15 · CORRESPONDING
The authors classified fifteen recorded statements as corresponding to the proposed previous person.
Worked Evidence Profile · Turkey · Published 2005
Case KA
and Karakas.
A rare strength: written interview notes preceded identification. A necessary limit: prospective controls still did not cover every stage.Examine the profile ↓
This is an editorial application of Matrix v0.1.0, not the study authors’ rating and not a probability of reincarnation. The profile can change if stronger records, independent reassessment or contradictory evidence emerges. BQ001 remains unresolved.
Why this case?
The record existed
before the match.
In April 1997, researcher H. H. Jürgen Keil interviewed a six-year-old identified in the paper as KA in south-central Turkey. His notes preceded the search that connected many details with an Armenian Christian man named Karakas who had lived in Istanbul.
That chronology reduces one important risk: reconstructing all of the child’s statements after a proposed match was already known. It does not establish how the correspondences arose.
AkashicNET v0.16.0-beta.2 · Knowledge Graph Beta · RELEASE CANDIDATE →Published statement ledger
Matches and misses
remain together.
3 · PARTIALLY CONFIRMED
Three statements received incomplete, indirect or consistency-based support.
4 · UNVERIFIED OR DOUBTFUL
Four statements lacked confirmation or conflicted with the available chronology.
2 · EXCLUDED FROM THE CORE
Two later statements may have followed exposure to names discovered during the investigation.
Matrix application
Eight dimensions.
One provisional profile.
TIMING
Strength: An investigator wrote notes during the first interview in April 1997, before locating the proposed previous person and property.
Limit: The earliest statements from around age two and a half were reported retrospectively by the family; no audio recording was made.
SPECIFICITY
Strength: The recorded account included a family name, religion, building form, waterfront setting, neighbouring landmark and unusual family details.
Limit: Some details were broad, partially confirmed or dependent on interpretation.
INFORMATION ACCESS
Strength: The families reported no known connection, and the proposed life was about 850 km away and roughly fifty years earlier.
Limit: A named neighbour had received publicity; indirect exposure could not be completely excluded.
MATCHING
Strength: The investigator’s search located a property and historical person corresponding to many recorded details.
Limit: No predefined scoring system, blinded matching procedure or comparison with decoy candidates was used.
RECOGNITION
Strength: A later photograph of the property prompted an apparent room identification.
Limit: The recognition was informal, occurred after investigation and did not use randomisation or cue controls.
RECORDS
Strength: The house, nearby church and several historical details were checked through site visits and local testimony.
Limit: Key church records had reportedly been destroyed; several claims remained unverified or doubtful.
WITNESS INDEPENDENCE
Strength: A local historian was questioned without being told that a child had supplied the description.
Limit: Much confirmation rested on a small witness network, interpreter-mediated interviews and recollection decades after the proposed life.
ALTERNATIVES
Strength: The publication directly considered family embellishment and ordinary information transfer.
Limit: It did not test every alternative prospectively, independently or adversarially.
What would raise confidence?
Preserve what exists.
Test what remains.
- 01 · INDEPENDENT REASSESSMENTRecode the original notes and confirmations using researchers with differing theoretical commitments.
- 02 · ARCHIVAL RECOVERYSearch surviving civil, property, cemetery and newspaper records for claims currently supported mainly by oral history.
- 03 · ALTERNATIVE-CANDIDATE TESTCompare the written description with other plausible people and properties, not only the selected match.
- 04 · INFORMATION-ROUTE AUDITReconstruct media, family, travel and social pathways available before the first interview.
Primary research record
Read the paper.
Audit our interpretation.
Keil & Tucker · 2005
The paper presents KA and reviews three other cases in which written statements preceded identification of a proposed previous person.
Open the full paper ↗Previous-Life Case Evidence Matrix
Review the definitions behind this provisional profile and apply the same questions to other reports.
Return to the matrix →AkashicNET conclusion
Harder to explain.
Still unresolved.
The prior written record makes simple post-match embellishment less persuasive as a complete explanation. Missing controls and incomplete records prevent a stronger profile. The evidence identifies an anomaly worthy of further study; it does not identify reincarnation as the mechanism.