I am thinking that the Apple Watch would likely have to have been left in a slightly unique place for the ransom note to cite its location correctly and have it be meaningful. Something like, "the Apple Watch was charging on the nightstand next to the bed" isn't exactly going to point to information that "only the person who took her would know."
A few other thoughts:
I've been thinking the same, and mentioned it a few pages back. Spending 41 minutes in the house, trying to get what he wanted from Nancy, financial info, passwords, safe contents whatever, threatening her....he didn't succeed, in anger he may have killed her then, took her away with a new ransom plot in mind.
I just tend to think that Nancy wouldn't be someone likely to have all these insane financial accounts or safes full of expensive jewelry. The house is nice and everything, but it's not some multi million dollar estate and Nancy doesn't come off like the type who has vaults of family jewels. Her biggest connection to actual wealth and assets would likely be Savannah. To me that seems like more of a motive from the start than robbing an old lady and then kidnapping her if it went sideways. An opportunist who decides to rob an elderly lady living alone for cash seems like a very different criminal profile than someone also setting up an elaborate ransom with a national news figure, celebrity media channels, anonymous bitcoin accounts, emails, and messing around with the FBI. Has the police said if anything was actually taken? Like jewelry, atm cards, cash. My personal feeling is that Nancy was the prime target, not a robbery. But who knows.
I think that's just his way of communicating. The "we believe so and so is alive," is pretty standard. I've actually seen it in cases where you can tell without a doubt law enforcement is looking for a body.
A much better way of handling this would have been to say "we believe a crime occurred in that home," and leave it at that, as opposed to saying she was "abducted in her sleep."
There is no way they could know she actually left that house alive, but that's the picture he's painted. I believe it's entirely possible that this resulted in some opportunist taking advantage of the situation with the ransom notes.
I think this too regarding the sheriff. He said yes they believe she is alive, but I think that's only because they haven't found a body or definitive conclusion of otherwise, so that's what they're going with even if they don't believe so. The reward also said for the "recovery" of Nancy, not the safe return of Nancy alive which I think is pretty telling.
Struck me as odd too but brushed it off for two reasons.
If their mother is alive, the kidnappers would surely show her this video. This may be the last time Nancy hears anything from her children and they wanted to speak directly to her and show her how much they love her.
This is a cry for help, they are asking their mother directly to communicate to these kidnappers "we will do whatever you want us to do to get our mother home." They know how smart their mother is.
Mom if you can, help us here.
99
I thought AG's message on the video to the abductors was so odd. Not suspicious, just odd. It felt to me like she was speaking at a service. But, since she's apparently a poet, that may just be how she speaks and was her heartfelt way of speaking out to her mom as authentically her, especially if they hoped Nancy would see it. It just felt less like a plea or a normal way to speak (although I guess is there even a normal way to speak to your mother's possible abductor?). I couldn't tell if there was any coded message in her words. They just felt a little stilted and an off way of speaking, but again, that may just be her and how she writes and speaks.
Exactly! I saw Megyn Kelly speculate that, because the family was getting so much grief online for waiting an hour to call 911, they changed their story. With no working cameras, LE cannot easily determine when the family arrived.
I suspect that this may have come about because of how it was first reported that someone from church called the family to say that Nancy wasn't there. And then an hour later, the family called 911. When in reality, however the family became concerned, they were there at Nancy's house by noon and called police within 7 minutes. I think that is likely accurate. How and when there was first reason for concern that Nancy wasn't reachable is unclear. But I don't know that it would raise immediate flags. It maybe wouldn't be that big of a stretch to think, she's in the shower, her ringer is off, she's taking a nap, etc. Once they got to the house, they appeared to call 911 fast. I think cell phones and car gps and smart watches would likely easily show when they arrived.
