RIP Common Sense

[Aedrys]

I don't believe there is a better justice system, even though I'm positive it failed in this case. I truly believe there was evidence beyond a REASONABLE doubt. There is the problem, it's partly the CSI effect and partly defense attorney perverting the term beyond a Reasonable doubt to beyond an ABSOLUTE doubt. If the jurors aren't completely convinced that the person on trial is 200% guilty they lean innocent these days. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not nearly that conclusive and aside from having a video of an actual event nothing is (heck even videos can be seen subjectively).

ITA. Also, in the lastest People article, a juror spoke out and admitted that they took a lot of informal polls and based their decision on that. Also, one person was holding out, but then said, "fine, I'll go along with whatever you all want." Now, I'm sorry, but that is not a good jury. I could respect the verdict if they looked at evidence and actually deliberated. But they didn't. They took some opinion polls and no one stood up for what was right. That is a terrible jury. I wouldn't want a jury like that deciding guilt or innocence. And that is the problem. They did throw all common sense out of the window for the popularity majority vote and for wanting to get back to their summer vacations (Jennifer Ford, a juror, admitted she just wanted her freedom in an interview). This was the worst jury ever, in my opinion, and it scares me that juries are becoming this way. It scares me a lot.

 

[BBB167893]

Dave I didn't know you knew of the McCann case, from what I remember they found a hair in the boot of the hire car and as it had the root attached to it they were able to DNA test it and the DNA was maddies. Also kates diary she describes maddy as a difficult child and other not nice things.

Hi, smurf. PM me later.

Yes, I know a little bit about it. Not very much.

 

[BBB167893]

Big big difference bucko. You have to be extremely conceited and arrogant to state my opinion has something to do with child killers being free.

Not directly, pilgrim. But the effect is much the same. IDIs go out there and spew Ramsey propaganda. I can't help but wonder how many of these other killers saw how well that worked out and thought, "all I need is one person on a jury to believe me." Like PT Barnum said, "there's a sucker born every minute." And those suckers give us justice like OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony.

So, IMO, IDI is not only partly responsible for JB's killers walking free, but for a host of OTHER children being murdered, because they encourage the kind of arguments that these criminals depend on.

How many is it going to TAKE?! How many MORE little angels have to die? That's the question, far as I go.

I'm not out to get justice just for JB, pilgrim. I'm out to prevent the NEXT one. And the way I see it, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

They did not even get an indictment from Grand Jury proceedings.

We've been over that.

They have a legitimate sample of DNA that passes well enough to be placed in CODIS.

Don't try to rewrite history, pilgrim. You know damn well that sample had to be rammed through.

Now, again, explain to me how it is my fault that a Ramsey never had to walk in a courtroom?

I just did.

I would be fearing for your own soul, Dave.

What makes you think I don't?

 

[BBB167893]

The McCanns???? Seriously?? come on, use that good old common sense of yours and you will see they are not guilty of killing their daughter!

To tell the truth, FairM, I don't know WHAT to believe about the McCanns.

I know one thing, and please don't take offense at this, FairM, but I've noticed a disturbing trend among Brits to defend their "hometown kids" irrespective of evidence.

And as for using common sense, it would please me greatly if some IDIs WOULD use it! That's why I started this thread in the first place!

Hiya SD!:great:

Everybody, this is my friend, FairM. Please accord her the same respect and graciousness that you would afford me. Because I'll be breathing down your neck if ya don't! :crazy:

Have you given up on CS, ?:innocent:

Not yet, FairM. But close to it. I'd rather discuss this in private if you don't mind.

Well done on the radio show btw , good for you I think that deserves a cookie or two lol

I gave my all for that one, FairM! I just wonder how many of the Wrecking Crew actually listened to it! Judging from ol' Roy, not many, I'd say! And that really bothers me, because we did that radio show specifically for the people who NEED to hear truth the most!

 

[BBB167893]

Hi
Do you think DNA can be used to exclude other suspects than the Ramseys? It seems that this was used by the police to exclude some suspects.

Not exactly. The DNA was never used ALONE to exclude suspects. And even if it had been, it should NOT have been. As I TRIED to tell you before the Wrecking Crew sabotaged the thread, excluding people with this DNA is a BIG mistake.

I'd like to find out more about the Grand Jury proceedings and I note that you state the DA wouldn't let them vote, wanted to look at the source of that please, ta.

Just to jump in here, FairM. I'll do the second one first. There are actually several sources that confirm that the DA would not let the GJ vote, and some pretty interesting ones at that. It seems to be one of the few things that anti-Rams like Dan Caplis and ST, and pro-Rams like Michael Tracey and Bryan Morgan actually agree on.

But the main source is Henry Lee himself.

 

[vlpate]

Hi
Do you think DNA can be used to exclude other suspects than the Ramseys? It seems that this was used by the police to exclude some suspects.

I'd like to find out more about the Grand Jury proceedings and I note that you state the DA wouldn't let them vote , wanted to look at the source of that please, ta.

I don't think the DNA can exclude anyone as a suspect...just because there's touch DNA on her long johns and underwear do not belong to the Ramsey's, does not mean they weren't there. There's more evidence that they were there.

I'll see if I can find you a source on AH and the Grand Jury...it was pretty much common knowledge at the time.

 

[I Must Break You]

Hi
Do you think DNA can be used to exclude other suspects than the Ramseys? It seems that this was used by the police to exclude some suspects.

I'd like to find out more about the Grand Jury proceedings and I note that you state the DA wouldn't let them vote , wanted to look at the source of that please, ta.

For all intents and purposes DNA is inclusive and not exclusive. Just because one persons DNA is at a scene it can't rule out others being there that may not have left DNA.

 

[vlpate]

Not exactly. The DNA was never used ALONE to exclude suspects. And even if it had been, it should NOT have been. As I TRIED to tell you before the Wrecking Crew sabotaged the thread, excluding people with this DNA is a BIG mistake.



Just to jump in here, FairM. I'll do the second one first. There are actually several sources that confirm that the DA would not let the GJ vote, and some pretty interesting ones at that. It seems to be one of the few things that anti-Rams like Dan Caplis and ST, and pro-Rams like Michael Tracey and Bryan Morgan actually agree on.

But the main source is Henry Lee himself.

Lin Wood, in his twisty wordy way, said basically the same thing:
The Ramseys' attorney, L. Linn Wood, reached in Atlanta, said the ruling was only a step in the right direction.

"I'm interested in any information about the truth of the grand-jury investigation," he said. "I want the whole truth as to why the grand jury did not indict John and Patsy Ramsey.

"This ruling doesn't sound like it goes far enough for the basis of a claim" to ask how the grand jury voted, he said.

"If the grand jury voted not to indict, I don't think (former District Attorney) Alex Hunter has the right to refuse to sign a no-true bill," he said. "If the grand jury voted not to indict ... clearly the Ramseys and the public have a right to know."

Wood said he is waiting for Hunter to return from a Hawaiian vacation to subpoena him to testify about any grand-jury votes. He says he expects Hunter to declare privilege against testifying, and that Wood will file a motion in court forcing him to testify.
http://www.rense.com/general11/benet.htm

 

[cynic]

You got to be kidding me. I know it is hard for you but it is impossible for the DNA to be mixed at this point.

Really?
It is a fact that the profile in CODIS from one of two sampled spots from JonBenet’s panties is a minor, partial profile; the major profile was from JonBenet.
It is a fact that according to the Ramseys own attorney (Lin Wood) that that profile was only 9 markers and 1 marker that was below standard.
It has nine clear markers and a 10th marker which is just at meeting the standard.
-Lin Wood
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...11/lkl.00.html

Through an unrevealed process that marker went from below standard to meeting the standard and the profile ended up in CODIS. IOW, it’s in CODIS by the skin of its teeth.
It may well be that the marker in question may have been originally considered to be stutter, but perhaps further evaluation deemed it to be an actual marker. I would like to see an independent review of what happened there.
It may have been that another analyst simply deemed the “iffy” marker to be sound as DNA analysis is often quite subjective. Consider the example below:
We took a mixed sample of DNA evidence from an actual crime scene- a gang rape committed in Georgia, US- which helped to convict a man called Kerry Robinson, who is currently in prison. We presented it, and Robinson's DNA profile, to 17 experienced analysts working in the same accredited government lab in the US, without any contextual information that might bias their judgement.
In the original case, two analysts from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation concluded that Robinson "could not be excluded" from the crime scene sample, based on his DNA profile. (A second man convicted of the same crime also testified that Robinson was an assailant, in return for a lesser jail term.) Each of our 17 analysts independently examined the profiles from the DNA mixture, the victim's profile and those of two other suspects and was asked to judge whether the suspects' profiles could be "excluded", "cannot be excluded" or whether the results were "inconclusive".
If DNA analysis were totally objective, then all 17 analysts should reach the same conclusion. However, we found that just one agreed with the original judgement that Robinson "cannot be excluded". Four analysts said the evidence was inconclusive and 12 said he could be excluded.
"Fingerprinting and other forensic disciplines have now accepted that subjectivity and context may affect their judgement and decisions," says Dror. "It is now time that DNA analysts accept that under certain conditions, subjectivity and even bias may affect their work." Dror presented the results at the Green Mountain DNA conference in Burlington, Vermont, last month.
Varying the identity of the suspect changed the answers that DNA analysts gave.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727733.500-fallible-dna-evidence-can-mean-prison-or-freedom.html?full=true

The weakness of this DNA was even mentioned by Tom Bennet, Mary Lacy’s investigator in response to some outrageous spin by the same people who fueled the Aphrodite Jones special, Ramsey “investigators”:
It may seem like the JonBenet Ramsey case is close to being solved because of a weekend media blitz on the subject, but the man handling the investigation said there`s been no breakthrough in the 8-year-old case.
Contrary to what was reported on a "48 Hours" special that aired Saturday night on CBS, DNA evidence found in JonBenet`s underwear doesn`t necessarily belong to the killer, Boulder County District Attorney`s Office investigator Tom Bennett said Monday. The office took over the Ramsey case two years ago and entered the DNA evidence into a national database for the first time earlier this year.
"The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said. "It`s minute DNA…
http://www.coloradodaily.com/ci_13061222#ixzz1W08wVwXF

“It can only exclude or include him as the possible killer. It can never be 100 percent,'' a forensic scientist, Dr. Henry Lee, said Saturday, noting that investigators only have a partial profile to work with.
“There was different DNA and mixture DNA that was hard to develop a profile from,'' said Bob Grant, a former prosecutor from neighboring Adams County who was an adviser in the case.
JonBenet Murder Case Heats Up Boulder, Colo.
Saturday August 19, 2006 9:16 PM
By CHASE SQUIRES
Associated Press Writer

It is a fact that Mary Lacy was willing to throw the DNA entered in CODIS under the bus to potentially prosecute Karr, if only she could find some other evidence to connect him.
(There, of course, was none. It was a completely baseless arrest.)

"The DNA could be an artifact," Lacy said in August. "It isn't necessarily the killer's. There's a probability that it's the killer's. But it could be something else."
…
"Where you have DNA, particularly where it's found in this case, prosecuting another (suspect) that doesn't match that DNA is highly problematic," she said. "It's not impossible, but it's highly problematic - and it doesn't make any difference who it is.
http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/...23/miss-steps/

Obviously if the DNA was such that she felt she could proceed with prosecuting a suspect that did not match the DNA, then clearly it is not the almighty, unassailable DNA that IDI purports it to be.
The next IDI argument is usually, “the DNA entered in CODIS is corroborated by matching DNA found through touch DNA on the waistband of the long johns worn by JonBenet.”
It is a fact that further DNA was found through touch DNA.
The relevance of this, or any DNA evidence, is tied to the amount of markers present, and there is no legitimate source that provides us with that information with respect to what was found by the touch DNA analysis.
There is no indication that this is anything but another partial profile, and if we are to believe Patsy’s story that she put the long johns on JonBenet as she slept, then it also probable that DNA sampled from the waistband would yield a mixed partial profile which would include PR. It is also possible that if John Ramsey held her along the waistband as he carried her upstairs that markers from his profile may be present as well, not to mention JonBenet’s profile.

PR: And so I went to these drawers looking for the pajamas, and she was just laying there,
so I didn't want to raise her up and get everything off of her to put a long nightgown, so looking for pajamas bottoms to put on her. I couldn't find any, and the long underwear pants were in there drawer, so I got those.
Interview, Patsy Ramsey, 1998

PR: We just left her top on her.
TT: . . .you leave the top on. . .
PR: Yeah.
TT: . . .uh, find a pair of. . .
PR: bottoms.
TT: . . .bottoms for her to wear. Um, did she wake up at all during this?
PR: No.
TT: Stayed pretty crashed out?
PR: Uh huh.
TT: Okay. Sound asleep the whole time then.
PR: Um hum.
LE interview, Patsy Ramsey, 1997

“A few moments later Ramsey picked up his daughter. Rigor mortis had set in and her body was rigid. Holding her by the waist like a plank of wood, he raced down the short hallway and up the basement stairs, yelling that JonBenét had been found.”
Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller, page 18

With respect to the word “match” as it has been used in the JonBenet case, let me say that there is cause for concern.
Given the previous debacle with the so called “matching” fingernail DNA evidence, can we trust that this is a legitimate match?
Here is a statement from Ramsey PI’s:
“Agustin and Gray are convinced that the DNA sample belongs to JonBenet's killer, because of a small amount of matching DNA that also was found under the 6-year-old murder victim's fingernails.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...l?tag=untagged
Sounds convincing doesn’t it, until you are made aware that there are merely two markers “matching” the 9 – 10 marker CODIS profile.
(Lou Smit in a deposition revealed that the fingernail scrapings from JonBenet’s right hand revealed 2 markers. This means that the DNA was so degraded that it bordered on being completely unusable.)
Why not reveal the number of matching markers between the touch DNA from the long johns and the CODIS profile based on DNA from JonBenet’s underwear?
Could it be that the DNA profile derived from the long johns is a weak profile, perhaps yet another mixed, partial profile consisting of only a few markers?
I’m quite confident that given Lacy’s bias, she would not hesitate to clear the Ramseys based on a “match” consisting of a few markers.
Did the BPD and the independent task force review the evidence including the touch DNA evidence only to find that Lacy was perhaps “stretching” the definition of “match?”
Could this be why the Ramseys were un-exonerated?
Regardless, there are certainly innocent ways that DNA can turn up in a crime scene, even in multiple matching locations and be completely unrelated to the true perpetrator of the crime.
Here are some examples:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6332787&postcount=77"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)[/ame]

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=187565&postcount=22"]Forums For Justice - View Single Post - Problems with DNA[/ame]

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5631931&postcount=352"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - DNA Revisited[/ame]

There is simply far too much evidence pointing to the Ramseys, as the body of evidence is considered in totality, to be led astray by what must be DNA deposited by adventitious means and, as such, unrelated to the crime.

They have it from numerous areas and have substaniated it to be from a single individual. You would have to have your head in the sand to not realize that they have DNA from other sources as well.
You can just guess how I know that. I didn't research it on the internet

See above, also the following links:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7059708&postcount=165"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Unknown male DNA and the panties discussion[/ame]

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6303080&postcount=40"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)[/ame]

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6332787&postcount=77"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Ramsey Project Rebuttal (Non Intruder Posters Only)[/ame]

 

[cynic]

I have read all of Cynic's sources.

I seriously doubt that.

None of it is pertinent today.

You will have to prove that, and not simply with un-sourced statements based on your private speculation.

I agree with you 100% on the fact that the DNA excludes the Ramseys but cannot exclude them as suspects with all certainty. I have never argued otherwise. Lacy was premature with this announcement even though she is probably correct.

An unidentified DNA profile exists. The source is unknown and may be from contamination or otherwise be unrelated to the true perpetrator of the crime.
DNA must always be viewed within the overall context of a case.
As the remainder of the evidence points to the Ramseys, I suggest that the most likely source of the DNA is related to contamination or some other adventitious means.

Now my point is that Garnett and especially Beckner won't say what Lacy said BUT, they know they got a killers(whether for hire) DNA.

Not true, you know very well, or at least should, that there are people who have been cleared and remain cleared. Why aren’t the Ramseys cleared? It’s obvious that you are trying to undermine the significance of the un-exoneration of the Ramseys because it runs contrary to your theory on the case.

Sometimes people forget that Beckner was involved in the "touch DNA" conference

That is completely false.
In early August of 2007, District Attorney Lacy attended a Continuing Education Program in West Virginia sponsored by the National Institute of Justice on Forensic Biology and DNA.
Mary Lacy press release, July, 2008

and helped in determining which areas should be tested.

Again, completely false.
They, along with some other agencies were asked to recommend a private lab to provide touch DNA testing, that is the extent of the involvement.
We checked with a number of Colorado sources regarding which private laboratory to use for this work. Based upon multiple recommendations, including that of the Boulder Police Department, we contacted the Bode Technology Group located near Washington, D.C., and initiated discussions with the professionals at that laboratory.
Mary Lacy press release, July, 2008

He was involved with it all.

I agree that your fictional Beckner was involved with it all, the real Beckner was not.
Consider this one example.
Two representatives were sent from Boulder to Bode to discuss the direction of the testing.
Listening to you we would guess that Beckner would unquestionably be one of those two.
The reality is this; it was two of Lacy’s staff that attended.
We contacted the Bode Technology Group located near Washington, D.C., and initiated discussions with the professionals at that laboratory. First Assistant District Attorney Peter Maguire and Investigator Andy Horita spent a full day with staff members at the Bode facility in early December of 2007.
Beckner wasn’t there because as I have said repeatedly through sourced statements, THE BPD AND BECKNER WERE NOT INVOLVED IN ANY SUBSTANTIVE WAY IN THE JONBENET INVESTIGATION DURING MARY LACY’S TERM AS DA.Mary Lacy press release, July, 2008

More on the real Mark Beckner here:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7059708&postcount=165"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Unknown male DNA and the panties discussion[/ame]

Yes, way back in the day around 2008

???

LE had a DNA sample that consisted of 9 markers. Did not even pass the strict test of Codis. We all know it. But you should also know if you watch any crime shows that sometimes they sit this DNA on the shelf for another day. Technological advances have been very swift over the last two decades. And in 2002 they took it off the shelf and tried something a little different. What do we know? Yep, Voila it was placed in CODIS and that means it had a minimum of 10 markers. They ain't gonna come out and say it but it has been vaguely reported that this also matched the fingernail DNA to the panty DNA. And Yeah I know what has been reported about that too.

See the previous post.

If you do the math and study the words coming out of Beckner's mouth it becomes real simple. And I know some of what they say contradicts itself. They have said they have eliminated POI's, Investigators, CSI's because of the DNA.

As per numerous posts, this only begins to eliminate the possibilities as to how the DNA may have arrived there innocently.

The problems they now have with DNA are not the samples that they have.

If you feel that degraded partial profiles come from good samples, then sure, I don’t.

The problem comes in court with how it was collected and intial issues they had many years ago.

I will agree with that, it would be quite humorous to see this DNA “evidence” in court.

 

[cynic]

I sure wish you would read up on this case, arguing the points that are easily located with a simple search, is exhaustive.

I didn't just come to this case yesterday, and I didn't read PMPT and suddenly believe I am an expert. Following this case from day one has been work and I refuse to argue with someone who can't be bothered to do the work.

If ever there was something that needed to be said, that was it.
Thank you.

 

[cynic]

Hi
Do you think DNA can be used to exclude other suspects than the Ramseys? It seems that this was used by the police to exclude some suspects.

Hi FairM, welcome.

This may help:
Q. Knowing what you know about how the Boulder Police Department, what would one use to clear someone, what could possibly clear an individual here? One would be a solid alibi, right?
A. Yes, sir.
...
A. There was a huge controversy about the DNA.
Q. So it was not in and of itself viewed as a forensic piece of evidence that eliminated anyone, was it?
A. Correct.
Deposition of Steve Thomas
September 21, 2001

 

[FairM]

,

To tell the truth, FairM, I don't know WHAT to believe about the McCanns.

I know one thing, and please don't take offense at this, FairM, but I've noticed a disturbing trend among Brits to defend their "hometown kids" irrespective of evidence.

And as for using common sense, it would please me greatly if some IDIs WOULD use it! That's why I started this thread in the first place!



Everybody, this is my friend, FairM. Please accord her the same respect and graciousness that you would afford me. Because I'll be breathing down your neck if ya don't! :crazy:



Not yet, FairM. But close to it. I'd rather discuss this in private if you don't mind.



I gave my all for that one, FairM! I just wonder how many of the Wrecking Crew actually listened to it! Judging from ol' Roy, not many, I'd say! And that really bothers me, because we did that radio show specifically for the people who NEED to hear truth the most!

Thanks for the welcome , I appreciate it:great:

Glad to see you don't know what to think yet about the McCanns , you're an intelligent guy SD I hope you will look more closely at the case before you decide to include them in a list such as the one above again! I have followed that case from day one.

Ok I am trying not to take offence at that remark about the Brits :maddening: , I don't understand why you said that , on what basis are you thinking that ???

Ref the radio show , I know at least one of them did listen because he did a running commentary on it.

 

[FairM]

I don't think the DNA can exclude anyone as a suspect...just because there's touch DNA on her long johns and underwear do not belong to the Ramsey's, does not mean they weren't there. There's more evidence that they were there.

I'll see if I can find you a source on AH and the Grand Jury...it was pretty much common knowledge at the time.

Thanks, I appreciate that it you could look. It wasn't common knowledge here in the UK. I've tried to locate it myself but no joy.

 

[FairM]

Hi FairM, welcome.

This may help:
Q. Knowing what you know about how the Boulder Police Department, what would one use to clear someone, what could possibly clear an individual here? One would be a solid alibi, right?
A. Yes, sir.
...
A. There was a huge controversy about the DNA.
Q. So it was not in and of itself viewed as a forensic piece of evidence that eliminated anyone, was it?
A. Correct.
Deposition of Steve Thomas
September 21, 2001

Hi Cynic , thanks for the welcome:loser:

That is interesting because from reading ST's book I got the impression if the DNA didn't match they eliminated that person, I recall they visited a particularly vile individual in prison who gave them a hair sample so they could eliminate him , even though he was a known sex offender and in the area of JonBenet's house at the time .

 

[vlpate]

Thanks, I appreciate that it you could look. It wasn't common knowledge here in the UK. I've tried to locate it myself but no joy.

Weird, SD and I both answered your question and both posts are gone...??

 

[vlpate]

Respectfully snipped:
"The DNA on the underwear may be from the killer, but it may not be," Bennett said. "It`s minute DNA…

Amazing how much has been written, how many minds have been changed, how much money has been made on insipid .... ahem, documentaries .... in spite of this fact.

I was reading the transcript from Lou Smit's interview on LKL years ago. I just shake my head at how fast and loose this man played with the truth...sometimes he skipped the truth all together and went headlong into bulls&&t. Like, there was a partial footprint on the suitcase...my personal favorite orifice extracted Smit "fact".

The Ramsey's have been riding the DNA freedom train from the minute Lou Smit jumped in the van and prayed with them. Lin Wood paid for the gas. Anytime it seemed like the train might derail, the Boulder DA's office was there to put it back on track. Seems simplistic, I know, but hard, cold, facts seem too difficult to comprehend for some.

Thanks for all the hard work you've done Cynic. The fact checking can be so time consuming, thanks for taking the time.

 

[indicat]

I only follow this case on and off and it's back on now that I have had some time. I'm just barley getting done reading ST account of the case and while many years have gone by since he wrote it, it's a great book.
I also read "Crimes that Haunt Us" and it's been driving me CRAZY. I've thought long and hard about posting but I just want to express some feeling's of frustration I've had over it. WHY did JD just throw all his good profiling out the window and ignore the very things he had pointed out in other cases. I'm sorry, but I feel like he took one look into JR eyes and fell in love, ugggh. The way he describes his meeting with him made me ill. I guess that's how he felt I don't know, but if you ask me he lost all sensiblility after that and the points he made were weak and not thought out. I was so disappointed.
Just had to get that off my chest for what it's worth. Thanks.

 

[FairM]

Weird, SD and I both answered your question and both posts are gone...??

That's bizarre , I was sending a private messge earlier and it just "disappeared" , one of those days today:banghead:

 

[FairM]

I only follow this case on and off and it's back on now that I have had some time. I'm just barley got done reading ST account of the case and while many years have gone by since he wrote it, it's a great book.
I also read "Crimes that Haunt Us" and it's been driving me CRAZY. I've thought long and hard about posting but I just want to express some feeling's of frustration I've had over it. WHY did JD just throw all his good profiling out the window and ignore the very things he had pointed out in other cases. I'm sorry, but I feel like he took one look into JR eyes and fell in love, ugggh. The way he describes his meeting with him made me ill. I guess that's how he felt I don't know, but if you ask me he lost all sensiblility after that and the points he made were weak and not thought out. I was so disappointed.
Just had to get that off my chest for what it's worth. Thanks.

Hi there

Yeah I couldnt reconcile some of the points he made for example he stated that when the body is found in the house but hidden away it can indicate a close connection with the deceased and killer , an example in Mindhunter was where a husband killed his wife and hid her under the crawl space (i think) so that their son wouldnt find her , it did cross my mind that JonBenet may have been hidden so that a family member wouldnt find her and become upset - but Douglas doesn't address this aspect.

I think John Douglas would make a great guest on one of Tricia's next shows, perhaps with SuperDave as a phone in caller again :rocker: