First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Steve Eller

Brooklyn, NY

#1 Mar 3, 2013
I am starting this thread to set the record straight regarding certain accusations against Jim Kolar. It was written that Kolar misrepresented the findings of the autopsy report.
WRONG.
Dr. Meyer consulted Dr. Rorke about the injuries sustained by JonBenet and she examined pictures. Now we can parse about what Dr. Meyer wrote in the autopsy and give our own unqualified medical interpretations, HOWEVER, Kolar in no way shape or form misrepresents her opinion as the official opinion of the autopsy. She was brought on to give her opinion and that is what she did. Incidentally, Dr. Rorke was chairwoman of the neuropathology department at Children's Hospital in Philadelphia and the recipient of a medical Gold Medal in Japan for her research.
I'll let the rest of you get back to playing Doctor in your spare time.
Enjoy.
Steve Eller

Brooklyn, NY

#2 Mar 3, 2013
Dr. Rorke was consulted DIRECTLY about the case and she is a world renowned expert. Nothing that is written suggests indicates or infers that her opinion was in the autopsy.
If you READ from page 63 Jim Kolar writes the following

"Dr. Meyer was concerned about JonBenet's vaginal injuries, and he along with Boulder investigators, sought the opinions of a variety of other physicians in the days following her autopsy." Kolar goes on to write a few more sentences later and still on page 63 "Experts in their field, physicians and forensic pathologists were consulted from St. Louis Missouri; Dade County,Florida; Wayne County, Michigan; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to name a few."

There is absolutely nothing inaccurate, deceptive, or misleading. You either need to actually read the book in ascending page order, hire a remedial English tutor, or accept that your willful fake discovery of Kolar's 'deception' is not to be taken seriously at all.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#3 Mar 3, 2013
Thank you for correcting the record Steve. I trust Chief Kolar implicitly.
Steve Eller

Brooklyn, NY

#4 Mar 3, 2013
candy wrote:
Thank you for correcting the record Steve. I trust Chief Kolar implicitly.
I appreciate your post Candy. I am actually very surprised that no one else picked up on it. All one has to do is start the Chapter at page 63 instead of going directly to page 64 and they realize that this 'gaffe' is not there.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#5 Mar 3, 2013
I’ve read and re-read pages 63 – 65 too many times, now. It breaks down like this: discussion of vaginal injuries: Meyer consulted with various physicians regarding the “vaginal injuries.” They examined a “series of photographs.” Conclusions are drawn.

The head bow is discussed, Rorke introduced. Kolar does not state what resources were used by Rorke. Nor is it stated that Meyer consulted Dr Rorke. It is implied that Rorke was contacted by “investigators.” It is not clear what resources were used by Rorke, but some of what she said is not supported by what we see in the autopsy report. This does seem strange.

The pineapple is discussed next.“Medical consultants” are not named but they all “generally agreed” that the “time of ingestion……coincided with the time frame regarding her head injury.” I don’t know what that means.

AS BB has said, Kolar writes “two to five hours for the pineapple to move through her system.” This does sound misleading, but I think within the paragraph’s context “move through her system” is meant as “move through her to that point in the system where it was found.”

Still, Kolar does seem to be stacking the deck throughout and the questions recently raised regarding this section of the book seem worthy.


AK
Steve Eller

United States

#6 Mar 3, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
I’ve read and re-read pages 63 – 65 too many times, now. It breaks down like this: discussion of vaginal injuries: Meyer consulted with various physicians regarding the “vaginal injuries.” They examined a “series of photographs.” Conclusions are drawn.
The head bow is discussed, Rorke introduced. Kolar does not state what resources were used by Rorke. Nor is it stated that Meyer consulted Dr Rorke. It is implied that Rorke was contacted by “investigators.” It is not clear what resources were used by Rorke, but some of what she said is not supported by what we see in the autopsy report. This does seem strange.
The pineapple is discussed next.“Medical consultants” are not named but they all “generally agreed” that the “time of ingestion……coincided with the time frame regarding her head injury.” I don’t know what that means.
AS BB has said, Kolar writes “two to five hours for the pineapple to move through her system.” This does sound misleading, but I think within the paragraph’s context “move through her system” is meant as “move through her to that point in the system where it was found.”
Still, Kolar does seem to be stacking the deck throughout and the questions recently raised regarding this section of the book seem worthy.

AK
On page 63 Kolar states that Meyer had concerns and questions after the autopsy and so did investigators. Without being verbose...AFTER the AUTOPSY is written clearly and in English. Meyer and investigators STILL had questions...EXPERTS in their FIELD consulted. It is REASONABLE to expect the reader to make the LOGICAL connection that AFTER the AUTOPSY means that these experts did not CONDUCT the autopsy.Anti K please forgive me using caps for some words as they are not directed to you but am trying to make a point. There is no INFERENCE intentional or unintentional by Kolar. It is this type of misdirection perpetratred by the likes of Blue Bottle/Banquo/Brother Moon Counofmontewhoso? Reminiscent of the misdirection and misinformation spread by Ramsey lawyer/hucksters and PR Professionals.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#7 Mar 3, 2013
You are in error.

P. 63:
Dr Meyer was concerned about Jonbenet’s vaginal injuries, and he, along with Boulder investigators, sough the opinions of a variety of other physicians… Experts in their field… examined the series of photographs that depicted the injuries and came to the opinion that Jonbenet had been subjected to sexual intrusion…
<snip>

That’s page 63. The autopsy is not mentioned. Meyer had questions regarding the vaginal injuries. He, along with BPD, consulted experts on the vaginal injuries, these experts were shown a series of photographs of the vaginal injuries.

Halfway through page 64 Kolar transitions from discussion of the vaginal injuries to discussion of the head blow. We meet Rorke, who “told investigators;” no mention of Meyer, no mention of the autopsy, no “series of photographs.” We don’t know what Rorke based her opinion on, but we do know that is seems to not supported by what we see in the autopsy report. As I said before, this does seem strange and worthy of questioning.


AK
Steve Eller

Brooklyn, NY

#8 Mar 3, 2013
You OMITTED a few words. Let me INCLUDE them for you.
FROM THE BEGINNING OF PAGE 63....WORD FOR WORD.

"Dr. Meyer was concerned about JonBenet's vaginal injuries, and he, along with Boulder investigators, sought the opinions of a variety of other physicians IN THE DAYS FOLLOWING HER AUTOPSY."
The word AUTOPSY is mentioned in the FOURTH line of the FIRST paragraph.

What version are you reading?
Steve Eller

Brooklyn, NY

#10 Mar 3, 2013
Blue Bottle wrote:
You are just making things worse for the old duffer Stupid Eller. Now there are two threads exposing Kolar's gaffe.
Thanks to AK for the explanaiton.
Let me help you out while you and your 'brain trust' ponder your next move. While I am sure you appreciate AK's explanation go buy a copy of the book or remove the darts from it and turn to page 63 of the book. READ SLOWLY CAREFULLY USE THE DICTIONARY IF NECESSARY. HERE IS A LITTLE ASSISTANCE:

"Dr. Meyer was concerned about JonBenet's vaginal injuries, and he, along with Boulder investigators, sought the opinions of a variety of other physicians IN THE DAYS FOLLOWING HER AUTOPSY."
The word AUTOPSY is mentioned in the FOURTH line of the FIRST paragraph.

What version are you reading?
Steve Eller

United States

#12 Mar 3, 2013
Blue Bottle wrote:
You should have titled this thread "Stupid Eller's Gaffe".
When you can come up with a reliable report that the swelling through the foramen magnum was observed at autopsy and through her system means proximal intestine then you are in the clear. Until then you are Stupid Eller.
You were EXPOSEd for your fraud. You won't respond about your multiple personalities on the same thread. You ignore the fact that AFTER THE AUTOPSY is written on page 63 fourth line first paragraph.
Considering your performance when you called in to the Peter Boyles show about a month ago, being called stupid by you is a compliment.
You can call people names and hurl insults behind your computer but when Boyles pressed you a little bit you RAN away from the phone so fast the skid marks are still visible.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#14 Mar 3, 2013
Thanks Steve Eller, I stand corrected on the use of the word “autopsy.”

However, the autopsy is mentioned as a time referent. When did Meyer consult “the opinions of a variety of other physicians?” IN THE DAYS FOLLOWING HER AUTOPSY.

So, the word is used, but the autopsy isn’t.

This is beside the point. Kolar does not say that Meyer consulted Rorke and he does not say that Meyer consulted anyone on the matter of the head blow. Nor does Kolar tell us what resources Rorke used to arrive at her opinion. Some of what Kolar writes seems to be inconsistent with the autopsy report.


AK
Steve Eller

United States

#15 Mar 3, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
Thanks Steve Eller, I stand corrected on the use of the word “autopsy.”
However, the autopsy is mentioned as a time referent. When did Meyer consult “the opinions of a variety of other physicians?” IN THE DAYS FOLLOWING HER AUTOPSY.
So, the word is used, but the autopsy isn’t.
This is beside the point. Kolar does not say that Meyer consulted Rorke and he does not say that Meyer consulted anyone on the matter of the head blow. Nor does Kolar tell us what resources Rorke used to arrive at her opinion. Some of what Kolar writes seems to be inconsistent with the autopsy report.

AK
Thank you for your gracious and interesting response. It may be helpful to note that Dr. Rorke was consulted extensively regarding JonBenet's injuries specifically.
Steve Eller

Brooklyn, NY

#17 Mar 3, 2013
I hope that we can have a civil discourse regarding James Kolar's book. I understand why his comprehensive straightforward and cogent approach has rattled (to say the least) so many on this forum who were used to arrogantly pushing fantasy theories with impunity.
Heloise

UK

#18 Mar 4, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
Dr. Rorke was consulted DIRECTLY about the case and she is a world renowned expert. Nothing that is written suggests indicates or infers that her opinion was in the autopsy.
If you READ from page 63 Jim Kolar writes the following
"Dr. Meyer was concerned about JonBenet's vaginal injuries, and he along with Boulder investigators, sought the opinions of a variety of other physicians in the days following her autopsy." Kolar goes on to write a few more sentences later and still on page 63 "Experts in their field, physicians and forensic pathologists were consulted from St. Louis Missouri; Dade County,Florida; Wayne County, Michigan; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to name a few."
There is absolutely nothing inaccurate, deceptive, or misleading. You either need to actually read the book in ascending page order, hire a remedial English tutor, or accept that your willful fake discovery of Kolar's 'deception' is not to be taken seriously at all.
Thank you for this, SE. I had a feeling that Dr Rorke had seen pictures and didn't get round to doing the research so I thank you for your industry. Hope you are well.
Heloise

UK

#19 Mar 4, 2013
Banquo wrote:
<quoted text>
Nevertheless, some of what Kolar writes seems to be inconsistent with the autopsy report.
Don't you agree?
The thing is, we have just seen the autopsy report. We haven't seen the whole autopsy file and I am pretty sure that Dr Meyer said he had kept the actual report as neutral as he could because he expected a trial to be held very quickly and he could testify in great detail then. The report has been criticised for this and for some of the omissions. Dr Meyer wasn't an expert on child deaths and he made some elementary mistakes but he also knew his limitations, which is why he, and the police, consulted people who were experts on such areas as paediatric gynaecology and neurology.
Somebody who has spent decades training in children's brain injuries can be expected to identify things from an autopsy photograph that a general pathologist would miss or misunderstand.

In general, though, nobody involved in this case has denied a word of its factual content and I think that's a pretty good testimony to its accuracy.

Since: Sep 11

Boksburg, South Africa

#20 Mar 4, 2013
Heloise wrote:
<quoted text>
Dr Meyer wasn't an expert on child deaths and he made some elementary mistakes but he also knew his limitations, which is why he, and the police, consulted people who were experts on such areas as paediatric gynaecology and neurology.
He was also not an expert on stun gun injuries, which explains why he initially described those marks on her body as "abrasions", but later acknowledged they could have been caused by a stun gun.
Heloise

UK

#22 Mar 4, 2013
Lynette 22 wrote:
<quoted text> He was also not an expert on stun gun injuries, which explains why he initially described those marks on her body as "abrasions", but later acknowledged they could have been caused by a stun gun.
Indeed: had he been an expert on stun guns, he'd have known that the marks on JBR's body matched no known stun gun and wouldn't have been drawn into that mad vortex of debate.

FWIW, though, there is a picture on FFJ showing JBR with similar marks months earlier and, as I posted on here once before, a coroner of my acquaintance pointed out that everybody seemed to assume that the marks in question were related to the death, which cannot be assumed from the photographs or the autopsy report.
Heloise

UK

#23 Mar 4, 2013
From autopsy:

On the left lateral aspect of the lower back, approximately sixteen and one-quarter inches and seventeen and one-half inches below the level of the top of the head are two dried rust colored to slightly purple abrasions. The more superior of the two measures one-eighth by one-sixteenth of an inch and the more inferior measures three-sixteenths by one-eighth of an inch. There is no surrounding contusion identified.
Heloise

UK

#25 Mar 4, 2013
Blue Bottle wrote:
There is no report of brain swelling through the foramen magnum and Kolar does not say that Rorkes's opinion was derived from direct observation of JonBenet's autopsy information or is even about JonBenet specifically.
He also mistates the position of the pineapple and derives a timeline of events from all that misunderstood and misrepresented material.
You have to be pretty misguided to insinuate a still living young man was a sexual deviant as a child.
You also have to be misguided to accuse a father of mutilating the corpse of his daughter.
You'd better have your ducks in a row if you are going to do that and Kolar doesn't.
There is a reason he gets no traction from the media and his book didn't sell.
Kolar sold well over a thousand copies, which is excellent for a hard copy non-fiction book of that price and which didn't have the advertising budget of Harper Collins. He is also publishing it electronically which will dramatically increase the numbers of people who will read it.

The story was covered by most major news outlets, including the Daily Mail Online, which has more traffic than any news site on the planet as well as Fox, CNN etc. You are deluding yourself if you think his book made no ripple.

I can't think why his critics don't put their money where their mouth is and self-publish, too. You apparently know better than him.
Steve Eller

United States

#26 Mar 4, 2013
Blue Bottle wrote:
There is no report of brain swelling through the foramen magnum and Kolar does not say that Rorkes's opinion was derived from direct observation of JonBenet's autopsy information or is even about JonBenet specifically.
He also mistates the position of the pineapple and derives a timeline of events from all that misunderstood and misrepresented material.
You have to be pretty misguided to insinuate a still living young man was a sexual deviant as a child.
You also have to be misguided to accuse a father of mutilating the corpse of his daughter.
You'd better have your ducks in a row if you are going to do that and Kolar doesn't.
There is a reason he gets no traction from the media and his book didn't sell.
You need to stop deliberately stating wrong information about Kolar and his book or reread the book after vastly improving your comprehension of the english language. Choosing the latter may help you Banquo and Brother Moon finally write that book you have been planning for so long.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Note-odd detail? 3 min robert 1,642
Why You Should Consider John Ramsey Guilty of S... (Jun '08) 3 hr Legal__Eagle 349
Chief James Kolar on the JonBenet Ramsey case, ... (Aug '13) 7 hr Just Wondering 289
Phone Records (Apr '14) 8 hr Just Wondering 19
Linguistic analysis of the JonBenet Ramsey rans... 8 hr Just Wondering 123
Wine cellar door...many questions Thu Rangette 25
How were they supposed to get the money on Chri... Thu Rangette 3

JonBenet Ramsey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE