What does Linda Arndt know?

[CircuitGuy]

Nothing.. Linda was over her head and made stuff up to try and make herself look better.

15 years ago I worked at an electronics company and worked on a small part of the design on a consumer product for one of the biggest tech companies in the world. I got laid off from the job, partly because I was disillusioned with aspects of the job even before this consumer product project got started. Once it started, I wasn't good at navigating the politics of working a mid-sized company winning a project from a huge company with very deep pockets and potential for future lucrative projects, and frankly I didn't want to learn how to do that. So I got laid off.

If years later that particular product I worked on became the subject of intense public attention, it would be so weird. I was only responsible for 20% of the electronics hardware and 0% of the software. Much of what I did was things we tried and abandoned. Some of the stuff that was in the design when I left was probably changed in subsequent revisions.

It would be odd, then, if the media kept calling me to talk about it, and millions of people were hanging on my every word. Even if I said, "I'm under non-disclosure agreement. I just worked on it for a few months, and then I got laid off. I don't really know anything," people would keep asking thinking I must know secrets that would explain every asked of the controversy surrounding the product. I think I might come off like Linda Arndt does.

So what ScarlettScarpetta says rings true to me, although I wouldn't put it so harshly. I think she doesn't know that much. People keep asking her, and on a few occasions she broke down and gave interviews in which she hints at her opinions on the case.

 

[UKGuy]

15 years ago I worked at an electronics company and worked on a small part of the design on a consumer product for one of the biggest tech companies in the world. I got laid off from the job, partly because I was disillusioned with aspects of the job even before this consumer product project got started. Once it started, I wasn't good at navigating the politics of working a mid-sized company winning a project from a huge company with very deep pockets and potential for future lucrative projects, and frankly I didn't want to learn how to do that. So I got laid off.

If years later that particular product I worked on became the subject of intense public attention, it would be so weird. I was only responsible for 20% of the electronics hardware and 0% of the software. Much of what I did was things we tried and abandoned. Some of the stuff that was in the design when I left was probably changed in subsequent revisions.

It would be odd, then, if the media kept calling me to talk about it, and millions of people were hanging on my every word. Even if I said, "I'm under non-disclosure agreement. I just worked on it for a few months, and then I got laid off. I don't really know anything," people would keep asking thinking I must know secrets that would explain every asked of the controversy surrounding the product. I think I might come off like Linda Arndt does.

So what ScarlettScarpetta says rings true to me, although I wouldn't put it so harshly. I think she doesn't know that much. People keep asking her, and on a few occasions she broke down and gave interviews in which she hints at her opinions on the case.

CircuitGuy,
If the case is BDI then Linda Arndt has to adopt one of the other theories, i.e. PDI and bedwetting or JDI since she is not allowed to discuss anything related to a BDI theory. BDI also explains why Linda Arndt and Patsy appeared to bond later on?

Just consider the time available for staging, then run through scenarios involving the parents and consider the evidence they missed out on and had no explanation for, yet we think the parents did fabricate some evidence and clear up other, i.e. the pad, so if you are Patsy or John and you are going to stage a crime-scene you will remove what you know about?

That is definitely cleanup the breakfast bar or add JonBenet snacking pineapple into your version of events, and make sure there are some size-12's in JonBenet's underwear drawer to match your version of events?

This all suggests late staging by the parents who never knew about the pineapple snack or the size-12's?

.

 

[questfortrue]

CircuitGuy,
If the case is BDI then Linda Arndt has to adopt one of the other theories, i.e. PDI and bedwetting or JDI since she is not allowed to discuss anything related to a BDI theory. BDI also explains why Linda Arndt and Patsy appeared to bond later on?

Just consider the time available for staging, then run through scenarios involving the parents and consider the evidence they missed out on and had no explanation for, yet we think the parents did fabricate some evidence and clear up other, i.e. the pad, so if you are Patsy or John and you are going to stage a crime-scene you will remove what you know about?

That is definitely cleanup the breakfast bar or add JonBenet snacking pineapple into your version of events, and make sure there are some size-12's in JonBenet's underwear drawer to match your version of events?

This all suggests late staging by the parents who never knew about the pineapple snack or the size-12's?
.

~RBBM~
Then we get into whose word to accept, those of the interviewing attorneys, the other witnesses who spoke to LE, or JR’s/PR's words. This will include the following selections from JR's interview, paraphrased for conciseness.

Attorneys: We found fibers consistent with your black Israeli shirt in her panties.
JR: You’re trying to disgrace my relationship with my daughter.
Attorneys: We were told by a visitor to your home that JonBenet was sick on Christmas Day and her two daughters couldn’t play with JonBenét.
JR: That’s nonsense. (Here’s the non sequitur: There were all kinds of kids in and out of the house.)
Attorneys: We were told that the school authorities conveyed to you that JonBenét had to frequently go into the panty box for new panties after an accident.
JR: Mumbles a denial.

Maybe he didn’t actually live at the house, because there were many things he just didn’t know?

 

[SapphireSteel]

IMHO Arndt made it amply clear what she thought in her book

it went something like this (pp)

John carried JB's body up the stairs, our eyes met and I knew right then what he'd done.

 

[UKGuy]

~RBBM~
Then we get into whose word to accept, those of the interviewing attorneys, the other witnesses who spoke to LE, or JR’s/PR's words. This will include the following selections from JR's interview, paraphrased for conciseness.

Attorneys: We found fibers consistent with your black Israeli shirt in her panties.
JR: You’re trying to disgrace my relationship with my daughter.
Attorneys: We were told by a visitor to your home that JonBenet was sick on Christmas Day and her two daughters couldn’t play with JonBenét.
JR: That’s nonsense. (Here’s the non sequitur: There were all kinds of kids in and out of the house.)
Attorneys: We were told that the school authorities conveyed to you that JonBenét had to frequently go into the panty box for new panties after an accident.
JR: Mumbles a denial.

Maybe he didn’t actually live at the house, because there were many things he just didn’t know?

questfortrue,
Although James Kolar reckons BR executed the main elements of the case, he does not outline who did the staging.

Attorneys: We found fibers consistent with your black Israeli shirt in her panties.
JR: You’re trying to disgrace my relationship with my daughter.

So if the above quote is correct then its consistent with much of what we know, i.e. Patsy never knew about the size-12's, so someone else did, i.e. JR since his fibers place him at the scene of the crime?

Although the phrase fibers consistent are not conclusive and the attorney's might simply be beefing up the evidence, its such an important piece of evidence which if produced in court and then shown to be common black fibers, i.e. not those from an expensive black Israeli shirt, any case against JR would fall apart.

One other explanation is that JR never dressed JonBenet in the size-12's but he did pull them down so to wipe JonBenet down, thus explaining Coroner Meyer's remarks about the absence of bloodstains.

Which still leaves a BDI on the table implicating BR in the staging?

 

[SapphireSteel]

BDI = an evil relic of a deliberate attempt to shift Blame by uncaring parents who went to far.

IMHO

I don't know of a shred of evidence implicating Burke apart from the Ramseys own sly insinuations via third parties.

 

[Foreign Faction]

I believe Arndt knows that B caused the death, and JR and PR are covering for him.

 

[CircuitGuy]

Maybe [John] didn’t actually live at the house, because there were many things he just didn’t know?

This one aspect sounds like a typical high-tech business executive.

 

[CircuitGuy]

CircuitGuy,
If the case is BDI then Linda Arndt has to adopt one of the other theories, i.e. PDI and bedwetting or JDI since she is not allowed to discuss anything related to a BDI theory. BDI also explains why Linda Arndt and Patsy appeared to bond later on?

Are you saying you suspect Arndt is of the BDI persuasion or do you think she has access to some secret evidence that not even everyone in LE involved in the case has?

At one point she appeared to think JDI. If John and Patsy did it and they got a notion that Arndt would not tell anyone if BDI, it would be their interests to tell Arndt that BDI.

 

[UKGuy]

Are you saying you suspect Arndt is of the BDI persuasion or do you think she has access to some secret evidence that not even everyone in LE involved in the case has?

At one point she appeared to think JDI. If John and Patsy did it and they got a notion that Arndt would not tell anyone if BDI, it would be their interests to tell Arndt that BDI.

CircuitGuy,

Are you saying you suspect Arndt is of the BDI persuasion or do you think she has access to some secret evidence that not even everyone in LE involved in the case has?

Neither. I am suggesting 99% of BPD and investigating LE, including Lou Smit and friends, know the case is BDI. Because BR was under the age of criminal responsibility so the case is sealed on aspects relating to BR!

Holly Smith recently wrote a book about her 20 years with the Boulder County Sexual Abuse team. She left out the chapter about the Ramsey case, but is now revealing her part of the investigation exclusively to us.

...

It was the third day of the investigation into the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Smith was head of the Boulder County Sexual Abuse team and has been called into the investigation, as she says, "to consult about some of the dynamics and some of the things people suspected might be going on with this case."

With portfolio pictures galore and closets full of JonBenet’s elaborate pageant outfits, Smith says she had a hard time getting a fell for who the little girl really was, even in her bedroom.
She recalls, "I just had a sense the type of decor in her bedroom was not really a child's decor."

One poignant find that she does recall was a red satin box with what looked like JonBenet’s secret stash of candy.

She found something else in the room, however, which raised an immediate red flag. Smith says most of the panties in JonBenet’s dresser drawers had been soiled with fecal material.

"There is this dynamic of children that have been sexually abused sometimes soiling themselves or urinating in their beds to keep someone who is hurting them at bay," explains Smith.

JonBenet also had a history of bedwetting. While Smith points out there could be innocent explanations, this was the kind of information that raised questions.

"It's very different for every child, but when you have a child that's had this problem and it's pretty chronic for that child, and in addition you know some sort of physical evidence or trauma or an allegation, you put all those little pieces together and it just goes in your head," she says.

Smith adds, "There was an indication of trauma in the vaginal area."

Holly Smith was unilaterally removed from the Ramsey investigation, and her chapter on the Ramsey's redacted.

James Kolar now tells us feces was discovered in JonBenet's bedroom, Holly Smith simply refers to JonBenet's underwear, so I guess there is more to come.

Linda Arndt might have been of the JDI persuasion, or that might simply be for public consumption, after all Lou Smit said it was an intruder.

Alike Holly Smith, Steve Thomas, and James Kolar, Linda Arndt cannot reference BR wrt to JonBenet's death, but she might have been able to talk indirectly to PR, expressing her private understanding?

.

 

[Foreign Faction]

I think UK guy is totally on point about Arndt, i.e., she may have been on the JDI persuasion, but subsequent information (maybe even convos with her new buddy PR) may have convinced her that it's a BDI case.

 

[CircuitGuy]

Neither. I am suggesting 99% of BPD and investigating LE, including Lou Smit and friends, know the case is BDI. Because BR was under the age of criminal responsibility so the case is sealed on aspects relating to BR!.

Linda Arndt might have been of the JDI persuasion, or that might simply be for public consumption, after all Lou Smit said it was an intruder.

When the police investigate a murder and find evidence that points to a child, is the standard procedure to act publicly like they don't know who did it and that it could possibly be the child's parents? Maybe a 9 y/o murderer does happen often enough to have a standard procedure.

It's hard for me to imagine a meeting where a police officer says, "The evidence is now strong to be almost certain Burke committed the crime and one or both of his parents tried to cover it up to protect him. Because he's under age, we cannot prosecute him or reveal what we know. To that end, everyone should just pretend like it's still an unsolved case. I don't care whom you act like you suspect, intruder, John, or Patsey, as long as it's not the truth."

This does not ring true to me. I would think they would want to see if there are any elements of the crime for which Burke could be prosecuted, possibly to put him in some kind of psychological help program that aims to help him be non-violent and to detect if he's starting to become violent again. Maybe his parents promised a high ranking police officer they would get him help, but they should discount anything his parents say if they put together an elaborate cover-up. They should wonder if they did anything abusive that might have caused someone at such a young age to become violent. I don't see them being duped by the Ramsey's coverup at first then deciding to help them maintain the coverup.

 

[SapphireSteel]

sadly due to JR money and power, the Principle of KISS was obliterated

Keep it Simple, Stupid

Simple = the person responsible for JB SA was the one who killed her

Simple = JR with coverup by PR

BDI is the LEAST likely scenario, always was. Burke loved his sister and any strange behavior is explained by being raised in a nest of vipers.

JMO as always.

BDI breaks all the rules of logic.

 

[Foreign Faction]

sadly due to JR money and power, the Principle of KISS was obliterated

Keep it Simple, Stupid

Simple = the person responsible for JB SA was the one who killed her

Simple = JR with coverup by PR

BDI is the LEAST likely scenario, always was. Burke loved his sister and any strange behavior is explained by being raised in a nest of vipers.

JMO as always.

BDI breaks all the rules of logic.

The main problem here is that there is NOTHING logical about this case, not the way it was handled, investigated, covered up, etc.
IMHO, I don't see anything illogical about a jealous or angry brother ACCIDENTALLY injuring his sister in a moment of anger or frustration.

Are you suggesting that JR killed JBR with some sort of connection to apparent sexual abuse?

 

[SapphireSteel]

The main problem here is that there is NOTHING logical about this case, not the way it was handled, investigated, covered up, etc.
IMHO, I don't see anything illogical about a jealous or angry brother ACCIDENTALLY injuring his sister in a moment of anger or frustration.

Are you suggesting that JR killed JBR with some sort of connection to apparent sexual abuse?

Statistically at least, that is exactly what happened.

 

[Foreign Faction]

Interesting. Statistically, it is more likely the JR sexually abused her. However, as I've mentioned, there is nothing logical about this case or the aberrant reactions of any of the main players in this case. I tend to believe BR was the abuser. But who knows, maybe JR showed him what to do? The family was so funked up that I don't discount anything. As a professional, I have seen some pretty sick things, and worked with people who did worse things as well.

 

[apabld]

I recently watched her 1999 ABC interview on YouTube. Near the end, she says she think the killer will eventually be caught but that they would not be charged. The first thought that popped into my mind was: Burke.

 

[sgrump]

IMO JAR is statistically more likely to have been sexually abusing JonBenet. He was a teenager experiencing multiple hard-ons everyday. He had all the physical intimacy of a sibling relationship with JonBenet yet was not a full brother. His bedroom was down the hall. John Ramsey was in his fifties and likely had one erection a month and from all accounts may have needed help at that. John was a busy man running a business, not a freeloading non-working teenager. Not to say that John Ramsey couldn't have molested JonBenet, just the serial abuse was likely from the older half brother. Very little is ever mentioned about him as even being a member of the family by Patsy or John.

Also according to LE (Kolar) Burke had symptoms of some sort of sexual dysfunction associated with being molested and again JAR is likely responsible because of being a teenager and not necessarily being a pedophile or gay. And this was the ultimate reason Burke struck out at JonBenet, he was unable to handle his emotions.


This would account for the Ramseys stonewalling and not cooperating with finding justice for JonBenet. To have a brother kill a sister is rather commonplace in today's world but this was layered with far more embarrassing salacious family secrets.

 

[FrankieB]

I'm sorry but I find JAR being responsible for the abuse because he was a teenager far fetched. Singularity has offered some more plausible reasons for casting suspicion upon JAR. I personally find the "situational" scenario hard to believe.

 

[BOESP]

In regards to Linda Arndt's opinion on who committed incest against JonBenet and the family dynamics involved, here's a link to a deposition she gave. It's worth reading in its entirety but the incest part starts on page 42 of the document (use your browser's word search function, searching for the word "incest"):

http://www.acandyrose.com/03182000-arndtdepo-04102000.htm