----- 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
