Who Can Truly Claim to Be Spin Doctors?

Who mangles this case the worst?

  • RDI

    Votes: 1 8.3%

  • IDI

    Votes: 11 91.7%
  • Total voters
    12

New Posts

B

BBB167893

Former Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2006
Messages
13,259
Reaction score
109
This is sort of the "People Who Live in Glass Houses" portion of our show.

Both sides are often accused of ignoring evidence, failing to make real-world considerations or using so-called "spin."

The question is, which side does it more often and more egregiously? (Note that they need not be one and the same.)

To start this one rolling, we'll use two unedited posts from folks on either side:

HoldontoyourHat said:
Crime Scene Item............... Prima Facie Contention......................... RDI Contention
2nd ligature........................ restraining device ......................................NOT a restraining device
ligature ............................. strangulation device ..................................NOT a strangulation device
underwear DNA.................... evidence of an intruder ..............................NOT evidence of an intruder
ransom note....................... extortion attempt......................................NOT an extortion attempt
sexual injuries .....................sexual assault ..........................................NOT a sexual assault
furrow & petechia ................strangled to death ....................................NOT strangled to death
headbash ...........................deliberate part of murder ...........................NOT deliberate
touch DNA .........................corroborating evidence ...............................NOT corroborating evidence
misspelled words .................accidental misspellings ................................NOT accidental misspellings
cord ..................................owned by intruder .....................................NOT owned by intruder
foreign faction ....................foreign faction ..........................................NOT foreign faction
SBTC................................. no data .................................................S aved by the cross, etc.

PR and/or JR owns the smoke and mirrors: PR and/or JR in less than 8 hours made many of these items look like the work of an intruder

RDI owns the smoke and mirrors: RDI over years and years has made actual criminal acts by an intruder appear to be the work of PR and/or JR.
Click to expand...

Sophie said:
As opposed to IDI who:

Ignore the fact that most children are murdered by close family and relatives;
Ignore the Ramseys' post-murder behaviour and believe the Ramsey story; that JBR was asleep when she got home (despite having been fed pineapple shortly before death and having a different hair arrangement when she was found dead than she had at the Whites' party etc ad infinitum);
Ignore the fact that there was older damage to the child's vagina indicted by the autopsy;
Ignore Ramsey fibres being found in criminally suggestive places or else suggest that the killer wore Patsy's and John's clothes while carrying out the crime;
Ignore the stats that burglaries go up at Christmas generally but down on Christmas day itself while family violence escalates on that day and that is pretty much the case in the Christmas-celebrating world;
Ignore the fact that three out of four people in that house survived the night without hearing the thundering report of a child getting her head staved in or any of the other events of the night;
Ignore the fact that the duct tape had been used previously and had been placed on a dead or unconscious child;
Ignore the fact that there is no evidence of JBR having struggled against restraints so she either had them placed on her when she was already dead or unconscious. Why? The job's already been done.
Ignore the fact that the RN itself points to three separate motives for killing JBR while the sexual assault points to another;
Ignore what an intruder would have had to do in an unknown house in complete darkness and complete silence in rather less than eight hours as opposed to what the family could do in their own home in at least eight hours (a full working day).


And that's without skimming the surface..
Click to expand...
 
I thought I'd best not vote since some of my ramblings form the substance of this question :D.

However, what I must say is that, with the exception of the DNA and the unsourced fibres, which may be significant or may not, there is precious little evidence of an intruder that didn't come from the imagination of Lou Smit. The ligature and everything else mentioned by HOTYH speak to a Ramsey as much as to an intruder, at least in terms of pure evidence.
 
LS spins it the worst, and he is the basis for most IDI thinking.
 
Chrishope said:
LS spins it the worst, and he is the basis for most IDI thinking.
Click to expand...


I thought this would be the best place to add this.It's disgusting when talented,smart experts turn into "experts" ( " " = $ ;) ).

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0201jon.htm

Profiler admits his autopsy briefing came from Ramsey lawyers



By Charlie Brennan
Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BOULDER -- Former FBI profiler John Douglas has conceded that the only briefing he received on the JonBenet Ramsey autopsy report came from the Ramsey family's lawyers.
In a one-hour interview Thursday on Larry King Live, the criminal profiler hired by John and Patricia Ramsey to help solve(uh huh ;) ) their 6-year-old daughter's murder said his knowledge of her unfinished autopsy report is third-hand.
"I was briefed by the attorneys'' representing the Ramseys, Douglas said.
He said he has not seen the final report.
This contradicts statements on Dateline NBC Tuesday night that Douglas had been briefed on the autopsy report. The next day, no officials connected to the murder investigation admitted having done so.
Boulder County coroner John Meyer will ask at a Feb. 12 hearing in Boulder District Court to have the report sealed. It is not expected to be completed until then.
Los Angeles criminal defense attorney Leslie Abramsom, who defended Erik and Lyle Menendez in the murders of their parents, was also a guest on King's show.
"How could the defense attorneys be briefing Mr. Douglas on the autopsy when they don't have a report?'' she asked.
When King repeated the questioned, Douglas answered, "You'd have to bring them on as a guest.''
All calls to the Ramsey family's attorneys -- who were hired to conduct an independent investigation into the sexual assault and strangulation of the child -- are being referred to the family's spokesman, Patrick Korten.
Korten could not be reached for comment Friday.
Douglas defended his analysis concerning the murder of JonBenet, who was discovered in a remote room of her family's basement Dec. 26, about eight hours after her mother discovered a ransom note demanding $118,000 for the girl's safe return.
"As long as you have someone -- you have a witness, someone can answer the questions that you need, you can do an analysis,'' Douglas said.
Douglas has ruled out family members as suspects. Police have not publicly identified or eliminated any suspects.
Douglas told King that he was limited in what he could say about the murder because he'd been told by the Ramseys' lawyers he may be called before a grand jury.
There has been no indication, however, that Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter has convened a grand jury in the Ramsey case.
And in Colorado, no one can be forced to testify before a grand jury unless they have first been granted immunity.


February 1, 1997
 
http://www.corpus-delicti.com/mccrary_jbr.html

Profiler slipped up
By Chuck Green
Denver Post Columnist

Jan. 30, 1997-

There's an old adage that goes something like this: Actions speak louder than words. In the criminal field, there's a time-tested twist to the adage: Behavior is more telling than words.

But former FBI profiler John Douglas, who has worked for the family in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case, seems to have veered from that old principle.

In his interview with "Dateline NBC" this week, Douglas has said that "his heart" tells him that JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy, weren't involved in her murder. And he relies heavily on his 4 1/2 hour interview with the couple to reach his conclusion, (sounds like no one else but LS.....oh the pattern!) he said. If John Ramsey is a liar, Douglas said on national TV, he's one of the best. ITA!!!

But one of Douglas's former FBI colleagues, Gregg McCrary, watched the television interview with more than a passing interest. He turned down the job as the Ramsey family's profiler a couple of weeks ago. McCrary found some notable flaws in Douglas' profiling work for the Ramseys. NBC referred, without contradiction from Douglas, to the profiler's "interview with the parents for 4 1/2 hours."

McCrary said the parents should have been interviewed separately, not jointly, for the profiling work to be valid. "That's always the correct way to do this. It's fundamental," McCrary said. "You separate the people, you interview them independently, you lock them into statements and then you compare." To do otherwise virtually invalidates the effort, he said. And he wasn't impressed with Douglas' conclusion that John Ramsey is telling the truth. "I've talked to guilty offenders in the penitentiary, and some of them are so manipulative and persuasive that they almost have you believing they didn't do it," he told me yesterday.

Top-notch criminal profilers, he said, "always put more weight on behavior than on words. The behavior of the offender is much more telling than what he says later," McCrary said. And the behavior of JonBenet's killer speaks very, very loudly.

For instance, McCrary said evidence at the scene strongly disputes any theory that the killer may have been a disgruntled employee of Ramsey. "This crime was not about getting back at the father," said McCrary, who couldn't recall a case of "someone killing a kid to get back at a parent." He said the sexual assault of JonBenet "was a deviant, psychopathic sexual behavior, not an expression of anger at the father."

If revenge on the father had been a motive, McCrary said, "the killer would have displayed the body; he wouldn't have hidden it in the basement."

The profiler said the body would have been placed in a manner "to shock and offend" John Ramsey if anger or hate or revenge had been the motive.

Additionally, he said that by assaulting JonBenet, killing her, taking her from an upper-floor bedroom to a far corner of the basement and writing a lengthy ransom note - all negated a revenge killing.

"If that had been the reason for a killer being in the house that night," McCrary said, "they would have killed the little girl and gotten out as fast as possible."

It's that behavior that a profiler puts most credence in, rather than in someone's words, according to McCrary. And McCrary comes with unusually good credentials. Douglas himself considers McCrary to be among "the top criminal profilers and investigative analysts in the world."

Chuck Green can be reached at cgreen@denverpost.com.


His heart tells him?Just like LS's?Okay,now these are the people who I'd hire to solve a crime!!!
 
You know what,I am sick and tired of IDI's accusing me of spinning or making up stories about evidence when their OWN IDI "EXPERTS" are naming killers and exonerating people based on what their heart (not even their cop/profiler instinct) tells them. A big pathetic LOL for that one.
 
Btw,if I recall correctly...wasn't Douglas hired by the R lawyers because they wanted to know whether it's possible for JR to have killed JB?I know I read it somewhere.

Now WHY did they do that HMMMMMMMMMM???
 
We all know why experts are hired by defence lawyers and how they "change their minds" in court,you only have to look at the first Phil Spector trial LOL.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14429987/

But the suspicions didn’t go away. And in 1997, former FBI profiler John Douglas was hired by the Ramseys attorneys to help in a possible legal defense. At first, Douglas, too, doubted their innocence.



But thennnnnnnnn his heart told him different.Okayyyyyyy :rolleyes:



Douglas: I came to a very quick resolution that they’re barking up the wrong tree. This investigation is going in the wrong direction here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 181 more.
Total: 4,141 (members: 182, guests: 3,959)

Online statistics

Members online
182
Guests online
3,959
Total visitors
4,141
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,656
Messages
17,957,043
Members
228,578
Latest member
kupsa
Back
Top