How With Myriad False Claims John Douglas Pushes To Forefront Of Pro-Knox Crackpots #1
Muddled mindhunters Mark Olshaker, John Douglas, and Jim Clemente
[Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments]
1. Overview Of This Series
This is the first in a series on the myriad claims John Douglas has made about Meredith’s case starting early in 2013.
That was from after the bent Hellman appeal in 2011 to after the Supreme Court annulled Hellman’s outcome in mid 2013 but before the Nencini rerun of the appeal in 2013-14. All of the besotted Knox apologists in 2013 went from deep joy to despondence and desperation.
At that point, there were numerous court translations on our Wiki, the prosecution had given some excellent interviews, and there were several very good books out. The mafia poodles Heavey, Preston, Moore, Hampikian and Fischer had been thoroughly exposed. It really was about time the unhinged conspiracy theories were put to rest.
So what happens? A new mafia poodle, John Douglas, explodes out of nowhere, with MORE fabrications, MORE defamations, and MORE condescending hate talk!
Douglas has made further abusive and inaccurate claims about law enforcement (amazingly, he never contacted any of them), about the crime scene, the hard evidence, the witness evidence, the time-lines, the police and prosecution, and so on.
His bizarre claims (illegal if made in Italy) were pushed hard in several books, in postings on his own and other websites, in interviews, in a pitch to a near-empty room at the Congress, and in one or two forays into the State Department.
2. Who Exactly Is John Douglas?
Douglas is a former crime specialist long retired from the FBI and best known for being one of the first criminal profilers. In 1996 he published the popular Mindhunter: Inside the FBI’s Elite Serial Crime Unit, which inspired the popular Netflix series. The two FBI profilers - Jason Gideon and David Rossi - in the long-running TV series Criminal Minds are explicitly based on him. He has also written other books about criminal psychology.
He apparently coined the term “serial killer” and is credited with helping to expand our understanding of murderous psychopathy. He was a consultant to Thomas Harris when the crime writer was researching Silence of the Lambs and to Peter Jackson on the film Lovely Bones.
Most quotes will come from his long sections on the case in (1) Law and Disorder with colleague Mark Olshaker; another colleague, Jim Clemente, propagates their nonsense a lot in podcasts and YouTubes; and (2) the absurdly titled Forgotten Killer: Rudy Guede and the Murder of Meredith Kercher, written with Knox fans Douglas Preston, Steve Moore and Michael Heavey.
As Douglas was pretty wildly wrong in his takes on the hard facts and psychologies of every one of the main characters (the three charged, prosecutors and police, several others) which is supposedly his main area of expertise, I will start with that area.
Then in the next several posts I will examine other Douglas claims. I’ll conclude with the amazing number of red flags Douglas ignored, going back to Knox’s time in Seattle. They may not faze a PR shill, but they should give pause to any competent, honest investigator.
Obvious red flags include Knox’s reputation at high-school and college, her heavy drug use starting in Seattle, Knox’s reason for being in Perugia (hint: it was not to study), her financial situation, the chronic antagonisms between Knox and Sollecito (who Douglas barely mentions), the breaks she was given in 2007-08, her disastrous stint on the stand at trial in 2009 (touched on below), the mountain of evidence, the devastating official reconstructions, the bent appeal court in 2011, and the mid-2013 Cassation annulment report.
3. Bizarre Precursor A Year Earlier
Hard to believe! But exactly one year prior to Douglas exploding himself into the case ANOTHER mafia poodle, Saul Kassin, a profiler with John Jay College of Criminal Science in New York, did the same thing. He retreated whiny and discredited. Take a look.
Click for Post: Saul Kassin: An Example Of How The Knox Campaign Is Misleading American Experts And Audiences
Click for Post: Rebutting Saul Kassin’s Substantive Claim Of Forced Confession
Click for Post: Correcting Saul Kassin’s Massively Inaccurate Description Of Amanda Knox’s So-Called Confession
Click for Post: How Saul Kassin Framed Many Fine Italian Justice Officials - And Then Played Victim When Corrected
4. AK and RS Sessions with Police On 5 November 2007
In this post I’ll analyse some of the claims (there are more) he has made about Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito’s questioning on 5 November 2007, which he based almost exclusively on their own misleading accounts and the absurd inventions of Steve Moore, and I’ll compare those claims to the official court reports and court testimonies to ascertain their accuracy and veracity.
See here for just how well we understand this area. We finally have full knowledge of it almost minute by minute and word by word. There was zero interrogation as Italy defines it prior to arrest, her behavior had made investigators curious but not made her a witness, let alone a suspect, and she was never “targeted” before she broke under zero pressure. All four discussions are on record, and Knox signed every page of all four reports.
John Douglas’s claim #1
“On the evening of November 5, police asked both Amanda and Raffaele to come to the station to discuss apparent inconsistencies in their accounts.”
Untrue. This claim is demonstrably false. Neither the police nor the prosecutors brought Knox in for questioning on 5 November 2007.
Amanda Knox herself testified in court that she wasn’t called to come to the police station on 5 November 2007.
Carlo Pacelli: “For what reason did you go to the Questura on November 5? Were you called?”
Amanda Knox: “No, I wasn’t called. I went with Raffaele because I didn’t want to be alone.”
Monica Napoleoni, the head of Perugia’s homicide squad, said they told Knox she should go home to rest, but Knox insisted on staying:
Amanda also came that evening, the evening of the 5th. We said to Amanda that she could go home to rest. Since, during those days, she was always saying, always complaining that she wanted to rest, wanted to eat, we said: “˜Look, you’ve eaten; you can go and rest yourself. If there’s a need, we’ll call you.’
John Douglas’s claim #2
“During that time, according to the police, he [Raffaele Sollecito] began wavering on his story that Amanda had slept over with him and that they’d been together the entire night of the murder. Maybe she had gone out for a while””around 9:00 P.M. or so””and hadn’t come back until 1:30 A.M.; he wasn’t sure.”
Untrue. John Douglas presents the above comments as if they are verbatim quotations from Sollecito. They are not. He makes no reference to any sources to substantiate his claim.
In fact Sollecito categorically stated Amanda Knox wasn’t with him that evening in his witness statement.
“At 9pm I went home alone and Amanda said that she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends. We said goodbye. I went home, I rolled myself a spliff and made some dinner.”
“I remember Amanda wasn’t back yet. I surfed on the Internet for a couple of hours after my father’s phone call, and I stopped only when Amanda came back, about one in the morning, I think.”
Sollecito’s claim that Amanda Knox wasn’t at his apartment that evening is corroborated by the mobile phone evidence. From the Nencini report, 2014, page 132.
“At 8:18 pm and 12 seconds, Amanda Marie Knox received a text message sent to her by Patrick Lumumba, in which he informed her that it would not be necessary for her to go to the bar to carry out her usual work. At the time of receipt, Amanda Marie Knox’s handset connected via the sector 3 mast at Torre dell’Acquedotto, 5 dell’Aquila, as shown by phone records entered in evidence. This mast cannot be reached from the vicinity of 130 Corso Garibaldi, the home of Raffaele Sollecito. According to the findings of the judicial police entered in evidence, this mast could be reached by anyone in Via Rocchi, Piazza Cavallotti or Piazza 4 Novembre, all locations in Perugia which are intermediate between 130 Corso Garibaldi, the home of Raffaele Sollecito, and Via Alessi, where the “Le Chic” bar is located
“From this set of facts established in the case, Amanda Marie Knox’s claim, according to which she received Patrick Lumumba’s text message while she was at 130 Corso Garibaldi, appears false. Given the mast connected to and the time, it is reasonable to assume that, when Amanda received the message, she had already left Raffaele Sollecito’s home and was on her way to the “˜Le Chic’ bar. Presumably, she then turned around and went back.”
John Douglas’s claim #3
John Douglas talks as if RS and AK never lied and for example he doesn’t address the fact that Raffaele Sollecito admitted lying to the police and blamed Knox for his lies.
Untrue. There is overwhelming proof theiy both lied. For example:
“In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.”
This inconvenient fact has been brushed under the carpet by Amanda Knox’s supporters for years. The fact Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito lied to the police before they were questioned on 5 November 2007 is critically important for a couple of reasons: (1) their lies can’t be attributed to police coercion or brutality and (2) it clearly indicates they were both trying to hide another inconvenient truth. This begs the question: what inconvenient truth were they trying to hide?
John Douglas has never answered this question, probably because he is blissfully ignorant of all the lies Knox and Sollecito told the police and others. Amanda Knox’s high-profile supporters don’t address the lies that Knox and Sollecito told before and after 5 November 2007. For example, the filmmakers responsible for Amanda Knox on Netflix only focused on Amanda Knox’s false and malicious allegation against Diya Lumumba - not on any of the lies before and after 5 November 2007.
It’s easy to understand why they don’t address these lies - there isn’t a plausible innocent explanation for them. Instead they pretend or insinuate that Knox and Sollecito only lied because they were coerced and/or beaten by the police on 5 November 2007 and that’s the approach John Douglas adopts.
Judge Marasca from the Supreme Court couldn’t pretend that Knox and Sollecito didn’t lie repeatedly to the police. He had no choice but to address them because Judge Massei and Judge Nencini detailed their lies in their own reports. He acknowledges that Amanda Knox lied, and claimed she had lied to cover for Rudy Guede.
Judge Marasca’s Supreme Court report:
“Elements of strong suspicion are also in the inconsistencies and lies which the suspect woman [Amanda Knox] committed over the statements she released on various occasions, especially in the places where her narrative was contradicted by the telephone records which show different incoming SMS messages”.
“However, the said calunnia is another circumstantial element against the appellant, insofar as it can be considered a strategy in order to cover up for Mr. Guede, whom she had an interest to protect because of fear of retaliatory accusations against her.”
Guede was of course Douglas’s solitary “forgotten” lone-wolf killer. How does he explain that one?
John Douglas’s claim #4
John Douglas also resorts to another common tactic used by Amanda Knox’s supporters to explain her multiple contradictory accounts of what she was doing and where she was on 1 November 2007 and her false and malicious accusation against Diya Lumumba: he provides a detailed and categoric eyewitness account of what happened at the police station on 5 November 2007, even though he was not even present.
“A policewoman called her “stupid” and a “liar” and slapped her on the back of her head. They repeated the blow every time she didn’t give them an answer. They gave her nothing to eat or drink and didn’t allow her to go to the bathroom. It was as if they were going to keep punishing her until she remembered.”
Untrue. Of course, John Douglas can’t substantiate any of his claims above because he wasn’t present when Knox was questioned. Furthermore, he is contradicting what Knox testified in court - she admitted she was given something to eat and drink.
Reported by Richard Owen, in The Times, 1 March 2009:
Ms Napoleoni told the court that while she was at the police station Ms Knox had been “˜treated very well. She was given water, chamomile tea and breakfast. She was given cakes from a vending machine and then taken to the canteen at the police station for something to eat.’
Reported by Richard Owen, in The Times, 15 March 2009:
Ms Donnino said that Ms Knox had been “˜comforted’ by police, given food and drink, and had at no stage been hit or threatened.
John Follain in his book Death in Perugia, page 134, also reports that Knox was given food and drink during her questioning:
During the questioning, detectives repeatedly went to fetch her a snack, water, and hot drinks, including chamomile tea.
From the relevant court transcript:
Monica Napoleoni: Amanda was given something to drink several times. She was brought hot chamomile; she was taken to the bar of the Questura to eat. First she was given brioches from the little [vending] machine.
Carlo Pacelli: These methods of treatment, how did they translate into practice? With what behaviour/actions [were they carried out] in actual fact? Earlier, you recalled that they actually brought her something to eat”¦
MN: It’s true. That morning, I remember that Inspector Ficarra actually took her to the bar to eat as soon as it opened. But before [that], we have little [vending] machines on the ground floor, and she was brought water, she was brought hot drinks, she was brought a snack. But also Raffaele, he was given something to drink; it’s not as though they were kept “¦ absolutely.
Giuliano Mignini: Had types of comfort been offered to her?
Anna Donnino: Well, during the evening, yes, in the sense that I remember that someone went down to the ground floor; it was the middle of the night, so in the station at that hour there are those automatic distributors; there’s nothing else; someone went to the ground floor and brought everybody something to drink, some hot drinks and something to eat. I myself had a coffee, so I believe that she also had something.
John Douglas doesn’t substantiate his claim that Amanda Knox was slapped. According to the corroborative eyewitness testimony of the people who were actually present when Knox was questioned - Anna Donnino, Monica Napoleoni and Rita Ficarra - she wasn’t hit.
The witnesses who were present when Knox was questioned, including her interpreter, testified under oath at the trial in 2009 that she wasn’t hit. (Under Italian law, witnesses must testify under oath, while defendants do not, so are not required by law to be truthful on the stand.)
From the relevant court transcript:
Giuliano Mignini: Do you recall, shall we say, that night between the 1st and then the spontaneous declarations and then the order for arrest, who and what was with her, other than you, whether there were other subjects that spoke with us, how they behaved? Did [she] undergo/experience violent [sic: NdT: “violente” in Italian, probably typo for “violenze” = “violence/force/assault”] by any chance?
Rita Ficarra: Absolutely not.
GM: Was she intimidated, threatened?
RF: No. I, as I said earlier, I came in that evening and there were some colleagues from the Rome SCO, I was with Inspector Fausto Passeri, then I saw come out, that is come out from the entry-door to the offices of the Flying [Squad] the Assistant Zugarini and Monica Napoleoni, who appeared for an instant just outside there, then we went back in calmly, because the discussion we had with her was quite calm.Giuliano Mignini: [was there] violence “¦?
Monica Napoleoni: But absolutely not!Mignini: You remember it”¦ you’ve described it; however, I’ll ask it. Was she threatened? Did she suffer any beatings?
Anna Donnino: Absolutely not.
GM: She suffered maltreatments?
AD: Absolutely not.
Carlo Pacelli: In completing and consolidating in cross-examination the questions by the public prosecutor, I refer to the morning of the 6th of November, to the time when Miss Knox had made her summary information. In that circumstance, Miss Knox was struck on the head with punches and slaps?
Anna Donnino: Absolutely not.
CP: In particular, was she struck on the head by a police woman?
AD: Absolutely not!
CP: Miss Knox was, however, threatened?
AD: No, I can exclude that categorically!
CP: With thirty years of prison”¦ ?
AD: No, no, absolutely not.
CP: Was she, however, sworn at, in the sense that she was told she was a liar?
AD: I was in the room the whole night, and I saw nothing of all this.
CP: So the statements that had been made had been made spontaneously, voluntarily?
AD: Yes.
Carlo Della Valla: This”¦
Giancarlo Massei: Pardon, but let’s ask questions”¦ if you please.
CP: You were also present then during the summary informations made at 5:45?
AD: Yes.
CP: And were they done in the same way and methods as those of 1:45?
AD: I would say yes. Absolutely yes.
CP: To remove any shadow of doubt from this whole matter, as far as the summary information provided at 5:45 Miss Knox was struck on the head with punches and slaps?
AD: No.
CP: In particular, was she struck on the head by a policewoman?
AD: No.
Even Amanda Knox’s lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, distanced himself in the Italian media from these allegations, and never ever lodged any complaint which he would have been required to do under Italian law if he believed her.
There were pressures from the police, but we never said she was hit.
John Douglas’s claim #5
What seems to have happened is that in his fear and fatigue, Raffaele eventually confused and transposed the nights of October 31 and November 1.
Untrue. Although John Douglas doesn’t specifically refer to Sollecito’s unequivocal claim that Amanda Knox wasn’t at his apartment on the evening of the murder or the fact he blamed her for his lies, he is clearly trying to account for his conflicting statements.
His claim that Sollecito was suffering from fatigue is laughable - Sollecito was literally questioned for a couple of hours before he stopped providing Knox with an alibi.
His pathetic excuse that Sollecito seems to have confused the nights of 31 October and 1 November is ridiculous beyond words. Sollecito was clearly referring to 1 November 2007. His witness statement is a chronological account of what he claims he and Knox did on the evening of 1 November and the morning of 2 November 2007. He was being questioned specifically about the night of the murder and the following day..
John Douglas’s claim #6
“Both hinged on a questionable confession after many hours of police interrogation without a lawyer present””one by a scared and confused seventeen-year-old boy; the other by a girl just out of her teens who barely spoke the language being shouted at her.”
Untrue. The only one reported shouting - wailing and beating her head - was Knox herself. And Raffaele Sollecito wasn’t 17, he was 23 years old. I don’t know how it’s possible for Douglas to get such basic facts wrong. Did it even cross his mind to actually research the case?
Douglas’s intention is clear - he wants to infantilise both Knox and Sollecito by referring to them as a “boy” and “girl” in an effort to emphasize their naivety and immaturity in order to explain away their lies and inconsistent statements.
John Douglas’s claim #7
Douglas seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that Amanda Knox was questioned only in Italian and all night. This is almost certainly due to the fact that Amanda Knox’s family and supporters initially claimed she wasn’t provided with an interpreter for an all-night session.
Untrue. According to Barbie Nadeau in The Daily Beast, Amanda Knox’s session began at about 11:00pm.
“Since Knox was already at the police station [in the company of Raffaele Sollecito], the head of the murder squad decided to ask her a few questions. Her interrogation started at about 11pm.”
It was not in fact interrogation: Knox was invited merely to build a list of visitors to the house, which exists and is in evidence. There was little progress till the interpreter arrived. After Amanda Knox had made her witness statement at 1:45am, she wasn’t questioned again that evening. She herself decided to made another witness statement at 5:45am, with the same interpreter, but she wasn’t asked any questions. She herself refused a lawyer.
John Douglas’s claim #8
Altogether, Amanda was interrogated over a forty-hour period (an average workweek) by twelve detectives. This is known as “tag teaming.” The interrogators remain fresh and at the top of their game while the suspect grows increasingly exhausted and isolated.
Untrue. None of that happened. All four sessions as a person with possible useful information (not a witness, let alone suspect) over 4 days were quite brief, Knox signed all pages of the 4 reports, and a mere several officers were listed as present at each.
On 5-6 November, according to Anna Donnino, who arrived at the police station at about 12:30am, there was a total of three people in the room with Knox:
Anna Donnino: “I had been made to enter a room where in fact there was Inspector Ficarra at a small table, another colleague from SCO (I only remember his first name; he was called Ivano), a police officer, and there was Miss Knox seated. I seated myself beside her.”
That makes Knox, two small Italian women, and a kindly Rome officer who was essentially an onlooker. Not exactly terrifying.
John Douglas’s claim #9
“Though she said it was dreamlike and she couldn’t tell if it had actually happened, she “˜recalled’ Patrick having sex with Meredith, but she didn’t remember whether he had had to force her.”
Untrue. Yet again John Douglas repeats a popular PR lie and he doesn’t substantiate his claim with a verbatim quotation from Amanda Knox. She makes no mention of a dream or vision in her two witness statements.
She categorically stated that she met Diya Lumumba at Piazza Grimana and that they went to the cottage on Via della Pergola. In her first witness statement, she claims that Lumumba killed Meredith.
This is from the 1:45 am statement.
I responded to the message by telling him that we would see each other at once; I then left the house, telling my boyfriend that I had to go to work. In view of the fact that during the afternoon I had smoked a joint, I felt confused, since I do not frequently make use of mind-altering substances, nor of heavier substances.
I met Patrik immediately afterward, at the basketball court on Piazza Grimana, and together we went [to my] home. I do not recall whether Meredith was there or arrived afterward. I struggle to remember those moments, but Patrik had sex with Meredith, with whom he was infatuated, but I do not recall whether Meredith had been threatened beforehand. I recall confusedly that he killed her.
This is from the 5:45 am statement.
I wish to relate spontaneously what happened because these events have deeply bothered me and I am really afraid of Patrick”¦ I met him in the evening of November 1st 2007, after sending him a reply message saying “I will see you”. We met soon after at about 21.00 at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana. We went to my apartment in Via della Pergola n. 7.
I do not clearly remember if Meredith was already at home or if she came later, what I can say is that Patrick and Meredith went into Meredith’s room, while I think I stayed in the kitchen. I cannot remember how long they stayed together in the room but I can only say that at a certain point I heard Meredith screaming and as I was scared I plugged up my ears.
John Douglas’s claim #10
In an interview with American journalist and Amanda Knox fan Krista Ericksson, John Douglas mindlessly repeats more PR lies.
KE: What about Amanda’s confessions during the interrogations?
JD: To be interrogated from 10 pm until 6 am in the morning? These are not sophisticated young people ““ it would not take a dozen interrogators to break them. I know the tricks, I know what they do in there; I’ve done it. No one could hold up. I couldn’t hold up - especially over 5 days.
Untrue. The PR myth that Amanda Knox was subjected to an all-night session or any arduous sessions previously was debunked a long time ago.
According to Barbie Nadeau in The Daily Beast, Amanda Knox’s impromptu session began at about 11:00pm.
“Since Knox was already at the police station [in the company of Raffaele Sollecito], the head of the murder squad decided to ask her a few questions. Her interrogation started at about 11pm.”
Again, it was not in fact interrogation: Knox was invited merely to build a list of visitors to the house, which exists and is in evidence. After Amanda Knox had made her witness statement at 1:45am, she wasn’t questioned again that evening. She decided to made another witness statement at 5:45am, but she wasn’t asked any questions.
John Douglas’s claim #11
In the same Krista Ericksson interview, yet again John Douglas alludes to Amanda Knox being tag-teamed by 12 police officers on 5 November 2007. The infamous lie that Steve Moore has tried so hard to spread very widely among the gullible.
KE: Amanda, while under interrogation accused another man, Patrick Lumumba. Why would she have done that?
JD: The police knew they had negroid hairs at the crime scene. Amanda exchanged texts the night before with Patrick Lumumba, who’s of African descent, like Guede (Note: Lumumba owned the bar where Amanda worked as a waitress. He told her she wasn’t needed for work that night). Because the DNA evidence had not come back yet, they jumped to the conclusion the hairs belonged to Lumumba. They interrogated her accordingly. The tactics used was to have Amanda say what the police wanted. You get people to confess under this psychological torture.
Untrue. What torture? Douglas sounds dangerously deluded here and should perhaps be banned from the central police station.
There is a written record entered into evidence and a signed statement Knox insisted upon. The single subject of this voluntary, spontaneous discussion (Knox building a list of visitors to the house) was described above, as were those few present (two small women and a male onlooker from Rome).
There is zero proof that any of them jumped to conclusions or that they “interrogated” Knox “accordingly”. Knox simply cracked spontaneously when a message she denied sending was spotted on the cellphone she shared with the officers.
There is no mention of negroid hairs in the official court reports.
John Douglas’s claim #12
He repeatedly implies the interrogators had foreknowledge of the Knox-Lumumba text exchange.
They brought her into an interrogation room… They had checked the records of Amanda’s mobile phone. The last exchange was a text from Patrick Lumumba saying she didn’t have to come to work that night because business was slow and a texted reply from her:
Untrue. It was ascertained in court that the police didn’t know that Diya Lumumba had sent Amanda Knox a text message. Here is the relevant trial testimony/
GCM: In this message, was there the name of the person it was meant for?
AK: No, it was the message I wrote to my boss. The one that said “Va bene. Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buonata serate.”
GCM: But it could have been a message to anyone. Could you see from the message to whom it was written?
AK: Actually, I don’t know if the information is in telphone”¦
GCM: But they didn’t say it has him, but they said it was him!
AK: No, They didn’t say it was him, but they said “We know who it is, we who it is. You were with him, you met him.”
All courts of course disbelieved that last part, they had no idea who Patrick was, and Knox served three years for maliciously framing him. The Supreme Court twice ruled that all appeals were concluded. Knox is a felon for life, though Douglas never ever mentions this.
5. An Assessment Of Douglas’s Claims So Far
John Douglas hasn’t substantiated any of his claims about Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito’s questioning on 5 November 2007. He hasn’t referred to any of the official court reports or court testimonies. He never bothered to listen to both sides of the story by speaking to the prosecutors or some of the police officers involved in the case. Instead he has mindlessly repeated the PR lies that were widely propagated in the media by Amanda Knox’s family and supporters.
To say his articles and books about the Meredith Kercher case lack academic rigour would be a massive understatement. He is like a dim-witted high school student who is too lazy to do any of his own research and just copies the work of other dim-witted and lazy students. His standard of work with regard to the Meredith Kercher case isn’t acceptable for teenage high-school students let alone at undergraduates at university. It seems that he has plagiarised the work of the class dunce i.e. Steve Moore without bothering to fact-check any of his claims. It’s hard to believe that John Douglas actually went to university and has a degree and doctorate.
As for Steve Moore and Michael Heavey, Douglas’s constant companions in 2013, they tried hard to use their respective backgrounds in the FBI and law to bolster their credibility and underline their expertise and trustworthiness when trying to persuade the public that Amanda Knox is innocent.
However, their effect on the case was minimal. They really proved only that being a former FBI agent or a judge counts for absolutely nothing if you don’t bother to read a single page of any of the official court reports and court testimonies, and instead unquestioningly believe whatever Amanda Knox and her PR, her family and her supporters say, without bothering to do any fact-checking.
This simple-minded and superficial approach is the reason why Steve Moore and Michael Heavey have got so many basic facts about the case wrong.
Expecting an expert to substantiate their claims is not unreasonable. Providing proof is essential in academia, science and law. It’s one of most basic skills taught in schools. Any high school history student knows it’s important to support their points with evidence and analyse and evaluate the trustworthiness and usefulness of sources.
It should be self-evident even to a half-wit that the accused, their family and supporters might not be trustworthy and reliable sources and nothing they say should be taken at face value and accepted as the gospel truth. That’s the reason why it is critical to fact-check their claims and listen to the other side of the story i.e. read the official court reports and court testimonies or speak to the prosecutors or some of the police officers involved in the case..
Knowing there are two sides to every story and being mindful of the importance of reserving judgment before hearing both sides is not some hitherto unknown truth. This piece of wisdom has been around for over two thousand years:
“The first to speak in court sounds right”” until the cross-examination begins.” (Proverbs 18:17).
It defies belief that so many of Amanda Knox’s high-profile supporters and journalists have accepted what Amanda Knox and her supporters say as the gospel truth, especially as she is a self-confessed liar who has been convicted of lying by all courts, including the Italian Supreme Court.
Posted by The Machine on 08/16/18 at 06:10 PM in
Tweet This Post
TweetComments
The Machine really is The Man for this task. It has needed his “just the facts” talents for way, way too long.
So you see what happened here? The science of Douglas and Olshaker and Clemente went out the window. They all swallowed Knox 2.0.
That is the widows-weeds “I’m the real victim here” version wheeled out by the PR in 2010.
That was NOT the version Italy saw again and again in 2007-2009: a lazy unhygienic sharp-elbowed nuisance who was seemingly in Perugia for no purpose but to do drugs and boys.
The passages the Machine quotes from are the final chapters of the Douglas & Olshaker book Law & Disorder which they put out in March 2013. It is their attempt at taking down the whole case.
http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/2013JohnDouglasOnKoxInterrogation.pdf
You can see that RS barely gets a nod, he is so inconvenient to them. He repeatedly took after Knox, how to explain that? And why was Italy targeting him if officials babble-babble—babble poor Knox?!
The one I really do recommend to read though to take you to the edge of sanity is The Forgotten Killer which is cheaper and more recent and has Heavey and Moore ranting on as well.
As the Machine’s series moves forward, how will they all react?
Base on the tone of his commentary I’d say the manic Knox-slobberer Clemente is a lost cause. He seems to have zero science and zero common sense and like Steve Moore will unceasingly babble on.
But based on their mindhunter branding and commentary on other cases I could see Douglas & Olshaker waking up and being in touch to explore a face-saving way out.
They are welcome to post any rethink here.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/17/18 at 07:19 PM | #
John Douglas and Mark Olshaker have their own website Mindhunters:
If anybody is wondering what John Douglas is up to nowadays, he offers to autograph photographs of himself or one of his books. You can contact him at the following e-mail address:
http://mindhuntersinc.com/contact-us/
He may be a fraud and a gullible dupe, but at least he hasn’t let fame go to his head. Oh wait…
Posted by The Machine on 08/18/18 at 11:45 AM | #
Tremendous post Machine, bravo.
I’ve always found the Douglas intervention the hardest one to bear. I used to quite enjoy his musings on serial killers going way back to when he first started to appear on our TV screens a couple of decades ago on true crime programmes.
I’ve sent a note to him on his website. I don’t expect that it will have any effect but I tried to word it in a way that might get his attention. Que sera and all that.
Posted by davidmulhern on 08/18/18 at 02:18 PM | #
Douglas, Clemente, Moore, Heavey etc. I just can’t understand how such high profile people can get such basic facts wrong and then outrageously propogate those ideas.
And they get away with it!
Posted by DavidB on 08/18/18 at 02:59 PM | #
Hi David,
I’ve contacted John Douglas and sent him a link to my post. However, I don’t expect to hear back from him because Amanda Knox’s high-profile supporters in the media never acknowledge and correct their false claims. Ever. They’re not interested in ascertaining the truth - their sole aim is to convince the public that Amanda Knox is innocent. They won’t entertain the possibility even for a nanosecond that she might be guilty.
If John Douglas, Steve Moore, Jim Clemente et al had any integrity, they would acknowledge that they don’t know Amanda Knox is innocent. There is no justification for their absolute certainty that she is because they weren’t with her on the night of the murder and there is no exculpatory evidence.
I think there are a couple of reasons for them acting like they know for an absolute fact that Amanda Knox is innocent: (1) they have a desperate need to believe she is innocent that overrides all reason and common sense and (2) they think there will be persuasive if they act like have no doubts about her innocence.
Funnily enough, I got the impression that Krista Erickson doesn’t share their certainty and has nagging doubts. I think she is desperate to believe Amanda Knox is innocent and was seeking reassurance from John Douglas.
Posted by The Machine on 08/18/18 at 04:15 PM | #
Machine,
I still can’t understand how they could not be interested in getting to the bottom of this case. Why are they not interested in seeking the truth?
Is it that they know full well that they are wrong but they are wilfully misleading the public?
Is the truth really less important than their reputations?
It would be forgivable if they admitted that they were initially wrong, but that they now have changed their minds.
Or have they become devil worshippers? Or maybe they are just too embarrassed to admit to their mistakes.
Posted by DavidB on 08/18/18 at 06:46 PM | #
Hi Machine and DavidB
Very very good that word is being seeped through to John Douglas. This has proved pretty easy - our avid reader Bruce Fischer rattles all of them more or less instantly. We can put things in the mail & media later
David, on motive, may I suggest you follow the money trail always. It has been very fruitful for them to jump on the Knox-is-really-innocent and Italy-is-vile bandwagon. They sell more books and TV appearances.
Do read the John Douglas chapters. Typical for all of them, major space is given over to:
(1) John Douglas’s sheer, utter and total amazingness. Here he was a fading star in a suspect low-results criminal science field, and Knox proved a godsend. Heavey, Hampikian, Moore, Fischer etc were total unknowns - and yet suddenly could pound their chests as the brightest of the brightest and the one Knox will most likely award sex to. No easy face-saving way to walk away from that - as Kassin found. They are riding tigers.
(2) The mission is not really to convert them. The mission is to totally isolate them. For us to go up against named ex-judges and named ex-FBI agents it has proved vital that we have full media packages, all the bases covered. Full packages include the exposure of all of the mafia poodles (half done now) and one-stop-shop overviews of all the hoaxes (maybe 20 percent done now).
Give this a few weeks at most now. John Douglas’s first reaction, maybe even this weekend, as this could destroy him, will be to angrily call around to find if anyone misled him? Answer: yes, Steve Moore, Fischer and Heavey all misled him, among others, though he was a world-class idiot for not double-checking or actually reading anything.
Did you notice how after our recent one-stop exposures of Hampikian and Steve Moore (and Burleigh, who matters less) Knox has already become lower-profile? And many, many more questions (see Machine’s above) will be heading her way for “explanation”.
Knox looks about to become mega-isolated - as Sollecito already is.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/18/18 at 08:50 PM | #
I agree with davidmulhern about Douglas. John Douglas was top-notch profiler and has contributed a great deal to crime solving. He was an early pioneer of behavioral analysis, the BAU is his offspring, “Criminal Minds”, amazing new ways to understand trends and criminal tendencies, which is why it’s shocking that he has not looked at Knox’s behavior more carefully nor taken caution after seeing her dissembling and lies.
John Douglas is being USED by Steve Moore and the Knox PR circus.
A great man is being used. Moore wants the John Douglas big gun reputation whereas Moore, Heavey, Clemente were virtual unknowns.
I think they lured poor John Douglas into their mad hatter’s tea party of Knox sycophants who had all looked on the surface and saw a black burglar, a woman alone in a cottage and were all too willing to jump to conclusions, thinking Knox was the victim of reverse prejudice. But their prejudice against the Italian investigators really blinded them.
Strange they should turn on officers of the law for the sake of a drunk drugged up college girl just because they liked her looks. They went very blind to the drug user Raffaele Sollecito as well. I don’t have statistics to quote about black crime vs. white crime in the area of thefts and burglary and murder, but I assume black crime is much higher at least in the U.S.
On quick examination and using merely surface assumptions, I understand where Moore and Douglas did a shoot from the hip conclusion about Rudy Guede being the culprit. They didn’t look deep enough. The irony is that in this odd case, Rudy may have been set up by two white kids who were more messed up than he was.
Moore and Douglas and Heavey the three blind mice don’t raise an eyebrow when Knox said she was at the cottage as an ear witness of the murder by her own boss whom she had invited over. The blind mice excuse her every incriminatory word or deed and blame police pressure. Douglas says he has broken people in similar interrogations and knows all the tricks.
Moore may have misled Douglas. Moore builds up a narrative of unsurpassed police pressure, no food or drinks, sheer misery inflicted on the pitiful young Knox whose fatigue was induced by Italian police to force her into statements of their design. An easy lie to foist on the public, Knox thinks.
Douglas and pals don’t believe a word the police testified to in court, refuting Knox’s claims of abuse. They disbelieve Anna the interpreter, who said Knox was not at all hit or mistreated or even threatened. Yet they believe Knox, a suspect and only person in the house with the victim on the night of the killing, a woman whose own boyfriend said she lived in a fantasy world unable to sort fact from fiction, and he said she had persuaded him to lie for her. They don’t believe any of that. But for some reason they easily accept that Guede was a liar.
Any contradictions in Knox and Raf’s alibis they handwave away and label it police manipulation. Yet Moore was FBI, a policeman himself and Douglas was FBI, yet they trust no Italian policeman.
Steve Moore has sadly and calculatedly used John Douglas to lift the profile of the case for Knox innocence, imo.
It’s inconceivable that Douglas didn’t demand to examine the DNA evidence about the knife and bra clasp and Luminol footprints, and ask to talk to the police investigators in Italy before he rendered a decision, rather than hear from a few of Knox’s friends who have obviously brainwashed him in an effort to secure his signature on their nonsense for their loved one. The blind leading the blind.
A possible explanation for Douglas not double-checking the facts of this case is that he is feeling his age and getting long in the tooth, becoming tired and careless. This is just a guess, but I believe certain people in the Knox camp took advantage of this. He was strong and sharp in his youth but we all have limits.
On a different tack, I saw John Douglas on a TV show in 2017 or 2018 where he walked around the Charles Lindburgh home in New Jersey followed by tv cameras an effort to verify what happened to the Lindbergh baby, a case of great interest to me. I was hoping Douglas would find hard proof of Charles Lindbergh’s complicity in the kidnapping and death of his infant, as I suspect is the case, but Douglas didn’t clear much up.
I think Douglas is being used for a very ignoble cause in the Knox matter. I honestly believe he would be big enough to renounce his earlier and less studied opinion of innocence if he receives the hard facts of the prosecution case and is willing to give the DNA evidence a thorough exam. But he may be too old and tired or too busy on newer cases. I hope it’s not a matter of “money talks” and personal pressures from people like Steve Moore, Judge Heavey, Jim Clemente, that might prevent him from reassessing his opinion of Knox. I hope John Douglas isn’t blinded by such pressure of Moore’s investment in the Knox brand where they glory in their shame.
I do like that Proverb in post above saying hear from both sides before rendering a decision.
Another similar to it: “With many counselors make war.” Don’t believe just one angle or one person’s opinion.
Posted by Hopeful on 08/19/18 at 04:37 AM | #
Hi Hopeful,
John Douglas got so many basic facts wrong with regard to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito’s questioning on 5 November 2007 because he didn’t read any of the official court reports or court testimonies and he’s a gullible dupe who believes whatever he is told. This highlights the fact that his work lacks academic rigour and his approach to investigating criminal cases isn’t acceptable for any high school student let alone a renowned FBI profiler. He doesn’t seem to have any higher-order thinking skills e.g. analysis or evaluation.
Does John Douglas always adopt this simple-minded and superficial approach when investigating criminal cases?
From what I’ve seen so far, it seems he does. For example, he has got basic facts wrong and ignored damning pieces of evidence in the West Memphis Three case:
https://www.henrymakow.com/2013/07/FBI-Profiler-Helped-Release-Satanist-Killers .html
What could possibly be his motive for getting involved in innocence fraud? Money? Free publicity?
I suspect he made more money advocating for the WM3 than he has done autographing photographs of himself or his books.
I think he is a despicable and amoral human being who has absolutely no interest in truth or justice despite all his empty rhetoric about caring for the victims of crime.
Posted by The Machine on 08/19/18 at 01:40 PM | #
Hopeful describes with some sense of betrayal how Douglas appears to have morphed into something (much) worse, hopes he is not too far gone, admits he probably is.
The Machine captures how really bad he is today, on other cases too, for which he also takes heat, and how he betrayed many others (especially professional counterparts in Italy).
Take a look at this very telling passage by John Douglas from the March 2013 Law & Disorder book chapters 28 to 32. See some fact-checking below.
Through Mark [Olshaker’s] exchanges with Amanda’s family I was contacted by Steve Moore, a retired FBI agent currently working as deputy director of public safety at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California—not a bad job if you like the beach and warm weather as much as I do. Steve had been in my behavioral science classes during new agent training at Quantico. Though we knew and had worked with a lot of the same people, I didn’t remember meeting him. He had never met Amanda, but he had become so moved by her case that he decided to conduct his own investigation, with the family’s cooperation but independent of them.
I have not been universally praising of all my FBI colleagues over the years, but when I looked up Steve Moore, he turned out to be the real deal. He had spent his entire FBI career dealing with violent crime; and as his last assignment, he ran the FBI’s Los Angeles–based “Extra-Territorial Squad,†which was tasked with responding to any acts of terrorism against the United States in Asia and Pakistan. He agreed to organize and supply me with all of the relevant case materials including records, photographs, videos and various transcripts. He told me he respected my work and me too much to try to influence me in any way and genuinely wanted to know if I felt he was on the right track in interpreting the evidence.
Before the case was resolved, Steve would admit to me, “When you told me about the grief you took after the Ramsey case, I didn’t really understand how petty and mean people can get. In my whole life, I have never been vilified by people like I have since I got involved in the Knox case.”
I reviewed all of the material presented to me and read everything I could, both positive and negative. All of the evidence pointed squarely in one direction: Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were innocent.Clearly Italian criminal justice authorities did not want my help.
1. It reads like Olshaker and the Knox-Mellases (and Marriott?) were in touch at the start, maybe intending to line him and Douglas up as paid or unpaid PR shills.
2. Moore was no longer at Pepperdine - he had been frogmarched off the Pepperdine campus TWO AND A HALF YEARS BEFORE.
3. Douglas did not remember Moore at Quantico. Owww! There is a pretty funny side to that. Another obvious red flag. No due diligence on Moore was done.
4. Moore was the real deal? Spent his entire career on violent crime? Really? Moore wont publish his resume, but even he claims he did other things. His knowledge of crime solving methods is dim.
5. Moore whines to Douglas that HE is a victim?! Let’s see. He rages about and defames good Italian professionals on US TV that he never even met - and then thinks he deserves a free pass?
6. So Douglas read “all of the material presented” by Moore for the Knox PR. WHAT material? We have often asked. Moore cannot read Italian; how did they get round that?
7. “All of the evidence pointed squarely in one direction: Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were innocent.” Really?!! That’s the WHOLE POINT of defense PR spin.
8. “Clearly, Italian criminal justice authorities did not want my help.” Oh? On what does Douglas base that? On their reaction to the previous profiling imposter Saul Kassin?
Those are fine highly trained justice officials that the FBI has huge dealings with. There are FBI agents in the US Embassy in Rome, and even in Italy’s law enforcement structure.
Did John Douglas talk to ANY of them? Even one? If not WHY not? Another red flag.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/19/18 at 05:12 PM | #
@The Machine @Peter Quennell, You have both brought to my attention a host of deplorable things that John Douglas has either been duped to represent or perhaps has caved on his own will to embrace the big bucks of innocence fraud. It’s absolutely appalling that he would vindicate the West Memphis Three. An alarming fall from his earlier intelligence. John Douglas’s many mistakes in the Knox case (for instance, how can he argue a lone killer when three different sets of footprints in blood were present?) are unacceptable as The Machine contends.
John Douglas: either he has declined in his own mental abilities or been led astray as a yes-man to the Mark Olshaker, Steve Moore fairytales. It’s dreadful to see such a fall, especially if it has been for money. Maybe he has grown cynical. Maybe amoral, maybe eager to retain fame in his fading years, addicted to the fast lane of publicity and wants to seem important and relevant. But as The Machine says succinctly, John Douglas has NOT used any “higher order thinking skills” nor analysis or evaluation in the Knox case. I couldn’t agree more. The question is why, and I thank Peter Quennell for quoting from Douglas and Olshaker’s book, “Law and Disorder” which may give the answer.
John Douglas’s own words suggest that Olshaker was talking with Amanda Knox’s family first, then Olshaker must have linked up with Steve Moore about the case and Steve Moore had been a student of Douglas’s at Quantico. Through this old boy network Moore pressed Douglas to help him, to advise Moore if Moore was on the right track with his supposedly “independent” investigation. Yeah, right…right under the eyes and nose of the Knox family, real independent. Moore wanted to suck John Douglas into the quicksand with him and use him for a life raft to mix metaphors, if Moore’s quest for truth in Perugia didn’t work out well. Mostly Moore just wanted to compete with John Douglas, and little did Moore know how the Knox curse would leap over onto Douglas as well. Anyone who touches the Knox is innocent bandwagon gets a bruising fall, because the whole shaky wagon rolls along on falsehoods.
Douglas said, “I reviewed all of the material presented to me (but that was limited to what Steve Moore gave John, and as Peter Quennell points out, Steve Moore didn’t read Italian, (nor Douglas is my guess) so how could Moore know what materials were valuable to show Douglas?). Douglas does go on to say iin the book, that he read “everything I could, both positive and negative.” Does that mean he read PMF.net and PMF.org and TJMK?
The Machine says that John Douglas did not read any official court reports or court testimonies and I believe it. Douglas relied too much on Steve Moore’s controlled information. Douglas admits Moore had never even met Knox but had been so “moved” by her plight. That’s a red flag of emotionalism vs. professionalism, and as Quennell said, Douglas did not vet Moore and since he did not even recall him from the Quantico days, he should have checked him out carefully before becoming his yes man.
Moore “agreed to organize and supply me with all of the relevant case materials”. This is doubtful. At best, Moore was at a disadvantage being far from Italy and knowing no Italian language.
Moore wanted to wade into the Knox fray because he had seen John Douglas his teacher wade into the Jon Benet Ramsay whirlpool. As Quennell says, Moore wanted to rage and bash publicly against the Italian investigators yet not get any blowback, and even painted himself as a victim of undue petty meanness when he got his own wife who was on psych meds to join his one-man crusade to lobby for the vixen Knox. Moore even in the earliest days of the investigation and the court case claimed he would be fine with the possible murderess Knox to be his own daughter’s roommate? Now he is on Netflix as talking head for their true crime show, “Murderous Affairs”. The Knox case was his stepping stone to TV which was his true goal. Right or wrong, I don’t think he cared. I think he’s got a screw loose and some kind of self-destructive urge created by the revulsion to the violence he may have seen or had to cause in his FBI career. He’s working off his false guilt by trying to give criminals the benefit of the doubt for a change in a warped penance. He even wants to bring down John Douglas into his spider’s web of self-deception, justifying it to himself by knowing John would make money off the case whether Knox is innocent or guilty. So I see where The Machine concludes Douglas is amoral. He may be simply a willing dupe of an amoral Steve Moore. Both may have become cynical and money hungry.
John Douglas claimed in his book that “the Italian criminal justice authorities did not want my help.” As Quennell rightly responds to that red flag statement: Why not? Did John Douglas bother to consult any FBI agents in Italy, like at the U.S. Embassy in Rome? Why not, they were real police agents right there on the ground and had much more recourse to the facts of the case than a smitten Steve Moore did.
Douglas didn’t do his due diligence on Steve Moore nor on the DNA and phone records and faulty alibis in this case yet he along with new best friend Steve Moore concluded that all evidence pointed to Knox’s innocence.
I think Douglas has gone downhill in his powers and is being led by the nose to the green pastures of greenbacks$ and may even see himself as helping out an old FBI colleague. His thumbs up for the WM3 seals my disappointment in his recent work. I still recall his former days when the book “Mindhunter” was fresh and important. Douglas chased down some very very evil killers in his youth and suffered physically from his determination to stop their bloody streak.
His mind was tormented by the horrors he had to see, the kinds of evil minds he had to try to understand. He even had a stroke in a hotel room far from home as the lack of sleep and stress impacted him and his body rebelled. He was carrying too many cases, a tremendous workload with lives on the line. By the grace of God he recovered from the stroke fully and went on to seek more justice, to continue to work (this is the John Douglas I admire).
I think his marriage imploded from police work, too. So he paid the price to own his legacy. It is a shame that pure thing wasn’t enough and that now in his latter years he has been pushed or has dived on his own into this swamp of Knox manipulation and Knox deceit and chaos, the land of triple-cross lies that strange Steve Moore has embraced for his own nefarious purposes.
The reason is not a real search for truth, one suspects. I am reevaluating my hero worship but loath to let go. However it’s blatantly obvious that John Douglas has missed the mark in the Amanda Knox case and put his seal on very unacceptable results, on errors large and small. He didn’t even know the age of Raffaele when the crime was committed. Something’s amiss. I blame Steve Moore and Mark Olshaker as precipitating factors in this debacle for Douglas.
Posted by Hopeful on 08/19/18 at 08:36 PM | #
Does anybody have the contact details for Krista Erickson? I’d love to send her links to the posts about John Douglas.
http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/2011KristaErickssonInterviewsJohnDouglas.pdf
Posted by The Machine on 08/21/18 at 10:49 PM | #
Hi Machine
(Comments on her blog (link above) are worth reading! John Douglas and Steve Moore come in for some takedowns.)
The blog location says she is in NYC. In 2016 she was employed on the Hillary Clinton campaign.
She seemed crazy about Knox a while back on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/search?q=@kristaerrickson
She has a Wikipedia page suggesting she may still work in Italy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krista_Errickson
This (with numerous face shots but not much else) is or was her Facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/pg/KristaErricksonOfficial/about/?ref=page_internal
Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/22/18 at 06:41 AM | #
Krista Errickson was one of Amanda Knox’s most rabid supporters. She bought the PR narrative about Mignini trying to frame Knox hook, line and sinker and got swept along by the wave hysteria that David Marriott and Anne Bremner had generated.
She made these silly comments about Mignini on the King 5 website:
“After the hearing in Florence Friday, Mignini is quoted by the SeattlePI.com as saying ‘I am shocked. It was totally unexpected.’ It seems Mignini, the 21st Century’s own Roy Cohn, had a taste of a shocking and unexpected verdict, just as his victims were in his 13th century investigation methods.”
I don’t use Facebook, but it would be great if someone sent her a message about the John Douglas posts on TJMK:
https://www.facebook.com/pg/KristaErricksonOfficial/about/?ref=page_internal
Posted by The Machine on 08/22/18 at 01:11 PM | #
Facebook? Good idea. I’d suggest not to mention any message here though. The Knox addicts are losing cohesion and it is already paying off to peel them off one by one.
Once we finish seeing the heavies like Moore, Douglas and Heavey profiled in one-click posts, we’ll quickly address as a last task the 24 including Ericksson who posted 150 fanatical posts on Ground Report which is now owned by the dangerous anti-Italy bigot Justin Weinger.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/22/18 at 02:17 PM | #
Hi Hopeful,
John Douglas has proved time and time again that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He’s got involved in two high-profile cases - the Meredith Kercher case and the WM3 case - and he’s just mindlessly repeated PR lies and got basic facts wrong. This is due to the fact he’s doesn’t do any fact-checking. You’ll notice that he doesn’t substantiate his claims or cite any sources. I don’t understand why he’s got such a big reputation. What am I missing?
Posted by The Machine on 08/22/18 at 02:57 PM | #
Missing? You just said it. Sources!!!
Here was your post on the West Memphis Three, maybe now it needs something additional on the role of Douglas who promoted himself hard on his sheer amazingness.
John Douglas was also a hired gun for John Ramsey in the JonBenet case in Boulder Colorado and “proved” controversially that no-one in the family killed her, accidentally or on purpose.
But contrary to Douglas, Jim Clemente in a CBS report said all his “science” pointed to JonBenet’s older brother. I watched that program and was surprised at how arrogant and condescending and superficial the entire CBS panel of experts was.
A judge has allowed a $750 million defamation suit against CBS, Clemente etc to go forward. (Paul Ciolino in Chicago is also being sued bigtime.)
There seems no question but that Douglas, Heavey, Moore, Clemente etc LIKE to show up others in law enforcement and the courts and ridicule them.
It is something they get off on.
If they all spent LESS time waffling about their sheer amazingness and the horribleness of their professional colleagues and MORE time doing real objective investigation the truth would be far better off.
They’d be facing less suits also.
I had less prior exposure to Douglas than Hopeful but this broad exposure of his entire post-FBI career now leaves me as repelled as she is.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/22/18 at 04:19 PM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Where next:
Click here to return to The Top Of The Front PageOr to next entry How With Myriad False Claims John Douglas Pushes To Forefront Of Pro-Knox Crackpots #2
Or to previous entry How With Myriad False Claims Steve Moore Pushes To Forefront Of Pro-Knox Crackpots