The Ransom Note: a calling card?

[RedChief]

Irish Mist, yep that sounds very sensible. I agree, had she played any part in this she would have "done the deed, showered and dressed in something fresh". The side note to this is, the child would have been covered in Patsy's clothing fibers, not just a few.

I've often wondered whether the coppers' sense of smell was serviceable that morning? I found it amusing that Patsy said she didn't shower 'cause her shower was broken, but that she did put on her makeup because she wanted to LOOK nice for the kids they were to meet in MN. Well, I suppose she could have masked any body odor with Chanel #5....nah, too cheap. Hope she wasn't an Estee Lauder girl. Wheweeee!

Were her clothes ruffled; did she look/seem distraught; did she look/seem well rested, etc. Not much has been said about these factors that I'm aware of. I'm hoping someone will come to our rescue on these points.

Isn't it amusing--she wants to impress the kids with her looks (is this a futile effort?) but she's not concerned about impressing them with her hygiene. To Patsy Ramsey looks is everything? Does anyone agree that she's baby-faced? Does baby-faced mean baby-minded (immature)?

Was her shower REALLY broken?

 

[IrishMist]

I've often wondered whether the coppers' sense of smell was serviceable that morning? I found it amusing that Patsy said she didn't shower 'cause her shower was broken, but that she did put on her makeup because she wanted to LOOK nice for the kids they were to meet in MN. Well, I suppose she could have masked any body odor with Chanel #5....nah, too cheap. Hope she wasn't an Estee Lauder girl. Wheweeee!

Were her clothes ruffled; did she look/seem distraught; did she look/seem well rested, etc. Not much has been said about these factors that I'm aware of. I'm hoping someone will come to our rescue on these points.

Isn't it amusing--she wants to impress the kids with her looks (is this a futile effort?) but she's not concerned about impressing them with her hygiene. To Patsy Ramsey looks is everything? Does anyone agree that she's baby-faced? Does baby-faced mean baby-minded (immature)?

Was her shower REALLY broken?

But, if she showered late in the day the day before, and to save time, I could see skipping a shower. It's not like she was doing manual labor on Christmas, and probably wasn't that stinky. She may have planned on showering upon arrival at the Michigan house.
But that doesn't preclude putting on make-up!! I put on my face before I go to the grocery store!!

 

[tipper]

You know she showered on Christmas day because she colored her hair before going to the Whites.

 

[RedChief]

I have no trouble believing she skipped a shower; she has said as much. Maybe she realized that she wasn't smelling like a rose when the officers came to the door and this was her explantion; she had anticipated the question. I don't recall that anyone ever asked her, "Patsy, why did you smell like you'd been up all night murdering JonBenet?" Maybe she thought not showering fit with not changing her clothes. Doesn't one usually change one's clothes when one showers?

Was her shower REALLY broken?

I recall that she said in one of her interviews (who can keep track of them) that the shower had recently been repaired and that none other than Merv Pugh had repaired the wall that had been damaged in the shower valve replacement process. So, what happened? The shower "broke" again, so soon?

What if she had taken a shower? They'd have been late for sure then, wouldn't they? No woman can take a shower in less than 45 min.

geez....

 

[mihaff]

Isn't it amazing! One of the longest ransom notes in the history of kidnapping, handwritten, and nobody can figure out who wrote it!........


What this author didn't realize, owing to his youth and inexperience, is that a truly convincing ransom note is short and to the point; shall we say, terse.
....................
Seemed to fear John (be in awe of him); consider him a tough customer; someone hard to convince. Seemed to have a fairly good command of English; maybe a college student or a bright teenager (an overachiever?). Note was fairly business-like. Author had no problem conceiving of a group who could respect John's business on the one hand and threaten to kill his daughter on the other. I can see young people at work here; discussing this note; going over it; editing it; pefecting it. I can't see an adult writing this; composing this, unless someone extremely NAIVE! And look what happened--not only were they unable to extract the girl from the residence, they ended up killing her.

Who's protecting whom?

The writer is trying to scare or beg John to get out of the house so the writer can dump the staged body. But John told Patsy to call the police screwing up His/her plan to struggle with the body to her oh did I say her I meant his or her car and dump the body while John was at the Bank as she oh I mean he or she suggested. The writer does not fear John or respect Patsy, in fact she I mean the writer never mentions Patsy. This is just my opinion, but no man or boy would write such a ransom note, but perhaps a drunken woman trying to sound like a man would. This is just my opinion and is no more valid than yours. Although I think mine is more logical.

 

[RedChief]

The writer is trying to scare or beg John to get out of the house so the writer can dump the staged body. But John told Patsy to call the police screwing up His/her plan to struggle with the body to her oh did I say her I meant his or her car and dump the body while John was at the Bank as she oh I mean he or she suggested. The writer does not fear John or respect Patsy, in fact she I mean the writer never mentions Patsy. This is just my opinion, but no man or boy would write such a ransom note, but perhaps a drunken woman trying to sound like a man would. This is just my opinion and is no more valid than yours. Although I think mine is more logical.

We agree on this note as being a way to shoo John out of the house so the remainder of the dirty work could be accomplished. But, that it is a way doesn't mean that's what was intended. Why didn't Patsy insist that they not call the authorities? How do we know she didn't? But, if she did, how could she hope to lie about it in DOI and get away with it? John was there; he knows what happened. She says John told her to call 911. If I had been Patsy, and I had written the note for the purpose you propose (and which I can't disagree with), I'd have insisted that John damn well do what the note instructed. If John had followed the instructions "to the letter", Patsy'd have had an opportunity to more properly dispose of the body, etc. No doubt about it. What she'd have done with Burke remains a question.

Yes, there is mention of Patsy in the "practice note". That was my reason for opining that the writer inadvertently began to write Mrs. Ramsey, caught his/her/its mistake in mid-air, and began anew on the next page. There was a rumor that Patsy had told the Griffin woman (if I recollect correctly) that the "Mr. and Mrs. R" had been written by her and was the beginning of an invitation. Patsy, of course, denied having said that, and if not truthfully, then for another good reason--the "Mr. and Mrs. R" looks just like the writing in the ransom note.

So, either the writer had already made up his/her/its mind not to include reference to Patsy in the note, when the "practice note" was started, or the writer decided at that moment (the false start) not to include a reference to Patsy. Some suggest that John wrote the note so he'd have an excuse to leave the house with the body, etc.

Well, we can't know whether the writer fears John or not or respects Pasty or not; we can only guess. But, it stands to reason that the writer wouldn't mention Patsy if the writer respected Patsy and didn't want to addess the threats to her; that his/her/its beef was with John.

I don't think a drunken woman could have written the note; I doubt that any drunk person could have written the note. Why was the note so long? Was the writer afraid that he/she/it might not succeed with a short note? A short note would have been more convincing to me than this epic poem.

 

[mihaff]

I don't think a drunken woman could have written the note; I doubt that any drunk person could have written the note. Why was the note so long? Was the writer afraid that he/she/it might not succeed with a short note? A short note would have been more convincing to me than this epic poem.

I don't mean in a stupor. I mean under stress and not thinking clearly. Drunks can write long rambling notes. I know from experience. The note is the key. Makes no sense, so it can only be the product of irrational thought. IMO

 

[RedChief]

I don't mean in a stupor. I mean under stress and not thinking clearly. Drunks can write long rambling notes. I know from experience. The note is the key. Makes no sense, so it can only be the product of irrational thought. IMO

mihaff,

I see. This is good. Irrational thought. That's a believable alternative to naive thought. OK.

Wouldn't a person who had just accidentally killed a loved one be under a lot of stress; wouldn't need to be under the influence?

The person who wrote this note seems to have been thinking pretty clearly in many respects but not so clearly from the standpoint of producing a believable ransom note.

Which reminds me, why was a note even necessary....oh, sorry, I think you've explained that.

 

[mihaff]

mihaff,

I see. This is good. Irrational thought. That's a believable alternative to naive thought. OK.

Wouldn't a person who had just accidentally killed a loved one be under a lot of stress; wouldn't need to be under the influence?

The person who wrote this note seems to have been thinking pretty clearly in many respects but not so clearly from the standpoint of producing a believable ransom note.

Which reminds me, why was a note even necessary....oh, sorry, I think you've explained that.

I don't think this murder was planned or even intentional. If Patsy did it, IMO, she did not intend to do it. It may have been accidental. They successfully sued over the Burke theory, which leaves only two other suspects in my theory. The note was not necessary except in a theory that an irrational person thought it was a great idea. When someone wants to decieve they often give more info than is needed. The writer keeps repeating the same themes. If it wasn't so serious, it would be very silly. Imagine a pampered beauty queen trying to talk like a tough man or terrorist. It would come out all wrong, perhaps like this note. Its too long, too silly and too personal. IMO

 

[Goody]

The writer is trying to scare or beg John to get out of the house so the writer can dump the staged body. But John told Patsy to call the police screwing up His/her plan to struggle with the body to her oh did I say her I meant his or her car and dump the body while John was at the Bank as she oh I mean he or she suggested. The writer does not fear John or respect Patsy, in fact she I mean the writer never mentions Patsy. This is just my opinion, but no man or boy would write such a ransom note, but perhaps a drunken woman trying to sound like a man would. This is just my opinion and is no more valid than yours. Although I think mine is more logical.

Did you know the ransom note contained 368 words?

 

[Goody]

I don't think a drunken woman could have written the note; I doubt that any drunk person could have written the note. Why was the note so long? Was the writer afraid that he/she/it might not succeed with a short note? A short note would have been more convincing to me than this epic poem.

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.

 

[Goody]

I actually think that goes in Patsy's favor.
What I mean is, if she was up all night, wearing the same clothes... wouldn't they be rumpled and probably smelly??
Think about it. If she killed her child, wouldn't she at least break a sweat??? She's hauling her dead daughter's body... she's doing unspeakable things to stage... I just don't see how she could look that "put together" after spending a night like that.

It makes much more sense to me that she got up, dressed, and put on her makeup before waking the kids.

Not me. Patsy's clothing closet was probably bigger than some bedrooms. She had plenty of clothes at her fingertips. Why would she get up and put on a fancy sweater she wore to a party the night before instead of grabbing something comfortable to wear on the plane trip they had scheduled for that morning? It makes no sense.

The make up is something different. If she is telling the truth, I can see where she might be in the habit of putting on her make up while John showers. Her bedroom was three floors up. Maybe she just plain didn't want to climb all those stairs again once she got downstairs. I couldn't blame her for that.

But I don't buy the yesterday's clothing on again today claims. She was going to fly to Michigan that morning. She would have worn something comfortable, imo, and something unworn previously. I think she was just so upset she completely forgot that she was still in yesterdays clothes.

 

[RedChief]

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....

 

[Voice of Reason]

personally, i don't think that any of the "rough drafts" were meant to be such. i think the handwriting was disguised on the "rough drafts" because they were meant to be final drafts. but at some point in the process of writing these notes, the author decided that the words weren't right, and so they began anew. of course, this is nothing other than my own personal speculation, but i feel that this note was meant to be written once.

a better question would be, why change the note from addressing both patsy and john to just john? what question from the authorities did that anticipate? some sort of reverse psychology? let's say patsy wrote the note. she figures, if i address it to both john and i, they may think that i'm trying to cover my tracks. so maybe if i address it only to john, it will be all too obvious that i am the author. noone would think i am that stupid. hence, the reverse psychology.

what she didn't anticipate, was that the draft, or remnants of it, would be found...not sure if this is really what i think, but i think it is a VERY SIGNIFICANT PIECE OF INFORMATION, that the kidnapper originally addressed the note to both ramseys, and then removed patsy....

EDIT (more thoughts)...or let's move to the intruder theory, but one who knew the ramseys well. perhaps, they wanted to do the deed, but had an afterthought of framing the ramseys. by removing patsy's name from the note, it may make her appear more guilty.

another thought i just had...it doesn't seem to me that anyone ever had any intention of kidnapping JBR. she was killed twice, so to speak!! let's for a moment imagine that this was never intended as a kidnapping but simply a murder. if there was no note, the ramseys would have woken up and found JBR missing, then searched the house. they wouldn't have called the police til they were sure she was gone. however, the note gave them a reason not to search the house. by writing that note, they could allow the police to arrive, and then search the house later, and "stumble" upon JBR's body, and destroy the entire crime scene by having numerous people in and out of the house all morning. imagine that a ramsey did this and did not write the note. it never would've happened as it did. the note was crucial for the events to unfold as they did. now imagine an intruder did this. why even write the note, unless you really want to kidnap JBR? and what would happen during a kidnap that would cause you to, sexually assault the child in the house she's being kidnapped from, then strangle her AND hit her over the head. it just doesn't add up...

thoughts?

 

[RedChief]

personally, i don't think that any of the "rough drafts" were meant to be such. i think the handwriting was disguised on the "rough drafts" because they were meant to be final drafts. but at some point in the process of writing these notes, the author decided that the words weren't right, and so they began anew. of course, this is nothing other than my own personal speculation, but i feel that this note was meant to be written once.

a better question would be, why change the note from addressing both patsy and john to just john? what question from the authorities did that anticipate? some sort of reverse psychology? let's say patsy wrote the note. she figures, if i address it to both john and i, they may think that i'm trying to cover my tracks. so maybe if i address it only to john, it will be all too obvious that i am the author. noone would think i am that stupid. hence, the reverse psychology.

what she didn't anticipate, was that the draft, or remnants of it, would be found...not sure if this is really what i think, but i think it is a VERY SIGNIFICANT PIECE OF INFORMATION, that the kidnapper originally addressed the note to both ramseys, and then removed patsy....

EDIT (more thoughts)...or let's move to the intruder theory, but one who knew the ramseys well. perhaps, they wanted to do the deed, but had an afterthought of framing the ramseys. by removing patsy's name from the note, it may make her appear more guilty.

another thought i just had...it doesn't seem to me that anyone ever had any intention of kidnapping JBR. she was killed twice, so to speak!! let's for a moment imagine that this was never intended as a kidnapping but simply a murder. if there was no note, the ramseys would have woken up and found JBR missing, then searched the house. they wouldn't have called the police til they were sure she was gone. however, the note gave them a reason not to search the house. by writing that note, they could allow the police to arrive, and then search the house later, and "stumble" upon JBR's body, and destroy the entire crime scene by having numerous people in and out of the house all morning. imagine that a ramsey did this and did not write the note. it never would've happened as it did. the note was crucial for the events to unfold as they did. now imagine an intruder did this. why even write the note, unless you really want to kidnap JBR? and what would happen during a kidnap that would cause you to, sexually assault the child in the house she's being kidnapped from, then strangle her AND hit her over the head. it just doesn't add up...

thoughts?

Didn't intend to write numerous drafts: yes, that's possible, and disguised each one but wasn't satisfied with the venture so began anew and anew; yes, that's possible. But, why not leave off disguising as soon as he/she's made a mistake and had to edit? There are quite a few edits. Of course, I'm assuming that (1.) the final note was disguised (don't know about any earler drafts), and (2.) that disguising required additional effort. If the note were written with the non-dominant hand, then maybe no additional effort.

Yes, to the reverse psychology; but maybe we're jumping through hoops with that. Also, what's wrong with speculating that John wrote the note, or authored it and dictated it? Wouldn't that be clever! No one would ever suspect that John wrote himself a ransom note, eh. Who is the take charge individual in the household? John! Who is cool under pressure? John!

Its a really significant piece of information IF the kidnapper originally addressed the note to both the Ramseys and changed to John. Why was the so-called Mr. and Mrs. practice note left in the tablet? How many practice notes do you suspect were written? If more than the Mr. and Mrs., why wasn't the Mr. and Mrs. removed along with the others????? Oversight?

Well, there are other ideas about the "practice note": one is that the writer was accustomed to adding Patsy when he/she began a document with the salutation, Mr., as in Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey cordially invite you.......IOW, force of habit, and notice that note was abandoned immediately, without further adieu--assuming it was a practice note.

Wouldn't you think that by the time the fourth draft (nine missing pages prior to the "practice note") was commenced, the writer would have decided whether to address the note to both parents? It looks like force of habit to me.

 

[Voice of Reason]

first, why must we assume that missing pages meant other practice notes? don't we rip pages out of pads all the time? i thought that was what pads were for? of course, this question will in all likelihood never be answered...

second, and i may be wrong here, but i thought that the "practice" note which addressed both mr. and mrs. was not found per se, but discovered by a bit of detective work. the page(s) below in the pad had the indentations from what was written above them. excuse me, but i'm not as up on every minute detail of this case, so i may be way off base here. i wasn't aware that a hard copy of the "practice" note was actually found?

 

[RedChief]

"they wouldn't have called the police til they were sure she was gone." Not sure about this; how long do you search in your 4-story mansion (counting the basement) before you call the police? Assuming you search in the basement, what prompts you to search in the wine cellar? The door was closed and latched from the outside.

I don't understand calling the friends and the priest; do you, except for screwing up the crime scene? Why wasn't calling the cops enough?

Yes, agree that the note gave them a reason not to search the house, or it is understandable that they didn't search the house once they found the note. John does say that he ran about a bit (or words to that effect). Why did he look into the walk-in refrigerator? I've always thought that strange. Why did he look under the bed in her bedroom? He must've suspected a ruse at those points.

They couldn't count on having numerous people in and out of the house all morning. The first cop there (who shouldn't have arrived conspicuously) should have kept all but essential personnel out. He obviously wasn't familiar with kidnapping protocol. How could the Ramseys know he wouldn't be?

We can't assume that the kidnapper launched the sexual assault. She may have been assaulted prior. Also, we can't assume that he didn't first assault JB, kill her, hide the body and write the note in hopes he could collect a ransom. Or maybe he wrote it for the same reason you ascribe to the Ramseys--to totally mess up the crime scene, making it impossible to pin anything on him.

 

[Voice of Reason]

my only point in saying that "they wouldn't call the police until they were sure she was gone" was that if they hadn't received the note, they would not have called the police right away. if you woke up, and your child was not in their bed, do you immediately assume they are kidnapped? of course not. but if you get a ransom note, you sure do...

 

[mihaff]

"they wouldn't have called the police til they were sure she was gone." Not sure about this; how long do you search in your 4-story mansion (counting the basement) before you call the police? Assuming you search in the basement, what prompts you to search in the wine cellar? The door was closed and latched from the outside.

I don't understand calling the friends and the priest; do you, except for screwing up the crime scene? Why wasn't calling the cops enough?

...
They couldn't count on having numerous people in and out of the house all morning. The first cop there (who shouldn't have arrived conspicuously) should have kept all but essential personnel out. He obviously wasn't familiar with kidnapping protocol. How could the Ramseys know he wouldn't be?

We can't assume that the kidnapper launched the sexual assault. She may have been assaulted prior. Also, we can't assume that he didn't first assault JB, kill her, hide the body and write the note in hopes he could collect a ransom. Or maybe he wrote it for the same reason you ascribe to the Ramseys--to totally mess up the crime scene, making it impossible to pin anything on him.

I am not sure what you mean. I Believe, IMO, the plan was very short sighted. Stage the body, write the note (further staging of scene) then get John to leave so Patsy could finish the last part of the staging. All the other things that happened were not part of the plan. It just went awry. It happens. It just didn't work against Patsy. She benefited from the confusion. Of course this is my opinion only. There was no reason to leave a ransom note behind by anyone other than a stager given the body was cold in the basement. IMO the stage was not completely set. Then circumstances took over.

 

[RedChief]

my only point in saying that "they wouldn't call the police until they were sure she was gone" was that if they hadn't received the note, they would not have called the police right away. if you woke up, and your child was not in their bed, do you immediately assume they are kidnapped? of course not. but if you get a ransom note, you sure do...

Yep, whoever's strategy it was, it's worked in favor of the Ramseys insofar as prosecuting them. If they're innocent, it's a shame they had to go through this stressful and expensive process.

It's worked in favor of the "intruder" too, to some extent (if you assume he wanted the $118,000); he's still at large (assuming he hasn't been arrested and jailed for another caper).

It's worked in favor of the public too; it's given them something to yammer about for the past nine years.