John Douglas' Biggest Mistake

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Sylvia, Apr 19, 2005.

  1. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    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.
     
  2. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Excellent post Sylvia.
     
  3. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Thanks Jayelles! After this case I despise Douglas, even Ressler says "Douglas is more into entertainment."
     
  4. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Have you seen his website?

    www.johndouglasmindhunter.com

    He has a message board there where you can post to him. Sometimes he posts back. He seems to like praise and adultation though. I seriously doubt he would respond to criticism - no matter how practical.

    Some good stuff on the board. A member called Rumaj is very on the ball about finding interesting news items.
     
  5. Elle

    Elle Member

    It's good to see questions of this magnitude being put before John Douglas, like this, Sylvia. Maybe you should post your questions to him on this site Jayelles has just posted?

    Thanks for the Douglas site, Jay. I haven't read any of the posts yet, but intend to. Good to see you are still deeply involved in this case. Just wish we could stop reading about all the Ramsey re-runs on TV. We don't have Court TV here. Do you have it in Scotland?
     
  6. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Concerning all those reruns, Elle, I think it's pretty obvious by now that re-broadcasting these propaganda crocks was part of the settlement agreed to by Court TV. Why else would they be pumping them up with adjectives like "new evidence," when they are nothing but the same old crap?
     
  7. Why_Nut

    Why_Nut FFJ Senior Member

    A few years ago, NBC used to advertise the reruns of its programs with the phrase "If you haven't seen it, it's new to you." Court TV is pretty much taking that course. Has this particular program's information been shown on Court TV before? No? Then it is new information. Never mind that the audience has seen it on other stations. In Court TV's world, no other stations exist.
     
  8. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    I don't know! We have a lot of channels on Sky Digital (which we subscribe to) - literally hundreds. We get LKL and Fox news and CNN but I've never actually looked four CTV.
     
  9. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Okay I've been real bad!

    I did send Douglas the article I wrote :laffbig: Only I don't expect to get an answer from him. :D

    (Jayelles made me do it, LOL :D)
     
  10. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Oh Glory Be. Thanks a bunch :computer:
     
  11. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    What do you think? Will I get a medal from him? LOL If so will share it with you. :yay:
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2005
  12. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    You are more likely to get a black eye from one of his adoring fans! If so, you can keep it for yourself :heart:
     
  13. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Oh well, it would be worth it if I could see his face when he reads the email :laughup:
     
  14. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    If you want a smile, go to Amazon and read the reviews about Mindhunter.
     
  15. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    There's really not much to say, is there? He was given his rope, and he hanged himself with it.
     
  16. Niner

    Niner Active Member

    Oh I was hoping you would! So glad you did!

    Oh... more important - is you share his response!! That should be a good read! Thanks for sharing this with us, Sylvia!
     
  17. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member


    Niner, if I get a response I will post it. But I don't think I will get one :D I don't think Mr. Douglas liked my email :D
     
  18. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Just wanted to pop in and welcome one of the great JBR posters in the world..Welcome back Sylvia.

    Carry on. You are all doing a GREAT JOB.
     
  19. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Hey.

    Howdy, Tricia.
     
  20. Tricia

    Tricia Administrator Staff Member

    Hey Howdy right back atcha.

    This is a fantastic thread. Thank you again Sylvia and all for your great participation.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice