Douglas needs to get over himself

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Little, Jan 18, 2007.

  1. Little

    Little Member

    Geesh, Douglas just can't seem to realize that he wasn't the "only" inspiration for the Silence of the Lambs character, can he? I wonder how he would profile someone who can't come to grips with that simple fact. "Profiler - profile thy self".

  2. Amber

    Amber Member

    Duh! That's how we feel about the Ramsey case :sonar:
  3. Little

    Little Member

    Hmmm, maybe Douglas just forgot?

  4. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Douglas wasn't called in by LE to consult on the Ramsey case. He was a hired gun for the Ramseys. He went to their home and interviewed John Ramsey. He admitted he had little or no contact with Patsy during that time, because she was sedated to the point of oblivion. Quite convenient for everyone, really.

    Douglas never saw the inside of the Ramseys' home in Boulder and the crime scene within. He didn't profile the crime. He based his findings that the Ramseys were not guilty on the few hours he spent with them. And, good Christian folks that they were, of course they couldn't be guilty.

    Gawd save us all from the likes of John Douglas, who can't even stick to his own set of criteria for profiling crimes.
  5. heymom

    heymom Member

    Take the 1980 murder of Linda Dover in Carterville, Ga. Recently divorced, Dover was found in the crawl space of her husband's home, wrapped in a blanket, pants down, manually strangled and stabbed with a kitchen knife.

    Enter CSI: UVSC.

    "The first suspect is always the husband," a student yelled from the balcony.

    "Tell me why it was the husband," Douglas challenged back.

    "The murderer had to know the house so he could stuff her in this crawl space," another student surmised. "Plus, manual strangulation means a close relationship."

    "Nice, but give me more," Douglas says, casting a shadow over the PowerPoint slideshow photo of the bloody body. "Why wouldn't he leave her upstairs, where he killed her? Why cover it up?"

    "The boy, he didn't want the boy to see what he had done."

    And just like that, case closed. Dover's husband had murdered his ex-wife, pulled down her pants to stage a sexual assault, and stuffed the body in the crawl space to avoid his little boy's eyes

    Now, tell me how different this is from JonBenet, who was strangled in her own house and wrapped in a blanket, found in her own basement?

    But oh, no, the Ramseys couldn't have done it, no, they couldn't have done it...
    :bsflag: :steamed: :wtf:
  6. BobC

    BobC Poster of the EON - Fabulous Inimitable Transcript

    Actually, Watching You, he went around for weeks on TV saying he'd interviewed "The Ramseys" and was convinced of their innocence--it was only after some nosy reporter pinned him down and asked what he'd specifically asked Patsy that he admitted he'd never said more to her than "hi" in a hallway. It was typical of the Ramseys and typical of him.
  7. Amber

    Amber Member

    What a brilliant find WY! :sleuth:

    There is absolutely no difference except this:

    1...Douglas never met Linda Dover's husband....

    2. Douglas' ego cannot permit him to believe that the Ramsey's would hire him knowing they were guilty. His ego says 'I'm the best in the business, I'm THE man' so no guilty person would dare hire me because they know I'm the man. Therefore they must be innocent!
  8. heymom

    heymom Member

    And number 3...

    He cashed the check.
  9. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    He did cash the check, but he claims he returned the money - only after he was criticized for taking it in the first place. We have only his word that he returned the money. I don't really believe he returned the money, but that is based purely on my mistrust of him, not anything factual.
  10. tylin

    tylin Banned

    No chit Sherlock. The investigation went in the wrong direction alright. It should have gone TOWARDS THE PARENTS. arggggggggggggg :booty: :duh: :stupid1: :banghead: :tsktsk: :rs:
  11. heymom

    heymom Member

    :fishslap: Yep!!! Hey, Douglas! Here!

    :bos: :loser: :bigstick: :nuts: :booty: :my:
  12. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Douglas is NEVAH going to admit he screwed the JonBenet case royally. Too much ego. He and Smit are ONE in the TOO MUCH EGO dept.

    Is this the same case Douglas' mentions in his book with the JonBenet chapter? Or I should say, his WRITER mentions? That whole chapter is a long excuse for why Douglas threw everything he'd ever written out the window with the JonBenet case, giving the Ramseys a pass by doing so. When I read it, right there in the middle, almost a non sequitur, was this description of a man killing his wife/ex-wife (don't remember, sorry) and how he staged and hid the body so his son wouldn't find it when he came home from school. I read that and said to myself, Self, THAT SOUNDS A LOT LIKE THE RAMSEY CASE. I have pondered if ONE of the reasons they put the body in the basement was so Burke wouldn't happen upon it in case he woke up and came downstairs while cops were arriving.

    See, one thing the Ramseys knew was they had no control over MANY THINGS once they made that 911 call, IMO. That's why the friends were called, I think. In case things went wrong, they had some cover: LE had half a dozen other people to deal with, to distract them, to screw up the crime scene, to intimidate LE. Worked, didn't it?

    Until Boulder LE gets those old phone records, every single one of them, with a subpoena, I'll never believe that Hunter and many, many others in LE weren't in on the coverup. Never. The records may be long erased, dumped, incomplete, whatever, but I want to see someone MAKE THE EFFORT and then DEAL WITH THAT HUGE LE MISDIRECTION AND CORRUPTION.

    No person on the face of this earth can be prosecuted for this murder as long as the defense can ask WHERE ARE THE RAMSEY PHONE RECORDS FROM THAT MORNING? FROM THE DAYS/MONTHS BEFORE AND AFTER THE MURDER?

    The prosecution will say, Oh, we don't have them. Never subpoenaed them because we wanted to create harmony with the Ramseys and let them turn them over.

    The defense will say SO LET'S HAVE THEM! The months before and after the murder, as well.

    The prosecution will say...Uh....well...we have some from that month...but not all....

    The defense will say, WHEN did you get these incomplete records from the Ramseys? A few days after the murder? A month?

    The prosecution will say...Well...we got them about a year later.... It was OUR FAULT, really. But the Ramseys were so nice about it, after all....

    The defense will say, So you have one month, December 1996 only, on a cell phone here that has NOTHING on it. Not one call. And yet, you have John Ramsey under oath in a deposition stating that the BPD used their cell phones that morning, Dec. 26th, after arriving at the Ramsey home. We have police reports stating they used the Ramseys' cell phones that morning because LE's own cell phones had dead batteries. But not one call is listed on this Ramsey cell phone record for the entire month of December, 1996. Do you have an explanation for that?

    The prosecution will say, Oh, well, Patsy said John lost a cell phone and she bought him a new one as a surprise and then just kept it for herself.

    The defense will say, So...are you telling me that Patsy Ramsey came up with that story and you believed it? It's convenient and fits nicely, I'll admit. Too nicely. Did she ever tell John about this new cell phone? Or did she have it covered if John didn't know anything about it? Did either of them ever REPORT a missing cell phone? Did LE ever INVESTIGATE the missing cell phone? Did LE ever CONSIDER that the INTRUDER might have found that cell phone and used it, that this might be the LINK the DA and Lou Smit sought so desperately for a decade? Didn't it cross ANYONE'S mind, among the many BRILLIANT, WORLD-CLASS LAWYERS AND DETECTIVES the Ramseys themselves employed, that a MISSING CELL PHONE MIGHT CRACK THE CASE? Did ANYONE ever think THE KILLER MIGHT HAVE CALLED THE HOME, OR ONE OF THE OTHER CELL PHONES, in the months before or AFTER the murder? Has it EVER crossed ANYONE'S mind who INVESTIGATED this case that PHONE RECORDS ARE CRITICAL EVIDENCE IN CRIMES ACROSS THE PLANET? No?

    The prosecution will say, Well...we wanted to make sure the Ramseys weren't feeling uncomfortable with us so they would volunteer information....

    The defense would say, And DID THEY? Did they march up to the BPD and hand over legal permission for LE to see all their phone records...oh...say within a few days? A month? ANYTIME IN THE LAST DECADE?

    The prosecution would say, We're no longer investigating the Ramseys for this murder. They didn't do it. John swore to God and Lou Smit, and Patsy was just too loving of a mother....

    The defense would say, And did EITHER of the Ramseys EVER give LE permission, signed and delivered, TO SEE ALL THEIR PHONE RECORDS, HOME, CELL, WORK...ANY PHONE RECORDS, ONE PHONE RECORD?

    The prosecution would say, Oh, they gave us copies of some of their phone records, yes, for the month of December, 1996.

    The defense would say, But no other month? And not John's business phones?

    Prosecution: No.

    Defense: So, you got the month of December, 1996, for some phones, one cell phone with NO CALLS ON IT ALL THAT MONTH. You didn't subpoena them, but the Ramseys gave that one month to you voluntarily, cooperating with you because you had fostered a good relationship with them. And when did you get those records from the Ramseys?

    Prosecution: Within a year.

    Defense: And did you get records for the months before December, 1996, or after? Or did you just get limited records THE RAMSEYS chose to give you?

    Prosecution: We didn't need anymore than what they gave us, which was for December.

    Defense: How do you know that?

    Prosecution: They told us so.

    Defense: And did you determine exactly WHY that one cell phone had NO CALLS ON IT FOR THE ENTIRE MONTH OF THAT DECEMBER? Did you investigate WHY that was? Did you examine the prior records for that phone? Did you look for calls on it AFTER the murder?

    Prosecution: That's classified Top Secret.

    Defense: I rest my case.

    Jury delivers verdict in the 14th Intruder trial for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey: Not guilty.
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2007
  13. Skigwy

    Skigwy Member

    I think John Douglas acknowledged somewhere that he didn't follow his FBI profiling procedure in his paid/unpaid work for the Ramseys. He "profiled" John, to determine whether or not John was a killer.

    In Mindhunter, his first book, the readable one, I specifically recall his stating that when called in on a case he wanted crime scene stuff, photos, forensics, that stuff from the local cops. He didn't want to hear about any suspects they had beforehand, until he told them what--who he saw & if his profile fit anyone on their subject list.

    Oh and, Ramsey phone records...think a nosey cell phone borrowing cop could've scrolled through recent calls, maybe seen some inadmissible middle of the night calls to an attorney/friend?
  14. Elle

    Elle Member

    Exactly, Amber.
  15. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    John Douglas basically stated that he's an expert on killers, and after talking to John Ramsey...he could tell John didn't do it. Douglas is a human lie detector, doncha' know?

    Think John Douglas graduated from the same "Legend In Their Own Minds" School for Detectives as Smit? They actually believe now they can just talk to someone and tell if they're innocent or guilty.

    I always have believe that the "dead batteries" was a little too good to be true for LE, Skigwy. But I think the Ramseys would have deleted any cell phone calls they made before they made the 911 call. They've been acutely aware of evidence that needed to be covered up from Day One, IMO. I think the calls made from that phone would have been to people who knew exactly what to tell them to do before they called LE.

    If by some chance they didn't erase those calls, if by chance LE got a look at those calls, it would have been without a warrant so I'd say that person knows, but it can't be used in court. That person may know the truth. That officer may have shared that info with investigating detectives. But I doubt we'll ever hear about it.

    But I have to say, if LE saw calls made from the Ramsey phone in the middle of the night, knowing they'd said they were asleep, knowing a child was missing, why would they just leave Arndt there alone? Why not ask the Ramseys about the call? You know...hey, someone used your phone in the middle of the night, when you were sleeping. Did you leave it downstairs? COULD IT BE THE KIDNAPPERS USED IT AND LEFT US A CONNECTION TO THEM?

    No, I don't think LE saw anything. Remember, they knew nothing about where JonBenet was then. They didn't know she was dead. To see that someone had used a Ramsey phone when JonBenet was being "kidnapped" would have broken the case right then and there. The child was missing. The primary goal is to get her back safe. Even losing the phone evidence wasn't important under those circumstances. I don't know why LE wouldn't have just straight out ASKED the Ramseys for permission to check their phone logs RIGHT THEN.

    It's mindboggling. Just awful, awful police work, corruption running amuck at the DA's office, incompetence enough to get every person whose hands were on this case disbarred, IMO.

    But that's the rule of law they prefer in Boulder County. So they get what they ask for. And love it, apparently.

    Unless you're JonBenet Ramsey or Jason Midyette. Then it might not be so much fun.
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2007
  16. Elle

    Elle Member

    Great post KK. This is exactly how it would go. Futile!
  17. Little

    Little Member

    Some Douglas "stuff".

  18. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    And that says it all.

    Douglas gets all of his information from team Ramsey and then decides they are innocent. How stupid is that?

    Any investigator worth his salt would want to see the evidence from every side of the case. But not John Douglas. No, he talks to John Ramsey for a few minutes, says "hi" to Patsy in the hallway, gets his autopsy information from the Ramsey lawyers, and then declares the Ramseys innocent.

    For that reason, Douglas' pronouncement of Ramsey innocence means NOTHING. In fact, it is so biased it's pathetic. Douglas' ego won't let him back down now, so he's stuck with it. He didn't even follow his own profiling procedures, and he expects the world to respect his opinion? Don't make me laugh.
  19. Elle

    Elle Member

    Thank you for posting this information, Little. What a cheek he had, not probing further and investigating the other side of the case, to be doubly certain of his facts. This doesn't make much sense. Where's the equasion of balance here? How does he expect anyone to take him seriously after admitting this?
  20. Amber

    Amber Member

    Don'tforget this:

    JonBenet’s parents, Patsy and John, always said an intruder murdered their daughter. As time passed, though, and no suspects emerged, public speculation grew over whether the couple was involved in the death. Patsy died of cancer this summer and the case faded from the public spotlight. That changed this week with the arrest in Thailand of John Mark Karr, a divorced father of three and former schoolteacher. Karr has told authorities that he was with JonBenet when she died and that her death was an accident.

    John Douglas, a former FBI profiler who investigated the case, was someone who felt the Ramseys probably weren't involved. NEWSWEEK’s Jennifer Barrett spoke with Douglas, who has worked on more than 5,000 cases and written several books, about the Karr arrest:

    NEWSWEEK: You’ve said that you never suspected the Ramseys of this crime. Do you feel vindicated now?
    John Douglas: A lot of people told me I was wrong. Now I’m getting all these congratulations.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice