What does Linda Arndt know?

[ATasteOfHoney]

The main point I came away from watching the Arndt interview with, was this is an odd, but attention-seeking woman. I felt it was blatantly obvious that she believes JR was the killer. It also seemed blatantly obvious to me that Linda Arndt believes John will not be prosecuted because of his affluence and connections. It also seemed obvious to me that she has no real evidence to support her claim that she "knows" who the killer is.

I believe she is being very liberal with the word "know", when she should have used the word "believe". She believes JR did it, but she doesn't know JR did it. Sorry Linda, but intuition is about as useful as a crystal ball in this case.

I think Linda's claim that she knows who killed JonBenet was a weak attempt to get her 15 minutes of fame. She told us nothing, only strongly implied that JR's actions and facial expressions gave away his secret, that he killed his daughter. She could have said what she really meant, that she believed it was JR, rather than she knew it was him, but everyone already knows the police believe the R's did it; so Linda stating that she believed it was him is not newsworthy. To make her story "newsworthy", she had to phrase it as if it were new information- thus, "I KNOW who the killer is!" That makes her interview sound interesting, but all it turned out to be was her saying "yeah, we (LE) believe exactly what you think we believe."

Oh, and btw, new poster, first post. Been lurking for a while, very impressed with the site and the members. Hope you guys are gentle on first-timers.

Great first post, FreeSafety.....'hope to be reading more from you!

:seeya:

 

[Linda7NJ]

The main point I came away from watching the Arndt interview with, was this is an odd, but attention-seeking woman. I felt it was blatantly obvious that she believes JR was the killer. It also seemed blatantly obvious to me that Linda Arndt believes John will not be prosecuted because of his affluence and connections. It also seemed obvious to me that she has no real evidence to support her claim that she "knows" who the killer is.

I believe she is being very liberal with the word "know", when she should have used the word "believe". She believes JR did it, but she doesn't know JR did it. Sorry Linda, but intuition is about as useful as a crystal ball in this case.

I think Linda's claim that she knows who killed JonBenet was a weak attempt to get her 15 minutes of fame. She told us nothing, only strongly implied that JR's actions and facial expressions gave away his secret, that he killed his daughter. She could have said what she really meant, that she believed it was JR, rather than she knew it was him, but everyone already knows the police believe the R's did it; so Linda stating that she believed it was him is not newsworthy. To make her story "newsworthy", she had to phrase it as if it were new information- thus, "I KNOW who the killer is!" That makes her interview sound interesting, but all it turned out to be was her saying "yeah, we (LE) believe exactly what you think we believe."

Oh, and btw, new poster, first post. Been lurking for a while, very impressed with the site and the members. Hope you guys are gentle on first-timers.

I agree with you and welcome!

I believe her background had much to do with her intuition. I agree with you, she was biased from the start. IMO that woman disregarded everything she ever learned that morning. She was a disgrace as a police officer that morning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DeeDee249]

The main point I came away from watching the Arndt interview with, was this is an odd, but attention-seeking woman. I felt it was blatantly obvious that she believes JR was the killer. It also seemed blatantly obvious to me that Linda Arndt believes John will not be prosecuted because of his affluence and connections. It also seemed obvious to me that she has no real evidence to support her claim that she "knows" who the killer is.

I believe she is being very liberal with the word "know", when she should have used the word "believe". She believes JR did it, but she doesn't know JR did it. Sorry Linda, but intuition is about as useful as a crystal ball in this case.

I think Linda's claim that she knows who killed JonBenet was a weak attempt to get her 15 minutes of fame. She told us nothing, only strongly implied that JR's actions and facial expressions gave away his secret, that he killed his daughter. She could have said what she really meant, that she believed it was JR, rather than she knew it was him, but everyone already knows the police believe the R's did it; so Linda stating that she believed it was him is not newsworthy. To make her story "newsworthy", she had to phrase it as if it were new information- thus, "I KNOW who the killer is!" That makes her interview sound interesting, but all it turned out to be was her saying "yeah, we (LE) believe exactly what you think we believe."

Oh, and btw, new poster, first post. Been lurking for a while, very impressed with the site and the members. Hope you guys are gentle on first-timers.

Glad you jumped into the pool!

 

[Nova]

I voted

She knows nothing and is lying.

dunno about the lying part though...she just wanted to feel important ,she had a gut feeling (MAYBE the right one) and felt ignored by her co-workers

Thank you. I think we jump to conclude somebody is "lying" too quickly. Most of the time, people are at most mistaken, based on their own frame of reference.

 

[Nova]

I voted

She knows nothing and is lying.

dunno about the lying part though...she just wanted to feel important ,she had a gut feeling (MAYBE the right one) and felt ignored by her co-workers

(Deleted duplicate post.) What I meant to say is that based on watching hundreds of interviews with LE on TV, it is my impression it is common to say "I know" when what is meant is "I have a gut instinct that".

 

[DeeDee249]

That was interesting information.

Why did she sue them? Does anyone know if she's doing landscaping b/c she had a love of that or because she can't get work in law enforcement and security? Given the increased focus on security in the past ten years, I would think someone with law enforcement experience could find better work in the security industry. Based only on that 10 min interview, I would guess she doesn't do security/LE work b/c people who talk to her sense she's unstable.

She sued the BPD because she felt she was being made a scapegoat for the mistakes that were made in the early hours of the investigation and because she was denied backup help for so long when she requested it.
To be fair, yes, she was not given support in those first hours but she also violated some pretty basic police procedures. She could have gotten control of the crime scene yet chose not to do so. She had a gun- she could have ordered all unauthorized people from the home and/or corralled everyone into one room and kept them there until backup arrived.
Then she allows JR - even tells him to- roam around an unsecured crime scene, thus giving him the opportunity to tamper with evidence. Then, in a blatant violation of proper procedures, she MOVES the body herself after JR brought her upstairs and allows JR to cover her with a blanket and allows Patsy to throw herself on top of JB.

 

[Linda7NJ]

She sued the BPD because she felt she was being made a scapegoat for the mistakes that were made in the early hours of the investigation and because she was denied backup help for so long when she requested it.
To be fair, yes, she was not given support in those first hours but she also violated some pretty basic police procedures. She could have gotten control of the crime scene yet chose not to do so. She had a gun- she could have ordered all unauthorized people from the home and/or corralled everyone into one room and kept them there until backup arrived.
Then she allows JR - even tells him to- roam around an unsecured crime scene, thus giving him the opportunity to tamper with evidence. Then, in a blatant violation of proper procedures, she MOVES the body herself after JR brought her upstairs and allows JR to cover her with a blanket and allows Patsy to throw herself on top of JB.

The way she tells it she actually encouraged Patsy !

Infuriating!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FreeSafety36]

I agree with you and welcome!

I believe her background had much to do with her intuition. I agree with you, she was biased from the start. IMO that woman disregarded everything she ever learned that morning. She was a disgrace as a police officer that morning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks to you and everyone else for such a warm welcome!

In all the hullabaloo of making my first post, I forgot to make my other point about Linda. One other thing really stuck out to me in her interview that screamed that she simply wanted to be recognized.

She stated, and I'm going from memory here so I may not get the wording exactly right, that when she and JR had their wordless exchange, she subconsciously reached for her gun and thought to herself she had 18 bullets.

I believe when she was saying this, she was trying to imply that she felt that the life of every person in the home at that time was in danger and she was trying to determine if she had enough bullets to protect them all. Initially, that came off as simply melodramatic to me. However, that part of her interview kept sticking in my mind and I realized there was more to it than that.

How many rounds did she think she'd need to stop a lone killer, or two or even three? Even if she believed that all 3 R's were killers, why does she need to be concerned with "consciously counting", I believe were her words, 18 bullets?

I think she's trying to make a point that she felt she alone needed to be able to protect everyone else in the home from JR...but she wouldn't need a bullet for each person, one well-placed shot would do the job, requiring only one bullet...unless she meant that everyone present that afternoon were JB's killers and she was afraid she'd have to take them all out OK Corral style.

That tells me she either made that up for the interview, or if it was true and that was her actual thinking, she had no business being LEO in the first place.

 

[dodie20]

I never thought she seemed unstable, just kind of narrow minded and too sensitive for that kind of work. She came across as someone who wants to do good and help people, and what a nightmare to be forced into this horrible situation. And I think she related to PR as a woman and mother and saw JR as the bad guy, simply because that's what stats usually bear out. I don't think she had much gut instinct at all and IMO, her opinions were based on her training and knowledge. Who knows though, she may be right. I've read that FW and JR were/are still at odds with each other, but what about FW and PR? Did he hold her in the same regard or was that exclusive to JR?

 

[Linda7NJ]

I never thought she seemed unstable, just kind of narrow minded and too sensitive for that kind of work. She came across as someone who wants to do good and help people, and what a nightmare to be forced into this horrible situation. And I think she related to PR as a woman and mother and saw JR as the bad guy, simply because that's what stats usually bear out. I don't think she had much gut instinct at all and IMO, her opinions were based on her training and knowledge. Who knows though, she may be right. I've read that FW and JR were/are still at odds with each other, but what about FW and PR? Did he hold her in the same regard or was that exclusive to JR?

Seems like she threw all of her training out the window that morning.

While her intentions may have been good, her judgement and professional conduct was appalling that morning.

She was not alone....

There was no shortage of that throughout the investigation by a slew of "professionals" that effectively tied the hands of investigators.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CircuitGuy]

Seems like she threw all of her training out the window that morning.

While her intentions may have been good, her judgement and professional conduct was appalling that morning.

Yes. I think she didn't realize how ghastly the situation was going to be. Maybe she thought it would turn out to be prank of some sort. I'm guessing her typical calls are for fist fights and petty thefts, not ghastly murders.

I once designed a circuit that caused a problem with runway lights. It shut down a small airport. If a series of coincidences had lined up against us and it caused a high-profile crash, my colleagues and I could have been infamous. That didn't happen. I found the problem. The system worked reliably after that and was installed in many locations. Everyone was happy. I feel like Arndt made a mistake but had the misfortune of it occurring on a high-profile ghastly case.

 

[wengr]

I think that the only thing that LA actually "knows", is that numerous happenings on that day, and especially JR's demeanor over the body made her uncomfortable, and caused her to doubt the story.
I think she came to realize that she was being lied to - and since she felt she was being lied to by a parent concerning the death of a child, she surmised that the parent was responsible for the murder. Possibly it did not occur to her in that moment that the parent could in fact be lying, yet not be the actual killer.
In general I also feel that LA has been unfairly scapegoated by those with 20/20 hindsight.

 

[CircuitGuy]

I believe when she was saying this, she was trying to imply that she felt that the life of every person in the home at that time was in danger and she was trying to determine if she had enough bullets to protect them all. Initially, that came off as simply melodramatic to me. However, that part of her interview kept sticking in my mind and I realized there was more to it than that.

How many rounds did she think she'd need to stop a lone killer, or two or even three? Even if she believed that all 3 R's were killers, why does she need to be concerned with "consciously counting", I believe were her words, 18 bullets?

I think she's trying to make a point that she felt she alone needed to be able to protect everyone else in the home from JR...but she wouldn't need a bullet for each person, one well-placed shot would do the job, requiring only one bullet...unless she meant that everyone present that afternoon were JB's killers and she was afraid she'd have to take them all out OK Corral style.

Yeah. What on earth did that mean? The number of bullets you need is proportional to the number of criminals, not the number of people you're protecting. If there are two criminals in a building with 100 people, you don't think "this will take 100 bullets".

My interpretation was that she felt like she was up against a powerful foe that might evade shots and require multiple hits to be stopped. This is baffling to me. Someone who kills a 6 y/o isn't necessarily a master criminal that 18 bullets won't stop.

OTOH maybe she was thinking, "crap, how many people are in on this. If it's even half of them and they gang up on me I'm going to need all my bullets." Right after that, though, she implied that PR let out an anguished cry consistent with not being in on the crime.

So I don't get why she felt like this was a situation would require multiple bullets.

The only thing I can think of is it was figure of speech. I could imagine describing the problem as an analogy from my line of work: "Right then I knew didn't have the bandwidth for this. This was a serious problem, and we needed to go right up the edge of 80A main breaker to solve this problem." Not having enough "bandwidth" or "servicing interrupts" are very common slang. I still think if I said a specific thing like "80 amps" or "200M instructions per second" that would confuse my colleagues.

I still say this was an awkward way of saying, "this problem requires full power", "dial it up to eleven," "we need balls to the walls" (i.e. the forward-most position on an throttle). But I wouldn't use any of the joking analogies in a real crisis.

Does anyone have ideas of why she literally expected a to empty her clip in a shootout?

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Yeah. What on earth did that mean? The number of bullets you need is proportional to the number of criminals, not the number of people you're protecting. If there are two criminals in a building with 100 people, you don't think "this will take 100 bullets".

My interpretation was that she felt like she was up against a powerful foe that might evade shots and require multiple hits to be stopped. This is baffling to me. Someone who kills a 6 y/o isn't necessarily a master criminal that 18 bullets won't stop.

OTOH maybe she was thinking, "crap, how many people are in on this. If it's even half of them and they gang up on me I'm going to need all my bullets." Right after that, though, she implied that PR let out an anguished cry consistent with not being in on the crime.

So I don't get why she felt like this was a situation would require multiple bullets.

The only thing I can think of is it was figure of speech. I could imagine describing the problem as an analogy from my line of work: "Right then I knew didn't have the bandwidth for this. This was a serious problem, and we needed to go right up the edge of 80A main breaker to solve this problem." Not having enough "bandwidth" or "servicing interrupts" are very common slang. I still think if I said a specific thing like "80 amps" or "200M instructions per second" that would confuse my colleagues.

I still say this was an awkward way of saying, "this problem requires full power", "dial it up to eleven," "we need balls to the walls" (i.e. the forward-most position on an throttle). But I wouldn't use any of the joking analogies in a real crisis.

Does anyone have ideas of why she literally expected a to empty her clip in a shootout?

I don't think it was a well-thought out remark, however.....it probably meant that her "hinky-meter" was going off and her gut reaction was not to trust anyone. It would be almost like when we go to the movie theatre and see a very scary movie---the long walk back to the dark parking lot gets everyone a little bit phobic. One feels a bit creepy but you really can't place it and every shadow from every branch holds a possible new threat. It is all semi-subliminal....and all gut instinct.
Back to LA; she knew something wasn't right and she was correct.
I think she was expressing her gut emotions regarding an unbelieveably horrific situation and that there was "acting" and a lack of truthfulness overall.

 

[Nova]

I agree. I think it was "cop talk" meaning she realized she was facing a killer. I doubt she actually counted bullets.

 

[gramcracker]

I think that the only thing that LA actually "knows", is that numerous happenings on that day, and especially JR's demeanor over the body made her uncomfortable, and caused her to doubt the story.
I think she came to realize that she was being lied to - and since she felt she was being lied to by a parent concerning the death of a child, she surmised that the parent was responsible for the murder. Possibly it did not occur to her in that moment that the parent could in fact be lying, yet not be the actual killer.
In general I also feel that LA has been unfairly scapegoated by those with 20/20 hindsight.

quoting myself because ITA with the BBM

first they crapped on her, then they rubbed it in, then they laughed at her for smelling bad. IMO

LE wasn't incompetent. it wasn't allowed to BE competent

I find very little fault with the boots on the ground, although Detective Arndt did make two bad calls. my beef is with the superior officers: Detective Commander Eller and Police Chief Koby. Koby considered DA Hunter a close friend and sometimes Eller/Koby/Hunter teamed up, but two of them would also pair up and turn on the third one. they were like a trio of mean girls with constantly shifting alliances

Mason was second in command over the detectives and initially was in charge because Eller was on vacation, but then Eller stepped up and assumed command. Eller's first bad call was ordering that care be taken not to offend the Rs, that they were to be handled gently. the detectives would have interrogated them separately in the first few hours if they had been allowed to do so

a Boulder search dog was on standby at 7:30 that morning but Eller didn't order the dog into service. that was his second bad call. by noon Mason and Eller were still squabbling about whether to use the local dog (Eller) or send for one from Aurora (Mason)

Eller's third bad call was not assigning continual backup in the house for Arndt. because of the holiday there was a skeleton crew available across the department (detectives and patrol officers). many of those with seniority (and experience) and accrued leave had taken time off, which they were entitled to do. one detective who had recently attended an FBI kidnapping seminar was on vacation and unavailable (out of town IIRC). Eller and Koby were not at the scene but they were receiving constant updates. Eller was responsible for detective assignments (and which prodecures they followed) but the buck stopped with Koby for overseeing Eller, and overseeing patrol officer assignments. if Eller couldn't find a backup detective for Arndt, Koby should have found a backup patrol officer for her if his patrol sergeant in command couldn't find one

we know that Arndt's two bad calls were sending JR on a survey mission and moving JB's body from the spot where JR deposited her. which shows that the R's psyops were successful because, like water dripping on stone, Arndt's judgment was worn down and diminished. (psychological operations ... to influence emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and behavior of ... groups and individuals)

Eller's fourth bad call that day was when he decided that the house would be turned back over to the Rs after only ninety minutes of evidence gathering. ninety minutes! DDA/chief trial deputy Hofstrom was infuriated, and insisted that the house be examined more thoroughly. then Eller was infuriated because a DA was questioning his decision and authority. Hofstrom went over Eller's head and complained to Koby, who overruled Eller, and evidence was gathered for ten days

talk about your shifting alliances. this is the same DDA who later took a handwriting exemplar from PR in his own home, and stayed out of the room while she was doing it! Master Alliance Shifter Hunter wigged over that, but quickly recovered when he remembered who was buttering his publicity, er, bread. after both Rs lawyered up DDA Hofstrom started brokering an interview deal. he told Arndt they wouldn't answer questions in person but would respond to written questions if they could review all the case material beforehand. when Arndt returned Hofstrom's call at the phone number he had given her, it was the office of defense attorney Mike Bynum! rather than being a bunch of bumblers, the rank and file LEOS were demoralized by how this case was handled. for the DA's bunch it was business as usual. ST said that he made hundreds of arrests in Boulder but went to court only twice in seven years

Hofstrom's 1996 comment to a reporter boggles the mind: "I haven't tried a case this year and don't intend to unless absolutely necessary." I guess it was fortunate for the citizens of Boulder that he was a DA instead of a teacher or a nurse or a firefighter: "I haven't taught any students/provided any medical care/put out a fire this year and don't intend to unless absolutely necessary"

I've always thought what this case and the Casey Anthony case have in common is that both cases, if being submitted as works of fiction, would be rejected by publishers for having poorly written characters and too many holes in the plot to be plausible

I will add that ST also wrote about, during his career with BPD, LEOs being reprimanded for yelling at suspects. the hell?

 

[CircuitGuy]

One feels a bit creepy but you really can't place it and every shadow from every branch holds a possible new threat. It is all semi-subliminal....and all gut instinct.
Back to LA; she knew something wasn't right and she was correct.
I think she was expressing her gut emotions regarding an unbelieveably horrific situation and that there was "acting" and a lack of truthfulness overall.

For the first time I think I understand her comment. First she was dealing with this long RN. Then the body turns up on the scene. She gets a feeling that at least one person present was acting. That level of weirdness gave her a macabre sensation of some new monstrous development hiding behind every shadow. She expressed this with the unfortunate line about wondering if anyone would get out of this room alive. What she really meant is she started to panic at the discovery of the body and realization something weird was going on.

It's analogous to someone saying "I felt like I was going to have a heart attack," meaning they were shocked, not that they had any real symptoms of heart attack.

I'll just interpret her words as "I was so freaked out I couldn't think straight."

 

[BOESP]

Linda Arndt was a trained sexual assault officer, a detective, and imo, came across in her interview as direct and a woman of few words. There is no way to know what she was thinking or why she thought certain things. Considering that she was informed that this was a kidnapping and to treat the Ramseys as victims, not suspects, I'd imagine she was mentally working out a plan after realizing that what she was told was not how it was.

Officers are trained to keep mental tabs on their ammunition. I don't see her "mentally counting her bullets" as meaning anything other than following protocol.

I agree that she never should have asked John Ramsey to look about the house and see if anything was out of order but she did. This was a kidnapping and Officer French and others had already looked the house over for ingress and egress and found nothing of forensic value to aid in the kidnapping investigation.

Regardless of errors in the investigation, the Grand Jury still found enough evidence to present a true bill. What good does a blame game serve? The buck stopped at the DA's office.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

Whether or not LE thought they were dealing with a kidnapping or a murder, that house was still a crime scene, and evidence of the crime should have been protected. Having said that, I do empathize with Arndt in one respect...she should never have been put in the position of handling such chaos on her own. And I do think the Ramsey's purposefully created chaos (calling friends, clergy, etc.) in order to overwhelm the scene and corrupt evidence.

JMO

 

[TroyinTX]

I think it is possible that LA has a very good idea who killed JB and that it was indeed JR and PR. Why she has covered for them is the question.

And I agree with the above: JR and PR knew exactly what they were doing by calling numerous people to their home that morning. The did want to created chaos and contaminate the crime scene. Supposedly a "intruder" broke into their home, paraded around while they were asleep, took their daughter and murdered her with implements found in the home, wrote a three page ransom note, and escaped (somehow) unheard. They were smart enough to know that evidence of this intruder would be compromised by having everyone and their mother in their house that morning.

And I still have a truly hard time believing that THREE family members slept through the night while what I described above was going on in their home.

But back to LA, her feeling that morning and comment about the bullets are very telling.

Bottom line: There was no intruder and LA knows this.