What does Linda Arndt know?

[Blue Bottle 01]

Dissociative psychosis not "mental" slip.

 

[DeeDee249]

How is the Sharpie in the Ramsey house different from every other Sharpie of that kind?

As I mentioned- it is the totality of the evidence, some of which is circumstantial. It is not different from every other Sharpie BUT the Sharpie in the house was matched conclusively to the ink on the ransom note. They were able to show that in ink on that paper came from a Sharpie that was manufactured in a specific "batch" - ONE of which was the Sharpie found in the cup in the R home. Of course, there were other Sharpies in that "batch" - though not every Sharpie in existence would match that ink- THAT Sharpie DID match. The likelihood of some intruder having carried in their OWN Sharpie which also matched that "batch" of ink is VERY slim- so slim as to be almost impossible. Therefore, it can be concluded beyond a REASONABLE doubt that the note which was written on a pad from the home was written with the pen found right there with it.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Dissociative psychosis not "mental" slip.

Wow----> interesting point. It has been rumored that she had personality disorders. I wonder if her Dissociative psychosis was another symptom of those disorders?

 

[2 percent]

Dissociative psychosis not "mental" slip.

Psychosis doesn't exist in a vacuum. Patsy would have had some serious and very noticeable symptoms like hallucinations and confused behavior or speech.

Granted since Andrea Yates the definition of psychosis has changed, so maybe she does fit the new definition.

 

[LinasK]

AGREED! So I asked myself, "Why did they stay together?"

Why did they stay together if BDI? This I can understand. BUT......
Why did they stay together if JDI? PR could have held that murder over JR, divorced him and received his fortune.

That's easy. She didn't want the scandal, also helped him cover it up, and she was a stand-by-your-man kinda gal.

 

[LinasK]

I don't see any big revelations in fibers, underwear, DNA and fingerprint analysis. The lack of fingerprints only means someone could have worn gloves. The finger prints belonging to the family are supposed to be there. The fibers are supposed to be there.

I don't think behavior means much not with the evidence I see. It reminds me of the Aisenbergs. What ever you think happened, There was much made of of The father smiling leaving the house one day. A cop told him a joke and he smiled. But people used that to say he was happy the baby was gone. They were bugged in their home and then those tapes were lied about and brought as reason to charge them. However when a judge listened to the tapes he found the information in the transcripts was lies and just not there.

For me there are pieces of evidence. As I mull them over and research them, I look for the source, and what that means to the case. I look for where the evidence was from, where it was collected.

I see two sides to the evidence and I lean toward the most practical, the one that makes the most sense. Then I try and pick that apart, Does it hold up??

I know that a lot of people think that people who think it may indeed be an intruder are not looking at the evidence or denying it but I am not. I am applying it to the case and seeing how it fits like a giant puzzle.

Getting information can be hard as some places keep it on lock down and that is a shame, But I did recently find alternate sources for transcripts and have been searching articles and then looking for corroboration in documents, and other sources.

I do not make opinions lightly. But I do always start from a place of innocence. Guilt has to be proven to me. I never ever decide on emotion someone is guilty or looks guilty. It needs to be concrete for me, especially when it comes to the brutal murder of a child.

Ummm, no! John's custom made shirt fibers are NOT supposed to be in JB's underwear. There is no good explanation for that- laundry doesn't cut it in this instance!!!

 

[LinasK]

I don't see how Lou Smit praying with the Ramseys means a thing. Was he praying? Or was he just standing their respecting their moment of prayer? Do we know what he was thinking or feeling in that moment?

Because he lost any objectivity when he did that. You don't sit down and pray with suspects!!!:banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[LinasK]

That is not how it works. Many many times police know that someone other than the family committed a crime and do not know who actually did it. They try to figure that out but that does not negate their belief that it was indeed someone other than a family member.

While other people may want to post their exact theory I find that mine seems to evolve over time. What I feel now may not be what I feel in a few months. I always open to seeing where things lead and do not have my feet firmly planted in concrete on it.

For ME IDI makes the most practical sense when I look at the whole of the evidence. Actual evidence.
__________________

Actual evidence of IDI??? Like no footprints outside the basement window in the freshly fallen snow? Or the unbroken spider web on the window???

 

[LinasK]

My biggest problem with IDI is the theory that someone broke in to kidnap JB but didn't bring the ransom note. Then when they got her from her bed they suddenly changed their mind about kidnappingfor ransom and had to sexually assault her in an obscure way.

The one part I do buy with the intruder theory is that once she died, they would leave immediately leaving the ransom note note and body behind.

As for RDI, I've always believed this crime was about the sexual assault, the murder was accidental, unintentional. I think Patsy wrote the note so I'm afraid I don't see her having very tender, maternal feelings about where JB s body should be. It's more likely, to me, the body wasn't moved because either the Ramseys simply ran out of time or didn't want to go near JBs body again after wiping her down.

That's my belief.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Actual evidence of IDI??? Like no footprints outside the basement window in the freshly fallen snow? Or the unbroken spider web on the window???

If there is not proof positive of RDI then the possibility of IDI exists. And just ignoring it makes your position seem all the more confirmed out of bias.

Even as some one who sees IDI as the most probable theory I can still look at things and see the trouble. There is no proof that JDI or PDI either. There are things that you add up to get there but as you form that opinion if you completely discount that it is just a theory and therefore it could indeed be and IDI even if you find that less probable it just takes credibility away from the position.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

Psychosis doesn't exist in a vacuum. Patsy would have had some serious and very noticeable symptoms like hallucinations and confused behavior or speech.

Granted since Andrea Yates the definition of psychosis has changed, so maybe she does fit the new definition.

Psychoses occur in degrees of depth from shallow to deep/overt. A psychotic can have episodes and return to function in society. There is always some effect, but those are often passed off as mere problems and not pathology. Some are even revered as creative/artistic expressions.

 

[2 percent]

Psychoses occur in degrees of depth from shallow to deep/overt. A psychotic can have episodes and return to function in society. There is always some effect, but those are often passed off as mere problems and not pathology. Some are even revered as creative/artistic expressions.

Yes. But during the episode they have more symptoms than just lashing out in a murderous way. Psychosis goes hand in hand with other psychological symptoms that just weren't in evidence the evening of the murder or the morning after.

Although we don't know Patsy's history, if she had been treated for psychotic symptoms someone would have talked by now. So we can assume that even if she' d been having these symptoms, she wouldn't be on meds. People on meds that have psychotic breaks don't re-integrate so fast and they are often very nervous about the time they either can or can't account for.

No, I don't think her behavior exhibits a psychotic break that evening.

 

[gramcracker]

If there is not proof positive of RDI then the possibility of IDI exists. And just ignoring it makes your position seem all the more confirmed out of bias.

Even as some one who sees IDI as the most probable theory I can still look at things and see the trouble. There is no proof that JDI or PDI either. There are things that you add up to get there but as you form that opinion if you completely discount that it is just a theory and therefore it could indeed be an IDI even if you find that less probable it just takes credibility away from the position.

and the reverse is equally true

if there is not proof positive of IDI then the possibility of RDI exists. and just ignoring it makes your position seem all the more confirmed out of bias

I'd make a lousy detective or DA or juror because in the court of gramcracker's mind, completely disregarding any forensics which were yet to come, the many and glaring indicators (behaviors) on Dec 26 scream out some combination of RDI. and those same indicators caused LA to quietly calculate the number of rounds she had for her firearm that afternoon

 

[madeleine]

to say IDI because you support the Ramsey's innocence and to say IDI because there is evidence pointing to IDI are two very different things.
how can you claim IDI without pointing out what evidence there is to support this theory?"I feel that the R's didn't do it" is NOT evidence against an intruder.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

No, I don't think her behavior exhibits a psychotic break that evening.

No disrespect intended but that is because you don't know what you are talking about.

She didn't lash out in a murderous way.

She planned a creative act.

She did exhibit symtoms.

Those symtoms were not regarded as pathological in fact some of them were regarded as mere eccentricities and even talent.

It all comes down to the understanding of psychosis. Most people make the mistake of thinking of psychosis as purely pathological and debilitating. That is one side of the scale. What Patsy did that night and for some time before is an example of the other side of the scale.

 

[Chrishope]

If there is not proof positive of RDI then the possibility of IDI exists. And just ignoring it makes your position seem all the more confirmed out of bias.

Even as some one who sees IDI as the most probable theory I can still look at things and see the trouble. There is no proof that JDI or PDI either. There are things that you add up to get there but as you form that opinion if you completely discount that it is just a theory and therefore it could indeed be and IDI even if you find that less probable it just takes credibility away from the position.

IDI exists as a possibility but the case is more about probability. It's possibly IDI, but it isn't probably IDI.

 

[Chelly]

IDI exists as a possibility but the case is more about probability. It's possibly IDI, but it isn't probably IDI.

Excellent summary!

 

[BBB167893]

Ummm, no! John's custom made shirt fibers are NOT supposed to be in JB's underwear. There is no good explanation for that- laundry doesn't cut it in this instance!!!

LinasK! It's been a long time!

 

[2 percent]

She didn't lash out in a murderous way.

She planned a creative act.

She did exhibit symtoms.

We have the definitive statement, now let's have the explanation and/or proof. Please explain the creative act that wasn't lashing out. Also please explain the symptoms she exhibited indicative of future psychosis.

 

[Blue Bottle 01]

We have the definitive statement, now let's have the explanation and/or proof. Please explain the creative act [good question] that wasn't lashing out. Also please explain the symptoms she exhibited indicative of future psychosis.

Not future psychosis; present (at the time and previous).

The thing in the small room was the result of the creative act.

Read DOI, the parts about Christmas.