774 users online (106 members and 668 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 50
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    A John Douglas thread

    Yesterday, John Douglas made an interesting post on a thread about Patsy Ramsey's deteriorating health:-

    http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com...pic.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.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    487
    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?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    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.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,795
    Quote Originally Posted by little1
    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    Recent interview with John Douglas on Jonbenet transcribed (I think) by Seesthru who is a member of the John Douglas forum:-
    Transcribed by Rainsong.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by tipper
    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....

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by little1
    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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    515
    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.
    This post is my opinion.

  9. #9

    I've send the following mail to Douglas email address

    ----- 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

  10. #10

    And got the following lame answer from his webmaster

    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!


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by K777angel
    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

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    343
    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.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by Voice of Reason
    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

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    NB Canada
    Posts
    202

    Is this going too far?

    Quote Originally Posted by little1
    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?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    515
    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.
    This post is my opinion.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. From the Defense expert John Douglas.
    By Dirty larry in forum West Memphis III
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-27-2010, 02:15 PM
  2. John Douglas
    By santos1014 in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-13-2007, 03:49 PM
  3. More John Douglas talk...
    By Voice of Reason in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-15-2006, 12:24 PM
  4. John Douglas
    By Jayelles in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-04-2004, 09:54 PM