What do you think?
Rate this book
Ruled IN: Solving the JonBenet Ramsey Case
Far too many books have been written about this notorious case, not to mention all the news and magazine articles, Internet forums, blogs, etc. Thus, dear reader, I understand very well why you’re both suspicious and impatient. So I’ll get right to the point: I’m convinced I’ve solved this case -- and if you read the Introduction you’ll learn who I believe murdered JonBenet Ramsey and how I came to that conclusion.
Solving the case is only the first step, however. Because it’s also necessary to answer certain very reasonable questions that have puzzled so many during the 17 years since that awful Christmas night. During the course of this book, I'll be re-examining much of the evidence in detail and developing various theories regarding what happened and why.
Solving the case is only the first step, however. Because it’s also necessary to answer certain very reasonable questions that have puzzled so many during the 17 years since that awful Christmas night. During the course of this book, I'll be re-examining much of the evidence in detail and developing various theories regarding what happened and why.
219 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 2, 2014
15 people are currently reading
39 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
February 18, 2014
If only the JonBenet Ramsey case was a fictional murder mystery. The last chapter would reveal the killer, the means, and the motive in such a way that it would completely tie every loose end into a satisfying little bow.
Alas, JonBenet Ramsey was not a fictional character but instead a real, live person who was murdered—uh, make that raped and *then* murdered. Oh, and she was 6. Just 6, and while it appears that no one will ever be held accountable for this despicable crime, DocG does a rather excellent job of depicting who should be made to face the music (if, that is, the Colorado justice system ever finds the balls it lost in the face of a very wealthy, very powerful family).
Ruled IN is an excellent hypothesis although, in my opinion, it does make some presumptions—first of all in giving brother Burke a free pass. Not so quick; could the kid have swung a flashlight hard enough to “fell a 300lb man”? Improbable, yes, but possible? Also yes; some remarkable human feats are wrought when excess adrenaline is flowing. Further, a second presumption is made in posting that whoever sexually abused JonBenet is also the killer (and therefore, this could not possibly be a 9 yr old boy, DocG says, who was pre-sexual in his development). Again, it is not necessarily the case that the abuser and the killer are one and the same person. In fact, it is not an unlikely dynamic, in families where sexual abuse is occurring, for the non-offended sibling to be envious—yes, envious—of the victim. Through their lens they are not seeing the victim accurately as being hurt. Instead they are seeing that the victim is garnering special treatment (because remember—these kids see the vic being *groomed*, not the victim being *abused*. The abuse is typically perpetrated in quiet privacy. The grooming, however, is overt). Due to this it is possible that, in a fit of jealousy, rivalry, call it what you will, the so-called ‘frail’ Burke could have killed his sibling.
Yet with all that said, DocG presents his theory—that John was the perp—fluidly, plausibly, and in such a way that while one might not waltz away whistling ‘I’m A Believer’, one will most certainly be given pause. DocG’s scenario is far more likely than most of the frankly absurd theories out there—particularly the one which sees an intruder in the home, wandering about aimlessly (and stealing nothing, despite the fact that the place is a richie treasure-trove), then writing a rambling (and pointless) ransom note, using the family’s own pen and stationary, *then* not kidnapping the vic after all but instead assaulting her, (brutally), then killing her, and THEN re-dressing her. (uh…..SERIOUSLY? Who writes this crap? The killer is going to paw around through JonBenet’s clothing for fresh undies all while the rest of the family could wake up and catch them in the act at any moment? I repeat: SERIOUSLY?)
A fiction novelist would be ripped to shreds for concocting such a preposterous theory and yet it seems like a lot of people believe this scenario. Or perhaps they *want* to believe it. There is something particularly heinous, after all, in accepting that a parent could kill their own child—particularly in such a gruesome, abusive manner.
DocG, however, does accept this possibility and, in swathing through the bullshit he explains to the reader *why* it is bullshit, then goes on to construct his hypothesis which, unquestionably, is compelling. Who had opportunity, means, and motive? Who used his endless dollars to buy an investigatory team, a dream-team defense, and kept the case filled with red herrings from the get-go?
Daddy Dearest gets the nod from DocG as the likeliest perp. Occam’s Razor, indeed.
I was enthralled by this quick book, and satisfied by its theory. Saddened too, however, because over the years of reading JonBenet blogs (as an observer, never as a participant) it seems like most theorists are far more concerned with being right than they are with the fact that someone has gotten away with the murder of another someone who was little more than a baby. A little girl who still wet the bed (another symptom of chronic sex abuse, by the way), who was in primary school, who was, dammit, and let me repeat: JUST A LITTLE GIRL, could in no way have defended herself from a blow to the head, sexual indignity, or, most certainly, from a garrote used to strangle her.
This crime was monstrous. And sometimes the theorists, in their zeal to present their cases, forget that piece. JonBenet was *not* a fictional character. Ergo it would have been a nice touch to see compassion for this child in the pages of DocG’s book (although I ‘get’ why he kept it to ‘Just The Facts, Ma’am’; emotion tends to make things, and people, a little cloudy).
Beyond it all, this piece of non-fic kept me thumbing pages all day and I literally couldn’t put it down until it was done. Fact based, plausible, likely, and very well written (I appreciated the sharp-tongued narrative—aha! Maybe there *was* some emotion in there after all) my only complaints were a couple of funky quirks: phony was misspelled throughout and breakin was always depicted as one word (DocG—you’re killin’ this Type A writer, doin’ that, man!). But all in all I think Ruled IN is an excellent summation and theory of and about the Ramsey mystery. 5 Stars.
Alas, JonBenet Ramsey was not a fictional character but instead a real, live person who was murdered—uh, make that raped and *then* murdered. Oh, and she was 6. Just 6, and while it appears that no one will ever be held accountable for this despicable crime, DocG does a rather excellent job of depicting who should be made to face the music (if, that is, the Colorado justice system ever finds the balls it lost in the face of a very wealthy, very powerful family).
Ruled IN is an excellent hypothesis although, in my opinion, it does make some presumptions—first of all in giving brother Burke a free pass. Not so quick; could the kid have swung a flashlight hard enough to “fell a 300lb man”? Improbable, yes, but possible? Also yes; some remarkable human feats are wrought when excess adrenaline is flowing. Further, a second presumption is made in posting that whoever sexually abused JonBenet is also the killer (and therefore, this could not possibly be a 9 yr old boy, DocG says, who was pre-sexual in his development). Again, it is not necessarily the case that the abuser and the killer are one and the same person. In fact, it is not an unlikely dynamic, in families where sexual abuse is occurring, for the non-offended sibling to be envious—yes, envious—of the victim. Through their lens they are not seeing the victim accurately as being hurt. Instead they are seeing that the victim is garnering special treatment (because remember—these kids see the vic being *groomed*, not the victim being *abused*. The abuse is typically perpetrated in quiet privacy. The grooming, however, is overt). Due to this it is possible that, in a fit of jealousy, rivalry, call it what you will, the so-called ‘frail’ Burke could have killed his sibling.
Yet with all that said, DocG presents his theory—that John was the perp—fluidly, plausibly, and in such a way that while one might not waltz away whistling ‘I’m A Believer’, one will most certainly be given pause. DocG’s scenario is far more likely than most of the frankly absurd theories out there—particularly the one which sees an intruder in the home, wandering about aimlessly (and stealing nothing, despite the fact that the place is a richie treasure-trove), then writing a rambling (and pointless) ransom note, using the family’s own pen and stationary, *then* not kidnapping the vic after all but instead assaulting her, (brutally), then killing her, and THEN re-dressing her. (uh…..SERIOUSLY? Who writes this crap? The killer is going to paw around through JonBenet’s clothing for fresh undies all while the rest of the family could wake up and catch them in the act at any moment? I repeat: SERIOUSLY?)
A fiction novelist would be ripped to shreds for concocting such a preposterous theory and yet it seems like a lot of people believe this scenario. Or perhaps they *want* to believe it. There is something particularly heinous, after all, in accepting that a parent could kill their own child—particularly in such a gruesome, abusive manner.
DocG, however, does accept this possibility and, in swathing through the bullshit he explains to the reader *why* it is bullshit, then goes on to construct his hypothesis which, unquestionably, is compelling. Who had opportunity, means, and motive? Who used his endless dollars to buy an investigatory team, a dream-team defense, and kept the case filled with red herrings from the get-go?
Daddy Dearest gets the nod from DocG as the likeliest perp. Occam’s Razor, indeed.
I was enthralled by this quick book, and satisfied by its theory. Saddened too, however, because over the years of reading JonBenet blogs (as an observer, never as a participant) it seems like most theorists are far more concerned with being right than they are with the fact that someone has gotten away with the murder of another someone who was little more than a baby. A little girl who still wet the bed (another symptom of chronic sex abuse, by the way), who was in primary school, who was, dammit, and let me repeat: JUST A LITTLE GIRL, could in no way have defended herself from a blow to the head, sexual indignity, or, most certainly, from a garrote used to strangle her.
This crime was monstrous. And sometimes the theorists, in their zeal to present their cases, forget that piece. JonBenet was *not* a fictional character. Ergo it would have been a nice touch to see compassion for this child in the pages of DocG’s book (although I ‘get’ why he kept it to ‘Just The Facts, Ma’am’; emotion tends to make things, and people, a little cloudy).
Beyond it all, this piece of non-fic kept me thumbing pages all day and I literally couldn’t put it down until it was done. Fact based, plausible, likely, and very well written (I appreciated the sharp-tongued narrative—aha! Maybe there *was* some emotion in there after all) my only complaints were a couple of funky quirks: phony was misspelled throughout and breakin was always depicted as one word (DocG—you’re killin’ this Type A writer, doin’ that, man!). But all in all I think Ruled IN is an excellent summation and theory of and about the Ramsey mystery. 5 Stars.
February 23, 2014
I was interested in reading a balanced expose of this poor little girl's life and death. I don't know who killed her. I do know that this book is self-indulgent rubbish padded out with lots of repetition. *yawn* Skimmed the final chapters.
March 16, 2015
Not convinced!
Interesting way to connect the dots in this case. Other books written about the Ramsey's involvement or lack of involvement seem more persuasive. We may never know who killed that beautiful child.
Interesting way to connect the dots in this case. Other books written about the Ramsey's involvement or lack of involvement seem more persuasive. We may never know who killed that beautiful child.
January 6, 2020
Good Read
DocG presents a theory that makes more sense to me than anything else I've read or heard. Worth the time to read.
DocG presents a theory that makes more sense to me than anything else I've read or heard. Worth the time to read.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 15, 2015
What can we say about a writer who refuses to disclose his/her name and a book that has to be self-published. Is the author concerned about something? Could it be that no other publisher would touch it? In “Ruled IN – Solving the JonBenet Ramsey Case” an author identified as “DocG” determines unequivocally that John Ramsey is the murderer of his daughter, JonBenet, no ifs, ands or buts. The author goes through a long, boring comparison of handwriting, contradicting several experts, to show that John Ramsey wrote the ransom note. By the time the reader gets half way through all this rhetoric, he/she is thoroughly confused, if not asleep. The author uses the autopsy report to accuse John Ramsey of sexually molesting JonBenet, claiming that the report indicates “digital penetration.” While the report did, in fact, report damages to the vaginal area, which several experts indicated were consistent with past and present sexual molestation, the term “digital penetration” was not used. In all fairness to DocG, considerable evidence against John Ramsey was presented, but I suggest interpreting it with caution, given DocG’s determination to convict John Ramsey. DocG says that an intruder could not have entered through the notorious basement window because the spider webs and dust were not disturbed. Other reports say just the opposite. Much has been written about the JonBenet Ramsey case and many reports contradict each other. Nobody knows the truth. If you are interested in a scholarly analysis of the evidence to reach a solution to this crime, forget it. However, if you like a one-sided fantasy, whose decision is presented at the beginning, followed by a careful selection of evidence to support this conclusion, this book is for you.
June 17, 2015
Not the unbiased view I was hoping for
This author makes some fundamental assumptions early on upon which everything relies (ie. only an innocent person would have called the police) and dismisses at least one viable theory with a few sarcastic remarks. In fact, sarcasm is used quite a bit here and it's evident this was written by someone outside the investigation--I found the tone to be quite consistent w/a blogger, which I believe is how the author got started writing about this case.
Although it was a bit drier, I much preferred Foreign Faction, which was written by an investigator inside the case and contained a lot more facts, and the facts were presented far more objectively.
This author makes some fundamental assumptions early on upon which everything relies (ie. only an innocent person would have called the police) and dismisses at least one viable theory with a few sarcastic remarks. In fact, sarcasm is used quite a bit here and it's evident this was written by someone outside the investigation--I found the tone to be quite consistent w/a blogger, which I believe is how the author got started writing about this case.
Although it was a bit drier, I much preferred Foreign Faction, which was written by an investigator inside the case and contained a lot more facts, and the facts were presented far more objectively.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews