Ransom Note and Calls to the Boss

[agathawannabe]

But wasn't it the FD that found the ransom note first? :waitasec:

Yeah, good point.

Surely she didn't think police wouldn't be involved if she called the fire department. It's hard to say what was in her head. Somehow, I still don't think she was expecting the kind of scrutiny (from law enforcement) that followed.

And I still lean toward believing the crimes related to Z's death and cover-up were perpetrated by EB with help from others (and not AB). But my main reasons for thinking so have little to do with the ransom note.

 

[Pondering Mind]

But wasn't it the FD that found the ransom note first? :waitasec:

I thought so..and since the vehicles were not on fire..just doused with gasoline.. imo the fire was planned for the 'discovery' of the note (among other things) and if EB or EB & AB (depending on what one believes) didn't want the note to be found by the FD for whatever reason..all they had to do was remove it..it's not like it was burning or anything!

So IF that's case then one or the other (or both) had to start that fire which would get the FD out there. I had a neighbor that tossed a cigarette into some sawdust once..it smoldered a while and POOF..it went up FAST. For AB to NOT be involved..he would have to have been asleep during ALL this as well! I think about the fire and I think about someone seen sitting outside flicking a lighter or whatever it supposedly was. Could be that's when the fire was either getting ready to be set or already had been and was smoldering. IF the eyewitness is correct I'd bet whoever it was had no idea that someone noticed them...all speculation, in any case..

 

[SherlockHomey]

I believe if the the ransom was written with the intention of covering for Z's disappearance, why not write the note to say they took Zahra, not the landlords' daughter? This just does not fit at all. Why the landlord's daughter?

If this was the case, then when the FD came out, it would have went something like, EB or AB saying, "oh my God, let me go check on my daughter" at the time they found they note. They would not have have waited until later to call 911.

 

[SherlockHomey]

I thought so..and since the vehicles were not on fire..just doused with gasoline.. imo the fire was planned for the 'discovery' of the note (among other things) and if EB or EB & AB (depending on what one believes) didn't want the note to be found by the FD for whatever reason..all they had to do was remove it..it's not like it was burning or anything!

No, it's not like it was burning. Right. Then why put the ransom note on it if they doused the car in gasoline intending to burn it?

 

[lauriej]

I believe if the the ransom was written with the intention of covering for Z's disappearance, why not write the note to say they took Zahra, not the landlords' daughter? This just does not fit at all. Why the landlord's daughter?

If this was the case, then when the FD came out, it would have went something like, EB or AB saying, "oh my God, let me go check on my daughter" at the time they found they note. They would not have have waited until later to call 911.

i know i'm not explaining myself well here, my reasoning behind their writing the note, and the fact that it all had to do with the bosses daughter:

zahra's gone. they need a way to have LE believe that they had nothing to do with it. (lightbulb! dim as it was ) to write the note,say it was the bosses daughter, put it on the bosses vehicle, all of which occurs at the (rented house) of the boss.

start a fire to get the FD there,who will in turn then call LE once the fireman spies the note.
LE will then be the ones to discover that Z is missing. (AB and EB then fake hysterics).

they didn't do the "omg---let me go check on zahra", because at no time did they want to be the ones to find her 'missing', it had to be LE and it had to be a kidnapping gone wrong.

if they were going to do that, offer up "let's check on zahra"------there would have been no reason for the fire, or the note, or getting LE to their house, to begin with.

they could have just done the 'hey how ya' doin'. my daughters missing" at any time.

 

[dar107]

This whole thing is just so bizarre. If the plan was for LE to find Zahra missing after responding to the fire/ransom note, I was wondering the same as Sherlock, why not say omg we better check on Zahra, why not bring her up themselves, I thought maybe because it didn't go as planned both AB and EB were stumped and nervous and waiting for the other one to mention her. So that whole plan goes down the tubes....why wait until 2pm the next day? Why not report her missing early in the morning, like we just got up and she is nowhere to be found? The very fact you don't notice your child missing until the afternoon would make LE think something was off right away IMO.

 

[lauriej]

This whole thing is just so bizarre. If the plan was for LE to find Zahra missing after responding to the fire/ransom note, I was wondering the same as Sherlock, why not say omg we better check on Zahra, why not bring her up themselves, I thought maybe because it didn't go as planned both AB and EB were stumped and nervous and waiting for the other one to mention her.

( i'm just trying to think of what EB/AB may have been thinking.)

..exactly. they should have, they missed their big oppotunity there. they never could have written a ransom note saying Z was kidnapped ( for what? all of the loose change lying around? LE would have questioned that!.. it had to be for the bosses daughter,b/c he ( in their minds anyway, had resources to pay a ransom.)

..even though the "wrong girl" had been taken---LE would have been focussed on everything MC, his job, his employees, his habits, lifestyle...
..a botched kidnapping would be the only thing that would deflect LE from looking at them. (and put them in a sympathetic light.)

So that whole plan goes down the tubes....why wait until 2pm the next day? Why not report her missing early in the morning, like we just got up and she is nowhere to be found?

..again, they should have. EB may have been fuming! that plan A went so badly, and needed time to think. AB says that after LE left , approx.6:45---they went back to bed at 7:30. (until either when he got up to go check on a job--home @ 2, or got up at 2---depending on his interview of the moment.)

..maybe they were going to scrap the plan altogether,until they realized---the note-----we have to do this today--!-- if LE is to believe that Z was kidnapped in a switcharoo.

The very fact you don't notice your child missing until the afternoon would make LE think something was off right away IMO

..yep..they waited far too long to get their nerve up, and LE was suspicious from minute 1.

 

[agathawannabe]

( i'm just trying to think of what EB/AB may have been thinking.)

..exactly. they should have, they missed their big oppotunity there. they never could have written a ransom note saying Z was kidnapped ( for what? all of the loose change lying around? LE would have questioned that!.. it had to be for the bosses daughter,b/c he ( in their minds anyway, had resources to pay a ransom.)

..even though the "wrong girl" had been taken---LE would have been focussed on everything MC, his job, his employees, his habits, lifestyle...
..a botched kidnapping would be the only thing that would deflect LE from looking at them. (and put them in a sympathetic light.)

BINGO, IMO

And looking at this from another angle..

Suppose EB was trying to a) frame AB and/or b) draw investigative attention away from HER accomplices/associates/acquaintances.

Maybe she thought staging a botched kidnapping that revolved around the boss' daughter would deflect attention and redirect it to AB and his work acquaintances.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

I believe if the the ransom was written with the intention of covering for Z's disappearance, why not write the note to say they took Zahra, not the landlords' daughter? This just does not fit at all. Why the landlord's daughter?

If this was the case, then when the FD came out, it would have went something like, EB or AB saying, "oh my God, let me go check on my daughter" at the time they found they note. They would not have have waited until later to call 911.

A kidnapper only leaves a ransom note if they intend to get money from someone. The Bakers have no money. So who do they know that DOES have money? The owner or Realtree Service.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

BINGO, IMO

And looking at this from another angle..

Suppose EB was trying to a) frame AB and/or b) draw investigative attention away from HER accomplices/associates/acquaintances.

Maybe she thought staging a botched kidnapping that revolved around the boss' daughter would deflect attention and redirect it to AB and his work acquaintances.

Why would she try to frame him by leaving a RN, in her handwriting, on his company vehicle, and then pour gas in his vehicle to eradict evidence, but do nothing to cover her own tracks with the car she drives?

 

[agathawannabe]

Why would she try to frame him by leaving a RN, in her handwriting, on his company vehicle, and then pour gas in his vehicle to eradict evidence, but do nothing to cover her own tracks with the car she drives?

Well, IMO, the fact that two cars had decomp hits on them was likely due to a shortage of time in which to get everything done to complete a "plan" (EB's plan, IMO). I really think whoever was involved was hurried, hence the "goo glove" getting left behind on the ground and no time to do any double-checking.

Try this theory on for size...

If EB recruited a couple of accomplices (from her "posse", for example).. imagine, for a moment, that maybe she convinced Adam to go WITH HER somewhere for a few hours (maybe several hours) Friday evening/night (most likely timeframe, IMO) to allow the accomplices to have access to EB/AB's house and vehicles. The accomplices do the "kinda horrifying" things, using two of the Bakers' vehicles (one being the company Tahoe) to distribute Z's remains around the county.

Now.. I don't recall AB articulating that he'd been anywhere together with EB in his public interviews, but I'd say it's definitely within a realm of possibility. It's possible it just didn't come up in the media interviews. It's also possible that, if AB believed Zahra to have been sick (remember his quote about EB having said she heard Zahra cough) -- he'd be embarrassed (or afraid) to admit on television that the two of them had left Zahra home alone while she was sick (or so he thought).

Perhaps EB's "plan" didn't consider how decomp would be eliminated/covered in the 2nd car. (I doubt if it could be.) Maybe she didn't expect her accomplices to use both vehicles, but they became pressed for time. It wouldn't surprise me if her plan was just for the Tahoe to be used.. (then prior to the fire call, did she - or her helpers - "plant" incriminating things in the company Tahoe? i.e. passports, etc.)

The Bakers' third vehicle would/could be the Impala shown on the search warrant.. the one that didn't have a decomp hit.. and it would have been the one EB/AB could have driven somewhere together while EB's plan was being carried out at their house.

MOO

I'll try not to veer any further off-topic here.. just trying to answer the question as to how the ransom note could be part of a frame-up..

I think it's definitely possible EB was attempting to frame Adam in the cover-up.. but if that's what she was doing - it wouldn't work for her to let Adam have/know any solid evidence against her (or any accomplices).

 

[lauriej]

Why would she try to frame him by leaving a RN, in her handwriting, on his company vehicle, and then pour gas in his vehicle to eradict evidence, but do nothing to cover her own tracks with the car she drives?

.if she WAS trying to frame AB , by way of the ransom note on the co. vehicle that he drove, his bosses daughter etc. so that LE would check into all MC employees----including AB ----and we don't know why gas was poured in the Tahoe, or where, or how much, or if it destroyed any evidence.

.i'm not following the "covering her tracks with her own car" ?

 

[thisjusthurtsmyheart]

Well, IMO, the fact that two cars had decomp hits on them was likely due to a shortage of time in which to get everything done to complete a "plan" (EB's plan, IMO). I really think whoever was involved was hurried, hence the "goo glove" getting left behind on the ground and no time to do any double-checking.

Try this theory on for size...

If EB recruited a couple of accomplices (from her "posse", for example).. imagine, for a moment, that maybe she convinced Adam to go WITH HER somewhere for a few hours (maybe several hours) Friday evening/night (most likely timeframe, IMO) to allow the accomplices to have access to EB/AB's house and vehicles. The accomplices do the "kinda horrifying" things, using two of the Bakers' vehicles (one being the company Tahoe) to distribute Z's remains around the county.



Now.. I don't recall AB articulating that he'd been anywhere together with EB in his public interviews, but I'd say it's definitely within a realm of possibility. It's possible it just didn't come up in the media interviews. It's also possible that, if AB believed Zahra to have been sick (remember his quote about EB having said she heard Zahra cough) -- he'd be embarrassed (or afraid) to admit on television that the two of them had left Zahra home alone while she was sick (or so he thought).

Perhaps EB's "plan" didn't consider how decomp would be eliminated/covered in the 2nd car. (I doubt if it could be.) Maybe she didn't expect her accomplices to use both vehicles, but they became pressed for time. It wouldn't surprise me if her plan was just for the Tahoe to be used.. (then prior to the fire call, did she - or her helpers - "plant" incriminating things in the company Tahoe? i.e. passports, etc.)

The Bakers' third vehicle would/could be the Impala shown on the search warrant.. the one that didn't have a decomp hit.. and it would have been the one EB/AB could have driven somewhere together while EB's plan was being carried out at their house.

MOO

I'll try not to veer any further off-topic here.. just trying to answer the question as to how the ransom note could be part of a frame-up..

I think it's definitely possible EB was attempting to frame Adam in the cover-up.. but if that's what she was doing - it wouldn't work for her to let Adam have/know any solid evidence against her (or any accomplices).

I agree with you Agatha but the one thing that I keep coming back to is the pictures that were shown for the evidence that they took out of the house. And if there was a cover up how did EB cover up the "blood" or what would be bio fluid that was left on the walls. That stuff just does not come off with soap and water.

Also, AB would have almost had to check on Z so wouldnt he have seen the mess left behind. Even if the mattress was gone there would have been stains somewhere left behind. I just can not believe AB was not involved...he could not have been that clueless. MHO is that he knew a lot more then they are letting on that they know.

Either way it will all come out and it is going to be horrendous, and more painful then we are all ready for I am sure. Thank GOD we all have each other to lean on we are def. gonna need it.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

.if she WAS trying to frame AB , by way of the ransom note on the co. vehicle that he drove, his bosses daughter etc. so that LE would check into all MC employees----including AB ----and we don't know why gas was poured in the Tahoe, or where, or how much, or if it destroyed any evidence.

.i'm not following the "covering her tracks with her own car" ?

Well, I'm assuming the "company vehicle" was driven by Adam, and the camry was driven by her. I really don't see her just taking off in AB's "company vehicle" whenever she felt like it, much less using it without AB's permission. So let's assume, for the moment, that this is the case. Cadaver dogs hit on both the Tahoe and the camry, so we know that something that contained the scent of human decomp was in the Tahoe. We also know that blood evidence was recovered from the console of the Tahoe, and if the old mattress was disposed of in a dumpster other than the one behind the house, it wouldn't have fit in the camry. Also, how did the new mattress get to the house? Not in the camry, I'd venture to guess. So, if AB is completely clueless in all this, EB would have had to taken his "company vehicle" many times, at least 2 of which might have been to haul something very noticeable like mattresses. It just defies logic to me, to assume she did all this in his "company vehicle" unbeknownst to him.

We know that EB wrote the ransom note, but we don't know WHEN she wrote it. We also don't know who put it on the car and set the fire that morning. We do know that the Tahoe was the only vehicle that had gas poured in it and contained "burnt remnants". So, if EB set this fire in order to frame AB for everything, why would she put the ransom note in HER handwriting on his "company vehicle", and then pour gas in the Tahoe (in order to either torch it, or cover the scent of decomp")? Why would she try to cover up evidence connected with the vehicle HE drove, but leave all that evidence in the vehicle SHE normally drove. Not to mention her leaving the RN in her own handwriting?

It just makes more sense to me to imagine that, if anyone was trying to set someone up to take the fall for everything, it was AB trying to set EB up, and not the other way around.

JMO

ETA: Either way, though, there is no way I'm ever going to believe that AB didn't have the first clue what happened to his daughter. There is just overwhelming evidence that leads me to believe he HAD to know. Again, jmo.

 

[Clue Hopper]

Well, I'm assuming the "company vehicle" was driven by Adam, and the camry was driven by her. I really don't see her just taking off in AB's "company vehicle" whenever she felt like it, much less using it without AB's permission. So let's assume, for the moment, that this is the case. Cadaver dogs hit on both the Tahoe and the camry, so we know that something that contained the scent of human decomp was in the Tahoe. We also know that blood evidence was recovered from the console of the Tahoe, and if the old mattress was disposed of in a dumpster other than the one behind the house, it wouldn't have fit in the camry. Also, how did the new mattress get to the house? Not in the camry, I'd venture to guess. So, if AB is completely clueless in all this, EB would have had to taken his "company vehicle" many times, at least 2 of which might have been to haul something very noticeable like mattresses. It just defies logic to me, to assume she did all this in his "company vehicle" unbeknownst to him.

We know that EB wrote the ransom note, but we don't know WHEN she wrote it. We also don't know who put it on the car and set the fire that morning. We do know that the Tahoe was the only vehicle that had gas poured in it and contained "burnt remnants". So, if EB set this fire in order to frame AB for everything, why would she put the ransom note in HER handwriting on his "company vehicle", and then pour gas in the Tahoe (in order to either torch it, or cover the scent of decomp")? Why would she try to cover up evidence connected with the vehicle HE drove, but leave all that evidence in the vehicle SHE normally drove. Not to mention her leaving the RN in her own handwriting?

It just makes more sense to me to imagine that, if anyone was trying to set someone up to take the fall for everything, it was AB trying to set EB up, and not the other way around.

JMO

ETA: Either way, though, there is no way I'm ever going to believe that AB didn't have the first clue what happened to his daughter. There is just overwhelming evidence that leads me to believe he HAD to know. Again, jmo.

I'm just adding this for your post because you mentioned it. Not only was the Company vehicle used for the company, the property was too. There were other workers on that property if not daily, almost daily. The vehicle wasn't just used by AB. I can not find the article it was early on in the case, (So take it as speculation) there was reference to that at one point.

 

[agathawannabe]

Well, I'm assuming the "company vehicle" was driven by Adam, and the camry was driven by her. I really don't see her just taking off in AB's "company vehicle" whenever she felt like it, much less using it without AB's permission. So let's assume, for the moment, that this is the case. Cadaver dogs hit on both the Tahoe and the camry, so we know that something that contained the scent of human decomp was in the Tahoe. We also know that blood evidence was recovered from the console of the Tahoe, and if the old mattress was disposed of in a dumpster other than the one behind the house, it wouldn't have fit in the camry. Also, how did the new mattress get to the house? Not in the camry, I'd venture to guess. So, if AB is completely clueless in all this, EB would have had to taken his "company vehicle" many times, at least 2 of which might have been to haul something very noticeable like mattresses. It just defies logic to me, to assume she did all this in his "company vehicle" unbeknownst to him.

I think we might be limiting ourselves if we assume the Tahoe was the only vehicle the mattress could have been hauled in. What if EB still had access to this pickup? => [ Link: 1994 Ford Pickup ] If it still belongs to the family member it was registered to in 2009, could she have borrowed it? She had driven it in late summer 2009, after all (per citation screenshot at aforementioned link).

ETA: Props to Sherbie for going to the courthouse to pick up the citations in those screenshots!

 

[tehcloser]

I wonder why her license were suspended? Or do we know already and all the turkey I'm eating has killed brain cells?

Oh Lawd I just re-read that sentence...I answered my own question. Step away from the food teh.......

 

[Mountain_Kat]

I think we might be limiting ourselves if we assume the Tahoe was the only vehicle the mattress could have been hauled in. What if EB still had access to this pickup? => [ Link: 1994 Ford Pickup ] If it still belongs to the family member it was registered to in 2009, could she have borrowed it? She had driven it in late summer 2009, after all (per citation screenshot at aforementioned link).

ETA: Props to Sherbie for going to the courthouse to pick up the citations in those screenshots!

Excellent info you and Sherbie put together for us. Thanks for that.

So yes, possible EB could have used a different vehicle to transport the mattresses. And also food for thought that Clue Hopper is of the opinion that other Realtree Service employee might have also driven the Tahoe.

I'll have to mull all this over, since both of these are new info to me. Interesting, for sure.

 

[panthera]

I think we might be limiting ourselves if we assume the Tahoe was the only vehicle the mattress could have been hauled in. What if EB still had access to this pickup? => [ Link: 1994 Ford Pickup ] If it still belongs to the family member it was registered to in 2009, could she have borrowed it? She had driven it in late summer 2009, after all (per citation screenshot at aforementioned link).

ETA: Props to Sherbie for going to the courthouse to pick up the citations in those screenshots!

That makes the most sense of anything I've thought of so far, especially for hauling off the (allegedly) stained old mattress. The bed of a pick-up truck can be washed out much more easily than the interior of a vehicle (the Tahoe). MOO

 

[Clue Hopper]

This ransom note thing still has something nagging at me. I tried not to think about any of it over the weekend. I still did though. A thought came to mind. EB admitted to writing the ransom note as she says in her letter, because he and they kept pushing it. LE arrested her for obstruction of justice, admitting to the ransom note trying to throw LE off in their investigation. What if all that means is that she admitted to writing the note, but upon examining the note, it was found she didn't write it? All she was doing was trying to throw the entire investigation off, therefore obstruction of justice. Just a thought.

(Refer to motion to reduce bond papers)
I figured I should elaborate a little more as to why I gave that any thought at all. EB disclosed information to the defense team and investigators on Oct. 22. It seems that the defense team went out and gathered "significant" evidence to show EB was willing to cooperate. This evidence was gathered in the evening hours on Oct. 22 into the early morning hours of Oct 23. On Oct. 23 they contacted the DA. They said time was a concern due to weather. The DA told the defense team they would be contacted when a determination was made as to how the State would proceed. Oct. 24 the defense was contacted by the DA and EB began cooperating.

Now it would seem to me, they had reason to not believe her. That is why the defense went as far as they did to show she was being truthful. That is why that thought came to mind.