The kidnapping just makes no sense.
1. No Ransom.
2. No calls to tell where to drop any money off.
3. Kidnaps? Yet kills her?
Why would they do that?
They would either kidnap for ransom or to raise Caylee as their own.
imoo
Paraphrased from the following link:
http://www.ourmissingchildren.gc.ca/omc/publications/002/abduction_e.htm
When a child abduction is portrayed by the media, it is usually a report of the most severe kind; a child is taken from their home, yard or bed, kept for ransom and/or sexual exploitation, and sometimes murdered. This type of stranger abduction is a very rare occurrence and often referred to as a stereotypical abduction. The stereotypical definition includes "the removal of a child from his or her home for an extended period of time primarily for purposes of ransom, sadistic or sexual assault, or even murder" (Finkelhor et al, 1992, Asdigian et al, 1995). The stereotypical abduction term applies to those severe circumstances "where strangers are perpetrators and a) the child was gone overnight, or b) the child was transported more than 50 miles or more from the point of abduction, or c) the child was killed, or d) the child was ransomed, or e) the perpetrator evidenced an intent to keep the child permanently". To elaborate further, not only is the term "abduction" difficult to define, but also the term "stranger". Boudreaux et al, (1999) defined 'stranger' as: someone who the victim has never come into contact with before the offense; anyone who is not part of the immediate family; and everything in between. Commonly referred to as a "non-family member" this person is someone who is not part of the family, such as a babysitter, family friend, acquaintance, boyfriend, and so on.
Abductor
Four categories of abductors have been classified by the United States' Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). These are as follows:
a. Paedophiles The people in this category constitute the single largest number of child abductors. Paedophiles seem to identify with children better than with adults which is the reason why they are able to seduce/lure children easily. They appear to understand the likes and dislikes of children and show a genuine concern for their well-being.
I dont see ZFG falling under the category paedophile since KC claims she was using her services for a very long time. If ZFG were a paedophile (which is very very rare in females) then She would most likely not murder Caylee, but keep her for sexual gratification.
b. Profiteers This is an individual who is a criminal exploiter who sells children to pornographers or adoption rings, mostly in the black-market industry.
This is probably the route the defense will take but it completely discounts murder. At the moment of murder, the cash flow ends so I cant imagine this being the case.
c. Serial Killers The actions of these individuals are methodical and ritualized, with power, dominance, and control as the most frequent motivator.
ZFG most likely will not be portrayed by the defense as a serial killer. That seems very farfetched as a theory. There would have to be other victims or more proof of Caylee having been targeted. There is also no ransom request an abductor that would be looking for financial gain wouldnt kill the means to achieving that goal.
d. Childless Psychotics These individuals tend to abduct children when there are unable to have children of their own or have lost a child and seek another to fill its place (Tedisco & Paludi, 1996).
This will be the other profile the defense will go with to portray the fictional ZFG as an emotionally driven abductor who loved Caylee so much, she stole her (as per KC). Only problem here is: Caylee is dead. An emotional abductor seeking to replace a child for example would never kill the child.
Abductors are generally male and they tend to target victims within their own ethnic group. Their behavioural patterns seem to be dependent upon gender, motivation, and relationship to the victim. To explain further, female offenders rarely abduct for sexual gratification, or profit, but more for emotional satisfaction (my bold).
The majority of child abductors who murder their victims have a history of violence. The United States missing children homicide investigative study by Hanfland et al, (1997) revealed that 60% had prior arrests for violent crimes. Almost two-thirds of the killers who were strangers to the victims had committed prior crimes against children, whereas 41% of the child abduction killers who were friends and acquaintances of the victim had committed crimes against other children.
I cant imagine that our fictional ZFG has a history of violence. It would have been a very strange choice in that case for KC to have her as the nanny.
There is nothing in the entire ZFG story that matches with any official studies done by the FBI or otherwise on child abductions. Its gonna be a tough one for the defense. I dont see the story meriting any credibility at all for jurors.
Excuse my long post but I wanted to explore the possibilities for the defense strategy on kidnapping. The type of kidnapper they will want to portray ZFG as being does not rhyme with a murder.