================================================================ For the record, the following are "personal notes or personal observations" by an Internet posters attending the Linda Arndt Civil Trial in 2001. This information was either posted on the ACandyRose Internet Subculture Public Forum or permission was given for the information to be copied from the Justice Watch Forum to be "shared" for the Internet community following the JonBenet Ramsey murder case. All postings are based on personal opinion and observations of the individual posters. ================================================================ JonBenet Ramsey Folder - 6-11 (Mon) trial report by JW "reporter" Subscribe From: ACandyRose 6/11/2001 11:24 pm To: ALL (1 of 10) 885.1 6-11 (Mon) trial report by JW "reporter" "Arndt June 11" Posted by reporter on 20:05:37 6/11/2001 After an hour of lawyer/judge squabbling (Charlie Brenon's characterization. He was there for the first hour. I was not), over witness and discovery issues, Linda resumed the stand for the rest of her cross examination by Halaby. He played the tape of the anonymous calls made to Linda soon after December 26 which she had testified wee digitally disguised and had frightened her. They WERE bizarre calls and I could see that LA did not like hearing them. The purpose of this seemed to be to impeach LA about whether they were digitally disguised. Cross examination hops all over the place, and so will this narrative. Halaby: How would you characterize your relationship with the Ramseys? Linda said she had no RELATIONSHIP with the Ramseys. They had requested her to be present during the handwriting gathering because they trusted her. There was a time in April when they sent flowers to her? Linda said yes, she had received publicity for a Victim's Advocacy award and the Whites, Fernies and Ramseys had all sent flowers or notes to her. And you saw that the notes were put into your file, right? I had ALL acknowledgments in my career put in my file. These were a few complimentary notes out of a large group of notes. Halaby goes over her lack of success in issuing a flat denial of the inaccuracies written by Bardach and Chuck Green. *comment: I have little experience with court observing but it is amazing to me how tortuous (judge's assessment) it is to craft and re-craft a question. It seems there is a trap in each question and it is Linda's job to sense and avoid the trap. I imagine it will be the same when Beckner and Koby are cross examined. Linda is trying to get across that the concern was that there were leaks in the department. Halaby is trying to emphasize that public discussion itself is harmful to the investigation. She had testified that she had repeatedly tried to get help and he showed that her calls were fewer and later than one would expect. They go over what equipment she had with her. Now they move to the personal meeting she had with Patsy Ramsey. Yes, at Barbara Fernie's with other people present. They then go to the fact that she met with Barbara Fernie once a week and took walks with her. She later believed BF was stalking her. She said that BF expressed concern over Patsy's mental and physical well-being and with the OK of Pat Burke (Patsy's attorney) she met with Patsy, Barbara F and Nedra. The ground rules were, no talking about the criminal case, meeting was to be one hour and all present were to remain present. LA met with BF in the first place after being directed to try to learn about Patsy from her friends as they could have no contact with Patsy because of the lawyers they hired. I will post this and then post the re-direct. Continued.......... Options Reply Delete Edit From: ACandyRose 6/11/2001 11:27 pm To: ALL (2 of 10) 885.2 in reply to 885.1 3. "Part 2, not spell checked" Posted by reporter on 20:21:31 6/11/2001 The redirect begins. We now learn the story of why she did not do a report on getting Patsy's handwriting exemplar Jan 4, 1997. She completed an evidence report and a property report, carefully documenting the chain of custody. Her verbal report was given to Eller to be given to CBI. She gave a complete verbal report the same day. She had to prioritize the writing of reports. The most important was the one on Dec 26 where she was the only one who could give an accurate report. She let the Jan 4 one slide because she were 2 other officers present. She shared all information with the team. She historically did reports when a case was over. On this case the supervisors wanted ongoing reports. At the team meetings there was supposed to be someone there taking notes of new information. All the BPD (and indeed most police officers) struggle to do all the paperwork required.) Why did she not catch up while on medical leave? She had to turn in her car keys, any ofice keys, was not to check her voice mail have no duties whatsoever. The notes were at the station and she had no access to them. Did anyone ever ask you for the Jan 4 report? No. How long was your December 26 report? 19-20 pages. It took her three days to dictate and proof it.Why did you take your notes with you? When Sgt Mason was removed from the team his keys and other things were taken from him. This wasn't done when I was removed from the case. When I left the case I was afraid of having the notes turn up missing or altered. So I took them with me. When Sgt Mason wanted to refresh his memory using his notes prior to the Grand Jury, the BPD couldn't find them and they remain missing to this day. Comander Eller authorized giving the ransom note to Ramsy team. Something was said about how she writes reports. She said that she writes them about what she OBSERVED at that moment in time, as a witness. (Actually police reports become witness reports, I think) Anyway, she wrote in her report that John left the house to get the mail and later learned that there was a mail slot in the door. Lunch break There are only 10 spectaters in the room, 4 media, 3 Arndt friends, 1 BPD notetakeer and 2 internet junkies. Continued....... Options Reply Delete Edit From: ACandyRose 6/11/2001 11:37 pm To: ALL (3 of 10) 885.3 in reply to 885.2 4. "Part 3, not spell checked" Posted by reporter on 20:33:48 6/11/2001 Still on Redirect Describe the general situation when the body was found. Indescrible Come True, Arndt said. (I capped that because it sounds like the title of an magazine article) A moment that immediatly preceeding it was filled with tension, but hope had turned into.......(I didn't get all she said here.It was good though.) That she had been in a house that had been searched by three cops.....that her body was carried in by her father...... The two victim's advocates had left. She detailed her attempts to get help. With respect to speaking to Bardach, did you deny things because they were literally or technically incorect or for some other reason? I was concerned because the conclusion the public was drawing that I was responsible for the bungleing and mishandling the investigation. Regarding the Mark Furman comment. Mark Furman screwed up the OJ case and there was no criminal prosecution. Linda Arndt screwed up the Jonbenet Ramsey csse leads the public to the conclusion that that is why there has been no prosecution. The Prosecution rests. No re-cross. It is 2:15 I will type the last hour, the beginning of the Beckner testimony early tomorrow before I head in to the courthouse. END OF REPORT FOR TONIGHT...... From: ACandyRose 6/12/2001 12:40 pm To: ALL (8 of 10) 885.8 in reply to 885.7 The rest of "Reporter" report: 21. "Last part" Posted by reporter on 06:26:35 6/12/2001 First, to answer the question above (Does she seem credible and sincere?), I think she seems honest almost to a fault. Her answers to questions by her own atorney were full and seemed hones. But that is always the case I think when 'on your own side'. Beckner is the same. The questions she was getting from Halaby, as I reported, had about 4 clauses in each question. If we ever see a transcript you will see what I mean. For example, if I asked you, "Do you want to go downtown today if we can drive and not take the train and if the car is washed and if we detour past the donut shop, if the bagel shop is closed? Answer yes or no." That isn't a really good example, but it gives you the idea. Her answers then became long thoughtful ones as she tried to steer through the minefield. OK, on to Beckner:There were 14 people in the courtroom as BEckner began by describing his training and 23 years in police work, all of it with the BPD. Why is it not allowed for an individual officer to offer explanations about their own role? We do try to keep the public informed about cases but our #1 objective is to solve the crime. We have to keep details confidential. Testimony that leaks were a real problem. They even worried abut telephone bugs and boom mikes. Never had seen such intense publicity. Enumerated all the agencies who had some of the confidentail information on case, implying the leaks could come from anywhere. Have you ever been able to prove a source of leaks in within the department? No Beckner said that the informatin contained in Vanity Fair is very accurate and made him realize she had accurate confidential sources. Did you find the allegations in VF as they pertain to LA as substantially factual or not factual? Substantially factual. We felt that defending LA would mislead the public. He reported that after he became chief LA did not come to him with her concerns and that her immediate supervisor, Doyle, also did not report that she had come to him with concerns. Is it your job to go out in the deaprtment and ask if anyone has concerns? No With that they ended the court day and dismissed the jury. They will do some lawyering, maybe to speed things up. ------ I know we all want estimates on how this will end. So do the reporters and so do both sides. I don't think there is anyway to predict, although those with more legal knowledge may be able to see a lot of "points" on one side or the other which I cannot detect. ============================= Options Reply Delete Edit