"You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure that you bring an adequate size attaché to the bank. When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier (delivery) pickup of your daughter."

Questions:

(1) What account is the author referring to? A bank account? The "account" the bonus of $118,117.50 was in?

(2) Is the author referring to the trip to the bank to get the money converted into $100 and $20 bills, or is he assuming the "account" is a bank account?

(3) The note was written (a) before December 25th? (b)the late afternoon or early evening of the 25th while the Ramseys were at the Whites? (c) after JonBenét was murdered, but prior to midnight of the 25th?, or (d) after midnight the 25th, before or after JonBenét's murder?
So, when is "tomorrow"? On what day will he call between 8 and 10 am?

Let's look at the options:

If the Note was written before December 25th or the late afternoon/early evening of the 25th while the Ramseys were at the Whites or after JonBenét's murder, but before midnight of the 25th
Tomorrow would then be the 26th.
Questions
1. How did the author expect John to get to the bank prior to 8 am? Even if we interpret the broader time range of calling at 10 am, how did he think John could accomplish the money transaction before 10 am? What bank would be open that early? Are banks open on the 26th of December in Boulder (where I live, banks close early on the 24th - which was a Tuesday - and would not open until the 27th - which was a Friday)?

2. Should we interpret the words to mean a call would be made between 8 and 10 am on the 26th without assuming the author expected the money transaction to be complete that early? In other words, was the (pretend) "kidnapper" communicating only that he would call between 8 and 10 am with further instructions, but did not really expect the money transaction to have been completed that early?

If the note was written after midnight of the 25th
Then "tomorrow" would be the 27th
Comment:
The question of whether or not the banks were open on the 26th would assist the understanding of the instructions. If John had all day the 26th to make the money transactions, it would make (a little) more sense. If the banks (and other financial institutions) were not open on the 26th, the same problems arise.

The greatest latitude I could give the author of the note with regard to "plans" for a kidnapping is the possibility that WHEN the note was written (and I believe that to be BEFORE the murder, and probably BEFORE the Ramseys returned from the Whites), he entertained the possibility of a kidnapping or staging a kidnapping.

The question still remains: What was he thinking when he wrote of the call between 8 and 10 am tomorrow?

I don't know if this will help but as a fact, tomorrow never comes. As soon as tomorrow becomes today, tomorrow becomes the day after today. So it never actually is "tomorrow".

It sort of implies that the writer had written it long before, as a sort of rainy day ransom note, usable at any time, when convenient. It might have been written the 25th or it might have been composed over a long period of time, and given finishing touches on the 25th. I doubt it was written on the 26th, after the murder.

If you must know what the writer intended, I would ask someone with relevant experience, such as a basement-girl-murder expert.

This is an indication, albeit weak, that a kidnapping was actually planned. If the killer had wanted to prolong the agony and perhaps postpone a house search, he could have specified the 27th.

He was thinking about how much fun it would be for him to have those parents waiting anxiously by the phone for a call that would never come.

Note the absurdity involved: Have this nice, large and expensive attache case for the money, then come home and put it in a brown paper bag.

'tomorrow' is just as absurd.

Why did he take the time to specifically urge John to get the money earlier? What is he trying to say?

We know by the murder that he desires a sustained aggression. Perhaps, setting up an impossible and confusing scenario is his way of sustaining aggression against John.

If the paradoxes are by design, what does this tell us about the offender?

Assuming that the author was at least making some sort of attempt to portray a kidnapping --- a big assumption --- I believe that the author is a person who can put himself in his reader's shoes and that "tomorrow" did NOT mean 26 December, but 27 December. If I were writing to you, and I knew for certain that you wouldn't read this until Thursday, "tomorrow" in this post would be Friday 05 Sept, not Thursday 04 Sept. I'm assuming that I didn't sleep for two days last night! I myself would probably put the day in parantheses (Friday).

We should not assume that the word "tomorrow," when written down in the ransom note, was solely with reference to the author's own perspective as if he had no imagination. Quite the contrary, I think that the author had/had a vivid imagination.

As far as a tomorrow that never comes, that's certainly possible, but I believe this was more of a delaying tactic. Delay is good.

Edited to add: I just saw what AvidReader posted on another thread, and I tend to agree: " If the note would have been a real RN, there should have been no doubt when the call was going to be received." If you're serious about collecting cash, don't use words like tomorrow!

I know that Lou Smit feels this was quite possibly a 'kidnapping gone wrong' but I think most posters on this forum are in general agreement that it was a murder, that no kidnapping was contemplated at any time. Some of us think it was a "kill the witness to the sex crime" murder and some of us think the sex crime part was about as legitimate as the ransom note.

Why say anything in the note about a specific time to call? Did he think they would go out to some coffee shop for snack and miss his call? Being well rested, having various specified containers, ... it was all a work of pure fiction. And so he could take whatever license he wished with terms such as 'tomorrow'.

Also, don't limit yourself to thinking a kidnapping means removing JonBenet from the house. Remember, Jesse McReynolds was convicted of kidnapping for moving someone from point A to point B. If she went voluntarily with Janet McReynolds to the basement (which I think she did - and, therefore, "chose" her killers), but then was moved from the hallway to the windowless room, it could be considered a kidnappng, at least in the mind of the killers.

As some of you have noticed, I come here and post very late at night (some would say, actually early morning). I often send emails regarding work-related issues at the same time of day. I forget that I am posting/emailing after (sometimes well after) midnight and refer to the time that I expect the reader to read my communication and take an action as "tomorrow" when, technically, it should read that the action I expect from the reader should occur (later) "today". (Confusing?)

Having said that, the author of this note has always given me the impression of someone who was fantasizing his "kidnapping script". As Don has pointed out the fancy attaché for the trip to the bank is followed by the demand for a brown paper bag for the money delivery. What is that?? The demanded denominations seems right out of the "standard kidnapping ransom note manual" (script). The threats of death and beheading ... seems like the ramblings of an immature author (and John Douglas of the FBI seemed to agree). And yet, some of you have pointed out how it would not be difficult to view the author in quite the opposite light (a well-planned, well-intentioned, carefully worded authoring).

AR, your point is excellent. If it was a SERIOUS Ransom note, the date would/should have been clearer. It would seem to make (some) sense (at least to me) that if he wrote the note earlier in the day (while the Ramseys were out), before the crime of murder, that he did not have a CLEAR plan (at the time of the writing) as to how the events would unfold upon their return. The projection of WHEN the Ramseys would read the note and how they might be confused as to when "tomorrow between 8 and 10 am" should be interpreted may not have occurred to him.

Was he an immature, fantasizing, "script-writer" or an organized "word master"?

For example, I'm typing this at 1:30am, but TOMORROW I am going to work (i.e. in 5 hours -- eek! I'd better get to bed).

No one has a clue if they'll be here tomorrow or not; we operate under the assumption we will be - even after seeing family and friends picked one by one, sometimes three by three. Today is the present, all we have to do right or do wrong.

I would like to do this with reference to two movies, the titles of which escape me at the moment, but I'm sure the plots will be familiar to you all.

Each of the two movies involved a cop taking a female witness onto a train and dealing with the bad guys who are trying to determine her identity, locate her and kill her. The latest version of the movie featured Gene Hackman.

Each film also featured a portly gentlemen who was from time to time encountered on the train, usually in the close quarters of a narrow railroad car's aisle. Each film involved the gentlemen being called upon to respond to some inquiry involving the time and replying in a very precise manner, such as 9:16. Obviously, he turned out to be a Railroad Bull. For who else but railroaders are so precise about time even though its a trivial inquiry in a social situation.

Some people say "fourteen hundred hours". Some people say "two o'clock". Some people are precise, some 'round the minutes off'.

So, think of this: You are at a cocktail party, someone responds to an inquiry about the time with: 'twenty-two seventeen'. It tells you 'something'. Military, cop, engineer, programmer, drunk, whatever... but it tells you something.

Now if that person were to be writing a ransom note, would he not be very, very careful to alter his manner of expression?

Therefore, since there is this thread about 'what on earth did he mean when he said 'tomorrow' does this not mean that we are looking for a very precise, detailed person who would normally be exact and unambiguous in his communications: an engineer, a computer programmer, etc.

Nice try! Doesn't fly.

Mr. Ramsey = Mrs. Ramsey.
Listen carefully = Dont' listen at all.
We are a group... = I am not a non-group...
of individuals = of groups (of individuals)
who represent = who don't represent
a foreign faction = a domestic non-faction

Mrs. Ramsey,

Don't listen at all. I am not a non-group of groups who don't represent a domestic non-faction....

It something like this is what the note would have been had your hypothetical author written it honestly, then use of "tomorrow" could be interpreted as you posted.

Technical note: I realize that I distributed negation rather arbitrarily, but it was to make a point. You can't just choose where to make a negation and leave the rest alone --- but you know that, Don. You'd have to work out the other implications and see if they're all consistent.

Like I said, though, "Nice try!" There may be something to this, but I tend to believe that he was just not thinking at that point. He really didn't care when "tomorrow" was so it didn't even occur to him to be specific. When people are just making stuff up, they do this sort of thing. "I was out." "Where?" "Uh --- at the store." "What store?" "Uh --- the grocery store." "What did you buy?" "Uh --- lettuce." "Really? Where is it?" "Uh --- I ate it already." "Where's the wrapper?" "Uh ---- I ate it." "When is 'tomorrow?'" "Uh --- Friday!"

Since it is written to confuse I don't see how we can take any word, phrase or statement at face value. This is not a "most things are as simple as they seem" kind of note. The phrases are largely taken from movies and books, calculated to disguise the writer's natural phrasing, the handprinting is probably not the perp's standard form as changing from cursive to printing helps to disguise one's normal characterizations. I think the grammar and language is manipulated to leave an incorrect impression of the writer. This deception might include an effort on the writer's part to disguise the way he deals with time as DB suggests. But as Dave points out, however, we can't randomly or catagorecally apply reverse meanings to every thing. We might gather clues from the crime scene as to how to interpret the note.

So, maybe this is just standard kidnapping lingo, at least in the movies, or in the mind of the writer, who meant nothing more than to give the note a facade of reality.

>You can't just choose where to make a negation and leave the rest alone
No, and quite frankly I think it is more 'imprecision' than 'negation' at play here.
He could have addressed the note: Mr. Smith and Patsy would have instantly screamed and run to check on JonBenet anyway.
"Smith, Jones, Ramsey, Tomorrow, Today, ... whats the difference".

>When people are just making stuff up, they do this sort of thing.
Yes.
That is why an interrogator lets someone keep going until they have enmeshed themselves in a bed of impromptu lies.

But we have no way of knowing just how carefully he considered the text of the note. He does seem to have paid fairly good attention to margins however. Intentional? Habit?

Listen Carefully! (begins the note)

Victory! (ends the note)

What statements are made within the note that use exclamation points as well?

Habit - same reason why the perp capitalized Law Enforcement -

First of all, why on earth would the writer want to calculate "tomorrow" from the time the note was written, rather than the time he was planning on having it found? This person clearly wasn't stupid or uneducated or retarded. So why would he have allowed himself to make such a blunder? Secondly, everything about the instructions in the note makes the 26th literally impossible as the date on which the call was to be made. If the call was to come between 8 and 10 AM there would simply not be enough time for John to leave the house, go to the bank (which wouldn't have been open by 8 anyhow), return, be "rested" and sit by the phone. The note even refers to the possibility of John raising the money early. If he was to be raising it prior to 8AM on the 26th, then what could that possibly mean, just how early could they have expected him to have gone to the bank?

The note makes sense only if "tomorrow" was meant as the 27th and there is in fact no reason whatsoever to interpret it in any other way. It is not in the least ambiguous. What's strange is the way it was and still is being interpreted.

Victory for the killer... He came there for one reason and one reason only.:(

The note is evidence. When we stick with the evidence, rather than trying to "profile" the killer, I think we'll have a better chance of learning some things. IMO one of the things we HAVE to accept about the note is that its timing is crystal clear: "tomorrow" meant just that, tomorrow. That's evidence from the note itself, no need to second guess the personality or motives of the writer. I think the police exercised reasonable caution in setting up their phone system on the 26th and waiting for a call that morning, just in case. But a careful reading of the note should have made it clear how unlikely it was that a call was going to be made that day. IMO they should, in fact, have kept the murder quiet for another 24 hours, in the hope a call might come in on the 27th, despite the fact that the victim was already dead. It was always possible the "kidnapper" might have hoped the body would not be found and would still continue with his ransom plan. The police didn't do this because IMO they, like so many others nowadays, simply can't read, so the message of the note eluded them. People read what they want to read, see what they want to see, make assumptions and stick by them regardless of the logic or the facts.

A real kidnapper wanting money, might not kill the victim at all, but definitely leave them alive for a while--at least until they get the money.

This just proves to me that he went there to kill her, not for money and he wanted the parents and the cops to look in another direction.

There was no tomorrow,imo.

The police were stupid for arriving at the house like they did, but everything they did was stupid. It still wouldn't have mattered though, once the Ramsey's called the police and brought help to the house, it was over according to the note, they were being monitored.

Another reason the police did what they did is because they took the statistical approach of "the parents did it" to the exclusion of every other possibility. So much so, that they didn't even canvass the neighborhood. While I don't think this was ever intended to be a kidnapping, if all had remained quiet through the 27th, the offender may have made a taunting phone call to see the effects of his handiwork and to turn the knife a little more.

At the time the note was being written, the major portion of her brief 'tomorrow' would feature terror and repeated loss of consciousness until she went from wondering if she was dead to wishing she was dead.

And you think someone who enjoyed inflicting that sort of torture on her was going to really care about how precisely he used the word 'tomorrow'?

The killer intended to leave her in the basement until his sick game was up. There was always a 100% chance for the "pick-up/delivery" of JB, dead or alive, in the basement room. The note was written to throw suspicion from someone known to the family. Investigators should look at those close to the family, in the mid to outer circle of acquaintances.

IMO

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I agree with that 100%. But how would he call John and not worry that he would reconize his voice? Unless, there was someone else involved, maybe?

I don't know, but I think he just wanted to buy some time and steer the investigation in an entirely different direction.

But how would he call John and not worry that he would reconize his voice?
They have 'voice changers' at any spy shop or even the Sharper Image, but no telephone call was ever contemplated.

>but I think he just wanted to buy some time
to solidify an alibi? time?
Once he is out of the immediate area, he is home free.
>investigation in an entirely different direction.
I don't think anyone expected the FBI to go running after the SBTC.

I don't think anyone expected the FBI to go running after the SBTC
> We're not sick puppy, so we don't know if in his crazy mind, he may have thought the police would be stupid enough to so just that.

Yes - and being home free may have been 1 block away - as long as the perp was in his comfort zone.

As for the perp being in his comfort zone, he could have been very close - - we know the police didn't properly canvas the neighborhood. Whether he was a neighbor or an intruder hiding out in someone's house - we just don't know.

>we know the police didn't properly canvas the neighborhood.
The real story for Michael Tracy is police incompetence in general.

>Whether he was a neighbor or an intruder hiding out in someone's house
Sure its quite probable that someone familiar with the neighborhood did this and that usually means living or working in the neighborhood. It would sure be nice to have some sort of observation point, at the very least a van parked nearby. However, the un-identified JAR-like figure seen approaching the house in the late afternoon indicates to me someone who was not able to hang about the neighborhood and wait until dark to make his approach to the house.

At 4:00 am, tomorrow to me wouldn't be the next time the sun came up, it would be the following day....otherwise today and tomorrow would be the same day.

Attempts to deduce who the author is from considerations of what is meant by "tomorrow" are probably going to fail, for example an extrapolation from a assumed purposeful inaccuracy to the opposite of the author's true personality trait, then to an actual occupation. Extrapolations are hazardous enough, even without going nearly this far out. There are just too many explanations and interpretations.

Extrapolations are hazardous enough, even without going nearly this far out. There are just too many explanations and interpretations.

Oh I quite agree. Its just that, unlike the BPD, we want to actually do something on this case. Hazardous, or to be more precise, absurd extrapolations are probably not a sensible use of our time, however, it somehow feels better to unlatch the door in an outlandish fashion than to simply passby the unlatched door without trying to do anything at all.

one-eyed Jack wrote: We know by the murder that he desires a sustained aggression. Perhaps, setting up an impossible and confusing scenario is his way of sustaining aggression against John.

DonBradley wrote: He was thinking about how much fun it would be for him to have those parents waiting anxiously by the phone for a call that would never come.

Braveheart wrote: Since it is written to confuse I don't see how we can take any word, phrase or statement at face value. This is not a "most things are as simple as they seem" kind of note. The phrases are largely taken from movies and books, calculated to disguise the writer's natural phrasing, the handprinting is probably not the perp's standard form as changing from cursive to printing helps to disguise one's normal characterizations.

Dave wrote: I believe that the author is a person who can put himself in his reader's shoes and that "tomorrow" did NOT mean 26 December, but 27 December.

Margoo wrote: ... it was authored by someone quite the opposite of what Dave has indicated. That is, someone who CANNOT put himself in the reader's shoes. Someone who wrote the note at a time when he did not foresee the actual TIME the note would likely be read by one or both of the Ramseys.

DocG wrote: I'll go farther: the writer of the note clearly and unequivocally meant for "tomorrow" to be understood as the 27th. There is absolutely no ambiguity in the note itself. The ambiguity creeps in ONLY when we consider how the note was interpreted by the Ramseys and the LE people involved.

On the 26th, Arndt made a point of saying that no one made much of the fact that 10 a.m. passed without a call from the note-writer. I don't believe ANYONE in the Ramsey home (except Arndt maybe) was sure the note writer meant the 26th. It would seem logical to assume he meant he would call on the 27th. John would then have had enough time to get the money together, in the specified denominations, and get "the rest" required (like anyone could rest peacefully when their daughter has been kidnapped).

Now, let me ask you this - how did he think the house would not be searched from bottom to top and the body found? So, here we are back at square one. There was no kidnapping (never was). Writing that he would call on the 27th was ridiculous knowing that it was most probable that the kidnap victim would be discovered and determined to already be dead prior to the 27th and therefore non-negotiable. And he didn't call on the 27th. So, why are we assuming that instruction (regarding "tomorrow") should make sense, be the 27th, or follow any order of logic that would be familiar to us?

So, I ask again: Was he an immature, fantasizing, "script-writer" or an organized "word master"? When was the note written? As I've said before, these questions seem to be best answered (for me) by speculating that the note was written BEFORE the Ramseys returned from the Whites and BEFORE the note-writer KNEW exactly what his PLAN was going to be or how the events would play out upon their return.

Regarding your latest post:

Assuming that the note must "make sense" (and "tomorrow" is 27 December), the simplest explanation is that the note only had to make sense when it was first read, not later. So this is why the author could write "tomorrow" regardless of what might happen later on the 26th and regardless of when he composed it, actually wrote or dictated it, etc. The only simple situation where using "tomorrow" doesn't make much sense would have been if he had put the note with JonBenét's body after she had already been killed. As long as the note is separate from the body, I don't myself see any way to use the word "tomorrow" to determine when the note was composed or written, nor do I see any way to determine when he fixed upon a plan of action relative to the time of writing the note. I'm sure there are opinions out there based on what people have observed, but I don't see any way to reason it out using only the note and a timeline.

Hi Dave!

I guess (for me) the fact that he walked out of that house, leaving the note and the dead body behind (and the note neatly displayed for quick viewing), is as close to leaving it with the body as you can get.

HOWEVER. If we make one assumption, one single simple assumption, then everything about the note DOES make sense. If we assume the note could have been written by John as part of an effort to misdirect investigators in the direction of a kidnapping, then the note makes sense. Certainly the timing makes sense as well. A real kidnapper would have wanted to close the deal as soon as possible. He'd have called that morning (the 26th) and arranged to get his money quickly. However, if John was staging, he would have needed time to do various things, including getting the body out of the house. So if HE wrote the note, it would make sense for him to arrange things so the "kidnapper" wouldn't be calling till the next day. That would give him over 24 hours to dump the body and complete his window staging.

I'm not saying I can prove John wrote the note. But I AM saying the note makes sense if that assumption is made.

Scanning, scanning, all around. Focus on jewel of the crown. Party time begins at dawn; Beast is nothing but a pawn. Invitation all prepared; flay the skin, lay him bared.

Upon the cross of public view, havoc will perchance ensue. Once inside the game is set; I now have him in my net. Pretty face, pretty hue. Virginal shades of lovely blue.

Tease the wound, make it weep. In the darkness, soul to keep.

Rainsong

1: A kidnapper wrote it. Doesn't seem likely does it?

2: A pedophile wrote it. There is a classification of pedophile called a mysoped. This is a rare individual who is a child oriented sadist. There is almost nothing in the literature about these guys. I did find that they tend to enjoy elaborate and confusing kidnap ploys, so this possibility does exist. Whether an individual with this nature would be satified with the limited sexual assault seen in this case is up for debate, however. A younger offender may do it this way, but I would expect to see a serial killer if that was the case.

3: A murderer wrote it. I'm not sure what you mean Doc. Whoever did this is a murderer.

4: An intruder wrote it. It doesn't seem a great leap to think an intruder would be inspired to leave a writing of this kind behind. It could serve the purpose of bringing false hope to the family of a safe return of their child while he knows all along that this will never happen. It could also serve the purpose of confusing the investigation. It could give the writer a notoriety he may crave by watching everyone trying to figure it out while he is at a safe distance. All of these things are consistent with a criminal mind at work.

5: John or Patsy wrote it. I realize your focus is on John as the note writer, and I respect your point of view. Continuing with the premise that the note and crime show the workings of a criminal mind, I think it is a leap to consider either parent as the note writer. Neither one has a criminal record of any kind. Neither one appears to think like a criminal. The murder appears to be methodical and deliberate...not a sexual assault gone too far. Personally, I see the note as being more likely written by someone outside the family than within.

Evenutally, everything in the note would 'unwind': No SBTC, No Two Gentlemen, No Foreign Faction, No Exhausting Delivery, No Tomorrow.
The note only had to be effective when initially read and in the ensuing terrifying hours. Eventually, the corpse would have been discovered and most likely it would be discovered far earlier than it actually was. Probably even far earlier than that 10:00am "call".

It was a great way to while away the hours awaiting the Ramseys return, so he concocted the note on the spot (or copied it from a prepared text), but mainly it was great fun to imagine their reactions and their ordeal.

The word 'tomorrow' only had to be as meaningful and precise as 'Two Gentlemen'.

Did he carefully contrive the note from well-researched movie clues so as to avoid having any sort of discernible 'style' of his own inadvertantly added to it? Or did he simply concoct the note on a whim right there without any forethought whatsoever? I don't know.

Does it contain endless layers carefully crafted to conceal his identity? I don't know.

I do know one thing: It is NOT a ransom note. That is merely an obvious and convenient lable for us to use. It will forever be called a ransom note, but it never once was a ransom note. It was a prop, a tool, a device for the infliction of injury for his entertainment.
That is its function and its "meaning" is related to its purpose, not a precise analysis of its prose.

It would make more sense to me, if JR was in the position you propose and needed to dispose of his daughter's body, that he simply not write or stage anything, have the child's body in the trunk of his car, and upon rising in the morning, search the house with Patsy.

Even if Patsy had insisted upon calling police to report a missing child they would have told her they could do noting for a period of time and in the meantime she should look all over the neighborhood, call friends and check all over the house. While she called friends and searched the house I'm sure John would have found all the excuse he needed to leave home to look for his daughter.

It is one thing to say the note might have been written for this reason and quite another to insist this is real plausible much less the only logical reason for the note. I'm not buying it.

If the purpose of the note was not to communicate a ransom demand, and I can't fathom why anyone would insist on it's being real, then it must have some other purpose.

A note is not necessary to kidnap someone.
Leaving any note, regardless of length, involves risk. The longer the note the more the risk. The writer was obviously not worried about being traced by his handwriting or his linguistics. He would, therefore, either be a complete idiot, as in village idiot, or someone remote to the Ramseys geographically or socially. This is not to say that the killer necessarily wrote the note, he may have had someone else write it for him.

It would not be necessary to stage a break-in and a murder. A non-genuine note is more damning of the parents than not having one. This ought to be obvious even to those potential stagers who are critically thinking challenged. It ought to be especially clear to anyone who really had read MINDHUNTERS as the police want us to believe the Ramseys did. If the Ramseys were guilty of what they have been accused of it would make no sense for either of them to have been the note's author.

It would not be necessary to leave a note to buy time. The note never guaranteed this would happen and in fact it created a panic situation which all but guaranteed the police would be called immediately, even if John had objected. If this were his intent for the note why wasn't he the one to "discover" the note to more control the situation. Letting Patsy find it was very risky in my view if he were the writer and buying time was his purpose.

...it would have been sufficient to craft a simple note or none at all.

The fact that the note was left, and left where it was, does tell us a lot about the killers purpose.

Great post, Don. There doesn't seem to be any other sensible way to interpret the note. No kidnapping was truly planned, and the offender was not looking for monetary gain. I don't believe the guy is brave enough to even contemplate carrying through with a plan that would further expose him to apprehension. The note appears to satisy a personal emotional desire. An immature desire to taunt, wreak devastation, and run away laughing.

That is the million dollar question, isn't it? If I had to bet money on it, I would say the offender planned to murder Jonbenét in the house and get away with it and not much more. The ransom note may or may not have been a pre-conceived idea, but if it was pre-conceived, it seems only a vague notion. A kidnapper brings his own note. He actually kidnaps the victim, and he usually attempts to collect the money. This isn't even a kidnapping gone wrong. How wrong could it go with an offender who can bring down a 300 lb. man against any 6 year old? There is no sign that anyone detected his deeds during the commission of the crime. (I doubt the story about the scream because the placement of the body is not indicative of a panicked escape.) The act of writing the note appears to be something that was decided after looking through the house a bit. Perhaps he was inflamed by the wealth and success of the home owner. His remark in the note about "fat cats" and the scribblings on the business article give the impression that this is so.

Trying to figure out if this crime was highly planned or under planned is one of the hard things to work out about this case. If it wasn't well planned out, we have a wierd individual who would stand out to other people. If it was highly planned, we have someone who can blend in very well with the crowd. It really is a travesty that the BPD blew it.

Bravo, Don! The BPD should be thoroughly flogged for their bumbling ineptitude in this case. Especially when we consider the fact that after all these years they are still making no attempt whatsoever to open that still latched door.

I absolutely agree. If this murder was a first, he either lived or worked in the area. He was far too comfortable to have been in an area that was foreign to him. The fact that the BPD did not canvass that neighborhood just bogglees the mind. In well over fifty percent of murder cases, if the investigation is conducted properly, the offender comes up on the suspect list in the first week.

Now, picture those moments while the note was being written. Did the perp enjoy this all by him/herself? Or did the two perps each contribute to the missive, each one trying to entertain the other while compiling their combined humor? Well, that's how I picture it.

CLOSED

CLOSED

CLOSED

THREAD CLOSED. SEE CONTINUATION THREAD.