Bill Williams said:
IIRC John Douglas did that principally on the aborted mobile call data, sort of like Judge Hellmann did.
Unlike Hellmann, though, John Douglas had no "judicial truth" reason to doubt the digestion evidence; meaning that Douglas had no particular reason to protect fawlty forensics, just because they were generated by the police. So, we'll all just have to go back and read Douglas on this.
The thing about his analysis of this case, is that he writes so straightforward about it. One actually understands the logic of his timeline, and how the evidence fits in - and more importantly to what is coming in March, how the bogus evidence fails to convict AK and/or RS.
Did he think she made these aborted calls? That seems extraordinarily unlikely to me. The theory that they were made by Guede while trying to turn the phone off is far more likely. Wasn't one of them to Abbey? Who phones their bank at that time of night? But it would have been first in the phonebook listing. That's probably why they called it that in the first place. Abbey National.
Holey Moley, I'm going to have to go off to a bookstore and reread John Douglas!
IIRC he was talking about the latest the poor victim could have been attacked. I'm also assuming that because so much of his expertise is on
behaviour analysis, he'd default to that rather than speculate on what he's not particularly top-notch-expert in.
Speaking of which: behaviour. He's a direct competitor to the keystone cops who solved the case in Perugia on behavioural cues alone, then bragged that they'd done it even before the (fawlty) forensics came in!
John Douglas re-invented profiling by taking much of the guessing or hunching out of it. He actually conducted interviews in prison of people who had actually committed the various ranges of crimes and noted a remarkable similarity of the type of person vs. who does what.
Does this mean that someone who doesn't fit the profile
can't do the deed? Of course not. Where Douglas came in handy, and he made a top-notch career out of it, was helping out an investigation stumped and stalled - by narrowing the list of potential suspects based on what he'd learned.
Was this 100% reliable? Of course not. Only the pro-guilt lobby insists on 100%, and even a single deviation from it brings the label "malicious liar" from them
IIRC it's because it was Meredith's behaviour that she normally & frequently contacted her ailing mom, that guided Douglas. That there were aborted calls just after 10 pm, and then no attempt after pretty much sealed the deal for him - if I am at all summarizing things fairly.
Add in the stomach contents forensics...... and he'd probably be happy with 9:30 pm as well, and it was Rudy who pressed the wrong buttons at 10 pm - who really knows?
The thing about reading the fake-Wiki or trying to follow the guilters on those rare occasions when they attempt a timeline or a narrative, is that one ends up understanding things less; except for they really do hate Amanda Knox. Reading John Douglas is the exact opposite. No wonder they attack him and any other independent who comes to the same conclusion.
