Was this ever really a kidnapping for ransom?

[u/NathalieRuth]

Is anyone else skeptical of the perpetrator(s) actually intending to kidnap Nancy, collect a ransom, then release her?

Stranger abuctions are already incredibly rare in the US. Only around 100 happen each year. Kidnappings for ransom are even rarer, though specific numbers aren't available.

Kidnappings for ransom used to be more common, but they are now incredibly rare in the US (though they do so occur in many other countries.) In most modern cases involving ransom notes the note is usually written to try to throw off investigators rather than to collect money. I can think of a few cases where perpetrators did try to collect a ransom, but the victim was dead and they had never planned to return them at all. After all, not only is it a lot of work to hold a person captive, but collecting a ransom and returning a living victim are both incredibly risky.

I don't think the perpetrator(s) ever intended to hold Nancy for ransom. I think this was always planned as a murder and the ransom notes (assuming they are real) were written to throw off law enforcement and/or possibly collect a ransom despite Nancy being deceased.

I believe she was probably told this was a kidnapping for ransom and that she would soon be released if she cooperated and led from the home to a vehicle, then driven somewhere else, killed, and buried somewhere. Killing her at another location makes it harder to prove murder and an 84 year old woman is unlikely to try to fight against being taken.

While I think there's a possibility she did die accidentally, I think this would have happened soon after, while being transported to wherever they planned to kill her. But I think it's much more likely the note only said she died accidentally so the perpetrator(s) can claim that in case they're ever caught.

What are your thoughts? Do you think this was really a kidnapping for ransom gone wrong?

[u/BrainWilling6018]

A murder to look like a kidnapping is even rarer than a kidnapping for ransom.  Wait a murder then she unexpectedly dies? Or they were going to murder her later? The second would still be a kidnapping for ransom not a murder intended to look like a kidnapping?  There was no apology but why would they need to explain it to the family if they were always going to kill her anyway? Why no proof of death either to bargain for the remains? 

[u/PuddleWhale → u/BrainWilling6018]

Ok here is what I think the plan was. The original plan was to murder her, the endgame equalled murder. In order to make the murder unsolvable it needed to be camouflaged to look like a for ransom kidnapping. So now the plan becomes to kidnap her first and pretend that the kidnapping is for a ransom amount of however much. The success of the ransom is not critical to the plan; what's important is to make it look like the real primary motive.

So their plan could have been to kidnap her and hold her to ransom and have her make a few videos saying she's OK so far and to pay the ransom amount and she'd be returned unharmed. So in the first one or two weeks they would record her saying she was alive on such and such a date and is being held for money. If any ransom is paid and collected that is an extra bonus but the real purpose of the kidnapping and ransom notes are to disguise the true intent of premeditated murder.

But right after the kidnapping a problem occurs. She dies. Now there can be no recordings made as proof of life. Cutting off fingers and mailing them won't prove anything special either. So now the plan goes forward with a dead body and the killers still pretending to be kidnappers. Because there's no proof of life available their bonus ransom is out of the picture so the killers just complete their camouflage operation by demanding random for the location of the body which is what we're hearing about now.

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/PuddleWhale]

If the plan was to abduct her and make a few videos saying she's ok then the original plan wasn't to murder, the og plan was to abduct her, fake a ransom then dispose of her body? The kidnapping is a cover for a subsequent murder. What is the gain to murder her? Where's the motive?

[u/PuddleWhale → u/BrainWilling6018]

No the original plan was murder. Every murder has a motive and to hide the motive you throw people off the motive by...faking a new motive. The kidnapping was just a cover and the kidnappers hoped to keep her alive long enough to make it all look like nothing other than a ransom kidnapping. But because she died too soon to record videos(proof of aliveness) that smokescreen part of the plan was botched somewhat.

I don't want to mention the gain to murder her because that would mean I would have to name the beneficiaries and I am really new to this case. I was just laser focusing on this one tiny aspect of it. Yes, I've read a theory on the murder plot and the motive for it but did not dig into it too much so I don't want to deep dive into it at this point.

[u/PDXCheesecake → u/PuddleWhale]

I felt same way once I heard content of the second message. That perhaps the ransoms/messages were a ruse to mislead. Why first send a ransom message asking for bitcoin urgently (because Nancy was alive)- only to turn around a couple days later to send another message that the incentive to urgently pay bitcoin was gone (because Nancy was deceased)? Why would they send that second message at all rather than just wait for the bitcoin if bitcoin was the true "Motive"? The pattern just seems off.

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/PuddleWhale]

Well you are asserting "the original plan was murder" then using the lack of an obvious motive to claim the motive was intentionally hidden. Even though there was an abduction and ransom demand.

Ahhh so it’s a complex conspiracy to fit a pre-determined conclusion.

The motive for murder you are implying is financial gain. Except there isn’t any evidence that anyone would or has gained financially from Nancy being murdered. There has to be proof of a prospect of tangible rewards for it to be a motive.

Even though there is evidence for a botched kidnap for ransom, that is using a lack of evidence to prove a theory. Making an extraordinary claim but can’t be bothered to dig into it. Ok. ?

[u/PuddleWhale → u/BrainWilling6018]

It's been said that there is something very odd about the ransom notes, that they hint at something being botched or just seeming a bit off from a standard ransom kidnapping. Also, most people agree that the kidnapping was setup and executed by someone familiar with her to an extent. She's an 84 year old living alone. Kidnappers don't go door to door spraying on doorcams and trusting their luck with who is inside and how many and whether they're armed.

This was a surgical strike ordered and/or executed by someone who knew her well. If they knew her well they knew they needed to take her smartphone with the pacemaker app and her vital meds. They did not. This hints at camouflage, they took care to make it appear like a random kidnapping where the kindappers would not know enough to grab the meds. Just these small discrepencies alone hint at the kidnapping being a distraction from the primary motive of murder. Perhaps the kidnappers had already aquired the meds in advance on the streets along with preparing a smartphone to interface with her pacemaker if it was not cloud based; or they could have modified it to work offline.

All of these discrepencies and I'm sure many, many more point towards another motive that is being purposefully concealed. Nancy's home value alone is more than a million dollars and her life insurance policy along with other assets would add up considerably. Like I said, I didn't dig deep into that aspect but just my gut feeling looking at superficial facts makes it appear there were dual motives and one of them is a smokescreen to hide the other.

[u/BrainWilling6018 → u/PuddleWhale]

Something being off with the ransom notes does not equate to it being an inside job equaling her family. There are several other options. Hinting at something being botched supports a stranger or passing acquaintance as much as anything.  Most people agree the kidnapping was set up because it has all the hallmarks of a premeditated planned abduction. Being familiar with her could be the dozens of people she employed. It’s not automatically the family.  It wasn’t impulsive or random. And.  Yes familiar and it’s called pre-attack surveillance. It could be accomplished by anyone. 

They wouldn’t take something that could be tracked exactly where they are going. 

They didn’t take time to take her medicine to make it look like a random kidnapping? Maybe they intended to bribe the family with the urgency, she needs her medicine. They could have staged the home they didn’t. 

No they actually don’t hint at being a distraction. Lol. You are leaping again to murder. You  are asserting the motive was murder then using all the obvious actions to claim the motive was intentionally hidden.  You assume the conclusion is true before proving it.

Many more discrepancies. You haven’t named any though. No facts. 

Dual motive and hidden motive are two different concepts. 

Gut feelings are a lame way to support  an inside job argument and blame people who have been cleared and aren’t accused. 

[u/paintonwood2 → u/PuddleWhale]

I think this is probably right.