What does Linda Arndt know?

[tezi]

I don't think so but if you think so That is what you think?

IT also could be because she never ever thought that people would accuse a 8 yr old boy of something like this.. HE did not do this and so she may not have had him even on the Radar.

Let's get your facts straight. He was nine at the time of the murder not eight....And you don't know he did not do this unless you were there right?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Let's get your facts straight. He was nine at the time of the murder not eight....And you don't know he did not do this unless you were there right?

Sorry just hit wrong key.. I know he was 9...

I do know he did not do this. Absolutely no doubt in my mind.

 

[tezi]

Sorry just hit wrong key.. I know he was 9...

I do know he did not do this. Absolutely no doubt in my mind.

Your opinion. Not a fact. Just like it's not a fact that the TDNA came from an intruders or multiple intruders. Since we are dealing in facts....

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Your opinion. Not a fact. Just like it's not a fact that the TDNA came from an intruders or multiple intruders. Since we are dealing in facts....

JMO

ITs a fact.. and since he is not charged, nor ever associated with being part of it except online and in books He is clear.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

ITs a fact.. and since he is not charged, nor ever associated with being part of it except online and in books He is clear.

I believe he was questioned by LE for a few hours. But he can not be prosecuted due to age per CO law.

 

[tezi]

I believe he was questioned by LE for a few hours. But he can not be prosecuted due to age per CO law.

Exactly. He was just a few weeks from being ten. If he would have been ten, and there was proof he did it, he would have been charged, in the real world...

JMO

 

[redheadedgal]

ITs a fact.. and since he is not charged...

1) circular reasoning -- he couldn't be charged... he was only 9, not 10 (CO. law)

2) no intruder has been charged... so he's clear too then, by your "reasoning"

 

[tezi]

1) circular reasoning -- he couldn't be charged... he was only 9, not 10 (CO. law)

2) no intruder has been charged... so he's clear too then, by your "reasoning"

All six of them are in the clear by her "reasoning."

 

[Agatha_C]

I am pretty sure she meant BR. He is really the one that along with his parents has been under the microscope all this time..


Funnier yet, that is believed and will be blown out of proportion but the fact that she cleared all the R's will not be even mentioned or dismissed...

Just cherry picked.

Oh I've mentioned it before as well as many many others, especially after reading the following.....

2006-08-29: Boulder District Attorney, Mary Lacy Press Conference
"No-one is really cleared of a homicide until there’s a conviction"

Man: "Speaking of the ongoing nature of your investigation, then would it be fair to say that is any involvement by John or Patsy Ramsey completely ruled out by your office? Are you committed to an intruder theory of the crime?"

Mary Lacy: "What we are committed to is solving the crime if we possibly can.. You know, there’s these terms out there “Umbrella of suspicion”, we don’t use that. You know, no-one is really cleared of a homicide until there’s a conviction, in court beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don’t think you will get any prosecutor… unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime… to clear someone. Where, like in this case the facts are so strange … you know… obviously the family was in the house at the time… the DNA does not match … now … so what we can say is … I think an expert said it’s… you have to look at stranger, male DNA in the underwear of the dead victim."


She said no one can be cleared without a conviction..... Which is what RDI has said all along...

She also said strange DNA (TDNA is what she should have said) should be looked at. What she didnt say is that TDNA belongs to the killer because even she knows, it takes more then that....

 

[Venom]

Agatha_C

:gthanks:

Thank you for all of your good posts today and all the good info.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Oh I've mentioned it before as well as many many others, especially after reading the following.....

2006-08-29: Boulder District Attorney, Mary Lacy Press Conference
"No-one is really cleared of a homicide until there’s a conviction"

Man: "Speaking of the ongoing nature of your investigation, then would it be fair to say that is any involvement by John or Patsy Ramsey completely ruled out by your office? Are you committed to an intruder theory of the crime?"

Mary Lacy: "What we are committed to is solving the crime if we possibly can.. You know, there’s these terms out there “Umbrella of suspicion”, we don’t use that. You know, no-one is really cleared of a homicide until there’s a conviction, in court beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don’t think you will get any prosecutor… unless they were present with the person at the time of the crime… to clear someone. Where, like in this case the facts are so strange … you know… obviously the family was in the house at the time… the DNA does not match … now … so what we can say is … I think an expert said it’s… you have to look at stranger, male DNA in the underwear of the dead victim."


She said no one can be cleared without a conviction..... Which is what RDI has said all along...

She also said strange DNA (TDNA is what she should have said) should be looked at. What she didnt say is that TDNA belongs to the killer because even she knows, it takes more then that....

Semantics. They cleared the rS based in DNA. I have linked many articles to the release of info.

The tdna matched another source of DNA on the body.

It is what it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk auto correct has a mind of its own.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I believe he was questioned by LE for a few hours. But he can not be prosecuted due to age per CO law.

He was not questioned because they thought he was a suspect. He was questioned to see what he knew.

<modsnip>.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk auto correct has a mind of its own.

 

[2 percent]

Semantics. They cleared the rS based in DNA. I have linked many articles to the release of info.

The tdna matched another source of DNA on the body.

It is what it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk auto correct has a mind of its own.

Semantics? But Mary Lacy just said no one is cleared. That's not semantics. What this is is Mary Lacy being a DA, her other comments about the Ramseys being cleared was her own opinion, she just didn't say it that way.

Yes, touch DNA is what it is. It could be DNA under JBs fingernails or on her hands that transferred when she touched her longjohns and underwear. That possibility still hasn't been ruled out.

 

[Salem]

Continued snarkiness, belittling of another's posts/ideas/theories, etc. will result in TOs. This forum is no different than any other forum on this website. If you cannot respond respectfully, then scroll past the post. If the post is against TOS, alert it.

Thanks,

Salem

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

He was not questioned because they thought he was a suspect. He was questioned to see what he knew.

<modsnip>.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk auto correct has a mind of its own.

But how would any of us know that for sure?

 

[CircuitGuy]

Linda Arndt has claimed that she knows who the killer is and that they will never be prosecuted.

How is that possible? What do you believe she knows that would make such a statement true?

Also, is it true that she visited with PR before her death and she disclosed new information to her? If so, what could that have been? A confession or incriminating testimony against someone else?

BR couldn't have been prosecuted because he was underage. PR wasn't deceased at the time of the interview, so in theory, she still could have been. Same for JR.

It's perplexing. I'm surprised there isn't more talk about Arndt and what she knows.

I agree. The thing is she comes off odd. I get that she can't reveal everything she knows. But her statement about thinking about suddenly being scared if anyone was getting out of there alive seems melodramatic. She said had this thought after looking into JR's eyes. If she's going to say she looked into his eyes and wondered if 18 bullets was enough, she might as well come out and say what she thinks.

Her melodramatic comment about 18 bullets and no one getting out of their alive makes me doubt her claim she knows something but can't say. If she has some strong evidence, what is stopping her from making it public? It's not that it will hurt the DA's case b/c she already thinks the criminal will not be prosecuted. It's not her career b/c if she cared about that she wouldn't give a ten minute interview in which all her answers are enigmatic. She would just make a one minute comment with the info she's willing to share.

She seems like she doesn't have more info than the public, except she looked into his eyes over his daughter's dead body and got very creeped out.

This is based on the old interview in the link. Is there more recent info about her? The interview makes her look like a troubled person. I'm not condemning her as a person. Maybe she's jaded by law enforcement work. Usually police officers who agree to interviews are fluid about answering questions without revealing too much and without sounding mysterious. Arndt comes off as someone with a mental illness or neurological problem of some sort.

Has anyone looked at how she ended up being the first to respond to the kidnapping? It was the day after Christmas and everyone else was in a "meeting"? It's very fortunate for whoever did this that only one officer was deployed, that it was not a seasoned officer, that no backup was available, and that the first responding officer was one who comes off as a little troubled, odd, or unstable?

 

[gramcracker]

no doubt, it was a perfect storm. BPD was operating with a skeleton crew because those with seniority had taken vacation days. Arndt was among the first to arrive although IIRC three detectives responded at various times. she had been with BPD for eleven years, don't know how long as a detective. one detective who had FBI-CASKU training was on vacation out of town and they called her to find out where the procedure manual was. Arndt left the department and sued BPD, and lost. she now does landscaping/yard maintainence

 

[bettybaby00]

no doubt, it was a perfect storm. BPD was operating with a skeleton crew because those with seniority had taken vacation days. Arndt was among the first to arrive although IIRC three detectives responded at various times. she had been with BPD for eleven years, don't know how long as a detective. one detective who had FBI-CASKU training was on vacation out of town and they called her to find out where the procedure manual was. Arndt left the department and sued BPD, and lost. she now does landscaping/yard maintainence

*nods*

A perfect storm is an apt metaphor. There are quite a few events from that day that occurred outside of "the plan," yet instead of hurting the Rs, those same circumstances ended up helping them.

 

[FreeSafety36]

The main point I came away from watching the Arndt interview with, was this is an odd, but attention-seeking woman. I felt it was blatantly obvious that she believes JR was the killer. It also seemed blatantly obvious to me that Linda Arndt believes John will not be prosecuted because of his affluence and connections. It also seemed obvious to me that she has no real evidence to support her claim that she "knows" who the killer is.

I believe she is being very liberal with the word "know", when she should have used the word "believe". She believes JR did it, but she doesn't know JR did it. Sorry Linda, but intuition is about as useful as a crystal ball in this case.

I think Linda's claim that she knows who killed JonBenet was a weak attempt to get her 15 minutes of fame. She told us nothing, only strongly implied that JR's actions and facial expressions gave away his secret, that he killed his daughter. She could have said what she really meant, that she believed it was JR, rather than she knew it was him, but everyone already knows the police believe the R's did it; so Linda stating that she believed it was him is not newsworthy. To make her story "newsworthy", she had to phrase it as if it were new information- thus, "I KNOW who the killer is!" That makes her interview sound interesting, but all it turned out to be was her saying "yeah, we (LE) believe exactly what you think we believe."

Oh, and btw, new poster, first post. Been lurking for a while, very impressed with the site and the members. Hope you guys are gentle on first-timers.

 

[CircuitGuy]

Arndt left the department and sued BPD, and lost. she now does landscaping/yard maintainence

That was interesting information.

Why did she sue them? Does anyone know if she's doing landscaping b/c she had a love of that or because she can't get work in law enforcement and security? Given the increased focus on security in the past ten years, I would think someone with law enforcement experience could find better work in the security industry. Based only on that 10 min interview, I would guess she doesn't do security/LE work b/c people who talk to her sense she's unstable.