JBean said:
No, I do not believe the R's wrote the note.
I do believe in the intruder theory. But, just like the RDI theory, not everything works. I think that is what makes this a unique and discussion worthy case.
The thing about the RN is that it really makes no sense at all. So, IMO the only reasonable explanation is that the intruder wanted to put time between his escape and the discovery of the body. The more time that goes by without this being considered a murder, the colder the trail becomes. If you think of it in those terms, it was ingenious. A lot of time was spent trying to analyze this ridiculous note.The crime scene was not treated like a murder scene, but rather a kidnapping;including not thoruoghly searching the house.The intruder got how many hours head start? Imagine a a murdered body right in the house undiscovered.Why? Because there was a ransom note.Took a chance the house would not be searched and it paid off. The RN was the great detractor, IMO.
Hi JBean.
That RN must have taken ages to write, time that could have been used to get further away from the scene of the crime, if that's what the perp's intended by writing the note.
Also, the note could have been 3 or 4 lines. "We have your daughter. We want $118,000! Wait for our call. Don't call the police or she dies." A short RN would have served the same purpose - pointing investigators in the direction of a kidnapping instead of a murder.
Also, the perp could have gotten away without any RN, and simply hid the body. She was already dead, it's not like she could have called out to people searching the house - "I'm over here! In a suitcase!" She was a small, dead child. She could have been stuffed into any box, cubbyhole, trunk, etc., and escaped detection, at least in the first, cursory searches of the home. As it was, she was missed by FW the first itme he looked in the basement room in which she was later found. The Rs could have woken up, found JB gone, called the police, and it could be assumed she had either been taken or wandered out of the house herself. This scenario would have attracted even less police attention, as the first thought might be that she went outside, or wandered off, and of course she will turn up. Later, the search might have taken the police right outside of the home, canvassing the neighborhood, calling her name, etc.
It can be argued the crime scene was still a crime scene, whether it was a murder or a kidnapping. It should have always been preserved as a crime scene. Certainly investigators were more concerned with kidnapping matters, and any analysis of the crime scene was put on hold (also due to the unfortunate fact that it was Christmas and they had a deplorable shortage of manpower) to deal with the immediate matter of the apparent kidnapping. Still, it was a crime scene, and there should have been better effort to preserve any forensics.
imo