First Prev
of 2
Next Last
candy

East Lansing, MI

#4 Feb 26, 2013
I don't agree with that. He had the case file, he knows what is in there. You have a LONG way to go in that book. I did not find he misrepresented anything except (through no fault of his own) why the BPD turned over the case file to the DA's office in 2002.
Steve Eller

United States

#8 Feb 26, 2013
I am not sure if congratulations are in order. You two have graduated from making stuff up about the case to now changing settled facts of the autopsy and medical consensus about the amount of time elapsing after cause of death. You can not make any argument that she was garroted immediately after the head blow and just because you write it doesn't permit you to claim 'discovery' of a mistake.

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#13 Feb 26, 2013
Blue Bottle wrote:
Rorke's opinion is not based on the JonBenet autopsy report but is a recounting of non-specific brain injuries in general. Yet Kolar presents it as if it is derived directly from observation of JonBenet's brain at autopsy.
The autopsy report does not mention swelling through the foramen magnum and actually contradicts Kolar's assertion (via Rorke) that the skull cavity was filled with blood ("began to fill").
The time taken for such swelling to deveop is a non sequitur then since that swelling is not reported in the autopsy.
Also, the pineapple did not "pass through" the system but was in fact in the proximal intestine.
Kolar's sequence of events are based on misinformation and misunderstanding presented as fact.
I will go so far as to charge Kolar with bias, intentionally misdirecting the reader toward an accident involving Burke and a cover-up by both parents.
I'll have to admit I was taken aback by this passage in Kolar's book because the autopsy did not seem to support the findings as reported by Rourke. First of all, there wasn't massive bleeding.
Secondly, Rourke talks about pressure increasing because of hemorrhage into the skull cavity. The problem is, the skull cavity was opened by the head blow. Thus, intracranial hemorrhage could've found exit through the depressed skull fracture which would have caused, IMO, a hematoma (lump on the scalp).

In other words, blood, caused by injury to the subarachnoid venous system, would have found easier passage out the depressed skull fracture than into the skull cavity filled with brain.

I didn't make the connection that this was a general quote concerning non-specific brain injury. I assumed it was a direct description of JBR's head wound.
Steve Eller

United States

#14 Feb 26, 2013
Blue Bottle wrote:
<quoted text>
Nooooooooooo, take your tongue off the pedantic peddle and your eyes off the mirror Mommy is holding up for you and read the post.
Kolar published third party opinion as fact and bypassed fact in favor of misstatement. Now be nice and ask the IDIot of Monte Crisco to splain that to you.
I would suggest Hooked on Phonics or some of other reading program but the fact that you would be able to make out the words still would do nothing for your comprehension.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#15 Feb 27, 2013
Kolar is a pretty funny guy. Sure, there is some good stuff in his book but it really is only one side of a two-sided story (and much of it very badly reasoned! he should be embarrassed). BB and Learninís comments regarding the quoted passage in Kolarís book are dead-on.

From the very beginning and further on the issue of ďwhich came firstĒ has always been argued. This would not be so if it were so clear and true, as Kolar implies that an hour-or-so passed between the head blow and the asphyxiation. Kolar writes as if there were never any question or dissension or doubt.

My favorite moment of the Kolar video thatís been going around is at the 8:56 mark. He says,ďThe year my son graduated from CSU my wife and I took he and his girlfriend to Mexico for a vacation um, in um Mexico. I canít remember where we went. Cancun or something.Ē LOL He went on a vacation and he canít remember where he went! Hola! Itís a good thing no one asked him about that night he forgot his keys and had to break into the house!

Kolar wants to be a writer. But, he sucks. He used his access to the Jonbenet case file to get something out there and promote himself as an author; an author of fiction.
Ö

AK

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#16 Feb 27, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
I am not sure if congratulations are in order. You two have graduated from making stuff up about the case to now changing settled facts of the autopsy and medical consensus about the amount of time elapsing after cause of death. You can not make any argument that she was garroted immediately after the head blow and just because you write it doesn't permit you to claim 'discovery' of a mistake.
I am quite sure that the books that they all are writing will be error free. We have to assume that all these critics of Kolar must be writing their own book and doing such a better job.

Hopefully, they'll let us know when they write their book and we can double check for accuracy :). We learned that accuracy is not a strong point after reading DOI; a book that read like a fairy tale
Steve Eller

United States

#18 Feb 27, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
Kolar is a pretty funny guy. Sure, there is some good stuff in his book but it really is only one side of a two-sided story (and much of it very badly reasoned! he should be embarrassed). BB and Learninís comments regarding the quoted passage in Kolarís book are dead-on.
From the very beginning and further on the issue of ďwhich came firstĒ has always been argued. This would not be so if it were so clear and true, as Kolar implies that an hour-or-so passed between the head blow and the asphyxiation. Kolar writes as if there were never any question or dissension or doubt.
My favorite moment of the Kolar video thatís been going around is at the 8:56 mark. He says,ďThe year my son graduated from CSU my wife and I took he and his girlfriend to Mexico for a vacation um, in um Mexico. I canít remember where we went. Cancun or something.Ē LOL He went on a vacation and he canít remember where he went! Hola! Itís a good thing no one asked him about that night he forgot his keys and had to break into the house!
Kolar wants to be a writer. But, he sucks. He used his access to the Jonbenet case file to get something out there and promote himself as an author; an author of fiction.
Ö
AK
There is nothing fictitious about James Kolar's book. If anything he goes to extreme lengths to account for every scenario and incident in his book. The full Autopsy report has never been released so those of us attempting to discredit Kolar's writing without access to the full case file are at BEST making INCOMPLETE guesses and inference regarding the skull injury.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#19 Feb 27, 2013
Blue Bottle wrote:
Dr. Lucy Rorke, a neuro-pathologist with the Philiadelphia Children's Hospital, helped explain the timing of some of the injuries sustained by JonBenet. She told investigators that the blwow to the skull had immediately begun to hemorrhage, and it was not likely that she would have regained consciousness after receiving this injury. The blow to the head, if left untreated, would have been fatal.The medical consultants considered the timing of the tracking of the pineapple that had moved through JonBenet's digestive track. It was estimated that it would have taken between two and five hours for the pineapple to move through her system. pp. 64-65.
There are other medical professionals with differing opinions than the doctor you quoted. Her opinion is just a guess in reality and any court action would have multiple MDs with alternative timings. It is not information 100% accurate or a conclusion set in stone.

Any act of strangulation has a tourniquet effect on the carotid artery and can lengthened the time suggested between brain trauma and death. Consider the sexual type of strangulation activity where the pressure on the neck is intermittent, not that I think that happened. There could be other unknown considerations too. No two head injuries are ever alike, they are precarious and unpredictable. Death itself is precarious, some people die instantly and some linger.

The statement she provided about the pineapple is noteworthy. It could have just been a late afternoon snack before the Christmas party. Many kids with head injuries vomit by reflex at the time of injury. The last food found in the digestive tract of any corpse is not always the last thing they ate. There was lots of vomit to clean up at Sandy Hook. Just because some of the victims died with an empty tummy doesnít mean their parents sent them to school that way.

That aside Kolar should be applauded as he gave the missing link for why Jonbenet is dead and why the family has gotten away with it.

Why they donít care to help the investigation adjudicate the matter.

What they are hiding is immense and off the wall abnormal. The family was in crisis mode, beyond dysfunctional. It is not normal for children Burke or Jonbenet ages to be in therapy for leaving bowel movements anywhere but the toilet. Burke should have been immediately removed from the custody of John and Patsy. Any child dead from a crime with a sexual assault needs to have their siblings professionally evaluated for similar history. Burke Ramseyís records have been given an island of privacy for a reason. He was likely a victim of sexual abuse as well as the chronic abuse found in Jonbenetís autopsy.

All the answers lie within Burke. My hunch is he was sodomized by JAR and I am free to make this claim and have this opinion. Children donít behave as the Ramsey children do for no reason. Something dark and evil was already going on before Jonbenet died.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#22 Feb 27, 2013
Steve Eller wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing fictitious about James Kolar's book. If anything he goes to extreme lengths to account for every scenario and incident in his book. The full Autopsy report has never been released so those of us attempting to discredit Kolar's writing without access to the full case file are at BEST making INCOMPLETE guesses and inference regarding the skull injury.
Sorry, I didnít mean to imply that the Kolar book was a work of fiction. I meant that Kolarís ambition was to be a writer of fiction.

What are we missing from the autopsy report? Those aspects of it that were originally sealed were released on Aug 6/97. See here: http://www.footage.net/Cache/Cache_JonBenet.h...
Final parts of autopsy released: http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon123.htm

Ö

AK
Steve Eller

United States

#24 Feb 27, 2013
Blue Bottle wrote:
If anyone can come up with an autopsy report of the brain swelling through the foramen magnum great. If not Kolar has a lot to answer. Owing to the fact that he misrepresented the postion of the pineapple and then derived a timeline from his misrepresentation I think it is a safe bet he he used Rorke's report the same way. That is sloppy criminology at best and at worst a biased manipulation of the facts leading to a predetermined conclusion.
But then again maybe he just got the word from his subconscious while meditating in the distracting beauty of the Rockies.
How do you believe Kolar's report--particularly the part about the pineapple--was miselading?

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#25 Feb 27, 2013
I cant imagine someone sifting through so many files, reports, etc., without making some mistakes.
Kolar's book provided valuable new information and helped to bring this case some attention, once again. For this, I'm grateful.
Steve Eller

United States

#27 Feb 28, 2013
Blue Bottle wrote:
<quoted text>
Try to figure that out for yourself. Report back to me. I will grade you.
Will that be before or after your deeply riveting conversations with your imaginary friends? Or do they laugh at your fantasy errh ahem view of the case as well? Just wondering...
Steve Eller

United States

#28 Feb 28, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, I didnít mean to imply that the Kolar book was a work of fiction. I meant that Kolarís ambition was to be a writer of fiction.
What are we missing from the autopsy report? Those aspects of it that were originally sealed were released on Aug 6/97. See here: http://www.footage.net/Cache/Cache_JonBenet.h...
Final parts of autopsy released: http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon123.htm
Ö
AK
Nice post AK. You are correct the remaining parts of the autopsy have been released but there are still a few parts redacted. Nonetheless overall we have a comprehensive set of information with which we can work.
OpenMind

Chagrin Falls, OH

#32 Feb 28, 2013
Hey, hey BB...please slow down. First of all, why would you trust Meyer so much? Is he some kind of super-perfect-mistake-free ME? I don't think so...he made PLENTY mistakes before and during the autopsy. So, his AR is not a bible to me and shouldn't be to you as well. Agree?

Now, in regards of not complete AR. Complete AR should consists of the standard heading/sections. Please do your own analysis and see yourself which sections are missing. But the most important, we (public) do not have ALL autopsy PHOTOS and SLIDES based on which another experts could come to the same or different conclusion. Kolar had all information including these photos and slides and it's very possible that Mrs. Rourks (sp?) expert's opinion was properly based and stated.

KK, you're too smart to be so 'close minded'!!!!:)

So, before trushing
OpenMind

Chagrin Falls, OH

#33 Feb 28, 2013
so, before trushing......
.....THINK!!!!!!
learnin

Greeley, KS

#35 Feb 28, 2013
Blue Bottle wrote:
<quoted text>
Please post the valuable new information.
Kolar brought attention to his suspicions of Burke based on his CRAFTING of mistakes. For that he should be ashamed.
For starters:

1. We now know that the ligature was tested for DNA and that DNA was found on it which did not match the unknown DNA from the panties.

You speak as if you know your theory is correct and therein lies your problem, Blue Bottle. You can't possibly know who struck the blow unless you were there. You can't possibly know, for certain, that Burke did not strike first blow.

I respect your theory but not your certitude. Because you claim that Patsy was mentally ill and took on different personalities, you can dismiss evidence contrary to your theory by a simple: "Patsy did it for Patsy." When someone asks why someone, who was sacrificing her daughter and making her an angel, would write a ransom note, you can simply say: "Patsy did it for Patsy."

Patsy might vey well have been the only one involved but I think your theory would be better served if you did not serve it up as gospel.
OpenMind

Chagrin Falls, OH

#37 Mar 2, 2013
BB, first of all - thank you for informative answer on another thread in regards of boarderline behavior...I do appreciate your patience and manner in answering thhe 'behavior' questions.

Now, regarding Kolar book. I know that you see NO VALUE of his book. Would appreciate if you'll answer this question: if you'll write the book then what 'new and helpful in determining who did what and why' would be there??

At the minimum, Kolar had access to all case materials. He probably knew all 'secrets' which public doesn't. So, why do you think YOUR book (if you're planning to write it or if someone will ask you to do it) would have more evidences than Kolar's?

It's always easy to critique someone...He published his book not for the fame and fortune. Please show some respect....
Steve Eller

Brooklyn, NY

#38 Mar 2, 2013
Blue Bottle wrote:
Rorke's opinion is not based on the JonBenet autopsy report but is a recounting of non-specific brain injuries in general. Yet Kolar presents it as if it is derived directly from observation of JonBenet's brain at autopsy.
The autopsy report does not mention swelling through the foramen magnum and actually contradicts Kolar's assertion (via Rorke) that the skull cavity was filled with blood ("began to fill").
The time taken for such swelling to deveop is a non sequitur then since that swelling is not reported in the autopsy.
Also, the pineapple did not "pass through" the system but was in fact in the proximal intestine.
Kolar's sequence of events are based on misinformation and misunderstanding presented as fact.
I will go so far as to charge Kolar with bias, intentionally misdirecting the reader toward an accident involving Burke and a cover-up by both parents.
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

#40 Mar 2, 2013
Banquo wrote:
BB should spare himself the trouble of writing a book based upon the preposterous and unsupportable theory that Patsy did it as an expression of borderline/dissociative personality disorder. I still would like to think he is joking about this.
I am not sure but as you can see we have an entire thread devoted to a non event namely "Kolar's Gaffe" where there was no such thing in the topic that is mentioned.
Steve Eller

Brooklyn, NY

#42 Mar 2, 2013
Blue Bottle wrote:
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Got busted. Shmucks took the bait. Bet you bought the book dincha?
Parse the autopsy? Kolar did a shell game with Rorke's description and presented it as an autopsy report. He also misrepresented the position of the pineapple to manufacture a timeline.
Go play Sherlock with yourself boy.
I read the book in August and September and kept it close by as reference for a couple of months after that and then I pursued other projects in my spare time. I had the time to pick it up again today and realized the FRAUD you perpetrated on TOPIX.
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.

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
It always leads back to Burke (Oct '11) 2 hr whodunnit 106
Fleet and Priscilla White on Peter Boyles show ... 2 hr whodunnit 15
The Forgotten Suspect 3 hr Legal__Eagle 225
ICU2 's Child Trafficking 5 hr Legal__Eagle 13
JonBenet Investigation (Nov '11) 7 hr JBI 1,627
JonBenet Ramsey, DNA and the Phantom of Heilbronn 7 hr Blackstone Again 2
JonBenet Ramsey and the Rise of an Internet Sub... 8 hr Blackstone Again 1
More from around the web