What about all these 3's?

[SunnieRN]

Native Asian who is matching the killer profile that the R's published. Do you know about that profile and who helped develop it?

OK four of these items on your list (bold) are well documented multi-sourced matches to this MAAM's profile. And, this list isn't from the original profile published by the R's and their team of investigators back in 1997.

The MAAM matches four out of the first five characteristics. What about that?

I don't see anywhere that states it was an asian. If you have an additional profile, link it here please, as I could find the one Agatha posted, the 1997 one and one other that was as vague as these two. I NEVER found an Asian suspect profile. Post the one you found here, with links please. Put up or stop talking about a profile that specifies an asian male.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I don't see anywhere that states it was an asian. If you have an additional profile, link it here please, as I could find the one Agatha posted, the 1997 one and one other that was as vague as these two. I NEVER found an Asian suspect profile. Post the one you found here, with links please. Put up or stop talking about a profile that specifies an asian male.

I think you misunderstood. There is a person who fits the Ramsey profile, in well documented multi-sourced ways, who happens to be a MAAM.

If the Ramsey profile is so generic, it should be no problem to come up with several people who match, right?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

my bold

So what evidence did the R's have to pass on to their profilers if not "what the Rs were telling them"? Did the BPD or FBI put out a profile that contradicted any of this? Did they put out a profile on an IDI at all? Was there any serious PUBLIC attempt by any LE to actually locate a possible IDI?

Not only did the BPD and FBI not put out a profile, but RDI is ad hominem bashing the only profile that exists. Its like nobody really wants to solve this crime, unless RDI.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

That deserves a standing ovation. Yes, it's purely a boilerplate profile made up by people who had no access to any evidence other than what the Rs were telling them. Is it any wonder why the "intruder" profile and the people responsible for it were trashed by the entire profiling community and made a laughingstock?

I believe you're not able to source this claim. Please provide evidence of entire profiling community trashing those responsible for the intruder profile.

 

[BBB167893]

Glossed right over the source of all of your fiber testimony: interrogators who lied.

Look who's talking about glossing over things! I swear to God, it's like you didn't read a damn thing I wrote.

I'm sick of this. I've had it up to HERE *taps forehead* with these games. I'm not playing games here, HOTYH. So I'll just lay it out on the line:

You have absolutely no proof that any member of LE lied at any point during these interviews. All you have is wishful thinking. But hey, any port in a storm, right? Sure, use the claim that LE lied to avoid talking about what PR said and the implications it has for their guilt. I imagine you didn't see the actual interview where she said all this, because if you had, you would have noticed JR giving her one of those looks he gives her whenever she goes a little too far off the reservation.

I mean, if nothing else, you have to admit, it would have been a lot better for you if PR had just said that LE lied, which neither she nor JR attempted to do at any point. Not to mention that Lou Smit, who should know, was asked during the same program by the same reporter, "are the fibers incriminating?" His one-word response says it all: "Sure."

Where is the fiber expert testimony or report?

The police file, would be my guess!

Where is the BPD, DA, CBI, or FBI remarks on the fiber evidence, if its so darned important to the case?

HOTYH, it's specifically BECAUSE it's so darned important that I EXPECT them to keep quiet about it! Maybe you haven't noticed, but one of the biggest problems this case had was that nobody could keep his mouth shut.

But leaving that aside for a moment, who's to say they didn't plan to make a statement about it? I'm just about convinced that the only reason Lin Wood released these interrogation tapes is to preempt the BPD.

Where is it? Nowhere. They lied and RDI bought it anyway because it sounds just as good now as when the interrogators lied to PR then.

That's such a bald-faced example of pot vs. kettle, I'm not even going to dignify it with a response.

 

[DeeDee249]

Wouldn't the FBI or CIB or whatever have a lab? Like your doctor doesn't have a lab, but a hospital does.

Sure they would. The FBI was removed from the case as soon as it became a murder and not a kidnapping. For them to continue, LE would have to ask for their help. They didn't. (that was Eller's fault).
I don't know what lab the BPD uses, but in THIS country, police stations do not have forensic labs. They can take and store samples (hopefully stored properly) but the police themselves cannot and do not perform forensic testing.
All hospitals have labs. But there are also independent labs.

 

[BBB167893]

my bold

So what evidence did the R's have to pass on to their profilers if not "what the Rs were telling them"?

That's EXACTLY my POINT, Murri. And it's exactly why the people who came up with it were so savaged by their colleagues: you go off half-cocked, you shoot yourself in the foot.

Did the BPD or FBI put out a profile that contradicted any of this?

Not publically. But I know that a few FBI profilers spoke to the police and made reports for the DA.

 

[BBB167893]

But there's a MAAM who matches it.

Ugh, I've suddenly got a headache.

If its so boilerplate, how come you can't match someone to it easily?

That's my POINT, HOTYH! Let's use some of the points you mentioned:

judgemental, cold, secretive, has an unusual interest in movies and a disrespect for capitalism and this country?

That describes half the people I know!

Give it a go. If it wasn't someone who was dead or in jail at the time, I'm all ears.

So sorry to disappoint you.

 

[BBB167893]

I believe you're not able to source this claim.

Try again!

Please provide evidence of entire profiling community trashing those responsible for the intruder profile.

It'll be my PLEASURE!

Try this for starters:

http://www.corpus-delicti.com/mccrary_jbr.html

Then this:

In his book, Criminal Profiling, Brent Turvey had this to say:

"First, Douglas was not given access to the police reports, the physical evidence, the crime-scene photos, the autopsy report, or the autopsy photos. The basis for any insight into offender behavior with the victim was elicited from the 4 1/2 hour interview conducted by Douglas with the parents, and their recollection. This breaks many of the rules of criminal profiling, which include his own, regarding the need for reliance on physical evidence and access to adequate inputs.
"Second, Douglas broke an inviolable rule of suspect interview strategy. He interviewed the parents together, as opposed to separately. As any interviewer will explain, it is important to interview suspects separately, not jointly, for any evaluations, and subsequent profiling work, to be valid. Conducting independent interviews of suspects allows the investigator to compare responses for inconsistencies and determine the veracity of each suspect's responses. Douglas did not do this.
"And finally, Douglas went on national television and endorsed the innocence of his client based upon this poorly rendered, almost boilerplate profile. This breaks the most important ethical rule of criminal profiling, which is that criminal profiles alone should not be used to address the issue of guilt. And even if they were, what Douglas feels in his heart about a case is not relevant. What is important is what the facts of the case suggest, behaviorally. As Douglas did not have the facts of the case at his disposal, it is the opinion of this author that he had no business rendering any opinions on the case whatsoever."

My bold.

Robert Ressler, the founder of the Behavioral Sciences Unit, also criticized Douglas in a radio interview. He didn't name him, but anyone who followed the case would know who he meant.

I reckon that'll do for now, pilgrim.

 

[MurriFlower]

Not only did the BPD and FBI not put out a profile, but RDI is ad hominem bashing the only profile that exists. Its like nobody really wants to solve this crime, unless RDI.

my bold and big

You know that is what I've been thinking.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Try again!



It'll be my PLEASURE!

Try this for starters:

http://www.corpus-delicti.com/mccrary_jbr.html

Then this:

In his book, Criminal Profiling, Brent Turvey had this to say:

"First, Douglas was not given access to the police reports, the physical evidence, the crime-scene photos, the autopsy report, or the autopsy photos. The basis for any insight into offender behavior with the victim was elicited from the 4 1/2 hour interview conducted by Douglas with the parents, and their recollection. This breaks many of the rules of criminal profiling, which include his own, regarding the need for reliance on physical evidence and access to adequate inputs.
"Second, Douglas broke an inviolable rule of suspect interview strategy. He interviewed the parents together, as opposed to separately. As any interviewer will explain, it is important to interview suspects separately, not jointly, for any evaluations, and subsequent profiling work, to be valid. Conducting independent interviews of suspects allows the investigator to compare responses for inconsistencies and determine the veracity of each suspect's responses. Douglas did not do this.
"And finally, Douglas went on national television and endorsed the innocence of his client based upon this poorly rendered, almost boilerplate profile. This breaks the most important ethical rule of criminal profiling, which is that criminal profiles alone should not be used to address the issue of guilt. And even if they were, what Douglas feels in his heart about a case is not relevant. What is important is what the facts of the case suggest, behaviorally. As Douglas did not have the facts of the case at his disposal, it is the opinion of this author that he had no business rendering any opinions on the case whatsoever."

My bold.

Robert Ressler, the founder of the Behavioral Sciences Unit, also criticized Douglas in a radio interview. He didn't name him, but anyone who followed the case would know who he meant.

I reckon that'll do for now, pilgrim.

This is a 'few' profilers criticizing Douglas' methods. I'm not sure 'trashing' and 'laughing stock' are any more than your own personal word choices.

However, should I conclude from this that Douglas formed the Ramsey killer profile? The profile that this MAAM matches?

 

[MurriFlower]

Sure they would. The FBI was removed from the case as soon as it became a murder and not a kidnapping. For them to continue, LE would have to ask for their help. They didn't. (that was Eller's fault).
I don't know what lab the BPD uses, but in THIS country, police stations do not have forensic labs. They can take and store samples (hopefully stored properly) but the police themselves cannot and do not perform forensic testing.
All hospitals have labs. But there are also independent labs.

Ok, so we know BODE tested the DNA. But we don't know who tested the fibers? Funny that!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Ugh, I've suddenly got a headache.



That's my POINT, HOTYH! Let's use some of the points you mentioned:

judgemental, cold, secretive, has an unusual interest in movies and a disrespect for capitalism and this country?

That describes half the people I know!


So sorry to disappoint you.

The misquote was disappointing and puzzling.

Lets give that judgemental, cold, secretive kidnapper a pass, even if he has an unusual interest in movies and a disrespect for capitalism and this country? And was angry at the time?

Really describes half the people you know?

Oops! It seems you've curiously and rather dramatically dropped 'kidnap' from the profile. Because I never posted these characteristics without the kidnap characteristic. It seems a conscious choice was made to drop the kidnap profile characteristic, and then go on and claim its like half the people you know.

Do half the people you know kidnap?

Kidnap is a well documented profile characteristic of this MAAM. I presume that sets this apart from 'half the people you know', right? Why did you choose to drop the kidnap profile characteristic? Was it accidental or deliberate?

Lets give that judgemental, cold, secretive kidnapper a pass, even if he has an unusual interest in movies and a disrespect for capitalism and this country? And was angry at the time?

Is this or is this not like half the people you know?

Judgemental
cold
secretive
kidnap
unusual interest in movies
disrespect for capitalism
disrespect for this country
angry at the time

Your answer is no, correct?

 

[MurriFlower]

Ugh, I've suddenly got a headache.

Now you know how we feel.

That's my POINT, HOTYH! Let's use some of the points you mentioned:

judgemental, cold, secretive, has an unusual interest in movies and a disrespect for capitalism and this country?

That describes half the people I know!

Ok, well, you must have a lot of IDI suspects that you've disregarded in favour of RDI. Where are all these people then? Who investigated them?

So sorry to disappoint you.

Nothing new there.

 

[SunnieRN]

I think you misunderstood. There is a person who fits the Ramsey profile, in well documented multi-sourced ways, who happens to be a MAAM.

If the Ramsey profile is so generic, it should be no problem to come up with several people who match, right?

Then link his crimes so we may all sleuth to see if he was anywhere near or in Boulder that night! Or do you have that proof already? If so, I for one would love to see it.

And no stating you can't link someone. A lot of people have been discussed as potentially being involved. If you have a suspect, state he is a suspect, to you, and tell us who it may be. You don't have to and shouldn't say he is guilty, of course, as you have no proof. Remember, the R's threw anyone and everyone under the bus. If you have a viable suspect, let's sleuth him!

Try again!



It'll be my PLEASURE!

Try this for starters:

http://www.corpus-delicti.com/mccrary_jbr.html

Then this:

In his book, Criminal Profiling, Brent Turvey had this to say:

"First, Douglas was not given access to the police reports, the physical evidence, the crime-scene photos, the autopsy report, or the autopsy photos. The basis for any insight into offender behavior with the victim was elicited from the 4 1/2 hour interview conducted by Douglas with the parents, and their recollection. This breaks many of the rules of criminal profiling, which include his own, regarding the need for reliance on physical evidence and access to adequate inputs.
"Second, Douglas broke an inviolable rule of suspect interview strategy. He interviewed the parents together, as opposed to separately. As any interviewer will explain, it is important to interview suspects separately, not jointly, for any evaluations, and subsequent profiling work, to be valid. Conducting independent interviews of suspects allows the investigator to compare responses for inconsistencies and determine the veracity of each suspect's responses. Douglas did not do this.
"And finally, Douglas went on national television and endorsed the innocence of his client based upon this poorly rendered, almost boilerplate profile. This breaks the most important ethical rule of criminal profiling, which is that criminal profiles alone should not be used to address the issue of guilt. And even if they were, what Douglas feels in his heart about a case is not relevant. What is important is what the facts of the case suggest, behaviorally. As Douglas did not have the facts of the case at his disposal, it is the opinion of this author that he had no business rendering any opinions on the case whatsoever."

My bold.

Robert Ressler, the founder of the Behavioral Sciences Unit, also criticized Douglas in a radio interview. He didn't name him, but anyone who followed the case would know who he meant.

I reckon that'll do for now, pilgrim.

:woohoo::great::dance::clap::takeabow:

And I am confident when I say that I know you have more, as it has been posted prior in response to the same person.

 

[BBB167893]

Not only did the BPD and FBI not put out a profile, but RDI is ad hominem bashing the only profile that exists. Its like nobody really wants to solve this crime, unless RDI.

Ugh, give me a BREAK!

You know that is what I've been thinking.

Oh, well, there's a shock!

Please, will one of you explain how it benefits any of us to not want this case solved unless it's a person who can never be prosecuted anyway? I'd really like to hear that.

 

[BBB167893]

This is a 'few' profilers criticizing Douglas' methods. I'm not sure 'trashing' and 'laughing stock' are any more than your own personal word choices.

Don't split hairs with me, HOTYH.

However, should I conclude from this that Douglas formed the Ramsey killer profile?

Yup.

The profile that this MAAM matches?

That's your game, friend.

 

[otg]

The misquote was disappointing and puzzling.

Really describes half the people you know?

Oops! It seems you've dropped 'kidnap' from the profile. Because I never posted these characteristics without the kidnap part. It seems a conscious choice was made to drop the kidnap profile characteristic, and then go on and claim its like half the people you know.

Do half the people you know kidnap?

Kidnap is a well documented profile characteristic of this MAAM. I presume that sets this apart from 'half the people you know', right? Why did you choose to drop the kidnap profile characteristic?

First of all, Holdon, before responding, I'd like to make sure you are finished editing your post. As it happens so often, when I am about to respond to you, you have edited what you originally said before I have a chance to finish (Ok, maybe I am a little slow in responding.). Sometimes your posts have a completely different meaning by the time you finish editing.

Anyway, I'd like to ask where the "well documented profile characteristic of this MAAM" can be found. (I'm glad you changed that part of your original post, because originally it sounded like you were saying that kidnapping was a characteristic of all middle-aged Asian men.) Has this profile been published somewhere? Who compiled it? Douglas? Ressler? McCrary? Turvey? And just who is the MAAM you have in mind? Can you name him, or give us a hint? Or are you in fear that he may be able to seek retribution against you?
.

 

[BBB167893]

Oops! It seems you've curiously and rather dramatically dropped 'kidnap' from the profile. Because I never posted these characteristics without the kidnap characteristic. It seems a conscious choice was made to drop the kidnap profile characteristic, and then go on and claim its like half the people you know.

It was!

Why did you choose to drop the kidnap profile characteristic? Was it accidental or deliberate?

It was VERY deliberate. And as to why, because that's not a behavioral sign. That's a criminal act.

Is this or is this not like half the people you know?

Judgemental
cold
secretive
kidnap
unusual interest in movies
disrespect for capitalism
disrespect for this country
angry at the time

Your answer is no, correct?

Well, except for the "kidnap" part, it is. That's my point: the Rs put out such an elastic profile, just about anybody could be a suspect, which is probably what they had in mind.

 

[otg]

Sure enough, after I quoted you, Holdon, you again added more to your original post. Just compare the two. Will you now change it again?
.