Ramsey JonBenet Books

A true crime buff, I enjoyed this cross-section of cases, as presented by a longtime detective. The cases, which include Jack the Ripper, the Zodiac Killer, Lizzie Borden, and JonBenet Ramsey, are presented in a straightforward, factual manner, which nonetheless manages to give readers a sense of understanding about the victims -- and the killers, too.

Even if you aren't really into true crime, I'd recommend picking up this book -- it's important to know about some of the most well-known crimes in history, which in turn shaped popular culture and society.

This book is THE must read in regards to cutting beyond (and behind) the politics of the Denver DA's department and into what the investigative team found, concluded, and trusts as the real story here. While JonBenet most likely will never get justice in this world, this book stands as testimony to truth, written by a man consumed by nothing more than truth and justice. Suspend the notion that an attractive, wealthy American family could do something so evil-murder happens. The crime in this story was the cover-up known only to those in that house on that night in the deepest, darkest corners of a celler. Steve-thanks for your passion and dedication in searching for the truth and putting the real investigation down in words. Read this book to understand this tragedy.

In regards to the absurd news via Mary Lacy that new DNA testing totally exonerates the Ramsey family; total bias and far over-reaching by a public official. Simply astounding after the fiasco that Lacy put the nation through just a few years ago with the phony kooky supposed Jon-Benet killer extradited to Colorado. She was totally and thouroughly embarrassed, and this is yet another instance of her trying to prove she's right. I smell a personal agenda here. This serves to further substantiate Steve Thomas's point about how corrupt the Denver DA department is in terms of the politics of this case and protecting their own legacy.

Lacy wrote a personal note to John Ramsey with personal gusto born of bias. The DNA they feel excludes the Ramsey's is probably contamination; what it doesn't do is answer any of the questions already on the table. What does she say about that ransom note written with insider knowledge and in Patty's Ramsey's handwriting? (albeit lefthanded to throw-off analysis-definitely a females writing).
I could go on.........nothing new here and certainly nothing to mitigate all of the circumstantial evidence that this crime and scene was staged. Stupendous.

Read this book, study the ransom note, understand what circumstantial evidence is, set emotion aside.

CNN) -- Recently developed "touch DNA" technology has cleared all members of JonBenet Ramsey's family of her slaying, authorities said Wednesday.

Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy said no one in the Ramsey family is considered a suspect and formally apologized in a letter to John Ramsey for the cloud of suspicion his family has lived under for nearly 12 years.

"To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am deeply sorry," Lacy wrote. Read the letter from the District Attorney »

Instead, DNA tests conducted earlier this year point to an "unknown male," in the 6-year-old child beauty pageant contestant's December 1996 slaying.

Wonder if ole super sleuth Steve will write another book about where he went so wrong? Will he apologize publicly to the Ramsey's? Will he say the DNA is wrong (LOL) or another conspiracy/cover up by the DA's office, will he simply admit he was wrong?

Talk about a big ole plate of crow to eat...............

I believe Steve Thomas had JonBenet's interests at heart but he was quick to judge and his hypothetical theory has been proven incorrect. She was not pushed into an object with rage over a bedwetting incident. The handwriting expert he based his opinion on regarding the ransom note was discredited and this was before this book was published. Every forensic expert agrees that she was hit in the head by a direct blow to the skull with either a flashlight or a bat with enough force to kill a 3001b man yet he will not admit his mistakes. None of the experts agree as to which came first, the head blow or strangulation but whichever it was they were done within seconds of each other. Although parents can and do kill their children, this child was tortured before she was killed. In addition to that Steve Thomas' deposition was released to the public after a lawsuit brought by the Ramseys in which him and his publisher had to settle and pay the Ramseys. The deposition clearly shows that he embellished the facts to fit his twisted theory. His ego just got the better of him.

Steve Thomas is one of the few players in the Ramsey case who can hold up his head and say that he did his best for JonBenet. There are certain parts of the book where I don't particularly like him or agree that he is totally unbiased (For example, he doesn't admit to many of the errors made by Eller, his boss, while he lays out in glorious technicolor the many errors of the District Attorney, Alex Hunter. Having read just about everything there is to read about this case, I have concluded that they were equally culpable for the wrong turns in getting justice for JonBenet). However, the case he sets out has largely been comfirmed by the evidence that has been released such as the transcripts of the various Ramsey interviews and the text of the 911 call (etc etc). As a primer in why so many people remain convinced that the Ramseys have guilty knowledge of their daughter's death, this is first rate. To my mind, it should be read along with various other books - 'Perfect Murder, Perfect Town' (Schiller) and the Ramsey book, 'Death of Innocence' and in reading all three, people should refer to the autopsy report, crime scene photographs, depositions, interviews etc in order to distinguish fact from fiction. I think most people will come to a conclusion - one way or the other - by reading all these sources.

I just reread my copy of this book which I purchased when it first came out. It was just as good, if not, better.
Even though there have been further developments,(but no faux intruder has been found except the guy who falsely confessed in Thailand) this book is a cronicle of what happpened the first years. I have no doubt that everything in this book is true. If the Ramseys were less than wealthy and had no connections or this crime occured elsewhere they would have been behind bars within days. I've also read the Ramseys book (don't waste your time or $) which is a fictionized account of how wonderful they are and how they were unfairly (in their opinon) treated by the media. It's sickening how the police cow towed to them in the early days and then they misrepresent this in their own book and claim they were "interviewed" by police when in fact, they were not-- not for months later and on their terms. Steve Thomas' account is the one to believe, not the Ramseys.

The Ramseys' lawyer threatens to sue everyone who speaks up and they did sue Steve Thomas. No retraction was made and the book continues to be sold as it was....it is the BEST book out there on the case.

An excellent book. There is nobody writing today who is more insightful on the subject of profiling and catching murderers.

I notice most people who gave him one-star reviews were those who didn't believe his opinion that the Ramseys were innocent. I used to think they were guilty, but the news was just released that DNA from an intruder was found inside and outside JonBenet's underwear and they are working on a genetic profile of the real killer. Vindication for the author's unpopular opinion on this topic.

Most of the cases detailed in this book are old cases that are either unsolved or with convictions that have some degree of doubt attached to them.
The insights from John Douglas as a profiler are very interesting.

The "Jack the Ripper" case is one of the most notorious of all time.
Mr.Douglas explains why he would eliminate some the known,hypothetical suspects and settles on a probable suspect.

He argues for the guilt of Lizzie Borden and I think that he's correct on that case.

His assessment of the Lindbergh kidnapping is intriguing. "More than one individual took part in the crime that night"-page 180. Hauptmann was no doubt heavily involved but the case for the "dual intruder theory" makes sense.

The "Black Dahlia" case was another savage murder and he lists two very strong possible suspects.

I can understand how he arrived at his conclusion in the JonBenet Ramsey case. That case was hamstrung from the start with crime scene contamination and the well-known animosity between the police and DA's office. The presence of foreign DNA enforces the theory of an intruder.
John Douglas will get slammed for his supporting of the Ramseys. Considering the victim and the unsolved status of that case,it's going to be an infamous topic for years to come.

As a fan of true crime genre books I liked this book.

Detailed book, lots of speculation, pretty interesting, but has many old cases, such as the Lizzie Borden murder, the Lindberg kidnapping, etc.
Not as insightful as his other books, nor as interesting.

John Douglas is a great investigator and actually does most of the writing in this book. His writing style is surprisingly well polished and entertaining. If you studied Psychology (as I did) this book is a must read if you have any interest in the criminal or forensic side. His analysis of the Jon Benet Ramsey case is very controversial but it is the high light of this book. It forced me to do a complete 180 and I believe that his conclusions are right on the mark. I know someone that worked at the FBI while he was there and his reputation is genuine though not superhuman. In real life, the Behavioral Sciences Unit can't contribute on many occassions because there isn't enough initial data. If there isn't much to go on from the beginning or if its a random act they aren't able to construct a viable profile. That said, Douglas has almost single handedly created a new field that has provided immense value and his is a brilliant person. This is a book for people that don't mind immersing themselves in something for several days until its done.

This book is interesting, worth buying, and informative. I liked the varied accounts of interesting well known cases. It provided insight into the Jon Benet Ramsey case, among others. I would recommend this book to anyone. John Douglas is a good author.

I just finished teaching this play to a group of college sophomores in a unit dealing with beauty and the body, and almost to a person, they found Davis' play (and collateral essays) to raise some decisive and thought-provoking questions.

The play gets us to consider the possible consequences of having four and five year girls participate in beauty pageants that clearly sexualize them. What do these pageants do to the way such girls perceive their bodies? What might be the long term effects of having children perform in this way at such a young age? For whom are they really performing? How will they conceive or approach romantic intimacy?

Davis' play examines these issues by way of the famous, unsolved murder of JonBenet Ramsey, but the fish he is out to hook is actually much bigger. The play and essays go right to the heart of the way parents foist their own desires violently onto their children, the way our society stresses beauty, sexual allure and competition from the earliest of ages, and the way we have not yet really begun to contemplate or grieve over this phenomenon. Read this book next to Toni Morrison's _The Bluest Eye_ or Lucy Grealy's _Autobiography of a Face_ and you'll begin to see how corrosive our ideas about beauty really are--and how literature can give us the means to examine critically some truly disturbing trends.

while this book isnt exactly based on jonbenets murder it does examine the "why did it happen" issue.while every other reviewer (so far)thinks this is fantastic book,i dont understand why a book about sexual abuse is named after an innocent 6 year old child who can no longer defend herself.the title "an evening with jonbenet ramsey"makes me sick,she was an innocent 6 year old child,this type of book shouldnt be named after an innocent 6 year old who couldnt defend herself.
respect jonbenet and her memory and dont buy this book
,isnt it about time little jonbenet was left to rest in peace??...........i think so

Compelling...don't want to read/believe...but must to see/hear the truth in regards to JonBenet...!!!EXCELLENT READ!!! A MUST!!!

Please ignore the hostile reviews for this book. They appear to have been written by Ramsey supporters, and are therefore hopelessly biased.

The book is excellent, and one of the most pertinent truths relates to the way the Ramseys dehumanized their 'lady mannequin', and in hypersexualizing their tiny six-year-old princess, they not only put her on show for every pedophile to lust over, they also gave her a distorted sense of body image - one of Davis's critical points.

With regard to the propaganda about 'the real killer', the reviewers appear to be talking about John Mark Karr, who was cleared of involvement in the JonBenet killing. The guy was a nut job.

The other gross inaccuracy is the claim that 'the evidence' supports the Intruder theory, thus clearing the Ramseys.

No, there has never ever been ANY clear evidence of an intruder. The only 'clues' that might have been factors were debunked years ago. It was effectively impossible for a killer who had such close and prolonged contact with the child, to not leave ANY certain DNA traces.

There was no intruder.

Walter Davis wrote a book about an abused woman and the aftermath of the crimes that overwhelmed her - - from the book it seems he befriended a victim who told him her story. Fine - - he has a right to write his book and if he has the heart to deal with his friend's harsh reality - - more power to him.

But this book is using the name of a real child - and it is totally WRONG in saying the crimes included were committed against that person - JonBenét Ramsey.

I know the Ramsey story - I know the evidence and the people - and I know Davis is simply wrong. A federal judge and the DA in charge of the case publicly state that the evidence supports the Intruder theory - but Davis lays the crime at the feet of the parents - not only the murder but other crimes - - horrible crimes against the child and her spirit.

Personally, I felt the book was porn - if written by the victim I might have forgiven it as some kind of therapy writing - but for Davis to write this and go on the Internet to RAMSEY sites pushing his book - - I think it was exploitive at best - - but actually worse than that, I thought it was misleading, nasty, dancing on the grave of an innocent child - all for a buck.

I would not recommend the book - it was not a good read, it was not entertaining or enlightening. It was misinforming and rude, crude, lewd and just ..... wrong.

A "criminal profiler" wrote this book on some famous crimes which were unsolved or had mysteries. Chapter 7 gives his "Perspectives" on solving murders. A national computer database can warn against serial killers (p.336), but only if it is used. Is there money in the budget? There is a need for an independent laboratory for processing evidence so its reports can be trusted (p.337). [Read "Tainting Evidence".] But this would create political problems when the authorities want a specific finding. The authors criticize "conventional wisdom" (p.339), but this is really just how the media plays the news. Can a federal agency control this flow of news? Does it do so now?

The 'Introduction' tells how "modern behavioral profiling and criminal investigative analysis" is used to determine the identity of unknown offenders. [Did this predict the shooter in the Virginia-Maryland area in October 2002 was a middle-aged white blue-collar worker?] These predictions require a faith in a technique that is new and may not stand the test of time. It uses subjective means rather than objective means that can be independently and objectively tested. Who can read the mind of a person? [Why didn't they catch the BTK killer of Kansas City earlier?]

Chapter One deals with "Jack the Ripper", one of the first and most infamous serial killers. Douglas tells of the methods he uses to analyze these crimes. He discusses the murders, and the suspects, then describes the likely murderer (pp.79-80). We'll never know. Chapter Two is about Lizzie Borden. Most people know very little of this case beyond the jingle. Lizzie was correctly found 'not guilty' of the murders, and the case was never solved. Pages 81-102 summarize the facts. Douglas' analysis on pages 103-109 touches all known suspects. His solution shows his assumptions, and suggests he hasn't done his homework in reading the available books on the Borden murders (p.112). His strategy on pages 115-6 is hilarious to anyone who has read the books on this case. Just because "no outside suspect had surfaced" (p.310) is no reason to blame Lizzie.

Chapter Three is "The Lindbergh Kidnapping". Unlike the previous chapters, it was solved in a court of law. The baby was tucked into bed before 8pm. Around 9pm Lindbergh heard a strange sound. When the nurse checked on Charlie at 10pm, he had been kidnapped. "The dog did nothing in the night." By 10:25 the Sheriff and State Police were notified. By 11pm statewide roadblocks were in place (p.125). The house and floor plans had been well publicized (p.127). Meetings were arranged between "Jafsie" and "John"; after the ransom money was paid they took plaster casts of "John's" footprints (p.151). On May 12 they found the body of a badly decomposed body (p.153); it was identified as Charlie. Who planted six of Brinkert's business cards in Violet Sharpe's room (p.157)? One of the ransom bills was traced to Richard Hauptmann. He was arrested, tried, and and convicted. Hauptmann claimed innocence until he was executed. Controversy over the verdict continues to this day. It seem impossible for a carpenter to go 2 years without replacing a chisel (p.174)! Douglas discusses Rail 16, but doesn't mention that this board was thicker than the other floorboards (p.177). Douglas believes the facts point to more than one person involved in this crime (pp.179-180). Hauptmann couldn't have done it alone (p.183). Douglas mentions that "John" said the servants were innocent, according to Condon. But could that have really occurred (p.185)?

In Chapter Five Douglas explains why Albert DeSalvo was not the Boston Strangle (pp.262-265). He describes many suspects, but doesn't try to solve this crime. Could one man have killed them all "from older women to younger ones" (p.265)? We'll never know.

How can we have a book about an unsolved murder? Easy since unsolved murders like JonBenet Ramsay have our country and even the world hooked on this tragic murder case of a young beauty queen. Sadly, the Schiller book doesn't go far enough but he does discuss the politics around the Boulder Police Department, the tabloids, friends, relatives, neighbors, acquaintances, of the Ramseys. Lou Smit, I believe, has the right idea that this was an outside job. I don't when police homicide detectives had the right to accuse the family immediately. It was clear from the parents' that they were distraught, frantic, and terrified. They weren't thinking clearly but clearly the blame should go on the police department for not taking immediate action in searching and preserving the area. The case lost clues such as fingerprints, DNA, etc. that might have helped solve the case. I don't know who did it neither does the author, the police department or even the Ramseys. The sad part is that it's still unsolved and Patsy Ramsey who was long suspected of having a part in her daughter's brutal murder has since died. John Ramsey has lost two daughters tragically. Maybe JonBenet had an unwelcome admirer who knew her too well and it gone too far. Maybe she resisted and he killed her. We'll never know why or who right now. There is enough of blame to go around for years to come. The sad part is that everybody wanted to do the right thing. It's easy when the crime happens and we know who did it. When it's an outsider or stranger, it's always the hardest to solve because there is no reasonable motive for this crime. I wish it was solved. I wish Boulder and the Ramseys can move on with their lives but until JonBenet's killer is brought to justice, it can't be.

What a pig's breakfast--not the book, but the investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey murder. This book is a well-researched, unbiased examination of the case from the murder itself to the grand jury's consideration of the evidence, but for some reason, the author stops short of telling the grand jury's decision--not enough evidence to indict anybody, I know, but one still might have said that, even if it took another few pages to do so. If possible, I'd rate this book 4.5 stars, docking it half a star for that final omission.

I thought this book was really interesting in that it presented a lot of facts that were never reported in the media and also pointed out just how badly this case was handled by everyone involved in the investigation. It was explicit on the evidence that was bungled by the police and how that led to no evidence to go on, which was essential to finding this poor child's killer. It was truly hard for me to believe how so many departments could mess up so many things in this investigation, but it did clearify many issues that the media kept going over and over; some of which made no sense to me at the time and now it does. Overall, this book is good reading for anyone interested in all aspects of this case.

Coming for England, the Jonbenet Ramsey murder was'nt as big as it is in America (I didnt even know there was a place called Boulder in America or that little children dress up and go parading themselves on stage!!), I read a small piece in an English paper and decided to see what the big hoopla was all about and I must say I was hooked, Jonbenet was a beautiful little girl and had a lot to live for. Lawrence Schiller writes a full indepth account of everything thats happened, he doesnt point the finger at anyone like all the other Jonbenet books I've read (what happened to that American saying "Innocent until proven Guilty).

You can tell he has really researched this tragic case and I think this is one of the best crime books I've ever read. What are these strange pageants all about? But like every other book it still leaves the question: WHO DID KILL THE LITTLE BEAUTY QUEEN?

I hope one day Jonbenet Ramsey gets the Justice she truly deserves.

The first book I had ever purchased about the JonBenet Ramsey murder was written by one of the detectives on the case, Steve Thomas. The book was simply titled, JonBenet. Thomas' book was, by far, one of the best true crime books I have ever read. It was extremely well written - one of those "can't put down" books. In his book, he implicated Patsy Ramsey as the probable, but accidental, killer of JB. And, as a 20-year veteran of the force, one would have to say that his police instincts were probably correct.

Then, I saw Lawrence Schiller's book at a garage sale and bought it. I was not sure if Schiller's book could top Thomas' book, but I like to read two books on the same subject to get different perspectives. However, it turned out I was not too impressed with Schiller's book.

Initially, the first chapter or two was quite fascinating regarding the death of JB, the contamination of the death scene, and the facts surrounding the case. I kept playing in my mind what I read in Thomas' book and what evidence Schiller was presenting.

Unfortunately, this book began to focus TOO much on the politics behind the scenes: the infighting between the Boulder police, the DA's office, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, the private investigators, the detectives, the FBI, the attorneys...all versus the Ramseys. It became a monumental bore. I was hoping to read how the author pieces together the evidence to find the killer.

No! Just a big cat fight between all the parties I just described and not enough focus on the evidence. However, Schiller would throw in just enought tidbits about the crime scene to keep me motivated, then would write several more chapters about the politics. It was simply too much focus on the political fighting.

I recommend reading Thomas' book and forget Schiller's book.

I tried to read this book becasue of a paper I was writing on JBR but I could barely get through it. This book was first really un organized, second completely inaccurate, and thirdly this book didn't pick any side at all. In the end, Eleanor Von Duyke blames the death of JonBenet Ramsey on her brother. It was a waste of time, unless you feel that Burke killed her too.

I forced myself to read this book. It is filled with gramatical errors and sentence fragments. Several of the facts are wrong. Doesn't the editor make corrections like this before he publishes the book? Like the police in Boulder, I do not agree that Burke was responsible for the death of JonBenet. She was made up, dressed up, and aged up. But in spite of all of the things that were done to her to make her "look" pretty, she was the prettiest child that I have ever seen in my life. Her beauty was given to her by God. I have read nearly every book about the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. This one is very poorly written, perhaps the poorest.

I would give this zero stars if I could.

The theory in the book leaves us with a wild imagination. Better written, it would have been one of the best books out there. At least it was a theory to think about, not one that everyone else has come up with. All the others have come up with the same thing...NOTHING! The same thing with all the TV interviews and tabloid articles..NOTHING! I would like to read more about the Children Beauty Pageants. I bought this book hoping to read about it.

This is, doubtlessly, one of the most poorly written books I've ever read. It is apparent to me that the author threw the book together as the funding started to dry up. The theory posed in the book was interesting, but precious little facts and evidence are given to support it. It is pure speculation at best, and poorly written speculation at that.

I certainly do hope to see another book on the child beauty industry. It seems to me like the author was on the right trail but had a poor writer. The book seemed very confusing to me at times. It went in circles. The story on the director was very intriguing and sad. I do hope that she will have the courage to try again...with the right person! WE WOULD ALL LOVE TO READ ON THE CHILD PAGEANT INDUSTRY! I'm sure she has alot to tell! One more thing...I must agree with the co-author...I think the parents are still covering up for the son...no matter what they portray!

I can't comment on how good this guy is at forensics, but if you trust his skills there, then the section on OJ is fascinating. He's not allowed to say who did it, since he testified for the defense, but if you read between the lines, he tells you. And it's not something I would have suspected, once you get beyond the obvious. And if he reads the forensics right, then his argument is pretty interesting. I read no other sections of the book, but this alone made the book valuable to me.

This book is a winner just as is Mr. Lee. I have met him and his courses are so well put that one wants to extend the learning periods.

"True Crime" is a genre that is clearly flourishing, and in "Cracking More Cases" famed forensic scientist Dr. Lee has again dug deep down to the smallest of fibers, atoms, and blood spatters as he presents his view of the Skakel/Moxley case, JonBenet Ramsey, and "many more." There is the first problem: to me, THREE other crimes does not qualify as "many," but perhaps I quibble. While the crimes and the evidentiary trails are fascinating, to be sure, it is hard to escape Dr. Lee's ego which towers like an Alp over this book. The peak is reached on Page 111: "During my testimony, I referred to 'indirect forensic evidence,' a term that Mickey Sherman pointedly decided not to challenge, somewhat sarcastically asking, in effect, 'Who would want to take on so well known a figure as Dr. Lee?'" Now there is a legend being created in someone else's mind! Actually, there is little new in the book, other than Dr. Lee's self love. A check of the notes will reveal just how much he draws upon the work of others.

Fantastic! On a personal note, this is the only book of its kind that I will ever need for my work as a novelist. I'm not qualified to pass judgment on Dr. Lee's abilities but it's clear that he is premier in his field and this work will stand the test of time and will surely be updated with new editions as necessary.

My review serves two purposes:

First; this is an essential addition for any writer's library. If one of your characters should commit a crime that might require forensic science, you had better know what you are writing about.

Second, some of these reviews are hilarious! Are the Hardy Boys for real? I guess we'll turn [..] into a courtroom for amateur sleuths. A couple of morons with magnifying glasses have challenged Henry Lee to a duel!

If you're a TOP 50 REVIEWER and you have decided you know more about a murder Case than Dr. Henry Lee, I suggest that you re-evaluate yourself and stop speed-reading so that you can absorb and understand what the author is trying to say.

Ditto to Dennis Littrell's eloquent and well-informed review, by the way. This is a solid and varied sequel indeed, and the Doc looks very cool on the cover, but I just want to focus on the Ramsey case above all.

While the excellent Dr. Lee does not flat out accuse the Ramseys of involuntary manslaughter and a pitiful cover-up, his use of probability terminology speaks for itself.

To clarify things, the critical points to grasp about the Ramsey case include the following...

There is no conclusive evidence - of any kind - that there was ever an intruder. All of the 'possible clues' touted by pro-Ramsey people have long ago been debunked.

The tainted, partial DNA sample that has been referred to repeatedly, could have come from any number of sources, including the clothing manufacturer/packer, and there is absolutely no evidence whatosever that it came from an intruder.

The sample is a limited 10-loci/marker sample and could never be enough to convict in isolation (you need 13 loci or sequencing markers), even if an idiot like John Mark Karr had been telling the truth. It is of some limited use in eliminating suspects, i.e. if any of their 10 corresponding markers don't align with the sample, they can be excluded.

The DNA is a red herring, anyway, especially as used by the Ramseys' belligerent lawyer Lin Wood. For him to drone on that the Ramseys were cleared by comparison to the case DNA is utterly meaningless on two counts. Firstly, because there is NO evidence that the DNA was that of a killer/intruder; secondly, because, as with any parent/child relationship, the Ramseys' DNA could have quite legitimately been all over JonBenet. Nothing short of finding John's semen in her mouth, vagina or anus could have been considered truly compromising.

As Dr. Lee suggests, given the total lack of evidence to support the intruder theory, the likelihood is that JonBenet was killed by accident and the parents panicked and created a woefully illogical and transparent cover-up.

No intruder could have had such prolonged and close physical contact with the child and not left siginicant DNA behind. To do that, he would have to have been wearing a space suit.

To me, the good doctor has put the final nail in the Ramsey's well-nailed coffin.

Books don't get much worst then this one. I read an interview that this author did with Ralph Bellamy and he was asked. "Why do you think that the public was so intent on believing the Ramseys were involved with the death of their daughter?"

Singular's response was "people need to hate and they need to focus their hatred on someone." Wow that is profound Stephen, you just crushed my world view. I thought that maybe alot of the public like myself maybe a little suspicious of the Ramseys because they were not cooperative with the police from the very beginning. The got lawyered up the first day of the murder and John Ramsey still planned on flying in a private plane with his wife and son to Michigan only about an hour after he discovered that his daughter was dead. Now none of this means that the Ramseys killed their daughter in and of itself but it is suspicous and would raise some eyebrows.

This author is not worth refuting anymore then I would attempt to refute someone who said that martians killed jonbenet. It's just a waste of time and so is this book. If you are into wild eyed conspiracies and think that the CIA, the Mafia, the government up to the president of the U.S.A. was involved in the assasination of JFK. If you believe that president Bush orchestrated 9-11 and you think that you have been abducted by aliens, that Elvis is alive and so is Bigfoot, then this is your book. If on the otherhand logic is in your vocabulary then pass on this piece of trash.

I was disappointed from the first few pages of the first chapter with Mr. Singular's references to Kenneth Starr and the investigation of Bill Clinton (re "presumed guilty" comparisons via the media) and referenced again in the final pages of the final chapter.
Unfortunately, in the chapters between the first and the final, there is little that hasn't been surmised or said before in this sad case. Had been anxious to read this book and hear the fine detail of its previewed ideas. However, after reading it the ideas seem more like interesting conjecture than plausible answers to the lingering questions of this unsolved murder.

Presumed Guilty, by Stephen Singular

Stephen Singular is a freelance journalist who did his own investigation into the murder of JonBenét Ramsey. This book lacks an index, a table of contents, photographs, or diagrams. It is an account of his experiences while reporting on this crime. Its main value is the reports on the practice of journalism (Chapter 28). Crime news has been highlighted in the 1990s. Talk show hosts knew who was guilty, they didn't need any evidence to jump to their conclusions (p.3). Well educated journalists were acting like a mob who wanted a verdict first and a trial later (pp.6-7). [Corporate concentrated ownership? The attacks on President Bill Clinton suggest this.] Real news was buried (pp.11-12). Did the power elite run Boulder like a private club (p.20)? [Is it different in other towns?]

Singular investigated the child pornography racket on the Internet and told Boulder D.A. Alex Hunter about it (p.25). The Ramseys cooperated with the police by giving samples but no formal interview (p.35). When they appeared in public they were harassed by the press (p.36). The Boulder power elite shunned the Ramseys. People assumed a resident of their house killed JonBenét(p.37). The Boulder police rejected help from the more experienced Denver police or the Colorado Bureau of Investigations (p.41). The Ramseys needed a lawyer to bury their daughter (p.65)! Were pageants for children a sort of pyramid scheme (pp.70-71)? Chapter 9 tells of the extensive interviews of the Ramseys by the Boulder police on 12-26-1996. After a police interview the Ramseys held a press conference (pp.83-85). D.A. Hunter had been warned to "be careful". Numerous powerful people had been in the Ramseys' house before the crime (p.138).

'Part Three' continues his reporting. Singular tells about Boulder and its ruling elite (Chapter 19). D.A. Hunter would not prosecute the Ramseys unless he had the evidence to convict (Chapter 21). Chapter 23 discusses child pageants and their implications. [Were they related to the eugenics movement in the early 20th century? Does the interest in the death of someone rich and beautiful result from jealousy?] Chapter 24 tells of the personal intrigues between the D.A. and the police. Could an astrologer solve this crime (Chapter 25)? The ransom note is in Chapter 27. To learn about contemporary culture and tabloid journalism read Chapter 28! Singular's theory is in Chapter 30; can you believe it?

'Part Four' says several Boulder police went to the FBI headquarters to speak with experts. When they returned they questioned hundreds of possible suspects in the Boulder and Denver areas (p.225). The grief after Princess Diana's death affected millions who only saw her in pictures in the press (p.226). The comment of Police Chief Tom Koby bears repeating: the less you know about an event the easier it is to give advice. [Or is it?] Chapter 33 tells about the arrest of a huge international child porn ring, one of them living close to Boulder. The 'Epilogue' ends in February 1999. The Grand Jury did not indict either John or Patsy or anyone else. It remains an unsolved case to this day. There is a palm print and DNA to identify someone.

Any reading into the JonBenet murder investigation must include this book. Singular includes much information and speculation that doesn't make it into the mainstream press, but is, quite frankly, common knowledge regarding possible child-pornography connections to this gruesome and tragic event. While it is true that Singular raises more questions than he answers, the timing of the book (published in 1999) made that necessary. He had no answers, and the questions, at that time, were not being raised.

Now, as more and more children are disappearing off the streets, from in front of their homes and even from their own bedrooms, this book requires a second and third glance. There is far more going on here than meets the eye, and it has been going on for far too long.

JonBenet is a symbol for what is happening across America today, and she will not rest in peace until we know what happened and why, and until we know enough to put an end to it, once and for all.

Mr. Singular poses the question, "What if Jon Benet's death was connected to the dark world of child pornography?" He poses this question to the police, district attorneys, friends of the ramseys -- and he believes it is enormously significant that his question is universally met with a long silence, followed by the comment, "that's very interesting." Has this guy ever been in therapy? Doesn't he know that the responses he's getting are either pure politeness or an attempt to discover just how deep his craziness runs?

He offers no evidence to support his scenario and not only raises more questions that he answers, but he questions his own answers -- every other sentence in this book ends with a question mark. This is investigative reporting?

Mr. Singular castigates the media for presuming the guilt of the ramseys without evidence -- but he feels no shame about putting forward his own nightmare scenario and presuming its validity without offering a shred of evidence.

This is vital reading on the Ramsey case and I would recommend that anyone interested in the case buy it. However, I would also recommend that readers look at the full transcripts of the interviews etc (since this version is, I understand, edited) in order to judge the case more fully. My understanding is that the circumstances of the National Enquirer obtaining these documents are interesting and I would recommend that readers research these - partly for an insight into the subculture surrounding JonBenet's death and partly in order to understand more fully that this book isn't the definitive guide to the official documents. It is nonetheless a Must Buy.

This author, along with all the other parasites involved in the JonBenet case (and some of the dodgy reviewers posting on these sort of books) should now write books explaining how they are now eating humble pie and apologise.

Lou Smit investigated the case in a fascinating doco and proved how it was not the parents but an intruder. Looks like he was right all along and the scandal-mongering gutter press were not. Quelle surprise!

By reading this book, it seems that the Ramseys' want to stay quiet and not even give the interviews to begin with. Especially when the police are asking grilling questions that make the Ramseys squirm. But in thier book, death of innocence, they say everything they can about from the day they met to now. And when the police ask about it, they 'don't remeber' or 'don't recall.' BIG comparisons between both books. they DO KNOW everything and they just don't want to say it. I think the Ramseys have the word 'guilty' written all over thier faces. I used to think this case was going to be solved, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe if the Ramseys stop acting so retarded and give the police the info they need, that is, the TRUTH, then maybe jonbenet will get what she needs: 'justice!' the whole murder was planned out or something happened that night that went horribly wrong. it makes me sick on how these stupid parents are acting about finding the killer. they are not even doing anything. just moving from house to house, avoiding everyone and letting the police do everything. no, the ramseys have to help too and stop being so aggressive. they want to find the killer of thier child? the way they're acting, it's never going to happen. i'll also bet that when they're gone and burke's all grown up, first thing he'll do is go to the police and say everything he knows about what happened to his sister. i'll be looking out for that in the next 20 or 30 years. new stories for the tabloids and tv. 'jonbenet's brother tells all,' 'burke tells police his parents are killers' 'burke and his frightened teenage years living with killer parents.' and all kinds of headlines. or, who knows? maybe we'll get a death bed confession from one of the parents? although they'll be dead, at least we have the answer to 'who killed jonbenet?' this book really makes the parents look like murderers. i like how detailed it is and i learned a lot of new things about the case i never knew before. a great read for anyone who wants to know about 'behind closed doors' in the case. although, it does leave a lot of unanswered questions that i have.

This book is basically a record of all of the interviews the Ramseys have endured in the past 7 years. It is exact word for word reviews. This book isnt really for you if you want to know about JonBenet's murder and the suspicion that surrounds her controversial family. Although it was good, I have read better.
If you want to hear evidence straight from John and Patsy Rmaseys own mouths, this book is definately for you!

It's pretty amazing to read this book of the Ramseys' police interviews and see how much Patsy Ramsey cannot recall or remember. Then read the Ramsey's book "Death of Innocence" where tiny little details are spelled out.

This book is pretty incriminating. If one was not sure of the Ramseys guilt before reading this book, (like me), reading it may surely put you over the fence.

It's sickening how hypocritical these people were-- when comparing this to their book. And how little they helped the police. No wonder the crime is unsolved.