Why would Lou Smitt and another FBI profiler say they did not do it?

Lou Smitt devoted his retired life to this case and did not believe they did the crime-he believes it was an intruder? John Douglas (I think thats his name), a
profiler with the FBI, said he did not believe the ramseys fit the profile at all-and wrote about it..now these 2 were pply privy to most of the details - why would they be so supportive if the ramseys did this..
(I am asking for your thots- not an argument about their guilt or innocence)..I think this is a fair question-2 very well reputed members of society say No Way the ramseys were involved..one by investigating and one by profiling..?
And they do not think it was Burke either?? They have stated in writing and publicly that they do not see how it could be anyone but an intruder..
(I dont have a link but i am sure you know better than me what I am referring to-it was a long time ago but I know I watched a whole program on Lou Smitt and watched the profiler being interviewed many times about the case..)..

Both of these are fair questions. First, the profiler, Douglas, didn't see any of the actual evidence and was consulted way after the fact. He saw only what the Ramseys showed him and told him. Mr. Douglas didn't even interview Patsy Ramsey, only John. He also didn't follow his own rules and guidlines about his profiling that he, himself had established. And, as for Lou, he was brought in a few days after the case had been being investigated. I believe he was hired to sort through the evidence and catalog it into some kind of order. The thing is, he has presented some stuff called "evidence" that wasn't actually the case, such as the picture of a basement window open wide. He said that when he saw that picture, that's when he started believing in an intruder. But, at the time JonBenet was found in the basement, that window wasn't open wide like that. Then there are other things that he can't explain such as the pineapple in her digestive system. He referred to JonBenet as a pedafile's dream, but she was wasn't abused in the way that most pedafiles abuse their victims. Then there is the statement about the blue arc on JonBenet's body being caused by the electricity from the stungun. These are a few of the things that make me scratch my head and wonder why these two guys came to their conclusions.
If I am not correct about any of the above info, please feel free to make corrections of what I have stated.

Keep in mind that John Douglas broke with protocol (which he himself helped establish) and after only meeting with John Ramsey and Ramesy's lawyers - having NO access whatsoever to the all important police reports, forensic evidence test results, autopsy reports - gave a premature opinion based only on that ONE-SIDED and very self-serving information.
His peers in the FBI were shocked at him and he became the butt of jokes in his professional circles. Deservedly so.

And Lou Smit, after meeting and praying with the Ramseys decided they weren't "the kind of people" that could do this. He then went on the FIND so called "evidence" that would fit an intruder theory because he so badly wanted that to be true. He IGNORED so much evidence that HE then became the butt of jokes with his professional peers. There is much for you to see regarding Lou Smit and how he is so deceptive in presenting the case because he went all over national television peddling it. It's a joke.
(For instance he conveniently leaves out the important FACT that a chair was found propped up against the door to the room in the basement with the broken window where he claims the 'intruder' escaped from! Now just HOW did this intruder - not to mention why - manage to go inside that room and at the same time prop the chair up against the door on the other side of it outside in the hall??)
Only an objective detective would then RULE OUT an intruder having gone through that window due to that chair propped up against the door.
Smit ignores it, never mentions it - because does not fit his pet theory.
There is so much more to point out - but out of time.

Suffice it to say - both Smit and Douglas were scoffed at amongst their proffessional peers for the shoddy work they did.
They didn't even claim to have an open mind about what happened to JonBenet. They, irresponsibly and without valid information and facts to back themselves up - claimed they were "innocent."

Even the Boulder Police Department has never stated that the Ramseys are "guilty."

I remember reading in 1998 John Douglas asked Haddon,Morgan and Foreman if Patsy Ramsey was in a lesbian relationship. It took me a few days to locate an odd profile on my computer disk but I found it. Why would Douglas ask that question then accuse a teenager for murdering Jonbenet? His profile in "The Cases That Haunt Us" did not make any sense to me. Who was responsible for the lesbian profile?

Profile of JonBenét Ramsey's Killer


The killer may be:
*A white female
*Age: 35-45 years
*Single or divorced
*Average or slightly above average intellectually
*A loner and acted alone in murder
*Domineering
*Aggressive and controlling with masculine demeanor
*Sexually aggressive and willing to try anything
*Overconfident with an air of superiority
*Neatly groomed, slightly overweight with hair short
or frequently tied up
*High birth order with several siblings; highly educated parents
*History of bi-polar disorder or other mental illness
*Works as a paralegal, in security field or as a
civil servant
*Drawn to excitement-oriented or thrill-seeker
hobbies, including books,movies
*Appears cooperative with Ramsey family or authorities
*Has experienced stress or crisis in job or relationship, and may have been seen expressing anger prior to murder
*Used alcohol and/or drugs before and during the
murder with increased use
*Stays in touch with investigation.

Maybe the idea that the killer might be a lesbian came from the fact that no semen was found on the body, yet there was vaginal trauma.

imo

And what did Ressler and McCrary think/said?

IMO these are good profilers, Douglas is just an so-so profiler (but a good seller), who has partnered with a good writer, Mark Olshaker.

Cain said:

And what did Ressler and McCrary think/said?

IMO these are good profilers, Douglas is just an so-so profiler (but a good seller), who has partnered with a good writer, Mark Olshaker.

Click to expand...

Ressler doesn't think the family did it. Don't know about McCrary.

Ressler had this to say about the note: "Bogus." (The Denver Post, 9/9/97) What do you suppose he meant by that?

"The kidnap note, that's about as bogus as I could imagine," Ressler said. "When you make an entry into a house to effect a kidnapping, that's a very high-risk situation -- and then to spend the time writing a note like that? That tells me something is amiss here. And there's too many cute things in the note -- 'Don't try to grow a brain, John' -- all that personal stuff just smacks of a bogus kidnap scenario. I would have been extremely suspicious.''
...
And this is what should have happened, he said.
"Everybody in the house goes downtown. They (John and Patsy Ramsey) are separated. And they are being interviewed, and they are talking about all aspects of the situation.
"A, you don't conduct a group interview, and B, you don't conduct much of an interview there at the scene. You want people out of their comfort zone. You want them in your control.
"I haven't ever heard a reasonable, logical explanation'' for why police failed to do so, he said.

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0608jon.htm

What does McCrary think about the case?

Greg McCrary, a former FBI psychological profiler trained in criminal behavior, thinks that JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy, were likely involved in the crime. "Parents are involved quite often in homicides," says McCrary. "The probability of an outsider doing this is extremely remote. I think someone in the family or very, very close to the family committed this crime."

"Whoever took this child covered the child, apparently spent time wrapping the child, apparently spent time wiping down the body in the house, took time to get a pad and pen from the house to write a note," McCrary says. "Stranger intruders, when they come in to abduct a child, they're in, they're out."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/04/07/48hours/main42058.shtml

imo

newtv said:

Why would Lou Smitt and another FBI profiler say they did not do it?

Click to expand...

Two simple answers to your questions:

John Douglas (the former FBI profiler) was PAID by the Ramseys to develop a profile of an intruder. He did the job he was paid to do.

Lou Smit is a delusional old man who had his own agenda from the moment he was hired. Smit was only on the case 72 hours when he proclaimed the Ramseys "innocent". The case file at that time was over 20,000 pages long. After only 72 hours, Smit would not have had time to memorize his way to the Men's room, much less figure out where the evidence was pointing.

Smit also likes to play games with the evidence. For example, he knows the pineapple proves the Ramseys are lying about what happened when they got home that night, but instead of considering them suspects because of it he makes up a stupid scenerio like an intruder brought some pineapple up to her bedroom in a tupperwear bowl and fed it to her....

John Douglas was hired by the Ramsey attorneys/investigators to give his analysis and evaluation of the crime and his opinion as to John Ramsey's guilt.

Re Ressler:


http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~56~1072413~,00.html

Article Published: Wednesday, December 25, 2002

Former FBI profiler Robert Ressler said he doubts the case will ever be solved unless someone comes forward with new evidence or a "deathbed confession." "This is a situation where the police botched the initial investigation, and years later, they're still trying to sort things out," said Ressler, who helped build the psychological profile of New York's "Son of Sam" killer in the 1970s.
Ressler said he doubts that a stranger broke into the home and killed JonBenet. But he said he also doubts a family member killed her.
"There may have been other people in the house that night, and I don't mean a stranger or family," Ressler said. "I just don't know. We may never know."

Maybe Ressler is really our very own BlueCrab.

imo

And how does Lou Smit explain away the "ransom" letter?

Just as the Jayson Williams juror who said that Jayson didn't have the look of a cold-blooded killer in his eyes, Lou Smit sees innocence in the Ramseys'.

IMO

Shylock said:

John Douglas (the former FBI profiler) was PAID by the Ramseys to develop a profile of an intruder. He did the job he was paid to do.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Lou Smit is a delusional old man who had his own agenda from the moment he was hired.

Click to expand...

Exactly. He was/is clearly trying to relive his moment of glory from the Heather Church case. He has been working for the Ramseys since he quit the case, and effectively from day one, as you point out, Shylock. Smit bonded with the Ramseys and allowed them to use their common religion to manipulate him. Smit simply ignores what he can't explain.

Investigators/profilers/experts hired by and working on behalf of the Ramseys are not impartial, reliable sources of information. Duh. You don't bite the hand that feeds you, or your ego as the case may be.

You said:

"Ressler doesn't think the family did it"

And Ressler said:

(from:

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/5046/ressler.html)


Ressler on JBR:

"I've looked at the neighborhood and I do not ascribe at all to the concept that a stranger broke into the house and, uh, in an attempt to kidnap or abduct JonBenet, killed her and wrote the note, and then left. I believe it was some sort of an internal--- uh-- situation that occurred that-- uh--I believe the Ramseys-- Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey, possibly their son-- uh-- Burke, have more information available that they could provide police than they've held back-- uh-- in their non-cooperation they've put themselves in a position of being major suspects" (...) "But I think-- uh-- I've always believed that JonBenet was killed as a result of an accident that was being covered up-- I'm not saying whether or not Ramsey's parents or the brother were involved in the actual killing, but I think--as I say--I think that the entire-- uh-- elaborate staging was done to conceal the true facts of what really happened to that child"


I think Resler's opinion is clear enough,


------------------------------------------------
Just my unworthy opinion.

Based on the dates, I'd say no longer believes they were involved.

Re Ressler:
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~56~1072413~,00.html

Article Published: Wednesday, December 25, 2002


http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/5046/ressler.html

Interview with

Robert K. Ressler

March 14, 1999

It's interesting that Ressler mentions Burke Ramsey and also mentions that he, Ressler, thinks JonBenet's death may have been accidental. I gather from all the articles about Ressler posted on this thread that Ressler thinks that even though the killer may not be John, Patsy, or Burke, he believes the Rs know who the killer is and are covering for this person (or persons), which means Ressler thinks the Rs were friends of the killer/s . Though my remark about Ressler being BlueCrab was TIC, maybe Ressler does believe a friend or friends of Burke's killed JonBenet.

imo

tipper said:

Based on the dates, I'd say no longer believes they were involved.

Click to expand...

That's not what he said. He did not say he believes they weren't "involved." He did not say, for example, he believes Patsy didn't write the note or that the Ramseys didn't lie and cover up and know what happened. Ressler's comments cannot be spun to suggest he is an intruder theorist, not by a long shot.

As you posted above, he said he doubts a family member killed her. He doubts that a stranger broke into the home and killed JonBenet and that There may have been other people in the house that night...

Sure sounds to me like he's thinking like BlueCrab's theory or similar. Ivy, maybe you're right.

Exactly.

Ressler: "Ressler said he doubts that a stranger broke into the home and killed JonBenet. But he said he also doubts a family member killed her.

"There may have been other people in the house that night, and I don't mean a stranger or family," Ressler said. "I just don't know. We may never know."

Consider two phases: the crime, and the staging.


And when this second interview, in 2002, Lin Wood already was actively suing everybody.

IMO

newt, Smit and Douglas were right, feel better?

Now, pull the covers over your head and go back to sleep.

Profile of JonBenét Ramsey's Killer
Behavioral Analysis of the JonBenet Case
The Ransom "Note"
The killer may be:
.......A white female
.......Age: 35-45 years
...... Single or divorced
.......Average or slightly above average intellectually
.......A loner and acted alone in murder
.......Domineering
.......Sexually she would most likely be aggressive and willing to try anything
.......Aggressive and controlling with masculine demeanor
.......Overconfident with an air of superiority
.......Neatly groomed, slightly overweight with hair short or frequently tied up
.......High birth order with several siblings; highly educated parents
.......History of bi-polar disorder or other mental illness
.......Works as a paralegal, in security field or as a Police Officer.
.......Drawn to excitement-oriented or thrill-seeker hobbies, including books, movies
.......Appears cooperative with Ramsey family or authorities investigating the case
.......Has experienced stress or crisis in job or relationship, and may have been seen expressing anger prior to murder.
.......Has a well established history of drug abuse. Used alcohol and/or drugs before and during the murder
with increased use afterward


Donald Pugh