Customer Reviews

Presumed Guilty: An Investigation into the Jon Benet Ramsey Case, the Media, and the Culture of Pornography

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

Stephen Singular's "Presumed Guilty" is a difficult book to assess. I should state at the outset that I have no knowledge of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey other than what I have learned through the various media. I am therefore not in a position to assess the accuracy of the information the author presents based on my personal knowledge. I do, however, have training in law, and I find some disconcertingly egregious errors regarding Singular's misstatements of law.

The book begins with a prologue that seems primarily designed to convince the reader of Singular's unique (if one will pardon the pun) status as a reporter of crime and as a moral authority. People in Denver, he tells us, "were trashing one of the most basic principles of our legal system--the presumption of innocence" by speculating that the Ramsey parents murdered their daughter. Soon after, Singular attacks the media for analyzing President Clinton's speeches, thereby violating his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The list of alleged constitutional violations continues, but the problem with Singular's accusations is that they are wrong and hypocritical. First, the idea that the media are violating Clinton's constitutional rights by analyzing his words is farcical. Second, Singular laments media accusations while he makes his own. Apparently, he excludes himself from the moral dicta he reserves for others.

The book, therefore, is one that I view with intense skepticism. Naturally, an author who is ignorant of basic law may still be accurate in other respects. However, the egregiousness of the errors and the author's double standard detract from his trustworthiness. Of the crime itself, Singular tells us little. The main contribution he makes is in his theory that the killing is related to Internet pornography, though there is little evidence in the book to support the theory. Indeed, the theory almost seems to be an afterthought to the book, added without regard to cohesiveness. It is ironic that a book that begins by upbraiding the media for thinking that the parents murdered their daughter ends by suggesting that at least one of the parents abetted the killer.

Though the essential aspects of "Presumed Guilty" are misguided or insubstantial, there is a fair amount of inside information that is interesting and saves this book from the nadir of investigative journalism, albeit only barely. The author depicts, as others have, the chasm separating Boulder's two law-enforcement branches, the police and the district attorney's office. In addition, Singular provides some firsthand insights about one particular tabloid reporter. Finally, there is Singular's commentary on the "culture of pornography" (as the title suggests). Sadly, though, Singular's skills are not sufficient to make much of a case regarding this culture and its intersection with the child beauty pageants that, arguably, launched the case to national prominence.

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

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

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

This book was tedious to read. You never "tell" us anything, Mr. Singular, you merely re-hash what everybody already knows. Do you think we are gullible enough to believe that NOBODY in the enire Colorado law enforcement community knew anything about internet porn before you came onto the scene? It's a good thing you were on the scene, though, or this crime would never have been solved.........Oh, wait a minute, this crime isn't solved, is it? So what did you add? You poked around, asked a few questions, made a few suggestions, and pointed the finger in directions other than the most popular suspects. Quite an accomplishment. I don't agree with how the case has been handled by the Police and DA, but you certainly don't have any place there getting in everybody's way. Maybe you should have read your own book before you sent it to the publisher.

This is a strange little book that sheds almost no light on the JonBonet Ramsey case. Singular seems obsessed with somehow tying the JonBenet's death in with some international child pornography ring, but never gives us anything beyond his obsession. He has a little of the usual fun with the media, even bringing Princess Di's death into it, but adds nothing new. The "culture" of pornography is addressed only in the most oblique and cursorily way. I had the sense that Singular went to Boulder, Colorado thinking he might uncover something for a book, failed and came up with this mishmash, and had a deadline to meet.

The first five pages of the prologue to this book show that the author is a biased, fatuous idiot. In a mere two pages (4-5), he says that the belief that the Ramsey parent killed JonBenet is due to (1) a single talk radio host (2) white racism (3) a belief that the OJ Simpson jurors were stupid (4) a disbelief that the paid defense attorneys and experts in the OJ trial presented impartial evidence (5) a wholly irrational idea of the transfer of guilt-belief, originally held against OJ due to racism, to the white parents of JonBenet. The prologue to this book was so stupid that I could not believe that anything in the body of the book would be worth reading--even though I had heard and had been interested in his opinions as expressed on the very talk radio he condemns in his book. Given his racist, irrational, illogical prologue, what is the worth of the rest of his book?

I HAVE WORKED IN A COLORODO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY FOR MANY YEARS.THIS BOOKS SAYS MORE ABOUT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED THAN WHAT THE PUBLIC WAS PERMITTED TO LEARN.CAREERS OF FRIENDS WERE FINISHED BECAUSE THEY CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSIONS AS MR SINGLAR. THANKS FOR SPEAKING OUT WHILE EVERYONE ELSE WAS WHISPERING.

It is hard to believe that publishers continue to print books like this that are purely researched, diatribes whose only purpose seems to be to inject "authors" into a "big name" case for easy cash.

Don't waste your money or your time on this one. The author has so many of the known facts wrong that no one with a lick of sense could believe the foolishness he writes.

I found this book to be the most updated of its kind regarding the JonBenet Ramsey case. The book is a great read and sheds new light on what really may have happened to JonBenet. This is a must-read, if you liked Schiller's book on JonBenet Ramsey, you will love this up-to-date book by Mr. Singular.

I HAVE READ ALL OF THE JONBENET BOOKS. THIS ONE IS THE BEST. ONLY SCHILLER AND SINGULAR DID MORE THAN A PASTE AND CLIP JOB.THIS BOOK IS INSIGHTFUL AND THOUGHT PROVOKING.THE QUESTIONS SINGULAR RAISES ARE GOOD QUESTIONS BUT THEY MAY NEVER BE ANSWERED.

A link between kiddie porn and the Ramsey case? Singular offers no evidence of this. He just tells us he asked a lot of questions about it. He describes meetings with people where this potential link is discussed, but the conversations he recounts are laughable in their emptiness. It seems to me that the people Singular was meeting with were careful not to say anything meaningful to him. Singular preaches to the reader about how awful it was that the media proclaimed the Ramseys guilty and focused so much attention on the murder -- but then he focuses on the murder in his book, and he casts suspicion on a photographer, an ex-friend of John Ramsey, and even Ramsey himself. Singular's ultimate scenario for what happened Dec. 26, 1996 -- a scenario that makes John Ramsey a player in the murder -- is bizarre and completely unsupported by evidence of any sort. Bottom line: Amazon has lots of good books for sale. This is not one of them.