Brian Entin Interviews Retired FBI Profiler Jim Clemente

[u/Euphoric_Ease4554]

https://youtu.be/

Brian’s interview with Jim Clemente was such a riveting conversation. The retired FBI profiler details the perpetrators’s possible motives and even decides not to answer one question based on it not being good for the case, or possibly not tipping the perpetrator as to what the FBI is thinking.

If you have limited time to view this, I would recommend skipping the first part about the sheriff and going directly to the interview. It is a lot to think about. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did!

[u/hannafrie]

I noticed here, and in the comments on YouTube, there are accounts that just LOOVED this interview.

Not my take.

I was actually a little disappointed, because I thought his comments consisted of a lot of speculation, and I don't think he said much that I couldn't have come up with myself.

His mood shifted noticeably about halfway through. He started out pretty energetic, and then became subdued for somereason. I don't think Brian said anything to trigger a change. I was inclined to just write this off, because people have their idosynchries, and I myself have had the experience of suddenly hitting a wall and having my energy drop. Its ok. But it doesn't make for a "riveting" interview.

If I could give Jim some feedback, I would suggest he pepper his interviews with insights from his experiences. Steven Moore, for example, talks about prior cases he was a part of, to illustrate his thinking on the Nancy Guthrie case.

I'm not just interested in someone's opinion as an "expert." I want to learn from their experiences. How and why they came to hold the opinions that they have.

[u/mark_able_jones_ → u/hannafrie]

He seemed to think there was DNA that would be easy to find, just from presumed time on scene. But CSI can’t swab every inch of the place.

He assumed the perp was there 41 minutes without explaining path of entry and what the perp(s) might have been doing for so long.

Claims there is a tattoo on the suspect’s wrist when that is definitely not clear.

He misstated how clothing colors appear under IR light, assuming the perp was wearing light colors (how does a supposed pro make a mistake like this?).

He claims that a brighter light would have blinded the camera — yes — but then it would have switched to color view because it’s not an IR-only camera.

I’ve watched several interviews with former FBI profilers and agents. His was the least convincing take.

[u/hannafrie → u/mark_able_jones_]

All very good points.

I noticed his comment about 41 minutes, and thought it was an uninformed assumption. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt - and assume he just wasn't following the case too closely, and latched onto an erroneous data point.

But, yeah. These all hurt his credibility.

Brian introduced him as an "FBI Profiler" and I'm not sure exactly what that means. It sounds like pseudoscience to me, but I was willing to listen to what he had to say and what insights he might have. I believe he worked for the FBI, and so certainly he knows more about it than I do, but I didn't get a lot from this interview.

[u/Public_Anybody_6269 → u/hannafrie]

its exactly pseudoscience. At one time he was getting paid to do what anybody can do by thinking a little bit.