If it all proves to be as the police allege, then this post will be nothing more than a cartoonish venture into paranoid thinking in the opinion of the great unwashed.
However, as it stands today, there's a lot wrong with the scenario being offered to the public in relation to the Mosman Collarbomber case.
1. the plot is childish
The idea of putting a collar bomb around someone's neck, supposedly from a book accessible by the alleged victim, her family, the alleged perpetrator and many other people, is not the kind of thinking most criminals indulge in. This is because most criminals are unintelligent but entrepreneurial people from broken homes. The ones that aren't tend to be highly intelligent and totally amoral. In which case if they were silly enough to see the collar bomb scenario as a good idea they wouldn't be skillful enough to, on the current facts, escape detection as they entered and left the alleged victim's home.
2. the extortion attempt was impossible
The way it is described that the alleged perpetrator was going to obtain money is not credible let alone possible. The police were always going to be involved. That means the fake nature of the bomb was always going to be detected. Which means the extortion would never have worked.
3. the alleged victim was in no danger
(a) fake bomb
(b) familiar home environment
(c) bomb placement allowed bodily functions, change of clothes, feeding, drinking, television you name it
(d) swift discovery was certain
(e) availability of resources was easy
4. the alleged victim and her family are taking all this awfully well
5. the police just aren't that competent- this was a scheme that was never going to work
6. the alleged perpetrator was easily caught (by surprise) - see 5.
The possibility has to be at least considered that this childish plot was conceived of by someone other than the alleged perpetrator and that the alleged perpetrator, if involved at all, was a patsy not an originator.
Just a possibility, just an opinion of what the reporting leaves open to question.