JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation

by Steve Thomas, Donald A. Davis

Finally, the information you've been waiting who really killed JonBenet?

Perhaps the most compelling murder case of our day, the death of six-year-old JonBenet Ramsey galvanized the nation-and years after it occurred, the mystery still endures. Who killed the young beauty queen and why? Who is covering up for whom and who is simply lying? In JonBenet, the most authoritative and comprehensive study of the Ramsey murder, a former lead Boulder Police detective, Steve Thomas, explores the case in vivid and fascinating detail-pointing the way toward an analysis of the evidence some deem too shocking to consider. Here, Thomas raises these and many other provocative

-How was the investigation botched from the beginning-and why did police so carelessly allow the crime scene to be tampered with?

-Why were John and Patsy Ramsey protected from early questioning and any lie-detector tests, even though their stories and behavior were erratic, suspicious and inconsistent?

-Why was crucial evidence ignored, why were certain key witnesses unquestioned by detectives, and why were the Ramseys privy to sensitive information about the case and even police reports?

Genres: True Crime, Nonfiction, Crime, Audiobook, History, Mystery, Biography

413 pages, Paperback

First published April 11, 2000

Reviews

[Eileen C · Rating 5 out of 5]

I went down the rabbit hole on the Jonbenet case after listening to the amazing 'Normal Family' podcast and out of the books I read, this one was definitely the best. You can really tell Steve Thomas cared about this little girl. He goes into a lot of detail on the case and about how the district attorney bent over backwards to help the family. There's not much evidence discussed that I didn't already know, but if you're new to the case I think it would be a good introduction. And Steve's story about the shady things going on behind the scenes will make you REALLY PISSED OFF.

[Dennis Littrell · Rating 5 out of 5]

A real inside look at what happened

This is the fourth book I've read on the Jon Benét case and easily the best one.

Former Boulder police Det. Steve Thomas, who was one of the chief investigators in the Ramsey case, does not mince words here and leaves the reader with no doubt about who killed Jon Benét. He also makes it abundantly clear why the case never went to trial and why it is highly unlikely that it ever will.

Thomas acknowledges that the crime scene was hopelessly compromised by the inexperienced Boulder police, but more importantly demonstrates that the case could not be tried because the top attorneys in the Boulder District Attorney's office, and in particular DA Alex Hunter, were afraid to face the Ramseys and their team of lawyers in court. Thomas cites statistics showing that the vast majority of criminal cases in Boulder during the tenure of Alex Hunter had been plea bargained and not taken to trial. The effect of this kind of justice was to leave the DA's office with an appalling lack of trial experience and a morbid fear of going against "Team Ramsey." Hunter, a politician's politician, clearly saw that his main job was to make sure no indictment against the Ramsey's would ever see the light of day. To this end, he and his attorneys worked very hard to discourage the police, whose investigation clearly showed that the Ramseys were guilty and should be indicted. John Ramsey took advantage of this situation by hiring lawyers who were friends of lawyers in the district attorney's office who were supplied with information about the ongoing investigation. Thomas goes so far as to quote people accusing the district attorney's office of obstruction of justice. Of course no such charges were ever filed.

After reading this vivid and uncompromised account, I no longer have any doubt about what happened to Jon Benét. Thomas presents his scenario on pages 285-289. He also explains why he thinks it was a murder and not an accident. The real question is, why did John Ramsey help Patsy cover it up? Thomas's answer (p. 289) is that Ramsey "chose to protect his wife." It was perhaps a snap decision that once entered into could not be undone. Thomas does not see John Ramsey as having molested his daughter; instead he believes that the prior vaginal trauma that Jon Benét allegedly suffered was at the hands of her frantic mother handing out punishment for regressed toilet training. We can see this possibility from Thomas's account of Patsy Ramsey being questioned by retired Denver homicide detective Captain Tom Haney (pp. 325-327). Patsy comes across as a very tough broad indeed, even a little on the crude side. Thomas concludes that beneath her mask, he saw "cold rage." Perhaps John Ramsey was afraid of going against his wife. Perhaps she knew something very embarrassing that he wanted to keep hidden.

Because Thomas had intimate and extensive knowledge of the facts of the case second to none, there are bits of evidence here that the other books I have read do not contain. The fact that the Ramseys video taped the police at the empty Ramsey house in Boulder as they were acting out scenarios is an example. The plan with the Georgia police to wire tap the Ramsey's Atlanta home is another. The details of the textual analysis that Vassar College linguist Don Foster did on the writings of Patsy Ramsey that led him to assert that she wrote the ransom note is a third. The conclusion of the FBI's team from its Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit that the ransom note "was a cathartic act that allowed the offender to ‘undo' the murder in one's own mind" (p. 217) is a fourth. There are many others. Incidentally this is a better book than Schiller's Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, not only because it presents facts and an intimate point of view not found there, but because it is more focused and leaves out a lot of unnecessary media material.

I think the most important lesson we can learn from the Ramsey case is that the rich really are different. For one thing, they can more easily get away with murder. I am thinking also of the Martha Moxley case in Connecticut, the Cullen Davis case in Texas, and of course the O.J. Simpson case in Los Angeles. What's the answer? It's the same thing that compromises our political system: money gives those with it a tremendous political advantage over those of modest means. I wish I knew the answer.

I like the way Thomas ends the book with a tribute to Jon Benét whom he calls "a strong-willed little spirit" who "would have chosen her own course in life, not one mapped by a mother living vicariously through her daughter's beauty...an incredible little kid who loved to be tickled." He adds: "Miss America was the least she could have been."

--Dennis Littrell, author of the sensational mystery novel, “Teddy and Teri”

[The Wee Hen · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you care about justice this book will make you so mad you will want to find all the members of the Boulder DA's office from back in the 90's and slap them silly. You will also want to hunt down a few higher-ups in Denver LE from back then and slap them around as well. Of course you want to do alot more than slap the Ramseys around, despite the fact that one of them is dead.
Thomas was the lead detective on the Ramsey case and he makes it clear that things were messed up beyond belief even before he was placed on the team tasked with solving the murder of the tiny beauty queen. Denver had a hands-off policing policy and legal system in the 90's that had no interest in going after criminals and really went above and beyond the call of duty to plea everybody out as quickly and painlessly as possible. That was bad enough. But when the precious Ramsey's were suddenly in the middle of a crime their money and influence really made clear that things were rotten in the city of Denver.
Thomas chronicles how the DA's office, working hand-in-hand with a police chief more interested in a peace and love philosophy than going after murderers, destroyed this case. Huge swaths of evidence were handed over to defense attorneys, confidential information was leaked to the media and every attempt to do real detective work was crippled by a system so corrupt it is breathtaking.
After reading Lawrence Schiller's "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" I was horrifed by the lack of justice in Denver and convinced that Patsy Ramsey and most likely her husband, John Ramsey, were somehow involved in the death of their daughter. After reading Thomas' book I am convinced that they weren't just involved, I believe that Patsy Ramsey committed the murder and John has been actively protecting and covering up for her ever since.
This book is a horror show of what goes wrong when the wealthy and well-connected get away with murder. Another little girl who will never receive the justice she so richly deserved.

[Sonya Dickerson · Rating 1 out of 5]

I can’t believe that this book has such high reviews.
For those that read it, did you not understand that this book had so many discrepancies? This man investigated one murder in his career. This one. Everyone is wrong but him. He clearly has an axe to grind and he is making the case. He should have seriously stayed in Narcotics and not Homicide.

This is a terrible book.

Steve Thomas. Where do I begin? The bias is strong here people. This man has made up his mind about who the killers are and it’s the parents. He is convinced that he has the answers and everyone does not. This book spreads the blame around, except for himself. He’s the appointed angel here and if people would just listen to what he is saying and let him do what they wanted, then this case would have been solved and the innocent Ramseys would be in jail right now.

However, as you read the book there are things that don’t make sense. He contradicts himself and doesn’t even realize it. Remember, this is a man that had never ever been on a murder case, but yet he knows better than Lou Smit, a man that solved 90% murder cases? REALLY? THIS GUY CAME FROM NARCOTICS AND SHOULD HAVE STAYED THERE. In fact, this guy should have never been in law enforcement. He also employs the “blame the liberals” defense as to why these people didn’t want to prosecute. You really think that if they believed the Ramseys were guilty, then they would have protected child killers? It just defies logic.

He keeps talking about an accident. He believes that the Ramseys got mad at her and then killed her by accident. So then why look for premeditation? Why look for previous purchases that Patsy made since it was the heat of the moment? Was it an accident or premeditation? Let’s get this straight. The Boulder Police Department was the first to drop the ball in this case. The FIRST. But in this book, Steve spreads the blame to everyone else but the police department. It shows how blockheaded and narrow minded cops can be. The justice system worked here, no thanks to the gung ho police officers.

Also, they were the first to point the finger at the Ramseys. Would it not be better than to cozy up to the Ramseys and let them hang themselves if that were the case? The worst thing and I mean the WORST thing they could have done was treat these people like suspects early! If they would have pretended that they were on their side, they could have gotten more cooperation. IF the police believed that I killed my child, I wouldn’t talk to them either. They did right. Never talk to the police in the first place. Thanks to the Boulder Police Department, the original screw ups in this case, the Ramsey family will have to live with this all their lives. Live with being a suspect when these people did nothing wrong. Steve Thomas is going around checking up on “duct tape” but then saying that this was an accident. So now Patsy knew that she was going to kill her daughter before hand, buying duct tape, and then killing her in the heat of passion. IT. DEFIES. LOGIC. The entire book is just him whining “Why won’t you let me screw up this case!??!” Sorry Steve. You’ve done enough. Now you have an ax to grind and you’ve done it with this incredibly stupid book. I wish I never spent my money on this trash. Please look for a book that is more nuanced and objective than this. Or if you like wasting your time, or perhaps you have something against trees. If you do, by all means, buy this nonsense.

[Angela · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another disgusting account of how there is a fine line for justice between the poor and the rich. This is about as close to the truth as anyone is ever going to get with this case. It saddens and shocks and enfuriates me how political gain, money and greed were more important to the Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter than solving the murder and getting justice for a 6-year-old innocent little girl who was murdered in her home on Christmas Night. Author and Detective Steve Thomas wasn't out to make money with this book. He wasn't out doing talk shows and interviews. After writing this, he went back into leading a life of privacy and doing construction work. I believe he truly cared about this case, devoting his life 24/7 for years to try to get to the bottom of the mystery, and I believe he did. Truth and justice meant more to him than the DA, which is why he had to lay down his badge to speak the truth instead of remaining silent to the powers that be. It is amazing that there are still some "good guys" out there like Steve Thomas. It's too bad that his career and reputation were smeared by the DA and others for uncovering and speaking out against the extreme corruption in Boulder.

After reading this book, it is evident that there was MORE THAN ENOUGH probable cause to arrest if not both of the Ramseys at least arrest Patsy Ramsey. Thank you, Steve Thomas, for being honest and exposing the DA for what he is.

[Laima · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've been interested in this case for 20 years now. It makes me very angry. Why? In America if you are rich and white you can get away with anything. This case also makes me very sad. I didn't know JonBenet Ramsey but in a way I did through all her photos and videos. And I absolutely adored her. My children were little too back in 1996 when this murder took place so it really hit home with me. R. I. P. Sweet little angel JonBenet.

For what it's worth, Patsy Ramsey, JonBenet's mother, is now sleeping with the worms. There is still no Justice for this little 6 year old but karma has been a bitch for her mother.

The author has written an outstanding and detailed account of the events surrounding this cold case.
My hope is that one day her father will finally put the case to rest and make a final confession regarding what truly happened. Until then just look at where all the evidence points and draw your own conclusion.

5 very sad stars for this book.

[Tom · Rating 3 out of 5]

As amusing as it sometimes is to see a once trigger-happy Reaganite cop huff and puff over rich white people being seemingly exempt from "law and order" (and he has great difficulty figuring out why that might be), the overwhelming feeling provoked by Steve Thomas and Donald A. Davis' JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation is horror at the way in which a young murder victim was ultimately denied justice, seemingly deliberately, when (to mine and the authors' minds, anyway) the identity of her killer(s) wasn't particularly hard to figure out. Of course, the book lays most of the blame at the feet of a weak D.A., while doing a dubious job of explaining away the Boulder Police Departments many errors. As an insider view of the investigation into one of America's most infamous murders, however biased it may sometimes be, this is an essential true crime read, even if I don't particularly like the primary author. If nothing else, it solves the mystery of why a little girl's killer will never face the legal consequences of what they did.

[RhS · Rating 5 out of 5]

Here’s the source material for much of what you’ve heard about the Ramsey case. It’s ground zero of the investigation, brimming with facts both well known and obscure.

Author, Steve Thomas, is a former Boulder PD detective who spent twenty months investigating JonBenet’s death.

Prior to reading, my impression of the Boulder PD was of a bumbling, inept organization. I haven’t changed my mind, BUT Steve introduces us to a more complex reality. He paints the social landscape of mid-1990's Boulder, a privileged Democratic niche where the political and judicial systems worked in sync to pander to powerful citizens. Laughable as it sounds, Boulder wanted a “non-violent” SWAT team. The District Attorney handed out plea bargains like candy, avoiding trial at all costs. The Ramsey murder hit this fragile ecosystem of law and order like a bomb.

Steve’s book is a scathing testimony of how the Boulder DA’s office bent over backwards to defer to the Ramsey defense team, crippling the investigation at every turn. Steve is vehement that Boulder detectives investigated the hell out of this murder in spite of a soft police chief, an adversarial DA, an army of defense attorneys, internal leaks, inadequate funds, rabid media coverage, thousands of junk tips, and most notably, the Ramseys’ absolute refusal to cooperate. It’s a David and Goliath story, a warning of how justice can be subverted by power and privilege. It’s the tale of a whistle-blower.

Beneath the wider social issues, our collective obsession with who killed JonBenet has never wavered. It’s the unsolvable game of Clue, the case that divides even the most esteemed experts.

Steve doesn’t shy away from interpretation. He theorizes Patsy lost her temper during a bed wetting incident, accidentally inflicting a massive head wound. He believes Patsy panicked, staged a crime scene, discarded key evidence, and then woke her unsuspecting family.

It’s impossible to address those claims without a full blown trial. I invite you to weigh the evidence yourself. Whether you agree with Steve’s conclusion or not (I don’t), the book is riveting.

While he fails to convince me Patsy was responsible, Steve successfully demonstrates how the Boulder DA sabotaged the integrity of the investigation for political purposes, and he proves the Ramseys were a true roadblock to the investigation, intentionally or not.

I’ll list key points of the book that stood out to me. My thoughts are in parentheses, not to be confused with the author’s.

* Steve believes Lou Smit, a renowned detective who solved over a hundred murders, was blinded by the Ramseys’ Christian faith. He describes Lou as “compromised.”

* Don Foster, legendary linguistic analyst of Unabomber and Shakespeare fame, flipped 180 degrees on this ransom note. Based on publicly available samples Foster found online, he wrote Patsy a dramatic letter proclaiming he knew her to be innocent. However, after being given access to the original handwriting evidence in totality, he reversed his opinion, announcing Patsy definitely DID author the note. (Apparently, the experts even disagree with themselves on this case.)

* Steve is adamant Bill McReynolds (AKA Santa Bill) was an innocent, feeble old man who was hounded into his grave. Steve insists Bill was cleared based on blood, fingerprints, handwriting analysis, and “other information.” (My endless thoughts on Bill below.)

* This next bit of information floored me. After his infidelity, John’s first wife, Lucinda, divorced him. John’s father later married Lucinda’s mother (or vice versa, I can’t remember which). So John and Lucinda, ex-spouses, technically became step-siblings. (Why does no one ever talk about this? That situation would be confusing to children. Imagine you’re Burke. Your dad’s “sister” used to be your dad’s wife. Could this be why the dictionary was open to the i’s with a page folded over pointing at the word “incest?” Was Burke trying to sort out the family tree? Did this give him ideas to sexually experiment with his own sister?)

* The Ramseys flat out lied to police more than once. For example, when asked about John’s affair, Patsy said, “I’m not aware of anything like that.” (Based on John’s comments at a much later date, Patsy definitely knew about the affair all along. Why did she lie to police? To preserve the illusion of perfection? What else would Patsy lie about to keep up that facade? In reality, I think Patsy considered the topic shameful, irrelevant, and private so she simply ended the line of questioning by playing ignorant.)

* The underwear on JonBenet’s body was too large. Patsy supposedly purchased this particular package of panties as a gift for a family member. I don’t know any adult who buys underwear for kids other than their own. That’s bizarre in itself, BUT after some thought, I can see myself accidentally buying the wrong size of underwear for my own child. The packaging isn’t always clear. Rather than throw it out, I might intend to give it to a relative, a lofty goal I never get around to. And then I can see my young child keeping it for themselves even though it’s the wrong size. Apparently, the day of the week was stitched on each pair. Maybe that appealed to JB. It seems odd at first glance, but it probably isn’t relevant to the murder.)

* Because the Ramseys refused to cooperate with police, it’s hard to nail down their stories. But there are inconsistencies in what little they’ve said. For example, they’ve told different versions of how JonBenet was put to bed and what she was wearing. Patsy says she never checked on Burke in his bedroom, but Burke says she came in “freaking out.” So on and so forth. (Why the discrepancies? Normal memory loss, the fog of shock and trauma, division of household tasks by two parents resulting in the right hand not knowing what the left is doing, general bedtime chaos, or a sign of intentional lies?)

* That morning, Patsy was wearing yesterday’s clothes as evidenced by Christmas photos. She says she showered before discovering the ransom note. What are the chances a former Miss West Virginia, freshly showered with makeup and hair done, walked past her closet of designer clothing and threw on yesterday's dirty wrinkled outfit? Steve vehemently believes she never slept. It’s his smoking gun. (Except … this family was fairly messy. The kids had hygiene issues. Patsy was likely exhausted from Christmas. I can see her tossing her clothes on a chair before bed. Maybe she only wore that particular outfit to dinner, and it was still fairly clean. Maybe she didn’t think twice about grabbing lightly worn clothing and throwing it on before the mad dash to the airport.)

* Steve appeared on Larry King Live alongside John and Patsy. You can watch this deeply uncomfortable encounter. Make of it what you will. (To me, the Ramseys come across as smug and condescending. When asked about lie detector tests, John declares “We took a polygraph quality controlled by the person who invented the polygraph system.” UGH. Rich people. Yet Steve strikes me as stubborn to a fault, absolutely blind with tunnel vision.)

***** MY PERSONAL OPINION ON STEVE’S THEORY *****

Steve makes a mildly persuasive case. I finished this book thinking it’s feasible Patsy accidentally killed her daughter and covered it up. After all, the grand jury believed it strongly enough to indict. (Although the standard to indict is low - nowhere near the standard to convict.)

Then I look at the autopsy photos, and that thought dissolves. When I’m not staring directly at the carnage, I can imagine JonBenet with a bump on the head, gently slipping away, fading into the night.

But pictures don’t lie. That’s not what happened. Her skull was split with the force of falling from a third story building. Her neck was cinched to a grotesque degree, a truly disturbing sight to behold.

Staging or not, dead or alive, very few people have the capacity to inflict that kind of damage to a child’s body. That type of violence wasn’t done to cover up an accident. It wasn’t done by a nine year old making knots according to the Boy Scout Handbook. It wasn’t done to settle a business grudge. A sadistic pedophile did that because they derived pleasure from doing so. My eyes can’t interpret those photos any differently.

For the sake of argument, let’s say Patsy did lose her temper, JB bumped her head, and she fell unconscious. The vast majority of parents would immediately rouse the household and call 911. A tiny percentage of parents might assume their child is dead and try to cover their part up by faking a different accident, perhaps by pushing their child down the stairs or dropping them off a balcony. An infinitesimal number of parents would get rid of the body altogether.

But THIS? To abuse, violate, desecrate, and defile your child’s body? You could put a gun to my head, and I couldn’t cinch a rope around my child’s neck or molest their dead body. I’ve never heard of even one case of an accidental death being disguised as a sexual assault so frenzied the child’s hair was carelessly caught and twisted into the knots. The person who killed JonBenet was a monster.

If one of the Ramseys WAS a monster, they certainly wouldn’t leave JB’s body in that horrific state, laying in the basement, waiting to be found, covered in evidence for all the world to see. A Ramsey would have dumped her body FAR from home and claimed she disappeared.

John Ramsey is STILL pushing the Boulder PD and CBI to continue investigating, analyzing, and testing evidence. These are not the actions of a guilty man.

No matter how you arrange the puzzle pieces, they never fit in a way that forms a picture of the Ramseys as guilty.

I’m not alone in this line of thinking. To name a few: Lou Smit, John Douglas, and Julia Cowley’s profiling team (check out the podcast, The Consult) believed an intruder was responsible. No offense to Steve Thomas, but his investigative experience with Boulder PD Narcotics simply does not compare.

So why did the Ramseys stonewall the police? Easy. Because they were privileged. Innocent or guilty, they enlisted legal help and followed advice to the letter. Anything else would’ve been foolish. From Steve’s point of view, their lack of cooperation was obstruction of justice. From the Ramseys perspective, it was necessary protection from wrongful conviction. They were both correct.

I believe JonBenet was targeted by an acquaintance. And (sorry, Steve) Bill McReynolds is my top contender.

**** WHY I THINK SANTA BILL IS GUILTY ****

* Bill had been in the house multiple times. He knew the layout, an advantage when creeping around in the dark. He knew the basement was a secluded location.

* Bill took special notice of JonBenet because she gifted him a vial of glitter. He took the vial with him into heart surgery, asking for his ashes to be mixed with the glitter if he died.

* Bill pressured Patsy to throw a last minute Christmas party by dangling the Charles Kuralt film as bait. The film was a half-truth. CK wasn’t on board yet. Bill hired two filmmakers to shoot the piece speculatively with no assurance of purchase. But it made a good line. “Let me play Santa at your house, and we can both be on television!”

* Because he successfully convinced Patsy to throw the party, Bill was in the house just days before the murder, once again interacting with JB and refreshing his memory of the layout.

* During the party, a mysterious 911 call was placed. This may have been Fleet White misdialing 411, the “information” line at the time. But some speculate the call came from Bill - a test call to see how fast police could respond, for example. Or possibly it was an adrenaline rush for Bill to stand in plain sight in front of the police knowing he would commit murder in that house a few days later. Or possibly Bill said or did something to frighten JonBenet, and in her innocence, she dialed 911. A partygoer reportedly found JB crying on the stairs, saying she “didn’t feel pretty.”

* JonBenet told a friend’s mother that Santa had been to her house for a party and told her he was coming back for a SECRET visit AFTER Christmas. When pushed for clarification, JB doubled down on the key words. I can think of only two explanations. (1) An innocent Bill told JB a “Secret Santa” gift exchange would take place on the Michigan trip, and she conflated these words into a secret visit from Santa. I don’t know if such an activity was planned, mind you. (2) A guilty Bill prepped JB for her own murder. She wouldn’t scream if she expected Santa to show up at her bedside - a blood chilling thought.

* A card from Bill was found crumpled / torn in JB’s trash. This proves Bill singled JB out for individual attention. Did Burke receive his own card from Bill?

* The ransom letter is written by a person of average intelligence who is … I’m not sure of the right word. Naive? Dramatic? Silly? OLD, perhaps? To me, the author is puffing up, hoping to be seen as more impressive than they really are. Bill was a retired journalism professor, the first in his family to go to college. His daughter stated he could still be socially awkward among the upper class. “A bit of an imposter” she observed.

* Guess who might be wordy enough to write the War and Peace of ransom notes? A retired journalism professor like Bill.

* The ransom letter is packed with movie quotes. Bill’s wife was a movie critic.

* The writer of the ransom note referred to John’s “southern common sense.” That’s a mistake. John isn’t from the South. Patsy was. This indicates the killer primarily knew Patsy and only knew John tangentially. The killer assumes John is also from the South like his wife. Patsy is the one who arranged Bill’s service for her Christmas parties. She is the one he interacted with most.

* The ransom note demands $118,000, the amount of John’s Christmas bonus. I can easily imagine Patsy boasting about this fact. As in, “Sure Bill, I guess I can afford to hire you this year since John’s annual bonus was $118,000.” (rich person chuckle) Or Bill may have overheard this bit of gossip at the party. Dropping the number into the letter was a power play. “See? I know things.”

* The ransom note is signed “Victory! S.B.T.C.” I interpret this as “saved by the cross.” Victory refers to Christ’s victory over death. It’s a dig at the Ramseys’ Christian faith. As in, “It’s not so bad. Your little girl is with Jesus now, right?” Or it could be a self-assurance of sorts, a way for the killer to assuage their own guilt. Bill certainly knew the Ramseys were faithful churchgoers. Everyone did. I’m certain the topic of religion came up frequently during all those Christmas parties.

* Bill told police another one of his special kid friends died. Interesting that Bill had more than one special kid friend. Who died.

* Bill’s daughter was abducted on December 26, 1974, twenty-two years TO THE DAY JonBenet died. She and a friend were molested and then released. What are the chances of these rare events in Bill’s life occurring on the same day of the year? I’m no mathematician, but the answer is LOW. Plus, it wasn’t just any day. It was the day after Christmas, the holiday Bill was obsessed with. The fact these things occurred on a date significant to him drops the odds even lower. What does this tell us? Did Bill allow someone to molest his daughter? Did he try to recreate the scenario with JB? Do pedophiles trade “referrals” since molesting kids close to them is too risky? (vomit) Did Bill consider Dec 26 the best day of the year to sin? Be “good” all year for Santa and then purge before a new year officially starts? A Christmas loophole, if you will. (more vomit)

* Bill’s wife wrote a screenplay about Sylvia Likens, a girl who was tortured and murdered in a basement.

* After the murder, Bill was eager for the spotlight, speaking at the funeral and literally elbowing his way through a crowd to speak to The Today Show. He also gave an interview to Dan Glick of Newsweek. Bill showed Dan a wooden harp carved with the names of dead children. Bill said, “I’ve saved a small place right here for JonBenet’s name.”

* Bill forced hugs on everyone from Steve Thomas to Katie Couric. He really wanted to be perceived as sweet and harmless.

* None of Bill’s hair, blood, or fingerprints were found at the crime scene. You know, the completely contaminated crime scene. Given the poor police work, the killer could’ve left a completed 23&Me DNA kit on the doormat, and Linda Arndt would’ve stepped over it. The LACK of a forensics match should not clear anyone. Not Bill. Not the Ramseys. Handwriting analysis? It’s tempting to rely on, but there’s too much room for doubt.

* Bill’s alibi is his wife, the person most likely to lie for him.

* Bill was old, possibly unable to commit rape by intercourse. JonBenet was assaulted with a paintbrush and by digital penetration.

* Bill was old and possibly impotent, but NOT frail. Investigators had to track him down while he was on vacation in Spain. He was hardy enough to subdue a child and carry her down the stairs. Maybe not spry enough to finagle a dead body out a basement window.

* The killer leisurely wrote the ransom note from inside the house, probably while the Ramseys were out for dinner. The letter essentially reads: “Hey everyone. I’m definitely NOT a pedophile. Gross! I’m just gonna take this little girl for money. Oh, and I’m not from around here. I’m not even American. Goddamn foreigners, am I right?” The writer doth protest too much.

* Many people dismiss Bill as too old to molest a child as criminals age out. I disagree. Once a pedophile, always a pedophile. It’s possible he wanted to indulge himself “one last time,” especially as his heart surgery had confronted him with his own mortality.

* As we all know, pedophiles seek out positions of trust with easy access to children. Like Santa Claus.

* The nearby murder of Tracy Neef has been noted for similarities to the Ramsey case. Personally, I don’t see strong links, but one thing stands out. Detectives suspect a connection between the Neef case and an unknown assailant who sexually assaulted girls AND THEN ALLOWED THEM TO GO. Sound familiar? Bill’s daughter and her friend were also picked up, molested, and allowed to leave. This link is a stretch, but, again, how many unlucky coincidences can Bill have to this case?

* I can hear the Internet screaming: “Leave Bill alone! He was cleared!” I come bearing bad news. Real life is messy, and this sort of thing happens often. The term cleared means suspects are pushed to the side for NOW, not for EVER. Sometimes police miss the truth but circle back to it later. No one circled back to Bill. He was lost in the circus.

* If the Boulder PD did reconsider Bill, they would never state it publicly. Admit they foolishly cleared the killer because he played SANTA? Never. The Boulder PD has a vested interest in this case remaining unsolved.

Based on the information above, Bill McReynolds is a much more viable suspect than Patsy or John.

In addition, there were known home invaders / rapists (such as Keith Schwinaman and Bradford Wagner) actively commiting crimes in the area using a similar MO.

There’s also a possible connection to the home invasion and assault on “Amy” (pseudonym) on September 14, 1997. Both girls attended Dance West.

Any of these possibilities make more sense than “Patsy lost her temper over a wet bed.”

*****

As you can see, I disagree with Steve Thomas’s ultimate conclusion. This book is still a five star read. It goes beyond the scope of this one case, and it’s full of useful information.

The Ramseys were spoiled and unlikable. But innocent.

[BAM doesn’t answer to her real name · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm not quite halfway through but a reader can definitely tell the law was clueless when it came to investigating and also what parents need to do to start foundations. This whole story was just a nightmare on so many levels, but maybe her legacy was to teach and improve conditions of crimes against children. Hopefully I'll learn more as this continues

[Ben Loory · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well, I read another one. This one is by one of the lead detectives on the case (and the guy whose public resignation letter finally took the case out of the DA's hands and made the governor step in and call for a grand jury investigation (though of course in the end the DA just ignored their secret, sealed indictment recommendations anyway)). I liked this book much more than Schiller's Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, if only because Thomas was an involved party, not a journalist, and hence writes with passion and a distinct viewpoint. He's definitely a guy who has a real beef with the DA's office and the way they handled (or refused to handle) the case, but if only one tenth of the stuff Thomas says happened, happened, I'd be pretty pissed off, too.

So hard to understand what the DA was thinking.

[Alexa · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book will have you screaming at the injustices of this investigation. Excellent read even if I want to throw the book across the room once or twice.

[Jamie Barringer (Ravenmount) · Rating 4 out of 5]

There is something compelling about reading a true-crime story from one's home town. I was in Boulder for my first year in college the year JonBenet died, though thankfully I was too immersed in trying to pass my 2nd semester physics class to worry much about following this case when it started. Almost 20 years later I finally read a whole book on this murder drama, and having read lots of crime genre novels recently, I was amazed at how little the investigation into JonBenet's murder followed basic murder investigation procedures. The crime scene was never secured, the primary witnesses/suspects were never really required to answer questions that seem obviously vital to the case, and rather than discovering who killed the girl, this case opened up Boulder's dysfunctional and inexperienced crime investigation and prosecution systems to ridicule and international scrutiny.
I was really not impressed with the author's attitude towards Boulder and Boulder's local culture, and in his attitude I could see a glimmer of what is now making police so dangerous to the people they are meant to serve and protect. Most of the time Boulder's kinder, gentler police culture worked to support a creative, safe environment that resembles some European towns far more than it resembles most of the US. But, considering how unprofessional and inefficient this system turned out to be when faced with a major murder investigation, I can see why Thomas was so frustrated with Boulder's police and criminal justice system.
Having read this book, I have my own theory (doesn't everyone?) as to who killed JonBenet- I suspect that her brother Burke caused her head injury and maybe some of her strangulation injuries as well, and that the rest was their mother's attempts at covering up the crime and protecting the boy. If that is what happened I can understand easily why the parents would refuse to really help with the investigation, and why the crime scene was so badly contaminated and compromised by JonBenet's family. I doubt that enough clear evidence exists now to prove that I'm wrong, though.
In any case, I enjoyed this book more than I expected to, even with Thomas's unpleasant attitude towards Boulder.

[Elizabeth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wow. True crime books make me flip pages faster than any other books, I swear. This book is AMAZING. Truly all I knew about JonBenet was that her case was never solved, and that the parents were in the spotlight of potentially being involved in the crime. But I honestly thought she was maybe kidnapped, and they never found what happened. I had no idea that she was brutally murdered and in her own home.

Any true crime book written by someone actually involved in the investigation are always the best, most detailed account of what actually happened. The book states actual facts, opposed to a mother writing the story of what happened because they are clearly going to have a bias. And that is exactly what I wanted from this book. I am in utter awe of all things to do with the JonBenet case and how it was handled. It absolutely disgusts me, but I also need to remember that the investigation was happening in 1996, and the true crime books I have read in the past few years have been very current cases that they knew how to handle. But still, even taking the time period into account, so much was botched in this investigation, and it is so sad that we truly may never know what happened to her because the lack of DNA, and the DNA that they do have was compromised because even when her body was still in the house, guests were invited over and touched all over her, moving around the crime scene which is SO important in finding what happened.

I am 99% sure the Ramsey's actually commited the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. I am not saying that that was their intention from the start, but I do believe they ended up killing her, whether accident or not. This book has ALL things JonBenet Ramsey, and if you are at all interested in the book, this will blow you away. But it will also anger you to no end that JonBenet will probably never get the justice that she deserves.

[Colleen · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is one of three books I'm reading about the Jonbenet Ramsey case. Steve Thomas was an investigator working for the Boulder Police Department, and gives his account of the struggles the police had in working with their DA's office.

According to Steve Thomas, every step towards investigating the Ramseys was blocked by the DA. While I believe the case shouldn't solely focus on the parents, it is difficult to completely rule them out when the body was found in their basement.

Added to that is the fact that the Ramseys just act weird. What kind of parents want to leave the state the same day they just found their daughter murdered? Or doesn't do an interview with police until 4 months after the murder? I would think a parent would be at the police station everyday until the murderer is caught. Of course acting differently than what is expected doesn't make someone guilty.

At times I felt this book was too biased and attacked people out of frustration and anger. Thomas had a rough job and felt he was constantly impeded. His anger is valid. A little girl died and people are more worried about their image and political relations than doing Jonbenet justice. If you are looking for just the facts then I would recommend reading Foreign Faction - Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet?.

[Fishface · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the detective's-eye view of THE great unresolved murder case of the 1990s, aside from the OJ case. I expected to be bored with this one because Schiller's Perfect Murder, Perfect Town: The Uncensored Story of the JonBenet Murder and the Grand Jury's Search for the Truth was too dull to finish. I'm glad I was wrong. This book riveted me from the first page and I was totally engaged all the way through. It's a book you'll cheerfully skip a meal to keep reading. I was as satisfied as I can be with the conclusions drawn by the author, considering that this case was sabotaged, not to say torpedoed, from the day JonBenet died. The expose was cutting, the facts compelling, and the injustice utterly galling. This is the ONLY treatment I've seen of this case that makes the injustice to JonBenet the central message of the book, and that alone would have made it worth reading. Don't miss this one.

[Christina]

I saw someone post somewhere that they don't give star reviews to non-fiction books, and I will take that approach with this book. As a true crime buff, you would have thought I would be very familiar with this case. Of course, I knew of it. I mean who wouldn't if you were alive in the 90s and of an age to remember but honestly I never really delved into it that deep. I think because at some point I figured it would never be solved. Also, it involved a six-year-old girl who died under some of the most tragic of circumstances. Let me tell ya, though, I am deep-diving now!

If you only read this one book on this case, a good deal of you will believe that the Ramseys committed and covered up this murder. I am not here to say in this review whether they did or didn't because this case is so convoluted and was mishandled on all sides. Evidence was lost, the crime scene was contaminated, and cooperation between different agencies handling the case was antagonistic at best, the Ramseys weren't exactly the most forthcoming of a family. What I will say is the book is eye-opening in certain details. But, again, it really all comes down to which side of the fence you stand on. This book is very biased. There is no question where Steve Thomas stands. I don't know if he still stands there since he refuses to be interviewed for more recent stuff. I am assuming he still believes Patsy Ramsey was the perpetrator. All this to say that if you do read this book go in with an open mind. There is some good information in it but some of that information has come into question in recent years.

My hope is one day this case will be solved if only for the peace of that little girl.

[Zoe Stanford · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's hard to enjoy a book about the unresolved murder of a child but this book is perhaps vital in shedding light on just how a child can be so utterly failed, even in death. Yes, Thomas clings to his own conclusions (perhaps the best informed) but he does also present the evidence that goes against it and all in a straightforward way. All this book needs is to add a new epilogue in light of the recent revelations about the grand jury decisions and it would be definitive.

[Anastasia · Rating 4 out of 5]

An account of the investigation told by the lead detective into the death of JonBenet Ramsay. Rather long and repetitive but compelling and thorough. An excellent account.

[ᯓ★raquel · Rating 5 out of 5]

— 5⭐.

Llevo todo este mes obsesionadísima con este caso por la cantidad de documentales que he visto y todas las teorías que he leído, a pesar de que ya hacía años que me enteré de este asesinato tan turbulento.

Como amante del género, me encanta ver todo lo relacionado con casos de crímenes reales, series, documentales, lo que sea. Y desde siempre ha sido así.

Lo primero que tengo que decir es que, después de leer este libro en el que el policía que llevaba el caso en el que recopila toda la información que pudo sacar y que hizo lo imposible por demostrar que los padres fueron los asesinos, he llegado yo a mi propia conclusión de lo que aconteció la noche del 25 de diciembre de 1996 por lo que FALTA en el escenario del crimen (la casa).

Es un movimiento un poco atrevido, pero que, tras una vuelta y darte cuenta de que lo que no está habla más que lo que sí está, tiene todo el sentido del mundo.

Creo que una buena forma de resolver un misterio es coger tu mejor hipótesis y esforzarte por demostrar que está mal. Podía hacer esto con cualquier otra teoría (como la del intruso, la del Papá Noel pedófilo, etc). No pude hacerlo con la teoría que tenía sobre John (su padre). Una vez que me di cuenta de ello, recopilé el resto de los datos que tenía gracias al libro y a todos los documentales y, al contextualizarlos, quedó claro qué había ocurrido, quién lo había hecho y por qué.

Para mí fue muy importante ver que OBJETO + UBICACIÓN= INTENCIÓN y lo explico de la siguiente manera:

JonBenet, una manta y su camisón rosa de barbie estaban escondidos en el sótano, pero hay algunos objetos que sabemos que tenían que estar presentes y que han desaparecido por completo (ya se demostró que no había rastro de gente ajena a la familia que entrara o saliera de esa casa), y se puede ver claramente que era muy importante para el asesino que esos artículos específicos tuvieran que desaparecer.

Los objetos serían: el rollo del que salió la cinta aislante que cubría la boca de la niña; la punta rota del mango de la brocha; probablemente algunos pañuelos de papel y, potencialmente, toallitas con alcohol; la fuente de donde salió el cordón, posiblemente; las siete páginas de la libreta que faltan; y, creo, un par de guantes.

No me voy a explayar mucho más y meterme en un berenjenal, pero todo está ahí. Solo hay que fijarse en lo que no se ve.

Hay huellas de Patsy, de Burke, pero ¿ningún rastro de John? ¿Toda la culpa siempre enfocada en ella cuando en entrevistas el que actúa ofendido porque piden prueba del polígrafo es él, mientras que ella dice que lo haría diez veces si así pudieran encontrar al que la mató?

En todos los interrogatorios y entrevistas, Patsy dice que recuerda que ella se fue a la cama antes que John, y que cuando se despertó él ya estaba en la ducha. En otros momentos John se refería a ella como algo parecido a Sleep Queen por lo profundo que era su sueño. Otra cosa que me llama mucho la atención es cómo encontraron pelos de una chaqueta de Patsy y pelo de animal (posiblemente de la brocha que formó parte de su asesinato) demostrando una vez más que el asesinato ocurrió dentro del hogar.

John conocía las consecuencias de emitir ese episodio de su hijo y Dr Phil, y se ha quedado sentado mientras el mundo acusaba a su hijo de asesinar a su hermanita, sabiendo al mismo tiempo quién lo hizo.

¿Sobre las 3 llamadas al médico de cabecera? Tiendo a creer que alguien, probablemente Patsy, se preocupó por algo que vio en relación con JonBenét y llamó. Puede que el abuso se intensificara en sus últimos meses de vida, JonBenét se estaba volviendo más pegajosa a Patsy. Y no queda atrás el problema que tenía JonBenet con mojar la cama, que es un síntoma de abuso en niños, aunque Burke también lo tenía y no creo que Burke fuera abusado de la misma manera que ella.

Hay una imagen horripilante en mi cabeza de toda esa noche en la que JonBenet veía a su padre como un invitado especial en su espacio seguro que explicaría todo lo de las lágrimas, los pañuelos, la carta rota, los corazones en la revista (la revista Esprit tenía equis dibujadas sobre tres personas con la palabra NO y flores dibujadas alrededor de John con la palabra SÍ, en tinta roja o rosa. La revista y el corazón están fuera de lugar. La alteración de la revista sugiere algo así como la expresión de un niño de lo que cree que es el amor romántico.), el camisón, la piña, etc.

No tengo ninguna duda de que abusaron de ella esa noche, pero la extraña posición de la almohada me sugiere que fue en la cama donde ocurrió. JonBenet tenía un corazón dibujado en la mano izquierda con tinta roja o rosa. Ese corazón no estaba allí cuando Patsy la acostó. Estaba en su mano izquierda con la parte inferior del corazón hacia ella, así que probablemente lo dibujó ella misma con su mano derecha.

Es todo tan triste y tan frustrante, y el saber que su padre rehizo su vida y sigue suelto, ganando dinero a costa de toda esta situación que él mismo provocó truncando la vida de su hija... Es descorazonador.

[Chrissie · Rating 4 out of 5]

There can be few who have not heard about the murder of this small child. When I spotted this audiobook, it struck me that I could not recall anyone actually being convicted of the crime. I now know why. This book is a comprehensive telling of the crime and the investigation by a detective involved in the case. It is hard to believe to be honest - although I do believe the author unfortunately. Somebody has got away with the killing of this precious little girl, and the person who is probably responsible is horrifying to contemplate. Rest in peace little JonBenet, what happened to you was unconscionable.

[Linda Lipko · Rating 3 out of 5]

Steve Thomas is one angry man. When reading the page after page of his litany, the reader understands his thoughts and feelings.

On Christmas night in 1996, six year old Jon Benet Ramsey was murdered. If we believe Thomas' clearly outlined reasons why he knows the parents were involved, then we also know that she died from a severe blunt force injury to the skull, and was strangled simply to ensure that she was really dead.

Clear evidence supported his beliefs that in a fit of rage, Patsy Ramsey smashed her daughter's head, placed the tiny body in a far away room in the basement and then, using part of the paint brush in her art bag, made a garrote and strangled her small, innocent little girl.

Before the Ramsey's left hurriedly in their private jet Christmas Day, the body was discovered by her father, John Ramsey and his friend Fleet White.

Eventually, when Fleet White confronted John Ramsey regarding his lack of being forthright and working with the DA and the investigators, he then became a suspect, thrown to the investigators by John Ramsey. Often, the list of suspects given to the DA office were their "best friends." While betraying friends who came to their aid, they wrote glowing, loving notes to the very same people.

There are a host of reasons why the author believes Pat Ramsey killed her child, then wrote a rambling ransom note, and staged the crime scene to make it look as though an intruder entered and killed Jon Benet.

Citing the fact that there was a spider web on the window the Ramsey's claimed the intruder could have entered. The spider web would have been broken upon entry if there was an outside intruder. The window was broken by John Ramsey prior to the abduction and never repaired. In addition the leaves and debris were in place with no footprints. The intruder would have had to be in the house for a long time in order to murder Jon Benet, place her body in a hard-to find room, place a blanket over her, and take time to write a three page note, using a felt pen and then placing it back in the original container.

The tablet used for the ransom note only contained Patsy's handwriting and that of the detective who examined it. In addition, hand writing analysis experts believed beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Patsy who wrote the note. Phrases used mirrored the pattern of her speech process.

The Ransey's story switched periodically. Pat Ramsey greeted the police on Christmas Day wearing the outfit she wore the night before. The lab would find fibers from Patsey's jacket on the tape used to seal Jon Benet's mouth.

The fingerprints on the far away door contained Patsy's fingerprints. But, most telling was the fact that before they left Christmas Day, the had hired a slick team to help do damage control. While the Ramsey's showed tears, throughout the investigation, they refused to help police and key detectives other than to repeatedly deny their involvement.

On the night of Jon Benet's death, the parents claimed they never heard an movement or sounds. Given the fact that it was a spiral staircase that the murderer would have had to climb and go down in the dark, it would have been a nightmare to accomplish this feat.

When asked if they checked on their son to make sure he was still in the house, the Ramsey's store noted they had not. This indeed is rather strange behavior of parents. Normally, parents would rapidly check to ensure their other child/childred were safe. Also, stating that their son Burke was asleep when they made the 911 call, enhanced sound of the 911 tape showed that Burke was awake and spoke in the background as Patsy spoke to the 911 dispatcher.

Who ever did the murder had to know 7,000 square foot house inside and out, including the fact that the light switch in the room where Jon Benet was deposited and found, was located behind the door in a not so obvious place.

Most horrific was the fact that the examination of her six year old body indicated past and present repeated bruising and swelling.

The author is angry because he wanted to proceed with the evidence, while the DA in Boulder Colorado helped the Ramseys by disclosing all information the detectives had gained. In addition, the DA had a history of plea bargaining and was exceedingly liberal in his decisions.

The DA's team were called "Team Ramsey" by the detectives because they coddled the Ramsey's and helped them rather than adhere to rules of conduct. There were repeated leaks to the press which could be directly linked to the DA's office. Thus, the Ramsey's lawyers had full disclosure and nothing was hidden regarding the mounting evidence that was discovered leading to the fact that Pat Ramsey killed the child and John Ramsey decided to cover it up.

In the end, no one was found guilty. A little six year old girl was brutally murdered and her body violated. She lies in the ground in a cemetery wearing her tiara and showy dress from the competitions her mother insisted she become a part of since she was four.

[Mr Stewart · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had done some research about the Ramsey case prior to reading this book. I expected a badly botched investigation stemming from errors made in the first two days after the initial 911 call. Steve Thomas' perspective indicates, to me, a willful move on the part of the Boulder County DA's office to obstruct investigation on this case and refusal to prosecute it against the only clear suspect there is; i.e. Patricia Ramsey. It was my assumption that the DA's office couldn't bring this case to trial due to the evidence being flimsy, because of the botched crime scene and (lack of) interviews conducted in these critical first days. What Thomas describes is a DA's office actively ignoring or destroying valid evidence and witness statements, and colluding with the Ramsey legal team to make sure that they (Team Ramsey) had the best possible preparation for any prosecutorial action against them -this despite the fact that the Ramsey's hadn't even been charged with anything and had no right to be privy to the case evidence-.

Further questions arise from 2013 release of information that the Ramseys were indicted by grand jury and Boulder DA refused to sign the indictment?

[Patty Abrams · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this and it's clear, the mom did it. Then I read the mom's book and it's clear, a stranger did it. Hmm. This is good coverage of the case and makes you wonder.

[berthamason · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 stars.

[Kirk · Rating 4 out of 5]

Attempting an argument about which heinous Colorado crime is the worst is a lot like a child imagining what the monster under his bed looks like: the evils get worse the more you think about them. The Columbine High School, Aurora Cinemark Theaters, and Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shootings alone claimed 28 innocent lives and permanently altered 100 more, and have resulted in a legacy of active shooter training for students and emergency personnel alike. Despite the wickedness, notoriety, and toll of these mass shootings, they each can claim some form of legal closure, and thus, they give way to JonBenét. It is this princess who must wear the crown for Most Arduous Crime in Colorado History, and her prize is anything but justice.

For the unacquainted (all two of you out there), JonBenét was the six-year-old victim of a kidnapping-cum-homicide that occurred on Christmas Day, 1996, in Boulder, Colorado. She was the victim of strangulation and blunt force trauma to the head, and was found covered in a remote room of the family home’s basement. JonBenét was a pretty child heir to paternal wealth and maternal elegance. Her father was a millionaire businessperson who owned a subsidiary belonging to Lockheed Martin, and her mother was a former state beauty pageant winner. The pair were quickly identified as persons of interest, and then suspects, by the police; however, they were never identified as such publically because of the “island of privacy” they could afford by virtue of their wealth and political connections throughout the state. The case garnered national media attention, and is an active case today after having been reclaimed by the Boulder Police Department from the Boulder District Attorney’s Office after a bungled grand jury indictment.

Steve Thomas writes with venom in JonBenét as he takes the District Attorney and several of his commanding officers to task for not orchestrating a proper investigation or pursuing prosecution. The book begins with a summary of the crime, part of which is Thomas identifying mistakes made by the Boulder Police Department, including but not limited to failing to secure the crime scene, failing to implement proper crime scene logs, failing to divide and account for witnesses, and failing to professionally deal with media. Though not personally responsible, Thomas admits the culpability of the department in injuring the investigation, thus earning credibility for his honesty and departmental consciousness. In the next three sections, Thomas describes at length the poor relationship between the police and the District Attorney’s Office, citing specific examples of inter-departmental failings as the case proceeds and routine elements of police-work go by the wayside. The detective’s case is continually compromised by stalled search warrants, denied access in conducting field interviews, leaked information to the press and to Team Ramsey (almost always leaked by the DA, and Thomas has proof), and the refusal of support from other agencies. On the last point, Thomas feels so vapidly about his own prosecuting agency that he recruits the help of three famous Denver attorneys, not to mention the likes of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and CASKU (the FBI’s Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit) to help move the case towards an arrest. An arrest never happens.

Thomas is not without explanation for why the investigation was compromised from the beginning and no arrest was ever made. Simply put, the Boulder Police Department was not trained or staffed appropriately for a major person’s crime, the District Attorney had lost their trial skills as a result of decades of plea bargaining so the prosecution was intentionally stalled, and, worst of all, the Ramsey’s had the connections and the means to escape the treatment becoming of suspects in a homicide case. As if these circumstances were not bad enough, Boulder and its leaders were not prepared to deal with any media beyond the local Daily Camera, and they were also pre-modern in their conception of their town as too-small and too-liberal of a city to suffer.

The only consistency in the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation since it began has been the finger-pointing. Detectives pointed fingers at Patsy, identifying her as the suspect, and pointed fingers at the DA, citing near-criminal behavior on the part of Alex Hunter and his minions. The DA pointed fingers at everybody except John and Patsy Ramsey, perhaps to create busywork and the appearance of progress. The Ramsey’s pointed fingers at the Boulder Police Department, stating the department was lazy and misdirected, resulting in a total re-victimization of the Ramsey family. A few investigators still pointed their fingers at the ill-defined intruder theory, even after the fruitless grand jury, citing the impossibility of filicide because of some charismatic quality on the part of the Ramsey’s. In my opinion, Steve Thomas is the owner of one of the more trustworthy fingers. He was the lead detective on the case, and, in JonBenét, he presents the case with anger and honesty. It’s a must read for those interested in true crime, not for the evidence or the gossip or the whodunit rhetorical questioning, but because of questions raised about efficiency, justice, and systemic integrity.

[Adam · Rating 4 out of 5]

An underrated book on the case. I've noticed a lot of people online that have looked in to this crime haven't read this one. I imagine the Ramsey's bought up a lot of copies and pulped them.

Maybe they could reprint it?

Anyhow I thought I had reviewed this book, but I don't remember. This copy didn't have it marked as read.

I saw John E. Douglas' book 'The Cases That Haunted Us' and how some people fell for the Intruder Theory badly espoused by Lou Smit and obviously the Ramseys and others on their payroll. So I wrote a comment but thought I'd just post it here instead:

Intruders don't write a two-and-a-half page ransom note on impulse with the Sharpie pen and legal pad paper from the house.

For those unsure or think an intruder did it then consider this:

This case is unique, it's the only case ever anywhere in the world where a supposed 'intruder' attempts to kidnap a child but kills them and leaves the body behind but not before writing a long stupid Hollywood-esqe note. It's never happened before or since. It's the only case. Think about that.

So the only conclusion is that it was a family member. And the grand jury came to this conclusion also. But contaminated evidence and rich defendants that lawyered up quicker than you can say 'Inside job!'. They've also hired PR firms to advise them and spread the Intruder theory further and hopelessly smear or debunk any comments at Internet forums that disprove the Intruder theory or confirm the obvious, that a family member did it.

Just like Jason Simpson killed Nicole Brown and her restaurant server friend Ron Goldman, I believe the brother Burke did it. It's staring everyone in the face, it's right there. OJ covered up for his son. The Ramsey's and their massive wealth and power influenced the DA and covered up the case. The evidence is right there, they sent good honest hard working cops on wild goose chases. Over 1600 of them.

The 'intruder' theory is so phony and bogus as a three dollar bill. Lou Smit was a deeply religious man and just simply couldn't fathom that the parents would be involved. He's so biased yet admitted that in all the years and evidence he couldn't really make a case on who did it or even find a stun gun to match the train track marks he claims.

And of course John Douglas is on the payroll, so is also hugely biased. Also the fact that profiling isn't really a serious true scientific discipline of catching criminals. It's an aid to allocating investigative resources at most. It's massively overrated and sexed up by screenwriters.

Again money talks. If this was a poor black girl in Chicago it would not get the same saturated attention and it would have been solved and justice done within 4 years, easily.

Burke is suing for libel seeking damages of...wait for it, an outrageous $750mn. Figures. It's good to be super rich.
{End of copy + paste}

So there it is. Burke or Patsy did it and they covered it up with the help of their lawyers and PR team. Perfect crime indeed, if you have the money.

Oh and who plays golf in Colorado or Georgia around Christmas time anyway? Seriously!

[Angie · Rating 1 out of 5]

Wow…just… wow. And not in a good way. This book starts off with the officer complaining that not enough Boulder police officers have shot people and that he had to face consequences the two times in a year he shot someone. Already not a good look and came off extremely whiny and woe is me. Then everything was blamed on liberals instead of the incredibly inept responding officers who ruined the crime scene. His fellow officers were the ones that sabotaged the case from the beginning and he couldn’t accept that. Also, how did a rando Narc end up on a murder case this big?? Some points I did agree with like how corrupt the DA seemed. However, he kept bringing up certain things about Patsy that he was implying made her suspicious (her house being messy and her being a beauty queen) that seemed unfounded and have nothing to do with it. He made me not want to side with the police on this because of how whiny he was coming off about it and this is coming from someone who 100% believes the Ramsey’s did it. I wish he had more throughly discussed the other theories instead of rehashing the same things over and over. We get it the DA sucked and the Ramsey’s were anything but cooperative. This was definitely not what I thought it would be and was extremely subjective.

[J.M. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent, in-depth look at the investigation into the death of JonBenet Ramsey with compelling testimony about why the Boulder authorities didn't arrest anyone in conjunction with the crime. This is the third book I've read about the case in a week and my suspicions are firmly in place as to who the killer was (accidental or intentional), but I'm going to continue researching it because it interests me. Despite all the evidence and available documentation, I'm sure the person behind the killing has escaped justice.

[Kamryn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great look at this case! JonBenét is my answer to “if you could know the truth about one crime…” I loved the perspective from a lead detective. The frustration and desperation for justice is palpable.

I also appreciate that the author spelled out his theory on what happened. I’ve really only ever heard “the brother did it” and all of this information expanded my thinking. Great book, and I’m thankful this author fought to find justice for that poor child. I really hope they find her killer in my lifetime.

[SAM · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very good account but it just made me angry to the point I wish I hadn't read it. The culprits are blatantly obvious. At least one of them received a reasonable dose of karma in the end.