finding of ligature strangulation as a cause of death.

In my view, she must have been breathing when the ligature was applied. I'll grant that the breathing could have been shallow, but it could have been detected by an ordinary person without great effort and without high technology. Her heart was pumping; the petechiae are a testament to that. Hearts don't continue to pump unless they are receiving a continual supply of oxygen. It is the cutoff of oxygen via the strangulation process that stops the heart. Once the heart stops, life stops. Death is always accompanied by cardiac arrest as the proximal cause no matter what the distal cause. It is not even necessary for the breathing to cease in order to cause death. Once death occurs, there is no question that the breathing ceases, because the brain also dies and the signals necessary for breathing are no longer generated.

Now, suppose she were strangled first. Death from accidental strangulation is not unheard of. It even happens with children during play. A cord is fastened innocently around someone's neck and before you know it, that someone is dead. That's one of the many reasons that children need supervison during play.

So, let's assume she's being strangled; the ligature is in place and she may or may not be gasping for breath. My guess is that JonBenet wasn't gasping for breath. The ligature wasn't that tight. But, it was tight enough to asphxiate her. But, if you insist, let's assume that she couldn't breath during the asphyxiation process. Her heart was pumping when she was whacked on the head. This is evidenced by the intracranial hemorrhaging and the scalp hemorrhaging. Such hemorrhaging doesn't occur unless there is a pumping heart to drive it. And, the heart doesn't pump when it runs out of oxygen, so the heart hadn't run out of oxygen when the head injury was inflicted.

Whether the cord interrupted JonBenet's breathing may be relevant only to the extent of it's contribution to the asphyxiation process. We know that the blood supply to the brain had been interfered with by the ligature. So, the child remained alive long enough after the head injury had been inflicted to be asphyxiated, or long enough after the asphxiation process had begun to receive a fatal blow to the head.

Either way, she was alive and that should have been obvious to any adult person who was in attendance.

So, it's not likely that Patsy or John brained JB, then strangled her, nor that either of them tightened the loop around her neck, then whacked her over the head.

That's how I see it....

I agree - I also believe that neither of her parents would be capable of inflicting these injuries on her even if they were covering up for Burke.

 

[skybluepink]

"There is no error so monstrous that it fails to find defenders among the ablest men."--Lord Acton

 

[RedChief]

"There is no error so monstrous that it fails to find defenders among the ablest men."--Lord Acton

This is true, but where is the error? "Before an error can be monstrous, it must first have occurred."--Lord RedChief

 

[skybluepink]

Many thanks for your dutiful & thorough responses, & regrets for my apparent lack of clarity. A few comments before I must join my dog for a stroll:
1. Wow--her operation was on 12/26?! Now I'm 99% wedded to my conviction.
2. WEREN'T they fixin' to go skiing?? My curiosity about that event is what prompted me to post originally. I mean, she doesn't strike me as a cold-weather, dangerous sports enthusiast--especially when it involves the blended family and getting up at the crack of dawn.
3. I assume you were being sarcastic about P's tendency to speak the truth? (Samuel Butler: "I do not mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy.)
4. Percentage-wise: I meant to refer to doctors' phraseology, not the precise percentages as stated in the RN. And yes, the "99%" is absurd--as if the 1-percentage-point difference is relevant to anyone involved.
5. You are obviously not a married woman, RedChief. It's not uncommon to go around hating one's husband.
6. No, she wasn't periodically checking on her captive. The discovery of the wet pants occurred DURING the kidnapping. That is, according to my admittedly hole-filled conjecture.
7. I don't know--maybe the dingo ate the blindfold. Again, I meant to say that it may have been her PLAN to blindfold JB (not that it's hard to hide a blindfold--which could be a tea towel, a stocking, etc.).
8. You have more faith in P's prowess than I. However, I suppose many peoples aren't as dumb as they look.
9. Thank you--and everybody else who's ruminating & researching--again for investing your energy & brain cells--it's both helpful & humbling.
Often in error but never in doubt,
Sky

 

[RedChief]

"Often in error, but never in doubt." I like it. It's pithy. Is it original? And with whom did it originate?

Yeah, the "missing" blindfold is no biggy. Gee, the strip of tape on her mouth, applied over bloody mucous, was only 5 inches long. Just a wee thing; not very convincing as a gag....I take that back, very convincing as a gag, and what a gag at that.

Your dog is disjoined? Does he/she/it zip together? The pun; my highest form of humor. Take my wife; please!

The 12/26 operation was a laparotomy; the ovarectomy was accomplished during the previous summer. Her laparoscopy was performed on 12/10.

Don't know about the skiing. First I heard of it. I'll take your word for it. Cross country, no doubt.

Fifty percent of all marriages end in divorce. Sarcasm is the fourth from my longest and strongest. I don't think Patsy lies; she just stretches the hell outta the truth; all actresses do that. It's their stock in trade.

I knew you were alluding to phraseology with respect to the percentages. I'd like to repeat my pearl of wisdom--John is the percentage person in the family. But, he isn't particularly a cat person. He, is, after all, an engineer, you know. We engineers love them percentages. Sometimes we call them ratios just to be obfuscatory.

Not only am I not a married woman; I'm not even a woman...but there's still time.

6. Well, why didn't she just abort, abort, abort the mission? "wet"/"soiled"; isn't there a difference? Wet pants? An ounce of pull-ups is worth a quart of urine?

7. So, where's the "missing" dingo? Yeah, a tea towel would be ideal, and it could be hidden in plain view like the purloined letters. Well, you know those MAYS, they cover a lot of territory.

8. Ya can't judge a book by it's cover. I have no idea about P's prowess or lack thereof. Will we ever really know her? I wonder what makes her tick. Her radiation therapy? Not funny, Mr. Geiger.

9. The pleasure is all ours...his...hers.....mine.

Thank you for the entertaining and provocative discourse.

It's an attractive theory that you've presented; it maybe needs just a little refinement. My version of it was that she hired somone to play the bogey man and he overacted. Fill in those holes, will ya?

 

[skybluepink]

You play duplicate, by any chance?
Pithiness purloined from Dan Rather of all people. (Minor poets imitate; great poets steal.)
I've got refinements up the wazoo--and don't we all?--but I need my beauty sleep, so let's do this again real soon. S'been more than wonderful.
Breast your cards.

 

[gaia]

Not really sold on the Patsy "kidnapped" JB theory as of yet, but I did think of something could've been used as a blindfold.

What about the scarf buried with JB? Wasn't it supposedly John's? Been too long to remember clearly, but I've always wondered about the scarf.

 

[RedChief]

Not really sold on the Patsy "kidnapped" JB theory as of yet, but I did think of something could've been used as a blindfold.

What about the scarf buried with JB? Wasn't it supposedly John's? Been too long to remember clearly, but I've always wondered about the scarf.

gaia,

ppg 40-41, PMPT, paperback: "Then it was John's turn. He had recently purchased a beautiful silk scarf, and he tucked it around JonBenet as if surrounding her with a final blanket of love."

 

[gaia]

How recent was the purchase of said silk scarf? LE ever check it out? I always thought it was a great way to get rid of evidence through burial. Seemed like such an odd thing for John to do. You'd think he would have something a little more personal to place with her. Sure would be a good blindfold or strangulation device. Ah well, some things will never be explained, I guess, but I'd love it if JB's body (replete with articles placed with her) was exhumed. Another look at that body, even now, might render some very interesting finds.

Keep working, Red Chief. I'm inspired. My little grey cells have actually awakened!!

 

[RedChief]

You play duplicate, by any chance?
Pithiness purloined from Dan Rather of all people. (Minor poets imitate; great poets steal.)
I've got refinements up the wazoo--and don't we all?--but I need my beauty sleep, so let's do this again real soon. S'been more than wonderful.
Breast your cards.

I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. (Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.)

What's appealing to me about the Patsy Kidnapped Her Own Daughter (PKHOD) theory: It allows her to write the note pre homicide. This has been a major sticking point for standard PDI theories, which have Patsy braining the child, then writing the elaborate note. Here's something to consider--the person doing the crime would likely be more shook up than the person helping him/her to cover his/her tracks, no?

The belief that the notorious note was written on paper removed from the notorious Patsy pad, using the equally notorious Patsy pen, led many to conclude that the notorious Patsy wrote the note. The questions often asked are: why would the intruder not bring a note with him, and why would he prefer Patsy's pad and why would he return the pen to its customary holder?

The whole note-writing matter, ad hoc as it appears, leads one to speculate that it was penned to deal with an emergency. What emergency might an intruder find himself confronted with?

Obviously (that's how I'm able to notice it), if an intruder entered the house well before the Ramseys returned from the Christmas dinner, he'd have had plenty of time to compose, edit and complete the note.

The very fact that there were many more than three pages missing from the tablet (nine, not including the last three), has led some to speculate that as many as three (if you don't count the page with the false start) practice notes had been penned. Who would need to make so many rough drafts?

How can the explanation that proposes that the intruder forgot his note and had to write it in situ, be palatable, when it appears that the anonymous writer made several stabs at manufacturing a satisfactory product?

That the mysterious intruder hatched the plan to kidnap the girl after he got there, and knowing he'd have plenty of time to write the masterpiece, diligently cranked it out, is a more credible hypothesis, but is it sufficiently credible?

In my opinion, the note is potentially the most important piece of evidence in the case. One has only to correctly analyze, interpret and understand it, to be informed of its genesis. Unfortunately, from my perspective, having said that, I haven't said anything new. Out with the old; in with the new.

Oh, and one more thing--why didn't John call 911 instead of Patsy? Doesn't he wear the pants in the family?

"Early to bed and early to rise..."--Franklin?

 

[skybluepink]

G & R--
Wow & then some! That is most interesting. I had to pause to manually close my jaw. Saints, preserve us. My mind rebels at the depressing implications. In fact, as for my aforementioned scenario, I can't bring myself to work through what actually happened after the essentially harmless charade turned homicidal. I've written a pathetic-in-every-way short story based on the case, & again, I couldn't bring myself to let the child die, so I left her in a coma.
Speaking of comas, which reminds me of commas, which reminds me of apostrophes, yo, RedChief: You can save yourself a keystroke and improve your grade in this class by omitting the apostrophe in the possessive "its"--the apostrophe is used only when you mean the contraction for "it is."
No--thank YOU!
I wish somebody would fess up already so we can purge our brains of this horrible thought process and move on to something like fine points of grammar or--for some of us--whether or not to take the finesse.
Well, that didn't last long . . . I just want to add that the peoples who suggest that Patsy is covering for Burke also have my attention. I keep thinkin': Patsy is to Burke as Jackie is to Scott.
OK, I'll shut up & deal.
Marking our words,
Sky

 

[RedChief]

Yikes! You caught my trademark mistake. It's not everyone who pays close enough attention to notice. No need to advise YOU to read carefully! I also have the embarrassing habit of suffixing a "d" to "an", and stuff like that.

While we're on the subject of grammar, would you care to point out all the grammatical mistakes in the ransom note? And, once you've done that, would you care to point out all the logical errors as well? Should I be using question marks here? Ignore this sentence. Would you consider errors in spelling grammatical? Textbooks usually treat them separately.

Is the note likely the work of a 10-yr-old?

When I first became aware of the bowl of pineapple with Burke's and Patsy's prints on it, I conjured up an image of them snacking on the fruit while composing the note.

"Patsy is to Burke as Jackie is to Scott"--Wow & then some! YEP. Patsy is Burke's mom, and Jackie is Scott's mom. Good catch!

You DO remember what Patsy reportedly said while in the throes of poignant distress--"Why did they do this?" You DO remember that she asked a friend, "Can you fix it?" She was obviously referring to the bogey man and his female accomplice.

Will your story be published?

No fair--taking sides.

Hey, this isn't a full deck!

 

[skybluepink]

Your good-natured acceptance of my unsolicited critique is ever so endearing.
As for the RN, I am so glad you axed, as I didn't want to seem too anal in raising the issue. Earlier reviewers have pointed out the lapses such as missing commas & faulty capitalization, the failure to close up "outsmart," & misuse of "bring"--& the tortured prose itself, of course. However, the fact that there were relatively few errors is indicative of much, given the amount of copy. That is, the mistakes that WEREN'T made suggest that the writer was well educated & experienced--such as, oh, say, a JOURNALIST (or whatever PR was).
Having been copyediting & proofreading professionally for many moons, I would EXPECT the average writer to err in citing a series of dollar amounts--e.g., to write "$100 dollars" instead of "$100"; the writer of this note was excruciatingly correct in all the monetary references, except for inconsistency in adding the decimal & zeros. Similarly, people will typically write "10 a.m. in the morning" instead of "10 a.m."--not our gal. Also as has been highlighted by others, the parallel structure in the "she dies" series is a reasonably sophisticated construction. In short, somethin' tells moi this scribe wornt no grade school kid, nor no stinkin' housekeeper, nor no one who just committed or came upon a brutal act. It reeks of a painstaking transcription from a previous draft, & the edits suggest that another, clean draft was intended.
And that brings me to the question that I axed myself from the start, professional editor wise: Who the hell edits a RANSOM NOTE?
Who dyes a little girl's hair? . . .

 

[concernedperson]

Your good-natured acceptance of my unsolicited critique is ever so endearing.
As for the RN, I am so glad you axed, as I didn't want to seem too anal in raising the issue. Earlier reviewers have pointed out the lapses such as missing commas & faulty capitalization, the failure to close up "outsmart," & misuse of "bring"--& the tortured prose itself, of course. However, the fact that there were relatively few errors is indicative of much, given the amount of copy. That is, the mistakes that WEREN'T made suggest that the writer was well educated & experienced--such as, oh, say, a JOURNALIST (or whatever PR was).
Having been copyediting & proofreading professionally for many moons, I would EXPECT the average writer to err in citing a series of dollar amounts--e.g., to write "$100 dollars" instead of "$100"; the writer of this note was excruciatingly correct in all the monetary references, except for inconsistency in adding the decimal & zeros. Similarly, people will typically write "10 a.m. in the morning" instead of "10 a.m."--not our gal. Also as has been highlighted by others, the parallel structure in the "she dies" series is a reasonably sophisticated construction. In short, somethin' tells moi this scribe wornt no grade school kid, nor no stinkin' housekeeper, nor no one who just committed or came upon a brutal act. It reeks of a painstaking transcription from a previous draft, & the edits suggest that another, clean draft was intended.
And that brings me to the question that I axed myself from the start, professional editor wise: Who the hell edits a RANSOM NOTE?
Who dyes a little girl's hair? . . .

Interesting observations. And I totally agree with them. Who does dye their child's hair? This beauty pageant thing is so beyond sick.And who perpetuates this insanity? I know, Patsy.Queen bee of pervasion or accomplise to pervasion.