Goody said:
I agree with you. I don't think so either. Whoever wrote that note must have been pretty straight.
The length of the note, I think, goes back to the writer's need to answer questions he or she anticipates authorities will ask. They are filling in the blanks ahead of time, possibly to avoid confusion later on. Almost a compulsive need to control the direction of the investigation, much like Columbo's murderers always had an explanation for his endless questions.
Of course, no kidnapper would do such a thing. It is far more logical to assume that whomever wrote the note was more interested in wrapping things up and getting on with what had to be done as neatly and as quickly as possible than to think a stranger cared what police would think, esp after he has instructed the parents to be sure NOT to call police.
There is definitely a feminine flavor of drama in that note that can't missed as well. It would fit nicely in a gothic novel.
About writer's need to answer questions he or she anticipates authorities will ask: I like this; I like anything which helps explain the lengthy note. Now, I'm trying to think what those anticipated questions might have been: Who did this?--a small foreign faction. How did they know about us (the wealthy Ramseys; the business tycoon)?--through business channels (we respect your business). Why would a group who respects John's business countenance doing harm to his daughter?--we don't respect your country, dude, and we need money. Would a foreign faction likely know JonBenet's name or how to spell it?--your daughter, your daughter, your daughter...Why the $118,000????? and the account????? Why might we call you early?--because we know you'll be up and about early and....Why was your daughter killed?--because you failed to follow our instructions (you had no intention of following them). She will not only be killed; she'll be executed--the garotte and the coup de grace. Why will you be denied her remains?--'cause we don't plan on anyone finding the body, ever. Why two "gentlemen" (a euphemism) who don't like you, guarding the child?--Well, you did notice that vaginal injury, didn't you? Why can't you contact the FBI?--if we do, she'll be beheaded. Why can't you talk to a stray dog or alert bank authorities or tamper with the money or employ an electronic device?--if we do they'll kill her (she dies). Why don't you try to trick them?--there's a 99% chance she'll be killed. [not so sure about this 99% chance] Why shouldn't you try to outsmart us?--you know we are on top of you, John. Final word of warning: don't underestimate us (OK, OK), Why did they choose us?--they know we are fat cats. Why you shouldn't expect we won't kill her--there are other fat cats.
Yes, someone anticipating LE's questions; consciousness of guilt; what'm I gonna tell 'em? I want to make this perfectly clear from the git-go. No follow-up questions, please.
Edited to add thoughts and doubts: It seems to me that the ransom note provided more than ample reason for John and Patsy to quietly go along with the "kidnappers"--follow their instructions to the letter; but, they did not. So, if you think the note was designed to give them that opportunity, how do you explain that it wasn't taken? Some have opined that no parent would fail to call the authorities immediately when their child appears to have been abducted, no matter the many dire admonitions in the note, forbidding them to do so. So, we seem to have counteracting reasons for the long note that seems to have covered most, if not all, of the bases. One the one hand, it contains abundant material which might be construed as anticipatory explanations for the girl being found murdered--the Ramseys didn't comply; while, on the other, it contains abundant justification for the Ramseys to carefully follow out the instructions and "get her back" safe and well. These are competing explanations and both plausible at first blush, but, if you consider that the Ramseys DIDN'T refrain from involving the authorities and even went a few steps beyond and beckoned their friends and the priest, then, suspecting the Ramseys, must you not accept the explanation that they thought they needed justification for the child's brutal death? And, if you accept that, don't you wonder why they weren't able to fulfill the requirement that the remains be denied? Did an unexpected snowfall intervene? I don't think so. Put the body in the car and head for the bank, John. What better collateral could you ask for?
About the editing: If you make a mistake in a note and cross out a word, add a word, or whatever; how does that argue for the probability that a final, unedited draft was anticipated? If you're the sort of person who's prone to making mistakes of that sort, and you are a perfectionist and want a final, error-free, unedited result, you may spend a week accomplishing it. At some point, in the interest of finishing in time, you may have to forego the perfect edition. All I can make of the caret (properly oriented) is that the person was familiar with the proper use of the caret. I think most people, by the time they're highschool graduates, are familiar with the caret, though they may get the orientation wrong, as I often do. I think the caret should point toward the place where the word is to be inserted, rather than pointing to the word. There's no accounting for editing preference.
If you think you notice that care has been taken to disguise the handwriting in the note that was left, how do you explain that this care was taken in a rough draft? Why bother to take this care in anything other than a final draft? I'm inclined to think the note that was left was the intended "final draft" and that no further drafting was anticipated. The best argument for the "practicing" and the previous "rough drafts" is in the several (nine) missing pages prior to the "false start". Wouldn't you like to see what is written on these pages!
Goody, goody for you....