Ask Super Part 3
- Thread starter BBB167893
- Start date
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 97
The cops hunted us and that's why he needed to hire all this people.
LIE.you know why?
The BPD was targeting Patsy.
The investigators ,JD,etc were hired to prepare John's defense.
If the BPD targeted Patsy and all you wanted by hiring all those people was to defend yourself against biased cops why was the R team preparing a defense for John behind the scenes .
How convenient,throw PR to the wolves,expose her and in the meantime the R team dealt with the real stuff(defending John).PDI was a diversion.
LIE.you know why?
The BPD was targeting Patsy.
The investigators ,JD,etc were hired to prepare John's defense.
If the BPD targeted Patsy and all you wanted by hiring all those people was to defend yourself against biased cops why was the R team preparing a defense for John behind the scenes .
How convenient,throw PR to the wolves,expose her and in the meantime the R team dealt with the real stuff(defending John).PDI was a diversion.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 97
PMPT/pg 312:
"In answer to reporters questions,he(John Douglas) said he had been hired to determine whether John Ramsey was capable of killing Jonbenet,at time when,according to Douglas,Ramsey's attorney's weren't sure if their client was innocent." CLIENT NOT CLIENTS
------------------------------------
And in 1997, former FBI profiler John Douglas was hired by the Ramseys attorneys to help in a possible legal defense.
Douglas: I came to a very quick resolution that theyre barking up the wrong tree. This investigation is going in the wrong direction here.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14429987/
---------------------------
Jan. 30, 1997-
There's an old adage that goes something like this: Actions speak louder than words. In the criminal field, there's a time-tested twist to the adage: Behavior is more telling than words.
But former FBI profiler John Douglas, who has worked for the family in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case, seems to have veered from that old principle.
In his interview with "Dateline NBC" this week, Douglas has said that "his heart" tells him that JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy, weren't involved in her murder. And he relies heavily on his 4 1/2 hour interview with the couple to reach his conclusion, he said. If John Ramsey is a liar, Douglas said on national TV, he's one of the best.
But one of Douglas's former FBI colleagues, Gregg McCrary, watched the television interview with more than a passing interest. He turned down the job as the Ramsey family's profiler a couple of weeks ago. McCrary found some notable flaws in Douglas' profiling work for the Ramseys. NBC referred, without contradiction from Douglas, to the profiler's "interview with the parents for 4 1/2 hours."
McCrary said the parents should have been interviewed separately, not jointly, for the profiling work to be valid. "That's always the correct way to do this. It's fundamental," McCrary said. "You separate the people, you interview them independently, you lock them into statements and then you compare." To do otherwise virtually invalidates the effort, he said. And he wasn't impressed with Douglas' conclusion that John Ramsey is telling the truth. "I've talked to guilty offenders in the penitentiary, and some of them are so manipulative and persuasive that they almost have you believing they didn't do it," he told me yesterday.
Top-notch criminal profilers, he said, "always put more weight on behavior than on words. The behavior of the offender is much more telling than what he says later," McCrary said. And the behavior of JonBenet's killer speaks very, very loudly.
For instance, McCrary said evidence at the scene strongly disputes any theory that the killer may have been a disgruntled employee of Ramsey. "This crime was not about getting back at the father," said McCrary, who couldn't recall a case of "someone killing a kid to get back at a parent." He said the sexual assault of JonBenet "was a deviant, psychopathic sexual behavior, not an expression of anger at the father."
If revenge on the father had been a motive, McCrary said, "the killer would have displayed the body; he wouldn't have hidden it in the basement."
The profiler said the body would have been placed in a manner "to shock and offend" John Ramsey if anger or hate or revenge had been the motive.
Additionally, he said that by assaulting JonBenet, killing her, taking her from an upper-floor bedroom to a far corner of the basement and writing a lengthy ransom note - all negated a revenge killing.
"If that had been the reason for a killer being in the house that night," McCrary said, "they would have killed the little girl and gotten out as fast as possible."
It's that behavior that a profiler puts most credence in, rather than in someone's words, according to McCrary. And McCrary comes with unusually good credentials. Douglas himself considers McCrary to be among "the top criminal profilers and investigative analysts in the world."
http://www.corpus-delicti.com/mccrary_jbr.html
-----------------------
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.
When King repeated the questioned, Douglas answered, "You'd have to bring them on as a guest.''
All calls to the Ramsey family's attorneys -- who were hired to conduct an independent investigation into the sexual assault and strangulation of the child -- are being referred to the family's spokesman, Patrick Korten.
Korten could not be reached for comment Friday.
Douglas defended his analysis concerning the murder of JonBenet, who was discovered in a remote room of her family's basement Dec. 26, about eight hours after her mother discovered a ransom note demanding $118,000 for the girl's safe return.
"As long as you have someone -- you have a witness, someone can answer the questions that you need, you can do an analysis,'' Douglas said.
Douglas has ruled out family members as suspects. Police have not publicly identified or eliminated any suspects.
Douglas told King that he was limited in what he could say about the murder because he'd been told by the Ramseys' lawyers he may be called before a grand jury.
There has been no indication, however, that Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter has convened a grand jury in the Ramsey case.
And in Colorado, no one can be forced to testify before a grand jury unless they have first been granted immunity.
February 1, 1997
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0201jon.htm
"In answer to reporters questions,he(John Douglas) said he had been hired to determine whether John Ramsey was capable of killing Jonbenet,at time when,according to Douglas,Ramsey's attorney's weren't sure if their client was innocent." CLIENT NOT CLIENTS
------------------------------------
And in 1997, former FBI profiler John Douglas was hired by the Ramseys attorneys to help in a possible legal defense.
Douglas: I came to a very quick resolution that theyre barking up the wrong tree. This investigation is going in the wrong direction here.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14429987/
---------------------------
Jan. 30, 1997-
There's an old adage that goes something like this: Actions speak louder than words. In the criminal field, there's a time-tested twist to the adage: Behavior is more telling than words.
But former FBI profiler John Douglas, who has worked for the family in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case, seems to have veered from that old principle.
In his interview with "Dateline NBC" this week, Douglas has said that "his heart" tells him that JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy, weren't involved in her murder. And he relies heavily on his 4 1/2 hour interview with the couple to reach his conclusion, he said. If John Ramsey is a liar, Douglas said on national TV, he's one of the best.
But one of Douglas's former FBI colleagues, Gregg McCrary, watched the television interview with more than a passing interest. He turned down the job as the Ramsey family's profiler a couple of weeks ago. McCrary found some notable flaws in Douglas' profiling work for the Ramseys. NBC referred, without contradiction from Douglas, to the profiler's "interview with the parents for 4 1/2 hours."
McCrary said the parents should have been interviewed separately, not jointly, for the profiling work to be valid. "That's always the correct way to do this. It's fundamental," McCrary said. "You separate the people, you interview them independently, you lock them into statements and then you compare." To do otherwise virtually invalidates the effort, he said. And he wasn't impressed with Douglas' conclusion that John Ramsey is telling the truth. "I've talked to guilty offenders in the penitentiary, and some of them are so manipulative and persuasive that they almost have you believing they didn't do it," he told me yesterday.
Top-notch criminal profilers, he said, "always put more weight on behavior than on words. The behavior of the offender is much more telling than what he says later," McCrary said. And the behavior of JonBenet's killer speaks very, very loudly.
For instance, McCrary said evidence at the scene strongly disputes any theory that the killer may have been a disgruntled employee of Ramsey. "This crime was not about getting back at the father," said McCrary, who couldn't recall a case of "someone killing a kid to get back at a parent." He said the sexual assault of JonBenet "was a deviant, psychopathic sexual behavior, not an expression of anger at the father."
If revenge on the father had been a motive, McCrary said, "the killer would have displayed the body; he wouldn't have hidden it in the basement."
The profiler said the body would have been placed in a manner "to shock and offend" John Ramsey if anger or hate or revenge had been the motive.
Additionally, he said that by assaulting JonBenet, killing her, taking her from an upper-floor bedroom to a far corner of the basement and writing a lengthy ransom note - all negated a revenge killing.
"If that had been the reason for a killer being in the house that night," McCrary said, "they would have killed the little girl and gotten out as fast as possible."
It's that behavior that a profiler puts most credence in, rather than in someone's words, according to McCrary. And McCrary comes with unusually good credentials. Douglas himself considers McCrary to be among "the top criminal profilers and investigative analysts in the world."
http://www.corpus-delicti.com/mccrary_jbr.html
-----------------------
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.
When King repeated the questioned, Douglas answered, "You'd have to bring them on as a guest.''
All calls to the Ramsey family's attorneys -- who were hired to conduct an independent investigation into the sexual assault and strangulation of the child -- are being referred to the family's spokesman, Patrick Korten.
Korten could not be reached for comment Friday.
Douglas defended his analysis concerning the murder of JonBenet, who was discovered in a remote room of her family's basement Dec. 26, about eight hours after her mother discovered a ransom note demanding $118,000 for the girl's safe return.
"As long as you have someone -- you have a witness, someone can answer the questions that you need, you can do an analysis,'' Douglas said.
Douglas has ruled out family members as suspects. Police have not publicly identified or eliminated any suspects.
Douglas told King that he was limited in what he could say about the murder because he'd been told by the Ramseys' lawyers he may be called before a grand jury.
There has been no indication, however, that Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter has convened a grand jury in the Ramsey case.
And in Colorado, no one can be forced to testify before a grand jury unless they have first been granted immunity.
February 1, 1997
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0201jon.htm
joeskidbeck
Rest in Peace
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,897
- Reaction score
- 54
I don't consider Mr. Douglas' profile of this specific murder anything other than what it is; another tactic to keep JR out of jail. If you read his opinions on other familial murder scenes that were staged by family members, you can see where the evidence points straight to the Ramseys. After this fiasco I can't see why any prosecutor worth his salt would ever hire John Douglas to testify. Before this case I had tremendous respect for him. Not anymore.
otg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,410
- Reaction score
- 198
((( Truncated )))
SunnieRN:
Brilliant post; perfect logic; absolutely flawless; I can't disagree with anything you said.
joeskidbeck
Rest in Peace
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,897
- Reaction score
- 54
Madeleine, don't you think it's possible that the Ramsey team literally "knew" that Patsy would be arrested for the murder and their objective was to defend John against his possible involvement with the cover up. After all, when the Grand Jury convened, didn't the Ramsey's return to Colorado prepared for Patsy to be arrested? The fact that JR hired all these people to defend him is very telling. I don't know who killed JonBenet, but looking at how JR was prepared to defend himself tells me that it probably was Patsy and John was more worried about what the ramifications would be for him.
Thank you, joeskidbeck. I have been avoiding this forum for a very long time because I knew what it would do to me.
I am furious about this gross miscarriage of justice. And yes, there is so very much more but I cannot post a 300 page post and you cannot either!
I will NEVER forget Jon Benet and what was done to her!
It wasn't a miscarriage, LaLaw. It was an abortion.
Kindred spirits, you and I.
CathyR, there are SO many different points I'd like to address on this thread, I don't know where to start!
I think so.
I don't think it was.
Good points, maddy. And FWIW, I think he was involved himself. But even then, yes, he had just lost his daughter. But if he turned on PR, he would have sent her to prison in poor health, knowing she'd most likely die there. And his son would most likely hate him, having lost a sister AND a mother all in one day. Not only that, but there was his ego to consider. Turning on PR would force him to confront the fact that he screwed up his first marriage only to marry a monster.
I'm just spitballing here.
Does not the good book teach to love the sinner, but hate the sin?
Well, I covered most of this on another thread, "Loved to Death." What a clusterschtupp that turned into.
That's what Norm Early said, Mendara. For my part, it helps to remember that a garrote gives an obvious means of death (with clear sexual implications) with the added bonuses of not having to TOUCH JB's body, not making noise and not making a bloody mess.
And as for the twisting of it, that's a matter of opinion. To me, the cord acted more like a snake when it constricts. Here's what I mean: most people think that when a python kills its prey, it squeezes the life out of them. This is not altogether accurate. The snake does not wish to expend too much energy. Instead, its scales interlock so that every time the prey exhales, the scales lock the coils a little tighter. Eventually, the animal breathes out more oxygen than it takes in and gets weaker and weaker until it's weak enough for the snake to put on that final crushing squeeze. Well, same deal here: the make of the cord allowed it to tighten very easily but not to loosen easily. One hard pull on a victim who is already close to death would cause it to go in deeply, and then not loosen again.
Am I making any sense?
If you go back and take a look at the photo with the doll, it looks exactly like the 1996 Holiday Barbie (it had a gold tiered underskirt with burgundy overskirt that parted in the middle) and it is quite apparent that it is still in the clear plastic/cardboard box.
I think the intent was for the police to find her.
Not just that. Maybe he got cold feet about the staging and needed an explanation for certain things. And what could be better than to have a witness right there to see you throw yourself on the body and contaminate the scene?
It's easy to say that now, CathyR, with 14 years worth of hindsight. But as I've often said, there's no instruction manual on how to stage a crime scene. Plus, in this instance, you've got two very forceful personalities, each with their own ideas. I've sometimes said that the staging seems as if two people were arguing over what to do.
Did you ever see that scene in Disney's Sleeping Beauty where the two fairies are arguing over what color the dress should be? And they keep at it until it's a mess and there's no time to fix it?
OR, there could be something else. As a favor to me, I'd like you to check out two threads:
"A Masterpiece of Misdirection"
and
"No Honor Among Thieves"
This is actually sad.JR said so many times that he hired JD because he wanted the best people to look for the killer.But JD was hired to help in a possible legal defense.(you can hear it from their own mouths,I got tons of links and quotes). Two weeks after the murder!
Only this and it says it ALL...............sorry JB
You're on a roll, Madeline. Keep goin'!
Interesting point- why didn't the R's attorney's simply ASK if they did it or know who did? Even if the Rs lied, they'd probably be able to tell. I am sure they have defended many a guilty client.
I know defense lawyers don't have to ask their clients if they are guilty and I imagine they might rather not know. But I couldn't live with myself if I thought I might be allowing a guilty person to go undiscovered, especially by the underhanded means most defense lawyers use.
Sadly, DD, and I've been trying to keep this a secret (for obvious reasons), my eyes are going bad.
Sorry. Anything that can be done? My mother had RP.
joeskidbeck
Rest in Peace
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,897
- Reaction score
- 54
I'm sorry to hear that, Dave. I will keep you in my prayers.
The most obvious thing to me is that Patsy wrote the ransom note. Of course it was a bad idea because it was overkill (pardon the expression) in the coverup. Patsy could write with either hand and the writing on the ransom note was shaky (who wouldn't be nervous after just committing a murder?) and seems to be written with a left handed slant by someone trying to disguise their handwriting. Why would Patsy write the note if neither she, John, or Burke was involved? I think Patsy Ramsey did kill Jon Benet and John Ramsey helped her with the coverup. He knew exactly where to find the body once Arndt gave him (and Fleet White) free reign over the house. I agree with the poster who said it was getting later in the day and maybe Ramsey was afraid that the police would not find Jon Benet's body soon enough. I also feel that a lot of evidence was hidden in John's golf bag the family wanted out of there so badly.
In a video or tape, people will usually look at the person who is speaking. The moment I saw the video where Patsy was holding up the flyer for Jon Benet and saying that there was a killer out there; I was watching John. He was looking at Patsy with what I felt was contempt. Just my impression. I have seen John look at Patsy that way many times.
I suppose I am rambling, but I am upset tonight because I just finished watching some of the videos I had not seen for a long time. My heart aches for Jon Benet and the life she was never allowed to have.
In a video or tape, people will usually look at the person who is speaking. The moment I saw the video where Patsy was holding up the flyer for Jon Benet and saying that there was a killer out there; I was watching John. He was looking at Patsy with what I felt was contempt. Just my impression. I have seen John look at Patsy that way many times.
I suppose I am rambling, but I am upset tonight because I just finished watching some of the videos I had not seen for a long time. My heart aches for Jon Benet and the life she was never allowed to have.
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 240
- Guests online
- 503
- Total visitors
- 743