A John Douglas thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Voice of Reason said:
When he speaks of believing or disbelieving, he is speaking about PEOPLE. However, McCrary's refusal to take the Ramsey's case was based on his belief that the EVIDENCE and FACTS of the case, which he was given at least to some extent at the time his help was requested from sources other than the media. I think you are twisting his quote into his ultimate conclusion, based on this EVIDENCE and FACTS, that he refused to take the case on a disbelief of the Ramseys. It is true that the EVIDENCE and FACTS, as he knew them, led him to that conclusion, but he turned down the case because of the EVIDENCE and FACTS, not because he had some prejudice against the Ramseys (absent the facts).
Click to expand...

What evidence and facts can one deduce from media? Can it be assumed because it is in print, it is true? Can it be assumed that because it is aired on national television or broadcast over the airwaves, it is true?

Were you around at the time War of the Worlds first aired? Did you believe earth had actually been attacked by aliens because it was on the radio?

And no. McCrary had no information other than from the news media. Do you really think the BPD were sharing with anyone--oh--except for all those "leaks."

Rainsong
 
So are you suggesting that the Ramseys picked up the phone called McCrary and said, "Hey. WOuld you like to come to Boulder and assess our innocence? Just read the papers. It'll fill you in on all the facts. Just get back to us soon, because John Douglas is on the other line."

Of course, that's an exaggeration, but don't you think McCrary was given any background by the Ramseys and their lawyers. If their lawyers had ANY brains, and I think they do, they would give McCrary some background when proposing the job to him. TO suggest that all he had to base his decision on is the media, is to suggest the Ramseys and their lawyers are fools. (While that statement does make ME think), it's obvious these are not fools...
 
Voice of Reason said:
So are you suggesting that the Ramseys picked up the phone called McCrary and said, "Hey. WOuld you like to come to Boulder and assess our innocence? Just read the papers. It'll fill you in on all the facts. Just get back to us soon, because John Douglas is on the other line."

Of course, that's an exaggeration, but don't you think McCrary was given any background by the Ramseys and their lawyers. If their lawyers had ANY brains, and I think they do, they would give McCrary some background when proposing the job to him. TO suggest that all he had to base his decision on is the media, is to suggest the Ramseys and their lawyers are fools. (While that statement does make ME think), it's obvious these are not fools...
Click to expand...

No, I believe it was the attorneys who were concerned about the guilt or innocence of their client.

And no, I don't believe any background was given to McCrary by the attorneys or the Ramseys as they never spoke with him on the phone. I believe it was Armistead who was the contact person and also the person who contacted John Douglas.

Rainsong
 
Voice of Reason said:
So are you suggesting that the Ramseys picked up the phone called McCrary and said, "Hey. WOuld you like to come to Boulder and assess our innocence? Just read the papers. It'll fill you in on all the facts. Just get back to us soon, because John Douglas is on the other line."

Of course, that's an exaggeration, but don't you think McCrary was given any background by the Ramseys and their lawyers. If their lawyers had ANY brains, and I think they do, they would give McCrary some background when proposing the job to him. TO suggest that all he had to base his decision on is the media, is to suggest the Ramseys and their lawyers are fools. (While that statement does make ME think), it's obvious these are not fools...
Click to expand...
It is interesting to read the posts on this thread and to see the different perspectives of the same scenario.

Personally, I think profiling is like a game of chess. You can anticipate the other player's moves but it's not an exact science and new scenarios are always going to come along which will change the way we think.

I read about a computer which plays chess. It was programmed with all the moves that had ever been made and champion chess players couldn't beat the computer - and then one of them did. The programmers had to update the computer.
 
JOhn Douglas is an honorable man, and comletely undeserving of the insults casually posted here. If his self-assurance is misunderstood by some as arrogance, then that's just too bad for that person, not for John Douglas. He's always been at the forefront in his field, and is so highly regarded that he is inundated with reqyuests for help from many people from all walks of life, and he helps those he can, pro bono. If he feels that the family of Jon Benet Ramsey is not responsible for her death, then you can bet your paycheck that there is good reason behind his reasoning. Even if you disagree with him, there's no need for the constant insults. Such insults are in poor taste. They are also a good indicator of the thoughtlessness and gossipy atmosphere prevalent in this thread.


John Douglas was the best and still is. He's not superman, no one is, but he investigates, and uses his grey matter, and unlike some "profilers" who seem to shoot off at the mouth and end up making things worse, he's not done so. He COULD< be on the five o'clock news all the time if he chose to, mouthing off and giving premature ideas to the media on many cases. unlike those "profilers" who seem to give the fugitives and criminals ideas on how to seek more infamy, he chooses to work quietly and effectively. If the interviews he DOES give, make him come across as vain or arrogant, then perhaps that's more a reflection of the insecurity of the listener, and not the character of the man himself.
 
We all see things from different perspectives. It's clear from his own forum, that John Douglas has a strong fanbase - albeit a very tiny one. It's also pretty clear that for soe of his fans, the admiration is more than just one of his mind!!!

However, from reading the reviews at Amazon, it is clear that a great many people do find him exceptionally arrogant and egotistical. I read Mindhunter many years ago and was irritated by his boastfulness - it got in the way of the book actually.

The problem is that when someone is very egotistical, people LOVE it when they make mistakes.

I saw John Douglas on tv recently and he seemed quite nice. My husband has met him a couple of times officially and I have signed copies of two of his books. I'm not anti-John Douglas, but I am critical of him in certain respects.
 
Jayelles said:
One of the things he speaks of in this post is the stress brought on by a murder case. The RST post about the stress of the "BORG" contributing to Patsy's ill health, but one thing I find horrific is the fact that a recent newspaper article by Charlie Brennan had a "friend" (who didn't wish to be named - surprise, surprise) revealing Patsy's poor state of health and her domestic and medical arrangements. What kind of friend is that? I think it's appalling to divulge her private arrangements at a time like this.

I think that the stress of having "friends" anonymously leaking stuff to the press must be way more stressful than anything the "BORG" might have to say on an internet forum! Imagine wondering which friend couldn't be trusted?
Click to expand...

I think about things like-- What if she is innocent?
I personally can't imagine the horror of websites, that talks trash about me everyday!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 62 more.
Total: 1,817 (members: 63, guests: 1,754)

Online statistics

Members online
63
Guests online
1,754
Total visitors
1,817
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,242
Messages
18,137,388
Members
231,281
Latest member
omnia
Back
Top