Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 13
  1. #1

    Default the Cardiff Giant: John Douglas

    
    A few days ago, I sent an email to Mr. John Douglas asking
    several questions and posted same on this forum in a previously
    existing thread. I have not received a response of any sort. I
    guess even his auto responder is scared of the truth. Let’s
    carry on anyway and set out some more to fear.

    According to John Douglas, John Douglas is the greatest detective
    and most proficient profiler who ever lived. According to the
    facts, his greatest talent is convincing fools to believe it.

    The following focus is upon the Ramsey case and Mr. Douglas’s
    role in it; namely, his conclusion that the Ramseys are innocent
    and what he presents as alleged supporting facts; and how he
    “discovered” these “facts.”

    “But really, and that's the thing that people don't understand,
    people who have been critical, my role, my job is to do an
    assessment, not a profile.... I'm doing an assessment. It's
    totally different when you're doing an assessment. I'm assessing
    whether or not this mother, whether or not this father is capable
    of perpetrating a crime,... I will make a diagnosis, if you want
    to call it that, as to whether or not I believe this family is
    capable of perpetrating this kind of a crime.” (John Douglas,
    Mindhunter Show. KFI, AM 640}

    I take it, “assessment” is profiling in reverse. Normally, the
    start is with the evidence and the perpetrator unknown. The
    process is looking at and understanding the evidence to get an
    idea of the physical and psychological makeup of the perpetrator.
    Mr. Douglas proposes to reverse this process. He proposes to
    decide whether the Ramseys are guilty or not via “interviews”
    without being influenced by the evidence. Although he pays long-
    winded lip service to the concept, facts, he admits as basis for
    conclusion of innocence his estimation of the psychology of the
    Ramseys. He implicitly admits to leaving the concept, evidence,
    out of his deliberations.

    Like Lou Smit, he concluded the Ramseys were incapable of the
    crime, therefore, sought evidence to support his conclusion. How
    does this work? Backward, of course. If the facts don’t fit the
    crime of which the Ramseys are innocent, the obvious objective is
    to create a crime of which they are innocent. The crime created
    was sexual assault and deliberate, vicious murder via
    strangulation. Of course, the Ramseys are innocent of this
    “crime” because it never happened. This does not stop Douglas and
    Smit from “demanding” evidence validating their aberrations.
    Inventing a crime and inventing “evidence”, not discovering, is
    where Douglas and Smit do their best work. Indeed, it’s where
    they do all their work.

    Douglas’ first problem was that he had no idea of what the crime
    was, nor wanted to know. The primary question in any
    investigation is: What are the facts. Mr. Douglas decided to
    bypass this stage and go directly to the “facts” preferred. This
    means, given Mr. Douglas’s conclusion of Ramsey innocence, the
    actual facts convicting the Ramseys necessarily must be set aside
    to accommodate invented “facts” that fit his preconceived notion
    of innocence. These are, in turn, bolstered by more arbitrary
    declarations creating a crime scene that suits.

    “There's a suitcase near a window, which will later turn out to
    be a possible entry point 'cause there's broken glass.” (ibid)

    “There were twenty, over twenty keys that were unaccounted for,
    for that house that were used by a variety of builders and people
    who were refurbishing that, uh, remodeling the house for the
    Ramseys over the years.” (ibid)

    Observe window as “possible entry point” AND “over twenty keys
    that were unaccounted for.” A bit inconclusive wouldn’t you say?
    In other words, Mr. Douglas has set himself on Ramsey innocence,
    which leaves intruder, BUT, can find no evidence of entrance and
    exit. He covers his eyes with this red flag and speeds on down
    the dead end street of illusions and self delusion.

    Entry via basement window? Entry via keys? Neither? The evidence
    says the answer is neither. The evidence says the basement train
    room is irrelevant to the crime scene, or staging. If Mr. Douglas
    was aware of the glass clean up, window opened an inch or so,
    and\or the chair against the access\egress basement door, he
    looked straight at evidence that left his intruder theory with
    one very large hole. If he were not aware of theses factors, his
    posturing as an investigator following the evidence is ludicrous.
    Either way, he’s dead in the water.

    “And one of the things you look for here is, generally the people
    responsible for the killings, for the crimes, are not going to be
    the one who finds the victim.” (ibid)

    “If I find my child in a room in that condition, with duct tape,
    the first thing I'm going to do is to remove the duct tape,
    hoping my child is still alive. Loosen, perhaps, one of her
    ligatures, because it appears my child may be in pain. And so,
    this is normal behavior, but this is how it's been
    misinterpreted.”

    As you can see, no facts or alleged facts are mentioned. Instead,
    Douglas, resorts to “proof by statistics” and “what I would do”,
    creates a scene empathetic with his preconceived notion but not
    supported by any item of evidence. It’s irrelevant gibberish.

    “The crime scene was not staged, Detective Thomas and others. The
    crime scene was posed. It was posed in a way to shock and
    offend.” (ibid)

    This conclusion implicitly claiming knowledge of the mind and
    intent of the perpetrator comes from what evidence? Mr. Douglas
    does not say; a common failing. It’s simply a declaration to
    suit. There is no analysis of the items in the crime scene. There
    is not a single identification of a single fact, nor a single
    argument alleging to identify the crime scene as authentic. He
    simply declares and that’s it. He equates arbitrary declaration
    with evidence - if it suits his position. He doesn’t allow the
    same latitude for opposing theory.

    “Because to me this was not a traditional, this was not a
    rape/murder. It was definitely, and I'll describe it as we go
    along, a sexual penetration but with a substitute object. This is
    a crime of anger, a crime of rage. This killer is angry and
    getting back at someone, and I believe it's getting back at the
    family, getting back at particularly at Mr. Ramsey himself.”
    (ibid)

    Can you imagine what line of “thinking” Douglas followed to reach
    this conclusion? Where did it start? If on some fact, or facts,
    what? Angry and revenge upon a second party he says, but makes no
    connection, no identification of fact; just a “profiling” of an
    alleged perpetrator to suit his preferred theory. This imposing
    of his personal preference upon the crime scene is the core of
    his “investigative method.”

    Mr. Douglas is a former FBI agent. (which really shakes my
    confidence in the FBI.) One would assume he would know about THE
    FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE and use same as a sound guideline by
    which to conduct an investigation. To the contrary, he pays much
    lip service to the dictates therein, but that’s the extent of it.
    If Douglas’s arguments for Ramsey innocence had to meet the
    criteria, FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE, how many would past muster?
    Exactly zero. He simply creates a fairy tale suited to the
    conclusion of Ramsey innocence. He either knows he has no
    evidence admissible in a court of law, or is more than a bit out
    of touch with reality to say the least. Take your pick.

    “Right. And there'd be other things, too, but certainly when you
    started to see that, see the nature of the wounds, a lot of
    people, too, are just driving me crazy.” (ibid)

    That’s not a drive. It’s a short walk. (Sorry, just couldn’t
    resist.)

    “So I got a, what, the child is finally going to be removed and
    taken to a medical examiner's office where Dr. John Meyer will do
    the autopsy. And I got information from him that the wound around
    the neck was extremely, extreme force was used to garrote her.”
    (ibid)

    Methinks Mr. Douglas is flat out lying. Dr. Meyer offered no such
    characterization in the autopsy report for there was no reason
    to. The physics of the knot make Mr. Douglas’s assumption
    literally impossible. I find it most unlikely that Dr. Meyer
    would have made such a statement in support of this
    contradiction. The embedding, of course, came from post mortem
    swelling. Douglas’ ignorance and zeal to “find” supporting facts
    did the rest.

    “The cause of death was asphyxiation, because there's petechial
    hemorrhages , which means the capillaries were burst in the eyes,
    around the eyes,...” (ibid)

    Another lie. Dr. Meyer did not isolate strangulation as the sole
    cause of death. Once again, Mr. Douglas shows his penchant for
    invention:

    “....coupled with, which will be shocking, there will be a blunt
    force trauma injury that will not, no one will be able to see
    this with a naked eye until the autopsy began and that is
    critical evidence and that, to me, throws out the theory of the
    bedwetting and accident where Patsy in a fit of rage throws the
    child down and strikes her head on a bathtub or the floor,
    cracking the skull.” (ibid)

    Via tandem lies, actually, multi tiered, Mr. Douglas arrived at
    the conclusion of death by vicious strangulation. Having avoided
    the actual facts, he arrived at the conclusion of deliberate
    murder to the exclusion of precipitated accident. From here, he
    concluded that “a mother couldn’t do this.” Observe that Mr.
    Douglas went astray because of his exactly backward approach. He
    did not find out “do what” before seeking “who did.” He is not
    “profiling” from the evidence, but “finding” “evidence to fit the
    profile of innocence. This is exactly what he implicitly said he
    would do when he set reliance upon his “assessment.” (I find it
    both distressing and sardonically amusing that Mr. Douglas rests
    his claim of intellectual prowess upon a method obviously flawed
    to the point of being 180 degrees out of phase with reality. He
    claims to have found the right answer by the wrong method)

    “I did a--as I'm going through this I do a written analysis, I'm
    writing, and in my notes I would later read before I go before
    the Grand Jury,...” (ibid)

    Wouldn’t you just love to read that analysis? I’m betting it
    would put Brothers Grimm to shame.

    “What it means is that the person, even after garroting her to
    death--and it--and so hard that the garrote is imbedded in the
    neck, that the killer still had this hatred and this anger, this
    bitterness to hit this child, helpless child over the head with
    such a force that the medical examiner said it could have taken
    down a two-hundred and fifty pound man easy--could have taken
    down a two-hundred fifty pound man. What it's telling me, Eric,
    is cops you're looking at the wrong people. You shouldn't be
    looking at the Ramseys here. You should be looking and going off
    in another direction because the Ramseys aren't responsible.”
    (ibid)

    My, my, how he does go on. Once a fallacy gets off the launching
    pad, there is no limit to the embellishing and how high and wide
    it can soar.

    “Now, do religious persons kill? Yes, they kill. They kill but
    not this particular way. They don't kill this way at all.” (ibid)

    Do you suppose Mr. Douglas has written a manual for religious
    killing and distributed it widely and reached agreement with
    religious killers that they will abide by it? Pretty silly, isn’t
    it? Sure, but what else can you expect from backward thinking?

    “They were never able to find the piece of paintbrush handle to
    this date.” (ibid)

    So what? If the “missing” is evidence as implied, how is the
    “missing” and “unknown” presented in court as evidence. Also, if
    the “missing” and “unknown” are evidence, it logically follows
    that the opposite, the available and known, are not evidence.
    This is the way reality works. Sure would like to see Mr. Douglas
    address this issue.

    “So, as far as analyzing the case, is this something any parent
    would do in a fit of rage. That we accidentally injured our
    child, now we're going to kill the child. We're going to stage
    it, make it look like a sex crime, put the child downstairs, and
    now, we're going to have the presence of mind to write a three
    page ransom note after all of this. The answer is, no way.
    There's no way in hell that they're going to do that.” (ibid)

    On and on and on, again and again and again, Douglas interjects
    non evidentiary subjective speculations that suits in lieu of
    objective facts. This is a “super detective?” How about
    supercilious sycophant as the more apt description?

    “I said, you guys as narcotics officers, you think differently.
    You have a different mindset than a homicide investigator. And
    what do you mean. Well, what you guys do, you're targeting, say,
    Eric Leonard, because you think Eric Leonard is involved in
    drugs. You go about making a case around Eric Leonard 'cause you
    know he's dealing. It's not a question of 'if,' you know he is.
    We gotta make a case around him. Now I put you, that mindset of
    yours, as a narcotics officer, in an investigation, what may
    happen, and what happened here in Boulder, with Detective Thomas,
    was that he would only accept information, pieces of information
    that would fit his theory. Fit the theory that the Ramseys were
    responsible.” (ibid)

    This is all-too-familiar “credential\experience dodge. It’s the
    “truth via authority” illusion frequently the retreat of those
    who don’t have the facts to fit a preferred belief. The rationale
    behind it is that if a physics professor says you can boil water
    with ice cubes and an illiterate says the contrary, what the
    professor says will reverse reality and make his declaration
    true. Sometimes credentials and experience go to knowledge, and
    sometimes not. Some, like Douglas, presume to replace the latter
    with the former. The credential dodge tells me loud and clear,
    the proponent is sorely lacking in evidence, and more than a bit
    short on thinking skills.

    “I mean, this is unbelievable, I mean just unbelievable the
    mindset of these, you know, the investigators who are handling
    the case.” (ibid)

    The “mirror syndrome.”

    “Eric: It's the Mindhunter Show with John Douglas, the criminal
    profiler. I'm Eric Leonard from KFI news.

    We've been talking about the JonBenet Ramsey case, and John, you
    were describing how the investigation uh, was, uh, spoiled pretty
    much from the beginning. The evidence that could have been found
    at the scene was disturbed, possibly inadvertently by the
    family.” (ibid)

    This is a very popular copout for Douglas and the RST. They are
    left to explain over eight years of “investigation” and million
    of dollars spent with nothing to show for it. Compromised crime
    scene is the “reason” that no intruder has been found? Was the
    crime scene comprised? Indeed it was, but the comprise was minor
    in the context of evidence. Lack of pristine crime scene did not
    destroy, nor alter the abundance of irrefutable evidence pointing
    straight at the Ramseys. It hasn’t gone away either.

    Douglas has characteristics in mind as to what an investigator
    and “profiler” “ought” to do, or be. He often refers to these
    characteristics in long strings of pronouncements in a runaway
    tempo, like running downhill and out of control. His “thinking”
    is fragmented and “drifting.” It’s pure chaos. To wit:

    “I think this was a case where someone or one or two people tried
    any way things they saw on television and in the movies and where
    if the thought was to get some money, they had to know that the
    one-hundred and eighteen thousand would happen to be John, John
    Ramsey's bonus money. So they had to be in that house and he had
    the stuff lying around. Someone had to go in that house, which
    would have been easy to do, it wasn't, it wasn't, you know,
    locked up.” (John Douglas)

    JD has lost it entirely. Can anyone tell me what this has to do
    with the Ramsey case? Look at the syntax, context and content.
    From the paragraph, I get the impression that Douglas is saying
    in a very confused way that some persons knew about John’s bonus
    money and got the idea from a tv show of breaking and entering to
    steal it. This was motivated by the belief that John Ramsey had
    his bonus money “lying around.” The kidnap\ransom idea is
    completely left out of this depiction.

    Read Douglas’ paragraph carefully and you will see just how
    incoherent it is; and just how lost John Douglas is. Even if we
    set aside all the other contradictions and nonsense uttered by
    Douglas, if anyone even vaguely familiar with the Ramsey case can
    read this one paragraph by Douglas and have a grain of confidence
    in his “thinking”, I would like to know how.

    “Well it is. It's a lot of stuff and I've done it. I've done
    thousands of cases and you just have to know and I want to know
    where to look and what to look at and again,....I just want to
    make sure I'm not missing anything, that I'm not being blinded by
    the family.” (John Douglas)

    “People that know me, been around me for years, I cause major
    problems, major headaches when I was in the FBI because I just
    wouldn't go along with the drumbeat.” (ibid)

    John likes to portray himself as a maverick, independent-thinking
    super sleuth. The profile just doesn’t fit the facts. He did not
    change his mode of thought for Ramsey case. This is his norm. He
    shows very little ability to separate fact from fiction. Instead,
    he creates the fiction and calls it fact. I have no doubt what
    his track record will show, which is why you will never see it.

    John Douglas is far removed from the independent thinker as he
    would have you believe. The only reason that I did not expose
    more of his blunders is because they have already been exposed
    while under the name Lou Smit. Douglas’s theory and arguments
    are practically an overlay of Smit’s.

    No doubt, Douglas would claim that the similarity is due to them
    both evaluating the same facts and coming up with the same
    conclusion. This won’t fly at all. If 30 students taking a test
    all come up with the same right answer, there is nothing
    suspicious about this. However, if two student both come up with
    the same wrong answer, it’s a pretty good bet that one copied off
    the other.

    Douglas does throw in a bit of his own fantasy from time to time,
    but the heavy load is simply parroting the same errors as Smit
    set out, and with the same arguments. Not once, did I see Douglas
    express any disagreement with Smit. As I said, practically an
    overlay. Douglas reveals a pronounced lack of ability to discern
    facts along with an aversion to independent thinking. This means
    no matter what the preferred image projected, he has little self
    confidence. He overcompensates for this by the habitual self-
    aggrandizing speeches. By evidentiary profile, he is a weak
    follower. (His lifetime track record will show this.)

    (If someone would like to trot out the record and show me I’m
    mistaken in this “profiling”, I sure would like to see it. I
    throw this in only because Mr. Douglas is so gung ho on profiling
    and I want him to know I’m willing to play in his “professional
    bailiwick.”)

    The capstone of all this is emphasized by common ignorance and
    common terminology:

    SMIT: "The intruder had to come in through the window.
    I see a brutal first degree murder. I see a very violent
    death of JonBenet. I see someone fashioning a garrote
    and putting it around her neck. I see someone tightening
    that garrote to control her. I see someone taking that
    handle and pulling it very violently tight and killing her."

    Smit: "Her hair was actually entwined right in the wrappings of
    the garrotte as the killer made it right on the back of her neck,
    most likely when she was lying face down on the floor. He made a
    noose on the other end of this garrotte."

    Douglas: What this means is that the person, even after garroting
    her to death--and it--and so hard that the garrote is imbedded in
    the neck, that the killer still had this hatred and this anger,
    this bitterness to hit this child, helpless child over the head
    with such a force that the medical examiner said it could have
    taken down a two-hundred and fifty pound man easy--could have
    taken down a two-hundred fifty pound man.

    Douglas: "Oh my golly (?) he carried the child up and he put the
    child on the floor. Everyone gathers around the child, the family
    members, the minister is there. No one can see that there is a
    garrote. The garrote is SO imbedded in the neck and, and there's
    a stick that was used to fashion the garrote,... (ibid)

    It’s not that just that both create this image of brutality. It
    not just that both are woefully ignorant of a “garrote” and have
    no understanding of the crime scene, the similarity extends to
    using the same terminology in their illusions.

    Smit: “I see someone fashioning a garrote”

    Douglas: “a stick that was used to fashion the garrote”

    In isolation, this “coincidence” would not mean much; and is not
    proof in itself, but goes to high probability within the context.

    Create, make, structure, tie, build, construct, are terms that
    could apply to “garrote.” Yet, both chose the term, “fashion.”

    Garrote is not a term that many use often. There is no common
    reflex word to describe it’s creation. Hence, the tendency to go
    with one suggested. In this instance, suggested by Lou Smit. This
    combined with a long list of errors shared by Smit and Douglas
    indicates that Douglas’ conclusion of Ramsey innocence is only a
    slight alteration of the transcript of Smit’s PowerPoint
    presentation. THIS is Douglas’s “evidence” of Ramsey innocence. I
    would not be surprised to find he had a copy of the transcript
    for reference during the talk show.

    Douglas’ “great detective work” is nothing more than thinly
    veiled plagiarism of the aberrations of “Loony Louie.” As my
    momma used to say, “Boy, did he take his ducks to a poor market.”

    Just so that Mr. Douglas and the rest of the RST don’t forget, I
    once again extend the invitation to meet me online for a bit of
    interrogation. Please don’t embarrass yourselves by ranting
    claims out of range revealing your fear of truth. Meet me right
    here. Chalk up. Your break. Let’s see what ya got. Bring it on.

    Delmar England
    delmar@strato.net

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    430

    Default

    Mmmm.......curious if there will ever be an answer. What do you think, EasyWriter?

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sylvia
    Mmmm.......curious if there will ever be an answer. What do you think, EasyWriter?
    Do you mean from Douglas? If so, no. He won’t dare to get
    close enough even to try to deny.

    As pointed out in the post, Douglas’ role was simply get paid for
    following Lou Smit.

    Get this picture. Douglas went on a radio talk show as an
    “expert” in the Ramsey case. He not only did not have the facts,
    he didn’t even have a theory in mind except for what he
    “borrowed” from Lou Smit. Supposedly, from his own investigation
    he arrived at the conclusion of kidnap, sexual assault and
    murder. However, because he had never examined the evidence, and
    because he had not ever set a personal theory in mind, he was
    “floating” without focus upon facts or even a singular fantasy.

    “I think this was a case where someone or one or two people tried
    any way things they saw on television and in the movies and where
    if the thought was to get some money, they had to know that the
    one-hundred and eighteen thousand would happen to be John, John
    Ramsey's bonus money. So they had to be in that house and he had
    the stuff lying around. Someone had to go in that house, which
    would have been easy to do, it wasn't, it wasn't, you know,
    locked up.” (John Douglas) ]

    Evaluate this for yourself. While allegedly presenting a belief
    of kidnap and murder, with all the elements that go with the
    theory, John Douglas went totally obtuse and incoherent and
    changed the crime scene to a simple B&E by persons who knew of
    JR’s bonus and figured it was laying around the house. Amazing
    isn’t it? While getting paid to promote the Ramsey version,
    Douglas forgot what the Ramsey version was and went off down a
    different trail completely away from the kidnap and murder theme.

    This pretty much says it all about John Douglas.

  4. #4

    Default

    Nobody does a velvet-glove vivisection quite like you do, Easywriter.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Texarkana, USA
    Posts
    4,301

    Default

    I think this about the "assessment" thing. I think he is saying he can see into someone's soul.


    “But really, and that's the thing that people don't understand,
    people who have been critical, my role, my job is to do an
    assessment, not a profile.... I'm doing an assessment. It's
    totally different when you're doing an assessment. I'm assessing
    whether or not this mother, whether or not this father is capable
    of perpetrating a crime,... I will make a diagnosis, if you want
    to call it that, as to whether or not I believe this family is
    capable of perpetrating this kind of a crime.” (John Douglas,
    Mindhunter Show. KFI, AM 640}


    Well, Easywriter, I was searching for terms of service and came upon this thread. Here's hoping Florida has an uneventful summer weatherwise.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,411

    Default Dear Easy Writer,

    I commend you for your perseverance. We all know John Douglas is a quack. Your erudite analyses prove it.

    Thanks for hanging in there!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    “And one of the things you look for here is, generally the people responsible for the killings, for the crimes, are not going to be the one who finds the victim.” (ibid)
    John Ramsey was frantic at this stage. It was close to 1:00 pm and no one had come across the body of JonBenét, so he finally decided to lead them to it, and was happy that Fleet White was right behind him. John Ramsey knew "exactly" where to go.

    “I think this was a case where someone or one or two people tried any way things they saw on television and in the movies and where if the thought was to get some money, they had to know that the one-hundred and eighteen thousand would happen to be John, John
    Ramsey's bonus money. So they had to be in that house and he had the stuff lying around. Someone had to go in that house, which would have been easy to do, it wasn't, it wasn't, you know, locked up.” (John Douglas)
    John Douglas: So they had to be in that house and he had the stuff lying around.

    They were in that house, John Douglas. She lived there. Her name was Patsy Ramsey, you goof! As if an intruder would have the time to look for Ramsey's bonus information. What purpose was this supposed to serve? I think this is where Patsy Ramsey's psychology kicked in. If this "Access Graphic" bonus figure was quoted, it would lead the LE to think an Access Graphic employee was responsible with the $118,000 being an unusal figure.
    Patsy Ramsey denied any knowledge of knowing about her husband's bonus, but what's another lie on top of all the rest?

    Great Post! Wishing you all the best, Delmar, that John Douglas, "The Pretender" will meet you online.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  8. #8

    Default

    He pretends, I punish.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Western OR
    Posts
    971

    Default

    Bravo, EasyWriter!
    The universe is full of magical things, patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper.
    -- Eden Phillpotts

  10. #10

    Default Easy Writer

    Easy Writer, your analysis of John Douglas’ comments, behavior, and/or conclusions, ref. the Ramsey case, is absolute brilliant. It has always bothered me that there has not been sufficient outrage on the part of the media and the judicial system in ref. to Douglas. The few criticisms were mild, in my opinion (except on some of the forums) and not at all befitting the egregious nature of his silly analysis.

    He was, as you pointed out, the self-proclaimed epitome of sleuthing wonders. (And, in truth, he came to the Ramsey camp with pretty impressive credentials.)

    It doesn’t take a Sherlock Holmes to view, with extreme skepticism, and downright disbelief, Douglas’ analysis of the Ramsey case. Firstly, he was HIRED by the Ramsey’s; HE WAS PAID BY THE RAMSEY’S. The most dull witted among us could reasonably conclude that his findings would, by the nature of the beast, be slanted in their favor.

    Secondly, he made his analysis SO FAST, with little knowledge of the facts.
    Thirdly, he misrepresented the facts. His statements, especially in reference to the broken window and suitcase, and all the “missing keys” were deliberate, in his obvious efforts to create doubt and to point all fingers in the direction of an intruder. His reasons for believing in the Ram’s innocence should go down in the National Detective’s Book Of Lasting Shame.
    While trying to analyze his stunningly shallow and downright stupid analysis, I came to the following conclusion:

    Douglas was possibly in dire need of funds. I read, although I could never substantiate it, that he was paid $30,000 by the Ramsey’s.
    Why would a man of his standing risk his reputation on such a spotty presentation? He must have known that his public statements would be scrutinized in minute detail. Surely, he was aware that the Ramsey’s were using him. Surely, he knew that his efforts to placate his rich clients would have repercussions.

    He certainly has had numerous opportunities to rededm himself, but continues to repeat his insane comments.

    Why, oh why would he put his good name on the line in such an outrageous manner? Certainly, I don’t have the answers, but I have a brain and I can speculate (and all is fair, as long as I label it as speculation.)

    The only thing I can think of is MONEY. JD needed some quick money. Could he have a gambling problem? Has anyone looked into that possibly?
    The credibility of anyone in JD’s profession is his meal ticket. His integrity cannot afford to be comprised. It is everything. He must keep it intact. It must stay pristine. No amount of money and/or the promise of fame should interfere with that.

    The price he has paid for comprising the facts in the Ram case has been enormous. His prior work will ever be subject to suspicion, and, in my opinion, he will never again be able to embrace the prestige he once enjoyed.

    Greenleaf
    Last edited by Greenleaf; August 4, 2005, 10:53 am at Thu Aug 4 10:53:45 UTC 2005.

  11. #11

    Default

    [QUOTE=Greenleaf] His reasons for believing in the Ram’s innocence should go down in the National Detective’s Book Of Lasting Shame.


    I hope the book is a large one. There are enough candidates from
    the Ramsey case alone to fill many pages. I still shudder in
    disbelief at the gross incompetence and pretense of the alleged
    investigators and alleged “experts” in and out of “officialdom”
    and the media.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default JOhn Douglas

    He provides the discussion forum for his small group of fans to meet. Some of them discuss profilings. Others discuss....

    http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com...ghlight=#12934

    ...sex and John Douglas' underwear. Classy eh?
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission



Similar Threads

  1. John Douglas’ latest misinformation on the JonBenet case, Law and Disorder
    By cynic in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: March 10, 2014, 1:33 pm, Mon Mar 10 13:33:45 UTC 2014
  2. Recent post by John Douglas
    By Subdivisions in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: August 30, 2006, 10:36 pm, Wed Aug 30 22:36:31 UTC 2006
  3. John Douglas' Biggest Mistake
    By Sylvia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 107
    Last Post: May 28, 2005, 8:55 am, Sat May 28 8:55:18 UTC 2005

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •