John Douglas’ latest misinformation on the JonBenet case, Law and Disorder

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by cynic, Feb 19, 2014.

  1. cynic

    cynic Member

    I was taken to task for selling out, for thwarting justice, for grabbing publicity at the expense of a murdered child.
    Law and Disorder, John Douglas, page 163
    This is one of the few accurate statements about the JonBenet Ramsey case by John Douglas in his latest book.
    If Douglas had any friends interested in his reputation they should have told him something along the lines of, “whatever you do, don’t ever speak or write about the Ramsey case again, you’ve humiliated yourself enough already with your previous book.â€
    Either there were no such friends or he didn’t listen because humiliate himself he did.
    One thing I did learn, apparently it’s alright for those who testified before the grand jury in the JonBenet Ramsey case to openly discuss their testimony, at least according to John Douglas.

    Lou Smit and I both testified before the grand jury, and we were among the last witnesses. He went before the panel on March 11, 1999. My own testimony was heard on April 26 and 27. Smit had requested he be allowed to testify, but his participation was rebuffed by prosecutor Michael Kane, who also ordered him to turn over all of the material he had gathered. With the help of other prosecutors he knew around the state, who respected him and agreed that the grand jury was not listening to all relevant evidence, Smit got both rulings reversed. It was my impression that it was not the prosecuting attorneys but the grand jurors themselves who wanted to hear from both of us.
    Since grand jury proceedings are held in secret, I don’t know what Smit testified to or whether it conformed to what I said. But a number of media sources wrote of a general consensus that what we both told the grand jurors focused them to their final result.
    Bryan Morgan had called to tell me the grand jury wanted me to testify and to bring any notes I had.
    “I told them you didn’t have any notes,†he said.
    “I do have notes,†I said.
    “You do?â€
    I did bring them with me; and when I got in the grand jury room, they let me read my notes pretty much verbatim into the record, including my candid observations on many of the key players.
    Two of the grand jurors had backgrounds in science, so I knew it would be important to explain to them what I did and how we had developed the discipline. I recall one member asking me something like, “What if we told you there was evidence that two people were involved in this crime?â€
    “I’ve investigated and testified in cases in which I thought there were two people involved,†I replied, “but I don’t see it here.†Then I added, “But if you actually have the evidence you mention, then why am I here? Why are you talking to me? Go with your evidence.â€
    He backed off.
    On October 13, 1999, the grand jury and Alex Hunter announced they had found insufficient evidence to indict anyone in the murder of JonBenét Ramsey. Since Colorado law specified that a true bill of indictment must be signed by both the jury foreman and the district attorney, it remained ambiguous which party had led the way in not indicting the Ramseys or anyone else.

    Law and Disorder, John Douglas, pages 206 - 207

    His new book is a general repeat of his previous material on the case from his old book, The Cases that Haunt Us, but he makes a new and astonishing error involving the head injury to JonBenet.
    I’ve outlined some of the many errors below, and I would have included them all had it not become too large of a task.

    • Claim:
    They had only “lawyered up,†the attorneys told me, when John and Patsy had perceived that the Boulder Police Department and the Boulder County District Attorney’s Office considered them leading suspects in the murder.
    Law and Disorder, John Douglas, page 166

    • Fact:
    Fleet told us that Ramsey lawyer Mike Bynum had called them shortly after the body was discovered. Surely he was talking about December 27, the night John Ramsey talked with Bynum at the Fernie house. White found his notes and said, “No, it was the day before, on the afternoon of December 26.†You sure of that date? I asked. White checked his notes again. Yes.
    The minds of two detectives went into overdrive. The body of JonBenét was found at 1:05 P.M., and John and Patsy left the house at about 2:30 P.M. NOW White was saying that an attorney was already in play, calling witnesses, only a few hours later. WOW!
    Fleet added that he was also interviewed by three people associated with Team Ramsey the following day, December 27, when he didn’t know any better than to speak with them. The private investigators weren’t out canvassing the neighborhood for an intruder but were pinpointing the Ramseys’ best friends while the police were being stalled.

    JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, pages 287 - 288

    • Claim:
    When the body was discovered, a blanket was wrapped around the torso, but the arms and legs were sticking out. This also didn’t seem like a parental murder to me. Normally, when a parent kills a child, there is some care given to covering the body and making it dignified and protected. We sometimes call this a “softening†of the appearance in which the body will be found. No matter what kind of parent you are, it’s hard to kill your child without some sense of guilt or remorse.
    Law and Disorder, John Douglas, page 167

    Douglas spoke of this before in a previous book:
    For one thing, the body was not protectively wrapped as I would expect to find in a parental murder. It was haphazardly draped, with the arms and feet sticking out.
    The Cases that Haunt Us, John Douglas, page 285

    • Fact:
    LOU SMIT: Again, you had mentioned the fact that the blanket had been wrapped around her almost like, what did you describe it as?
    JOHN RAMSEY: Well, she looked very, like someone had very carefully placed her on the blanket, wrapped the blanket around her to keep her warm.

    John Ramsey interview, June 1998

    MIKE KANE: All right. Okay. Now, when you went inside to that room, you described the blanket. And you said it was folded like -- I'm just trying to get a mental picture of it. Was it like –
    RAMSEY: It was like an Indian papoose.
    MIKE KANE: Okay.
    JOHN RAMSEY: You know, the blanket was under her completely. It was brought up and folded over like that.
    MIKE KANE: Folded over, okay.

    John Ramsey interview, August 2000, Atlanta

    Here is what FBI profilers who were not paid by the Ramseys for their opinion said:

    Q. " What is the significance of the blanket covering JonBenét body that was found in the basement? What does this mean in terms of profiling--what does it tell you about the needs of the perpetrator?"
    "Ressler: Well often times the covering of a body, and in particular the covering of the facial features, from a profiling standpoint indicates a personal knowledge of that individual and it's an act of retribution of sort and an act of undoing. In other words, it becomes a matter of guilt on the part of the individual. It does not indicate some psychopathic personality like the individual that killed Polly Klaas. That's not what you'd see in that type of case. It's more or less a person that's known the child, and feels remorse for the crime."
    Q. Is that a staged aspect of the crime, or is that...
    "Ressler: No, I don't think that's necessarily a staged aspect as much as it is a reflection of the the guilt and the remorse on the part of the killer. Either intentional or accidental."

    Greg McCrary, a former FBI psychological profiler trained in criminal behavior, thinks that JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy, were likely involved in the crime. "Parents are involved quite often in homicides," says McCrary. "The probability of an outsider doing this is extremely remote. I think someone in the family or very, very close to the family committed this crime."
    "Whoever took this child covered the child, apparently spent time wrapping the child, apparently spent time wiping down the body in the house, took time to get a pad and pen from the house to write a note," McCrary says. "Stranger intruders, when they come in to abduct a child, they're in, they're out."
    McCrary, though, feels that the Ramseys themselves have acted suspiciously. "I think John and Patsy Ramsey have created a lot of speculation about their involvement through their own behavior," says McCrary.
    For example, police thought they were unhelpful, even evasive. "The common behavior of victim parents is that not only will they talk to police, you can't get them out of your hair," says McCrary.
    "Separate attorneys to me almost speaks of a conflict of interest," McCrary continues. "In other words, why couldn't one attorney represent both of them if their interests were the same?"
    And then there was the ransom note. "This is staging. The offender wants us to believthat some stranger came in here and tried to abduct the child for ransom," says McCrary. "An offender stages a crime scene for only one reason--without the staging, they're going to be the immediate logical suspect."

    Who Killed JonBenet, 48 Hours Mystery

    Steve Thomas saw what was happening:
    Douglas also wrote that holidays were particularly stressful times and could trigger violent behavior. JonBenét was killed over Christmas.
    Douglas stated that in parental murders, great care is usually shown in the disposal of the body. JonBenét had been carefully tucked into a blanket in a cellar room, and not
    discarded outside in the freezing cold.
    John Douglas was almost denying his own writings in order to give the Ramseys a pass. The dust jacket of his next book identified him as a consultant on the JonBenét Ramsey case. It did not say for which side

    JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 137

    • Claim:
    I didn’t think this looked like evidence of a parental killing, either. There was no care taken with the body, which, as I’ve said, we almost always see when a parent murders a child.
    Law and Disorder, John Douglas, page 173

    • Fact:
    Cleaning (Pelvic area wiped down)
    Covering (Wrapped in a blanket)
    Comforting (Nightgown, doll)
    Redressing (New (oversized) underwear, long johns pulled up)

    • Claim:
    The writer goes on to say: Don’t try to grow a brain John. You are not the only fat cat around so don’t think that killing will be difficult. Do not underestimate us John. Use that good southern common sense of yours.
    This reference to John’s Southern origins also points to someone who either knew him well or knew a good deal about him.

    Law and Disorder, John Douglas, page 178 - 179

    • Fact:
    (Douglas shows his ignorance of the facts of the case again.)
    It was his voice in the ransom note and her hands. I can see it in my mind. She’s sitting there. We need paper, we need a note. He’s dictating and she’s doing. Like he’s almost snapping his fingers. She grabbed her notepad and her felt-tip pen. That is not her language. But the essence of her is there, like the percentages: “99% chance†and “100% chance.†That is how she talked because of her cancer or how you talk when you are around someone with cancer. And the phrase “that good southern common sense of yours.†John wasn’t from the South, but Patsy and Nedra always teased him about being from the South.—Linda Wilcox
    Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller, page 630

    • Claim:
    Maybe they’re all coincidences, but three phrases like that start to look like a pattern to me. I didn’t think John or Patsy would necessarily know these (movie) references; and if they were sitting down under extreme stress trying to come up with what they thought a ransom note should look like, they were not the things I would expect them to call to mind. So this also made me think about a younger offender.
    There is one thing about which I felt absolutely sure as soon as I saw the note and learned of its circumstances. The note was written before the murder, not, as some have suggested, afterward as a hasty and desperate attempt to stage the crime. No one would have that kind of patience, boldness and presence of mind to sit down and write it in the house afterward. The language seems more fitting to a male than a female offender.

    Law and Disorder, John Douglas, page 179

    • Fact:
    Clearly conjecture.
    Dr. Roger Depue, who headed the FBI unit in charge of profiling, was asked at one point to examine the kidnap note and the circumstances surrounding it by Dr. Bertram Brown, a psychiatrist called in by Alex Hunter, then the district attorney in Boulder, Colo.
    While Depue would not take a position on who killed the 6-year-old girl, he said the way the note was written fits the profile of JonBenet's mother, Patricia Ramsey. He gave his opinion before charges were dropped against John Mark Karr.
    In Depue's opinion, "The writer is a well-educated, middle-age female.â€

    • Claim:
    Boulder PD brought in four experts to examine the note and match it against handwriting exemplars from both John and Patsy. All four eliminated John as the author. Three out of the four eliminated Patsy; the fourth said he did not think she was, but he could not tell for sure. This was the origin of the story that Patsy’s handwriting had matched up to the note.
    Law and Disorder, John Douglas, page 182

    • Fact:
    Only one eliminated Patsy, Richard Dusak, and he essentially stands alone.

    As Henry Lee said, the ransom note is "this incredibly damaging piece of evidence implicating Patsy Ramsey"
    Cracking More Cases by, Henry C. Lee., page 209

    Q. What is your degree of certainty yourself as you sit here today that Patsy Ramsey wrote the note?
    A. I am absolutely certain that she wrote the note.
    Q. Is that 60 percent certain?
    A. No, that's 100 percent certain.

    Deposition of Gideon Epstein, May 17, 2002

    "Many forensic document examiners have given their opinions as to who wrote the note. But the only one to testify before a grand jury in the case was Chet Ubowski, forensic document examiner for the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. Out of 100 people he analyzed for the Boulder Police Department, he found only one person whom he thought may have authored the document, Patsy Ramsey. Investigative sources tell Fox News that the disguised letters and bleeding ink from the felt tipped pen used to write the note kept him from 100 percent ID of Mrs. Ramsey."
    Fox News, Carol McKinley

    Privately, however, Ubowski, who had made the early discovery that Patsy’s handwriting was consistent with the ransom note on twenty-four of the twenty-six alphabet letters, had recently told one detective, “I believe she wrote it.â€
    JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 174

    We were called upon to examine the ransom note that was left at the crime scene. The other handwriting expert was in Maryland. Both of us were kept separate so our opinions would be independent. In my opinion, I found that it was highly probable that Patsy was the person who wrote the note. I found over 243 similarities between her handwriting and the ransom note. The other handwriting expert said that he was 100 positive that Patsy wrote the note.
    - Cina Wong

    • Claim:
    JonBenét’s pediatrician was contacted and asked point-blank if during any of his examinations he had observed the remotest evidence of any abuse.
    Law and Disorder, John Douglas, page 182

    • Fact:
    While true, Douglas fails to mention the pediatric panel of experts that did find evidence of abuse.
    Despite the fact that a panel of pediatric experts concluded that JonBenet was a victim of long-term sexual abuse, current District Attorney Mary Lacy publicly announced in 2003 that she believed the little girl was murdered by an intruder.,2933,238946,00.html

    "In mid-September, a panel of pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation - that JonBenet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day she was killed. There were no dissenting opinions among them on the issue, and they firmly rejected any possibility that the trauma to the hymen and chronic vaginal inflammation were caused by urination issues or masturbation. We gathered affidavits stating in clear language that there were injuries 'consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse' 'There was chronic abuse'. . .'Past violation of the vagina'. . .'Evidence of both acute and injury and chronic sexual abuse.' In other words, the doctors were saying it had happened before. One expert summed it up well when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault, but with a child who was being physically abused."
    Such findings would lead an investigator to conclude that the person who inflicted the abuse was someone with frequent or unquestioned access to the child, and that limited the amount of suspects.
    Every statistic in the book pointed to someone inside the family.

    Steve Thomas, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation p. 253

    The panel identified:
    Dr. David Jones, professor of preventative medicine and biometrics at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center; Dr. James Monteleone, professor of pediatrics at St. Louis University School of medicine and director of child protection for Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital; and Dr. John McCann, a clinical professor of medicine at the University of California at Davis. --
    Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller, page 563

    • Claim:
    There is no way Burke would have the strength either to deliver the fatal head blow
    Law and Disorder, John Douglas, page 192

    • Fact:
    Certainly Burke swinging a golf club could have easily caused the depressed skull fracture.
    A fellow student of Prince William fractured his skull when he was nearly 9 years old in 1991.
    IT HAPPENED IN A FLASH. ENGLAND'S Prince William and a few other boys were larking around on the putting green of the exclusive Ludgrove School, in Wokingham, on Monday, June 3, when, says a witness, "one lad started swinging a putter around his head. William happened to be in the way." Knocked to the ground, with blood seeping from a cut on his forehead, the Prince, who turns 9 on June 21, fought back tears while his Royal Protection Squad detective ran to a phone to put "Operation Prince," the palace's prearranged emergency plan, into action.
    As the boy was rushed in a police car to the Royal Berkshire Hospital in nearby Reading, Princess Diana, after an immediate telephone call from headmaster Gerald Barber, jumped behind the wheel of her green Jaguar to speed from Kensington Palace to the hospital 36 miles away. Prince Charles, alerted in Highgrove, the family's country estate where he has been living apart from his family during the work week, was driven to the hospital in his blue Aston Martin.
    Diagnosed as having a depressed fracture of the skull (a slight indentation of the bone) on the left forehead, William underwent a 70-minute operation to push out the dent and cheek for bone splinters and brain lacerations.,,20115338,00.html

    • Claim:
    Or let’s say that Patsy did all this herself, without John’s knowledge. We know for a fact that she was good at cleaning up urine. Maybe that experience helped her clean up all the blood that would have gushed out of so large a head wound (more on that a little later).
    Law and Disorder, John Douglas, page 192


    But here’s the kicker! The entire area inside the house and the yard around it has to be considered a crime scene. Once the initial morning of confusion was past, investigators combed it meticulously.
    Within that boundary, the primary scene is the area from JonBenét’s bedroom into the hallway and bathroom, down the circular stairs all the way to the basement, then back to the wine cellar—in other words, the setting in which she was last seen alive to the setting where her body was discovered.
    So where along that trail was all the blood?
    This is perhaps the most important single question of the entire investigation. The scalp is highly vascular and head wounds tend to bleed profusely, even when they’re not serious. This one was deadly serious. A trauma that lacerates the scalp, cracks the skull and causes subdural and subarachnoid bleeding will certainly bleed on the outside, too.
    So where was all the blood?
    Did Patsy clean it up? And if she did, what did she do with the numerous towels and other cleaning supplies she would have needed? Did she take the car out in the middle of the night and dump them somewhere? It would be virtually impossible to clean up as much blood as would gush from a head wound of this nature and not leave traces that crime scene specialists and/or luminol would pick up.
    In all of my years of investigative experience, I have never witnessed a crime scene in which the blood from a violent act could be covered up or eliminated completely.

    Law and Disorder, John Douglas, page 198

    • Fact:
    This is a staggering error, one that calls into question his credibility to say anything further on the JonBenet Ramsey case.

    So the viewers at the autopsy were astonished when Meyer peeled back the scalp and discovered that the entire upper right side of her skull had been crushed by some enormous blow that left a well-defined rectangular pattern. The brain had massively hemorrhaged, but the blood had been contained within the skull. The caved-in skull was a second, and totally unexpected, possible cause of death.
    JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 47

    From the autopsy report:
    The scalp is covered by long blonde hair which is fixed in two ponytails, one on top of the head secured by a cloth hair tie and blue elastic band, and one in the lower back of the head secured by a blue elastic band. No scalp trauma is identified.

    • Claim:
    Then there was the pubic hair found on her blanket. Again, it may mean nothing; hair and fiber transfer is routine. But since it didn’t match anyone known to be in the house, shouldn’t it at least be regarded as a possible indication of an outsider?
    Law and Disorder, John Douglas, page 196

    • Fact:
    One particular sample of hair collected from the blanket that had been wrapped around JonBenét’s body had initially given the appearance of being a pubic hair. Investigators thought this might belong to a male perpetrator. The FBI was later able to identify this as an axillary hair (underarm, back, chest) and determined it did not come from the pubic region of the body.
    Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 226

    • Claim:
    Smit meticulously went through all of the now-voluminous evidence and concluded that JonBenét had been killed by an intruder.
    Law and Disorder, John Douglas, page 202

    • Fact:
    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 near long enough to devour the case material, but we hoped he might have some initial insights. He did.
    Lou shifted the toothpick to a corner of his mouth, and his eyes twinkled with the excitement of a good bird dog on point. He said, “I don’t think it was the Ramseys.â€
    He never budged from that position.

    JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 169

    • Claim:
    It reminded him of a case he had worked six years before—the 1991 murder of thirteen-year-old Heather Dawn Church, killed in her house near Colorado Springs.
    Smit, with a nearly superhuman attention to detail, discovered an overlooked fingerprint that he was able to match to a suspect arrested in Florida.

    Law and Disorder, John Douglas, page 202

    • Fact:
    Shortly after starting work last January, Smit reviewed Heather's file, a process he calls "messing with a case." He asked his investigators to come up with something new, something that hadn't been tried.
    Tom Carney, a crime laboratory technician, immediately thought of the prints. "We knew those fingerprints had to be from the suspect," he said.
    A better approach, he figured, would be an exhaustive mailing of quality photos of the prints to every police agency with an Automated Fingerprint Identification System. Like the FBI's system, AFIS compares fingerprint images electronically. AFIS computers aren't interconnected, but each one may contain prints that aren't in the hands of the FBI.
    So Carney made 100 sets of photos of the three fingerprints and began sending them to 92 agencies with AFIS. Carney remembered thinking, "If this doesn't work, that's it.
    On March 24, someone from the Louisiana prison system called to report a match between the prints from the Church home and prints in its data base. The prints belonged to Robert Charles Browne. He had spent time in Louisiana prisons for various crimes, including auto theft, in the early and mid-1980s. He moved to Colorado in 1987 and, after living at several addresses, settled into a home just down the road from the Church residence.

    August 6, 1995: Colorado Springs Gazette

    • Claim:
    Smit narrowed down the particular spacing of the two marks in each wound to what would have been produced by an Air Taser Model 34000.
    Law and Disorder, John Douglas, page 203

    • Fact:
    Even Smit conceded that the marks, while close to the gap of an Air Taser, in fact did not match.
    …the Air Taser stun gun is as close as we've been able to find to the marks on JonBenet.

    Larry King Live, May 28, 2001

    The marks are off by five to six millimeters or about 7/32 of an inch.

    "The stun gun theory has been around for some time. I know for a fact that this was submitted to various experts in stun guns and manufacturers, criminalists, forensic pathologists, law enforcement people, they all rejected it."
    "I also know for a fact that Mr. Smit, pursuant to his own request, presented this to one of the top-flight forensic scientists, who along with another top-flight forensic scientist of a different subspecialty, rejected it."

    (Dr. Cyril Wecht, Court TV - The Crier Report - 05/01/01)

    James Kolar provides the following insight:
    It was strikingly clear that the electronic leads of the Taser purported to have been used by an intruder in this murder did not align with JonBenét’s injuries.
    Lou Smit’s representation that these marks were a “close match†were exactly that, “closeâ€, but not the exact match you would expect to see from the direct physical contact that would have been required in these circumstances.
    It was an opinion that Boulder Police investigators had been expressing privately for years.

    Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 248

    Also to be noted:
    The “O†gauge type of train track found in the Ramsey home reveals an exact match to the abrasions located on the back of JonBenét.
    Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page386

    All of the above doesn’t even scratch the surface in terms of reasons why the stun gun theory is false.
    See the following:

    • Claim:
    On all major points, Judge Carnes used solid legal and investigative reasoning in a statement more far-reaching in its assertion of the Ramseys’ innocence than any official document or opinion before.
    Law and Disorder, John Douglas, page 209

    • Fact:
    Judge Carnes was given only the Ramsey side of the story through Lin Wood.

    How ironic that Douglas would heap praise on Carnes, who arrived at her erroneous conclusions by feeding on the same diet of misinformation from the Ramsey team that Douglas did.
  2. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member

    WOW Cynic! That is such a great paper on the failings of John Douglas. I cannot understand how he can possibly hold himself up as any kind of expert when he accepted flawed "facts" and then made them his own. He had at one time enjoyed a good expert reputation. But after this case and way back at his first entering it did he lose his creds. Isn't it true that he didn't even interview the Ramseys? Whew, what a load of horse dung his opinion is. And now he has written another book? He must be broke or something to again capitalize on the death of this little angel. Isn't he retired now too? Or just tired? I am tired from even hearing about him and his short sighted claims.

    Oh my goodness what the hell is he thinking? :nono: :puke: :lier:
  3. otg

    otg Member

    Excellent work, cynic (as always). I know how much time and effort you had to put into this to organize it for us, and we all (I'm sure) appreciate it. You really show how demonstrably wrong Douglas is -- not to mention how shockingly uninformed he is about major details of the case. The following excerpt is the most shocking to me that he doesn't even know that the head wound was a closed scalp injury, and then he drones on and on about all the blood that "would have gushed out", and how it would have to be completely cleaned up without leaving a trace:

    Another excerpt I have to comment on:
    Actually, Smit had already begun forming opinions before he was even hired to work for Hunter. From RMN ( (bbm):
    Retired detective Lou Smit had a different view of the JonBenet Ramsey killing even before he was hired to help with the case.

    It was March 1997, three months after the slaying, and Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter was looking to add some investigative muscle. He wanted the longtime Colorado Springs homicide cop on his team. First though, Hunter asked for Smit's take on the now-infamous ransom note found in the Ramsey home.

    ''I told Alex, 'Look, I don't know if you're going to hire me, but I'll give you a freebie,' '' Smit recounted. ''Whoever wrote this note did not do it after the murder.''​

    One more:
    Just one comment on the last excerpt -- or opinion, I guess. It seems to me that having made up his mind from the beginning that this case was similar to another one, he couldn't get past trying to fit the evidence in the Ramsey case to the one he had decided it was similar to. Too bad. His "legend" seems to have influenced his desire to find something contrary to his fellow investigators (IMO).
  4. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Thanks so much for all your hard work, Cynic!

    What Zoomama and OTG said goes for me, too! I don't want to get started on my sub-zero opinion of John Douglas, or I'll be here all night. :curse:
  5. Thor

    Thor Active Member

    Ditto from me Cher! Thanks Cynic!
  6. madeleine_ws

    madeleine_ws Member

    good job cynic!

    JD and this case....:violin:....we know what it's all about...
  7. BOESP

    BOESP Member

    Thank you, Cynic. Your work is appreciated.
  8. cynic

    cynic Member

    Hey Zoomama,

    It is puzzling that he would include the JonBenet case in a second book. Clearly he shouldn’t have because it only serves to underscore his ignorance of the facts of the case.
    I suppose he included it because the latest book purports to look at the foibles of the criminal justice system – his prologue is titled, WITCH-HUNTING, Salem Village and Town, Massachusetts Bay Colony—June 1692.

    Regarding your questions about retirement and whether he interviewed the Ramseys:
    John Douglas is 68 years old, and has been retired from the FBI since 1995. Since that time he has authored a number of books and continues to be involved in a cases as a consultant.
    He did interview the Ramseys very early on after being contacted by the PIs and legal team of the Ramseys.
    Douglas spent a few hours with the Ramseys in the morning and early afternoon on January 9, 1997.

    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 sciences unit.
    JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 136

    Around 9 A.M. on Thursday, January 9, I met with the Ramseys at the Haddon, Morgan and Foreman law offices. The key meeting was with John, since the attorneys believed that semen deposits had been found on the body and/or at the scene, which would give the primary exposure to him. Bryan Morgan was there. Patsy was not present for my initial meeting with John.
    After I had spent about two hours with Ramsey, he excused himself to go to the rest room. I turned to Bryan Morgan, who’d been in the room the entire time, and said simply, “I believe him.”
    “Oh, God, what a relief!” Morgan replied.
    I told Morgan that I was ready to speak with Mrs. Ramsey, but that I’d changed my mind about having to do it without Mr. Ramsey present. He could be present during the interview.
    It was apparent that she had been crying and was in need of rest.
    I introduced myself to her, but rather than ask specific questions I told both Ramseys about how I would go about analyzing the case, though I said that I didn’t have all of the case materials I would normally have for such an analysis.

    The Cases That Haunt Us, John Douglas, pages 298 - 300

    BTW, I see your :nono: :puke: :lier: and raise it a :puke:
  9. cynic

    cynic Member

    Thank you to all for the thanks.

    There are a few people associated with the JonBenet case that have, in my opinion, caused considerable damage to the course of justice for this dead little girl, and Douglas is one of those people.
    Alex Hunter, Mary Lacy, Lou Smit, and Michael Tracey are the others who have a lot to answer for and people that I never tire of criticizing.
    Unfortunately, people listen to John Douglas because of his reputation not realizing that he is so shockingly misinformed about the JBR case.

    Steve Thomas sized up Douglas succinctly when he said:
    John Douglas was almost denying his own writings in order to give the Ramseys a pass.
    JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation, Steve Thomas, page 137

    I’m repeating myself, but I continue to be disgusted and outraged by the way he tries to defend his ridiculous notion that the blanket was “haphazardly” draped over JonBenet.
    Please don’t spit in my eye and tell me it’s raining as the saying goes.
    His defense that because JonBenet’s hands and feet were sticking out that that somehow negated the careful papoose-like wrapping of the blanket around JonBenet is preposterous. That is laughable if it wasn’t sad. His ego is preventing him from admitting that he made some huge errors in the case. He’s in too deep and can’t go back it seems.
    Is he ever going to admit that he was clearly wrong when he stated that JonBenet’s head was lacerated? I seriously doubt it.
    Garbage in, garbage out is an old phrase from George Fuechsel, an early IBM programmer and instructor. Although its origin has to do with programming, in general, GIGO is used to refer to situations where faulty decisions are made as a consequence of incomplete or inaccurate information.
    John Douglas got into bed with the Ramsey team, they whispered sweet nothings in his ear and he formed a twisted view of the case.
    It seems clear that he didn’t take the time to review or check the facts of the case prior to the writing of his two books.
    Garbage in, garbage out.
    Ironically, John, in his latest book, speaks of the importance of basing conclusions on an accurate foundation.
    Writing this book has also forced me to look back at some of my earlier cases and reflect on some of the assumptions under which I operated.
    First and foremost, when a local law enforcement agency came to us for assistance, we had to assume that they were providing us with good data.

    Law and Disorder, John Douglas, page 330
    So let me get this straight, it’s important to question whether or not good data is being received from LE, but it’s alright to take in all of the nonsense from the team surrounding the primary suspects in a murder investigation, the Ramseys, as facts. Got it.
    As Thomas said, “John Douglas was almost denying his own writings in order to give the Ramseys a pass.”
    The only thing wrong with what Thomas said is the inclusion of the word, “almost.”
    It should read, “John Douglas was denying his own writings in order to give the Ramseys a pass.”

    Douglas continues to be a mouthpiece for Smit and Ramsey and he mentions the association in the Acknowledgments section of his book.
    Profound gratitude goes out to the many individuals who freely contributed their time, talents and insights. Since they all helped so much, we will simply list them alphabetically: Bob Barnett, Philip Bermingham, Stephen Braga, Jackie and John Mark Byers
    ...former special agent Steve Moore, Madison Paxton, John Ramsey, Mark Smit, Lynne Sparks

    Law and Disorder, John Douglas, Acknowledgments

    Good to see that he gave a shout out to members at FFJ :D
    And finally, to all of those who continually strive to see justice rendered—and right the wrongs when it is not—you have our sincere and undying admiration.
    Law and Disorder, John Douglas, Acknowledgments

    I’ve been on the prosecution’s side for the vast majority of my career, and it’s almost always the side of the angels, as far as I’m concerned.
    Law and Disorder, John Douglas, page 385
    And so it is, John Douglas, not on the prosecution’s side, has let down a little angel, JonBenet.
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2014
  10. cynic

    cynic Member

    Thanks OTG.

    And here I thought Aphrodite Jones and Paula Woodward would lead the way with misinformation.
    It really is a mistake that leaves one speechless. I can tell you that if I put out a book with an error of that magnitude in it I would look for the nearest rock to crawl under and stay there for several years.
    Interesting that that is what Douglas said. Were the two talking?
    There is one thing about which I felt absolutely sure as soon as I saw the note and learned of its circumstances. The note was written before the murder, not, as some have suggested, afterward as a hasty and desperate attempt to stage the crime. No one would have that kind of patience, boldness and presence of mind to sit down and write it in the house afterward.
    Law and Disorder, John Douglas, page 179
    That does seem likely.
  11. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member

    Cynic, just an aside about JD. I think it was his early book Mind Hunters that my sister (may she RIP) read and gave to me to read but with the caveat that I might not like the ending. So I read the book and as I neared the ending I saw what she meant. He extolled himself as to how great he was in his job and what he had accomplished. It became more than I could continue reading so for the first and only time in my life I didn't finish that book. I couldn't stand his bragging. I read a lot and some books are trash but at least I finish them. His I couldn't.
  12. Elle

    Elle Member

    Phew! What a long time it takes to read magnificent posts like these from cynic and otg. Thank you both for the wonderful memory refreshers of this antagonizing case of little JonBenét Ramsey.
  13. madeleine_ws

    madeleine_ws Member

    BOULDER -- Former FBI profiler John Douglas has conceded that the only briefing he received on the JonBenet Ramsey autopsy report came from the Ramsey family's lawyers.
    In a one-hour interview Thursday on Larry King Live, the criminal profiler hired by John and Patricia Ramsey to help solve their 6-year-old daughter's murder said his knowledge of her unfinished autopsy report is third-hand.
    "I was briefed by the attorneys'' representing the Ramseys, Douglas said.
    He said he has not seen the final report.
    This contradicts statements on Dateline NBC Tuesday night that Douglas had been briefed on the autopsy report. The next day, no officials connected to the murder investigation admitted having done so.
    Boulder County coroner John Meyer will ask at a Feb. 12 hearing in Boulder District Court to have the report sealed. It is not expected to be completed until then.
    Los Angeles criminal defense attorney Leslie Abramsom, who defended Erik and Lyle Menendez in the murders of their parents, was also a guest on King's show.
    "How could the defense attorneys be briefing Mr. Douglas on the autopsy when they don't have a report?'' she asked.


    nuff said
  14. madeleine_ws

    madeleine_ws Member

    I am bringing this over from WS.....this is the real JD IMO ;)
    and this contradicts everything he ever said about the JB case!

    JD's work:

    When investigators approach a crime scene, they should look for behavioral "clues" left by the offender. This is when investigators attempt to find answers to several critical questions. How did the encounter between the offender and victim occur? Did the offender blitz (ambush) the victim, or did he use verbal means (the con) to capture her? Did the offender use ligatures to control the victim? What was the sequence of events? Was the victim sexually assaulted before or after death? When did the mutilation take place--before or after death? Did the offender place any item at the crime scene or remove something from the crime scene?

    As investigators analyze crime scenes, facts may arise that baffle them. These details may contain peculiarities that serve no apparent purpose in the perpetration2 of the crime and obscure the underlying motive of the crime. This confusion may be the result of a crime scene behavior called staging. Staging occurs when someone purposely alters the crime scene prior to the arrival of the police.

    Reasons for Staging
    Principally, staging takes place for two reasons--to direct the investigation away from the most logical suspect or to protect the victim or victim's family. It is the offender who attempts to redirect the investigation. This offender does not just happen to come upon a victim, but is someone who almost always has some kind of association or relationship with the victim. This person, when in contact with law enforcement, will attempt to steer the investigation away from himself, usually by being overly cooperative or extremely distraught. Therefore, investigators should never eliminate a suspect who displays such distinctive behavior.

    The second reason for staging, to protect the victim or the victim's family, occurs for the most part in rape-murder crimes or autoerotic fatalities. This type of staging is performed by the family member or person who finds the body. Since perpetrators of such crimes leave their victims in degrading positions, those who find the bodies attempt to restore some dignity to the victim. For example, a husband may redress or cover his wife's body, or in the case of an autoerotic fatality,3 a wife may cut the noose or the device suspending the body of her husband.

    Basically, these people are trying to prevent future shock that may be brought about by the position, dress, or condition of the victim. In addition, they will often stage an autoerotic fatality to look like a suicide, perhaps even writing a suicide note. They may even go so far as to the make it appear to be a homicide.

    For both types of crime scene investigations, rape-murders and autoerotic fatalities, investigators need to obtain an accurate description of the body's condition when found and to determine exactly what the person who found the body did to alter the crime scene. Scrutiny of forensic findings, crime scene dynamics, and victimology will probably reveal the true circumstances surrounding the deaths.

    Finally, at some crime scenes, investigators must discern if the scene is truly disorganized or if the offender staged it to appear careless and haphazard. This determination not only helps to direct the analysis to the underlying motive but also helps to shape the offender profile. However, recognition of staging, especially with a shrewd offender, can be difficult. Investigators must examine all factors of the crime if they suspect it has been staged. This is when forensics, victimology, and minute crime scene details become critical to determine if staging occurred.

    "Red Flags"
    Offenders who stage crime scenes usually make mistakes because they arrange the scene to resemble what they believe it should look like. In so doing, offenders experience a great deal of stress and do not have the time to fit all the pieces together logically. As a result, inconsistencies in forensic findings and in the overall "big picture" of the crime scene will begin to appear. These inconsistencies can serve as the "red flags" of staging, which serve to prevent investigations from becoming misguided.

    To ensure this doesn't happen, investigators should scrutinize all crime scene indicators individually, then view them in context with the total picture. Crime scene indicators include all evidence of offender activity, e.g., method of entry, offender-victim interaction, and body disposition.
    When exploring these issues, investigators should consider several factors. For example, if burglary appears to be the motive, did the offender take inappropriate items from the crime scene? In one case submitted to the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC), a man returning home from work interrupted a burglary in progress. The startled burglars killed him as he attempted to flee. But, an inventory of the crime scene determined that the offenders did not steal anything, although it did appear that they started to disassemble a large stereo and TV unit.

    Further examination of the crime scene revealed that they left smaller, and easily transported, items of far greater value (jewelry, coin collection, etc.). The police subsequently determined that the victim's wife paid the burglars to stage the crime and kill her husband. She, in fact, was having an affair with one of the suspects.

    Another factor to consider is the point of entry. Did the point of entry make sense? For example, did the offender enter the house through a second-story window, even though there was an easier, less conspicuous entrance that could have been used? Why did the offender increase his chance of being seen by potential witnesses who might alert authorities?

    Investigators should also consider whether the offender put himself at high risk by committing the crime during the daylight hours, in a populated area. If the crime scene is a place of residence, they should also evaluate any obvious signs of occupancy, such as lights on in the house, vehicles in the driveway, etc.

    Forensic "Red Flags"
    Forensic results that don't fit the crime should also cause investigators to consider staging. Personal assaults should raise suspicion, especially if material gain appears to be the initial motive. These assaults could include the use of a weapon of opportunity, manual or ligature strangulation, facial beating (depersonalization), and excessive trauma beyond that necessary to cause death (overkill). In other words, do the injuries fit the crime?

    Sexual and domestic homicides usually demonstrate forensic findings of a close-range, personal assault. The victim, not money or property, is the primary focus of the offender. However, this type of offender will often attempt to stage a sexual or domestic homicide that appears to be motivated by personal gain. This does not imply that personal assaults never happen while a property crime is being committed, but usually these offenders prefer quick, clean kills that reduce the time spent at the scene.

    Forensic red flags are also raised when there are discrepancies between witness/survivor accounts and forensics results. For example, in one case, an estranged wife found her husband in the tub with the water running. Initially, it appeared as if he slipped and struck his head on a bathroom fixture, which resulted in his death by drowning. However, toxicological reports from the autopsy showed a high level of valium in the victim's blood. Also, the autopsy revealed several concentrated areas of injury or impact points on the head, as if the victim struck his head more than once.

    Subsequently, investigators learned that the wife had been with the victim on the evening of his death. She later confessed that she laced his dinner salad with valium, and when he passed out, she let three men into the house. These men had been hired by the wife to kill the victim and to make it look like an accident.

    Often, investigators will find forensic discrepancies when an offender stages a rape-murder, that is, positioning the body to infer sexual assault. And if the offender has a close relationship with the victim, he will only partially remove the victim's clothing, never leaving her completely nude. However, despite the position of the body and the removal of some of the victim's clothes, an autopsy can confirm or deny whether any form of sexual assault took place, thereby determining if the crime scene was staged.

    If investigators suspect a crime has been staged, they should look for signs of association between the offender and the victim. Or, as is frequently the case with domestic violence, the involvement of a third party, who is usually the one who discovers the victim. For example, in the case involving the husband who staged his wife's murder to make it look like the crime was committed by an intruder, the husband did not immediately check on his wife and daughter once he regained consciousness. Instead, he remained downstairs and called his brother, who went upstairs and discovered the victim. Offenders will often manipulate the discovery of victims by a neighbor or family member, or conveniently be elsewhere when the victim is discovered.


    You have to look to see what the message is.

    Sometimes you'll see a victim laid out nice and neat at a crime scene. The subject may go so far as to cover the corpse with a sheet or blanket.

    There are various reasons for doing this. The killer may go into an explosive rage and then ask himself afterward, "What did I do?" He doesn't want to look at the crime he perpetrated, so he covers the victim.

    When a parent kills a child

    Or it could be that a close relationship existed between the killer and the victim. Let's say a parent kills a child and then buries the body. You may find that the child was carefully wrapped or the face covered to keep dirt from getting in the mouth. In essence, someone is caring for the child after death.

    There's a word we use: "undoing." That's when someone tries to somehow lessen the damage after committing the crime, maybe by cleansing and bandaging the wounds. The killer may try softening the appearance of the crime by making the body's position restful and clasping the hands, almost like the victim is laid out. It's a way of symbolically erasing or reversing the crime, and it suggests remorse. Doing this gives the subject away. It's a personal crime -- strangers wouldn't likely do this.
  15. otg

    otg Member

    Too bad John Douglas, the Ramsey hired gun, never read John Douglas, the formerly-respected FBI profiler. Oh, wait a sec.... [​IMG]
  16. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    Ha ha ha! :floor:
  17. Karen

    Karen Member

    Thank you for all your hard work cynic! :)

    Hello Elle_1!! :hug:
  18. Elle

    Elle Member

    Hello there, Karen! :hug: Long time no see![​IMG]
  19. Elle

    Elle Member

    btw I'm not really No.1 at anything. This was added by Moab coz I was having problems on the board.
  20. heymom

    heymom Member

    It's really amazing that he could be so on-point with this and then COMPLETELY IGNORE everything he knew and had written when it came to the Ramseys!! Maddening really. This is what the FBI/CBI also knew, and when they turned the case over to to BPD, they must have thought that BPD could see it too and would know how to proceed. And we all know how that went...
  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