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 “evidenceâ€, 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 doâ€, 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 “thinkingâ€, 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 “profilingâ€, 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.â€) 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 k 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
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.
I think this about the "assessment" thing. I think he is saying he can see into someone's soul. :bsflag: “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.
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!
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. 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.
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 :leaf:
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/forums/viewtopic.php?p=12934&highlight=#12934 ...sex and John Douglas' underwear. Classy eh?