What does Linda Arndt know?

[LinasK]

There is not 0 evidence of an intruder. TDNA alone would be enough to put someone else there, It is not sourced so we don't know yet, The fact that it is same DNA that was found in panties, Adds to the proof of someone else being there.


It is one thing to have a pov, Another thing to ignore or toss out evidence because someone else thinks one should.

What other proof??? You ignore the evidence that I bring up.
Also, the TDNA can be explained by a factor worker in the garment industry who handled the panties pre-shipment without gloves. It in NO way proves an intruder.

 

[Chelly]

When there is zero evidence of an intruder??? The spider web on the basement window was unbroken, there were no footprints in the snow outside, the pen and paper used for the ransom note came from the house. These facts alone scream inside job- which means RDI, no matter which one(s). The Ramseys got off because of incompetent police work, a DA who wouldn't convict, and I'm not even going to go there with the "clearance" of them!!! Meanwhile, you'v got fibers from John's custom-made black Israeli shirt found inside JB's panties. I'm a JDI with Patsy's help.

The DA was a pathetic joke.
And, JR's custom-made Israeli shirt was wool and brand new. It was not ever laundered in the R's home. Fibers from THAT shirt did not belong in the crotch of a dead child's underwear.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

What other proof??? You ignore the evidence that I bring up.

There is DNA that does not point to the R's that has two different sources. Touch DNA and biological DNA.

There was an intruder that broke into a home of a 12 yr old girl and hid in the house before alarms were set 8 months after..

Sounds similar yes?

This case has been over for years. IT was not the R's.

 

[Chelly]

Only thing IDI has to hang it's hat on is the extremely week dna, so that is the only thing it can offer to any discussion, which is close to nothing.

 

[Chelly]

Sadly, this case is not over.
It will never be over unless one of the R's comes forth.

 

[LinasK]

There is DNA that does not point to the R's that has two different sources. Touch DNA and biological DNA.

There was an intruder that broke into a home of a 12 yr old girl and hid in the house before alarms were set 8 months after..

Sounds similar yes?

This case has been over for years. IT was not the R's.

Wrong, neither prove an intruder in the Ramsey home, and by default, if there was no intruder- RDI!!!

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Wrong, neither provean intruder in the Ramsey home, and by default, if there was no intruder- RDI!!!

If there is DNA on the body that does not go back to anyone that lived there, that is proof of an intruder. It is proof that someone else was in that house and touched that baby that night and killed her. There is no evidence that links the R's to this crime .Nothing.. They were ruled out in 2009 by DNA.

The intruder could have been the same one that laid in wait for another girl from her class 8 months after the crime took place. Funny how no one reported that then...

The R's are not guilty. The more I dig in, the more I find that screams IDI.

 

[Kimster]

I'm getting alerts in this thread. Make sure you don't chide each other in general terms and stay on topic. And take a breather so you aren't posting via emotion. Thanks.

 

[Kimster]

http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-and-stay-on-topic-3.png

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Only thing IDI has to hang it's hat on is the extremely week dna, so that is the only thing it can offer to any discussion, which is close to nothing.

DNA is not weak, especially when it has 2 sources for the same DNA on the same body.

DNA in any other case can be life altering but this is the only case I know where as long as it does not point to a member of the R's it is labeled completely worthless.

DNA is not always the answer but it can not be ignored when it leads somewhere.

 

[Chelly]

Wrong, neither prove an intruder in the Ramsey home, and by default, if there was no intruder- RDI!!!

I agree with you LinasK. There has been absolutely no evidence of an intruder in the home. No one got in and out that spider-webbed window. No one left any evidence behind.

 

[2 percent]

http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-and-stay-on-topic-3.png

Hahaha that's great!
But I prefer my saying: Keep Calm and Have a Cupcake.

Don't mind if I do! I call them Curlytoes - chocolate fudge cupcake with cherry filling and cherry swirl whipped frosting.

With cookies and cream ice cream!!:scared:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I agree with you LinasK. There has been absolutely no evidence of an intruder in the home. No one got in and out that spider-webbed window. No one left any evidence behind.

You don't have to go out a window to escape. You do not need to go in the window there to get in. Who knows when someone could have had access to the house..

AS in the case 8 months later where the man broke in and waited in the basement for 3 hours for these people to come home.. And then waited and went after the little girl...

It can happen and it did happen ..

 

[Chelly]

Wrong, neither prove an intruder in the Ramsey home, and by default, if there was no intruder- RDI!!!

If there had been intruders in the home, I suspect they would have been there for some time, waiting, waiting.. They certainly could not have stayed in one spot. They would have been moving around, touching things. Surely with the sexual attack, the killing, all that was involved in the rope and paintbrush deal, they would have left SOMETHING behind to point to intruder. I doubt they were that sanitary. Sexual molestation and murder is messy.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If there had been intruders in the home, I suspect they would have been there for some time, waiting, waiting.. They certainly could not have stayed in one spot. They would have been moving around, touching things. Surely with the sexual attack, the killing, all that was involved in the rope and paintbrush deal, they would have left SOMETHING behind to point to intruder. I doubt they were that sanitary. Sexual molestation and murder is messy.

Why not? Why could they not have been waiting in the pit of a basement. The one that the police could not seem to find, like the guy that attacked that little girl 8 months later.

Not necessarily. There have been plenty of crimes where there was nothing left behind that pointed to the intruder. It happens more often than you may think.

 

[Chelly]

I do know there is no such thing as a completely pristine crime scene.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Maybe not, but look at the babysitter killer, He actually cleaned his victims, There are plenty of crimes that have no real evidence that points to someone and yet it is someone unknown.

Not every killer leaves evidence behind that implicates them.

 

[chlban]

Long Time lurker here, first time poster.

Like many I have followed this case from day one. I have read several, but not all, of the books. and all sorts of other information over the years.

My observations are basically that what I see from the RDI's are a lot of interesting, well thought out theories, most of which can be supported depending on how the evidence is viewed. That, in a nutshell, is why no one was ever prosecuted for murder or manslaughter in this crime, IMO. Well that and the fact that AH was a total wimp.

Because while the evidence that a RDI is overwhelming, which Ramsey can be endlessly argued.

That is not to say I discount or dismiss anyone's theory. On the contrary, they are so well thought out and researched that I find it hard to be sure which is correct. A problem I am pretty certian a jury would have had as well.

Talk about built in Reasonable Doubt. Had Patsy been charged, point to John and vice versa. If both are charged point to Burke who cannot be charged. And I have no doubt that had it come to that the fingers would have definitely pointed to Burke.

My other observation is that the IDI's seem to have two pet theories. The touch DNA-which anyone capable of googling can figure out really means nothing, and the basic theory that "Parents, with no known history of child abuse, could never do such horrible things to their own child". That is even more ridiculous that the touch DNA defense. Really? Jeffrey MacDonald, Diane Downs, Darlie Routier, Susan Smith, just to name few of the most famous.

As for my own theory, in all honesty I am not sure. I have always leaned to Patsy and Steve Thomas's theory of an accident as a result of rage. Although I have also always wondered if BDI is the logical explanation for why the parents would cover it up. At the same time I realize there could be other reasons why one parent would cover for the other, especially with people so concerned with "appearances". The fact thta Patsy was terminally ill (they had to know it was it not what the exact timing woiuld be). Perhaps that would influence John's decision to protect her?

I am not sure about the exact who what or how. But I believe wthout a doubt that a RDI.

 

[Venom]

There is not 0 evidence of an intruder. TDNA alone would be enough to put someone else there, It is not sourced so we don't know yet, The fact that it is same DNA that was found in panties, Adds to the proof of someone else being there.


It is one thing to have a pov, Another thing to ignore or toss out evidence because someone else thinks one should.

Tdna alone is also enough to put someone helping JB in the bathroom at the White's house, a factory worker touching the panties. It's also not proven to NOT be from a R. Markers from the mix were found in some R members, so if it were two or more they can't be eliminated. See post #1627 in James Kolar's thread.

 

[BOESP]

According to Kolar, if you believe it was an Intruder and the unsourced DNA proves that premise, then you also have to believe there were six Intruders.

Also, imo and in keeping on topic, I believe the hate and anger Linda Arndt saw in John Ramsey's face as he carried JonBenet up from the basement was directed at Patsy and only Patsy although I don't think Ms. Arndt thought along those lines that day.