Customer Reviews

The Death of Innocence

5 star:		(60)
4 star:		(27)
3 star:		(17)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(87)

 

 

Consider what this book gives you: access to two of the most major players in the Ramsey case. Whether you are anti-Ramsey (and prepared to disbelieve every word), pro-Ramsey (and prepared to believe every word), or somewhere in between, Death of Innocence gives you something concrete against which to measure media reports, talk show content, and the statements and leaks from the Boulder PD and DA. Once one's mind is made up, it's tempting to stop thinking, stop listening, stop being open to possibilities that are contrary to your rigid stance. But the only thing that will accomplishe is to freeze you in place, leaving you forever stuck with your views, regardless of where the facts may lead. If you happen to be right, perhaps that's not such a bad thing. But if you're wrong, you'll either be eating a lot of crow, or denying the correctness of the ultimate solution of this crime (*if* it's ever solved). For quite a while now I have been leaning toward the possibility that the Ramseys are innocent, but I bought their book to look for contraditions and conflicts that might challenge or change my thinking. I did not simply seek reinforcment of what I was already tending to believe. In Death of Innocence, I have read things that trouble me, raising questions that I wish I could hear answered. But over all (at least at this moment) I remain open to the thought that the Ramseys may well be innocent. You may see it otherwise. This book is neither exonerating nor incriminating. Rather, it is an important piece in an intriguing puzzle. Regardless of whether it contains information or disinformation, it is an essential document for those who are thinking their way through the maze of this murder case, for how can one do that without knowing what the Ramseys have to say? It may be lies or it may be the truth -- but in either case, it is the only document of its kind that we have available to us. To judge it, you must read it. And to know its accuracy, you must wait for a time that may never come. It is not my admiration for the writing that makes me give this book 5 stars (in fact, I see the hand of the ghost writer throughout; I wish that freelance writer hadn't "helped" the Ramseys because I wanted their "voices" to be truly theirs). Why did I give the book 5 stars? Because it tells us the Ramseys' story, or at least the story the Ramseys want us to believe -- and, either way, it is indispensible to anyone who is making an informed decision regarding the Ramseys' guilt or innocence. Use it to shape your thinking now, and to refer to later, if and when the case is officially solved.

...it's fun to read stories that you assume are largely fiction but have characters that you know from movies, history, etc. I was certain that "The Death of Innocence" fell squarely into that category. However, I was surprised to find it to be a fairly well written memoir that presented a plausible case for the Ramsey's innocence. While the book didn't convince me that the Ramseys are as innocent as they claim to be...If nothing else, the book forced me to think of John, Patsy, and JonBenet as real people instead of two-dimensional tabloid characters...

I still don't know who killed JonBenet Ramsey, but I must saythis book has not ruled out, in my mind, her parents. Poorly writtenand hard to follow at points, but, an interesting read.

The bottom line with the Ramsey's, after all is said and done with this book, is PR (public relations) and perhaps the creation of a "boogey-man" factory in our minds. John quotes himself in the book to Patsy that "the number one priority of the attorneys and the investigators is to keep us [John and Patsy] out of jail." And here --- all this time --- I thought their number one priority was to find justice for JonBenet, to find JonBenet's killer! Couple this with the Ramsey's deep concern for what future generations of their own family will think of them, one could begin to wonder what IS at work, here? In addition, I found their suggestion of including suicide victims as suspects, particularly distasteful, if not unethical and crass. Sometime after I had decided that everyone in America (if not the world) should go to their local police department to submit voluntary samples to help solve this case, the Ramseys point their indiscriminate fingers toward yet another segment of the population ---- recent suicide victims (in these cases, their families).

Some of the charges they make against the media are fair, make no mistake about it. I would add that most people don't put a lot of trust in the tabloids, however, and sometimes not much in their local news coverages either. I also don't think that Larry King can be considered part of the tabloid establishment, yet the Ramsey's haven't really performed any better there. If they ever met with Ted Koppel, I missed it.

I do agree with the Ramsey's regarding their interpretation of the autopsy findings regarding cause of death. I do not agree with them, however, regarding their accounts of the un-likelihood of sexual abuse and incest. Incest is an issue this country has yet to face squarely and "know" squarely (which may be one reason people latched on to this case). It is my understanding (one of my college friends is a social worker specializing in the treatment of sexual abuse victims and has given me info here) that sexual abuse occurs much more frequently than any of us would ever suspect; the real numbers are hidden. It is also my understanding that fathers do not necessarily assault all of their daughters; they may only pick on one daughter. They may also assault their daughter only one time. It is also my understanding that many of these fathers are, to outsiders, upstanding citizens, perhaps even pillars of their communities, members of the neighborhood church, "pictures of perfection" --- people without any prior record, without any prior "histories". In this same vein, I disagree with the "prior sexual assault" (or lack of it) interpretation of the Ramseys with regard to the autopsy findings. I do agree with the experts that say it happened to JonBenet prior to Dec 25, 1996 as well as just prior to her death. Incest/ sexual assault of young girls is not limited to penetration but includes all violations against them, including voyeurism where no bodily contact is made whatsoever --- one would not necessarily expect to see external bruising, I would imagine, in some instances in that area. In addition, some little girls hide their "home-burdens" quite well, may even blot incestuous occurrences from their conscious memories entirely. The scenario, in this case, of the sex game gone awry seems to be a real possibility; followed by the blow to the head as part of the staging. Perhaps when JonBenet told a neighbor that "Santa was going to make a special visit to her after Christmas" she had her father in mind --- but, we all know the "Santa Claus" to whom these repetitive aspersions are so threateningly cast.

IF (and this is perhaps a big "if"), the Ramseys are indeed innocent, their attorneys have done them a big disservice by jumping into the picture and jumping in the way in which they did, virtually before JonBenet's body had even been removed from the house. One might guess that the friend-attorney suspected guilt as well. Maybe someone did enter their house prior to the Ramseys' return home that night (which would rule out the Whites, since the Ramseys were at the Whites' for dinner; and my oh my how the Ramseys portray Fleet White! and we the readers have no way of ever proving or disproving the accuracy of their portrayal!), but why would the perpetrator after using a stun gun, stop to commit his dastardly sexual deed in the basement? And who would possibly use a phrase such as "good Southern common sense of yours" in a vicious ransom hate-note? ...

For all the Ramsey's criticisms of the BPD, their own team does not seem to have narrowed the field of suspects down any after all these years, either. In fact, they have expanded the field and continue to do so. One could argue that that is their job; if not to actually SOLVE the case, then to at least attempt to create "reasonable doubt". Many questions are left unanswered; this book raises many additional questions in my mind ...

They really believe it now. They've practiced it so often, been so terrorized by their own spin-doctoring methods, brutalized little Burke into keeping his mouth shut "or we'll all go to jail" and turning on their best friends who really loved and believed in them. Ugh. This book should be re-titled, "How To Maintain A Lofty Image Despite Your Nightmare Secrets."

Consider this, innocence falls asleep in the back seat of a car, riding home on Christmas night and is never seen again. Her mother, a former beauty queen, her father, a successful computer mogul and a brother as much a victim as scapegoat have traveled a road that has ended nowhere. . . they have just entered the Ramsey Zone where truth is stranger than fiction and innocence is dead on arrival.

In their book they attempt to give us a seamless version of the events of that fateful night but what they end up doing is creating a black hole of illogical and incomprehensible fabrications.

John and Patsy, a "loving couple" have no contact from the time the car pulls into the driveway until Patsy discovers the ransom note the next morning.

Patsy neglects to tell police in her 911 call that the kidnappers have threatened the life of their daughter if police are called and that they are watching the house.

Although the kidnappers state in the note that the Ramseys are not to talk to a stray dog or their daughter will be beheaded, they immediately call several friends and invite them over. They tell interviewers that they wish they had invited over more friends.

John spots a suspicious van parked in the back alley but doesn't mention it to the houseful of police.

Patsy would like us to believe that the former beauty queen doesn't need a daily shower or clean clothes, just a face full of makeup to start her day.

John would like us to believe that he spies the alleged escape hatch of the kidnappers, the broken window in the basement with the suitcase poised underneath but never mentions this breakthrough to the many police upstairs.

John and Patsy state that they believe the killer is communicating to the woman in Wisconsin via the internet, yet neither contact her, ever!

They write a memorial together for the first anniversary of JonBenet's death and their friends the Stines edit this. Mysteriously, the odd phrase "and, hence" appears in the edited version. The Ramseys never consider the Stines as the possible authors of the ransom note or mention the coincidence to the police.

Patsy states in the book and John restates in his interview with Barbara Walters that "the nightgown was not suppose to be there." I ask you, who else but the killers would know that.

And on and on ad nauseum...

The last laugh is the "Chronicle of Cooperation", the chapter, that purports to show the extent to which they cooperated with the Police. This chapter should be renamed "The Charade of Concealment". The Ramseys reluctantly submitted to the absolute minimum amount of scrutiny - tissue specimens, hand writing samples and routine questions. When you compare Steve Thomas's version ("JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation"} of events immediately following the murder to their insipid diatribe, you realize the chilling depths to which the Ramseys will sink. All the time, that they would have us believe that they were cooperating, they were choreographing an elalorate and extensive private investigation, independent of the police. This parallel effort only served to obfuscate the truth, deflect suspicion and compromise the value of testimonial evidence of all other witnesses.

In the Ramsey Zone, John and Patsy's book is an effort to keep us in the dark. Steve Thomas' book strives to illuminate. As Justice Brandeis once said, "Light is the greatest disinfectant." Perhaps, some day, JonBenet will show us the light.

This book is all fluff. I was amazed that one of the things Patsy Ramsey felt important enough to put in this book was what she wore to her daughter's funeral and what she wore on CNN. The part where she said her mind conjured up images of Jacqueline Kennedy at the funeral of JFK when she was preparing for her daughter's funeral made me believe this woman loves the spotlight! Unbelievable that with a tragedy like this her obvious underlying concerns are what people are going to remember her looking like the day of her poor child's funeral. To add insult to injury she writes that John told her she looked beautiful that day. Give me a break! Then she says during a break while being interviewed at the police station, she could tell the office people were looking at her sizing her up. This woman loves attention. Where are the priorities here? If they thought there was an intruder, show me the evidence. Ask Lou Smit to write a chapter, that would have done it for me, instead of all this nonsense about how they are victims because of the media!

The first thing that struck me about this book is that Patsy switches to present tense ("I hear John...I swing out of bed....") when she talks about that morning. In statement analysis, describing past events in the present tense indicates that you are inventing instead of remembering.

Do they really not understand why people think they're guilty? Do they really think that Fleet White's anger is inexplicable? Both Patsy and John were throwing suspicion on the Whites with both hands in their police interviews. (You can find these online.) The wide-eyed wonderment of the Ramseys is just not believable.

They tell a lot of half, quarter and eighth truths so take this book with a grain of salt.

This book is self-serving as has been practically every action that the Ramseys have taken from their first CNN interview. The Ramseys have hidden behind their lawyers from day one. If they knew an intruder had murdered their daughter, they would have rushed to give the police interview after interview tro help solve the case. Unfortunately, I believe they know exactly what happened to Jon Benet and do not dare openly discuss the reality with the police. I really don't know who is more reprehensible - the parent who killed or the parent that is covering up to save their own image.

Here's what your asking me to believe: 1. An individual who knows details about your family enters your house, failing to awake anyone in the home. 2. Removes the child, from her bed. 3. Murders the child in the basement with the mother's paintbrush handle. 4. Uses a pen and pad belonging to the home, to write a three page ransom note containing words like "a small foreign faction..." and asking a ransom that happens to match John's bonus. Whoever this person is they must have felt pretty comfortable in the home. 5. Despite the Boulder PD inept handling of the crime scene, the family aggravates the investigation by applying conditions to the interviews. The body was found in the home. That means the people in the home had opprotunity and are the primary suspects until cleared. I would think that you would expect to be prime suspects, and would rush to clear yourselves. I would say that if the police had to bargain to gain access to you, you were not exactly cooperating. 6. You deny that bed wetting and toliet training is a leading cause of child abuse. Frankly...yes there are many people who would become angry enough to kill a dog for messing the carpet.

I am a police officer. I am not a homicide detective. I am not an expert. However, considering that your daughter was killed in your home, in your presence, with your paintbrush, and the lengthy ransom note was written in your home, with your pen and your paper. Im surprised that you seem offended and feel the need to protect yourself from police inquiry when the investigation has naturally focused on you as suspect. If the suspect's motive was money, why not remove the child, live or dead, from the home, and carry on with the ransome demand? By leaving the body in the home, it was a matter of time before it would be discovered, and the motive of gain becomes a mute point. It would appear the ransome note was a rambling, ill-concieved attempt to coverup a murder. If this was done because someone hates you John Ramsey, why the note demanding a ransome they knew they would never get? Patsy...if you did do this thing, I would be cautious about invoking the name of God, because your right....He does know.

On a lovely morning after a lovely night, you discover a long, rambling, terrifying "ransom" note. You immediately believe everything in the note. The thought, "Is this some kind of joke?" does not cross your mind. You experience not a shred of disbelief or denial - a phenomenon we all know occurs when terrible news is dropped upon us from out of nowhere. You don't do a thorough check of the house - not inside, not out. You don't hesitate before dismissing the possible veracity of unspeakable threats in the note. Quite the contrary, you do exactly what you were told not to do, even at the risk of never again seeing your daughter alive. You don't demand to clear your name by taking a lie detector test. You don't cooperate with the police. And finally, you don't go to extreme measures to protect your remaining living child. In fact, only months after the murder, with a supposedly violent child-killer on the loose - one with a vendetta against your family - you send your precious son to summer camp to go canoeing and do arts & crafts.

Innocent? As I said before: Hard to believe.

(I thought the Ramseys' attempt to show how much they cooperated with the police rang terribly hollow. Talk about spin...)