What does Linda Arndt know?

What secret does Linda Arndt know?

  • That PR is the killer.

    Votes: 21 9.6%
  • That JR is the killer.

    Votes: 38 17.4%
  • That both PR & JR are the killers.

    Votes: 11 5.0%
  • That BR is the killer.

    Votes: 7 3.2%
  • That BR is the killer and PR & JR covered for him.

    Votes: 84 38.4%
  • That someone else is the killer.

    Votes: 10 4.6%
  • She knows nothing and is lying.

    Votes: 48 21.9%

  • Total voters
    219
I think the point I was making is that it was not unique. And I don't know if Sharpies can be matched? Same width, same ink, Same label.

I just don't think that means anything.

The paper coming from the house says to me it was not Patsy. It is just not logical. Not if you are hiding something. There is no way I see Patsy involved in this crime. Too much does not fit.


I'm confused, I think. Are you arguing that an intruder might have used the R's writing tablet to implicate them but may have used his own sharpie? Surely if he's implicating them by using their paper he'd also use their sharpie for the same reason?

I'm sure the ink can be analyzed. Whether or not this was done, I don't know.

The paper coming from the house says to me the killer/stager had to use what was available. A midnight trip to the store would arouse suspicion of an innocent spouse or child, or would be noticed by a neighbor. The note had to be written with materials in the house.
 
The paper coming from the house says to me it was not Patsy. It is just not logical. Not if you are hiding something. There is no way I see Patsy involved in this crime. Too much does not fit.

The scene was staged and obviously the frame was going to be "kidnapping gone wrong".
You need paper to write a ransom note.
It's the middle of the night, there is limited options.

I think we're all thinking just a little too logically here and not adding enough panic to the situation. JB is dead and one of the parents is responsible. Logically the best thing, but psychologically hardest thing, to do is just leave her where she is, report her missing and cooperate but only to a point.

Just like every other human, though, they had to overdo it. That's why so many staged scenes are confusing, because some of it makes sense but most of it doesn't. Take Darlie Routier, she claims to have been attacked while lying on a faux leather sofa with her son lying on the floor beside her. The theory being that she fought someone who cut her throat on that couch and there were no nicks or cuts in the faux leather, little blood only on a little pillow and her son wasn't trampled on, nicked or cut during this struggle on the couch.

Do you think Darlie was even thinking about the leather evidence or trampling evidence at the time? No. To Darlie, the cut was the most important and dramatic prop in her staged scene and to support that prop she lay on the small pillow long enough for transfer. But as usual, the rest of it just didn't make sense nor did it support her prop. It's like saying you shot a bear by a tree and showing people the tree to prove it.

People staging a scene don't think of everything which is why cops can usually spot a staged scene right away from it's, for lack of better term, oddness.

But back to this case....like Darlie, Patsy saw the ransom note as the prop to their story and either didn't think how illogical it was that a kidnapper would write a note at the victims house or just didn't have any other options and decided to risk it, hoping the cops wouldn't notice. More likely though she just didn't think any of it through.

I'm not sure what you think doesn't fit with Patsy, though. We don't really know what she was scared of but we know she was acting odd that morning, we also know the note was most likely written by her. We know she acted odd after the murder, too. I think French's observation are interesting. I think her lack of advocacy after the murder is a little odd too.
 
You have great posts. Really gives me a lot to ponder..

I was wondering when you have time, if you would not mind looking at another case that just bothers me as much as JBR?

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196945&highlight=carol+ann+dougherty
I plan to do some sleuthing on this this fall and curious to what you think about it and where may be a good place to start.


Thank you.

I'm afraid I don't have time to look at other cases. I shouldn't really be spending much time on the JBR thread. It's addictive, but I really need to break the addiction. Too much time in front of the computer, not enough time for real life.
 
I'm confused, I think. Are you arguing that an intruder might have used the R's writing tablet to implicate them but may have used his own sharpie? Surely if he's implicating them by using their paper he'd also use their sharpie for the same reason?

I'm sure the ink can be analyzed. Whether or not this was done, I don't know.

The paper coming from the house says to me the killer/stager had to use what was available. A midnight trip to the store would arouse suspicion of an innocent spouse or child, or would be noticed by a neighbor. The note had to be written with materials in the house.

Ha. I guess so.

I still feel the note was brought and copied at that house. I don't believe that PR wrote it.
 
The scene was staged and obviously the frame was going to be "kidnapping gone wrong".
You need paper to write a ransom note.
It's the middle of the night, there is limited options.

I think we're all thinking just a little too logically here and not adding enough panic to the situation. JB is dead and one of the parents is responsible. Logically the best thing, but psychologically hardest thing, to do is just leave her where she is, report her missing and cooperate but only to a point.

Just like every other human, though, they had to overdo it. That's why so many staged scenes are confusing, because some of it makes sense but most of it doesn't. Take Darlie Routier, she claims to have been attacked while lying on a faux leather sofa with her son lying on the floor beside her. The theory being that she fought someone who cut her throat on that couch and there were no nicks or cuts in the faux leather, little blood only on a little pillow and her son wasn't trampled on, nicked or cut during this struggle on the couch.

Do you think Darlie was even thinking about the leather evidence or trampling evidence at the time? No. To Darlie, the cut was the most important and dramatic prop in her staged scene and to support that prop she lay on the small pillow long enough for transfer. But as usual, the rest of it just didn't make sense nor did it support her prop. It's like saying you shot a bear by a tree and showing people the tree to prove it.

People staging a scene don't think of everything which is why cops can usually spot a staged scene right away from it's, for lack of better term, oddness.

But back to this case....like Darlie, Patsy saw the ransom note as the prop to their story and either didn't think how illogical it was that a kidnapper would write a note at the victims house or just didn't have any other options and decided to risk it, hoping the cops wouldn't notice. More likely though she just didn't think any of it through.

I'm not sure what you think doesn't fit with Patsy, though. We don't really know what she was scared of but we know she was acting odd that morning, we also know the note was most likely written by her. We know she acted odd after the murder, too. I think French's observation are interesting. I think her lack of advocacy after the murder is a little odd too.

Im not getting in the Darlie case.

I do not believe that PR had anything to do with this. I believe if she had known JBR was dead, She would have held on to the baby with all she had and been wailing when police arrived. I listened to her 911 and I hear the panic in her voice that her baby is missing.

I think after the murder of her daughter she was in a split second changed. I think that she was not in any place but to rant about a killer, and be hostile after the world she lived in took her dd.
 
Thank you.

I'm afraid I don't have time to look at other cases. I shouldn't really be spending much time on the JBR thread. It's addictive, but I really need to break the addiction. Too much time in front of the computer, not enough time for real life.

Ha. I get that. Well maybe if you have one day you will take a gander. It has been 50 years so at this point there is no rush.. :)
 
Im not getting in the Darlie case.

I'm not asking you to. I was merely demonstrating a case where another parent unfamiliar with law enforcement staged a crime scene. Like Darlie, Patsy tried to stage the scene around one thing...the ransom note. And like Darlie she didn't think about all of the logical steps surrounding it because she was most likely panicking about that there is a dead daughter in her house and her death has to be explained.

Except it really doesn't. But guilty people always think the death has to be explained.

I do not believe that PR had anything to do with this. I believe if she had known JBR was dead, She would have held on to the baby with all she had and been wailing when police arrived. I listened to her 911 and I hear the panic in her voice that her baby is missing.

I see nothing in her psychological makeup to confirm that.
But since you do, do you believe that if Patsy knew Burke was responsible that she would rock and wail? No, she wouldn't. She'd protect her living child from the police by staging a crime scene. She staged a crime scene...for Burke, herself or John, I don't know. But she helped stage it.

I think after the murder of her daughter she was in a split second changed. I think that she was not in any place but to rant about a killer, and be hostile after the world she lived in took her dd.

But that isn't consistent with her actions.
Her actions actually say "cover up".
 
[/B]No doubt about it. The crime of murder is being framed as a kidnapping.
Kidnapping temds to be more believable when it appears the victim was actually kidnapped. As soon as the body is found, it ceases to be a plausible kidnapping. In addition, JR goes to some trouble to be sure the police know that all the doors and windows were locked, and that he himself (supposedly) broke the basement window. Add to that the grate and spider web and we have a murdered girl, and no indication of an intruder. This isn't how one makes the police believe an IDI.


I think you're giving the panicking and time crunched Ramseys way too much credit. I think they thought the ransom note was enough and just didn't think about the grate or the spider web. I don't think anyone, even law enforcement, staging a crime thinks of everything because the murder/accident most likely has them discombobulated.

The sooner the police arrive, the sooner we have a dead girl and no indication of an intruder. I don't really see that rushing the 911 call serves the culprit(s) very well.

Unless in their panicking mind they think waiting to call the police is far more suspicious. Again, I don't think they thought past the ransom note and wiping down JB's body.

But I wouldn't want them to find the body and no evidence of an intruder either. So what to do? If they are going to make the kidnap scenario work, they need to dump the body. But the 911 call is made before the body is dumped. Why? Either he (they) planned to have the police find the body along with no intruder evidence and risk being arrested immediately, or there was a plan to dump the body which hadn't been put into effect yet. IMO, it's much more plausible that the body was to be dumped but that could not happen in the middle of the night (neighbors, innocent parent if there was one). That's why the note warns over and over not to contact police - it gives the culprit(s) an excuse not to make that 911 call.

Interesting scenario. And I can see now why you think only one parent staged, John. But how do you explain the ransom note? Specifically the handwriting?

For Wecht to be correct the garotte had to be different than the one found on the body. As found, the garotte couldn't be an effective EA device as it does not release easily.

Source?

So you think only one parent was involved?

No. Right now I think both were involved in the staging. I do think only one of them killed her but it isn't based on anything other than gut feelings.

I understand, but they had to anticipate the body being found quickly and no matter when it's found, the kidnap scenario, imo, evaporates completely.

I don't. I still think they could plausibly assume the cops would believe that JB was accidentally killed during a kidnapping and left behind. It's not the best assumption but cops have seen stupider criminals I'm sure.
 
Ha. I guess so.

I still feel the note was brought and copied at that house. I don't believe that PR wrote it.


I don't either. Why would she call the police to hand them a note in her own handwriting (It's not her handwriting) and on her paper? She may as well have made a sign reading "I did it" and taped it to her forehead.
 
I think you're giving the panicking and time crunched Ramseys way too much credit. I think they thought the ransom note was enough and just didn't think about the grate or the spider web. I don't think anyone, even law enforcement, staging a crime thinks of everything because the murder/accident most likely has them discombobulated.



Unless in their panicking mind they think waiting to call the police is far more suspicious. Again, I don't think they thought past the ransom note and wiping down JB's body.



Interesting scenario. And I can see now why you think only one parent staged, John. But how do you explain the ransom note? Specifically the handwriting?



Source?



No. Right now I think both were involved in the staging. I do think only one of them killed her but it isn't based on anything other than gut feelings.



I don't. I still think they could plausibly assume the cops would believe that JB was accidentally killed during a kidnapping and left behind. It's not the best assumption but cops have seen stupider criminals I'm sure.


Two sources. First, the coroner had to cut the rope beside the knot in order to get the garotte off at autopsy. He might have done this in any case, as slipping it over the head would disturb other evidence. But he could have looked at the head first, then slipped the garrote over the head. He didn't.

Second source, my own experiments tying and re-tying that exact knot, in 1/4" nylon line (rope). On FFJ there is a thread about the knot where a self-proclaimed expert named Delmar England gives exact step by step directions on how to tie the knot. I'm not claiming to be a knot expert, but I served in the Navy and can do a dozen or so basic knots and I can follow Mr. England's instructions. When the knot is tied and the end of the rope is pulled, the loop gets smaller, which is exactly what an EA device is supposed to do. Problem is, when force is removed from the rope (when it's allowed to go slack) the knot doesn't slip and allow the loop to get bigger. The knot stays right where it was and the victim is in danger of asphyxiation. Another way to put it is that the knot only slips in the direction of tightening the noose. It doesn't slip back to relax the noose.

The garrotte as found on the body could definitely have done the job of killing her, but it's not really a good EA device. As I understand it, an EA device should loosen easily so the victim doesn't die.

It's possible of course that the garotte was retied to prevent it from being identified as an EA device.


As far as the RN handwriting, if you've bought into the PR wrote it idea there's probably not much I can say to change your mind. You might see if you can tell with your own eyes by taking this little test -

http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2013/02/patsys-left-hand-sample-revisited.html
 
Two sources. First, the coroner had to cut the rope beside the knot in order to get the garotte off at autopsy. He might have done this in any case, as slipping it over the head would disturb other evidence. But he could have looked at the head first, then slipped the garrote over the head. He didn't.

Second source, my own experiments tying and re-tying that exact knot, in 1/4" nylon line (rope). On FFJ there is a thread about the knot where a self-proclaimed expert named Delmar England gives exact step by step directions on how to tie the knot. I'm not claiming to be a knot expert, but I served in the Navy and can do a dozen or so basic knots and I can follow Mr. England's instructions. When the knot is tied and the end of the rope is pulled, the loop gets smaller, which is exactly what an EA device is supposed to do. Problem is, when force is removed from the rope (when it's allowed to go slack) the knot doesn't slip and allow the loop to get bigger. The knot stays right where it was and the victim is in danger of asphyxiation. Another way to put it is that the knot only slips in the direction of tightening the noose. It doesn't slip back to relax the noose.

The garrotte as found on the body could definitely have done the job of killing her, but it's not really a good EA device. As I understand it, an EA device should loosen easily so the victim doesn't die.

It's possible of course that the garotte was retied to prevent it from being identified as an EA device.

What if the person intended it as an EA device but just didn't know what he was doing? Might have been his first time tying one? Just a thought.
 
Chrishope said:
The sooner the police arrive, the sooner we have a dead girl and no indication of an intruder. I don't really see that rushing the 911 call serves the culprit(s) very well.
But the Ramseys would have had to explain why they didn't take their trip to Charlevoix to meet John's daughter, future son-in-law, and son. If they had cancelled that trip and told me as the future son-in-law and maybe told me as a biological child that they hadn't called police, I'd be going hmmmmmmm.
 
In this case, we also have a practice note found on the same pad. And Patsy admitted to writing the practice note, saying it was really a practice party invitation. However, the handwriting on the practice note (consisting of the salutation) matched the RN. I do not recall seeing where LE questioned Patsy as to why that was.
The ink on the RN was tested and found to match the Sharpie found in the pen cup in the R kitchen. While it may also match some OTHER Sharpie somewhere is possible, but not plausible. The R pen is a match, so to me, Ockham's Razor tells me that is the pen that wrote the note.

DeeDee, didn't the tear marks on the ransom note where the sheets of paper had been torn from a pad actually scientifically match the tear marks on Patsy's pad in question?
 
As far as the RN handwriting, if you've bought into the PR wrote it idea there's probably not much I can say to change your mind. You might see if you can tell with your own eyes by taking this little test -

http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2013/02/patsys-left-hand-sample-revisited.html

Yes, I do think Patsy wrote it but that wasn't my point.

The ransom note is a key piece of staged evidence. You apparently suspect John of murdering JB and staging/cleaning the crime scene Therefore, you must suspect John of writing the ransom note, too. I'm curious about that.
 
The ransom note wasn't staged for police. It wasn't written for police.

Who do you think it was written for? JR? You've said before that it was all Patsy for Patsy, and that one does not remember what one does in a dissociative state. Would she have wrote it for JR?
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
191
Guests online
782
Total visitors
973

Forum statistics

Threads
625,969
Messages
18,517,342
Members
240,918
Latest member
mukluk
Back
Top