No, my friend, I didn't miss any of this. It's the “filling in the blank part” where we have philosophical divergence. In my view, a reader might not know everything about the intricacies of the story and the characters’ backgrounds, but the author must.

To me, things just don’t add up. Why would the girl or her mother be giving him anonymous calls if they planned to kill him and take all the money? Why did she plan the revenge? What did John do to deserve it? How old was the girl? What was her moral makeup to kill a person so easily, more so to kill her own father? Maybe she wasn’t aware of it and her mother lied to her. How did she know that he would be going to Beliz? How did she know that he already bought the ticket and it was the time to strike?

These and many more questions must be answered in the story so that it would work, wouldn’t have loose ends. Answering these questions would make the story much more profound and will enable the reader to suspend the disbelief and emotionally attach to what’s going on in the story.

The way it is, though, it’s looks just like a writing exercise. A well-written one and yet only an exercise.

Cheers!