A John Douglas thread
- Thread starter Jayelles
- Start date
little1 said:
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
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.
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.
Toltec said:
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
Member
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.
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.
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
I don't believe he followed his own adage.
Rainsong
K777angel
Member
Rainsong said:
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.
K777angel said:
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
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
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
Former Member
I agree. However, I think it is highly unprofessional to then publically suggest the parents are guilty.IrishMist said:
Rainsong said:
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?
little1 said:
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
Rainsong said:
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?
little1 said:
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
Rainsong said:
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?
little1 said:
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
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2005
- Messages
- 343
- Reaction score
- 10
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).Rainsong said:
Voice of Reason
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2005
- Messages
- 343
- Reaction score
- 10
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.Rainsong said:
Just my $.02
Voice of Reason said:
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