What does Linda Arndt know?

[madeleine]

14 Did you ever voice complaints to any of

15 your supervisors regarding concern for your security?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. What was the nature of those concerns you

18 were expressing?

19 A. My initial report had been given to the

20 Ramsey attorneys, and I was concerned that the

21 information that was in the report that the Ramseys

22 weren't even going to be named as suspects, I was

23 concerned about the safety of myself and those close to

24 me.


wtf?
who gave it to them?
they have to share info with the defence only when it comes to trial,no?
good God,these guys shared everything with the suspects,unbelievable.

 

[madeleine]

So the R's didn't negate their credibility with their books?

nah,they were telling the truth and nothing but the truth so help them God.:facepalm:

 

[madeleine]

I totally forgot about this part....creepy...

25 A. How he carried her was part of it.

Page 120




1 Q. And describe that.

2 A. Her head above his head, so he didn't see

3 her head, her face.

4 Q. Can you demonstrate how he was holding her?

5 A. (indicating)

6 Q. So you kind of have your hands together out

7 in front of you, and he kind of had her in a bear hug,

8 is that it, for a lack of any better description? If

9 you were going to go up and hug somebody, that's the

10 way he had his arms around her?

11 A. No.

12 Q. How would you describe - I'm trying to

13 describe for the record.

14 A. Arms - he had his arms around her upper

15 legs. He carried her kind of up and away from his

16 body.

17 Q. Just so I can get a proper positioning of

18 her body vis-a-vis his, would her navel have been

19 around his face area the way he was carrying her?

20 A. I'm more focused on her head.

21 Q. How far above his head was her head?

22 A. Above.

23 Q. How far above?

24 A. Above.

25 Q. Were her shoulders above his head?

Page 121



1 A. I don't remember.

2 Q. And so I understood from your report he was

3 carrying her in a fashion where she was facing him.

4 A. Correct.

5 Q. And to you, that was most unusual?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And tell me why.

8 A. It was unusual that she was - it was clear

9 she was dead. It was unusual that, for me, for a

10 father to carry his child that way.

 

[Nom de plume]

Sure it is, The Coroner states the police wanted to hold the body, And HE did not because he found it unethical. That is dismissed as "They got the body didn't they?"

But it goes to the whole culture of why the Ramsey's would not talk to the police without a lawyer's counsel or consent. They knew that the police were targeting them and it would be a stupid stupid person that went into the station with a bullseye on their back. I have seen some pretty vile interogations where the police railroaded people.

RDI is full of denial, And speculation and nothing but a differing opinion. It holds no more water than IDI because in the end there is no charges and all you have is a few books and other people's speculations that form the RDI theories.

In the end no theory is more valid than the next. It is not fact, just more opinion.

As usual, you've got your facts all screwed up. The Ramseys refused to cooperate the day JB was found. LONG before the autopsy was complete!!

I absolutely do NOT agree that LE tried to hold her body for ransom, but for the sake of argument, let's say they did. SO WHAT!?!? If that's what it takes to get the supposed loving parents to cooperate to help find the murderer of their daughter, then so be it. They should have been camped out at the police station, doing every thing they could to help, but NNNOOOOO, they were more worried about CYA!!

The Ramseys were NOT railroaded! There is ZERO proof anyone broke into that house! There is ZERO proof of an intruder! RDI holds a heck of a lot more weight than IDI! We KNOW they were in the house! They admit that much, so that makes them a heck of a lot more likely to have committed this crime than some imaginary intruder, like it or not! :banghead:

 

[Nom de plume]

To me writing books in the subject negates your credibility with me. And again it is all left to their opinion. IT is one thing to write a book after a prosecution and put out there what made you feel the way you did and then follow a path, But to me, When some thing is unsolved and you were part of the investigation team, All this is an end run around a court room.

I see they hold weight for many here, but not for me. I want to see the reports and evidence and come to my own conclusions, I don't need to follow someone else's just because it is popular

So then, following your own "logic", the Ramseys have NO CREDIBILITY with you! :drumroll:

 

[madeleine]

14 Q. (BY MR. HALABY) Were there investigative

15 notes you kept in the Ramsey matter that you didn't

16 turned over to be kept as part of the investigative file

17 on the Ramsey investigation?

18 A. Some.

19 Q. How did you decide what investigative

20 reports - or investigative notes you would turn over

21 and what investigative notes you would not turn over in

22 the Ramsey investigation?

23 A. I turned over the notes that were asked.

24 Q. So you had to be asked for the notes as

25 opposed to your feeling it just part of your

Page 228




1 responsibility as a detective in the Ramsey

2 investigation to turn over those notes?

3 A. I knew that Mason had turned his notes over,

4 and they went into evidence, and they now are

5 unaccounted for. And I did not want the same thing to

6 happen should I turn over notes without any kind of

7 chain of command for the evidence.


morons....delicate as it sounds but these people are as deep involved in the cover-up as the Rasmeys themselves...grrrrr
I hope someday real cops will knock on their doors....what a disgusting cover-up...and we want these same people to solve this crime
LOL

 

[madeleine]

2 Q. So to this day, there are investigative notes

3 on the Ramsey matter that you kept that are not

4 ultimately incorporated in the written report?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Where are those investigative notes?

7 A. In a safe place.

8 Q. Where is that safe place?

9 A. I am not going to tell you.

10 Q. Why is that?

11 A. I'd like to keep it a safe place.

12 Q. You're refusing to tell me?

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. Are you concerned about the security of those

15 notes?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Is that because of the subject matter of

18 those notes?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Then why are you concerned about the security

21 of those notes?

22 A. Given what I told you happened to Mason's

23 notes.

24 Q. There is always a way of making a copy for

25 your own personal file and providing those notes, is

Page 233



1 there not?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Did you ever do that -

4 A. No.

5 Q. - as it relates to those notes?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Why?

8 A. I didn't hear you.

9 Q. Why?

10 A. Why what?

11 Q. Why didn't you provide those notes to the

12 official Boulder police file, retaining a copy if you

13 were concerned about whether or not they would

14 disappear?

15 A. I told you why.

16 Q. No, you haven't, but you can tell me right

17 now.

18 A. Okay. There was no one to turn them over to

19 officially, and I didn't want what happened to Mason's

20 notes to happen to mine.

21 Q. But if you retained a copy, then there would

22 always be a copy, correct?

23 A. If I did, yes.

24 Q. Are you willing to make a copy of those notes

25 and turn them over at this point in time?


Page 234



1 A. To?

2 Q. To the Boulder Police Department.

3 A. Yes.




do we know if she ever did?were they even interested in her notes?
give them to us Linda if the ones in charge don't care

 

[BOESP]

My take on LA is that she appears to be fueled by personal emotions in this whole case ... the opposite of what is expected from a detective

And when did she switch sides to defend PR instead of treating her as a suspect ?

Early in the investigation she "made a note" that when PR first saw her daughter .... she covered her face with her hands and pretended to be sobbing .... meanwhile she was peeking thru her fingers and watching Arndt the whole time ... Arndt said it was phoney as heck. All show.

Anyone else remember that ?

Officer French also so noted Patsy peeping out between fingers while her hands covered her face.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

So then, following your own "logic", the Ramseys have NO CREDIBILITY with you! :drumroll:

No. Not the same thing. It is their story to tell. Other people writing that they have the answer to the crime is does not hold water for me. If they really do especially if it is LE related then no one should have to pay for their theory. It should be something they shout out on the news to get attention to the case. Not sell it for profit.

 

[questfortrue]

2 Q. So to this day, there are investigative notes

3 on the Ramsey matter that you kept that are not

4 ultimately incorporated in the written report?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Where are those investigative notes?

7 A. In a safe place.

8 Q. Where is that safe place?

9 A. I am not going to tell you.

10 Q. Why is that?

11 A. I'd like to keep it a safe place.

12 Q. You're refusing to tell me?

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. Are you concerned about the security of those

15 notes?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Is that because of the subject matter of

18 those notes?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Then why are you concerned about the security

21 of those notes?

22 A. Given what I told you happened to Mason's

23 notes.

24 Q. There is always a way of making a copy for

25 your own personal file and providing those notes, is

Page 233



1 there not?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Did you ever do that -

4 A. No.

5 Q. - as it relates to those notes?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Why?

8 A. I didn't hear you.

9 Q. Why?

10 A. Why what?

11 Q. Why didn't you provide those notes to the

12 official Boulder police file, retaining a copy if you

13 were concerned about whether or not they would

14 disappear?

15 A. I told you why.

16 Q. No, you haven't, but you can tell me right

17 now.

18 A. Okay. There was no one to turn them over to

19 officially, and I didn't want what happened to Mason's

20 notes to happen to mine.

21 Q. But if you retained a copy, then there would

22 always be a copy, correct?

23 A. If I did, yes.

24 Q. Are you willing to make a copy of those notes

25 and turn them over at this point in time?


Page 234



1 A. To?

2 Q. To the Boulder Police Department.

3 A. Yes.




do we know if she ever did?were they even interested in her notes?
give them to us Linda if the ones in charge don't care

Wow, Madeleine, excellent find of LA interview and posts!

 

[madeleine]

No. Not the same thing. It is their story to tell. Other people writing that they have the answer to the crime is does not hold water for me. If they really do especially if it is LE related then no one should have to pay for their theory. It should be something they shout out on the news to get attention to the case. Not sell it for profit.

who's the biased one now?:boohoo:

 

[madeleine]

Wow, Madeleine, excellent find of LA interview and posts!

I wanted to apologize for hijacking the thread with all the quotes but the first time I read her depo I wasn't really paying attention to details and didn't know so much about the case.Now I see things differently and noticed some things I haven't before.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

who's the biased one now?:boohoo:

That is not bias. It is the story of what happened to their lives when their daughter was murdered. I have not bias for them or against them. They just are.

But them writing a book to get their story out, And knowing it is just a book by parents that lost a child is different than LE spouting they know the real story and writing a book about it rather than be public with info.

Two separate things.

 

[madeleine]

That is not bias. It is the story of what happened to their lives when their daughter was murdered. I have not bias for them or against them. They just are.

But them writing a book to get their story out, And knowing it is just a book by parents that lost a child is different than LE spouting they know the real story and writing a book about it rather than be public with info.

Two separate things.

instead of writing a book and whining about how the bad boys treated them they should have taken the time to find out who did this,they had the money and the resources to hire the best of the best,yet they didn't.they didn't even ASK JD what he thinks,he OFFERED a profile!GMAB!

 

[BOESP]

Anyone who discredits the opinion of the grand jury who oversaw this case in a court of law and came to the conclusion there was enough evidence to indict John and Patsy Ramsey yet still claims there is no evidence pointing toward the Ramseys is, in my opinion, a misguided Ramsey apologist.

I'm glad I didn't get an invitation to the Ramsey pity party where whining and wailing and being on television was more important than cooperating with the investigation and being proactive in finding that "Intruder" who killed their daughter.

 

[Venom]

No. Not the same thing. It is their story to tell. Other people writing that they have the answer to the crime is does not hold water for me. If they really do especially if it is LE related then no one should have to pay for their theory. It should be something they shout out on the news to get attention to the case. Not sell it for profit.

But it's alright for the R's to tell/sell their story for a profit?
Wasn't the book PMPT authorized by the R's? The other's who have written a book also have a story to tell. Too bad the R's don't seem to want to get attention to the case anymore.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Anyone who discredits the opinion of the grand jury who oversaw this case in a court of law and came to the conclusion there was enough evidence to indict John and Patsy Ramsey yet still claims there is no evidence pointing toward the Ramseys is, in my opinion, a misguided Ramsey apologist.

I'm glad I didn't get an invitation to the Ramsey pity party where whining and wailing and being on television was more important than cooperating with the investigation and being proactive in finding that "Intruder" who killed their daughter.

I don't think much of grand juries. I think they have their place but are not the end all and be all and just because a GJ indicts does not mean that person or persons is guilty of anything. Just that they think there is enough to be brought to trial. NO convictions. People are not sent to jail over Grand jury indictments for life. They are not then convicts. At most they are facing charges.. But in this case they are not. Why??? Because the DA did not bring the charges. That says a lot to me.
Grand juries have indicted people who turned out to be innocent. So saying that them voting to indict is a verdict of guilt is just not so and very short sighted. It is just one part of the process. Nothing more.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

But it's alright for the R's to tell/sell their story for a profit?
Wasn't the book PMPT authorized by the R's? The other's who have written a book also have a story to tell. Too bad the R's don't seem to want to get attention to the case anymore.

Sure it is their story to tell because they lived through it. Just as Lacy Peterson's mom wrote a book and many families that are crime victims write books. It does not mean what is in there is gospel, Just their version and their process of going through the event and of the person's life that was lost.

There is no value in it as a resource to find guilt or not.. But the other books, Written by people " in the know", Are supposed to be some big harp sounding, gotcha that they know what happened and their book is supposed to say " I KNOW WHO DID IT, BUY MY BOOK AND FIND OUT"

Not at all the same thing.

 

[BOESP]

No. Not the same thing. It is their story to tell. Other people writing that they have the answer to the crime is does not hold water for me. If they really do especially if it is LE related then no one should have to pay for their theory. It should be something they shout out on the news to get attention to the case. Not sell it for profit.

Double standards. That's an interesting viewpoint. I don't find double standards as a credible way to evaluate information.

 

[BOESP]

I don't think much of grand juries. I think they have their place but are not the end all and be all and just because a GJ indicts does not mean that person or persons is guilty of anything. Just that they think there is enough to be brought to trial. NO convictions. People are not sent to jail over Grand jury indictments for life. They are not then convicts. At most they are facing charges.. But in this case they are not. Why??? Because the DA did not bring the charges. That says a lot to me.
Grand juries have indicted people who turned out to be innocent. So saying that them voting to indict is a verdict of guilt is just not so and very short sighted. It is just one part of the process. Nothing more.

Why do you think the lawyer-orchestrated comments of two suspects who can be placed at the scene of the crime and claiming "some other dude did it" should carry the most weight?