Justice Watch Support JW "Arndt Case/BJ Plasket" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Arndt Case/BJ Plasket, mame, 01:58:03, 5/25/2001 case stronger in Federal court?, mary99, 04:18:48, 5/25/2001, (#1) Thanks mame!, watchin', 11:38:21, 5/25/2001, (#2) watchin', mary99, 12:56:26, 5/25/2001, (#3) Mary, watchin', 13:30:41, 5/25/2001, (#4) ................................................................... "Arndt Case/BJ Plasket" Posted by mame on 01:58:03 5/25/2001 By B.J. Plasket The Daily Times-Call DENVER - Efforts to settle former Ramsey-case Boulder detective Linda Arndt's lawsuit against the city of Boulder have failed and the case is now set to go to trial on Tuesday. U.S. District Judge William Downes had given both sides until Thursday to hammer out a settlement in the case, but a federal court clerk late Thursday said the trial is on and a jury pool will be asked to appear Tuesday . Arndt's suit claims the police department violated her free-speech rights by not allowing her to respond to allegations that she botched the crime scene after the slaying of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey. Arndt, the first detective on the scene of the Dec. 26, 1996 slaying, has been criticized for allegedly sending the girl's father, John Ramsey, to look for her. Arndt also allegedly allowed the child's body to be moved and allowed a blanket to be placed over her body, causing contamination of evidence. Boulder police have said Arndt's problems were "of her own making" and have accused her of being paranoid. In a deposition given prior to the trial, former Boulder police chief Tom Koby said Arndt "became, and still is, quite frankly, very obsessed and paranoid about (the) case." Koby said at least two other detectives - Tom Wickman and Jon Eller - told him Arndt had made "obvious mistakes" in the case, and Koby also criticized Arndt for allegedly disrupting a case meeting and "embarrassing" the police by talking to others during the meeting. Koby said Arndt's actions were also criticized by the district attorney's office early in the investigation. Downes earlier dismissed the portions of Arndt's suit which claimed the department violated Colorado law by refusing to defend her or allowing her to defend herself. The sole issue remaining in the suit is Arndt's claim that the department violated her First Amendment free-speech rights. The trial will also provide the first inside look at the infighting that plagued the early days of the investigation. Among the expected witnesses are Koby, current Boulder chief Mark Beckner and Wickman. Former detectives John Eller and Larry Mason are also expected to take the stand. Mason quit -- and later successfully sued -- the department after Eller reportedly accused him of leaking information to the media. Eller quit the department soon after in what was reportedly a series of disagreements with then-district attorney Alex Hunter and assistant DA Peter Hofstrom. Arndt is seeking unspecified monetary damages and legal fees. The trial is expected to last seven days. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "case stronger in Federal court?" Posted by mary99 on 04:18:48 5/25/2001 It's good to see that the trial will go on, as Arndt seems determined to have her day(s) in court rather than settle. It seems to me that by Judge Downe's dismissal of the portion of the suit that alleged the BPD violated Arndt's rights under Colorado law to defend herself-- he eliminated a redundancy in her complaint; and by approving the federal portion and eliminating the state portion, he has strengthened, not weakened her case. Perhaps she filed the suit alleging both state and federal infringement of her right to free speech in case the federal threshold was were deemed inapplicable. Seeing as the scapegoating of Arndt took place on a national level, given the Ramsey case's broad media coverage, her damages, if she wins, could be much higher than if the case was confined to alleged violations by the BPD of her CO right to free speech. I remember Arndt submitted a letter from Alex Hunter as part of her suit. I thought the letter might be complimentary--had the impression it was given to her after she left the BPD. Wonder if that letter will be used to counter claims by Koby or Eller that Hunter was critical of her job performance? And, Larry Mason will be called as a witness. Wonder if he will be called for the prosecution or the defense? Thanks, Mame! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Thanks mame!" Posted by watchin' on 11:38:21 5/25/2001 Howdy Mary99! This suit is very important to me for many reasons, one of which is personal. I know Linda is in for a rough time. I am not as intrigued by the witness list as I am by the tactics. I expect the defense has built this case on Linda's 'questoned' mental and emotional condition. Her personal laundry will be hung out todry in public. I expect some very nasty smoke screens in this trial. I could be wrong, but doubt it. gotta make those good old boys look good! (atany cost) Looking forward to updates. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "watchin'" Posted by mary99 on 12:56:26 5/25/2001 You said when the two other charges were dismissed you thought it was a sure sign the suit would fail. OTOH, it seems to me that by approving the federal portion of the suit, the judge is broadening the scope of any potential damages. I don't know but I thought the two charges were redundant. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Mary" Posted by watchin' on 13:30:41 5/25/2001 I don't se these points as redundant, in totality. If the judge does not see any CO violation then I see it as a tougher issue to prove a federal violation, but I also don't see this issue as the strength of the defense. IOW, the defensewill not focus so much on defending the First Amendment as they will be in taking the focus off that issue and onto to Linda. They will get persoal and work at discrediting the plantiff, thereby making any accusation seem irrational based on her mindset. A jury doesnt pay attention to detail of the law as much as they do the credibility issues of the accuser. Just a prediction on how this will unfold. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]