What does Linda Arndt know?

[OliviaG1996]

Here's an article about LA's reconnection with PR in 2005 (original post found here):

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...807014,00.html [Note by OliviaG1996: Link to article no longer works.]
Ex-officer reached out to Ramsey
Arndt was in Boulder home when child's body was found

Linda Arndt says Patsy Ramsey was "imprisoned by secrets"

Special section: JonBenet Ramsey
By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News
June 28, 2006

Patsy Ramsey died before Linda Arndt could fulfill her pledge to JonBenet's mother.
"Last year, I was told just about this time of year that she was on her deathbed and gravely ill," said Arndt, the former Boulder Police officer who was the lone detective in the Ramsey home when JonBenet's body was found in the basement on Dec. 26, 1996.

"That spurred me to reach out to her and find her again, which I did. She responded."

Ramsey battled her disease for 13 years, succumbing to ovarian cancer early Saturday at her father's home in Roswell, Ga. She was 49. She will be laid to rest Thursday alongside JonBenet in Marietta, Ga.

Their renewed contact in May 2005, Arndt said, "was a heart-to-heart connection, common decency, showing courtesy and empathy to someone who really had a lot of tragedy."

She talked about what the contact between the two meant to her.

"Knowing that she was dying, that was the impetus I needed to finish, to fulfill the promise that she asked of me," said Arndt, 45.

Officer 'gave her my word'

The day was Jan. 8, 1997. Arndt was at the Child Advocacy Center in Niwot where JonBenet's older brother Burke - now 19 - was being interviewed by a child psychologist.

"Patsy and I were alone for over an hour, and she shared a lot of things in that conversation. She did, and I did," Arndt recalled.

"And one of the things she demanded of me, she looked me in the eye and grabbed my hand and said, 'Promise me, promise me you will stay on this case and you will find out who did this to JonBenet.'

"I don't remember my words, but I gave her my word that I would. And I cannot hold her story any longer."

Arndt wasn't allowed by department brass to stay on the case. She was pulled off in April 1997, quit the force two years later and unsuccessfully sued the department for defamation. Arndt, who still lives in the West but is no longer a police officer, is now occupied, she said, "putting my life back together, trying to find my way back in the world."

And she's writing a memoir in hopes of keeping her promise.

'The right thing to do'

In her first in-depth print interview, Arndt remembered Ramsey as "a lady of grace and courage and spirit, particularly in the face of such unrelenting adversity."

"She was imprisoned by secrets. This whole case has been imprisoned by secrets."

Arndt was reluctant to reveal many details of her contact with JonBenet's mother in the final year of her life.

"I gained nothing and risked everything to contact her. And it was just the right thing to do," Arndt said.

"There's no way to undo the wrong that was done (to the Ramsey family). But (it was) just to acknowledge what you could or couldn't do, and apologize for any error on my part and to offer myself in any way that was helpful to her."

Arndt would not discuss her theories of the case, saying only that she doesn't hold the "prevailing view" within the Boulder Police Department, which increasingly keyed on Patsy Ramsey.

"I'm able to confirm a lot of things that Patsy was maintaining for 10 years," Arndt said.

Asked if what she is writing will eliminate anyone's suspicions about Ramsey, Arndt stopped short of saying so.

"I think our expectation of the justice system is that you clear 'em or you don't, but you don't leave people hanging in the wind this long - at least, that's my interpretation," Arndt said.

"I don't know that (the book) will exonerate. It will give people a context that they have not had before, and it will give them an understanding for everyone involved - but, particularly, for Patsy."

Ramsey hard to reach

National airwaves have been buzzing since Saturday with legal pundits weighing in on the question of how Ramsey's death affects the investigation - whether it represents an ending or perhaps even the opening of a new chapter.

Arndt leans toward the latter.

"I think it's just starting," said Arndt. "I think the real story is just coming out now. . . .

"I think her death really shakes the foundation of what people have been content or comfortable in believing, refusing to accept or refusing to look at."

The mere act of connecting with Ramsey, who along with her husband was identified in December 1997 as being under an "umbrella of suspicion" by then-Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner, was not easily accomplished by Arndt.

"I contacted every attorney she's ever worked with," she said. "I was willing to contact anyone in order to get a message to her."

Arndt spoke of a bond of trust that evolved between them during her time on the case - cutting against the grain of her department's overall approach.

"I knew that would not be allowed directly during the time that I was on the case, (because of) individuals from both sides. Direct contact between the two of us was never allowed."

During her June 2001 defamation trial at U.S. District Court in Denver, however, Arndt admitted to arranging an hourlong meeting with Ramsey in March 1997, independent of her fellow investigators, after concerns grew about Ramsey's health.

"When Patsy heard I wanted to reach her, every time, she allowed me to meet with her and call her," Arndt said Tuesday.

Despite the renewed contact between Arndt and Ramsey in 2005, the former detective admits she was blindsided by her death.

Not owning a television for the past few months, Arndt got word from her brother, who lives in the Denver area.

"I had no idea" she had taken a turn for the worse, Arndt said. "I knew she was just in Boulder (in February). Different people call and tell me, because I don't follow a lot of it. I was really stunned. I thought she had beaten it again."

Arndt said she would "absolutely" want to attend Thursday's services for Ramsey but she won't.

"Those around her see my presence differently than she does," Arndt said.

"There would be nothing positive for the people assembled there from my presence. Patsy would appreciate it. I doubt anybody else would."

Arndt admitted she doesn't have the answers as to who did what that Christmas night to the 6-year-old who, in death, became the nation's most famous child beauty queen.

"Nobody does," Arndt said. "But I have the information, for somebody else who might. All the information is there."

She said 90 percent of the case details have not been disclosed accurately.

"If anyone wants to understand and make sense of this case, yes, the information I have allows them to do it," Arndt said.

"You can make an informed decision, rather than uninformed speculation."

Who is Linda Arndt?

• On the case: Arndt was left by her colleagues at the Ramsey home with JonBenet's parents and family friends in the first hours of the investigation. She shouldered the blame for numerous police errors at the crime scene that day in December 1996.

• Off the case: Arndt, a 14-year veteran of the Boulder department, well-respected as a staunch victim advocate, was taken off the case in April 1997.

• Against the force: Arndt sued Boulder police brass for defamation, alleging a departmental gag order left her unable to defend herself against accusations that she mishandled the crime scene.

• Off the force: Arndt quit the department in April 1999.

• Afterward: A U.S. district court judge issued a summary judgment against Arndt in a June 2001 trial of her defamation suit. She is now 45, lives outside Colorado and is writing a book.

 

[Annapurna]

It kind of sounds like she feels guilty about her part in what happened. Perhaps in reaching out to PR she was looking for some form of forgiveness. From PR & herself, for her failings in the crime scene that morning.

 

[questfortrue]

This article could almost make one wince at the strange presentation by LA. It seems as though LA was attempting to ‘restore her personal stature’, her enhanced wisdom about the case after she had been disparaged in the news and lost her lawsuit against the City.

LA did not grasp how easily both PR and JR erected a public innocence face. I also have my doubts that LA knew that the True Bills had been returned. She was on the 'outs' within the BPD and removed from the homicide investigation at the time the True Bills were created. When LA made this statement about either charge them or not but don’t leave them under the umbrella of suspicion, she was speaking from an emotional place after PR’s death. It’s ironic that both LA and ML believed in PR’s innocence. ML one understands had a relationship with the Rs, but LA was once with law enforcement, and it sounds as though she forgot the true victim was JonBenet, not PR.

Even setting aside that the DA blocked warrants for evidence, and that LA herself was responsible for a ruined crime scene, she should have known that in the history of arrests, there are some cases which are a slow train coming. Had she never heard of Durst or Capone? But then ML cleared the Rs and made LA’s wishful idea of justice come true. (‘Til DA SG uncleared ‘em.) No, LA was taken in by a Southern girl’s grace and charm.

 

[Anti-K]

The presentation didn’t seem strange to me. But, this is merely a subjective observation, anyway.

Sounds like she might be IDI.

I wonder if we’ll ever see a book by her.
…

AK

 

[UKGuy]

The presentation didn’t seem strange to me. But, this is merely a subjective observation, anyway.

Sounds like she might be IDI.

I wonder if we’ll ever see a book by her.
…

AK

Anti-K,
mmm, merely you do objective observations also?


.

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,
mmm, merely you do objective observations also?


.

Your question was phrased too strangely for me to comprehend and so I cannot answer it. The observation that your questioned was phrased strangely is subjective. An objective observation would be that it is grammatically incorrect. However you look at it, it aint worded right and I don’t really know what you’re asking.

Why not stick to discussing what is being discussed: Arndt. Why do you always have to bring me into it? I’m starting to feel you may have some interest in me. Sorry, but AK is not OK with UK. Leave me out of the discussion, please.


…

AK

 

[AndHence]

How did Arndt go from being certain John was the killer to appearing to be IDI? I can only assume she was taken in by Patsy, who never would have divulged anything that would implicate the family.

 

[Anti-K]

How did Arndt go from being certain John was the killer to appearing to be IDI? I can only assume she was taken in by Patsy, who never would have divulged anything that would implicate the family.

She probably just came to her senses.
…

AK

 

[InstantProof]

I don't get any IDI impression from her. She just seems to leave Patsy off the hook.

 

[CorallaroC]

Snipped from the article in POST #441 above:

(Arndt says this about Patsy)
"She was imprisoned by secrets. This whole case has been imprisoned by secrets."

The word "imprisoned" makes me immediately think of JR's words from several interviews when asked about the killer - he replies by saying "He's either alive, dead or in prison, and one of those three."

 

[UKGuy]

Snipped from the article in POST #441 above:

(Arndt says this about Patsy)
"She was imprisoned by secrets. This whole case has been imprisoned by secrets."

The word "imprisoned" makes me immediately think of JR's words from several interviews when asked about the killer - he replies by saying "He's either alive, dead or in prison, and one of those three."

CorallaroC,
I reckon Arndt went from certainty regarding JR to doubt wrt PR. If the case is BDI Arndt probably worked it out and came to some kind of accommodation with PR, so she eventually fell into line and sang from the same IDI hymn sheet.

IDI is the official line since BDI never happened!

.

 

[andreww]

Sounds like she might be IDI.


…

AK

Doesn't sound like that at all to me. Sounds like she still believes it was John and that Patsy is a prisoner of the lies that protect him.

 

[andreww]

Snipped from the article in POST #441 above:


"He's either alive, dead or in prison, and one of those three."

Atta boy John, way to narrow it down. He's either alive or dead! So now the suspect list has gone from everyone on earth to everyone who HAS EVER been on earth lol.

 

[Fides]

The presentation didn’t seem strange to me. But, this is merely a subjective observation, anyway.

Sounds like she might be IDI.

I wonder if we’ll ever see a book by her.
…

AK

I cannot imagine how she could be IDI. Linda said regarding Patsy: "She was imprisoned by secrets. This whole case has been imprisoned by secrets."

If Linda was IDI, I doubt she would support or understand Patsy keeping secrets for a murderous intruder. There really is only one suspect who law enforcement would agree with Patsy to keep secret - the one who could not be charged.

 

[InstantProof]

John + secrets= Arndt's theory.

 

[serenityinstars]

I can help you with the fiber evidence. First, see this link

http://dofs.gbi.georgia.gov/trace-evidence

The above is a PDF file from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. It is meant to inform agents of the correct methods of submitting trace evidence. At the bottom of the Fiber and Textile section it has this note-

NOTE: The more matching fiber types that exist in a case, the stronger the evidence of association. Remember that fiber matches between two individuals who share the same environment (e.g. live together or drive the same car) are essentially meaningless.

In short, the GBI is informing it's agents that fibers from the clothing of the residents of the house are "meaningless" because there is no way to determine whether they were from primary or secondary transfer.

So, while one can spin scenarios with PR fashioning the garrotte, or JR rubbing his Israeli shirt inside JB's size 12s, there is no certainty to these scenarios. It's just as likely to be from secondary transfer.

Many RDI deal with this problem by writing "ENTWINED" for maximum emphasis. Alas, this doesn't really make primary transfer more likely than secondary. If the fibers were on the culprits hands then naturally they are going to be in the knots as that is where the fingers are busy - tying the knots. This is also the point where there will be maximum contact between the hands and the rope.

You might also be interested in this -

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/for.../fsc/july2008/research/2008_06_research01.htm

Abstract

This study investigates the persistence of fibers on the inside and outside surfaces of ski masks during transit to the FBI Laboratory and during evidence processing to see if separate examinations of the inside and outside of a mask are valuable and warranted. Twenty ski masks were seeded with 50 test fibers each on either the inside or outside only. The masks were then packaged, shipped, and processed according to protocol, and the final recovery location of the fibers was documented. Results indicated that 11 (55%) of the ski masks showed evidence of test-fiber transfer sometime during the study, although the number of transferred fibers was rather small, ranging from one to three. Although the probability that a fiber will be recovered from the same side on which it was deposited is higher than the probability that it will be recovered from the opposite side, an examiner cannot conclude that fibers recovered in the laboratory from the inside (or outside) of an item were originally deposited on that side. In many cases, it may be adequate to process all surfaces of ski masks or other head coverings together.


The application to the JBR case has it's limits. Ski masks have a more open weave than panties, and are made of different fabric. Still, it's interesting that properly processed masks had fiber transfer at some point during the processing and shipping to the lab. This is after following strict protocol for test purposes.

Needless to say BPD wasn't exactly the paragon of proper procedure. We can't really say the evidence technicians were equally poor, but one can't help wonder about the professionalism of everyone involved in the police department.

I'm not suggesting that the fibers inside the panties transferred from the outside, i'm just pointing out that the FBI's conclusion is

- Although the probability that a fiber will be recovered from the same side on which it was deposited is higher than the probability that it will be recovered from the opposite side, an examiner cannot conclude that fibers recovered in the laboratory from the inside (or outside) of an item were originally deposited on that side.


In other words, the location of the fibers, inside or outside a garment, is also inconclusive.

I've posted these links dozens of times with virtually no comment. Probably because they don't tend to support particular RDI theories of the case.

In short, you can safely dismiss all fiber evidence altogether. It means nothing, tells us nothing. It might be there from primary transfer, secondary transfer, combination, and there is no way to say one is more likely than the other. No scenario can fail to be "consistent" with the fiber evidence, as any scenario could depend on either primary or secondary (or combo) transfer, and either are possible, and as far as we are able to tell, equally possible. We will have to solve the case sans fiber evidence.

I agree. The presence of the fibers are interesting, but irrelevant. One only has to consider that the same washing machine and dryer were likely used for the entire families clothing. Fibers fall where they may, and are easily picked up by another person and transferred to other places. I often wonder who's DNA or fibers would be found on me if I were to be tested. Likely my whole family's, people who we have come in contact with, and quite possibly people who they have come in contact with, even total strangers who have touched the same things any of us have. It reminds me of how easily germs and bacteria are spread.

That's not to say that the fibers couldn't have been transferred by the guilty party/parties, but it's not something that can reasonably determine guilt because of the possibility of innocent transfer. I am RDI, but did not include the fibers in my own conclusions because I did not feel they were reliable enough to base my opinion on. I feel even without the fibers there is enough to make an informed decision. Whether RDI or IDI, the fibers change nothing because of the possibility of innocent transfer from family and strangers alike.

SIS
(All simply my own personal opinion)

"You can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me." -Firefly

 

[UKGuy]

I agree. The presence of the fibers are interesting, but irrelevant. One only has to consider that the same washing machine and dryer were likely used for the entire families clothing. Fibers fall where they may, and are easily picked up by another person and transferred to other places. I often wonder who's DNA or fibers would be found on me if I were to be tested. Likely my whole family's, people who we have come in contact with, and quite possibly people who they have come in contact with, even total strangers who have touched the same things any of us have. It reminds me of how easily germs and bacteria are spread.

That's not to say that the fibers couldn't have been transferred by the guilty party/parties, but it's not something that can reasonably determine guilt because of the possibility of innocent transfer. I am RDI, but did not include the fibers in my own conclusions because I did not feel they were reliable enough to base my opinion on. I feel even without the fibers there is enough to make an informed decision. Whether RDI or IDI, the fibers change nothing because of the possibility of innocent transfer from family and strangers alike.

SIS
(All simply my own personal opinion)

"You can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me." -Firefly

serenityinstars,

I agree. The presence of the fibers are interesting, but irrelevant. One only has to consider that the same washing machine and dryer were likely used for the entire families clothing. Fibers fall where they may, and are easily picked up by another person and transferred to other places

Oh, they are not irrelevant, you might wish them to be, but unlike the clothing in your washing machine and dryer example, they represent primary forensic evidence.

So, while one can spin scenarios with PR fashioning the garrote, or JR rubbing his Israeli shirt inside JB's size 12s, there is no certainty to these scenarios. It's just as likely to be from secondary transfer.

BBM: Chrishope is using a probabilistic argument to suggest secondary transfer is on par with primary transfer, but its not.

Chrishope says: there is no certainty to these scenarios. but that does not mean you are left with equal probability distributed across all potential events, some are distinctly less likely than others.

Three examples:

1. Fibers from Patsy found on the sticky side of the tape affixed to JonBenet's mouth.

2. Fibers from Patsy found inside the knotting of the ligature.

3. Fibers from JR's Israeli shirt found inside JB's size 12 underwear.

First thing to note is that fiber events 1 and 2 are distinct from event 3, on the basis of the fiber type, i.e. you might expect some Israeli shirt fibers to be found in the ligature knotting or the stick side of the tape if random secondary transfer was at work.

On the basis of secondary transfer you might expect a normal distribution of BR, JR, and PR's fibers to be randomly located on JonBenet's white gap top and longjohns.

Assuming IDI, you do not expect to see Ramsey fibers at locations 1, 2, and 3, since these are allegedly fashioned by an intruder, and so should show an excess of Intruder fibers, whether from gloves or clothing?

Also, assuming the size-12's are clean on that night, again there should be no Ramsey fibers inside the underwear.

Secondary transfer cannot explain the fibers deposited at events 1, 2, and 3, more so since events 1 and 2, are mutually exclusive from event 3, precisely because they have such a low probability.

So the higher probability is that the fibers were deposited by some Ramseys.

Similar reasoning can be applied to who did it? Neglecting IDI and assuming 1/3 odds for each of the resident R's, this equality can be reduced once you factor in, or reject the very low probability events, i.e. JonBenet dressed herself in the size-12's, as per PR. Ranking the RDI theories has 1st BDI, then 2nd PDI, followed by 3rd JDI.

PDI might have been up there with BDI if not for the nonsense to have come out of Patsy's mouth on issues such as the size-12's and the pineapple snack, stuff, if she was JonBenet's killer, would otherwise have had some believable explanation, similarly for JDI, and JR's explanation for the arrangement of stuff in the basement.

.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Smart, UK Guy.
I like your style!

 

[CircuitGuy]

I cannot imagine how she could be IDI. Linda said regarding Patsy: "She was imprisoned by secrets. This whole case has been imprisoned by secrets."

If Linda was IDI, I doubt she would support or understand Patsy keeping secrets for a murderous intruder. There really is only one suspect who law enforcement would agree with Patsy to keep secret - the one who could not be charged.

Are you saying if Burke did it some in law enforcement might look the other way? I understand the idea, but it seems like John and Patsy would have to show them strong evidence that Burke really did it and that JBR was certainly dead before they had time to get medical attention. In this scenario, the police would be covering up evidence, not doing their job, because they think it's the right thing to do.

If there was a chance that they delayed while JBR was alive, it's harder for me to see police officers participating in coverup to protect people who maybe have indirectly led to a child's death.

 

[CircuitGuy]

Doesn't sound like that at all to me. Sounds like she still believes it was John and that Patsy is a prisoner of the lies that protect him.

In this scenario, I wonder why Linda Arndt would be sympathetic to Patsy, seeing her as a "prisoner" of her own lies, rather than an accomplice after the fact for not telling the truth.