Komrik

[Scandigirl]

Crime scene photo #52:

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

"1998 June 25, 26, 27 - Taped Interrogation interview of Patsy Ramsey by Tom Haney and Trip DeMuth in Colorado

NE Book Page 247-248:

(Notations in italics by Don Gentile and David Wright from 'The files of the National Enquirer:

"Patsy was shown photos taken off a roll of film that John Ramsey turned over to the police in the hours before JonBenet's body was found. The roll was in the camera he used to take pictures that Christmas. To get the film to the end of the roll, John snapped off the lasts few shots. In doing so he inadvertently photographed the wet bar near the foot of the spiral staircase. The photo showed a black and red scarf left on the sink counter there. Patsy couldn't say whether it was John's scarf or one she had given out as gifts to the men who attended the Ramsey Christmas party on the 23rd.")​

Patsy Ramsey: "...This (scarf) just looks strange to me...."

Tom Haney: "Well, this photo... was on your roll of film in your camera. And on the same roll is the next photo, a Christmas morning photo of the kids.

Patsy Ramsey: "...Oh God."

(Notations in italics by Don Gentile and David Wright from 'The files of the National Enquirer:

"It was the first time Patsy had seen the photo. She broke down in tears down at this point. After she regained her composure, the questioning continued. The photo John Ramsey had taken of the wet bar area, also showed a table near it. On it were two white lined legal pads. One of them had been used to write the ransom note. It was the same pad that contained Patsy's doodles, other writings and the so-called practice ransom note."​

Tom Haney: "Like I say, this was on your roll of film and it's not exactly the same photograph that was taken by the police."

Patsy Ramsey: "Uh huh"

Tom Haney: "And this legal pad that you --"

Patsy Ramsey: "Right."

Tom Haney: "--Identified--"

Patsy Ramsey: "Right"

Tom Haney: "-- do you know when that would have been in that position?

Patsy Ramsey: "No. So this, this was taken before...?"

Tom Haney: "Before the police photos... do you recognize that pad?"

Patsy Ramsey: "Yeah, but we had a lot of those around... I bought like those at Office Depot's of Office Max or whatever they are and I usually kept a bunch of them, you know, kept them over here, right about here in the kitchen."

Tom Haney: "By the telephone?"

Patsy Ramsey: "Yeah, but you know, they float all over."

Trip DeMuth: "So it wouldn't have been unusual to be where it is?"

Patsy Ramsey: "No. No. Gosh."

Tom Haney: "Just a second, okay?"

Patsy Ramsey: "Uh huh."

Tom Haney: "So would this particular note pad be, belong to somebody in particular or --"

Patsy Ramsey: "No, not necessarily."​

Hi, thanks for posting this information!

Hmmm, so it seems that this version is a little different from Komrik's. In the extract above, there are appear to be two different issues- the scarf which showed up in the Ramsey photo, which obviously upset Patsy, and she immediately said was odd, and also that there were 2 legal pads lined up, one of which the ransom note was written on, and they were on a table, not on the staircase, as Komrik suggested.

So, perhaps Komrik is not correct at all, or he is talking about a hypothetical situation in his document, to suggest the same type of suspicious situation, but not the exact one?! I have to say, I'm a bit confused by that- apologies!

The info posted above is much easier to understand, and definately exists as written, so it's interesting to concentrate on that. Forgive for me for not knowing enough, but can anyone help out about the significance of the scarf, and what that was implying? The police did seem to have their suspicions about something?

 

[questfortrue]

Hi, thanks for posting this information!

Hmmm, so it seems that this version is a little different from Komrik's. In the extract above, there are appear to be two different issues- the scarf which showed up in the Ramsey photo, which obviously upset Patsy, and she immediately said was odd, and also that there were 2 legal pads lined up, one of which the ransom note was written on, and they were on a table, not on the staircase, as Komrik suggested.

So, perhaps Komrik is not correct at all, or he is talking about a hypothetical situation in his document, to suggest the same type of suspicious situation, but not the exact one?! I have to say, I'm a bit confused by that- apologies!

The info posted above is much easier to understand, and definately exists as written, so it's interesting to concentrate on that. Forgive for me for not knowing enough, but can anyone help out about the significance of the scarf, and what that was implying? The police did seem to have their suspicions about something?

The article has been altered from when I first read it (sometime last summer) In that article, iirc, the scarf was mentioned. What the significance is, who knows, but the LE seemed to consider it may have been used in the homicide. Noone here, I believe, gives credence to AE, promoted by Wecht. But, otoh, perhaps it was used in a game (not AE). Wecht does explain well a vagus nerve injury and the ensuing physiological responses to this kind of injury. However, a vagus nerve injury would not allow for the scream heard. IDK.

The other information regarding scarves and the family was that PR gave out scarves to the men at the Christmas party on the 23rd. It was also said that JR wrapped a scarf around JB's neck in the casket. What the significance is, is pretty much conjecture. JMHO

 

[Venom]

Someone on another thread posted this cached link to Komrik's theory: http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ykirkomrikv1-0.docx+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

I thought I'd share in case someone couldn't get the other file to open.

 

[Anti-K]

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

I sort of think that Komrik’s “analysis” is a hoax.

You’re probably right about what Komrik is saying, but I don’t think Komrik is right about what he is saying.

Do you think 120TET and 17.7 are actually the same picture? Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?
...

AK

 

[cherisa]

I sort of think that Komrik’s “analysis” is a hoax.

You’re probably right about what Komrik is saying, but I don’t think Komrik is right about what he is saying.

Do you think 120TET and 17.7 are actually the same picture? Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?
...

AK

In his article Komrick says that he is a narcissist.

 

[Aleph]

And that his wife is a narcissist, etc. There's a lot of...unexpected personal information in there.

Still, I found his crime scene reconstruction fascinating, though I am not qualified to judge its validity.

 

[renah]

Ive known a few people who've had the type of mind komrik Seems to display. They tend to get bogged down in detail, automatically trigger insecurity in a certain type of less... hmm whats the word? -- less...Pretentious people, and can convolute into exactly what IMO komrik has: Nonsense.

This thread is about opinions regarding his writing, and i dont mean to offend anyone but thats my opinion. He offers no new info (none thats based on fact, that is) which is fine, but then takes it a step further by presenting inaccuracies and calls them factual. And his writing is so obtuse that it IS confusing-- in my opinion thats not only irresponsible in a situation like this where people are trying to develope their own opinions & theories, but also obvious that he's doing it to puff himself up and even seems to believe that being a narcissist in love with a (he states) manipulative & dishonest fellow narcissist is something to brag about!

And then the topper is he just HAS to get FW's name in there somewhere, even though it really has nothing to do with the rest of his pretentiously "intelligent" theories!

Just my opinion, of course. Sorry but it really pis*ed me off, slogging through his writing. If Im the only one to feel this way well, Im kind of used to being odd man out sometimes- though I'll still maintain that komrik is guilty of eye and brain abuse, making poeple read that garbage. ;-(

 

[dazeerae]

Renah, you're not alone. The term that kept going through my mind: pseudo-intellectual. Seems to be a person who likes the sound of his own voice. Also, I can't shake the sense that there are mental health issues influencing his thinking. Though entertaining, his writing boils down to utter nonsense.

 

[chlban]

Renah, you're not alone. The term that kept going through my mind: pseudo-intellectual. Seems to be a person who likes the sound of his own voice. Also, I can't shake the sense that there are mental health issues influencing his thinking. Though entertaining, his writing boils down to utter nonsense.

I agree with both of you. I really wanted to find something new and interesting but I agree with the pseudo-intellectual comment. I also agree with the possible mental health issues. At the very least, there is a seriously
angry/disturbed (not sure which, or maybe it is both) individual writing this. His references to his wife were just plain strange. Bitter much?

I almost felt like he was projecting onto Patsy. Far be if from me to defend her, I am still not 100% certrain she is the killer of her child, but I believe she was an absolutely horrible mother and that if she didn't kill her, she at least bears some strong responsibility for her being killed.

Still, Patsy was Patsy with her own set of personality disorders. She was not this guys wife, former wife, or whatever the chick he keeps referencing was/is. And those photos of her as a teenager are just plain creepy and totally out of context.

I have read far better and more thought out theories right here on this site from our own members.

 

[Aleph]

What about Patsy's credit card purchase of the rope and duct tape? Is that a known fact? I never see it discussed here.

 

[chlban]

What about Patsy's credit card purchase of the rope and duct tape? Is that a known fact? I never see it discussed here.

Yes, it is pretty common knowledge. Of course there is no way to prove it was the same rope and duct tape. Just another one of those many coincidences in this case.

 

[Aleph]

Was Patsy ever asked about it?

 

[Anti-K]

What about Patsy's credit card purchase of the rope and duct tape? Is that a known fact? I never see it discussed here.

No, it is not a fact.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Cord checked in Ramsey case
Nylon used in strangling bought locally, sources say
By MATT SEBASTIAN, Camera Staff Writer
Monday, March 9, 1998

Investigators are almost certain the nylon cord used to strangle JonBenét Ramsey came from a Boulder surplus store, sources have told the Daily Camera.

Detectives purchased the Boulder Army Store's entire stock of Stansport white nylon utility cord on May 22, and sent the samples to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation for comparison to the rope found around the 6-year-old's neck and right wrist.

Shannon Long, co-owner of the Boulder Army Store, wouldn't talk on Friday about the police visit, although he confirmed detectives purchased the cord.

"Yeah, they came in - and whatever they bought, they bought," Long said.

The surplus store is at 1545 Pearl St., just past the east end of the Downtown Mall.

The 1/4-inch-wide Stansport cord - which comes packaged in lengths of 50 and 100 feet and often is used for camping or outdoor activities - also is available at McGuckin Hardware.

Sources said Boulder investigators only purchased the nylon cord from the Boulder Army Store, not at McGuckin Hardware.

When asked if investigators had bought quantities of Stansport cord, a McGuckin manager said, "We don't have any comment."
<snip>
http://tinyurl.com/mhy3zkr
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Receipt from McGuckins
&#8220;Among the items on Patsy&#8217;s December 9 receipt was an item from the builder&#8217;s hardware department. The price was $1.99. On the December 2 slip, there was an item from the garden department. It was $1.99. Duct tape also sold for $1.99. We had no way of knowing what she had bought.&#8221; ~ Thomas; p. 120
BBM
...

AK

 

[Mama2JML]

Aleph, there has been no link established regarding the purchase of the duct tape & the cord.

Patsy's questioned about the duct tape in 1997:

"ST: Let me show you a couple of tings. Patsy, does this look like duct tape that you’ve ever owned or used or had in the home.
PR: Um, no
ST: Do you recall ever having any duct tape or multi-purpose tape like that in the home.
PR: No.
ST: Okay. How about cord such as this? Have you ever seen or used or owned or had such cord in the home?
PR: Um, not to my knowledge, no, I’ve never seen…
ST: Doesn’t look familiar at all?
PR: No.
ST: Okay. Patsy, when were you last in Athens, Georgia?
PR: Athens, Georgia? Uh, probably, by stepdaughter went to college there. I was probably there for something.
ST: But, that’s Melinda I’m assuming?
PR: Yeah.
ST: And that would have been some time ago?
PR: Yeah, it would have been, well, let’s see, she’s been in nursing school for two years. At least a couple of years ago.
ST: And the point of my question being if somebody was alleging that you were in Athens, Georgia between Thanksgiving and Christmas of last year would they be mistaken in that recollection?
PR: Yeah, (inaudible) Athens, Georgia.
ST: Okay.
PR: I was Rome, Georgia. I wasn’t in Athens, Georgia.
ST: Ad Rome, where, you were at the Saturday after Thanksgiving for the…
PR: Pageant.
ST: …pageant.
PR: Right.
ST: Okay. That’s all I have for now."​

 

[Nom de plume]

Aleph, there has been no link established regarding the purchase of the duct tape & the cord.

Patsy's questioned about the duct tape in 1997:

"ST: Let me show you a couple of tings. Patsy, does this look like duct tape that you’ve ever owned or used or had in the home.
PR: Um, no
ST: Do you recall ever having any duct tape or multi-purpose tape like that in the home.
PR: No.
ST: Okay. How about cord such as this? Have you ever seen or used or owned or had such cord in the home?
PR: Um, not to my knowledge, no, I’ve never seen…
ST: Doesn’t look familiar at all?
PR: No.
ST: Okay. Patsy, when were you last in Athens, Georgia?
PR: Athens, Georgia? Uh, probably, by stepdaughter went to college there. I was probably there for something.
ST: But, that’s Melinda I’m assuming?
PR: Yeah.
ST: And that would have been some time ago?
PR: Yeah, it would have been, well, let’s see, she’s been in nursing school for two years. At least a couple of years ago.
ST: And the point of my question being if somebody was alleging that you were in Athens, Georgia between Thanksgiving and Christmas of last year would they be mistaken in that recollection?
PR: Yeah, (inaudible) Athens, Georgia.
ST: Okay.
PR: I was Rome, Georgia. I wasn’t in Athens, Georgia.
ST: Ad Rome, where, you were at the Saturday after Thanksgiving for the…
PR: Pageant.
ST: …pageant.
PR: Right.
ST: Okay. That’s all I have for now."​

BBM According to LHP, this wasn't true. From the first chapter of her book:

"So you broke off one of your paint brushes, took the white nylon cord, and twisted it around her neck. She might have still been revived, but you didn't know it. You just pulled the cord tight around her neck until it was red.

I remember just such a cord wrapped in just such a way around a box in the basement next to where her body was found.

I remember a lot Patsy."

http://www.webbsleuths.com/cgi-bin/dcf/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=2011&forum=DCForumID101

 

[Scandigirl]

It's really interesting reading everyone's views, as I'm only just catching up here!

I agree with most that Komrik comes across as annoyingly pretentious and arrogant with all his flowery language, and it doesn't do him any favours inserting his own family members and their mental health issues into things- inappropriate and disloyal, and raised my eyebrows, too!

To try to be as fair as possible, I took it to be a misguided attempt at saying that the rest of us, who have no firsthand experience if personality disorders, would be shocked at how callous and conniving they can be, which may be true. The problem is, we don't know if either John or Patsy suffered from undiagnosed disorders, or even of the same type, so it becomes difficult to continue his theory from there, without knowing either way.

Personally, I've reached a point now, where I can draw a line under his document either way, but it has been useful to me in getting me wondering for the first time, if there could be any possible indicators of pre meditation in the crime, plus I also found his vivid description of the possible attack very compelling.

I don't know if anyone agrees or not, but it often feels that one of the big problems with this case, is that any theory developed by anyone tends to mix in a big dose of personal interpretation with the facts. This even applies to people like Steve Thomas, Singular, Wecht, etc. Inevitably, some of their own personal beliefs and experiences get mixed in, simply because many of the facts still don't tell us conclusively who did it, how, or why? So we all end up wondering about the possibility of different scenarios (suppositions), that might explain the facts?

Sorry for the long, rambling post!

 

[chlban]

Scandigirl;10206178]It's really interesting reading everyone's views, as I'm only just catching up here!

I don't know if anyone agrees or not, but it often feels that one of the big problems with this case, is that any theory developed by anyone tends to mix in a big dose of personal interpretation with the facts. This even applies to people like Steve Thomas, Singular, Wecht, etc. Inevitably, some of their own personal beliefs and experiences get mixed in, simply because many of the facts still don't tell us conclusively who did it, how, or why? So we all end up wondering about the possibility of different scenarios (suppositions), that might explain the facts?

I agree about the personal interpretation statement. I have read so many theories of this crime and can see points in favor of PDI, BDI and JDI, while
reading.

Yet whatever influences me I tend to always fall back on certain things that just don't feel right to me. I don't think John killed her. I also don't think he was sexually abusing her-and I know that beleif is very unpopular here.

I think Burke may well have been sexually abusing her and I can buy either he or Patsy as the killer.

So, are there personal influences in my own life that am not readily aware of, that have influenced me? Quite possible.

Just as I believe Lou Schmidt was influenced only by the fact that he bought the Ramsey's "we are such good Christians" act.

Still, I like reading different people's theories and often find interesting points I may not have considered even after all these years.

The only thing I have never been influenced by though is that not once, in 17 years, have I read a IDI theory that I have found even remotely plausable.
I am 100% convinced it was RDI.

 

[Anyhoo]

It's really interesting reading everyone's views, as I'm only just catching up here!

I agree with most that Komrik comes across as annoyingly pretentious and arrogant with all his flowery language, and it doesn't do him any favours inserting his own family members and their mental health issues into things- inappropriate and disloyal, and raised my eyebrows, too!

To try to be as fair as possible, I took it to be a misguided attempt at saying that the rest of us, who have no firsthand experience if personality disorders, would be shocked at how callous and conniving they can be, which may be true. The problem is, we don't know if either John or Patsy suffered from undiagnosed disorders, or even of the same type, so it becomes difficult to continue his theory from there, without knowing either way.

Personally, I've reached a point now, where I can draw a line under his document either way, but it has been useful to me in getting me wondering for the first time, if there could be any possible indicators of pre meditation in the crime, plus I also found his vivid description of the possible attack very compelling.

I don't know if anyone agrees or not, but it often feels that one of the big problems with this case, is that any theory developed by anyone tends to mix in a big dose of personal interpretation with the facts. This even applies to people like Steve Thomas, Singular, Wecht, etc. Inevitably, some of their own personal beliefs and experiences get mixed in, simply because many of the facts still don't tell us conclusively who did it, how, or why? So we all end up wondering about the possibility of different scenarios (suppositions), that might explain the facts?

Sorry for the long, rambling post!

I dismiss the rambling Komrik document as being too unconventional for me to even take seriously, but I still hold open the possibility that the murder was premeditated. With a family like the Ramsey's, anything is possible IMO.