Linda arndt's gut feeling on 12/26

[BBB167893]

"This has crossed my mind before, because if they didn't do it, they sure seem like they know who did. But then I think that they would have used their security system. And if they didn't like that system so much, they would have installed a new one. If you are messing around with folks that make those kinds of threats, and you aren't doing what they want... wouldn't you at least try to protect yourselves and your family?"

That was something I wanted to talk about in response to what JBean said: if what Jbean said WERE the case, or even if it wasn't, if your kid's been killed under your nose because you didn't have proper security, you'll NEVER be lax in security again. But they were. Anyone ELSE remember that Atlanta break-in in 2000? John said he left the doors unlocked. Doesn't add up to me.

"And I have to agree with SD. I don't think this all looks a professional at all."

Not just the Feds. Henry Lee, too. he said that the violence was so complicated, it made no sense in context of an intruder killer.

"I disagree..but who am I?"

Well, and I urge you not to take this the wrong way, but I would suggest that you take heed to what the professionals in this case have said. I try to go by it as much as possible.

"Well, what I said was, in his opinion he may have gone above and beyond by providing anything when he was not required by law to do so. I am not suggesting this is right wrong, onyl that perhaps to his mind he was doing it right."

I don't doubt that in his mind, he did. But then, he reminds me of the Emperor in "Star Wars."

"As far as 'gut' feelings are concerned, it has been posted over and over that many here don't lend any credence to people's 'gut feelings' when it comes to any IDI theory. Rather, they want the facts and the evidence only. So I suppose that would have to work both ways."

And I'm willing to oblige. I mean, even people who don't agree with me have said that I try my best to back up my sayings.

 

[Brefie]

IMO, there is no 'above and beyond' if your child is murdered. I think most people would think that they could never even come close to doing enough.

Lawyering up within hours was crazy, imo. They didn't just retain lawyers, they totally hid behind them.

Those who haven't already should read the Atlanta interviews with Patsy. Either she doesn't remember, or Wood won't let her answer. What a crock! What I have read so far almost makes me want a law that says suspects MUST be put on the stand and subjected to cross examination.......ALMOST.

 

[rashomon]

I remember an interview from way back in which Linda Arndt describes this "gut feeling" and "looking into JR's eyes and just knowng he did it". In more recent years, as I have become more interested (aka obsessed) with this case, I have been surprised that, having had such a strong feeling on day 1 of the investigation, why did she turn into such a toolbox as far as pursuing justice for JBR? Someone please correct me on where things turned around for her, because didn't she eventually get kind of chummy with the Rs, or at least PR? I though I read that somewhere.....

In any event, I would think any cop who felt she had "looked into the eyes of a killer" would not stop until JR came to justice. Why did she do goofy things like withold her investigative notes from LE?

Linda Arndt eventually got so chummy with the Ramseys that she received flowers from them. Steve Thomas' sarcastic remark to that was "Normally detectives don't receive flowers from suspects."

In the beginning, Linda Arndt obviously had no 'gut feeling' at all about John Ramsey, for she trusted him enough to ask him to search the house (which she should never have allowed him to do without being accompanied by LE officers). And when JR 'discovered' JB's body, she suddenly has that 'gut feeling' he was involved.
But it would interest me immensely what happened to Linda Arndt's 'gut feeling' that John had done it when she later happily accepted flowers from John and Patsy Ramsey.

Imo Arndt was completely out of her league when it came to handling the Ramsey case. Not because she was a woman (I'm referring to the #3 post on this thread) - we all know that professional incompetence is equally distributed among the male and female population, don't we. Just think of the nonsense Trip DeMuth spouted ("parents could not do this to their child").

 

[Nova]

My "take" on Linda A's "gut" that morning is she was alone in this big house with all these people milling around and a child missing, presumed kidnapped. Time must have "stood still" for her while she was there without backup. Then, John found the body of his dead daughter. How AWFUL was that? I cannot imagine the scene even though I've had it described in books and on TV. It must have been horrifying...eery and sick. The very sight of JB had to have been awful. Then, you have the parents registering horror and grief while a group of others were probably doing the same. Chaos! I just don't think ANYONE, not even Linda A., could have felt or seen anything going on with a calm, practiced eye.

Well put. My thoughts exactly. Nothing against LA, but an innocent father sufficiently "wild-eyed" with grief might well seem alarming to a bystander.

 

[Bev]

I agree with your assessment of Linda Arndt. I think she was first intimidated by the Ramseys and then hornswaggled by them. I just don't think she's very bright.

 

[BBB167893]

"we all know that professional incompetence is equally distributed among the male and female population, don't we. Just think of the nonsense Trip DeMuth spouted"

Equal opportunity idiocy!

 

[Seeker]

That said, we cannot be sure LA's “gut feelings” were really that. She did not actually make notes on the case until 5 years after the fact, and even then such notes were transcribed from voice recordings by a friend. By that point any notes made were clouded, tainted, and/or influenced by her current feelings about the case, relationship with the R's, frustrations, prejudices etc., which is really too bad. Had she made her notes immediately, perhaps we would have a clearer picture with which to work/solve this case.

I don't believe she didn't make any notes or report that information long before 5 years. When she was on GMA she said she had taken notes, but because her dept gagged her from speaking out she couldn't refute information until 5 years later, after she had quit the deptartment.

(Paraphrasing from memory here)

Linda Arndt, "I looked into his eyes and we had a nonverbal exchange. Right then I knew. I knew what had happened. I remember I was mentally counting how many bullets I had in my gun."
Cynthia Vargas, "Why did you do that?"
Arndt, "Because I didn't know. I didn't know how many of us would be alive by the time backup arrived."

 

[PaperDoll]

The thing is, the entire case changed in a split second. Det. Arndt was there in response to a child's kidnapping. When she got to the house, I'm sure it seemed legit to her--there was probably no reason for her to feel that it was anything other than a kidnapping. The child has been taken away and the parents are devastated and looking to her to know what to do. I'm sure there is some "by the book" way to handle a kidnapping. You examine the ransom note, you wait for the inevitable call from the kidnappers, you negotiate a safe return of the child. The child's safety is of the utmost importance, and I'm sure she probably thought it was great that friends and the minister were there to comfort the parents.

BUT, once JonBenet's body was brought upstairs, the entire situation changed. First, you're looking at a dead 6 year old on the floor, which is horrible enough. Then you realize, oh my god, she's been in this house the ENTIRE time!!! We've been waiting for a call that was never going to come. This is no longer a kidnapping, it's a murder investigation.

And yes, I would think at that moment in time, plenty of bells and whistles were going off in her head and she most likely looked at everyone at that point as suspect. Nothing was as it seemed to be. Who can you trust? No one.

I don't think it's a stretch to think that her distrust of the Ramsey's started at that moment. What she did with that from then on, I have no idea, but in my opinion, she had the correct "gut" feeling.

Besty, I so agree with this...

I believe Linda's gut feelings were correct. I believe she sensed something wasn't right. She was there in that house, we weren't.. She was the one who came face to face with the R's.. We didn't.. Why would she even want to accuse the R's in the first place.. I'm sure they would be the last thing on her list as suspects.. I would think any LE would hope that the parents were innocent and wouldn't want to have to accuse them..

How many times as a parent does your gut tell you when your kid is lying or up to something? You go by their actions first don't you? Besty, I'm not directing this at you but in general...

 

[paperhanger44z]

Linda Arndt eventually got so chummy with the Ramseys that she received flowers from them. Steve Thomas' sarcastic remark to that was "Normally detectives don't receive flowers from suspects."

In the beginning, Linda Arndt obviously had no 'gut feeling' at all about John Ramsey, for she trusted him enough to ask him to search the house (which she should never have allowed him to do without being accompanied by LE officers). And when JR 'discovered' JB's body, she suddenly has that 'gut feeling' he was involved.
But it would interest me immensely what happened to Linda Arndt's 'gut feeling' that John had done it when she later happily accepted flowers from John and Patsy Ramsey.

Imo Arndt was completely out of her league when it came to handling the Ramsey case. Not because she was a woman (I'm referring to the #3 post on this thread) - we all know that professional incompetence is equally distributed among the male and female population, don't we. Just think of the nonsense Trip DeMuth spouted ("parents could not do this to their child").

I think you are right about LA being out of her league but so was ST.He didn't have any experience either,except for working patrol and drug busts.

 

[jubie]

There are those that accuse some IDI's of operating off of gut or feeling and find that to be a weakness. I see you rely on that at times as well. Thanks for your honesty.

Excellent point and I will only quibble a little bit.. I think degrees of cooperation have often been an issue, so The R's did cooperate to a degree. But certainly not to the extent that many would have liked ;so the reluctance to cooperate "all the way", may be what JR is referring to.
But really, I uderstand what you are saying and what you mean.

JBean :blowkiss:

You gotta know I love ya but I just see the death of JonBenet very different than you do. It's not because they "lawyered up" at all but rather because:

*They lawyered up within hours of JonBenet being found.

*Because Patsy was wearing the same clothes as the night before

*Because John was making flight arrangements within hours of JB being found

*Because the crime scene was staged (No sighns of struggle) as per the FBI

*Because JonBenet was awake when they got home (Burke and the pinapple back this up) WHy lie?

*Because Patsy 'could' have written the note

*Because Fleet and his wife were cleared whereas JR & PR have not, the almost imidiate implosion of their friendship speaks volumes to me.

*Because there are so many other 'becauses"

I'm not saying one single thing swayed me to the side on which I find myself but rather my interpretation of so many small details adding up. I respect that you likely feel the same way of where you come from. I'm just saying I didn't decide they were guilty at the 'very moment' back on Dec 26th when they lawyered up.


Hugs,
Jubie

 

[JBean]

JBean :blowkiss:

You gotta know I love ya but I just see the death of JonBenet very different than you do. It's not because they "lawyered up" at all but rather because:

*They lawyered up within hours of JonBenet being found.

*Because Patsy was wearing the same clothes as the night before

*Because John was making flight arrangements within hours of JB being found

*Because the crime scene was staged (No sighns of struggle) as per the FBI

*Because JonBenet was awake when they got home (Burke and the pinapple back this up) WHy lie?

*Because Patsy 'could' have written the note

*Because Fleet and his wife were cleared whereas JR & PR have not, the almost imidiate implosion of their friendship speaks volumes to me.

*Because there are so many other 'becauses"

I'm not saying one single thing swayed me to the side on which I find myself but rather my interpretation of so many small details adding up. I respect that you likely feel the same way of where you come from. I'm just saying I didn't decide they were guilty at the 'very moment' back on Dec 26th when they lawyered up.


Hugs,
Jubie

Hi Jubie...I love ya right back dear. However, not a single one of those "becauses" convince me it was the R's. But no matter, I am not trying to convince anyone otherwise, so no worries. Besides, life just wouldn't be interesting if we all agreed on everything.

 

[rashomon]

I think you are right about LA being out of her league but so was ST.He didn't have any experience either,except for working patrol and drug busts.

Inexperience in a certain field doesn't automatically mean that the individual has to be incompetent. And experience in a profession doesn't necessarily imply competence. Who hasn't had e. g. teachers who despite decades of 'experience' still did a lousy job?

Steve Thomas was not part of the botched initial investigation where the crime scene was allowed to be destructed with the police watching.

Maybe ST should not have leaked info to the media, and maybe in his book he portrayed John Eller in a too positive light, but aside from that, I don't see where Thomas made one single mistake in his detective work. Even Lou Smit had to admit that Thomas was a very good detective.
And btw, the FBI's CASKU unit agreed with ST's conclusion that this case pointed away from an intruder.

 

[BBB167893]

"However, not a single one of those 'becauses' convince me it was the R's."

You don't understand, JBean. It's not ONE "because," it's ALL of the "becauses" put together! One brick is not and impediment. But many bricks together make a damn good wall.

"Who hasn't had e. g. teachers who despite decades of 'experience' still did a lousy job?"

I can think of a few!

"And btw, the FBI's CASKU unit agreed with ST's conclusion that this case pointed away from an intruder."

Yes, ST may not have had the experience, but he was smart enough to KNOW that and work with people who did.