John Douglas' Biggest Mistake

Douglas’ post on another forum.
Sun May 01, 2005 2:57 pm

“I have seen this happen to many "victims" of violent crimes when
they have been under a great deal of stress for a long period of
time. I call the Ramseys"victims" even though there are some who
will send e-mails to the webmaster bashing me because I believed
from the beginning the Ramseys were innocent---and they are.â€
(From the post)

I see a declaration, but nothing to back it up. If Mr. Douglas
believes the Ramsey are innocent, he must believe there was an
intruder, and evidence of an intruder. I wonder what he thinks
this evidence is. Do you think we could get him to join the forum
and share this valuable information with us?

“Those of you who may remember the young girl(Shari Faye Smith)
who was murdered in Columbia, South Carolina by Larry Gene Bell
--- her mother died recently. Her husband told me that after the
death of their daughter Mrs. Smith's health deteriated.â€

I can understand that and have sympathy for Mrs. Smith, but the
inference that Patsy Ramsey and her situation is in parallel is
ludicrous.

“The FBI and the Boulder PD were repremanded (sic) about two
years ago by a judge in Atlanta for( I'm paraphrasing) using the
media against the Ramsey family.â€(ibid)

I suggest that Mr. Douglas read my post, “CARNES CARNIVAL OF
ERRORSâ€, then get back to me.

“I felt really good when I was asked by the new Boulder DA, Mary
Keenan, to provide assistance.†(Ibid)

No doubt with the approval of Lin Wood. When the “prosecution†is
hand picked by the defense, what’s left to say?

“Some of you may or may not know that I was brought in to testify
during the grand jury hearings on the Ramsey case.†(Ibid)

Testify about what? Based on what knowledge? From what source?
Gathered how?

“I was one of the last people to testify and was cross examined
by three attorneys. It was very stressful but I was very direct
and honest and I believe that had some impact on the grand
jurorsdecision not to indict.†(Ibid)

If this is true, obviously the three attorneys either did not
have the facts of the case, or else, knew nothing about
interrogation, maybe both. Say, Mr. Douglas, how about giving me
a crack at it? Will you answer my questions?

“I later met with Det. Lou Smit, who said that he didn't know how
I did it because it took him 10 months to determine that the
Ramseys were innocent while it took me 5 days.â€(ibid)

Oh, how great thou art! It took Smit 10 months to find out John
was a Christian? That’s the bases for his conclusion of innocence
and he said so. Isn’t Smit the same “detective†who believes he
saw blue marks from a stun gun on JonBenet? Oh, BTW, Mr.
Douglas, it took me less than fifteen minutes reading the autopsy
report revealing a staged crime scene to KNOW the Ramseys are not
innocent. Want to compare notes?

“Lou would present a power point presentation to me showing all
aspects of the crime and that only solidified my opinion that the
Ramseys were innocent.†(Ibid)

If you were influenced by the lies and aberrations of lying Lou
Smit, you have already admitted you don’t know evidence from
apple butter.

>Even Barry Scheck, DNA expert used in the O.J. Simpson case and
hired by the Boulder DA early on in the investigation, said that
the DNA did not point to the family so you have to exclude them.â€

The degraded DNA did not point to anyone identified anywhere in
the world; and for sure, if it doesn’t match the Ramseys, it
irrelevant to the case.

>He said you can't have it both ways. Using DNA to exclude
suspects but not the Ramseys.†(Ibid)

Please explain this pronouncement. I have a few questions. The
first one is, by what do you conclude that the DNA necessarily
had to belong to the killer? Every hear of secondary transfer
and\or elements incidental to the crime scene? I have a lot more
questions. Come on down.

“I'm hopeful the case will be solved one day--- and it will.
Particularly when someone like Lou Smit is providing his
expertise.†(Ibid)

News flash: The case is solved by those who know the facts, but
not prosecuted by those denying the facts. By golly, I will have
to thank you for a chuckle after all. Lou Smit’s expertise? Now
that’s good for alaugh any day.

“Long winded but just my two cents.â€
JD

Way over priced.

 

ROFL Elle. You know, I read that and that went over my head till you pointed it out! I was distracted by the 10 months comment. Yes, I see what you mean.

 

Thank you for providing that link Jayelles.

IMH(umble)O, it may prove problematic for Mr. Douglas in that, as a paid advocate, he made those statements. Right or wrong, it leaves the door open for speculation that he may have been willing to compromise his integrity in order to hang on to past glories and reputation as a profiler. It's difficult to not interpret his "it took Lou Smit ten months & I did it in 5 days" as just a bit pompous. How deeply could one investigate all the facts and evidence in 5 days? Clearly you couldn't - and was he basing this soley on talking to John Ramsey and, if I remember correctly, he didn't speak to Patsy Ramsey. It sounds as if he and Smit had a regular back slapping, high fiving love fest going there (Even Lou looked at some of the evidence and then appeared to let the deciding factor to his conclusion be John's word that he was a Christian)

I did not think that profilers were necessarily qualified to declare guilt or innocence, but were to, instead, offer a statistical likelihood of the personality of a perpetrator of a crime. For him to state unequivocally that "the Ramseys are innocent" is (IMHO) a rather reckless statement to make. It would seem that he now has a dog in this fight to insure that they are not charged with a crime lest he lose face.

Pride can be a good thing or a veritable albatross, can't it?

Little

 

I must post some results from a poll that was in our Reader's Digest (ours is not the same as yours). We're having a General Election here this week and this article was about what British people looked for in a Prime Minister. However, I think it would apply to anyone. The %s represent the percentage of people who rated it extremely important.

Say what they mean, mean what they say - 89%
Admits when they've made a mistake - 88%
Never hides the truth - 83%

 

Douglas is the perfect example of everything a profiler should not be and can not do. No, they can not determine innocence or guilt. They only are there to provide the LE with a description of how the perpetrator might looks like, where he lives, how he acts, living conditions and so on. A profiler is also able to say whether a crime scene is staged or not staged. But Douglas thought more of money and forgot to look in the manual he had written himself. Also a profiler need to have access to the complete police file, in order to make a profile. Douglas lied he didn’t have the autopsy report, he was caught lying about that on National TV. Also a profiler needs to at times adjust his/her profile as additional information comes in. Fact Douglas is a liar.

As for Smit from Steve Thomas Book page 169: “Three days later at a detective briefing, Smit made his first appearance, greeting us all and taking a seat along the west wall. We went around the table to update our findings. Finally it was his turn. He had been around only about seventy-two hours, not anywhere long enough to devour the case material, but we hoped he might have some initial insights. He did. Lou Smit shifted the toothpick to a corner of his mouth, and his eyes twinkled with excitement of a good bird dog on point. He said, ‘I don’t think it was the Ramseys. He never budged from that position’â€

So what 10 months Douglas????????

 

That's the Chappie! Where did I get 1 month from? Did Smit come onto the case after 1 months maybe?

 

No idea, could be he came onto the case after a month, but haven't found a reference to that yet.

 

THE WAY TO GO LITTLE! MORE POWER TO YOU! :yay:

 

Here's a reference to when Lou Smit began working with the District Attorney's office.

You probably alread have this one, but here's a link to the complaint filed against Mr. Smit for taking evidence...hmmm.

 

See if you can book Larry King Live, Delmar! Wouldn't that be something?

 

Niner that would make it that Smit came in between 2 and 3 months.

As for Smit taking the evidince here a few nice ones:

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

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.


http://www.longmontfyi.com/ramsey/storyDetail00.asp?ID=33

3/16/2000
DA let Smit keep evidence


by B.J.Plasket
Daily Times-Call


BOULDER — Court records unsealed on Tuesday show the district attorney's office switched directions last year in a dispute with former detective Lou Smit — first demanding the return of Ramsey -investigation material and refusing to allow him to address a grand jury and later allowing him to both keep the case material and testify before the grand jury.

Smit, in fact, is now "free to disclose any information to anyone" under an agreement he signed with District Alex Hunter on March 30, 1999.

Photographs similar to those described in the court papers are appearing in this week's edition of "Newsweek" as part of an article about Smit's theory that an intruder was responsible for the 1996 slaying of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey .

Hunter on Wednesday declined comment on the situation. Spokeswoman Suzanne Laurion said he will "let the documents speak for themselves."

The documents — all filed under secrecy and kept under seal until this week — began flying on Feb. 1, 1999, when Hunter filed for a temporary restraining order and injunction requiring Smit to return a crime-scene video, a compact disc containing "investigation photographs" and items copied onto Smit's home computer. Hunter later obtained the temporary order, but it was dropped when the two signed the agreement.

Hunter's motion claimed Smit told him about the items during a January meeting. Smit had quit his contract job as Hunter's special investigator in the Ramsey case in late September 1998.

 

Getting back to John Douglas, http://www.johndouglasmindhunter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1310

He's very quick to claim the crown of No.1 King Pin and having some impact on the grand jurors.


While researching other information, I came across this article which we've all read before. Had the Grand Jury issued a report, would this report have been under lock and key, or would this have been made public to allow us to understand their verdict? Could someone higher up in the courts not have requested a report?


http://crimemagazine.com/jonbenet.htm

Still no news from the new investigator Tom Bennett (?).

 

EMAIL TO JOHN DOUGLAS

Dear Mr. Douglas,

During my errant youth, I frequently engaged in a game known as
pool, or pocket billiards. I often encountered players whose
reputations of great skill preceded them. Sometimes, I found the
reputation was earned. Other times, I found out it was all show
and no go, all talk and no walk. Chalk up and let’s see what
you’ve got.

“I retired from the FBI in 1995, after pursuing predators like
the Atlanta child murderer, Seattle's Green River Killer (or
killers), and San Francisco's Trailside Killer. (From your
website}

“pursuing predators†doesn’t tell me much. What exactly does it
mean? Did you catch the predators? Did you help catch the
predators by profiling and\or detective work? If so, how about
some details? How about an authentic record of ALL your profiles
while the predators were at large, and a profile of the predators
after they were caught? I want to know the match ratio and the
items of matching showing expertise beyond the layperson.

Surely, if you are as good as you say you are, you have this kind
of evidence to back it up....don’t you? How about trotting out
this recorded expertise. Just think of the great PR and increased
book sales. How can you turn down such an opportunity?

“I'd done years of research into the criminal mind-including
face-to-face interviews with Ed Kemper, Charles Manson, David
Berkowitz, Richard Speck, and many others.†(Ibid)

Again, a bit vague. These guys are bad news. We all know that.
Just exactly what did you learn that we all don’t already know?

I’m intrigued by the phrase “criminal mind.†I understand that a
mind holds beliefs that direct action which are labeled criminal,
but “criminal mind?†Just exactly how does a mind work? How do
you separate “criminal mind†from a non criminal mind? Do you do
this before, or after, a “criminal act†has been committed? This
reminds me of the “expert psychologists†who AFTER Columbine
concluded the perpetrators were “angry and depressed.†What a
revelation!

“So, You Want to Become a Profiler...

“...This includes examining evidence and information from
preliminary police reports, crime scene photographs, witness
accounts, medical examiner’s reports, victimology, etc. All of
this information is carefully reviewed and analyzed in an effort
to potentially develop a criminal profile or possibly provide
some other investigative technique and/or strategy.†(ibid)

Simple question: Did you heed your own admonition? Did you or did
you not examine the evidence before concluding Ramsey innocence?

If the evidence is to provide the basis of a profile of the
offender, isn’t it necessary to first know the correct
identification of the evidence in order to match it to the mental
and\or physical characteristics of the perpetrator? Suppose the
crime scene has been staged and you buy into it as authentic,
what happens to your profile then?

Again, the question, did you examine the evidence? If not,
obviously, you are not qualified to render a conclusion. If you
did examine the evidence, exactly what evidence did you examine,
and did you conclude the crime scene was authentic, or staged?
What was the evidentiary basis for your conclusion?

Sun May 01, 2005 2:57 pm

"I call the Ramseys"victims" even though there are some who will
send e-mails to the webmaster bashing me because I believed from
the beginning the Ramseys were innocent---and they are."
(From the post)

My “bashing†of those who believe the Ramseys are innocent is not
the belief per se, but the fact that none will meet me online to
answer questions about the belief. Cowards’ claims out of range
is what I call it. Mr. Douglas, would you care to accept my
invitation?

"The FBI and the Boulder PD were repremanded (sic) about two
years ago by a judge in Atlanta for( I'm paraphrasing) using the
media against the Ramsey family."(ibid)

"I felt really good when I was asked by the new Boulder DA, Mary
Keenan, to provide assistance." (Ibid)

"I later met with Det. Lou Smit, who said that he didn't know how
I did it because it took him 10 months to determine that the
Ramseys were innocent while it took me 5 days."(ibid)

"I'm hopeful the case will be solved one day--- and it will.
Particularly when someone like Lou Smit is providing his
expertise." (Ibid)

Now we know! You make it abundantly clear just exactly where you
got the “evidence†of Ramsey innocence. Lou Smit said, which in
turn, Judge Carnes said, followed by John Douglas said. Let’s
back it up one more “saidâ€. John Ramsey “said†he was a good
Christian prompting Lou Smit to “say†the Ramseys are innocent.
So, ALL the “evidence†by which you declare the Ramseys innocent
is nothing but the prime suspects claiming innocence. THIS is how
you arrive at your conclusions and profiles??? I’ll bet Charles
Manson and a lot of others wish they had gotten this kind of
deal.

"I later met with Det. Lou Smit, who said that he didn't know how
I did it because it took him 10 months to determine that the
Ramseys were innocent while it took me 5 days."(ibid)

Do you have any idea of just how silly this statement make you
look to those of us who have examined the evidence and know the
facts? If you want to find out, meet me online and answer a few
questions. I repeat, chalk up and let’s see what you’ve got. Not
going to happen is it? Spare me the excuses. I’ve heard them all,
and they all come up the same: fear of truth.

Delmar England

P.S. This letter will be posted at FFJ as will be your response,
or lack of it.

 

The clock is ticking - hmmm, anyone want to start a pool? Everyone can't pick never though (I've got that one) - I'll borrow from Delmar's experience and personal profiling knowledge of how "experts" shy (run? avoid? hide?) away from one on one discussions in favor of something a bit more stacked in their favor.

Little

 

I would very much like to see John Douglas' 5 day report on why he thought the Ramseys were innocent. Little, wouldn't you?

Good luck with this e-mail to John Douglas, Delmar.

 

Easywriter had it right: "It took Smit 10 months to find out John was a Christian? That's the bases for his conclusion of innocence and he said so."

Let's call a spade a spade, folks: the only reason ol' Lou said that bit about having put Christians in jail is because he HAD to say it! He KNOWS how bad this "praying with suspects" business looks. More importantly, we know how bad it looks!

Hey, Delmar! If you do get a face-to-face with JD, leave the bones for me! That goes for that yellow rat Wood too!

 

What makes you think there will be bones left? I'm working on a post entitled,
"THE CARDIFF GIANT: JOHN DOUGLAS. OK, if there's any bones left after this, you can have them. )

 

LOL ... the Cardiff Giant? Perfect. All "privates parts" and no brain.

 

You've got to admit - Douglas does resemble the Cardiff Giant a lot.

 

Not really, this one looks better and more clever too!