John Douglas' Biggest Mistake

Excellent post Sylvia.

I just got done reading, "The Anatomy of a Motive." by John Douglas. When he went to work for team Ramsey he sure threw out everything he ever wrote about criminals. IMO, he knows they are good for it, but he doesn't want to look like a fool. (No worse than he already does, that is)

I used to really respect him, until he joined the dark side. I agree with Ressler, with Douglas it is entertainment!

 

Thanks for the welcome back Tricia, only don't make me feel shy :blush: As the Dutch saying goes: One day I'll walk beside my shoes!

Do you think Douglas loves me now and he'll answer my mail? ROFL

 

Since the Ramsey case I really can't stand Douglas. But I must admit I always preferred Ressler and McCrary above Douglas. Douglas is such an arrogant jerk.

Only book I read was Crime Classification Manual co-write with Ressler and some other good profilers.

 

I liked Ressler's book, "Whoever Fights Monsters." I thought it was well written. I think he thinks that Douglas is a huge joke, but he has more class than to come right out and say it.

If I needed a profiler, Ressler would be the one I would want, or McCarry (sp). I'd be afraid if I used Douglas, I'd be seeing it on 48 Hours or something.

 

That was a great book to read. It gave so much insight. Got a book of McCrarry too, is good as wel, though nothing compare to Resslers writing.

 

His highess webmaster came with this lame answer!

Okay gang I promised to post the answer if I received one, well I did this morning. Have fun with it!

Van: webmaster [mailto:webmaster@johndouglasmindhunter.com]
Verzonden: woensdag 27 april 2005 3:06
Aan: s.m.kappe@xxxxxxxxx.net
Onderwerp: Can you explain this Mr. Douglas?

To S.M. Kappe: In response to your email --we recommend that you review the article pasted below re the Jon Benet Ramsey Investigation. Further, John Douglas testified before the grand jury and was later asked to provide assistance to Boulder's new DA Mary Keenan who subsequently took the case away from the Boulder PD as well as the FBI. As far as the other professional profilers you mentioned, you failed to mention that both gentlemen were also quick to state that the DC sniper would be a loner and a white male. Malvo and Muhammad didn't quite fit the profile.

Webmaster
www.johndouglasmindhunter.com


http://crime.about.com/od/unsolved/p/jonbenet_case.htm

You are here:
About>News & Issues>Crime / Punishment> Current Cases> Unsolved Cases> JonBenet Ramsey Investigation

News & Issues
Crime / Punishment
Essentials
Top StoriesSafety QuizzesIdentity TheftState Gun LawsTrivia Quizzes
Articles & Resources
Current CasesHistorical CrimesDeath PenaltyIssues / ControversiesJuvenile CrimeLaw EnforcementMissing Kids/AdultsPrevention / SafetyPrison SystemSex CrimesSerial KillersStatistics and DataVictim's RightsVideos, Books and ProductsWomen's Issues
Articles
Forums
Help

Bovenkant formulier [top form]
FREE Gift
with sign up to About's FREE Crime / Punishment newsletter! Limited time offer.
See Online Courses
Onderkant formulier [botom form]

Bovenkant formulier
Search
Onderkant formulier
Crime / Punishment

Stay up to date!
Email to a friendPrint this page
Most Popular
Mary Kay Letourneau The Scott Peterson Trivia QuizMichael JacksonHistory of Megan's LawSerial Pursuit Crime Trivia Quiz
What's Hot
Jonathan Paul LunaQuiz - New Mexico Gun LawsQuiz - Indiana Gun LawsQuiz - Tennessee Gun LawsBarbara Walters and Letourneau
JonBenet Ramsey Investigation
Unsolved Crime

From Charles Montaldo,
Your Guide to Crime / Punishment.
FREE GIFT with Newsletter! Act Now!

JonBenet Ramsey: Around 5:30 a.m. the morning after Christmas Day, 1996, Patsy Ramsey found a ransom note on the family's back staircase demanding $118,000 for her six-year-old daughter, JonBenet, and called 911. Later that day, John Ramsey discovered JonBenet's body in a spare room in the basement. She had been strangled with a garrote, and her mouth had been bound with duct tape. John Ramsey removed the duct tape and carried her body upstairs.
The Early Investigation: From the very beginning, the investigation into the death of JonBenet Ramsey focused on members of the family. Boulder, Colorado investigators went to the Atlanta home of the Ramseys to search for clue and served a search warrant on their summer home in Michigan. Police took hair and blood samples from members of the Ramsey family. The Ramseys tell the press "there is a killer on the loose" but Boulder officials downplay the prospect that a killer is threatening city residents.
The Ransom Note: The investigation into the murder of JonBenet Ramsey focused on the three-page ransom note, which was apparently written on a note pad found in the house. Handwriting samples were taken from the Ramseys and John Ramsey was ruled out as the author of the note, but police could not eliminate Patsy Ramsey as the writer. District Attorney Alex Hunter tells the media that the parents are obviously the focus of the investigation.
Expert Prosecution Task Force: District attorney Hunter forms an Expert Prosecution Task Force, including forensic expert Henry Lee and DNA expert Barry Scheck. In March, 1997 retired homicide detective Lou Smit, who solved the Heather Dawn Church murder in Colorado Spring, is hired to head the investigation team. Smit's investigation would eventually point to an intruder as the perpetrator, which conflicted with the DA's theory that someone in the family was responsible for JonBenet's death.
Conflicting Theories: From the beginning of the case, there was a disagreement between investigators and the DA's office about the focus of the investigation. In August 1997, Detective Steve Thomas resigns, saying the DA's office is "thoroughly compromised." In September, Lou Smit also resigns saying he, "cannot in good conscience be a part of the persecution of innocent people." Lawrence Schiller's book, Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, describes the feud between police and prosecutors.
Burke Ramsey: After 15 months of investigation, the Boulder police decide the best way to solve the murder is a grand-jury investigation. In March 1998, police interview John and Patsy Ramsey a second time and do an extensive interview with their 11-year-old son Burke, who was reported as a possible suspect by some in the press. A leak to the news media indicate that Burke's voice could be heard in the background of the 911 call Patsy made, although she said he was asleep until after police arrived.
Grand Jury Convenes: On Sept. 16, 1998, five months after they were chosen, Boulder County grand jurors began their investigation. They heard forensic evidence, analysis of handwriting, DNA evidence, and hair and fiber evidence. They visited the Ramsey's former Boulder home in October 1998. In December of 1998 the grand jury recesses for four month while DNA evidence from other members of the Ramsey family, who were not suspects, can be compared to that found at the scene.
Hunter and Smit Clash: In February 1999, District Attorney Alex Hunter demanded that detective Lou Smit return evidence that he collected while he worked on the case, including crime scene photographs. Smit refuses "even if I have to go to jail" because he believed the evidence would be destroyed if returned, because it supported the intruder theory. Hunter filed a restraining order and got a court injunction demanding the evidence. Hunter also refused to allow Smit to testify before the grand jury.
Smit Seeks Court Order: Detective Lou Smit filed a motion asking Judge Roxanne Bailin to allow him to address the grand jury. It is not clear if Judge Bailin granted his motion, but on March 11, 1999, Smit testified before the jury. Later that same month, district attorney Alex Hunter signed an agreement allowing Smit to keep the evidence he had collected in the case, but prohibited Smit from "relaying prior conversations" with Ramsey prosecutors and not interfere with the on-going investigation.
No Indictments Returned: After a year-long grand jury investigation, DS Alex Hunter announces that no charges will be filed and no one will be indicted for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. At the time, several media reports suggested that it was Smit's testimony that swayed the grand jury to not return an indictment.
The Suspicions Continue: In spite of the grand jury decision, members of the Ramsey family continued to remain under suspicion in the media. The Ramseys adamantly proclaimed their innocence from the very beginning. John Ramsey said the thought that someone in the family could be responsible for JonBenet's murder was "nauseating beyond belief." But those denials did not keep the press from speculating that either Patsy, Burke or John himself were involved.
Burke Not a Suspect: In May 1999, Burke Ramsey was secretly questioned by the grand jury. The following day, authorities finally said that Burke was not a suspect, only a witness. As the grand jury began to wind down its investigation, John and Patsy Ramsey are forced to move from their Atlanta-area home avoid the onslaught of media attention.
Ramseys Fight Back: In March 2002, the Ramseys release their book, "The Death of Innocence," about the battle they have fought to reclaim their innocence. The Ramseys filed a series of libel lawsuits against media outlets, including the Star, the New York Post, Time Warner, the Globe and the publishers of the book A Little Girl's Dream? A JonBenet Ramsey Story.
Federal Judge Clears Ramseys: In May 2003, an Atlanta federal judge dismissed a civil lawsuit against John and Patsy Ramsey saying there was no evidence showing the parents killed JonBenet and abundant evidence that an intruder killed the child. The judge criticized the police and the FBI for creating a media campaign designed to make the family look guilty.
Part Two: New DA Takes Over

Most Popular Video


Movie Minutes: 'Kontroll' Movie Minutes: 'Beauty Shop' Movie Minutes: 'Melinda and Melinda' Movie Minutes: 'The Upside of Anger' Movie Minutes: 'Robots'
See other videos at About.com



Topic Index | |
back to top



email to a friend font size


Our Story | Be a Guide | Advertising Info | Work at About | Site Map | Icons | Help
©2005 About, Inc. All rights reserved.
User Agreement | Patent Info. | Privacy Policy | Kids' Privacy Policy
Best of About
VIDEO: Home Decorating Ideas VIDEO: Fashion Tips Start a Home Business Photo Gallery: New Ford Mustang Photo Gallery: Las Vegas Strip
Most Popular Video
Movie Minutes: 'Kontroll' Movie Minutes: 'Beauty Shop' Movie Minutes: 'Melinda and Melinda' Movie Minutes: 'The Upside of Anger' Movie Minutes: 'Robots'
Related Topics
Civil LibertiesU.S. Gov Info / ResourcesUrban Legends and Folklore
Most Popular
Mary Kay Letourneau The Scott Peterson Trivia QuizMichael JacksonHistory of Megan's LawSerial Pursuit Crime Trivia Quiz
What's Hot
Jonathan Paul LunaQuiz - New Mexico Gun LawsQuiz - Indiana Gun LawsQuiz - Tennessee Gun LawsBarbara Walters and Letournea
Free Online E-Courses
Tips To Save MoneyTexas Hold 'Em for BeginnersHow To Find The Best Travel DealsLearn How To Eliminate All DebtSpeak For SuccessMore E-Courses
Arcade Games
Mah Jong QuestBejewelled2ZumaBingo Jigsaw 365MaxJongg
======================

Guess Ressler was right after all Douglas is more in to entertainment :laffbig: :laffbig: :laffbig:

 

My original mail was to Doulas himself not to his webmaster!

----- Original Message -----
From: s.m.kappe@xxxxxxxxx.net
To: johndouglas@johndouglasmindhunter.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 8:37 AM
Subject: SPAM-HIGH: John Douglas Mind Hunter - Message To John


>
> Name: S.M. Kappe
> Email: s.m.kappe@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Ramsey case
> Message: Can you explain this Mr. Douglas?
>
> 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.
>
> Regards,
>
> S.M. Kappe

 

Sylvia,

It was very good of you to make this excellent attempt to write to John Douglas, and I'm sorry it was the web master who responded.

btw Sylvia, as WY already stated, your English is excellent, and I think it's wonderful that someone from the Netherlands has chosen to devote so many hours for the justice of JonBenét Ramsey, a little innocent American girl, who never got the chance to enjoy her Christmas present, a brand new bike.

As long as we have strong women like you, and all the others on this forum, we'll keep on fighting for this justice for this little innocent girl. We mustn't forget Delmar England and the other men involved too. A big thank you to all of you. :rose:

Elle

 

Elle,

Yes, it was kind of lame of Douglas to not have the guts to answer my questions, instead he let his webmaster answer me with some ridiculous email. As if we all don’t know what is going on.

My English is pretty reasonable, except when I am in a hurry, that is when I make mistakes. However the same thing happens when I write in a hurry in my own language.

A lot of people are still fighting for justice for this little girl, you are too. My motivation is that there should be no class justice. Even if parent are rich or famous they should live by the same rules and laws as all other people, no excuses or exceptions possible with me. And because of class justice, to this little girl justice is denied. That is something I just can’t stand.

Sylvia

As for Douglas I already posted this on another thread, but will repost it here:

Okay how about the header of my original message, not only does it show that it was directed to Douglas himself, but it also shows he can't handle critic to well as my email is defined as SPAM-HIGH.

Further instead of answering the questions about his lies:

Douglas has no desire to admit his lies, but prefers to have his, uhum, Webmaster point his pathetic little finder to Ressler and McGrary's error. However he also fails to mention the number of Douglas failures (even while working for the FBI. Difference is both Ressler and McGrary are not so arrogant and pompous to admit their mistakes, something that can not be said about Douglas. Also he refused to answer as why he didn't keep to his own manual on staging, this altogether I think says more than enough about Douglas. :loser:

 

That's good you have it posted elsewhere, Sylvia. Looks like you caught him good on the LKL show. It's now on record for all the world to see, and that's really something!

I make mistakes too when I'm, in a hurry. :yes:

 

I'm reading a new book about an excellent psychic who has worked with the FBI as well as many other law enforcement agencies. In the past, she lectured to Robert Ressler's classes of new recruits.

I nearly fell out of bed when I read in her book that the movie, Silence of the Lambs, was based on Robert Ressler and his work. I thought John Douglas laid claim to that. There it was in clear and unambiguous language - it was Ressler, not Douglas.

 

WY,
I remember reading it was just the Jack Crawford character (FBI) Clarissa's boss in "Silence of the Lambs was based on John Douglas.

http://members.aol.com/thesussman/mindhunt.htm

Okay, Mindhunter is not a thriller, but it is a fascinating psychological study. Fans of psychological thrillers will find that many of the elements in a fictional serial killer story are based on Douglas' research. In fact, Jack Crawford's character in The Silence of the Lambs is based on John Douglas. But the thing that struck me most about the book is that these real-life serial killers are more terrifying than any fictional killers I've read.

 

I quite believe you're right here, Delmar. With so many books appearing these days about these serial killers, what's to stop them from reading what the experts are
saying about them, and for them to change their pattern
to throw the FBI off their tracks, when creating new murders?

 

I guess we have us a little discrepancy, Elle. When I get home this afternoon, I'll look up the exact quote in the book. This isn't the first time I've heard John Douglas wasn't the model for Silence of the Lambs - I think it was discussed on the forums, before. Maybe he's only a legend in his own mind?

 

It's confusing WY when we run into different versions of important facts. Maybe he just sees himself as the King Pin(?).

 

Ressler is the best profiler. McCrary is a very good profiler too, who by the way turned down the offer from the Ramseys to join their team. As for Douglas, Douglas just thinks he's so good, only is a loser.

 

Sylvia, you might want to check this out:-

http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=7609#7609

Incidentally, Douglas says in this post that it took Lou Smit 10 months to come to the conclusion that the ramseys were innocent. This doesn't tie in with what I remember. I thought it was a month not 10.

 

Geez, what a hypocrite. I believe it was even sooner, but would have to look it up in Steve Thomas book, I do know that it was after the so-called praying session.

Oh well was already proven that Douglas is a liar, so is Smit!

 

He won't be able to buy a hat that will fit his big head.