Jon Benet's Family Exhonerated

[Magpie]

Ask Stan what it has to do with anything.

Why would I ask Stan?

He said that Patsy looks creepy, and your response was "She had cancer".

I'm asking why her cancer explains her creepiness.

Since your the one offering the correlation, you should be the one that explain what it has to do with the price of figs in Finland.

[Magpie]

"I think she's creepy" trumps DNA evidence. Explain the science on that for me.

Roy

That's a rather lame strawman argument.

[miss marple]

What is interesting about this and the McCann case is the assumptions and prejudice people, including the police bring to them. Both cases were very media led with lots of half truths and sensation flying about. Of course in child murder parents are the chief suspects
If Douglas is regarded as prejudice, then so must the Boulder police, they had very little experience of homicide in a very low crime area. The crime scene was not secured and dna evidence was ignored
For example Detective Linda Arndt had a ‘feeling’ had John Ramsey was guilty when she looked into his eyes. What sort of rational response is that?
Detective Steve Thomas in his book creates a scenario for Jo Benet;s murder, but it is assumption, not based on fact.
The Yorkshire Ripper Police assumed the Geordie on the tape was the Ripper, this mistake led to more deaths. They did not use a profiler.
Douglas does not claim the Ramsey ‘s were innocent, just they is room for reasonable doubt .He at least uses his experience of twenty five years of looking at homicides, studying murderer behaviour, their pyscology, motives etc and comparison with other cases to come to conclusions. It is quite difficult to work out a realistic scenario in which Pat Ramsey murders her daughter.
The most important thing, which also applies the other murderers including the ripper, is that murderers don’t emerge fully grown out of nowhere but have a history of deviant behaviour such as lying, violence, deception, stealing,
deviant sexual behaviour or have been abused themselves. This gets annoying with some of the sillier normal ripper suspects
There is no history of any deviant behaviour in either the Ramseys or the McCanns.
Both Patricia Ramsey and Kate McCann have been subject to some of the most vicious abuse I have ever read, worse than known deviants like Shannon Mathews mother who came from a totally disfunctional family or Rose West
I have often pondered on this abuse. Perhaps the woman bears the blame for the loss of a child. Both women had this in common, they were both middle class , with a strong religious faith [ that in itself gives strength to suffering] and showed restraint in public,[ but not when they found the body in the case of Patricia] unlike the wailings of Shannon Mathews guilty mother. The suffering of Kate was etched on her face.
The British have a tradition of restraint and stiff upper lip. Unfortunately this is being eroded because of reality tv and demands for public displays of emotion which started with the death of Diana, as if some how that is more ‘real’ than restraint. The Americans have a similar strain in their puritan tradition. This restraint creates hostility in the minds of some people. Both these women have suffered the worst thing that can happen, the loss of a child, in Patricia Ramsey’s case, she had just recovered from Ovarian cancer which usually kills [ and did] and the loss of her stepdaughter in car crash in 1992. Then more **** is thrown at her, the accusation of murder. I don’t know what normal behavior is, in those situations.
The distasteful thing is in Britain, is the idea of pre teen beauty pageants, they seem weird and pervy, yet they are an American tradition, not regarded as strange. Rachel in ‘Friends’ sticks her baby in a pageant,[ with make up] to win some money, you could not get more mainstream than that.
I think the case is very complex and more yet may come out.
Miss Marple

[Roy Corduroy]

Magpie,

A person who is ill may come across as "different" to some people. That's the only thing I can think of as far as Patsy Ramsey, because to me, she was not creepy. If others can toss around off-the-cuff remarks, I can too. But since you asked for an explanation, I gave you one.

I don't know what strawman is. And please don't explain it. It can just remain something you know.

Roy

[Magpie]

Magpie,

A person who is ill may come across as "different" to some people.

Sorry, but that's just bollocks. She'd been in remission for 3 years when Jonbenet was killed and stayed in remission for a further 7 years afterwards. She was not "ill", therefore her creepiness cannot be dismissed as a facet of her illness.

[Voyeur]

From pages 268-269 of The Cases that Haunt Us regarding Douglas' involvement in the JonBenet case:

Some have called me a "hired gun" in the case, and it is true that I received a small fee early on, as I have in certain other cases in which I have consulted since leaving the Bureau. Some have called me a "publicity hound," and it is true that I have never been shy around a camera, particularly in the days when I was trying to get the FBI's profiling program off the ground and would seek publicity from just about everywhere, both to support the program and to elicit the public's help on individual cases. But I have never ever offered an opinion that wasn't deeply felt and fully supported by my own belief and the facts as I saw them.

A defense attorney has the responsibility of making a case for his client's innocence, whether he believes in that innocence or not. A criminal investigator has only one responsibility, and it is an extremely solemn one. It has to do neither with whom he or she works for, nor who is signing the paycheck. It should have nothing to do with personal glory or career advancement. It has only to do with the silent pledge made by the investigator to the victim. who can no longer speak for herself, that he or she will do everything within his or her power to uncover the truth about what happened and bring the offender to the gates of earthly justice. There is not enough money or fame in the entire world to lure me away from the enormity and seriousness of that pledge.

Whether he got paid or not, it's a fascinating read. I have to admit, I thought the Ramsey's were guilty before I read this book. I changed my mind afterward. I think recent events are supporting Douglas' observations. Either way, it's a shame someone hasn't been brought to justice.

[Magpie]

But I have never ever offered an opinion that wasn't deeply felt and fully supported by my own belief and the facts as I saw them.

But yet his opinions in the Ramsay case are completely opposite to the principles he presents on his own website. How does that work?

[Voyeur]

But yet his opinions in the Ramsay case are completely opposite to the principles he presents on his own website. How does that work?

I wouldn't know anything about that. His points regarding this case and others seem to make a lot of sense...but then again, I didn't go into his book with any preconceived notions about the author.

[The Good Michael]

Douglas is a self-serving blowhard. Anything goes when promoting his books, himself, or his agenda. I read this book and nearly vomited.

Of course, it's only my opinion.

Mike

[Voyeur]

Douglas is a self-serving blowhard. Anything goes when promoting his books, himself, or his agenda. I read this book and nearly vomited.

Of course, it's only my opinion.

Mike

Wow. Curious.

[Mitch Rowe]

Douglas is a self-serving blowhard. Anything goes when promoting his books, himself, or his agenda. I read this book and nearly vomited.

Of course, it's only my opinion.

Mike

Well..What does he say about the ransom note? if he is claiming it wasnt a fake then he is a fake.

Im willing to bet he pins it on kosminsky.

[sdreid]

Yes, Douglas said that Kosminski was the Ripper and couldn't pick out Ridgway as the Green River Killer so the two cases I know about that he worked on it looks like he's usually somewhere near 0% correct.

[The Good Michael]

To be fair, Douglas didn't say that the Ripper was Kosminski. He said that someone like him would be, and that was based upon an incomplete understanding of Kosminski, as we all have. His assumptions were no more than any psych student would be able to make.

Mike

[Voyeur]

Actually Douglas seems to support the Cohen idea.

[Voyeur]

And I must say, respectfully...

...I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the guy as having a zero record or only knowing as much as a psych student. Apparently the guy has helped capture numerous serial killers. No, he didn't point out Ridgeway, but neither did others for the longest time. Also, not many psych students have interviewed the likes of Berkowitz, Bundy, Gacy, Manson and others.

Call him a blowhard, disagree with some of his assessments, but I don't think his career should be so easily disregarded.