Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We'd certainly know if anything written in Arndts report stated by Dr Meyer were incorrect.
It’s considered hearsay, second hand information that Arndt wrote that she heard that someone said, but there is no evidence that the person actually said it or did it. And in her case, a transcript of people actually saying words she attributed to them--or reporting actions occurring--did not exist in many instances. She did this multiple times with this crime. Some of what she wrote in her report contradicts what other detectives wrote, such as Officer French, Sergeant Reichenbach, and Commander-Sergeant Bob Whitson.
Quote:
Originally Posted by virgode
Information as to incorrect statments by Arndt, provided by John and Patsy Ramsey. Their first transcripted interview wasnt until April 1997. We have no way to verify any of Ramsey statements previous to that time.
The police found Arndt’s errors. Arndt’s report apparently contradicted their interviews with both JR and with PR, of which reports exist. Police reports were filed during the time that the BPD was with them on the 26th and 27th. As mentioned before, Woodward’s book lists police report #s.
Arndt also assumed actions without actually checking whether or not they actually occurred. For example, she wrote in her report that JR left the house the morning of the 26th to get the mail, when JR, the minister, and a victim advocate stated that he had not left the house. She apparently later explained that when she saw him looking through his mail, she thought he had left to go pick it up (although the mail was delivered through a slot in the front door.)
UWe know Arndt as well as French bungled the case by not securing the home.
There are no statements directly dismissing Arndts observations and spoken words in report during Dr Meyers autopsy. I'll assume there are none.
Anything percieved as a threat to a particular narrative discredited
( BY diversionary means ), frankly a waste of my time.
No "threat to a particular narrative"....just following what evidence exists about this crime. (And BTW, not securing the home has nothing to do with what was being discussed, so why bring that into it?)
[quote]=CA4Now;54202881] It’s considered hearsay, second hand information that Arndt wrote that she heard that someone said, but there is no evidence that the person actually said it or did it.
saw him looking through his mail, she thought he had left to go pick it up (although the mail was delivered through a slot in the front door.)[/QUOTE]
I spoke specifically to brown gloves and red jacket fibers, not blanket fibers.
I'll stand by my posts on both.
This is what I've already said, just not in the same words. Arndt was left alone for a long period of time during the course of the day. In fact she was the only law enforcement present when JR discovered JonBenet. We have nothing to verify whats said. And hearsay works both ways.
Arndt thought Ramsey was missing bc he was in his office.
No "threat to a particular narrative"....just following what evidence exists about this crime. (And BTW, not securing the home has nothing to do with what was being discussed, so why bring that into it?)
I fail to see facts or evidence by quoting Carnes Report statements resolved and no longer pertinent.
It looks as if JR continues to hope that the killer will be found.
Q: Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey, what do you want to say to the killer of your daughter?
JR: "We’ll find you. We will find you. I will have that as a sole mission for the existence of my life.”
I don’t understand this. First you say:
Then you say:
So it’s not clear what you mean.
Okay...
I'll clarify if it helps. Scroll back and read
Originally Carnes Report specific list was referenced as 'evidence" in post # 3368, by you. I dont agree nor has that changed since posting.
To clarify:
Is Carnes Report, in its entirety ALL incorrect; probably not. Rather extreme, as I said before.
Your post Referrencing Carnes Report:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now
Then how to explain the following:
My Reply:
Quote:
Originally Posted by virgode
20 something years later Carnes Report above no longer relevant.
My Reply to post below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgode;54181957[/B
]
One mistake or new discoveries since Carnes Report doesnt negate the entire document. To say all or nothing; extreme.
Your Reply to my post below in Bolded
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now
Then one would have to discount all the rest of the evidence of this.
My Post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by virgode
Carnes Report isnt 100% correct. I've pointed out mistakes during previous discussions.
The bristle end was never found. No finger prints were found on the brush handle. Carnes Report can say what they wish; theres no indication this came into the home via intruder
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
