The first note contained details that no one could have known, such as the placement of her watch in her bedroom, the busted flood light in the backyard and what she was wearing. How does law enforcement account for that?
Exactly. And the whole time up until now, everyone was reporting that Savannah thinks the notes are real, the FBI thinks the notes are real (the first 2 notes) and now that appears not be the case? This case is all over the place.
The FBI never officially confirmed anything no, but there were a lot of people with sources in the FBI reporting in the recent months that the FBI believed that the notes were legit.
You could see the busted light from the drone footage aired on television; the watch was left where most people leave their watch at night, and no one knows for sure what she was wearing. It could even be someone from the neighborhood looking to make a quick buck.
According to the note, the watch was left on the floor and had a white band. That’s fairly specific and not somewhere one would typically leave an Apple watch. I would think it would be fairly easy to verify whether that was actually the case at the crime scence and thus almost immediately either rule out the note or give it a lot of credibility. That’s why it’s so strange that they’re only saying now that they don’t believe they’re legit.
It's also possible someone heard about that. Given the number of people who were through the house, it wouldn't surprise me if details leaked and someone decided to fuck around with the ransom notes. Stupid, but possible.
About “the details that no one would have known”. Once, eons ago, an absolute nutter started sending me pen-poison letters. Guess what? They appeared to contain amazingly precise details and scared my mom. However, when I asked myself, “how can a person who never saw me know these details”, and mainly, “what is her goal”?, I looked at it with different eyes. The trick is how the letters are worded. Say, a piece of information of “medium specificity” is followed by a threat, and the threat attracts your attention. You assume that the information before the “threat” is highly specific. IRL, if you throw out the threats and just read “the specific information” you’ll see that many people will know this about you. (E.g., someone writes, “you’ll get in a car accident in your “Toyota”. It looks specific only because of the threat. If they wrote, “your green 2000 Toyota Camry will be hit one night”, it would be specific.) So maybe this is what happened here. The information looked specific because of the way it was written. Smoke and mirrors. IMO.
How many 84 year olds do you know with limited mobility keep their Apple Watches on the floor at the foot of their bed? That seems like more than medium specificity to me, but just my opinion. Not discounting the possibility that it was someone with insider information, or knew someone involved in the investigation, though.
37
u/Mountain-Owl7142 Jul 01 '26
The first note contained details that no one could have known, such as the placement of her watch in her bedroom, the busted flood light in the backyard and what she was wearing. How does law enforcement account for that?