Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.



Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 6
» Latest member: PeterSherri
» Forum threads: 1,759
» Forum posts: 5,600

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 39 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 39 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
9 pg notes
Forum: Linda Wickman
Last Post: jameson245
06-18-2021, 05:31 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 607
Professor Matrix v steve ...
Forum: Nancy Krebs
Last Post: jameson245
06-18-2021, 04:50 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 446
Forum: December 26th
Last Post: jameson245
06-15-2021, 10:50 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 2,678
Jane Stobie interview
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
06-02-2021, 07:53 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 579
Jane Stobie interview
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
06-02-2021, 07:53 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 378
MOre on Don Foster
Forum: Discredited and discounted witnesses in this case
Last Post: jameson245
05-19-2021, 07:23 PM
» Replies: 13
» Views: 10,715
Barbara Reffner aka A Can...
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
05-16-2021, 02:43 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 568
from 2021 blog
Forum: Fleet and Priscilla White
Last Post: jameson245
05-02-2021, 05:19 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 870
I met Rol
Forum: Rol Hoverstock
Last Post: jameson245
05-02-2021, 05:15 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 2,368
Melody and Luther Stanton...
Forum: Neighbors
Last Post: jameson245
05-02-2021, 05:08 PM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 7,994

  12/3/97 - letter to Governor Romer
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-01-2017, 03:28 PM - Forum: Darnay Hoffman - No Replies




NEW YORK, NY 10023

TELEPHONE (212) 496-2936

FAX (212) 496-8676

December 3, 1997
Hon. Roy R. Romer, Governor
Office of the Governor
State Capitol Building
Room 136
Denver, CO 80203
Quote:Re: JonBenét Ramsey
Dear Governor Romer:
You may need to order an investigation into the Colorado Bureau of Investigation's handling of the handwriting evidence in the murder of JonBenét Ramsey.
Sometime last March, Boulder police submitted a search warrant affidavit to a Michigan judge seeking permission to search the vacation home of John and Patsy Ramsey for handwriting exemplars. According to Boulder police, a preliminary report by C.B.I. had determined that Patsy Ramsey was "probably" the ransom note writer, hence the need for more unrehearsed samples of her handwriting.
Three months later, CBI issued a report to the Boulder police that reportedly concluded that their analysis "does not exclude" the handwriting of Patsy Ramsey as the ransom note writer. As Ramsey attorney Patrick Furman was quoted to say in the Rocky Mountain News: "the finding of ‘does not exclude’ is one step away from clearing her of authorship." Defense attorney Hal Haddon remarked that the CBI level of assessment of Patsy Ramsey's handwriting "has no evidentiary value, because a lot of people write similarly."
The question for you, Governor, is how C.B.I. could issue a final report which was so dramatically different from their earlier preliminary report. Patsy Ramsey went from "probably" being the ransom note writer in March to "she didn't write it" in June. What's going on here?
This development is especially disturbing in light of the fact that of all the handwriting experts I have consulted -- and there have been over a dozen -- not one of them could believe that any reputable handwriting or document examiner could reach any other conclusion than that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note. It wasn't even a close call.
Three of the questioned document examiners I consulted have prepared lengthy handwriting reports which clearly show Patsy Ramsey as the ransom note writer. I have enclosed them for your convenience. They were prepared by Thomas C. Miller, a Denver attorney and certified court handwriting expert, David S. Liebman, the president of the National Association of Document Examiners, and Cina L. Wong, the youngest board certified document examiner in NADE history, and considered by many to be the Henry Lee of handwriting examiners.
If after reading these reports you have as many unanswered questions as I have about the disparity between CBI’s conclusions and those of the enclosed experts, you might decide on an investigation. Before the Oklahoma Bombing, no one knew the terrible trouble the FBI crime lab was in. The O.J. Simpson case exposed the L.A. crime lab for the mess it had become. Perhaps the JonBenét Ramsey case will bring some needed light into the dark corners of the CBI forensic handwriting division. According to published reports, Ramsey defense attorneys hired the former teacher and mentor of CBI's handwriting division as an expert "consultant." You can start your investigation right there and keep on going. Who knows what you might find.
Darnay Hoffman
cc.: Gale Norton, A.G.

Print this item

  timeline of window
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-01-2017, 01:03 PM - Forum: Broken window/ Spider web - No Replies

Will be edited as I find information with times.

PW book - BPD Report #5-2473 - - "some time before 1000 hours John Ramsey went down I the basement to the train room and he found the train room window open so he closed it."     According to John, he had been searching the house, the walk-in refrigerator, under beds, anywhere he might think she could have hidden and he went to the basement.  When he saw the open window with the suitcase under it, he thought that is not right and HE says he went upstairs and told the detective he had broken the window months before but the window being open, the suitcase being under it and the scrape mark on the wall was not right.

Print this item

  Details from Paula Woodward's book
Posted by: jameson245 - 03-01-2017, 12:03 PM - Forum: Christmas Day, 1996 - Replies (2)

"The kids ran into he bedroom at 6:30 that morning," John remembered.  "They were thrilled.  I made them wait in our room until I went down and turned on the Christmas tree lights.  I brought in Patsy's bike from the garage. Burke and JonBenét's new bikes were already in front of the tree."

(So much for the theory that Burke killed his sister because she got a bike and  he did not.)

Print this item

  Ramseys barely spoke to each other on Dec. 26th
Posted by: jameson245 - 02-28-2017, 10:20 AM - Forum: Disproving Myths - No Replies

Ann Bardach, in her early Vanity Fair article, wrote the Officer French said the Ramseys "had barely spoken to or looked at each other", that "he did not see them console each other. 

But in French's police report BPD #5-3844, from the transcript of a formal interview done in January, 1997, we find "John Ramsey does do some touching of Patsy at the scene."

And, in Paula Woodward's book we also have the victims' advocate on record.  "Patsy and John had been in the formal dining room together for some time holding each other or talking." "I didn't know they were in there alone together."  BPD #5-2630

Print this item

  quotes found in police reports
Posted by: jameson245 - 02-28-2017, 10:12 AM - Forum: December 26th - Replies (4)

Unfortunately, Paula Woodward did not name the authors of these quotes, but she did cite the police reports that included them.    Maybe one day she will put names to the quotes.  But here, from her book...

BPD #5-433 - "Patsy was literally in shock.  Vomiting, hyperventilating."

BPD #1-640 - "Patsy cries all the time."

BPD #5-230 - "During the initial ransom demand time Patsy was hysterical, just absolutely hysterical."

BPD #5-404 - "She is hyperventilating, She is hallucinating.  She is screaming.  She wa hysterical. John was pacing around.  (Close family friends) were trying to keep Patsy from fainting. She was vomiting a little."

BPD #5-437 - "I thought Patsy was going to have a heart attack and die.  I thought she was going to kill herself."

Print this item

  Peering through splayed fingers
Posted by: jameson245 - 02-28-2017, 09:57 AM - Forum: Disproving Myths - No Replies

Despite Vanity Fair's story that indicated the Officer French thought there was something strange about how the Ramseys were acting that morning, and the story has Patsy "peering at him through splayed fingers", police reports actually say nothing of the sort.

In her book, Paula Woodward quotes a BPD report - #5-3851)  "Officer French thinks the Ramseys are acting appropriately at the scene."   

Paula writes, "nowhere in the initial Boulder Police Department reports or excerpts of officer interviews obtained since 1997 does Officer French refer to Patsy as "peering at" or "watching' him on the morning of December 26, 1996."

Print this item

  info on Wolf suit, later dismissed
Posted by: jameson245 - 02-27-2017, 07:00 PM - Forum: Darnay Hoffman - No Replies

Chris Wolf, a Boulder County journalist represented by his attorney, Darnay Hoffman of New York, filed a $50 million. dollar lawsuit on May 2000 in U.S. District Court in Atlanta claiming libel, slander, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Wolf claims in the Ramsey's book, "Death of Innocence," they libelously portrays him as a suspect in the murder.

From the Boulder Weekly article, "John Ramsey's prime suspect," "Chris Wolf was a former reporter for the Colorado Daily and former editor of the Louisville Times. Although police cleared Wolf, the Ramseys won't give it up.

On Good Morning America, Larry King Live, 20/20 and other recent TV shows, John Ramsey has spoken of Wolf as the man he was almost convinced killed JonBenet."

June 12, 2000
Amended Complaint for Libel and Slander

August 2, 2000
Wolf's Opposition to Ramsey' motion to dismiss

April 3, 2001
Summary of the 17 page formal answer filed

Print this item

  5/1/00 - Darnay and Chris Wolf on O'Reilly
Posted by: jameson245 - 02-27-2017, 06:58 PM - Forum: Darnay Hoffman - No Replies

O'Reilly Factor, Fox News
Host: Bill O'Reilly
Guests: Chris Wolfe and Darnay Hoffman

B.O.: In the Unresolved Problem Segment tonight: Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey. The cops can't solve the mystery, so now the case is being played out in books and in unproven accusations. In the Ramseys' book, The Death of Innocence, the couple writes about free-lance Denver journalist, Chris Wolfe: "Whatever the police's intentions, Wolf went on our suspect list. He represented too many unanswered questions." And during a Today Show interview, Katie Couric asked the Ramseys about Mr. Wolfe. Here's what John Ramsey said. ". . . he'd been widely mentioned in the news, and we wanted to clarify the facts that we knew. I can tell you - when we first started looking at - at one particular lead early on, my reaction was . . . this is it. This is the killer. And our investigator said, 'whoa, whoa, whoa,' he'd say 'don't do a Boulder police on me. Don't rush to conclusions.'"
With us now from Denver is Chris Wolfe, and here in the studio is his attorney, Darnay Hoffman, who has been a critic of the Ramseys all along. We must say that Mr. Wolfe is filing a major lawsuit against the Ramseys. Now, you have been cleared by the Boulder police, Mr. Wolfe. You're not a suspect in the case any longer, but you were a suspect in the beginning due to your girlfriend, and how did that happen and what did she say?
CW: I'm not sure exactly what she said, but it must have been something that . . . about me . . . regarding the murder of the little girl, which of course I had nothing to do with. I could never and would never do anything like that. But I think that she was angry with me and for personal reasons, I guess, as far as regarding our relationship, and I think that she wanted to make my life miserable, and I think that she succeeded.
BO: Why didn't you sue her, first of all?
CW: Well, we have a long history, and we were at one time very close friends. At this point I still have a great deal of sympathy for her and I don't have malice toward her, so I didn't want to . . .
BO: All right. So you've never met the Ramseys, never come into contact with the family at all?
CW: Never. Never heard of either of them or their daughter prior to the murder of the little girl.
BO: Were you anywhere near the house, was there any . . .
CW: No.
BO: Nothing.
CW: No.
BO: Now, when the police came to the door to ask you questions, what was your reaction?
CW: Well I was shocked and I was angry and I refused to answer questions initially. They first tried to interrogate me and asked me to give handwriting samples and such maybe like a month after the murder, and I refused. It wasn't until more than a year later that I heard from them again and they asked me - they called me at work and asked me to come to the police station to give handwriting and DNA and hair and palm prints, and of course a lot had happened in that period of time, and I was more inclined to cooperate with them at that point, which I did that afternoon. I went directly to the police station after work and provided them with a lengthy handwriting sample, hair and DNA samples, as well as palm prints. That's all they asked from me.
BO: All right. So the first time, would you chalk up the first refusal to being nervous or being . . .
CW: No, not nervous at all, but just outraged - just shocked that they would be interested in me. I have no criminal record and no history of any of these things, breaking and entering, sex with children, or violent act against any person. I've never committed any of those crimes or ever been accused of those crimes.
BO: All right, and we will tell the audience again that the Boulder police cleared you so that you don't have to worry about any recriminations from this broadcast. Now, counselor, you've filed this lawsuit against the Ramseys. How much is it for again?
DH: It's for fifty million dollars.
BO: Fifty million dollars!
DH: Twenty-five per parent.
BO: In New York instead of Colorado?
DH: Well, to begin with, Colorado really isn't the appropriate venue. Atlanta, Georgia, is the appropriate venue because the federal rules generally require you to file a suit where the defendants are located. However, there's a special problem here. In Atlanta, the legal community is so put off by this case that it's impossible to get an Atlanta lawyer to agree to appear as local counsel along with me on behalf of Chris Wolfe.
BO: Really? You can't get one Georgia lawyer?
DH: Couldn't find one. Now maybe one will come out of the woodwork at this point, but up until today I have not been able to find a single Georgia lawyer. And they all said, "Hey look, we have nothing against you as an attorney." Simply, this case is so ugly, so unpleasant, so vile, that they don't want to touch it in Atlanta.
BO: That's amazing! I mean, lawyers with ethics in Georgia (laughing) . . .you can't . . . I mean, somebody, somebody should be outraged about this guy, Chris. I mean, he's unjustly accused, it seems like, and he has a right to some redress of grievances. But the actual accusation took place in Colorado, and that's where the private investigators were hired to spy on him, right?
DH: Yeah, but a lot of the activity actually occurred in New York, particularly the most recent activity where the tapings for the book promotion were done at studios in New York City.
BO: Katie Couric and all that.
DH: Exactly. So you could certainly make the claim that the most recent activity has been in New York City. However, frequently when you can't go into a venue where you can get a fair trial for a client they move it out of state. They did that with the Oklahoma City bombing. It was moved to Denver.
BO: Yeah, I know, I know. I don't know whether they're going to throw this out or not in New York, but they probably will hear it, don't you think?
DH: Oh, they'll hear it, and there may be a - the most they'll do is transfer it into Atlanta for some attorney to basically . . .
BO: Well, after this broadcast I guarantee you you'll be hearing from an attorney because, you know, it seems to me that Mr. Wolfe has a very legitimate claim here. I wouldn't want that accusation leveled at me. Keep us posted will you, gentlemen, both of you?

Print this item

  5/24/2000 on polygraphs
Posted by: jameson245 - 02-27-2017, 06:56 PM - Forum: Darnay Hoffman - No Replies

May 24, 2000, Wednesday

: Does Passing a Lie Detector Test Take Suspicion off of John and Patsy Ramsey?

GUESTS: Darnay Hoffman, Jeralyn Merritt


ZAHN: On the investigative EDGE tonight, the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. The case just got a bit stranger. Today John and Patsy Ramsey released the results of their private lie-detector tests, and according to the results, they're innocent.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP - May 24, 2000)

PATSY RAMSEY: What was I thinking? I had JonBenet's face in my mind from the moment I went into that room. And I just kept saying, "This is for you, honey, because we're going to find out who did this. And whatever I have to do, I will do."

JOHN RAMSEY: We want the killer of our daughter found. The only thing we know to do now is to appeal to the public and say, "Look, we've done everything we can that we know we can do. You need to realize there is a killer of children that walks among us. It's not Patsy, and it's not I. Let's get on with finding the killer." That is our single and only objective in doing any of this.

ZAHN: Will the new twist in this murder case help find the killer of the young beauty queen or add to the suspicion surrounding her parents?

Joining me from Denver, defense attorney Jeralyn Merritt. And here in New York with me, attorney Darnay Hoffman.

Good to see the two of you back.


ZAHN: All right, Jeralyn, the Ramseys made it quite clear what they set out to do today, and that was to convince the public that there was a killer loose, the killer of their daughter. Did they succeed?

MERRITT: Well, I think they certainly did to some extent. Certainly, they helped move the needle back to "Who committed this crime?" as opposed to "The Ramseys did it." The problem is, if the Ramseys didn't do it, then there is a killer loose. The police have focused on the Ramseys to the exclusion of other people since the beginning of the investigation. And the police's reaction yesterday, saying that they weren't going to put any weight on the lie-detector tests before they even knew who conducted them, gives you an indication that the police aren't really interested in finding this child's killer.

ZAHN: Do you believe that, Darnay?

DARNAY HOFFMAN, ATTORNEY: Yes, I do. However, I think there's a problem with today's press conference, which is I think it's come too late in the case. I think that the Ramseys are very much like the Clintons, and I would say that I think that most people, whether this is good or bad, have made up their mind with respect to this case. And so I don't know how many people actually changed their minds with respect to what was going on today.

There's no question that I think the Ramseys don't face any legal down side from this. I don't think they'll ever be prosecuted. And consequently, I don't see how they can lose in a case like this. However, I do feel that the Ramseys still do not give the impression of being parents that are grieving.

ZAHN: I thought one of the more interesting parts of the news conference today was when Lyn Wood, the Ramseys' attorney, had this to say about if the polygraph test had come back negative, he would not have shared the results with the public. Here's what he had to say.


LYN WOOD, RAMSEY ATTORNEY: If they had failed the lie-detector test, would you not agree there would have been a demand by the public to charge them because of the cry of the public and the media would be "Guilty!" Shouldn't we, now that they've passed the test, from the foremost polygraph examiners in the country, be equally fair and say that the results show innocence?

ZAHN: So Jeralyn, the question I have for you -- would there have been a different result if the Boulder DA had administered this test or the police department locally or the FBI, along with the Boulder police department?

MERRITT: I don't think there would have been a different result in terms of whether the Ramseys would have passed or failed, although that clearly is determined by the skill of the examiner and the phraseology used in the questions. But I think that -- the Boulder police clearly should to review the examination results, to view the videotapes and the audiotapes that these tests were conducted under and to look at Mr. Baxter's (ph) analysis of the findings.

I don't see how it hurts them, and these are recognized experts in the field, very prominent. And if the Boulder police are interested in finding the killer, what harm could it do? And I think the public deserves to know that the police are going to continue to investigate a crime where the parents have been excluded by a polygraph, even though it's not admissible in court.

ZAHN: Well, let me ask you this, Darnay, because you no doubt know there are people out there suggesting that because the Ramseys set this up and this was not done with the FBI that perhaps the results are compromised.

HOFFMAN: They might be, but I do have to say I agree with Jeralyn with one respect. Already $2 million of taxpayers' money has been spent on investigating this case. The Ramseys have gone to a good deal of their own expense. This is basically a free ride for the police. It certainly isn't going to hurt them to look at these results. And I do think they should treat the experts in question a bit more respectfully than just simply dismissing the results because they were brought into the case by the Ramseys. I think that part of the problem in this case is that the police have kept out people who are really highly qualified to help with respect to some of the forensic evidence.

ZAHN: Are you bothered by the fact that the Ramseys did not take urine tests, which is so often the case with these tests?

HOFFMAN: See, I haven't seen the protocol. However, if I had been the Ramseys, I would have wanted to at least eliminate that as a question mark and have complied in areas where you know there's going to be criticism if you don't, in fact, go along with established protocol.

ZAHN: Why did they refuse...

MERRITT: But that's...

ZAHN: ... to do that, Jeralyn? And does that make them look bad?

MERRITT: No, it doesn't. And the polygraph expert today fully explained this issue, and he said there is no known drug that would have affected the polygraph results because of the way the tests were conducted and because the questions that were asked, between the pre-test and the test, were questions that were designed to elicit an emotional response, and you couldn't possibly fake it both ways. And there is no drug that can suppress an emotional reaction at will and then show one at will to a different question. So a drug would not have made a difference.

ZAHN: Of course, the -- the allegation is -- and of course, Lord knows, millions of people in America are on Prozac, but that's what the allegation is, that both the Ramseys are on Prozac.

HOFFMAN: Well, the point is, I thought the Ramseys did a very good job of revealing the fact that there had been inconclusive results, which I think was absolutely proper. And it's just a shame that they left this door open, so to speak, so that people who, quite frankly, want to question the results of this exam can do it by simply challenging the protocol, particularly with respect to the urinalysis.

There may be a lot of indications that drugs cannot change polygraph readings or whatever, but at the same time, why leave this open? They went to a great deal of expense to do it, and they -- they know that they have to basically try harder than almost any other suspect in a case like this because there's so much negative publicity around the case.


MERRITT: Paula, the FBI doesn't even give a drug test before it does a polygraph exam. And Lyn Wood today said that he asked the FBI if that's their usual protocol. They said no. The idea of a drug test was strictly that of the Boulder police, and it is not warranted.

ZAHN: Very quickly, in closing, Darnay...


ZAHN: ... what was the -- how critical is this inconclusive test? What, five tests were administered and...

HOFFMAN: I don't think it's...

ZAHN: ... one of the five came back inconclusive?

HOFFMAN: ... critical because -- but what's interesting is that you notice that whenever Patsy submits to tests, like handwriting and whatever, she has to do it more than once, apparently. She's never been able to cleanly take either a handwriting test or a polygraph and not have to do it more than once.

ZAHN: Does that make you less likely to buy the -- the results of the polygraph...

HOFFMAN: It's just simply...

ZAHN: ... test today?

HOFFMAN: She seems to have a problem with this. I don't know what it is.

ZAHN: All right, Jeralyn Merritt, Darnay, thank you both for coming by tonight- -


ZAHN: ... with your perspectives.

Print this item

  Darnay reviews PMPT
Posted by: jameson245 - 02-27-2017, 06:53 PM - Forum: Darnay Hoffman - No Replies


Lawrence Schiller
Harper Collins, 1999

In journalist Janet Malcolm's book on the lawsuit of convicted murderer Jeffrey MacDonald against true-crime writer Joe McGinnis -- who was the author of FATAL VISION, which was a book about MacDonald's brutal murder of his wife and children -- she begins her story with an opening chapter that should be required reading of every police department and prosecutors' office in America. If Alex Hunter and the Boulder police had read the first chapter of Janet Malcolm's "The Journalist and the Murderer" (Vintage, 1990) before they had ever talked to a newspaper reporter or a broadcast journalist, they might have spared themselves the self-inflicted wounds revealed in the publication of Lawrence Schiller's true crime masterpiece, "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town."

Janet Malcolm's insights into the relationship between journalist and subject are quite remarkable for anyone following the media's coverage of the JonBenét Ramsey case. She begins her book with probably the most revealing examination of the uneasy, and often treacherous, moral tension that exists between a journalist and his subject. Her observations make for instructive reading and should be studied carefully by anyone about to grant a media interview:
"Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible. He is a kind of confidence man, preying on people's vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse. Like the credulous widow who wakes up one day to find the charming young man and all her savings gone, so the consenting subject of a piece of nonfiction writing learns--when the article or book appears--HIS hard lesson. Journalists justify their treachery in various ways according to their temperaments. The more pompous talk about freedom of speech and "the public's right to know"; the least talented talk about Art; the seemliest murmur about earning a living.
"The catastrophe suffered by the subject is no simple matter of an unflattering likeness or a misrepresentation of his views; what pains him, what rankles and sometimes drives him to extremes of vengefulness, is the deception that has been practiced on him. On reading the article or book in question, he has to face the fact that the journalist--who seemed so friendly and sympathetic, so keen to understand him fully, so remarkably attuned to his vision of things--never had the slightest intention of collaborating with him on his story but always intended to write a story of his own. The disparity between what seems to be the intention of an interview as it is taking place and what it actually turns out to have been in aid of always comes as a shock to the subject -- while the reader of a work of journalism can only imagine how the writer got the subject to make such a spectacle of himself."
So there you have it: The "secret" of great journalism. It seems the "secret" lies in something known as the"art of betrayal." If you follow Malcolm's analysis to it's logical conclusion, you are left with the realization that the greater the work of journalism, the greater the act of betrayal. To become a great journalist means, in effect, that you must first become a "Great Betrayer."

Which brings us to Lawrence Schiller and his book about the JonBenét Ramsey case: "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town." Like Bob Woodward in his book "Veil", or Joe McGinniss in "Fatal Vision," Schiller dons the mantle of "The Great Betrayer."And what a job "The Great Betrayer" has done -- made all the more remarkable by the fact that nearly everyone Schiller interviewed in Boulder already knew about Schiller's "Great Betrayal" in his earlier true crime masterpiece on the O.J. Simpson case, "American Tragedy." And yet, like all great journalists, Schiller still managed to get his subjects, against what may have been their better judgment, to spill their guts with revelations about the JonBenét Ramsey case that are beginning to send shock waves throughout Colorado.

Now don't get me wrong. What Schiller does in writing "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town," he does in the hallowed tradition of great reporting. He has operated strictly within the bounds of ethical journalism. And make no mistake about it, Schiller is every bit as great a reporter as Bob Woodward, or Edward R. Morrow. His book is an exciting, brilliantly written masterpiece of journalistic "betrayal." How Schiller is able to get so many respected law enforcement figures in Boulder to undress themselves in public is worthy of consideration by the Pulitzer Prize nominating committee. Watching Alex Hunter and John Eller go at it has all the fascination of seeing scorpions stinging themselves in a bottle.

The facts of the JonBenét Ramsey case are well known to most people, therefore, summarizing Schiller's book for the reader would be a monumental presumption on the part of any reviewer. There are, quite literally, stunning revelations on nearly every page, e.g., the Halloween party where a Boulder lawyer came dressed as the dead JonBenét, or John Andrew Ramsey's semen-stained bedding hidden in a suitcase at the crime scene, to name just two. Suffice it to say that this is a big, ugly book, about an even bigger, ugly crime. "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town," like the book "A Civil Action," deserves to spend at least two years on the New York Times bestseller list. Anyone who appreciates true crime journalism in the great tradition of Norman Mailer and Truman Capote, who doesn't read "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town", is an even bigger jackass than the people in Boulder who made this masterpiece possible by foolishly agreeing to talk to Schiller in the first place.

Print this item