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

Anti-K said:

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

Click to expand...

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!

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

Good idea for a thread.
Here is a link to his theory: http://kirkomrik.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/jbrseedbykirkomrikv1-0.docx

Anti-K said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Scandigirl said:

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!

Click to expand...

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.

Nom de plume said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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&#8217;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 &#8220;advances back.&#8221; 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&#8217;s claim out of hand. It&#8217;s based on nothing and nonsense.
...

AK

Let&#8217;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 &#8220;a causal inconsistency.&#8221; This causal inconsistency, Komrik claims, could not occur without &#8211; ta da! &#8211; foreknowledge.

Let&#8217;s set aside the issue of causal inconsistency &#8211; Komrik&#8217;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&#8217;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 &#8211; 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 &#8211; an intruder, of course &#8211; 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 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Nom de plume said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Nom de plume said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Anti-K said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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!


.

Anti-K said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

gramcracker said:

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

Click to expand...

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?!

I don't know if this is over-simplifying things, but it's just struck me that surely the best way for the police to check out whether their suspicions were correct or not, would have been to speak with every officer who attended the scene at the time in question, and make sure that someone could confirm that they did ask John Ramsey to finish off the roll of film for them? My initial reaction was that it sounded like a convenient excuse on his part, but it could have been true?

Maybe we should assume the police did check this out thoroughly, as it would be a bit worrying if not?

One more thought- it seems to me that the photos issue is just one of several circumstantial elements that he is arguing may tie together, to form the overall indication of premeditation? Such as...

a) Deliberately choosing Christmas Night in an attempt to set up Santa Bill and his wife, as his wife wrote a play about a murder on Christmas night?

b) Someone buying the cord and duct tape in advance?

c) Even the idea that the holiday trip might have been set up, involving unsuspecting family members, as an excuse to fly away so early the next morning?

I have no idea if this makes sense, or if any such issues are valid, I don't know what anyone else thinks? I don't suppose any of these type of things can be proven either, but he seems to be arguing that, all put together, they create a certain picture, or imply the possibility of premeditation? Sorry for straying from the subject of the photos.

JMO

UKGuy said:

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 ...


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!


.

Click to expand...

Causal inconsistency? Well, I think the Komrik “analysis” is a joke of sorts. It reminds me of Delmar England and his nonsensical knot analysis; except Delmar wrote as if he were omniscient and used bold declarations while Komrik takes a more “academic” approach and uses many qualifiers.

(a typical quote from Delmar England: "It is of random make up with negative physics for any and every expressed or implied purpose.")

Since you can’t view the Komrik document I am going to copy the relevant passage below.

Koimrik: What is likely the greatest issue for the credibility of the Ramseys has to do with some curious interviews in which they took part and in which it is clear that a prevenient event precluding presumed causality presaged malfeasance. This, in turn, proves beyond little doubt that the crime was pre-meditated by someone with access to the house before 25 December, 1996. What do we mean by all that? Let us make the point with an example. 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. The more general statement to which the example conforms is exactly what is being discussed in the interviews that follow; that is, a causal inconsistency requiring foreknowledge. The police attempt to explain to PR that they can establish causality because they know that, if the first picture was found on the roll before the Christmas morning photos the Ramseys already identified as such and on that same roll, it must causally precede the picture of the ransom note taken by the police on 26 December, 1996. Many have discussed this interview but few seem to understand its significance. If you read it carefully you will clearly see that what we are describing is in fact what was going on in these interviews. Though we can’t say that the particular example above was what happened, we don’t need to do that. We only need to establish a causal inconsistency requiring foreknowledge. This demonstrates foreknowledge of the crime (but not necessarily the ransom note that was found). The reader should focus their attention on that highlighted statement when reading the interviews below in order to fully understand what is going on here. It is, as some might call it, a smoking gun less known to the public and only identifiable as such by a careful reading of the interviews.

<snip> I’m skipping the interview excerpts

The final parts of this interview are inconsistent with reality. The whole point of the exercise of demonstrating the ordering of the pictures on the roll was to show that the picture in question must have been taken before the morning of 25 December, 1996 (or earlier that morning). It could not have been taken the 26 as Lou Smit suggests, so it doesn’t “explain that then”. This murder was likely premeditated, as other observations corroborate. The exact role of the notepad is not clear from the interviews, but the causality issue demonstrating foreknowledge is.
<end>
...

AK

Venom said:

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?

Click to expand...

I hope that everyone feels free to post whatever they want. Please, contribute to the discussion however you see fit.
...

AK

Hi Anti-K

Had another re read of Komrik's file, just the sections around this issue with the photos and pre meditation... Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that he's saying that it's one instance out of several, which all tie in together, to point in the direction of the murder being pre meditated, and not an accident?

He seems to be saying that the suspicious photo found on the Ramsey's camera, which appeared to have been taken on Dec 25th, has been compared to a very similar photo taken by the police on Dec 26th, but had been found to be similar, but not identical, and this was the suspicious thing?

The police photo 52 had been taken of the ransom note, as found, positioned on the Ramsey's staircase. Whereas the photo on the Ramsey's camera had been taken of a similar tablet, plus 2 blank pages, which had been positioned on the bottom 2 steps of the same staircase... In other words, laid out exactly the same, but the tablet and pages were obviously different? The police were asking, how could such a coincidence be innocently explained? It seemed as though someone had been trying it out beforehand?

Patsy and John obviously both realised what this implied. Patsy had no real explanation, and John said that the photo was taken when the police asked him to finish off a roll of film, so that they could see pictures of the Ramsey Christmas party?

Lou Smit apparently immediately accepted John's explanation, and dismissed the issue further, but Komrik doesn't say that the police were necessarily convinced?

He's saying it fits in with other suspicious things that all conspire together, towards the indication of pre meditation?

I don't know if this helps, or if it's worth discussing further? Sorry for the long post. Unfortunately, I don't have enough knowledge of how different cameras operate, to be sure of any technical details. I'll have to leave that for others to debate!

JMO

Crime scene photo #52:

From ACR: (http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-ransomnote.htm)