PDA

View Full Version : A John Douglas thread



Jayelles
05-02-2005, 11:52 AM
Yesterday, John Douglas made an interesting post on a thread about Patsy Ramsey's deteriorating health:-

http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1310

One of the things he speaks of in this post is the stress brought on by a murder case. The RST post about the stress of the "BORG" contributing to Patsy's ill health, but one thing I find horrific is the fact that a recent newspaper article by Charlie Brennan had a "friend" (who didn't wish to be named - surprise, surprise) revealing Patsy's poor state of health and her domestic and medical arrangements. What kind of friend is that? I think it's appalling to divulge her private arrangements at a time like this.

I think that the stress of having "friends" anonymously leaking stuff to the press must be way more stressful than anything the "BORG" might have to say on an internet forum! Imagine wondering which friend couldn't be trusted?

Also, in his post John Douglas says:-


I later met with Det. Lou Smit, who said that he didn't know how I did it because it took him 10 months to determine that the Ramseys were innocent while it took me 5 days.
I find this puzzling because according to Steve Thomas' book (thanks to Sylvia at FFJ):-


As for Smit from Steve Thomas Book page 169: “Three days later at a detective briefing, Smit made his first appearance, greeting us all and taking a seat along the west wall. We went around the table to update our findings. Finally it was his turn. He had been around only about seventy-two hours, not anywhere long enough to devour the case material, but we hoped he might have some initial insights. He did. Lou Smit shifted the toothpick to a corner of his mouth, and his eyes twinkled with excitement of a good bird dog on point. He said, ‘I don’t think it was the Ramseys. He never budged from that position’”

So does this mean that Lou SMit wasn't really certain about their innocence when he said he was ...... Or is Douglas wrong?

I posed a few questions to John Douglas at his forum but it appears to be a touchy subject there.

I am interested to know John Douglas' thoughts on Tom Bennett's statement about the DNA maybe not being the killers and why he thought the Ramseys hadn't been cleared. I'd be really interested to hear his thoughts. However, I won't hold my breath.

little1
05-02-2005, 04:10 PM
IMO John Douglas is going to say whatever makes him look as smart as he thinks he is. I don't think that he would ever say anything to blatatnly contradict what HE says happened.

If PR's health was truly deterioarating die to her daughters horrible urder, why now? It has been 8 years, right? That is an awful lon gtim eto go being "okay" then all the sudden your health just goes "plop."

I agree that any past friends revealing any sort of confidential info would be incredibly stressful. Also, isn't Burke getting up there in age now? Maybe she has a whole host of factors that are eating her up inside like Burke revealing something he saw or heard.

Who knows?

Jayelles
05-02-2005, 06:31 PM
Recent interview with John Douglas on Jonbenet transcribed (I think) by Seesthru who is a member of the John Douglas forum:-

http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID61/536.html

I think this was a case where someone or one or two people tried any way things they saw on television and in the movies and where if the thought was to get some money, they had to know that the one-hundred and eighteen thousand would happen to be John, John Ramsey's bonus money. So they had to be in that house and he had the stuff lying around. Someone had to go in that house, which would have been easy to do, it wasn't, it wasn't, you know, locked up.

But it was a case that went awry on the part of the offenders, but still, I see a lot of personalized aggression. Personalized aggression against, uh, it's going towards Pat-uh, uh, JonBenet but really, to me, it's really going towards the family. There's such a lot of anger and bitterness.

tipper
05-02-2005, 11:28 PM
IMO John Douglas is going to say whatever makes him look as smart as he thinks he is. I don't think that he would ever say anything to blatatnly contradict what HE says happened.

If PR's health was truly deterioarating die to her daughters horrible urder, why now? It has been 8 years, right? That is an awful lon gtim eto go being "okay" then all the sudden your health just goes "plop."

I agree that any past friends revealing any sort of confidential info would be incredibly stressful. Also, isn't Burke getting up there in age now? Maybe she has a whole host of factors that are eating her up inside like Burke revealing something he saw or heard.

Who knows?
She's had a cancer reoccurance 3 times in the past 8 years. That's not "okay" health.

Rainsong
05-03-2005, 08:00 AM
Recent interview with John Douglas on Jonbenet transcribed (I think) by Seesthru who is a member of the John Douglas forum:-

Transcribed by Rainsong.

little1
05-03-2005, 03:38 PM
She's had a cancer reoccurance 3 times in the past 8 years. That's not "okay" health.


Nope, maybe it's karma?

Or consciense. (spelling?) Stress of a secret?

Hmmmmm....

Rainsong
05-03-2005, 04:31 PM
IMO John Douglas is going to say whatever makes him look as smart as he thinks he is. I don't think that he would ever say anything to blatatnly contradict what HE says happened.

Not quite. John Douglas has admitted to being wrong in the past. Usually it is something small, like the type of occupation of a suspect. No one is correct 100% of the time and profiling is not an exact science.

John Douglas taught at Quantico for many years. One thing he taught was a profiler must stand behind their conclusions until such time as new evidence points in a different direction. Should any new evidence arise to point elsewhere, Douglas would be the first to alter his conclusion.

Please keep in mind, when going into this case, his initial thoughts based on previous cases, were that the family, one or both, were involved in the murder.

Rainsong

K777angel
05-03-2005, 04:33 PM
John Douglas is so disingenuous. It's amazing how he disses Greg McCrary giving only one little thing McCrary said! John Douglas had NO more information at the time he was asked to work FOR the Ramseys than McCrary or Robert Ressler did. They were all asked. Both Ressler and McCrary, being the objective professionals they are - took a look at the basic FACTS of the case: young child of 6 found sexually abused and murdered found hidden IN HER HOME - on Christmas night no less. With a bogus "ransom" note.
I mean, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that this case smacks of a familial homicide. None of those FBI profilers were obligated to say yes.
And it is so unfair of Douglas to claim that McCrary called the Ramsey's "child killers." Those are Douglas' words to exaggerate McCrary's decision not to go on board with the Ramsey's. Not McCrary's.

That said, I have very little respect left for John Douglas. NOWHERE in his interview does he bring up ANY objective important FACTS of the case that shed doubt on the Ramsey family's story: PINEAPPLE. Words used in ransom note unique to Patsy. Lies told by John and Patsy.
And where did you see ANY mention of the possibility that Burke might have been involved??? Nowhere.

John Douglas is an arrogant and IMO narcisstic man who became drunk on his fame and career and is in denial about the Ramsey case. He lost his objectivity and traded it for limelight. He neglects to talk about the cases he's been dead wrong or way off base on. He just loves to brag about himself though doesn't he?
He knows DARNED WELL that it was HIM that came up with that joke of a "profile" the Ramseys put in the newspaper!! Ignoring his OWN criteria in coming up with a real profile (access to police files, evidence and forensics - which Douglas had NO access to) he went ahead anyway and did it causing snickering at the least and consternation at most from his professional peers!
Rightfully so!
Then he has the audacity later on in order to save face, to claim he only gave an "assessment" and not a profile. Bull****!!
He fools no one. To me he is a joke. No wonder he likes Lou Smit so much.
They are two peas in a pod.

My criminal justice professor I had a couple years ago worked for the FBI for 25 yrs and knew John Douglas. They were at Quantico together.
I asked him what he thought of the Ramsey case and he said he believes it is a typical familial homicide and that the mother is most likely the perp.
This guy has been around and knows his stuff.

Sylvia
05-03-2005, 05:40 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: s.m.kappe@xxxxxxxxx.net
To: johndouglas@johndouglasmindhunter.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 8:37 AM
Subject: SPAM-HIGH: John Douglas Mind Hunter - Message To John


>
> Name: S.M. Kappe
> Email: s.m.kappe@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Ramsey case
> Message: Can you explain this Mr. Douglas?
>
> I used to admire John Douglas for his profiling skills and integrity. That
> admiration faded the minute I learned he was on the Ramsey payroll. Of
> all, professional profilers, he should have known better. Both Robert
> Ressler and Greg McCrary were wiser, they didn't want to have anything to
> do with the Ramsey's.
>
> Greg McCrary, who was approached first by the Ramsey, declined because he
> didn't want to take the risk of becoming a witness for the defense team.
> He recognized the staging, and knew that meant one thing: "The murderer
> was in or very close to the family." And, he also said: "In my experience,
> intruders rarely go into houses and kidnap children. They don't leave
> phony-sounding ransom notes. But elements of a crime often show up when
> someone in the family, or close to the family, commits murder, and tries
> to cover it up. The facts were consistent with "a staged domestic
> homicide." This case, McCrary was convinced, didn't fit the rare scenario
> of a murderous intruder at any level.
>
> Robert Ressler gave an of profile of sorts; However, he stated, he
> couldn't make a real profile of the murderer, as he didn't have access to
> all information about the crime. However, he stated. "The family appears
> to be guilty, because they hired a whole host of professionals. They have
> hired attorneys, a public relations man, private investigators and a
> profiler. One of my old colleagues did a profile for the family without
> the information to do a profile. Here you have a family who is weaving a
> wall around themselves to avoid dealing with the police. The whole thing
> smacks of conspiracy."
>
> So, why did Douglas worked for the Ramsey, even testified on their behalf
> before the Grand Jury? He has written some excellent books on profiling,
> which were all great successes.
>
> At the time he was hired by the Ramsey's, he was promoting his new book.
> His book "Mindhunter" was on J. Ramsey's book list. Did he become blinded
> by his success and become over confident? Did the fact that J. Ramsey
> owned one of his books have anything with his decision? Was he thinking of
> the publicity he would get, or was that what clouded his mind?
>
> Although he stated that his reputation wasn't for sale. His actions proved
> otherwise, he doesn't come cheap, at $ 200.00 per hour. However, he lost
> the respect of many people, maybe even from some of his colleagues. He
> most certainly lost my respect.
>
> Please tell me, John Douglas, why didn't you follow your own guidelines,
> concerning the staging of a crime? Remember, your own words in the Crime
> Classification Manual? Why did you ignore all the red flags you are so
> familiar with? You'll never know, how much you disappointed me, and with
> me, probably many more people. Was it worth it. I cannot think of anything
> more valuable than a good reputation, Mr. Douglas. Can you honestly say
> that your reputation, post Ramseys, is intact, Sir?
>
> Let's review those red flags:
> --Do the injuries fit the crime?
> --Did the point of entry make any sense?
> --Did the perpetration of this crime pose a high risk to the offender?
> --Sexual and domestic homicides will demonstrate forensic finding's type:
> a [sic] close range, personalized assault. The victim (not money or goods)
> is the primary focus on the offender. This type of offender often will
> attempt to stage a sexual or domestic homicide to appear motivated by
> criminal enterprise. This does not imply personal-type assaults never
> happen during the commission of a property crime, but usually the criminal
> enterprise offender prefers a quit, clean kill that reduces his time at
> the scene. Finally, it the investigator suspects a crime has been staged.
> He or she should look for other signs of close offender association with
> the victim (e.g., washing up or any other indications of undoing).
>
> Doesn't this sound very familiar to you, Mr. J. Douglas? Those are your
> own words! Now shall we answer those questions? Let's do it:

--No, the injuries don't fit. No kidnapper would kill his victim in her
> own house, sexually abuse her and leave her death body there.
> --It's obvious that only a very small person could have come in through
> that basement window.
> --Yes it did. This perpetrator, the so-called foreign terrorist, did spend
> quite some time in the victim's house, while the parents were at home.
> Yet, he or she took the time to abuse the girl, strangle her, and wrote a
> nice ransom letter, with items from within the house itself.
> --Yes, the victim was the primary target! Yes, the offender took a lot of
> time to molest and kill the victim. And yes, there were signs of a cover
> up. The victim was wrapped in blankets, her favorite nightgown was placed
> beside her, and a heart was drawn in her hand.
>
> You must admit, these are all signs of staging. These are all red flags.
> Even the ransom note itself is a red flag. So why did you ignore those red
> flags? I really cannot understand. Please help me to understand, Sir.
>
> And, what about your guidelines for detecting staging?
>
> --One of the reasons for staging is to redirect the investigation away
> from the most logical suspect.
>
> --When a crime scene is staged, the responsible person is not someone who
> just happens. It is almost always someone who has some kind of association
> or relationship with the victim.
>
> --The recognition of staging, especially with a shrewd offender, can be
> difficult. The investigator must scrutinize all factors of the crime if
> there is reason to believe it has been staged. Forensics, victimology, and
> minute crime scene details become critical to the detection of staging.
>
> Again, your own words, Mr. Douglas, from your Crime Classification Manual.
> So, shouldn't you at least have followed these guidelines? Yet, you chose
> to totally ignore them. You decided to work for the most likely suspects
> in a staged crime; namely, those with the closest relationship to the
> victim; the parents.
>
> You also ignored the facts that you didn't have access to, all information
> on the crime. You didn't have access to the police rapports, the autopsy
> report, the crime scene photos, or the forensics; all of which plays a
> huge role in being able to accurately profile the offender.
>
> I have enormous trouble ascertaining how you handled this case, Mr.
> Douglas.
>
> What about the whole story on the autopsy report? Do you have any
> explanation for that? In your January 1997 Tuesday interview with
> Dateline, you said that you had been briefed about the autopsy report;
> suggesting, maybe unknowingly, that the briefing came from the Boulder
> officials. Yet, when the authorities denied that the officials had shared
> the autopsy information with you, you came up with a different story on
> the Larry King Live show. On that show (Thursday January 30, 1997) you
> stated that you had been briefed on the autopsy report by the defense
> lawyers. But the coroner stated that the autopsy report hadn't even been
> finished.
>
> On the question from criminal attorney, Leslie Abramsom, who was also
> present on the Larry King show, "How could the defense attorneys brief Mr.
> Douglas on the autopsy when they don't have the report?" When Larry King
> repeated the question to you, Mr. Douglas, the only thing you said was,
> "You would have to bring them on as a guest".
>
>
>
>
>
> By answering in that manner, you ignored the fact that you said you had
> been lied to. As if the defense attorneys led you to believe they had the
> autopsy report, you had been taken; mislead. Why didn't you answer that
> you were led to believe that they, the defense attorneys, had the autopsy
> report? Why, Mr. Douglas? Was it misplaced pride that kept you from saying
> that? Mr. Douglas, made your "profile" highly questionable.
>
> You even went further, in defending your analysis, and told Larry King
> that you were limited in what you could say about the murder, as you were
> told by those same attorneys, who had lied to you, that you could be
> called before the Grand Jury. However, at that time, there wasn't even any
> reason to assume there would be a grand jury. It was just one month after
> the murder! So how do you explain that?
>
> In your interview with Dateline, you said that your heart told you that
> JonBenét's parents, John and Patsy, weren't involved in her murder. You
> added that you relied heavily on your four hour interview with the couple,
> to reach to that conclusion. You stated that, "If John Ramsey is a liar,
> he is one of the best." What else was your conclusion, Sir? That the
> person who strangled JonBenét was angry at her father? It could have been
> a business associate or an employee?
>
> What's Greg McCrary's opinion on that profile? Let's review:
>
> On the four hour interview with the parents: "You separate the people, you
> would interview them independently. You lock them into statements, and
> then you compare. To do otherwise, virtually invalidates the effort."
>
> In reference to your conclusion that John Ramsey was telling the truth, he
> said: "I've talked to guilty offender's in the penitentiary, and some of
> them are so manipulative and persuasive that they almost have you
> believing they didn't do it." May I remind you, Sir, of John Gacy, who
> never admitted to his crimes during the interviews you had with him, while
> in the penitentiary?
>
> In reference to being angry with the father: "This crime has nothing to do
> with getting back at the father." McCrary stated that he couldn't recall a
> case of "someone killing a kid to get back at a parent." He said the
> sexual assault of JonBenét was "deviant, psychopathic sexual behavior, not
> an expression of anger at the father."
>
> If revenge toward the father had been a motive, McCrary said: "The killer
> would have displayed the body; he wouldn't have hidden it in the
> basement." McCrary also said: "The body would have been placed in such a
> manner to 'shock and offend' John Ramsey if hate or revenge had been the
> motive."
>
> "If that had been the reason for a killer being in the house that night,
> they would have killed the child and gotten out as fast as possible.": He
> said referring to the time the killer must have spent in the house, by
> taking the girl from her bedroom to the basement and writing the ransom
> note. "It's that behavior that a profiler puts most credence in, rather
> than in someone's words."
>
> McCrary comes with good credentials. In fact, Mr. Douglas himself
> considers McCrary to be among "the top criminal profilers and
> investigative analysis in the world."
>
> And now let's review some quotes from Steve Thomas' book:
>
> Quote
> "Although still too distraught to meet with us, John and Patsy Ramsey
> spoke for several hours with their newest trophy hire, John Douglas,
> formerly with the FBI's behavioral science unit. John Ramsey's lawyer
> Bryan Morgan was at the profiler's site and permitted no direct questions
> about the Ramsey's during a long interview. Douglas, wearing a silk tie
> and an expensive suit, talked with machine-gun rapidity. He said the
> killer was someone who knew the house well, because it was a high-risk
> situation, and he pronounced the murder to be a crime of anger directed
> toward John Ramsey. His former colleagues in the FBI disagreed and would
> tell us they were unaware of anyone killing a child as revenge against the
> parents..............."
>
> "I asked if Douglas knew of any kidnapping for ransom in which the victim
> was killed and left on the premises. He recalled a case involving a family
> member"
>
> Finally, we are getting to a crucial moment, when, later on, more and more
> evidence started being revealed in the Ramsey's direction. Mr. Douglas
> suddenly stated that he had only interviewed John Ramsey and not Patsy
> Ramsey. So, how are we to take his profile serious, when we were faced
> with all these contradictions?
>
> Please tell us now Mr. Douglas, how can we ever again rely upon your
> judgment? How can we ever again trust your profiles again? Frankly, you
> have lost my trust in you, and that's a shame. Before your involvement
> with the Ramsey, I thought you were the tops in your field. Next time,
> perhaps you should listen a bit more to your colleagues, and follow your
> own guidelines.
>
> Regards,
>
> S.M. Kappe

Sylvia
05-03-2005, 05:42 PM
Okay gang I promised to post the answer if I received one, well I did this morning. Have fun with it!

Van: webmaster [mailto:webmaster@johndouglasmindhunter.com]
Verzonden: woensdag 27 april 2005 3:06
Aan: s.m.kappe@xxxxxxxxx.net
Onderwerp: Can you explain this Mr. Douglas?

To S.M. Kappe: In response to your email --we recommend that you review the article pasted below re the Jon Benet Ramsey Investigation. Further, John Douglas testified before the grand jury and was later asked to provide assistance to Boulder's new DA Mary Keenan who subsequently took the case away from the Boulder PD as well as the FBI. As far as the other professional profilers you mentioned, you failed to mention that both gentlemen were also quick to state that the DC sniper would be a loner and a white male. Malvo and Muhammad didn't quite fit the profile.

Webmaster
www.johndouglasmindhunter.com


http://crime.about.com/od/unsolved/p/jonbenet_case.htm

You are here:
About>News & Issues>Crime / Punishment> Current Cases> Unsolved Cases> JonBenet Ramsey Investigation

News & Issues
Crime / Punishment
Essentials
Top StoriesSafety QuizzesIdentity TheftState Gun LawsTrivia Quizzes
Articles & Resources
Current CasesHistorical CrimesDeath PenaltyIssues / ControversiesJuvenile CrimeLaw EnforcementMissing Kids/AdultsPrevention / SafetyPrison SystemSex CrimesSerial KillersStatistics and DataVictim's RightsVideos, Books and ProductsWomen's Issues
Articles
Forums
Help

Bovenkant formulier [top form]
FREE Gift
with sign up to About's FREE Crime / Punishment newsletter! Limited time offer.
See Online Courses
Onderkant formulier [botom form]

Bovenkant formulier
Search
Onderkant formulier
Crime / Punishment

Stay up to date!
Email to a friendPrint this page
Most Popular
Mary Kay Letourneau The Scott Peterson Trivia QuizMichael JacksonHistory of Megan's LawSerial Pursuit Crime Trivia Quiz
What's Hot
Jonathan Paul LunaQuiz - New Mexico Gun LawsQuiz - Indiana Gun LawsQuiz - Tennessee Gun LawsBarbara Walters and Letourneau
JonBenet Ramsey Investigation
Unsolved Crime

From Charles Montaldo,
Your Guide to Crime / Punishment.
FREE GIFT with Newsletter! Act Now!

JonBenet Ramsey: Around 5:30 a.m. the morning after Christmas Day, 1996, Patsy Ramsey found a ransom note on the family's back staircase demanding $118,000 for her six-year-old daughter, JonBenet, and called 911. Later that day, John Ramsey discovered JonBenet's body in a spare room in the basement. She had been strangled with a garrote, and her mouth had been bound with duct tape. John Ramsey removed the duct tape and carried her body upstairs.
The Early Investigation: From the very beginning, the investigation into the death of JonBenet Ramsey focused on members of the family. Boulder, Colorado investigators went to the Atlanta home of the Ramseys to search for clue and served a search warrant on their summer home in Michigan. Police took hair and blood samples from members of the Ramsey family. The Ramseys tell the press "there is a killer on the loose" but Boulder officials downplay the prospect that a killer is threatening city residents.
The Ransom Note: The investigation into the murder of JonBenet Ramsey focused on the three-page ransom note, which was apparently written on a note pad found in the house. Handwriting samples were taken from the Ramseys and John Ramsey was ruled out as the author of the note, but police could not eliminate Patsy Ramsey as the writer. District Attorney Alex Hunter tells the media that the parents are obviously the focus of the investigation.
Expert Prosecution Task Force: District attorney Hunter forms an Expert Prosecution Task Force, including forensic expert Henry Lee and DNA expert Barry Scheck. In March, 1997 retired homicide detective Lou Smit, who solved the Heather Dawn Church murder in Colorado Spring, is hired to head the investigation team. Smit's investigation would eventually point to an intruder as the perpetrator, which conflicted with the DA's theory that someone in the family was responsible for JonBenet's death.
Conflicting Theories: From the beginning of the case, there was a disagreement between investigators and the DA's office about the focus of the investigation. In August 1997, Detective Steve Thomas resigns, saying the DA's office is "thoroughly compromised." In September, Lou Smit also resigns saying he, "cannot in good conscience be a part of the persecution of innocent people." Lawrence Schiller's book, Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, describes the feud between police and prosecutors.
Burke Ramsey: After 15 months of investigation, the Boulder police decide the best way to solve the murder is a grand-jury investigation. In March 1998, police interview John and Patsy Ramsey a second time and do an extensive interview with their 11-year-old son Burke, who was reported as a possible suspect by some in the press. A leak to the news media indicate that Burke's voice could be heard in the background of the 911 call Patsy made, although she said he was asleep until after police arrived.
Grand Jury Convenes: On Sept. 16, 1998, five months after they were chosen, Boulder County grand jurors began their investigation. They heard forensic evidence, analysis of handwriting, DNA evidence, and hair and fiber evidence. They visited the Ramsey's former Boulder home in October 1998. In December of 1998 the grand jury recesses for four month while DNA evidence from other members of the Ramsey family, who were not suspects, can be compared to that found at the scene.
Hunter and Smit Clash: In February 1999, District Attorney Alex Hunter demanded that detective Lou Smit return evidence that he collected while he worked on the case, including crime scene photographs. Smit refuses "even if I have to go to jail" because he believed the evidence would be destroyed if returned, because it supported the intruder theory. Hunter filed a restraining order and got a court injunction demanding the evidence. Hunter also refused to allow Smit to testify before the grand jury.
Smit Seeks Court Order: Detective Lou Smit filed a motion asking Judge Roxanne Bailin to allow him to address the grand jury. It is not clear if Judge Bailin granted his motion, but on March 11, 1999, Smit testified before the jury. Later that same month, district attorney Alex Hunter signed an agreement allowing Smit to keep the evidence he had collected in the case, but prohibited Smit from "relaying prior conversations" with Ramsey prosecutors and not interfere with the on-going investigation.
No Indictments Returned: After a year-long grand jury investigation, DS Alex Hunter announces that no charges will be filed and no one will be indicted for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. At the time, several media reports suggested that it was Smit's testimony that swayed the grand jury to not return an indictment.
The Suspicions Continue: In spite of the grand jury decision, members of the Ramsey family continued to remain under suspicion in the media. The Ramseys adamantly proclaimed their innocence from the very beginning. John Ramsey said the thought that someone in the family could be responsible for JonBenet's murder was "nauseating beyond belief." But those denials did not keep the press from speculating that either Patsy, Burke or John himself were involved.
Burke Not a Suspect: In May 1999, Burke Ramsey was secretly questioned by the grand jury. The following day, authorities finally said that Burke was not a suspect, only a witness. As the grand jury began to wind down its investigation, John and Patsy Ramsey are forced to move from their Atlanta-area home avoid the onslaught of media attention.
Ramseys Fight Back: In March 2002, the Ramseys release their book, "The Death of Innocence," about the battle they have fought to reclaim their innocence. The Ramseys filed a series of libel lawsuits against media outlets, including the Star, the New York Post, Time Warner, the Globe and the publishers of the book A Little Girl's Dream? A JonBenet Ramsey Story.
Federal Judge Clears Ramseys: In May 2003, an Atlanta federal judge dismissed a civil lawsuit against John and Patsy Ramsey saying there was no evidence showing the parents killed JonBenet and abundant evidence that an intruder killed the child. The judge criticized the police and the FBI for creating a media campaign designed to make the family look guilty.
Part Two: New DA Takes Over

Most Popular Video


Movie Minutes: 'Kontroll' Movie Minutes: 'Beauty Shop' Movie Minutes: 'Melinda and Melinda' Movie Minutes: 'The Upside of Anger' Movie Minutes: 'Robots'
See other videos at About.com



Topic Index | |
back to top



email to a friend font size


Our Story | Be a Guide | Advertising Info | Work at About | Site Map | Icons | Help
©2005 About, Inc. All rights reserved.
User Agreement | Patent Info. | Privacy Policy | Kids' Privacy Policy
Best of About
VIDEO: Home Decorating Ideas VIDEO: Fashion Tips Start a Home Business Photo Gallery: New Ford Mustang Photo Gallery: Las Vegas Strip
Most Popular Video
Movie Minutes: 'Kontroll' Movie Minutes: 'Beauty Shop' Movie Minutes: 'Melinda and Melinda' Movie Minutes: 'The Upside of Anger' Movie Minutes: 'Robots'
Related Topics
Civil LibertiesU.S. Gov Info / ResourcesUrban Legends and Folklore
Most Popular
Mary Kay Letourneau The Scott Peterson Trivia QuizMichael JacksonHistory of Megan's LawSerial Pursuit Crime Trivia Quiz
What's Hot
Jonathan Paul LunaQuiz - New Mexico Gun LawsQuiz - Indiana Gun LawsQuiz - Tennessee Gun LawsBarbara Walters and Letournea
Free Online E-Courses
Tips To Save MoneyTexas Hold 'Em for BeginnersHow To Find The Best Travel DealsLearn How To Eliminate All DebtSpeak For SuccessMore E-Courses
Arcade Games
Mah Jong QuestBejewelled2ZumaBingo Jigsaw 365MaxJongg
======================

Guess Ressler was right after all Douglas is more in to entertainment :laffbig: :laffbig: :laffbig: He didn't even had the guts to answer. Must have hit some nerve!

Rainsong
05-03-2005, 07:31 PM
John Douglas is so disingenuous. It's amazing how he disses Greg McCrary giving only one little thing McCrary said! John Douglas had NO more information at the time he was asked to work FOR the Ramseys than McCrary or Robert Ressler did. They were all asked. Both Ressler and McCrary, being the objective professionals they are - took a look at the basic FACTS of the case: young child of 6 found sexually abused and murdered found hidden IN HER HOME - on Christmas night no less. With a bogus "ransom" note...


In the vast majority of criminal cases when LE invites a profiler into the case, the profiler never has knowledge about any suspects and doesn't want to know anything about suspects. In the Ramsey case, the suspect(s) were already known. Early reports stated semen had been found on JonBenet. This lead many to believe John Ramsey had sexually abused and then killed his daughter--including Gregg McCrary, John Douglas and Lou Smit.

Contrary to all protocol, McCrary declined the invitation by the Ramsey attorneys to assess their clients due to his belief the parents were involved.
According to McCrary, "When you get a report, any sort of report, whether it's a kidnapping or a rape case, you're not being paid to believe or disbelieve anybody. Your attitude should be: 'Maybe this happened, and maybe it didn't. We'll find out.'"This is a little bit of what was lacking at the initial response -- this sort of professional skepticism.'' McCrary chose to go against everything he had been taught by John Douglas by making up his mind prior to any interviews with the police, the witnesses, the suspects, the coroner, and before evaluating any evidence including crime scene photos.

Lou Smit set aside his natural bias and took the time to review the evidence in the BPD files.

John Douglas set aside his initial belief in the guilt of the parents and reviewed the information from the coroner, talked to the parents, toured the home, and spoke with BPD.

During John Douglas' last Mindhunter radio show he stated, "What I did learn later on, which really irritated me, was that there was another colleague of mine who was asked to work on the case. which is fine, which was fine. And we've talked about how he wrote a nasty letter to KFI months and months ago. We're speaking of Greg McCrary. He made a comment that he would not work for a child killer. Well, first of all he was never, he made that, the invitation was extended but there was never any contact, any telephonic contact between himself and the attorneys out there. And what really disturbed me and bothered me is that, how can you say that you don't want to work for someone who's, say, a child killer, without even having the facts of the case. You're already prejudging someone going into the case, that they are guilty, that they are going to be a child killer, that these parents have killed their child."

This is the mark of a professional--to set aside personal beliefs and get on with the job.

John Douglas' job was never to profile the killer since he did not have all the information do to so. He was hired to assess whether or not either of the parents, particularly John Ramsey, committed the crime. Since his job was not to profile the killer, but to assess the parents capability for murder, the normal protocols of profiling were not necessary.

A profiler's job is not to account for every shred of evidence, physical or otherwise. That is up to the police and the prosecution. Since Douglas was hired to assess the parents, not Burke, there was no need for him to evaluate the child or to mention his name.

John Douglas is the most professional of all the profilers mentioned in that he does not denigrate fellow profilers other than to state they should not prejudge a case without authoritative knowledge. Douglas gives credit when credit is due. In the book, Mindhunter, the index cites 25 mentions of Robert Ressler. In Ressler's book, Whoever Fights Monsters, Douglas' name is cited 4 times.

From a personal perspective, John Douglas is the least arrogant person I have ever met.

Once again, John Douglas has never done a profile of JonBenet's murder for the very reasons you have stated. Over the years since her murder and his intial interview with the parents, he has made statements about some personality traits of the killer and expanded on some possibilities but never has he done a profile.

While your criminal justice professor may have been around for a while, John Douglas has helped on over 5,000 cases and pioneered the profiling program at the FBI. His experience is second to none.

Rainsong

Voice of Reason
05-03-2005, 08:29 PM
I think that the major difference between a typical job taken on by guys like Douglas, Ressler, and McCrary, and the Ramsey case, is that they are usually hired to ASSIST in a police investigation. That was not the case in the Ramsey case. Douglas himself stated that the Ramsey's hired him, albeit for a nominal amount, to make an assessment, not a profile. While we don't know exactly what sort of exchange occurred between the Ramseys and Douglas when they were soliciting his help, he was essentially hired to clear their name, and he did that. He assessed their involvement in the crime.

Personally, I do not have any gripes with John Douglas' work, and I do not subscribe to the view that his opinion on the Ramsey case was flawed. His methods are scientific, but they are not fool-proof. Maybe he's right; maybe not. Who are we to say at this point?

Anyway, I also do not hold it against Ressler or McCrary, or anyone else, for that matter, for not wanting to go in to work for the Ramseys to potentially fulfill their hopes of having their names cleared as suspects. All the evidence seems to point to the Ramseys, and nobody really wants to be seen as "that guy", who stepped in, and contrary to the evidence, suggests a completely alternative scenario. I am not saying that it is not possible that something other than familial homicide occurred that night, but I do not think that there is anything wrong with a professional choosing not to work for the Ramseys. These guys work on reputation, and protecting that should not be seen as a bad thing.

Rainsong
05-03-2005, 09:40 PM
I think that the major difference between a typical job taken on by guys like Douglas, Ressler, and McCrary, and the Ramsey case, is that they are usually hired to ASSIST in a police investigation. That was not the case in the Ramsey case. Douglas himself stated that the Ramsey's hired him, albeit for a nominal amount, to make an assessment, not a profile. While we don't know exactly what sort of exchange occurred between the Ramseys and Douglas when they were soliciting his help, he was essentially hired to clear their name, and he did that. He assessed their involvement in the crime.

Personally, I do not have any gripes with John Douglas' work, and I do not subscribe to the view that his opinion on the Ramsey case was flawed. His methods are scientific, but they are not fool-proof. Maybe he's right; maybe not. Who are we to say at this point?

Anyway, I also do not hold it against Ressler or McCrary, or anyone else, for that matter, for not wanting to go in to work for the Ramseys to potentially fulfill their hopes of having their names cleared as suspects. All the evidence seems to point to the Ramseys, and nobody really wants to be seen as "that guy", who stepped in, and contrary to the evidence, suggests a completely alternative scenario. I am not saying that it is not possible that something other than familial homicide occurred that night, but I do not think that there is anything wrong with a professional choosing not to work for the Ramseys. These guys work on reputation, and protecting that should not be seen as a bad thing.

I have no problem with anyone turning down a case, either. However, going on to make comments about someone who has accepted the same case and judging that person's choice in a derogatory manner is not professional behavior.

In case you missed it, in The Cases That Haunt You, John Douglas specifically states he informed the attorneys for the Ramseys that they could buy his time but they could not "but my analysis is completely independent, and you can't influence it." And, to correct the first of two aspects of your message, the Ramseys did not hire John Douglas. This was done by Ellis Armistead at the request of the attorneys, not the Ramseys.

The second correction is to your statement, "All the evidence seems to point to the Ramseys." There is much evidence that points away from the Ramseys, but the choice to accept it is not up to you. Until proven not to have a relation to the murder, it cannot be dismissed simply because it doesn't fit a certain theory.

Rainsong

Czarthethird
05-03-2005, 09:44 PM
Nope, maybe it's karma?

Or consciense. (spelling?) Stress of a secret?

Hmmmmm....
What do you mean by "karma"? I see the word used as many different parts of speech. Is the accepted colloquial translation "fated to be"? When people end posts with Karma that has to have a different meaning. Could you help out an old lady who isn't "hip" with an explanation for this word?

K777angel
05-03-2005, 09:48 PM
Rainsong I have to disagree with you. I've read John Douglas' books and have seen him interviewed and I always come away with the same opinion - he is extremely conceited and full of himself and it ultimately resulted in him losing the all important "objectivity" in the Ramsey case.

You can sing his praises all you want - but he is not God and has not always been on target with his assesments of cases either.

Both McCrary and Ressler weighed their decisions carefully based on legitimate criteria. And correctly declined to be involved.

And might I remind you - to this day neither John, Patsy nor Burke Ramsey have EVER been cleared of involvement in this crime.
For good and obvious reasons.

Voice of Reason
05-03-2005, 09:55 PM
I have no problem with anyone turning down a case, either. However, going on to make comments about someone who has accepted the same case and judging that person's choice in a derogatory manner is not professional behavior.
My post was in defense of John Douglas and I was trying to put it all in perspective. I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at...criticizing McCrary, I presume? I thought McCrary judged the Ramseys...did he make derogatory comments towards Douglas?



In case you missed it, in The Cases That Haunt You, John Douglas specifically states he informed the attorneys for the Ramseys that they could buy his time but they could not "but my analysis is completely independent, and you can't influence it." And, to correct the first of two aspects of your message, the Ramseys did not hire John Douglas. This was done by Ellis Armistead at the request of the attorneys, not the Ramseys.
Again, I was not suggesting that Douglas could not have come out the other way, but the job he took on is not for everyone, and I think that is perfectly understandable. I see the fact that the lawyers as opposed to the Ramseys hiring Douglas as insignificant.



The second correction is to your statement, "All the evidence seems to point to the Ramseys." There is much evidence that points away from the Ramseys, but the choice to accept it is not up to you. Until proven not to have a relation to the murder, it cannot be dismissed simply because it doesn't fit a certain theory.
Perhaps I misspoke...I should have said "all the evidence at the time seemed to point to the Ramseys." At the time Douglas was hired, almost all the evidence pointed to an inside-job of some sort. It took a while for their to be any light shed on the intruder theory. Whether this was due to the BPD or the simple lack of evidence is irrelevant, but when Douglas was hired, noone in their right mind was looking away from the Ramseys, IMO.

Rainsong
05-03-2005, 10:10 PM
Many of the former and current FBI profilers have made derogatory comments in regard to John Douglas and his position on Ramsey, McCrary is simply one of them, though he evidently took it a step further and sent a letter to KFI in Los Angeles, host station to JD's Mindhunter Show.

No, the job he took on is not for everyone, but Douglas has never been afraid to buck the tide. In the Bureau he was known as Blue Flame due to his pushing the 'norm.'

The fact that it was the attorneys who hired JD is significant in that the Ramseys had never heard of him prior to his meeting and interviewing them. It goes to the myth that John Ramsey had a copy of Mindhunter in his bedroom on the day JonBenet's body was found in the home and to Douglas' and the Ramseys' credibility.

Thank you for clarifying your statement in regard to the evidence.

I'd also like to thank you for your logical and (for the most part) straightforward comments--the cited 'evidence' statement being the exception.

Rainsong

K777angel
05-03-2005, 10:43 PM
The fact that it was the attorneys who hired JD is significant in that the Ramseys had never heard of him prior to his meeting and interviewing them. Rainsong

No, what is significant is that John Douglas AGREED to be hired by the Ramsey attorneys.
What was he to do if he concluded that the Ramseys were NOT innocent and he suspected them?? Would he go in public then - after being PAID by the Ramsey attorneys - and announce his findings? Hardly.
This is part of the reason that McCrary and Ressler chose not to take that risk.

The Ramseys hired the best and most powerful attorneys in the state.
These attorneys rushed to hire the best crime and forensic analysts in the country - before the Boulder authorities could get to them. But some of the wise told the Ramsey attorneys to go fly a kite. Dr. Henry Lee was one of them.

Rainsong
05-03-2005, 11:46 PM
No, what is significant is that John Douglas AGREED to be hired by the Ramsey attorneys.
What was he to do if he concluded that the Ramseys were NOT innocent and he suspected them?? Would he go in public then - after being PAID by the Ramsey attorneys - and announce his findings? Hardly.
This is part of the reason that McCrary and Ressler chose not to take that risk.

The Ramseys hired the best and most powerful attorneys in the state.
These attorneys rushed to hire the best crime and forensic analysts in the country - before the Boulder authorities could get to them. But some of the wise told the Ramsey attorneys to go fly a kite. Dr. Henry Lee was one of them.

Actually, I believe what he would have done is tell the attorneys his belief and excuse himself from participating further. I can say this with confidence because I know John Douglas has done so in other cases. Other than travel expenses, I seriously doubt he would have accepted any further renumeration.

If you were suspected of a crime, would you hire the worst lawyer, private investigators, experts you could find? What if you needed surgery? Would you seek out a surgeon who graduated in the bottom of his class, or the one who graduated magna cum laude? Or, should you decide to build a substantial addition onto your home, would you hire the contractor who built something equivilant to the Taj Mahal or the one who specializes in ramshackle outhouses?

We all want to hire the 'best,' no matter their area of expertise.

Rainsong

little1
05-04-2005, 10:19 AM
Rainsong I have to disagree with you. I've read John Douglas' books and have seen him interviewed and I always come away with the same opinion - he is extremely conceited and full of himself and it ultimately resulted in him losing the all important "objectivity" in the Ramsey case.


I agree, I have all his books up to Obsession---I cannot stomach them anymore. it seems that there are too many pages that are nothings but John Douglas talking about how superior John Douglas is.

little1
05-04-2005, 10:21 AM
Actually, I believe what he would have done is tell the attorneys his belief and excuse himself from participating further. I can say this with confidence because I know John Douglas has done so in other cases. .




Please site the cases you are referring to.

ALso, please site the cases where he admitted he was wrong.

Rainsong
05-04-2005, 11:52 AM
Please site the cases you are referring to.

ALso, please site the cases where he admitted he was wrong.

John Douglas spoke about such a case on his former show, Mindhunter on KFI in Los Angeles. He had been approached at a lecture by a couple whose son had been found murdered in their home. According to the police, all physical evidence pointed to their other son as the killer. The parents didn't believe their remaining son had killed their other child and requested John Douglas to review the case. I witnessed the parents talking with him and he discussed later some of the particulars of the crime. Only many months later did he talk about the case on his radio show and his decision to turn them down because of the physical evidence. I do not know the name of the victim or the family since he never revealed that information.

John Douglas has also discussed errors he made in the Green River Killer case, those errors being the type of job the perpetrator would have. Those have been highly publicized both in the news media and on the internet and at his forum.

He is not afraid to admit his mistakes, but he also won't back down unless there is additional evidence which points in another direction.

Rainsong

Toltec
05-04-2005, 05:48 PM
John Douglas loves to talk about John Douglas.

One big whopper of a lie he told was that he "founded" the Behavioral Science Unit. Not so...it was Robert Ressler and Douglas worked under Ressler.

John Douglas should have kindly refused the invitation to "profile" the killer only because he did not have FULL ACCESS to the case. There is no way no how he can put together a profile with just limited sources. The only reason he accepted was because by then the Ramsey case was making headlines nationwide. This was another chance to shine in the spotlight.

Lastly, two profilers refused before Douglas accepted...that was the professional thing to do. Barry Scheck and Doctor Henry Lee passed too.

Rainsong
05-04-2005, 07:18 PM
John Douglas loves to talk about John Douglas.

One big whopper of a lie he told was that he "founded" the Behavioral Science Unit. Not so...it was Robert Ressler and Douglas worked under Ressler.

John Douglas should have kindly refused the invitation to "profile" the killer only because he did not have FULL ACCESS to the case. There is no way no how he can put together a profile with just limited sources. The only reason he accepted was because by then the Ramsey case was making headlines nationwide. This was another chance to shine in the spotlight.

Lastly, two profilers refused before Douglas accepted...that was the professional thing to do. Barry Scheck and Doctor Henry Lee passed too.

At no time has John Douglas ever claimed to have 'founded' the BSU. In fact, according to Douglas, he was one of nine agents assigned to the BSU with all of them being primarily instructors while he did the profiling. He credits Howard Teten with the founding of the BSU back in 1972. At that time, the main courses taught was Applied Criminal Psychology with the main focus on motivation. Ressler did not 'found' the BSU although he was at one time the Supervisory Special Agent and Douglas' boss. He is a few years older than Douglas and joined the FBI at an earlier date.

Douglas has never profiled the kille because he has never had access to the full case. He was hired to assess the parents, specifically John Ramsey.

McCrary and Ressler both made up their minds on the guilt/innocence of the parents based soley on media reports. That is not a professional way to make such a decision. According to McCrary, one should never decide anything based soley on 'reports.' One should keep an open mind. That is paraphrased. I have previously quoted McCrary verbatim on the subject of 'professionalism' on this thread.'

Rainsong

K777angel
05-05-2005, 09:14 PM
Ressler and McCrary KNEW the basic facts of the case - very young child killed in her own home on Christmas night and found hidden in the basement; a bogus "kidnapping" ransom note was left but no one ever called to claim any money. Child was discovered to have also been sexually molested.
Right there they KNEW that statistically the odds were that this child was killed by a close family member or caretaker. And that is based on fact.
They had every right to be objective in their assesment and turn it down.

John Douglas is not some "hero" because he agreed.
He is however suspect in his motivations as to WHY he agreed.

Rainsong
05-05-2005, 11:40 PM
According to McCrary, "When you get a report, any sort of report, whether it's a kidnapping or a rape case, you're not being paid to believe or disbelieve anybody. Your attitude should be: 'Maybe this happened, and maybe it didn't. We'll find out.'"

I don't believe he followed his own adage.

Rainsong

K777angel
05-06-2005, 01:31 AM
According to McCrary, "When you get a report, any sort of report, whether it's a kidnapping or a rape case, you're not being paid to believe or disbelieve anybody. Your attitude should be: 'Maybe this happened, and maybe it didn't. We'll find out.'"

I don't believe he followed his own adage.

Rainsong

He's talking about working for the POLICE! Not for the attorneys of the prime suspects!
And what are you saying then? That because he and Ressler were "asked" to join team Ramsey that they were OBLIGATED? Otherwise they'd "not follow their own adage"? Give me a break. Of course they have the complete right to asses the basic facts of a case and agree to take it or not. But they must base that decision on SOMETHING. And wisely - they declined.

Rainsong
05-06-2005, 08:06 AM
He's talking about working for the POLICE! Not for the attorneys of the prime suspects!
And what are you saying then? That because he and Ressler were "asked" to join team Ramsey that they were OBLIGATED? Otherwise they'd "not follow their own adage"? Give me a break. Of course they have the complete right to asses the basic facts of a case and agree to take it or not. But they must base that decision on SOMETHING. And wisely - they declined.

Yes, he was referring to the police, the BPD, as a matter of fact. However, please note the second phrase in the quote by McCrary.

No, McCrary, Ressler, etc. were not obligated to accept. They were obligated to be professional. Deciding whether or not to accept a case based on news media reports and nothing more is not professional. At the time both were offered the job, this is all that was available to them. BPD were not sharing--except for Thomas' leaks--with anyone.

Basing decisions--any decisions--on stories in the news media iis dangerous since they are so often incorrect/misleading.

Rainsong

IrishMist
05-06-2005, 08:08 AM
I think that IS professional... to turn down a job that they don't feel they could be unbiased about.

In my opinion, them TAKING the job would be unprofessional...

Rainsong
05-06-2005, 11:29 AM
That's the point. As professionals, they are supposed to set aside their bias and is exactly why police departments are not to tell or send in reports on suspects.

In this case, the profilers weren't being asked to profile the crime, but to assess whether or not either of the parents were capable of committing the crime. Apples and oranges.

But, as you said, if McCrary couldn't set aside his bias, then he did make the proper choice.

Rainsong

tipper
05-06-2005, 12:17 PM
I think that IS professional... to turn down a job that they don't feel they could be unbiased about.

In my opinion, them TAKING the job would be unprofessional...
I agree. However, I think it is highly unprofessional to then publically suggest the parents are guilty.

little1
05-06-2005, 12:23 PM
That's the point. As professionals, they are supposed to set aside their bias and is exactly why police departments are not to tell or send in reports on suspects.

In this case, the profilers weren't being asked to profile the crime, but to assess whether or not either of the parents were capable of committing the crime. Apples and oranges.

But, as you said, if McCrary couldn't set aside his bias, then he did make the proper choice.

Rainsong

But HOW could they even make an accurate assessment of wether or not the parents did this if they were not going to be given ALL the documents pertaining to the crime, ie the autopsy report? Should John Douglas not have demanded those docs when he took the case?

Rainsong
05-06-2005, 12:47 PM
But HOW could they even make an accurate assessment of wether or not the parents did this if they were not going to be given ALL the documents pertaining to the crime, ie the autopsy report? Should John Douglas not have demanded those docs when he took the case?

That's the question, Little. Why did they make up their minds based on nothing but media reports?

Because they didn't want to take the chance of being on the side of people who killed their child.

When John Douglas went into the attorneys' offices, he told them straight off that they might not like what he had to say, but they couldn't buy his opinion. In other words, had he assess the Ramseys as being capable of the murder of their child, he would have told the attorneys.

John Douglas didn't follow normal procedure for interviewing suspects because that isn't something profilers do. They examine crime scene photos, study the evidence, the police reports, the coroners report, etc. Instead, since John Douglas was in Boulder to assess the parents, he studied them, their answers, their reaction to various questions, their interaction, body posture etc.

He didn't totally make up his mind at the time, but did tell the attorneys he didn't think John Ramsey was lying at any time during the interview. He was highly suspicious of Patsy Ramsey because she wore a cross necklace into the interview room because frequently criminals 'find religion' after they commit their crime. Only after seeing photos of Patsy wearing the same necklace years prior to the crime, finding out how the body was found and wrapped, after speaking with the coroner, touring the home, and speaking with BPD, etc. did he make his final assessment.

He stands by his assessment and has had it confirmed in other meetings with the Ramseys over the years.

Rainsong

little1
05-06-2005, 01:08 PM
John Douglas didn't follow normal procedure for interviewing suspects because that isn't something profilers do. They examine crime scene photos, study the evidence, the police reports, the coroners report, etc. Instead, since John Douglas was in Boulder to assess the parents, he studied them, their answers, their reaction to various questions, their interaction, body posture etc.



How could he possibly know what questions to ask when he had not seen those most important docs you speak of? Crime scene photos, the police reports, etc?

Secondly, he did not even question Patsy Ramsey, so how could he even make an assessment on her actions or answers?

Rainsong
05-06-2005, 01:16 PM
How could he possibly know what questions to ask when he had not seen those most important docs you speak of? Crime scene photos, the police reports, etc?

Secondly, he did not even question Patsy Ramsey, so how could he even make an assessment on her actions or answers?

Little, John Douglas has been an investigator for over 30 years and has assisted on over 5,000 cases plus he has a degree in psychology. He knows what to ask.

He did question Patsy Ramsey but he didn't depend on the interview to make his assessment. He used all the information available to him at the time. Since then he has seen far more information and none of it has changed his initial assessment.

Rainsong

little1
05-06-2005, 01:23 PM
Little, John Douglas has been an investigator for over 30 years and has assisted on over 5,000 cases plus he has a degree in psychology. He knows what to ask.

He did question Patsy Ramsey but he didn't depend on the interview to make his assessment. He used all the information available to him at the time. Since then he has seen far more information and none of it has changed his initial assessment.

Rainsong


With all due respect, JD told investigators in Seattle that Ridgwway was not the GRK and did not need to be interviewedm further.

So obviously just having a degree is not enough to know aht questions to ask.

Also, homiced (like any other crime) is not generic. Every case is different in ts owwn right---so how could he just know what to ask? This case was different than any other that we have seen---so how could he just be expected to know what to ask?

By your last paragraph are you admitting he made an assessment without all the pertinent docs he needed to make that judgement?

Rainsong
05-06-2005, 01:43 PM
With all due respect, JD told investigators in Seattle that Ridgwway was not the GRK and did not need to be interviewedm further.

So obviously just having a degree is not enough to know aht questions to ask.

Also, homiced (like any other crime) is not generic. Every case is different in ts owwn right---so how could he just know what to ask? This case was different than any other that we have seen---so how could he just be expected to know what to ask?

By your last paragraph are you admitting he made an assessment without all the pertinent docs he needed to make that judgement?

I don't believe John Douglas ever told the GRK task force Ridgeway was not the killer. What he did say was this type of killer (GRK) would not have a steady job. In that, he erred and has said so.

Just having a degree? He also has 30 years experience; far more than any of the investigators in JonBenet's murder, other than Lou Smit.

Yes, every homicide case is individual, just like those who perpetrate them. This is one of the reasons why those who attempt to find similarities between JonBenet's murder and other child murders are looking for the wrong type of perp.

While all homicide cases are different, questions regarding behavior and history remain fundamentally the same, just as investigatory methods remain the same regardless of the case characteristics.

Rainsong

Voice of Reason
05-06-2005, 06:20 PM
According to McCrary, "When you get a report, any sort of report, whether it's a kidnapping or a rape case, you're not being paid to believe or disbelieve anybody. Your attitude should be: 'Maybe this happened, and maybe it didn't. We'll find out.'"
When he speaks of believing or disbelieving, he is speaking about PEOPLE. However, McCrary's refusal to take the Ramsey's case was based on his belief that the EVIDENCE and FACTS of the case, which he was given at least to some extent at the time his help was requested from sources other than the media. I think you are twisting his quote into his ultimate conclusion, based on this EVIDENCE and FACTS, that he refused to take the case on a disbelief of the Ramseys. It is true that the EVIDENCE and FACTS, as he knew them, led him to that conclusion, but he turned down the case because of the EVIDENCE and FACTS, not because he had some prejudice against the Ramseys (absent the facts).

Voice of Reason
05-06-2005, 06:24 PM
John Douglas didn't follow normal procedure for interviewing suspects because that isn't something profilers do. They examine crime scene photos, study the evidence, the police reports, the coroners report, etc. Instead, since John Douglas was in Boulder to assess the parents, he studied them, their answers, their reaction to various questions, their interaction, body posture etc. John Douglas IS a profiler!!! He is not a professional lie-detector!! I agree that he attempted to be one, which is why I take his opinion with a grain of salt on this one. He should have followed normal procedure which is what he is best at, to create a profile. He should not interview the Ramseys to determine whether or not they are lying. There are plenty of people other than JD that could do that, possibly better. JD knows that the best place to look is at the crime scene. Since the majority of details there are from JR himself, I can't take JD's opinion on this one to be as valuable as I see it in other cases.

Just my $.02

Rainsong
05-06-2005, 06:39 PM
John Douglas IS a profiler!!! He is not a professional lie-detector!! I agree that he attempted to be one, which is why I take his opinion with a grain of salt on this one. He should have followed normal procedure which is what he is best at, to create a profile. He should not interview the Ramseys to determine whether or not they are lying. There are plenty of people other than JD that could do that, possibly better. JD knows that the best place to look is at the crime scene. Since the majority of details there are from JR himself, I can't take JD's opinion on this one to be as valuable as I see it in other cases.

Just my $.02

Please re-read my post. I specifically said interviewing suspects isn't something profilers normally do.

John Douglas was not hired to create a profile but to assess the Ramseys, specifically John Ramsey.

In most cases profilers do not know who the suspects are and don't want to know that information because it may cause undue influence.

Comparing the assessment of a possible suspect to the creation of a profile are not one and the same.

Given the information he had at the time, he told the attorneys he did not believe their client was involved in the murder of JonBenet. Also given the fact that he has interviewed hundreds of psychopaths and psychotics plus myriad other offenders over the course of a thirty-year career, his opinion far outweighs the opinion of an ordinary citizen.

Rainsong

Rainsong
05-06-2005, 06:42 PM
When he speaks of believing or disbelieving, he is speaking about PEOPLE. However, McCrary's refusal to take the Ramsey's case was based on his belief that the EVIDENCE and FACTS of the case, which he was given at least to some extent at the time his help was requested from sources other than the media. I think you are twisting his quote into his ultimate conclusion, based on this EVIDENCE and FACTS, that he refused to take the case on a disbelief of the Ramseys. It is true that the EVIDENCE and FACTS, as he knew them, led him to that conclusion, but he turned down the case because of the EVIDENCE and FACTS, not because he had some prejudice against the Ramseys (absent the facts).

What evidence and facts can one deduce from media? Can it be assumed because it is in print, it is true? Can it be assumed that because it is aired on national television or broadcast over the airwaves, it is true?

Were you around at the time War of the Worlds first aired? Did you believe earth had actually been attacked by aliens because it was on the radio?

And no. McCrary had no information other than from the news media. Do you really think the BPD were sharing with anyone--oh--except for all those "leaks."

Rainsong

Voice of Reason
05-06-2005, 06:52 PM
So are you suggesting that the Ramseys picked up the phone called McCrary and said, "Hey. WOuld you like to come to Boulder and assess our innocence? Just read the papers. It'll fill you in on all the facts. Just get back to us soon, because John Douglas is on the other line."

Of course, that's an exaggeration, but don't you think McCrary was given any background by the Ramseys and their lawyers. If their lawyers had ANY brains, and I think they do, they would give McCrary some background when proposing the job to him. TO suggest that all he had to base his decision on is the media, is to suggest the Ramseys and their lawyers are fools. (While that statement does make ME think), it's obvious these are not fools...

Rainsong
05-06-2005, 07:21 PM
So are you suggesting that the Ramseys picked up the phone called McCrary and said, "Hey. WOuld you like to come to Boulder and assess our innocence? Just read the papers. It'll fill you in on all the facts. Just get back to us soon, because John Douglas is on the other line."

Of course, that's an exaggeration, but don't you think McCrary was given any background by the Ramseys and their lawyers. If their lawyers had ANY brains, and I think they do, they would give McCrary some background when proposing the job to him. TO suggest that all he had to base his decision on is the media, is to suggest the Ramseys and their lawyers are fools. (While that statement does make ME think), it's obvious these are not fools...

No, I believe it was the attorneys who were concerned about the guilt or innocence of their client.

And no, I don't believe any background was given to McCrary by the attorneys or the Ramseys as they never spoke with him on the phone. I believe it was Armistead who was the contact person and also the person who contacted John Douglas.

Rainsong

Jayelles
05-07-2005, 05:06 AM
So are you suggesting that the Ramseys picked up the phone called McCrary and said, "Hey. WOuld you like to come to Boulder and assess our innocence? Just read the papers. It'll fill you in on all the facts. Just get back to us soon, because John Douglas is on the other line."

Of course, that's an exaggeration, but don't you think McCrary was given any background by the Ramseys and their lawyers. If their lawyers had ANY brains, and I think they do, they would give McCrary some background when proposing the job to him. TO suggest that all he had to base his decision on is the media, is to suggest the Ramseys and their lawyers are fools. (While that statement does make ME think), it's obvious these are not fools...
It is interesting to read the posts on this thread and to see the different perspectives of the same scenario.

Personally, I think profiling is like a game of chess. You can anticipate the other player's moves but it's not an exact science and new scenarios are always going to come along which will change the way we think.

I read about a computer which plays chess. It was programmed with all the moves that had ever been made and champion chess players couldn't beat the computer - and then one of them did. The programmers had to update the computer.

seesthru
07-29-2005, 02:49 AM
JOhn Douglas is an honorable man, and comletely undeserving of the insults casually posted here. If his self-assurance is misunderstood by some as arrogance, then that's just too bad for that person, not for John Douglas. He's always been at the forefront in his field, and is so highly regarded that he is inundated with reqyuests for help from many people from all walks of life, and he helps those he can, pro bono. If he feels that the family of Jon Benet Ramsey is not responsible for her death, then you can bet your paycheck that there is good reason behind his reasoning. Even if you disagree with him, there's no need for the constant insults. Such insults are in poor taste. They are also a good indicator of the thoughtlessness and gossipy atmosphere prevalent in this thread.


John Douglas was the best and still is. He's not superman, no one is, but he investigates, and uses his grey matter, and unlike some "profilers" who seem to shoot off at the mouth and end up making things worse, he's not done so. He COULD< be on the five o'clock news all the time if he chose to, mouthing off and giving premature ideas to the media on many cases. unlike those "profilers" who seem to give the fugitives and criminals ideas on how to seek more infamy, he chooses to work quietly and effectively. If the interviews he DOES give, make him come across as vain or arrogant, then perhaps that's more a reflection of the insecurity of the listener, and not the character of the man himself.

Jayelles
07-29-2005, 08:38 AM
We all see things from different perspectives. It's clear from his own forum, that John Douglas has a strong fanbase - albeit a very tiny one. It's also pretty clear that for soe of his fans, the admiration is more than just one of his mind!!!

However, from reading the reviews at Amazon, it is clear that a great many people do find him exceptionally arrogant and egotistical. I read Mindhunter many years ago and was irritated by his boastfulness - it got in the way of the book actually.

The problem is that when someone is very egotistical, people LOVE it when they make mistakes.

I saw John Douglas on tv recently and he seemed quite nice. My husband has met him a couple of times officially and I have signed copies of two of his books. I'm not anti-John Douglas, but I am critical of him in certain respects.

Nehemiah
07-29-2005, 09:31 AM
Interesting take on Mr. Douglas. Do you know him personally?

Jayelles
07-29-2005, 11:40 AM
Interesting take on Mr. Douglas. Do you know him personally?
http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1859

http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=7311&highlight=underwear#7311

http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=9714&highlight=underwear#9714

Nehemiah
07-29-2005, 05:52 PM
http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1859

http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=7311&highlight=underwear#7311

http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=9714&highlight=underwear#9714

Hmmmm...

Thanks Jayelles.

SisterSocks
07-30-2005, 03:48 PM
One of the things he speaks of in this post is the stress brought on by a murder case. The RST post about the stress of the "BORG" contributing to Patsy's ill health, but one thing I find horrific is the fact that a recent newspaper article by Charlie Brennan had a "friend" (who didn't wish to be named - surprise, surprise) revealing Patsy's poor state of health and her domestic and medical arrangements. What kind of friend is that? I think it's appalling to divulge her private arrangements at a time like this.

I think that the stress of having "friends" anonymously leaking stuff to the press must be way more stressful than anything the "BORG" might have to say on an internet forum! Imagine wondering which friend couldn't be trusted?



I think about things like-- What if she is innocent?
I personally can't imagine the horror of websites, that talks trash about me everyday!