What does Linda Arndt know?

[Nom de plume]

I don't think she knows. I think she thinks that her suspicion based on behavior at the scene is proof.

If she hadn't allowed the crime scene to be so contaminated, maybe this mystery would have taken days instead of forever.

BBM I'm no LA fan, but I don't think that statement is fair. She repeatedly asked for back up, but got none. There was a house full of people before she ever arrived. If anyone's to blame, French was the first one on the scene. He should never have allowed anyone else, except LE, into the house at all. Aside from holding a loaded gun on the crowd, I don't see how she could have kept them from wandering around the house.

I don't think she believes her suspicion is proof either. She was the one person on earth that saw the look on his face, the body language, etc. the moment he emerged from the basement with JB. Just the way he was carrying her was enough to arouse suspicion IMO, plus the obviously "fake" question about her being dead was pretty telling. She was a trained cop, with years on the force, and I'm sure she had developed a pretty good 6th sense, and good gut instincts. Many good cops rely on instinct to point them in the right direction. Naturally, they have to look at the evidence, but they don't last, and advance, if they have no natural instincts to follow. :moo:

 

[oldspice]

Maybe I was unfair about her culpability with the crime scene, and it's true she didn't get backup she requested, but she did nothing to mitigate or stop the damage either, before or after the discovery of the body.

Yes I think she "knows" based on her instinctive feeling, reaction and suspicion.

When my father's body was discovered, my mother didn't instantly understand or process that he was gone. John Ramsey wasn't necessarily "faking" that.

 

[DeeDee249]

I do realize, as do most people, that Det. Arndt repeatedly requested backup and was denied. I am suspicious about that in itself- late-night phone calls between the Rs, high-powered friends/lawyers, etc to the DA's office possible behind that refusal.
However, that aside, she did ignore some very basic rules of investigation- she did allow the crime scene to be contaminated. She allowed people to wander about an active crime scene- actually SENT them. While it is true at that point she was still treating this as a kidnapping, it was an active crime scene nonetheless- a child was (supposedly) taken from that home. No one who wasn't present at the time of the crime (the three remaining Rs) and no one who was not part of the investigation should have been allowed to enter or remain. That means the house should have been cleared of ALL the friends, clergy and "victim's advocates", regardless of who they were or when they arrived. All present should have been confined to ONE room, so they would be easy to keep an eye on. Had she done this, the crime scene would be preserved in situ and no one would be able to "explain" away fibers or anything else on that body or the crime scene.
Then, unbelievably, Arndt handles the body HERSELF- moving her from the foyer where JR had places her, to the living room under the Christmas tree. *what a dreadful place to put the body of a child) then to make it even worse, she allows JR to cover the body with an afghan and covers her with a sweatshirt herself!
I know she was overwhelmed and clearly out of her league, but even a rookie officer knows better than to do the things she did.

 

[madeleine]

I do realize, as do most people, that Det. Arndt repeatedly requested backup and was denied. I am suspicious about that in itself- late-night phone calls between the Rs, high-powered friends/lawyers, etc to the DA's office possible behind that refusal.
However, that aside, she did ignore some very basic rules of investigation- she did allow the crime scene to be contaminated. She allowed people to wander about an active crime scene- actually SENT them. While it is true at that point she was still treating this as a kidnapping, it was an active crime scene nonetheless- a child was (supposedly) taken from that home. No one who wasn't present at the time of the crime (the three remaining Rs) and no one who was not part of the investigation should have been allowed to enter or remain. That means the house should have been cleared of ALL the friends, clergy and "victim's advocates", regardless of who they were or when they arrived. All present should have been confined to ONE room, so they would be easy to keep an eye on. Had she done this, the crime scene would be preserved in situ and no one would be able to "explain" away fibers or anything else on that body or the crime scene.
Then, unbelievably, Arndt handles the body HERSELF- moving her from the foyer where JR had places her, to the living room under the Christmas tree. *what a dreadful place to put the body of a child) then to make it even worse, she allows JR to cover the body with an afghan and covers her with a sweatshirt herself!
I know she was overwhelmed and clearly out of her league, but even a rookie officer knows better than to do the things she did.

ITA
unfortunately she would be the perfect defence witness:banghead:
imagine what LW would do to her if she ever takes the stand:scared:

 

[Nom de plume]

I do realize, as do most people, that Det. Arndt repeatedly requested backup and was denied. I am suspicious about that in itself- late-night phone calls between the Rs, high-powered friends/lawyers, etc to the DA's office possible behind that refusal.
However, that aside, she did ignore some very basic rules of investigation- she did allow the crime scene to be contaminated. She allowed people to wander about an active crime scene- actually SENT them. While it is true at that point she was still treating this as a kidnapping, it was an active crime scene nonetheless- a child was (supposedly) taken from that home. No one who wasn't present at the time of the crime (the three remaining Rs) and no one who was not part of the investigation should have been allowed to enter or remain. That means the house should have been cleared of ALL the friends, clergy and "victim's advocates", regardless of who they were or when they arrived. All present should have been confined to ONE room, so they would be easy to keep an eye on. Had she done this, the crime scene would be preserved in situ and no one would be able to "explain" away fibers or anything else on that body or the crime scene.
Then, unbelievably, Arndt handles the body HERSELF- moving her from the foyer where JR had places her, to the living room under the Christmas tree. *what a dreadful place to put the body of a child) then to make it even worse, she allows JR to cover the body with an afghan and covers her with a sweatshirt herself!
I know she was overwhelmed and clearly out of her league, but even a rookie officer knows better than to do the things she did.

It's true, she did make some major league mistakes. I don't see the point of clearing everyone out though. They were already there, and had already contaminated the crime scene. Again, I think French is the one responsible for that. At least they get credit for sealing off JB's room, which is where the supposed kidnapping supposedly took place.

Let's face it, the entire department was out of their league with this case. Had there ever even been a kidnapping in Boulder before? Did they have ANY experience what so ever?

Had this happened anywhere else, at least anywhere with experienced LE, the case would have been so much different. No one would have been allowed to enter, or leave. The whole house would have been searched by multiple LE, and JB would have been found within minutes of arrival. No one would have touched her, carried her upstairs like a mannequin, or thrown themselves on her!

 

[douce40]

I don't think anyone will say Arndt did a good job that day. Let's not keep rehashing that frustrating aspect of her involvement. Let's focus more on her belief, due to her observations that day, that John's behavior undoubtedly made him look guilty. What specifically were those things she noted and observed, and were they really red flags or was Arndt off base? I would like to know more about her specific observations that day and welcome input and opinion on that.

 

[otg]

I don't think anyone will say Arndt did a good job that day. Let's not keep rehashing that frustrating aspect of her involvement. Let's focus more on her belief, due to her observations that day, that John's behavior undoubtedly made him look guilty. What specifically were those things she noted and observed, and were they really red flags or was Arndt off base? I would like to know more about her specific observations that day and welcome input and opinion on that.

Here ya' go, douce:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Aly2fPK-XE"]Boulder Detective on the Ramsey Case says she knows who killed JonBenet Ramsey! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Chelly]

Following is from: Steve Thomas' book ,"Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation", Kindle page 139...quoting Detective Steve Thomas:

"In early March Arndt had a private meeting with Patsy. She drove to the home of a Ramsey friend, where Patsy greeted her with a hug. Arndt reported that she took off her blazer and even lifted her sweater to prove to lawyer Patrick Burke that she wore no recording device and carried no police equipment whatsoever, not even a gun. We were enraged about the unauthorized visit, which Arndt termed "personal." Since we had been trying for so long without success to get formal interviews, any information would have been welcome, but when I asked what they talked about during the hour-long chat, she looked me in the eye" "I told Patsy our conversation would be in confidence. I can't tell you." "You're a detective, Arndt!" I protested. "You have a duty to give us that information."

"I can't tell you," she repeated and she never did.

What kind of cop does this?

 

[madeleine]

well,it could be that she ended up talking (understanding) to PR as a woman,not a cop...can happen for lots of reasons...as a woman you can understand and feel sorry for another woman when she has problems with a child,when she's abused,when the husband is cheating or worse...who knows...but you wouldn't bond with her if she tells you she's a killer,no?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Following is from: Steve Thomas' book ,"Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation", Kindle page 139...quoting Detective Steve Thomas:

"In early March Arndt had a private meeting with Patsy. She drove to the home of a Ramsey friend, where Patsy greeted her with a hug. Arndt reported that she took off her blazer and even lifted her sweater to prove to lawyer Patrick Burke that she wore no recording device and carried no police equipment whatsoever, not even a gun. We were enraged about the unauthorized visit, which Arndt termed "personal." Since we had been trying for so long without success to get formal interviews, any information would have been welcome, but when I asked what they talked about during the hour-long chat, she looked me in the eye" "I told Patsy our conversation would be in confidence. I can't tell you." "You're a detective, Arndt!" I protested. "You have a duty to give us that information."

"I can't tell you," she repeated and she never did.

What kind of cop does this?

One that keeps her word. Most likely nothing important was said. If there was and something would have helped the investigation she would have given it up. I am going to bet what she talked to PR about most likely Went for the R's innocence than their guilt and she did not want to argue with ST who made up his mind that it was the R's.

 

[Chelly]

well,it could be that she ended up talking (understanding) to PR as a woman,not a cop...can happen for lots of reasons...as a woman you can understand and feel sorry for another woman when she has problems with a child,when she's abused,when the husband is cheating or worse...who knows...but you wouldn't bond with her if she tells you she's a killer,no?

Sure, but as a cop working the case, she is duty-bound by the law to report what she was told.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If she came out of there with a smoking gun, She would have. No doubt.

How did Linda Arndt and ST get along? Maybe she felt that he was distort what she told him.

 

[douce40]

thanks otg for that video! That's weird that she actually thought she might be in an O.K. Coral type shootout. Did John flash her some sort of look of intimidation? Is there anything else out there in the public that discusses John's behavior that morning that is more detailed?

 

[midwest mama]

Following is from: Steve Thomas' book ,"Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation", Kindle page 139...quoting Detective Steve Thomas:

"In early March Arndt had a private meeting with Patsy. She drove to the home of a Ramsey friend, where Patsy greeted her with a hug. Arndt reported that she took off her blazer and even lifted her sweater to prove to lawyer Patrick Burke that she wore no recording device and carried no police equipment whatsoever, not even a gun. We were enraged about the unauthorized visit, which Arndt termed "personal." Since we had been trying for so long without success to get formal interviews, any information would have been welcome, but when I asked what they talked about during the hour-long chat, she looked me in the eye" "I told Patsy our conversation would be in confidence. I can't tell you." "You're a detective, Arndt!" I protested. "You have a duty to give us that information."

"I can't tell you," she repeated and she never did.

What kind of cop does this?

Does anyone know what year this happened? Was it after the TV interview she did in which she pointedly remarked about John? If it was, maybe the TV interview was only part of a ruse to keep Patsy's secret protected, for which she might have even been handsomely rewarded?

IMO, the only kind of cop that would refuse to divulge any information she might have learned from Patsy that could identify the killer then and even up till now, is one who knows there can be no charges filed against the killer, and is allowing for a promise to Patsy to keep him protected for the rest of his life, unless he comes forth with the information himself: BURKE.

Patsy may have asked Arndt to give Burke an opportunity to continue to access psychological/medical help according to the needs the Ramsey family recognized he had, and if he appeared to be responding to treatment, give him a chance to have a life unencumbered by the public knowledge of his part in JonBenet's death.

After all, if Burke was the one who struck the head blow, the Ramseys did go to extreme lengths to protect him. Would it be unthinkable for a mother who was possibly preparing for her own death to think she could count on another female, who had the law intelligence needed as well, to understand how important it was to her to keep the secret?

No charges could be filed. John and Patsy were past the statute of limitations and if Patsy was the one who tied the ligature, she might have been able to convince Arndt the only way Burke stood a chance as a healed adult would be to keep the secret and never reveal that Patsy was the one who strangled her. Yes, Patsy could have faced charges, but with impending death, pretty pointless.

She could have asked Arndt to let the myth of the "intruder" and the attempted kidnapping stand as the alternate reality in Burke's mind, them having convinced Burke after the head blow that JB would be OK, putting him to bed, where he stayed until awakening to the frenzy of discovering JB's kidnapping.

Result: LA is able to fade into history, Burke has a chance to grow into adulthood as he heals, Patsy never has to look like a murderess in her son's eyes, John is able to continue his life towards faith building and have a chance to find his own recovery, also keeping his son's well-being front and center.

 

[UKGuy]

Does anyone know what year this happened? Was it after the TV interview she did in which she pointedly remarked about John? If it was, maybe the TV interview was only part of a ruse to keep Patsy's secret protected, for which she might have even been handsomely rewarded?

IMO, the only kind of cop that would refuse to divulge any information she might have learned from Patsy that could identify the killer then and even up till now, is one who knows there can be no charges filed against the killer, and is allowing for a promise to Patsy to keep him protected for the rest of his life, unless he comes forth with the information himself: BURKE.

Patsy may have asked Arndt to give Burke an opportunity to continue to access psychological/medical help according to the needs the Ramsey family recognized he had, and if he appeared to be responding to treatment, give him a chance to have a life unencumbered by the public knowledge of his part in JonBenet's death.

After all, if Burke was the one who struck the head blow, the Ramseys did go to extreme lengths to protect him. Would it be unthinkable for a mother who was possibly preparing for her own death to think she could count on another female, who had the law intelligence needed as well, to understand how important it was to her to keep the secret?

No charges could be filed. John and Patsy were past the statute of limitations and if Patsy was the one who tied the ligature, she might have been able to convince Arndt the only way Burke stood a chance as a healed adult would be to keep the secret and never reveal that Patsy was the one who strangled her. Yes, Patsy could have faced charges, but with impending death, pretty pointless.

She could have asked Arndt to let the myth of the "intruder" and the attempted kidnapping stand as the alternate reality in Burke's mind, them having convinced Burke after the head blow that JB would be OK, putting him to bed, where he stayed until awakening to the frenzy of discovering JB's kidnapping.

Result: LA is able to fade into history, Burke has a chance to grow into adulthood as he heals, Patsy never has to look like a murderess in her son's eyes, John is able to continue his life towards faith building and have a chance to find his own recovery, also keeping his son's well-being front and center.

midwest mama,
ITA, although the extent or degree to which Burke's mind assimilated this view is debatable.

I think its possible that this aspect formed part of the staging, particularly if you consider what we might all agree that BR never undertook i.e. Ligature Asphyxiation?

So its entirely possible BR does not know who killed JonBenet, e.g. was it Daddy or Momma? Or was it an intruder with foreign dna to to back it all up?

PR does not need to disclose who killed JonBenet, only that BR needs time to heal, and that the intruder myth might assist in BR's psychological wellbeing.

.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I gotta say that is a lot to get from a private conversation that no one else was a part of

I still feel it is more likely than not that she walked away with nothing whatsoever that helped the case or could be used against the Ramseys.

It makes more sense that she would keep that private even now after Patsy's death. More logical to me.

 

[WhereAreTheyNow]

How better to get back at the BPD than to claim she knows who did it? "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."

If PR did tell her anything, it was probably Team Ramsey propaganda. Without a recording device, what good is the information anyway?

 

[Chelly]

Does anyone know what year this happened? .

1997, the month of March following JB's death.

 

[Charterhouse]

I think Linda Arndt has a pretty good gut instinct regarding who did most of it? JMO

I wanted to ask a question and never found a place to do so. So I will ask here.

If you wanted to clear your family of murder would you, on your death bed say that you committed the crime whether you did or not? This would then put your family in the clear. I always wondered why Patsy did not do this. Or maybe she did and this is what Linda Arndt is no saying.

Just wondering what everyone thought about this.

 

[BOESP]

Sure, but as a cop working the case, she is duty-bound by the law to report what she was told.

Chelly, I totally agree with what you said but, iirc, Ms. Arndt visited Patsy long after Arndt left the police force. It was near the time Patsy learned she didn't have long to live.

Arndt said that she received information from Patsy that if it was given to the right person it might be the missing piece that showed who the killer was (my paraphrasing) but that she (Arndt) did not know who the killer was. Arndt said Patsy was "imprisoned by secrets."

In the interview link it is plain to see that Arndt thought John did it.