1201 users online (202 members and 999 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 52
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,874

    Komrik

    Discussion of Komrik’s “Best-fit Analysis” is popping up on various threads, for example, the “Did JR Tell Us the Plan?” and “Premeditated?” threads. I thought that this discussion might deserve a thread of its own. I’ve had his “analysis” in my possession for a year or two, but I don’t have a link to it, so maybe someone who does can post that for others.

    I’d like this thread to be open to everyone.

    I’m going to refer to Kir Komrik as Komrik, because, to me, KK is Kold Kase.

    I haven’t read through Komrik’s “analysis” in a year or so, and I don’t know if I can bring myself to read all the way through it again; however, I do have several notes in my files – things I wrote (and Komrik quotes copied) when I first encountered the document – and will be making some use of those.
    I have a fair bit that I could say about Komrik and his “analysis,” but I’m setting all that aside because I want to get right into this issue of the photograph that supposedly shows some sort of “premeditation.”
    ...

    AK

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti-K View Post
    Discussion of Komrik’s “Best-fit Analysis” is popping up on various threads, for example, the “Did JR Tell Us the Plan?” and “Premeditated?” threads. I thought that this discussion might deserve a thread of its own. I’ve had his “analysis” in my possession for a year or two, but I don’t have a link to it, so maybe someone who does can post that for others.

    I’d like this thread to be open to everyone.

    I’m going to refer to Kir Komrik as Komrik, because, to me, KK is Kold Kase.

    I haven’t read through Komrik’s “analysis” in a year or so, and I don’t know if I can bring myself to read all the way through it again; however, I do have several notes in my files – things I wrote (and Komrik quotes copied) when I first encountered the document – and will be making some use of those.
    I have a fair bit that I could say about Komrik and his “analysis,” but I’m setting all that aside because I want to get right into this issue of the photograph that supposedly shows some sort of “premeditation.”
    ...

    AK
    Hi Anti-K!
    Thanks for starting this interesting topic. I was the one who introduced Komrik into the other thread discussions, because after discovering his document by accident, I was intrigued to find out what other people made of it, who are more knowledgeable about all the details of this case than me!

    I don't know how accurate or credible his "analysis" is, but if nothing else, he does raise some interesting new angles and topics to discuss. Of course, it is only meant to be a Best Fit Analysis, which I take to mean that he is offering what he sees as the most likely supposition of what happened, based on finding the scenario that best fits as much of the known evidence as possible?

    I, too, have a list of issues he raised that would be very interesting to discuss, but concentrating on the photos is a great idea! I might be wrong, but I understood that the police found photos on the Ramsey's camera, seemingly taken 24 hrs before the 911 call was made, which appear to show the ransom note tablet plus 2 blank pages, spread out on the iron staircase, positioned in the same way as the ransom note was found? Therefore implying a practice run beforehand?

    Also, when the (suspicious) police questioned the Ramsey's about it, Patsy seemed caught off guard, but then denied all knowledge, whilst being unable to explain it, and John brushed it off that the police had asked him to finish off the roll of film for them, and that explained how and when the photos happened? It seems then that the police backed off and let the matter drop?

    I'll have to leave it to more knowledgeable posters to add to this. All I can say is, I'm surprised the police let the matter drop so easily when they were obviously so suspicious, unless John's explanation/excuse could be proved to be true?

    Sorry for such a long post!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Southern Utah
    Posts
    1,690
    this is the fourth post in which you mention finding Komrik's theory by accident. I'm curious about the significance of your find being an accident
    _____________
    You may touch the dust but please don't write in it.
    _____________
    The way I see it is: if you are making a decision that will affect someone else's life, prepare for public scrutiny.
    ~ VICE journalist Tim Pool
    _____________
    Beware Of The Dog. The Cat Is Not Trustworthy Either.
    _____________
    Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead. Do not walk ahead of me, for I may not follow.
    Do not walk beside me either. Just pretty much leave me alone.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,305
    Good idea for a thread.
    Here is a link to his theory: http://kirkomrik.files.wordpress.com...omrikv1-0.docx
    The above mentioned text and views are my opinion and mine alone.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    730
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti-K View Post
    Discussion of Komrik’s “Best-fit Analysis” is popping up on various threads, for example, the “Did JR Tell Us the Plan?” and “Premeditated?” threads. I thought that this discussion might deserve a thread of its own. I’ve had his “analysis” in my possession for a year or two, but I don’t have a link to it, so maybe someone who does can post that for others.

    I’d like this thread to be open to everyone.

    I’m going to refer to Kir Komrik as Komrik, because, to me, KK is Kold Kase.

    I haven’t read through Komrik’s “analysis” in a year or so, and I don’t know if I can bring myself to read all the way through it again; however, I do have several notes in my files – things I wrote (and Komrik quotes copied) when I first encountered the document – and will be making some use of those.
    I have a fair bit that I could say about Komrik and his “analysis,” but I’m setting all that aside because I want to get right into this issue of the photograph that supposedly shows some sort of “premeditation.”
    ...

    AK
    BBM Maybe it would be advantageous to be well versed on the topic since you started a thread on it and plan to discuss it.
    **MY POSTS ARE NOT TO BE COPIED OR LINKED TO IN ANY OTHER FORUMS OR WEBSITES!!**

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    730
    Quote Originally Posted by Scandigirl View Post
    Hi Anti-K!
    Thanks for starting this interesting topic. I was the one who introduced Komrik into the other thread discussions, because after discovering his document by accident, I was intrigued to find out what other people made of it, who are more knowledgeable about all the details of this case than me!

    I don't know how accurate or credible his "analysis" is, but if nothing else, he does raise some interesting new angles and topics to discuss. Of course, it is only meant to be a Best Fit Analysis, which I take to mean that he is offering what he sees as the most likely supposition of what happened, based on finding the scenario that best fits as much of the known evidence as possible?

    I, too, have a list of issues he raised that would be very interesting to discuss, but concentrating on the photos is a great idea! I might be wrong, but I understood that the police found photos on the Ramsey's camera, seemingly taken 24 hrs before the 911 call was made, which appear to show the ransom note tablet plus 2 blank pages, spread out on the iron staircase, positioned in the same way as the ransom note was found? Therefore implying a practice run beforehand?
    Also, when the (suspicious) police questioned the Ramsey's about it, Patsy seemed caught off guard, but then denied all knowledge, whilst being unable to explain it, and John brushed it off that the police had asked him to finish off the roll of film for them, and that explained how and when the photos happened? It seems then that the police backed off and let the matter drop?

    I'll have to leave it to more knowledgeable posters to add to this. All I can say is, I'm surprised the police let the matter drop so easily when they were obviously so suspicious, unless John's explanation/excuse could be proved to be true?

    Sorry for such a long post!
    BBM We don't have any idea what the photo showed. That was just KK's supposition. Maybe it only showed the pad lying on the stairs? He could be right or he could be way off. Either way, LE found it suspicious enough to question them.
    **MY POSTS ARE NOT TO BE COPIED OR LINKED TO IN ANY OTHER FORUMS OR WEBSITES!!**

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,874
    Quote Originally Posted by Nom de plume View Post
    BBM We don't have any idea what the photo showed. That was just KK's supposition. Maybe it only showed the pad lying on the stairs? He could be right or he could be way off. Either way, LE found it suspicious enough to question them.
    Hola! I submitted this topic two or three nights ago, but I think it got “lost” somewhere along the line. I’d given up on seeing it. Thanks to Salem for finding this and posting it!

    I haven’t read any of the posts here, yet. I’ve skipped ahead and I’m going to post what I had written a cpl days back in prep for this discussion. I’ll backtrack after wards; so, here goes....
    ...

    AK

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,874
    Komrik: Suppose I find a picture you took showing a particular and unique way in which you placed a notepad unique to its position on the morning of the murder, like, placing it on the last couple of steps on the spiral staircase next to two blank sheets from that notepad, all laid out left to right, essentially identical to the way the ransom note was found. And suppose that the notepad is the same one from which the ransom note was written. We have an obvious problem with the causality of these events. It demonstrates foreknowledge of the positioning of the ransom note itself.

    Okay.

    We should note that Komrik has not seen the photograph in question. He does not even know if it is genuine (let’s assume that it is). However, he seems to believe that the picture is of the notepad and two blank pages from the notepad all laid out one beside the other on one of the steps of the spiral stairs, and, that the picture was taken Christmas morning.

    Komrik uses quotes from an interview with Mrs Ramsey and quotes from an interview with Mr Ramsey to support his claims. Komrik is confused. He writes as if there are only two pictures in play; in fact, there are three (120TET and 17.7 could be the same), possibly four:
    1) 120TET is from the Ramsey camera, and, it is “not exactly the same photograph that was taken by the police.”
    2) 52 is a police photo and it is “not exactly the same photograph” as off of the Ramsey camera
    3) a Christmas morning photo of the kids.
    4) 17.7 is from the Ramsey camera and shows the notepad on the side table near the spiral stairs, as it was located when Mr Ramsey handed it over to Whitson on the 26th

    Komrik writes as if 120TET and 17.7 are the same photo, and he ignores the Christmas morning photo of the kids. He mistakes Mrs Ramseys’ reaction to the Christmas morning photo of the kids - Uh-huh (yes). Oh, God. – as a reaction to the “suspect photo.”
    Komrik’s “editor’s notes” at this point are contradictory and show confusion:
    [editor’s note: Haney accidentally jumps prematurely to the suspect photo, then backtracks. PR immediately sees the problem]

    At this point, Haney and Ramsey were already looking at the “suspect photo.” Haney, accidentally or otherwise, goes to the Christmas morning photo of the kids, NOT to the suspect photo. They were already looking at the suspect photo:
    TOM HANEY: Well, this photo 12OTET8 was on 17 your roll of file in your camera. And on the 18 same roll is the next photo, a Christmas morning 19 photo of the kids.
    <snip>

    [editor’s note: now he advances back to the suspect photo; 120TET]
    Like I say, this was on your role of 2 film and it's not exactly the same photograph 3 that was taken by the police.
    <snip>

    He “advances back.” Advances back? Good grief. Anyway, they were looking at the suspect photo 120TET, Haney switched to the Christmas morning photo of the kids, and then he went back to the suspect photo 120TET. Komrik clearly does not know what he is talking about.

    Komrik never explains how he deduces a picture showing the notepad and two blank pages from the notepad all laid out one beside the other on one of the steps of the spiral stairs. We know that 120TET is similar to 52, but 52 does not show anything laid out on the stairs. 17.7, the picture shown to Mr Ramsey, shows the notepad on the side table, near the spiral stairs as it was located when Mr Ramsey handed it over to Whitson on the 26th. So, we can dismiss Komrik’s claim out of hand. It’s based on nothing and nonsense.
    ...

    AK

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,874
    Let’s explore this further.

    Komrik claims that his imaginary picture shows foreknowledge. He claims that this imaginary picture was taken before the ransom note was discovered on the stairs, and he refers to this as “a causal inconsistency.” This causal inconsistency, Komrik claims, could not occur without – ta da! – foreknowledge.

    Let’s set aside the issue of causal inconsistency – Komrik’s imaginary picture being taken before the scene it depicts occurred - and consider the question of foreknowledge.

    If RDI, than the Ramseys lied. The ransom note was never on the stairs. They just made that up. There can be no foreknowledge of something happening if it didn’t happen.

    If IDI, than the Ramseys are being truthful. If they are being truthful, than an intruder left the ransom note on the spiral stairs and they had no foreknowledge of this.
    Komrik is left with nothing to stand on.

    Still, if genuine, a photograph exists that shows the notepad as it was located – on the side table, near the stairs - before it was given over to the police. When was this photograph taken? If it was taken the morning of the 26th, as Smit and Ramsey seem to establish, then it has little meaning. But, if it was taken on the 25th, then we know that the author – an intruder, of course – took it from the side table, used it, and then returned it to the side table.

    Some IDI speculate that the intruder removed the notepad on an earlier occasion, composed the note at leisure, perhaps in his own home, and then returned it on the night of the crime. This photograph, if taken on the 25th, would disprove that notion. If that photo was taken on the 26th, than that notion remains alive.
    ...

    AK

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    730
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti-K View Post
    Let’s explore this further.

    Komrik claims that his imaginary picture shows foreknowledge. He claims that this imaginary picture was taken before the ransom note was discovered on the stairs, and he refers to this as “a causal inconsistency.” This causal inconsistency, Komrik claims, could not occur without – ta da! – foreknowledge.

    Let’s set aside the issue of causal inconsistency – Komrik’s imaginary picture being taken before the scene it depicts occurred - and consider the question of foreknowledge.

    If RDI, than the Ramseys lied. The ransom note was never on the stairs. They just made that up. There can be no foreknowledge of something happening if it didn’t happen.

    If IDI, than the Ramseys are being truthful. If they are being truthful, than an intruder left the ransom note on the spiral stairs and they had no foreknowledge of this.
    Komrik is left with nothing to stand on.

    Still, if genuine, a photograph exists that shows the notepad as it was located – on the side table, near the stairs - before it was given over to the police. When was this photograph taken? If it was taken the morning of the 26th, as Smit and Ramsey seem to establish, then it has little meaning. But, if it was taken on the 25th, then we know that the author – an intruder, of course – took it from the side table, used it, and then returned it to the side table.

    Some IDI speculate that the intruder removed the notepad on an earlier occasion, composed the note at leisure, perhaps in his own home, and then returned it on the night of the crime. This photograph, if taken on the 25th, would disprove that notion. If that photo was taken on the 26th, than that notion remains alive.
    ...

    AK
    BBM What? Imaginary picture? I guess it's "imaginary" in TH's mind too huh? Just because we don't know what's in it, does NOT mean it's imaginary. Quite the contrary. The picture in question absolutely exists, the subject matter is the only thing in question.
    **MY POSTS ARE NOT TO BE COPIED OR LINKED TO IN ANY OTHER FORUMS OR WEBSITES!!**


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,874
    Quote Originally Posted by Nom de plume View Post
    BBM Maybe it would be advantageous to be well versed on the topic since you started a thread on it and plan to discuss it.
    Yes, you’re right. However, I’m not really interested in discussing the “best-fit analysis” as a whole. I will certainly go over any aspect of it as deemed necessary by the flow of discussion, but this is the third time around for me.

    I first encountered this “analysis” in December of 2009. At that time it was a website, and it was being promoted by someone calling himself Wilson Van Houten. Van Houten claimed that Manson family member Leslie Van Houten was in his “family tree.” I remember, vaguely, having some discussion regarding the DNA, and I remember thinking that he was 1) a fraud of sorts, and 2) that. to some degree, he didn’t really know what he was talking about!

    The next time I came across this “analysis” was in November of 2012. Now, it was a downloadable document instead of a website. The name Komrik was attached.

    So, here I am: round three.
    ...

    AK

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,874
    Quote Originally Posted by Nom de plume View Post
    BBM What? Imaginary picture? I guess it's "imaginary" in TH's mind too huh? Just because we don't know what's in it, does NOT mean it's imaginary. Quite the contrary. The picture in question absolutely exists, the subject matter is the only thing in question.
    By “imaginary” I am referring to the image that Komrik thinks is depicted, not to the picture itself. The picture absolutely exists. However, I see nothing that validates Komrik’s version of it, so, I refer to his version as “imaginary”
    ...

    AK

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti-K View Post
    Let’s explore this further.

    Komrik claims that his imaginary picture shows foreknowledge. He claims that this imaginary picture was taken before the ransom note was discovered on the stairs, and he refers to this as “a causal inconsistency.” This causal inconsistency, Komrik claims, could not occur without – ta da! – foreknowledge.

    Let’s set aside the issue of causal inconsistency – Komrik’s imaginary picture being taken before the scene it depicts occurred - and consider the question of foreknowledge.

    If RDI, than the Ramseys lied. The ransom note was never on the stairs. They just made that up. There can be no foreknowledge of something happening if it didn’t happen.

    If IDI, than the Ramseys are being truthful. If they are being truthful, than an intruder left the ransom note on the spiral stairs and they had no foreknowledge of this.
    Komrik is left with nothing to stand on.

    Still, if genuine, a photograph exists that shows the notepad as it was located – on the side table, near the stairs - before it was given over to the police. When was this photograph taken? If it was taken the morning of the 26th, as Smit and Ramsey seem to establish, then it has little meaning. But, if it was taken on the 25th, then we know that the author – an intruder, of course – took it from the side table, used it, and then returned it to the side table.

    Some IDI speculate that the intruder removed the notepad on an earlier occasion, composed the note at leisure, perhaps in his own home, and then returned it on the night of the crime. This photograph, if taken on the 25th, would disprove that notion. If that photo was taken on the 26th, than that notion remains alive.
    ...

    AK
    Anti-K,
    Well I do not do docx files so whatever Komrik's theory is it will elude me.

    What is all this stuff about a causal inconsistency? The notepad could have been flying about the room the day before and sliding across the floor on the 25th. Any one of the R's could have used it to pen a reminder and dropped it down anywhere that felt suitable.

    Just because the suggested location of the notepad does not match a prior location does not entail that any of the laws of physics have been violated.

    Foreknowledge implies premeditation and if you are going to stage a crime-scene then surely you will use materials external to the house?

    What is important is that the ransom note paper was determined to have been sourced from the notepad.

    so ...

    But, if it was taken on the 25th, then we know that the author – an intruder, of course – took it from the side table, used it, and then returned it to the side table.
    It does not matter when the picture was taken, you could have 100 such photographs, and this would tell you absolutely nothing about when the photograph was taken.

    Even if the notepad was missing from the table, it would still not tell not tell you when the photograph was taken, unless they are all date-stamped of course?

    What matters is the number of pages in the notepad between each alleged photograph.

    There were missing pages from the notepad. This demonstrated they had been wripped out.

    Along with what is termed the practise pages and the ransom note itself this count of pages will be at variance with what the prior count was, new notepad or old notepad?

    So a photograph of the notebook where its thickness could be measured might be useful!


    .

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti-K View Post
    Yes, you’re right. However, I’m not really interested in discussing the “best-fit analysis” as a whole. I will certainly go over any aspect of it as deemed necessary by the flow of discussion, but this is the third time around for me.

    I first encountered this “analysis” in December of 2009. At that time it was a website, and it was being promoted by someone calling himself Wilson Van Houten. Van Houten claimed that Manson family member Leslie Van Houten was in his “family tree.” I remember, vaguely, having some discussion regarding the DNA, and I remember thinking that he was 1) a fraud of sorts, and 2) that. to some degree, he didn’t really know what he was talking about!

    The next time I came across this “analysis” was in November of 2012. Now, it was a downloadable document instead of a website. The name Komrik was attached.

    So, here I am: round three.
    ...

    AK
    This may be your third time around with this, but to many of us it's our first time around. So we may want to discuss things that you feel aren't necessary. Jmo. Not trying at all to sound snarky, I hope it doesn't come off that way.

    I was searching around for more info on Komrik and found the Van Houten name (I think it was his kids supposed name?) The first thing I thought of was Leslie Van Houten. I'm not sure what to make of Komrik.

    I found some other things in Komriks theory that got me thinking, do you mind if I post them in here?
    The above mentioned text and views are my opinion and mine alone.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by gramcracker View Post
    this is the fourth post in which you mention finding Komrik's theory by accident. I'm curious about the significance of your find being an accident
    Hi gramcracker

    That's a very fair question, and sorry if I've inadvertently over emphasised the "by accident" part in my first few posts. I know what I meant by it, but didn't explain very well...

    Basically, I meant that in trying to generally find more info on this case, and just Googling the web, this document came up- I meant that I don't have any special link to Komrik, or knowledge about him beforehand, or know even if he's necessarily genuine. I guess I felt the need to emphasise that, because I mentioned him in my first ever few posts here on Websleuths...

    It was reading his file that gave me a push to join and start posting, as although I painstakingly read it all through, I don't have all the case knowledge necessarily to know if any of it was worth taking on board, or better to be ignored and discarded. It's probably a mixture of both, but difficult to sort out?

    I thought it was just an interesting initial opener to get some discussions going, but wasn't sure which, if any of it, was really helpful.

    I just took a gamble that he hadn't really been discussed before, in my opening posts, to see if anyone else had any ideas? If anything he says turns out to be a red herring, I'm happy to not keep mentioning him in future threads!

    Hope that sheds some light on my poor choice of wording?!

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast