What does Linda Arndt know?

[ScarlettScarpetta]

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.

Well that does not mean Kolar is right and on this he would be wrong. It does not mean that all of them have to be the intruder but that one could be. He is just trying to discount this theory because it does not fit into his book. HE is the only one to ever say that. Until DNA is sourced the possibility is that it could indeed be the perp.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Wrong.. The TDNA was matched to the blood sourced DNA found that was not a match to any of the R's.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/09/jonbenet.dna/

Tests conducted in March revealed that new DNA collected from a pair of long johns matched a sample previously taken from the child's panties.

From the article linked above:

"Lacy took pains to state that her office does not consider JonBenet's father, her mother -- now deceased -- or older brother to be suspects".

Interesting choice of words, Ms. Lacy.......interesting indeed........

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

From the article linked above:

"Lacy took pains to state that her office does not consider JonBenet's father, her mother -- now deceased -- or older brother to be suspects".

Interesting choice of words, Ms. Lacy.......interesting indeed........

All of JBR's brothers were older.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

All of JBR's brothers were older.

Bingo! Lacy uses the singular tense, not the plural.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Bingo! Lacy uses the singular tense, not the plural.

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.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

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.

I will attempt to illustrate an important point about communication, logic, reasoning, and things that can make us a bit frustrated on this thread.
Wish me luck!

I find a bit of irony with what I've boldened above. This post above is a good example of why my reasoning and another's reasoning differ. Reasoning, thinking, interpreting are funny things, aren't they? I am not implying there is a right or wrong here....just confusion.

So here goes; we can't assume who she meant except what she said which was an "older brother". When one "cherry picks", they choose who they want--and assume what brother is being referred to. When one implies it is a certain "older brother" and then says which one (i.e. Burk*), that is cherry picking, imo.
Therefore, my logic sends me a "red alert" that the above post is self-conflicting (ironic) if you know what I mean.....

As a side note, I tend to feel that BR was not allowed to be "under a microscope" at all because he was underage and any hint at investigating him was blocked by aggressive R attorneys.

 

[Chelly]

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.

Chlban, Superb, well-thought-out first post. I hope we will hear more from you. Welcome to WS!

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I will attempt to illustrate an important point about communication, logic, reasoning, and things that can make us a bit frustrated on this thread.
Wish me luck!

I find a bit of irony with what I've boldened above. This post above is a good example of why my reasoning and another's reasoning differ. Reasoning, thinking, interpreting are funny things, aren't they? I am not implying there is a right or wrong here....just confusion.

So here goes; we can't assume who she meant except what she said which was an "older brother". When one "cherry picks", they choose who they want--and assume what brother is being referred to. When one implies it is a certain "older brother" and then says which one (i.e. Burk*), that is cherry picking, imo.
Therefore, my logic sends me a "red alert" that the above post is self-conflicting (ironic) if you know what I mean.....

As a side note, I tend to feel that BR was not allowed to be "under a microscope" at all because he was underage and any hint at investigating him was blocked by aggressive R attorneys.

Since her brothers are all older. And the one that lived with her in the house was older. That fits older brother. Reading anything into it is reaching.

 

[Salem]

Knock it off you guys. Seriously. Knock it off.

Salem

 

[FrayedKnot]

Knock it off you guys. Seriously. Knock it off.

Salem

I'm sorry. I can only speak for myself but when you are constantly being challenged with non-evidence, it is exasperating.

But I hear you. I will be nicer.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Since her brothers are all older. And the one that lived with her in the house was older. That fits older brother. Reading anything into it is reaching.

...and that explains a lot, really. We all apply reason differently and that's what makes this case so interesting.

I am not worried about changing anyone's views 'cause it is what it is. But what always interests me is the logic process that we each apply. For instance, at what point do we allow ourselves to assume things, and then when do we allow ourselves to draw the line in the sand based on facts only? It is a rather unique, personalized decision that occurs based on our own experiences. Some people want just the facts, some include facts with circumstantial evidence, and then there are those who pick and choose what they feel is important and what they feel is important when it comes to sleuthing. Sometimes we may all be a little bit defensive if a situation "hits close to home" or if we feel we have been "wronged" in a similar situation.

Perhaps we individually do this logic and reasoning calculation semi-subconsiously? Regardless, respectfulness and sound reasoning should prevail.

moo

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

...and that explains a lot, really. We all apply reason differently and that's what makes this case so interesting.

I am not worried about changing anyone's views 'cause it is what it is. But what always interests me is the logic process that we each apply. For instance, at what point do we allow ourselves to assume things, and then when do we allow ourselves to draw the line in the sand based on facts only? It is a rather unique, personalized decision that occurs based on our own experiences. Some people want just the facts, some include facts with circumstantial evidence, and then there are those who pick and choose what they feel is important and what they feel is important when it comes to sleuthing. Sometimes we may all be a little bit defensive if a situation "hits close to home" or if we feel we have been "wronged" in a similar situation.

Perhaps we individually do this logic and reasoning calculation semi-subconsiously? Regardless, respectfulness and sound reasoning should prevail.

moo

Her saying older brother just means she cleared Burke too.. that is all it means..

 

[LinasK]

...and that explains a lot, really. We all apply reason differently and that's what makes this case so interesting.

I am not worried about changing anyone's views 'cause it is what it is. But what always interests me is the logic process that we each apply. For instance, at what point do we allow ourselves to assume things, and then when do we allow ourselves to draw the line in the sand based on facts only? It is a rather unique, personalized decision that occurs based on our own experiences. Some people want just the facts, some include facts with circumstantial evidence, and then there are those who pick and choose what they feel is important and what they feel is important when it comes to sleuthing. Sometimes we may all be a little bit defensive if a situation "hits close to home" or if we feel we have been "wronged" in a similar situation.

Perhaps we individually do this logic and reasoning calculation semi-subconsiously? Regardless, respectfulness and sound reasoning should prevail.

moo

John Ramsey had a son from a former marriage-John Andrew who did stay with them sometimes and had his own bedroom. Since he was much older- that's whom I assume JB's older brother to mean, Otherwise, if it was Burke, why emphasize "older" if he was that close in age???

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Her saying older brother just means she cleared Burke too.. that is all it means..

How many older brothers did JBR have and if she cleared one of them why didn't she say his name?

Is it safe to assume which older brother she was referring to? I am sincerely asking.....

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I just don't think there is any mystery here. I just think she was addressing the people that lived in the house.. Seems simple to me.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

I just don't think there is any mystery here. I just think she was addressing the people that lived in the house.. Seems simple to me.

But how many older brothers had easy access and entry into the house? One lived in the house and the other came and went as he pleased, right?

Since I like facts (a lot) and try to refrain from assumptions, I think my question is valid.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It is just a simple answer to me.. .Nothing more. She said her older brother and burke was older and living in the house..

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

It is just a simple answer to me.. .Nothing more. She said her older brother and burke was older and living in the house..

But is it possible she may have meant a different older brother?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

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.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

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.

So are you saying that she was referring or implying the older brother that was in college?