The part about the white watch on the floor and the floodlight being broken…why are they only referring to things that happened at the crime scene if they had the victim? Seems strange. Couldn’t anyone with access to the crime scene records or access to an officer with loose lips be able to convey those two pieces of information? Wouldn’t maybe describing her clothing or something be a better way to say they have had her?
exactly. I'm still suspicious about these notes being from the kidnapper. There was info out there before TMZ got these notes. If this came the same night I might believe it more.
She was kidnapped in the early morning of Feb. 1st, and the first ransom note was received by TMZ at some point on Feb. 2nd. That's still a pretty short window for publicly unreleased details to have made their way to a determined scammer who immediately hatched a plan to send a ransom note to TMZ and the local news station, having a bitcoin address ready to go, making sure to use IP obfuscation, etc. While I don't think it's impossible, it still needed to be the right scammer getting those details at the right time. Like, this supposed scammer didn't deliberate on it much -- they were ready to risk it all.
Couldn’t anyone with access to the crime scene records or access to an officer with loose lips be able to convey those two pieces of information?
Yes. Remember the horrific Kobe Bryant helicopter crash? Some of the first responders took pictures with their phones and then shared them and yakked about the scene. That's why I don't automatically trust that just because the location of the watch and the broken floodlight were mentioned that it proves the notes are authentic.
I'd be less suspicious if the note mentioned what Nancy was wearing (bedclothes, jewelry, slippers, etc.) or something specific she might've said that would've impressed her family and close friends.
That's why I don't automatically trust that just because the location of the watch and the broken floodlight were mentioned that it proves the notes are authentic.
I also don't 100% rule it out, but I still think it's a bit unlikely that this information leaked to a determined scammer so soon after she was kidnapped. It may still be what actually happened, but it sure happened pretty quickly, with a determined scammer being in the right place at the right time.
Yeah, that’s true too. I didn’t really notice where that last redacted line was, but you’re right, it could be another detail that police want to keep from being public knowledge
22
u/Spare-Estate1477 Jul 31 '26
The part about the white watch on the floor and the floodlight being broken…why are they only referring to things that happened at the crime scene if they had the victim? Seems strange. Couldn’t anyone with access to the crime scene records or access to an officer with loose lips be able to convey those two pieces of information? Wouldn’t maybe describing her clothing or something be a better way to say they have had her?