Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Unarresting the Arrested:FBI Profiler John Douglas on the case against Amanda Knox & Raffaele Sollecito



photographed for Maxim by Alex Farnum
 
This article was originally supposed to be published for Il Messaggero. It was given to me as an assignment, after the editor and legal expert of the newspaper saw the Maxim interview with famed FBI profiler, John Douglas, in the January 2011 issue. 

When the article was turned in, albeit shortened, my editor told me – “this article is too dangerous to print in Italy”. 

So, for your reading pleasure, the article too dangerous for Italy. 


There are two kinds of hunters: the hunter that waits and the hunter that tracks. The difference of two is the complexity of their hunting techniques though both aim for the same thing; bagging the prey.

Hunters who wait prefer to lure their prey into range. This is usually the preferred method of serial killers. They watch, and wait for the chance to pounce. Hunters who track their prey, involves a more detailed approach; knowing the specific differences, patterns and behaviors of the hunted, and calculate their next moves. John Douglas is of the latter. However, he pursues a different kind of animal: serial killers. He is the investigator and legendary criminal profiler known as “The Mind Hunter”.

When Douglas joined the FBI at 25 years old, no agents were interviewing captured killers. He began his study in prisons, speaking with hundreds of criminals to understand who they were, and what motivates them to kill. “They want to talk. Many are proud of what they accomplished. In my interviews, I try to make them feel comfortable, and speak with them in what they desire most; as a fan”. And they talked, one by one – from Ed Gein, (whose real life-adventures were fictionalized in Psycho and The Silence of the Lambs), Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Son of Sam, to Jeffrey Dahmer, among other nefarious, infamous criminals that have roamed the earth.

Manson is a great example of Douglas’s approach. “I’m 6’2”, Manson is 5’4”, Douglas says. “I knew he’d want to dominate the room, so he stood on a chair during the entire interview. It seemed to make him comfortable, so I let him. All I want is information, that’s my goal”.

Pioneering modern criminal profiling 25 years ago in the FBI, Douglas helped create the Behavioral Science Unit (BSU). “My first office was in Detroit. Back then, we had about 800 homicides a year. It may be a terrible place to live, but for a young agent, it was a great place to learn”.
The job took its toll in 1985, when he nearly died. He came down with viral encephalitis; his body temperature reached 107 degrees, his pulsed raced to over 220 and had uncontrollable seizures. The tombstone was already etched with his name and the grave site chosen. It was years of physical rehabilitation. But Douglas was back on the job 5 months later to nab The Green River killer and countless mass murderers before retiring in 1995. 

“It’s tough. You’re alone, with this extraordinary pressure, especially the in-between. Here I am trying to work a case, which in of itself takes  a toll; looking at what the murderer did, horrifying things, forcing myself to enter their twisted, sick minds, then add in the factor that you are not always welcome by local law enforcement, even hated at times – even with my background. It gets to you, it really does”.

Bestselling author of over a dozen novels, books and manuals, he was the inspiration for Jack Crawford’s character in “The Silence of the Lambs” and probably ever other fictional detective/investigator that a screenwriter used to sculpt their characters.

In addition, Charlize Theron’s company optioned Douglas’s biography, “Mindhunter” for HBO.

Since retiring as head investigator for the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime at the FBI, Douglas now travels the world hired by international and domestic law enforcement and defense teams who request his help in investigations.

Criminal Behavioral Profiling has also proved to be a useful tool in exonerating the wrongly accused or convicted, of which Douglas also dedicates his time.

Probably the most well-known of these was the JonBenét Ramsey case. The case is notable for both its longevity and the media interest it generated. The media and local law enforcement agencies considered the girl's parents and brother to be suspects. Douglas was the first to publicly proclaim their innocence, long before DNA legally exonerated them. He was vilified not only in the press, but by his colleagues as well.

Douglas has worked on over 5,000 cases, hired by domestic and international defense teams and law enforcement. Of those 5,000 cases, he’s never been proved wrong. “I think that’s probably the biggest pressure, is the possibility of being wrong and why I got sick”, Douglas tells me. 
In the January issue of Maxim, Douglas said he was convinced that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent. In February, I conducted this interview with Douglas. This is it in its entirety.

KE: How do you analyze and create a profile in a case?

JD: Criminal investigative analysis or what you call “criminal profiling” is the overall process whereby crimes are reviewed in their totality. It involves the process of criminal investigative analysis both by behavior and investigative perspective. We interpret the behavior before, during and after the crime. From that, we develop strategies and profile the unknown subject, or UNSUB. Then we assess the suspects, the UNSUB, and provide interrogation techniques.

One must be able to identify with both the victim and the suspect, in order to answer the investigative of formula of: why + how = who.

JD: The criminal profiling process alone does not convict anyone. The foundation of any case is a properly conducted, thorough and well planned investigation.  If the investigation is not good, the results will be tainted. Garbage in…garbage out!

 KE: What did you know about the case beforehand, and what interested you?

JD: I really didn’t know much about the case. Just what I read in passing – perhaps it’s just as well. It had extraordinary media attention, and it was controversial. There seemed to be strong arguments on both sides.  The public seemed convinced of either their innocence or their guilt. This always interests me.

KE: Did you speak with the Knox family?

JD:  No. I’ve never met them. The case was brought to me by a former FBI agent who strongly believed they (Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito) were innocent.

KE: Why did you decide to take this case, in particular?

 JD: I thought I could come up with an analysis. I was interested to find the truth, and not be swayed by either side. In fact, whenever someone brings me a case, I tell them that my answer may not support their theories – you may not like what I have to say. I act like the lone ranger; I give my opinion without caring about the politics. I don’t care how it really works out; in my mind, I am working for the victim. Part of my downfall, the viral encephalitis, was due, in part, because people do not always necessarily like me or my findings.

KE: Did you feel you had all the information necessary or at your disposal to make your conclusion?

JD: I won't do an analysis unless I am provided with all the information necessary. In this case, I had everything I needed. In fact, more than I've had in other cases. Fortunately, I also had the crime scene evidence collection tapes to view. Often in America, we only have photos (of a crime scene) and you can't clearly understand what is happening. There was more than enough to assess.

KE: What was your conclusion of the behavioral profiles you conducted?

JD: From the profiles created, none of the behavioral or forensic evidence leads to Amanda and Raffaele. There's no history or experience related to violence or mental illness in their backgrounds. None of the behavioral or forensic evidence leads to them. This is not a case of serial killers, cold blooded murderers. They used marijuana, but that’s not some hard core drug that will change a normal personality.They should’ve walked out of there. 

KE: What behavioral evidence should there have been? 

JD: Well, fleeing for one, which only Guede did. They would’ve been nervous, may drink heavily, or become rigid in their personalities, behaviors along that line – certainly not buying underwear and kissing. The fact that they were kissing - people looked at this as a sign of guilt, if anything; I look at it as a sign of innocence. These two individuals – Amanda and Raffaele, for them to commit this horrific crime and leave the crime scene that way – it was a massacre – and then hours later, be back at the crime scene, just doesn’t fit. These were two young people who couldn't fathom what had taken place. (It was so surreal) they thought they were going to stroll in and out of there and justice would prevail.  But, it didn’t happen that way. Justice did not prevail.

KE: Do you believe more than one person could've killed Meredith?
JD: Based on my experience, the crime scene does not indicate the presence of three individuals in the room where Meredith was murdered. What was done to the victim, the way in which the crime occurred, was not the result of three people. This can be concluded without a DNA test.

KE: And third suspect, Rudy Guede?

JD: Behavior reflects personality. And that behavior fits only Rudy Guede. Guede has the history; he was an experienced criminal, he had the motive (are you listening, Mr. Pisa?*) and all evidence points to him. It was a brutal, bloody homicide, and it’s a reflection of his personality. And that behavior was exhibited at the crime scene. That’s his “canvas”; the result is his “artwork” of the subject (victim).

You should be able to find other “canvases” of his like that – not necessarily homicide, but you should find a violent past in this person’s background. I know that he committed some robberies, but I’ll bet money there are more cases that he may have been involved with which remain unsolved. I don’t know, maybe before he came to Perugia – whatever he may have been escaping previously.

KE: What was the motive?

JD: The primary motive was burglary. But we have an opportunistic offender here. And that opportunity was presented when Meredith came home, and she became the victim of the opportunity.

KE: There are many who’ve said covering Meredith’s body with a duvet proves the murderer was female.

JD: That’s absurd. There are different reasons why someone will cover a body. There's a certain sense of wanting to undo the crime. Guede didn’t leave after the crime, but he doesn’t want to look at her. It’s not that he didn’t feel good about what he has done; I can see that because of the way he killed her and sexually assaulted her. He’s a sadistic individual with a violent past. He put the blanket over her because he was wandering around the apartment and didn’t want to see her.

Sadly, this was a very pedestrian murder. And that’s not to diminish this beautiful woman’s life, Meredith. It’s not that complicated, crimes are not so complicated.
After a week, I would’ve said to the investigators on the case, “Are you kidding me? You mean you haven’t arrested the guy?”

KE: In your professional opinion, what went wrong?

JD:  Let me first say, for the police in Perugia, they may only have the opportunity to see a case like this in a career. Unfortunately here, we see homicides like this all the time. 

The first investigators didn’t know what they were handling. The collections and preservation of evidence was done incorrectly and led to contamination. Luckily we have the video; not only photos. You can see all the mistakes that were done. If I was brought in on this investigation, I would have told them they were on the wrong track.

KE: The media have been very interested and involved in this case from the beginning: do you think their role helped or damaged the investigator’s job and the judge’s assessments?

JD: It absolutely damaged both. The media can shape people's opinion. A single photograph seen out of context, can affect us. The investigators can also be responsible for leaking information to manipulate the media and thus, public opinion.

KE: Do you believe the investigators made mistakes that subsequently diverted the course of the investigation?

JD: Well, that’s the entire story, isn’t it? First, there were too many people in those rooms.  They should have removed Amanda, Raffaele and anyone who was not part of the investigation team, and roped it off.

From the video taken from the crime scene, there were numerous mistakes. The investigators can be seen passing evidence, dropping it on the ground, using the same tweezers, not changing gloves, no protective caps to cover hair.  Any insider can recognize these errors. What the investigators have done may seem right on the "outside", they had their protective clothing, boots, but cross- contamination of the evidence was more than evident.

KE: What is cross-contamination, exactly? 

JD: It means simply that evidence from anyone, anyone who came and went in those rooms have the potential to leave their DNA, prints, etc. and run the risk of being transferred microscopically.

KE: Allegedly, DNA of Sollecito’s was said to have been found on Meredith's bra clasp. DNA of Amanda Knox’s is said to be on the murder weapon; on the knife’s handle and Meredith’s on the blade.

JD: It’s not the murder weapon. As far as I’m concerned, it hasn’t been found; probably never will. It doesn’t fit with the imprint made on the bed sheet, or the wounds found on Meredith. The evidence collection video from December
18th shows a knife, randomly chosen, from Sollecito’s apartment and transported to the lab.

The video taken on November 2nd shows the bra clasp, very clearly on the floor of the crime scene. On December 18th, after returning to the scene more than 16 times, the video shows the bra clasp, still there. It had already been kicked and shuffled around on the floor for six weeks! Secondly, the amount of DNA, supposedly, that was Sollecito’s, is highly suspect.

Moreover, if that’s all the evidence you’ve got, two tiny pieces of DNA, of the plethora that should have been there... well, it’s simply ludicrous. 

KE: Are these errors by the investigators more common in Italy than in other parts of the world?

JD: Are all the investigators in Italy incompetent? Are they badly trained? Absolutely not! The training is probably good, very good. But in any profession people get careless, they can get lazy. But this doesn't mean that the system does not work. Look at the West Memphis Three case. Just because there was incompetency there, does not mean all the investigators in Tennessee are incompetent.

KE:  You understand that the Italian officials might see your conclusions on this case as an external interference.

JD: No one in Italy, America or elsewhere in the world, likes anyone looking over their shoulders. But I think if an investigation has been carried out accurately, without errors, you shouldn't fear the analysis of other professionals.

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.

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.

KE: Do you think the prosecution acted based on prejudices towards Amanda and Raffaele?

JD: I don’t think prejudice is exactly correct. The prosecution had a theory from the beginning and continued with it – despite the facts. They discounted evidence that didn’t support their theory. Their theory was a threesome murder and let this theory guide them. The prosecution allowed theory to rule over evidence.

KE: Manuela Comodi, lead prosecutor recently said that “there is a huge, powerful and unbreakable picture of circumstantial evidence which points against both of them”.

JD: Circumstantial evidence is the weakest evidence of all.  Witnesses can be bought off, or bargain for favors, recollections that can’t be counted on...it’s fine to start with, in fact, so are hunches, so are theories, but that all has to go out the window if the hard evidence, and in this case, there’s an overwhelming amount of it, points in another direction.

You can see the motivation of some prosecutors to win, no matter what it takes, even if truth doesn’t fit into their facts and figures.

This isn't exclusive only to Italy. For instance, during the West Memphis Three case, the prosecution team created a grand, theatrical scene in the courtroom. They viciously stabbed a grapefruit with a knife in the attempt to prove it was the type of a weapon that created wounds on the victims. They did this to influence the jury and win the case. Only later, during the appeal, it was discovered that the wounds on the bodies of the boys had not been inflicted by a knife at all, but by an alligator snapping turtle! (The children's' bodies were thrown into a river).

KE: So, you’re saying you don’t think there wasn't any “conspiracy” to convict Amanda and Raffaele?

JD: No, but, they did began to panic when the evidence returned and didn’t match up to the other two; it was all going to Guede. Instead, they returned, over and over to the crime scene, even six weeks later – what was it? Why do you have to go back? Did you miss something? Did you get some new lead? Did you develop something in the lab, and now you have to find it? No. They had to go back because they were looking for something, anything, to fit their theory.

KE: When you mean “they”, are you referring to PM Giuliano Mignini?

JD: He certainly spearheaded it. Speaking of behavior reflecting personality – he has similar behaviors of following theory over evidence in the past. He’s got to win, no matter what; even if the truth doesn’t fit and will break the law to win. The Monster of Florence case is a great example.

I understand Mr. Mignini was under indictment for abuse of office, illegal harassment, and the wire-tapping of journalists relating to that case while prosecuting this trial. It boggles the mind why he was not removed from his office. Moreover, that he was/is allowed to continue to his duties. 

KE: But the PM didn’t convict her, a jury did.

JD: It’s the way the evidence was presented to the jurors. There was no evidence, there is no evidence.

Isn’t it strange that all the officers and technicians working on the case received medals and official recognitions? They were preparing the next jurors. When I read that I said to myself, oh, they’re greasing the wheels!

KE:  Do you agree with the court of appeals to give the DNA analyses of the evidence to third parties experts?

JD: Absolutely. The more the merrier.

KE: Do you trust the Italian justice system?
JD: It's not a question of trust in a system.  I may not trust certain individuals in a system. I am not here to create tensions between America and Italy, or teach others how to do their job.

KE: Are you aware the two defendants said they trusted the Italian justice system?

JD: If I were in prison, I'd probably say the same thing! Amanda and Raffaele at this time have no control over their lives. If they are released, they might express a different opinion.

Two people were convicted that should have never been convicted. The media pictured Amanda as a cold-blooded murderer. Frankly, I was surprised that they were charged. I was surprised by the conviction. The appeal is wrong. It’s wrong because of the lack of concrete evidence. No forensic evidence, no behavioral evidence. Nothing points to their guilt. They’ve got nothing.
This is like the Ramsey case. DNA eliminated the family as suspects. The family did not do it. Besides, I saw what was done to that child (JonBenet Ramsey), how she was sexually assaulted. Parents kill, they do. But not these parents.  Not in the way and method that child was killed. They're not the type to kill their daughter.
There are people on websites that hate me to this day because of the Ramsey case. I want to say to them, give it up! – but they just won’t do it.
I believe in Crime and Punishment. I know Meredith’s family wants this nightmare to end, they want closure. But they have the person that killed their daughter! It is Guede. Only Guede.

Thank you to John Douglas for his extensive time for this interview.

*From Nick Pisa's article of September 24th 2011 for the MAIL ONLINE Pisa wrote: "The DNA is crucial in the case, where no clear motive for the brutal killing has emerged".

http://www.maxim.com/amg/STUFF/Articles/%22I+Have+Only+One+Objective--+to+Catch+a+Killer%22




73 comments:

  1. Fantastic interview! Too bad Italy "can't handle the truth," but I am linking to this article. It needs to be read by as many people as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you. Please - do link frequently!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. John Douglas is the author who first sparked an interest in me for this type of investigation. It was the techniques I learned from his books and those of Robert Ressler, Anne Burgess, Russell Vorpagel, Roy Hazelwood of the FBI and also the great work of police detective, Robert Keppel, that made me question the assumed guilt of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. It's great to read Mr. Douglas' own opinion on this crime.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I only wish I'd posted it earlier. But that's another blog! Out of everyone, any expert that has been interviewed on this case, John Douglas is, as far as I'm concerned - the definitive expert. ANYONE who can continue to believe their own theories, even if it's not publicly proclaimed, is simply mad. But then again, they have to peddle their pieces of trash they call a book, or their movie deals, when it's all over.

    Then again, only a journalist with integrity would have the courage to do so. It's one of the first sins of our profession. To continue to lie, even though privately, you know the truth.

    Talk about having theory rule over evidence...

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am glad to see this posted. I have long since been an admirer of John Douglas and his work. I have also been convinced from the beginning of the innocence of Knox and Sollecito in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

    I believe that Guede is the sole perpetrator, and that it is a travesty of justice that he received a light sentence while the other two were wrongly imprisoned.

    I have been continually shocked at the media and press portrayal of the young couple as killers. I am thankful that there are people out there like you and John douglas who can see the truth and are not afraid to stand up and proclaim it. I realize that neither of you have won popularity contests for this. It takes courage to keep telling the truth in the face of the adversity you have faced. Never stop doing what you are doing!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks for this courageous and powerful interview. It seems clear from following this case that a certain segment of the population thrives on the juicy condemnation of others, and frankly it might be the most sickening thing about the human race. Authoritative opinions and honest straight forward discussion stand out in such an environment. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. One more note: the most chilling moment of this interview, for me, is when Mr. Douglas speculates on Guede's past potenial for violence and potentially undiscovered violent crimes. Given Mr. Douglas specialty in serial criminals and profiling - this is no small afterthought.

    And then the logical fear from there (to build on @seesthru rightly being appalled by Guede's eventual 16 year sentence) is that the one clearly dangerous irrational and potentially serial criminal in the case will be out in a relatively short time. This is especially absurd when we cosider that his sentence was reduced from 30 years to 16 years on appeal, and according to Wikipedia and other sources the primary reason the court saw clear to almost reduce his sentence in half was because he was the only defendant to apologize to the Kerchers! ... When his apology was actually saying he apologized for not doing more to protect her from the murderers! What? I would speculate a plea bargain here to implicate Raffaele and Amanda . . . Maybe? If that's true then Magnini and friends are really biting off their own heads to save the tail . . .

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks for your astute observations, and your comment.

    ReplyDelete
  10. God Bless you, Krista for having the courage and tenacity to do this interview and reveal the Truth. And now, Amanda Knox has her life back. Justice at last! No more needs to be said.

    ReplyDelete
  11. With all due respect to John Douglas behavioural analysis is not an exact science; it is at best, informed opinion. The value of that opinion tends to be diminished when it appears not to be based on objective reasoning.

    I first heard about him when he was hired as a consultant by the Ramseys and decided, sure enough, that they were not involved in the death of their daughter Jon Benet. Yet he disregarded his own principles by ignoring all evidence of a staged break in, Patsy Ramsey's handwriting on the "ransom" note, her clothing fibers on the cord used to strangle Jon Benet, and forensic evidence that her daughter had been sexually abused for some time prior, evidence that his own FBI unit used to conclude the break in had been staged and the parents were involved.

    Now that he’s given his opinion on the Amanda Knox case in which he ignores, once again, all other evidence of guilt, it is interesting to note the opinion of two of his colleagues, FBI profilers McCrary and Ressler, that “Douglas has gone Hollywood”

    And Hollywood is indeed, knocking on Amanda Knox’s door.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What other evidence of guilt are you referring to? The knife was incompetently processed and probably never at the crime scene. Knox' own footprints in bleach around the apartment are exculpatory as is her own DNA in her own bathroom. There was no evidence of guilt. That's why Knox and Sollecito were released.

      Delete
  12. Apologies, I see my comment now :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's not Amanda's fault Hollywood is after her. It's because dirty laundry sells In her injust conviction she racked up a million or more in legal bills. So guess whatr? She will probably go public with her story to make money to pay off her legal fees so her family doens't have to. I'd do the same thing. There was no evidence of guilt in her case. She has the right to tell her story.



    Nor was there evidence of guilt in the Ramsey case. The note handwriting was inconclusive when compared to Patsy Ramsey. The allegation that Jonbenet was sexually abused prior to the murder is unfounded. She took baths and little girls who take hot baths get irritated " down there" when they do it too often or don't rinse off well. Bubble baths, as we all know are the worst. There were no allegations of child abuse or molestation from her doctors or anyone else. Sopmeone took a doctors report about some irritation she received treatment for and ran with it and blew it up into something it was not.

    There was a comvicted pedophile who killed himself not long after Jonbenet was killed. He was considered a suspect but when he committed suicide, they turned to the Ramseys. I say dig him up and compare DNA. He fits the profile more than anyone else most likely.

    The detractors are full of sour grapes IMHO. John Douglas is good at what he does, the best. He will be the first to say a profile of an unsub is not Hard evidence. It helps lead the investigators in the direction of what the killer would be like or was thinking or what type killer he is.. It's not Hard evidence. It is a psychological profile of the unsub based on factors like murder weapon, victimology, crime scene, and many other factors. John doesn't look at whether or not this person or that person did it when he profiles. He gives a profile of the unsub. In both cases, the profile did not fit the suspects. That pisses off people who follow hollywood dirty laundry stories to no end. Too bad! end of story.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Seesthruya, you might want to read Boulder CO police detective Linda Arndt's deposition http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5650 before you dispute any claims about the Ramsey's strange behaviour and obstruction of the crime investigation.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Been there read that long ago. You have to look at them as parents of a murdered child and understand that they were understandably outraged and after a time became frustrated and yes, stopped jumping through the hoops. Fact is, they didn't do it, neither of them. The police were too gung ho. Any frustration, and opposition from the parents at the tratment they received as rime suspects would be labeled as obstruction and strange behavor. The boulder police refused to even consider any other suspect. Much like Mignini with Knox and Sollecito. If Douglas says they didn't do it, and the police is still at square one after hounding the family for so many years, then the polce nee to rethink things. Dig up the dead guy and get a DNA sample.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "all other evidence of guilt" - Interesting what other evidence there is. In fact, the court found nothing. Read the Hellmann Report If your assessment of evidence for Knox is the same as for Ramsey's (in fact there should be Ramsey family fibers on a rope found in their house, just like there should be Knox DNA found in the bathroom and hallway), I am even more assured that Knox is innocent just like the Italian court found (and completely destroyed the initial hearing's conclusions as being nothing more than a media circus put on by the Perugian officisls).

    ReplyDelete
  17. Bill W WilliamsMay 3, 2012 at 6:42 PM

    ManFromAtlan, A.K.A. Ergon A.K.A. Naasar Ahmad, who works with Michael Harris on the PMF.NET website. Ahmad is also a frequent contributor to Peter Quennell's Trues Justice for Meredith Kercher webiste, by using "astrology buttressed by observational psychology" to come to his opinions. If I have to choose between Dr, Ahmad and John Douglas.... it is clear that I choose John Douglas.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi! Have you ever been in such a situation when someone has stolen any of your articles? Can't wait to hear from you.

    ReplyDelete
  19. NIce article, I just saw you reposted this at ground report.
    It's still as valid as ever. The principles of understanding patterns of crime, motive, leakage are highly reliable.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Non sense. The SC is a Perugian official?
    The Hellman Report has been completly destroy by the SC.
    Hellman even broke some laws,who force the SC to order a new trial.

    ReplyDelete
  21. And they will belive in fiction

    ReplyDelete
  22. Steve Moore doesn't know the case.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Just re read this article. It's good. Krista is a sharp gal and she knows a lot about this case. I hope she has continued to write on the case. Not everyone's eyes are foggy from the smears.:)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Yep, he does and you are the one who truly does not know this case. :/ I feel for you dude.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Oh my goodness, this guy is one of the biggest troll/haters/evil dudes out there. Mr. Douglas should profile HIM. He thinks that he truly is God---literally. He has a website and tries to scam people out of 1000's of $$ proclaiming to be the Messiah. Yet, he's a moderator on one of these hate cites who's purpose is to completely misinform the public. Anyone listening to anything this guy says is in danger.

    ReplyDelete
  26. ha ha ha... I can't confirm this
    Unfortunately I saw this only because it went to my email. This setting will now be changed. Stop stalking me already, dude. You do realize the blog you're trying to communicate has like "the" best profiler in the world as one of it's hosts? Not smart...
    You need to be profiled because you've sent me over 100 msg.'s that I've not opened.
    You are a scary girl, too cowardly (like all of the other trolls) to put a real name and face to what you say. You hide behind a screen. Ew.

    ReplyDelete
  27. you didn't deny anything babe!

    ReplyDelete
  28. hi crazy michelle you been lunging and harassing prosecutors lately?
    thanks

    ReplyDelete
  29. How do you know I have sent 100 messages if you don't open or look at them??
    Hmmmm I am profiling you as a psycho and liar - just like Mandy Knox ooh what a coincidence!

    ReplyDelete
  30. why do so many people dislike you and your chubby hubby?

    ReplyDelete
  31. The Ramsey's were taken to court in Atlanta Georgia and the police department in Boulder Colorado was beat down by a federal judge . Ramsey's win .

    ReplyDelete
  32. SC violated law their criminals.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Switched sites and still spewing hate I see.

    ReplyDelete
  34. doesn't mean he's always right hun!

    ReplyDelete
  35. because there is a red # that shows the # and who they're by without you having to open them to read them. What's wrong with you that you don't even know this? Stop harassing me. Stop talking to me and stop being a complete ass. This is not acceptable behavior by any human being. You are sick and you need serious mental help. Get it immediately.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I'm pretty sure we'll take HIS expert thoughts on this investigation that he heavily investigated over yours. I'm sorry, who are you again. And you're so bold behind your fake avatar. Afraid?

    ReplyDelete
  37. I just laugh because you have it so wrong and yet you aren't worthy of an answer. You are 100% clueless and can't stand not knowing things so that you think you have some significance or importance I am guessing. Your life is so miserable that you try to push your hate onto others to make you somehow feel better? I feel REALLY sorry for you. How many posts do you write??? Oy...get me away from stalker lady someone. please!

    ReplyDelete
  38. I'm sorry, I just HAVE to laugh at the not expert telling the expert how it goes. However, for those who don't know, this guy is a scam artist. He tells people is literally God (has a website and everything) and yet for someone who is supposedly God, he is anything BUT godly. He is a scam artist nutter who hates Amanda Knox for who knows what reason. He was supposed to debate Jim Clemente. I'd love to put $ on that. He wouldn't do it if he were offered money because behind all his talk is nothing. A scared wimp who hides behind the internet. A cybertroll/bully stalker dude. Yes, a nutter. I could go on about him but it's late..

    ReplyDelete
  39. oh, yes, I forgot about THAT part of his weirdness. Thanks for reminder....

    ReplyDelete
  40. another loon no one has any respect for because he is completely clueless about anything he says and worships Mignini. It's true.

    ReplyDelete
  41. You are so crazy that I will never give you the satisfaction of what you're dying to know. Btw, if you keep saying these things I will take it to Court if you like. Btw, I bet I can afford a much better attorney than you. Oh and another btw, I know who you are. Remember, I'm a former FBI Agent's wife. Have a good day.

    ReplyDelete
  42. no, really, I think this is great for Mark and John to see and experience first hand. Hey guys, this is just a mere one of the nutters out there. Krista, you might be interested in this as well. Oh, the weirdos interested in the witch hunt. Oh...if only you guys knew the extent. Please lady, keep speaking... yes.

    ReplyDelete
  43. OK, I have finally fixed the settings on this site to where notifications from the cyber stalkers aren't showing up in my email on this site. I'm not going to be having to see them anymore. So, I'm really sorry guys, but things will be going back to how it is on other sites, where it'll be me seeing a red # on the top of comments sections informing me of the amount of hate messages coming in from you and Luigi. I'm sorry you won't be getting attention from me (once again). I am glad you were able to enjoy the attention for the responses I've given you on this site. Glad to have made you day, which sadly, I know that I have done.

    ReplyDelete
  44. SPEECHFREEDOM1976March 12, 2014 at 5:20 AM

    I'm not the one who lunges at prosecutors or is detained at police stations. I would rather take advice from a cain person but thanks hun!

    ReplyDelete
  45. SPEECHFREEDOM1976March 12, 2014 at 5:21 AM

    If you don't read my messages it doesn't matter does it hun?

    ReplyDelete
  46. SPEECHFREEDOM1976March 12, 2014 at 5:23 AM

    Of course it's a fake avatar it's Mark Wahlberg. By the way Pinocchio have you considered a nose job - just asking?

    ReplyDelete
  47. SPEECHFREEDOM1976March 12, 2014 at 5:24 AM

    Thanks hun - btw "MISS FORMER UNIVERSITY SECURITY WIFE" have a good day!

    ReplyDelete
  48. SPEECHFREEDOM1976March 12, 2014 at 5:26 AM

    take me to court good luck - I will have better legal representation than you!

    ReplyDelete
  49. SPEECHFREEDOM1976March 12, 2014 at 5:27 AM

    awesome day hun!

    ReplyDelete
  50. SPEECHFREEDOM1976March 12, 2014 at 5:28 AM

    someones crying!

    ReplyDelete
  51. SPEECHFREEDOM1976March 12, 2014 at 6:34 AM

    i do feel so much better thanks hun!
    checkmate!

    ReplyDelete
  52. SPEECHFREEDOM1976March 13, 2014 at 6:23 AM

    who am i hun - maybe your husband with his embellished resume with the fbi can help u out hun?

    ReplyDelete
  53. crying much pinocchio?

    ReplyDelete
  54. SPEECHFREEDOM1976March 17, 2014 at 2:21 AM

    how you going loony?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Not bad bitch . Still looking up laws and losing your posts . Oh by the way to the laws I'm talking about is the U.S. Supreme Court rulings on treaties . Nice to know that under Reid v. Colvert Amanda can't be sent anywhere without her permission and I don't think she's dumb enough to give that .

    ReplyDelete
  56. SPEECHFREEDOM1976March 17, 2014 at 8:03 AM

    thanks - funny that no government official has actually confirmed what you are saying.
    Thanks once again loony!

    ReplyDelete
  57. I've researched it and discovered there are only two types of people who openly dislike Steve and Michelle Moore: the ignorant, that is those who have not been informed about how a criminal investigation is processed. These people MAY be helped. And the stupid. These people make decisions about crimes and the accused based on instinct, intuition and unreliable sources. There's no help for stupid people at all.


    Unfortunately between the ignorant and the stupid, they do amount to a lot of people, so you're right as far as that goes.

    ReplyDelete
  58. SPEECHFREEDOM1976July 28, 2014 at 5:23 PM

    cheers hun!
    by the way take your mask off it's hideous!

    ReplyDelete
  59. Thanks for making it clear which type of hater you are. When I say there's no hope for you, that just means you can never get better. I'm sure someone can find something for you to do. If that's really your photo you should do pretty well with a shovel.

    ReplyDelete
  60. SPEECHFREEDOM1976August 2, 2014 at 2:28 PM

    cheers hun!

    by the way Darlie Routier is guilty!

    you are a sick old man with sexual desires for guilty murderers!
    seek help!

    ReplyDelete
  61. I've heard proof of that coming out of his own mouth. He says Mignini is well-liked in Florence. If that's true, it would explain why Amanda & Raffaele were reconvicted. Politics took precedence over true justice.

    ReplyDelete
  62. They dislike Steve because he contradicts their confirmation bias against a woman they've always regarded (and always will regard) as "Evil Incarnate". The mere suggestion that Amanda is innocent makes them feel bad (as they have every right to) about how horribly they treated someone they know nothing about. Unable to deal with their overwhelming guilt, they hide behind a screen of rage. Instead of listening to the message, they attack the messenger. Plain and simple.

    ReplyDelete
  63. He does. You just don't like his point of view.

    ReplyDelete
  64. not really but good try!

    ReplyDelete
  65. No,he doesn t.
    There are clear evidences that he has a very confuse idea of the case.
    Like you.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Listen, buddy, I am not a homosexual but if I were a homosexual you are not the type of man I'd have sex with. It is not just that your stomach is all deformed and your grin shit eating. It is mostly that you don't know what you're talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  67. You know, Bubie, instead of making these broad general remarks why don't you delineate all this "clear evidence" that John Douglas is "confused" about. I'm sure we'd all like to know what they hell you refer to as "evidence".

    ReplyDelete
  68. what a loser!

    it's not even me hover over the avatar and it explains that!

    but thanks hun!

    btw, when is Darlie Routier going to hell i can't wait?

    ReplyDelete

Trolls..please stay under the bridge. Name calling will be removed will cause you to be banned. So will re-posting the same content purposefully.