FAO Holdontoyourhat

[Jayelles]

I've been trying to attract your attention on other threads, but you seem to be missing my posts....

I'd like to ask you how familiar you are with Dave's analysis of the 911 tape. I'd be really interested in your comments.

Hopefully you won't miss this post.

[Holdontoyourhat]

OK, well I'm not a big 'enhanced 911 tape' expert. It seems 'Dave's analysis' is opposite the 'aerospace analysis.' That just means experts can't agree. Just like experts can't agree on so many other aspects.

When experts can't agree on the tape, its harder to make the tape part of an argument for the R's lying about BR.

Since there is nothing on the 911 tape, or even the enhanced 911 tape, that clearly indicated BR was there, I'd go with the R's statements relating to BR. Unless there was some other reason to discount it.

[IrishMist]

Ok, forgive me for butting in, but this was posted in public...

It's been a really long time since I heard about "Dave's Analysis" but if I remember correctly, he wasn't even close to being an expert, was he?

[Jayelles]

OK, well I'm not a big 'enhanced 911 tape' expert. It seems 'Dave's analysis' is opposite the 'aerospace analysis.' That just means experts can't agree. Just like experts can't agree on so many other aspects.

When experts can't agree on the tape, its harder to make the tape part of an argument for the R's lying about BR.

Since there is nothing on the 911 tape, or even the enhanced 911 tape, that clearly indicated BR was there, I'd go with the R's statements relating to BR. Unless there was some other reason to discount it.
You seem to be suggesting that Dave is an expert - when in fact we only have Dave's word for that. In reality, we don't know anything about Dave. He *seems* to be an expert on a lot of things when in fact we know that defies the very definition of the word expert (Jack of all trades is usually master of none).

Don't you find it compelling that having "analysed" the tape using a mystery program he wrote himself, Dave then refused to discuss his analysis with anyone who hadn't performed the same analysis?

I was in contact with a REAL forensic audio analyst a couple of years ago - a man who is highly respected and well known in his field. He explained to me the process of spectrography and how a computer can detect sounds which are inaudible to the human ear. Very powerful equipment is used for this - equipment which an organisation like Aerospace might have but which in fact the FBI and Secret Service do NOT own! (their equipment is notoriously NOT state of the art).

My expert laughed at the notion of a trained ear being sufficient for forensic audion analysis.

A few weeks ago, I started this thread:-

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33913

I used my graphics software (Paint Shop Pro) to write a message on a blank canvas. The message was written in white and on a white background - however, they were different shades of white. At a setting of 24 bit colour depth, a computer can distinguish between over 16 million colours - a human eye cannot distinguish between 16 million colours - not even close.

Same with audio. With a sampling resolution of 24 bits, a computer can store over 16 millions different sounds and distinguish between them. Not even a specially trained human ear can distinguish between over 16 million sounds!

I think it is very dangerous to make assumptions based upon the results of amateur tests performed on inadequate equipment using a ???? generational copy of a recording. Every time a copy is made, the sound quality deteriorates. If the original had to be enhanced by Aeropsace to make sense of it - we cannot possibly make judgements upon Dave's table-top analysis (figure of speech).

The FACT is that none of us have heard Aerospace's enahncement of the original 911 tape. We do know that Aerospace made a statement to say that they "stand by their work". We also know that another company (el Paso?) who analysed the ORIGINAL tape claimed also to hear the voices - they just didn't agree with Aerospace on the words which were spoken.

So back to my message on this thread:-

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33913

Look at the image - you will see nothing but it is there. A computer can see it, a human cannot.

[sissi]

Can I "butt" in ,too?
Many 911 tapes are recycled,they are used sent out, erased and recirculated, no one can expect the erasures to hold up to the scrutiny of a high tec lab. The tape isn't important either way. Only the audible words, the ones between Patsy and the 911 clerk are important. It wouldn't make sense to require hi tec enhancement to find something newly taped, jmo .

[Jayelles]

Can I "butt" in ,too?
Many 911 tapes are recycled,they are used sent out, erased and recirculated, no one can expect the erasures to hold up to the scrutiny of a high tec lab. The tape isn't important either way. Only the audible words, the ones between Patsy and the 911 clerk are important. It wouldn't make sense to require hi tec enhancement to find something newly taped, jmo .
You are quite wrong Sissi. Forensic Audio analysis of 911 tapes is used extensively in police work. The reason for this is that many people get to the phone and make a connection when there is a criminal emergency. Sometimes they are shot or stabbed by their assailant while they are online. Forensic audio analysis by qualified people using sophisticated equipment can have great results in tracking the perps. They can tell what direction a shot came from, the distance and even the calibre of the weapon.

If forensic audio analysis revealed conversations between the Ramseys and the presence of Burke, it would prove they were lying about events that morning and they would have to explain why.

I am undecided about the involvement of the Ramseys in JonBenet's murder but I think it does a great inservice to JonBenet if people choose to give anyone a "pass" who has means and opportunity. Especially when those persons have not been officially cleared on evidence.

JonBenet should always come first.

[Nehemiah]

Just the fact that Patsy mentions in DOI that she placed the phone back into the cradle makes me think there was more to the story. In reading the book, I noticed several situations where the Rs addressed "evidence" subtly.

[trixie]

she said she "slammed" the phone back in the cradle. IMO she wants to make sure the reader has no reason to think the phone was off the hook or not properly hung up because of this controversy about the 911 tape. I just think when the Rams address evidence in their book like this, subtly, almost manipulitivly(sp?), it makes them look worse. It seems like they think everybody is so dumb. It's insulting, honestly. But I think the ransom note is dumb and shows a certain amount of gullability and that is how I see Patsy and that is what I read in DOI. Dumbness and gullibility.

[BlueCrab]

she said she "slammed" the phone back in the cradle.

trixie,

Well, we know that's a lie. If Patsy had slammed the phone back into the cradle we would have heard the noise from the slamming. Remember, there was at least a four-second delay at the end of the 911 call (the part that was enhanced by Aerospace Corporation and contained Burke's voice in the background), and you could still hear the 911 dispatcher typing and saying "Patsy, Patsy, Patsy!" after Patsy supposedly hung up the phone. There was no noise from a phone being slammed into the cradle.

BlueCrab

[trixie]

That's what makes it so insulting, like we don't have a brain in our heads or something and we're just going to be gullible and go along with whatever Patys says happened, without looking into it ourselves and forming our own opinion. DOI was nothing but a defense and an explanation of all the evidence they knew had been made public. It was an insult.

[aussiesheila]

Can I "butt" in ,too?
Many 911 tapes are recycled,they are used sent out, erased and recirculated, no one can expect the erasures to hold up to the scrutiny of a high tec lab. The tape isn't important either way. Only the audible words, the ones between Patsy and the 911 clerk are important. It wouldn't make sense to require hi tec enhancement to find something newly taped, jmo .This view makes sense to me.

Surely if Patsy and John were still in the same room as the phone and Burke was there also, their voices would probably only need to be enhanced maybe 3X or 5X for their words to be audible to the human ear.

What sort of enhancement did the Aerospace people need perform on the tape with their hi-tech, state-of-the-art equipment so they could hear words that were still of such limited audibility that there is some disagreement as to what the words are? 1,000X? 10,000X? 100,000X?

It seems highly likely to me that they picked up erased dialogue on a recycled tape just as Sissi suggests.

[BlueCrab]

Surely if Patsy and John were still in the same room as the phone and Burke was there also, their voices would probably only need to be enhanced maybe 3X or 5X f as Sissi suggests.


aussiesheila,

Burke's voice is on the final four seconds of that 911 tape. The enhancement of those four seconds wasn't a matter of just increasing the volume; it was a matter of filtering out other noises in the room but leaving the faint voices still able to be heard. For instance, the noise from a furnace blower running, or a refrigerator running, would have to be filtered out or else they would overpower the faint voices in the background. Only professionals using state-of-the-art equipment would be able to satisfactorily accomplish this. Aerospace Corporation accomplished it.

BlueCrab

[Nehemiah]

That's what makes it so insulting, like we don't have a brain in our heads or something and we're just going to be gullible and go along with whatever Patys says happened, without looking into it ourselves and forming our own opinion. DOI was nothing but a defense and an explanation of all the evidence they knew had been made public. It was an insult.

I agree with your comments. And, DOI came out before we (general public) knew that the 911 tape would cause such a hoopla. Apparently, their attys thought it was worthy of subtle addressing in the book. I, too, see DOI the same way as you--basically a public relations endeavor. If one reads between the lines, one can garner additional info that the attys wanted addressed, IMO.

[Jayelles]

aussiesheila,

Burke's voice is on the final four seconds of that 911 tape. The enhancement of those four seconds wasn't a matter of just increasing the volume; it was a matter of filtering out other noises in the room but leaving the faint voices still able to be heard. For instance, the noise from a furnace blower running, or a refrigerator running, would have to be filtered out or else they would overpower the faint voices in the background. Only professionals using state-of-the-art equipment would be able to satisfactorily accomplish this. Aerospace Corporation accomplished it.

BlueCrab
This is correct BC. "Enhancement" does not simply mean to increase volume and state of the art equipment is required.

It is also common for the big labs to recommend that clients list to audio enhancements on the labs own equipment as results may be too subtle to hear on regular equipment.

I remember when my husband got his sooper-dooper hi-fi equipment and he insisted I listen to one of my favourite pieces of music. It was amazing because I could hear musical instruments and sounds that I'd never picked up before on the old stereo.

There has been so much dishonesty in this case that we have no reason to suppose that integrity has been maintained in the 911 tapes.

Dave's analysis would never stand up in court. He offered no proof that his methodology works.

[Roro]

I am totally aghast that discussion of the 9ll call continues. After all, Dave, self-appointed expert of everything, analyzed the tape for us long ago. LMAO:laugh:

Credit goes to Jayelles for Dave's title. I luv it!!

Out with the truth now, Blue Crab. I believe you have some way, some how, actually heard the real enhancement which, of course, has not been released to the public.:clap: :clap: Keep up the good work!

[Holdontoyourhat]

This is correct BC. "Enhancement" does not simply mean to increase volume and state of the art equipment is required.

It is also common for the big labs to recommend that clients list to audio enhancements on the labs own equipment as results may be too subtle to hear on regular equipment.

I remember when my husband got his sooper-dooper hi-fi equipment and he insisted I listen to one of my favourite pieces of music. It was amazing because I could hear musical instruments and sounds that I'd never picked up before on the old stereo.

There has been so much dishonesty in this case that we have no reason to suppose that integrity has been maintained in the 911 tapes.

Dave's analysis would never stand up in court. He offered no proof that his methodology works.

I'm sure the 'aerospace analysis' isn't going to court either. Nobody is going to testify BR's voice is mysteriously embedded in any wave pattern on the tape. That's because it isn't.

[Jayelles]

I'm sure the 'aerospace analysis' isn't going to court either. Nobody is going to testify BR's voice is mysteriously embedded in any wave pattern on the tape. That's because it isn't.
Aerospace made a statement to say that they stood by their work. Their work is on the police file along with a ton of other stuff none of us has seen.

It is ridiculous for anyone to say "that's because it isn't" unless that person has personally heard the enhanced 911 tape. Stating opinion as fact only serves to make one suspicious of a person. I would personally never trust a person who stated their opinions as anything other than their opinions.

[tipper]

Aerospace made a statement to say that they stood by their work. Their work is on the police file along with a ton of other stuff none of us has seen.

It is ridiculous for anyone to say "that's because it isn't" unless that person has personally heard the enhanced 911 tape. Stating opinion as fact only serves to make one suspicious of a person. I would personally never trust a person who stated their opinions as anything other than their opinions.So you'd agree BlueCrab should also have been taken to task for claiming " Burke's voice is on the final four seconds of that 911 tape."

[Jayelles]

So you'd agree BlueCrab should also have been taken to task for claiming " Burke's voice is on the final four seconds of that 911 tape."
Technically, yes. However, we can get pedantic here and remind ourselves that you cannot prove the absence of something - only the presence.

There are several witnesses who have heard two of the enhancements and who say there were three voices at the end of the tape. Aerospace stand by their work and I have not read that any of these witnesses has withdrawn their statements or contradicted what was written in Steve Thomas' book.

Bluecrab's claims are based upon historical fact - i.e. that several people heard the tape and agreed that there was a third voice which sounded like a young child.

None of this is my opinion - all is a matter of factual record. Obviously, Burke and others are making the assumption that the child's voice is Burke and not some other child who was in the ramsey home that morning. I do not think that is unreasonable assumption - but it is an assumption. Any other assumption would require a lot more explanation.

The facts do not counter the possibility that Burke may have been the voice on the tape. We know now that he was awake and not asleep as was previously claimed by the family. It's not a huge leap to suppose that Burke was not afraid of his own parents and that when he heard them shouting, he went downstairs and asked them what was wrong. The latter IS my opinion.

[Jayelles]

Sorry - I was interrupted by someone at the door.

I'd like to add this:-

It's a whole different ballgame when you actually have witnesses to something. There's a lot that we can only speculate about in the ramsey case but there are witnesses to the enahnced 911 tape. Whose word has more weight? - that of the wiitness, or that of someone who has never heard the enhanced tape?

IMO - it would be a lot less suspicious if Burke had been up and about that morning. I think it's much more damning that he lay in bed and pretended to sleep. Was he afraid of his own parents? Or did someone tell him to go back to bed and pretend to sleep? A secure, well-adjusted child would be inquisitive about the shouting.

[Holdontoyourhat]

So you'd agree BlueCrab should also have been taken to task for claiming " Burke's voice is on the final four seconds of that 911 tape."
This is the standard double-standard around here. At least my posts I always point out that it is my opinion only. Really, all we have here are opinions, as we are not privileged to the so-called 'historic facts' that others 'claim' to exist.

[Jayelles]

This is the standard double-standard around here. At least my posts I always point out that it is my opinion only. Really, all we have here are opinions, as we are not privileged to the so-called 'historic facts' that others 'claim' to exist.
You did not state that it was your opinion in the post I addressed. You simply stated that Burke's voice was not on the tape. If you had, I would have had no issue.

Not sure what you mean by not privileged to historic facts. Historic facts are there for all of us to enjoy.

[ellen13]

I think the thing that amazes me the most is that Burke has been able to keep this secret for so long. His parents must have scared the heck out of him by telling him if he ever tells what he knows he will burn in hell or he'll never see his mom and dad again or something like that. I think back to when I was a child. I wasn't good with keeping secrets.
I would love for Burke to get hypnotized and tell what he knows.

[ellen13]

Also, I would love to know what the Ramsey children, JAR and Melinda really think. I think I would have questioned my parents until I was blue in the face if
something like this happened in my family.

[Holdontoyourhat]

You did not state that it was your opinion in the post I addressed. You simply stated that Burke's voice was not on the tape. If you had, I would have had no issue.

Not sure what you mean by not privileged to historic facts. Historic facts are there for all of us to enjoy.Not sure what you mean by 'historic fact'. If you think BR being on the 911 tape is a 'historic fact', thats really closer to the quagmire of murky opinion. Maybe you could clarify what you think a 'historic fact' is? I mean, so we all could 'enjoy' it.

[Jayelles]

Not sure what you mean by 'historic fact'. If you think BR being on the 911 tape is a 'historic fact', thats really closer to the quagmire of murky opinion. Maybe you could clarify what you think a 'historic fact' is? I mean, so we all could 'enjoy' it.
Perhaps you didn't read my post. Let me repeat the part where I used the phrase 'historic fact':-

Bluecrab's claims are based upon historical fact - i.e. that several people heard the tape and agreed that there was a third voice which sounded like a young child.

That several people heard the enhanced tape and agreed that there was a third voice which sounded like a young child IS NOT IN DISPUTE. It is a historic fact. These people DID hear the tape and it is a matter of record that they said there was a third voice which they said sounded like a child.

No matter how this is spun or however some posters may try to argue semantics or blow smoke around what was said - it does not change that fact.

[BlueCrab]

I would love for Burke to get hypnotized and tell what he knows.


ellen13,

I think Burke has already told everything, or most of everything, he knows. He was questioned by the grand jury for over five hours and only a fraction of the information from those five hours of testimony has leaked its way out into the public (despite numerous denials by his parents, Burke admitted to the jurors he owned Hi-Tec hiking boots, and that info slipped out in the Atlanta interviews of 2000).

BlueCrab

[tipper]

Perhaps you didn't read my post. Let me repeat the part where I used the phrase 'historic fact':-


That several people heard the enhanced tape and agreed that there was a third voice which sounded like a young child IS NOT IN DISPUTE. It is a historic fact. These people DID hear the tape and it is a matter of record that they said there was a third voice which they said sounded like a child.

No matter how this is spun or however some posters may try to argue semantics or blow smoke around what was said - it does not change that fact.Well, yes and no. We have a record of ST saying what they heard. (Not forgetting Bonita who we know is dishonest. I think the source is the same.) This came up a while back and I don't think a direct quote from anyone other than ST was ever found. We also have an unknown person in PMPT who was at the big presentation saying "If you could be sure it was a voice." p666 So there does seem to be some dispute.

It would be nice if Hickman would settle this and give an interview but I can't blame her for not wanting to talk about possible evidence (to either confirm or deny ) simply to satisfy public curiosity.

[Jayelles]

Well, yes and no. We have a record of ST saying what they heard. (Not forgetting Bonita who we know is dishonest. I think the source is the same.) This came up a while back and I don't think a direct quote from anyone other than ST was ever found. We also have an unknown person in PMPT who was at the big presentation saying "If you could be sure it was a voice." p666 So there does seem to be some dispute.

It would be nice if Hickman would settle this and give an interview but I can't blame her for not wanting to talk about possible evidence (to either confirm or deny ) simply to satisfy public curiosity.
And we have Steve Thomas under oath in his deposition... and we have Aerospace making a statement to say they stand by their work.

Why do you say Bonita is dishonest? Is it known that she edited files?

[BlueCrab]

And we have Steve Thomas under oath in his deposition... and we have Aerospace making a statement to say they stand by their work.

Why do you say Bonita is dishonest? Is it known that she edited files?


Jayelles,

Bonita violated the trust of her position in Larry Posner's law firm. She stole the confidential Ramsey police reports stored there, copied them, and returned them -- with the intent of using the information to write a book to make money. That would probably be considered dishonest by most people, even though she was never charged with anything. (The notes are now known as "The Bonita Papers" and were sold to the tabs by persons unknown, and were the source for many of the tabs expose stories.)

BlueCrab

[tipper]

And we have Steve Thomas under oath in his deposition... and we have Aerospace making a statement to say they stand by their work.

Why do you say Bonita is dishonest? Is it known that she edited files?Standing by your work is not the same as verifying what's on the tape.

I don't know whether Bonita Sauer edited the files she stole from Larry Pozner. There are errors in what she wrote.

Would you hire her to have access to confidential information? I think if you steal from your employer you qualify as dishonest.

My recollection is ST is quite vague in his deposition about exactly what words are said. I'll have to re-read it but my impression was he didn't do much verifying or confirming of what he put in his book and his deposition contains a lot of caveats and "that's what I heard from so-and-so."

[Jayelles]

Jayelles,

Bonita violated the trust of her position in Larry Posner's law firm. She stole the confidential Ramsey police reports stored there, copied them, and returned them -- with the intent of using the information to write a book to make money. That would probably be considered dishonest by most people, even though she was never charged with anything. (The notes are now known as "The Bonita Papers" and were sold to the tabs by persons unknown, and were the source for many of the tabs expose stories.)

BlueCrab
OK, so she's a thief - but is there evidence that she has falsified any of the documents she stole? They are two different kinds of crimes. If there was evidence that she altered or falsified anything, then I wouls absolutely agree with you.

I take everything that Susan Bennett says with a pinch of salt - not because she sold documents to the tabloids (and cashed in a significant amount) but because there is documented proof that she lies and misrepresents facts.

Tell me why we should mistrust what is written in the Bonita papers. Show us where Bonita has misrepresented the facts of the Ramsey case.

[Jayelles]

Standing by your work is not the same as verifying what's on the tape.
So if Lou Smit says he stands by his work in the Ramsey case, you will not take that to mean that he is verifying what we know to be his theory?


I don't know whether Bonita Sauer edited the files she stole from Larry Pozner. There are errors in what she wrote. jameson says there are errors in the NE tanscripts.

Would you hire her to have access to confidential information? I think if you steal from your employer you qualify as dishonest.No of course not, but my concern would be that she would expose the contents of the documents - not that she would alter them.

My recollection is ST is quite vague in his deposition about exactly what words are said. I'll have to re-read it but my impression was he didn't do much verifying or confirming of what he put in his book and his deposition contains a lot of caveats and "that's what I heard from so-and-so."No you are right that he was vague - Lin Wood didn't ask him any questions whose answers might be damning to his clients. As in the Stratbucker deposition, Lin Wood focused on questions about the deposee's actions and affiliations - not case evidence.

[tipper]

In reading through what she wrote I made this collection of possible errors. I haven't done research on any of it but they were things that caught my eye as being at odds with my recollections. I've highlighted the bits that seemed wrong.
____________________


When not talking to an officer, John stayed by himself, and strangely, there was no interaction with Patsy. The victim advocates who had remained at Patsy's side assumed that John and Patsy were either divorced or estranged, because of the lack of communication between the two of them that morning. John seemed to pace the floor nervously in the area between the dining room and den, but ran to answer the phone every time it rang. Arndt observed that when John did sit down, one of his legs bounced up and down in nervous spasms.
…………

Soon the only police official remaining was Detective Arndt, along with John and Patsy and the family friends. T hen even John left to pick up the family's mail, and was gone approximately an hour and 20 minutes. When John returned Detective Arndt noted that he sat in the kitchen and opened the mail. John still remained in a room by himself not making contact with Patsy or any of the friends who stayed to console the family.
…
At 8:30 a.m. on the morning of December 26, unaware of the tragedy in Boulder, Melinda, John Andrew and Stewart Long had taken a private jet from Atlanta to Minneapolis in anticipation of meeting the rest of the Ramsey family to continue on to Charlevoix for the family holiday. Once in Minneapolis, they were contacted and told of the apparent kidnapping. Arrangements were made to fly them immediately to Denver.
…
Then examining the contents of the stomach and intestines, Dr. Meyer found the substance in the stomach was unidentifiable, but chunky matter, appearing to be pineapple, was found in the small intestine. Dr. Meyer noted for the record that food found in the intestines would have been consumed approximately two hours prior.
…
The next morning, the family and close friends flew to Marietta, Georgia.
John's Cessna, flown by Mike Archuletta, family friend and personal pilot, carried friends Priscilla, Barbara, Jay Elowsky, Pinque Barber, and the mother of Burke's closest school friend. The immediate family and Burke's schoolmate rode in a corporate jet, piloted by John and carrying the casket with JonBenet for her final trip home to Georgia. Little Miss
Colorado, dressed in her white sequined pageant gown and jeweled
…
In an apparent attempt to ward off the focus on themselves, John and Patsy, who had now become evasive and uncooperative with the Boulder police, scheduled an appearance on a national t.v. news program, CNN, to show their grief to the public and thank everyone for the prayers and kindness since the death of JonBenet.
…
Within days of the funeral, lines began forming separating those who continued to support the Ramseys and the former friends. One of the families placed on the side opposite John and Patsy was the family of Fleet and Priscilla White. A confrontation had occurred between Fleet and John's brother, Jeff Ramsey, on December 31 the day after the funeral and the Whites were asked to leave the Paugh home where they had been staying and move to a hotel. When contacted by the Boulder detectives, the Whites denied that such an incident had occurred. However, in the interview with Westmoreland who had been present during the incident, he told the detectives that Fleet was upset with the involvement of the Ramsey’s, attorneys in the investigation and their lack of cooperation with the police department. Fleet started an argument with Jeff at Westmoreland's home, went to the home of Jeff Ramsey to continue the argument, and then ended up at the Paugh residence still arguing. Westmoreland was concerned enough with the heat of the verbal exchange that he contacted the Boulder detectives to ask that someone respond to the Pauqh residence. Soon after this incident, John Ramsey told the Boulder police that in his opinion Fleet White was a prime suspect in the murder.
…

[i]
When left alone with the psychologist, Burke appeared to be at ease and even told the doctor that be felt safe, even though he did say that he had not wanted to come that day! Dr. Bernhard thought it was unusual for this child to feel safe. "People in this entire town didn't feel safe with the concept that there was someone running around that could be snatching children, and this was his own sister and happened in his own home. Generally speaking, a child who goes through this kind of trauma, where a sibling or a family member has been killed, they don’t feel safe.
…
Social Services had previously provided Dr. Bernhard with some history on Burke which indicated an ongoing bedwetting problem, but Burke denied this saying that it happened a long time ago. Children are usually honest about this in interviews, and Dr. Bernhard wondered why Burke was not.
…
In addition to Patsy, John and Burke, over 50 persons had submitted handwriting samples. After analysis,none of these persons are indicated to be the author of the ransom note.
…
At her first meeting with the three engineers, Hickman was told that it appeared that the cassette had been recorded in a Dictaphone format which would require a special recorder to recopy. Hickman drove to the nearest Dictaphone company which was located in the San Fernando Valley. A Dictaphone technician examined the tape and told Hickman that the information was not recorded in Dictaphone format. Hickman, feeling the frustration of the proverbial goose chase, returned to her hotel.

That evening, Roeder called her at the hotel and asked her to return to Aerospace. Roeder had decided that the tape probably had been recorded on a regular format which could be copied digitally by their computer. A hard drive disk was made of the tape, and this disk was copied to a JAZ drive, a large disk with more memory than a standard floppy disk.

On the morning of April 22, Hickman met again with Roeder in his office at Aerospace. The detective and the engineer went to a small lab to work with the disk to try to filter out extraneous noise and enhance the voices in the background. Roeder made several variations using different noise reduction settings, and those recordings were then copied onto the JAZ drive. They returned to Roeder's office where they were able to further enhance the disk. With this latest enhancement, they were able to hear two voices on the tape one of which sounded like a juvenile male, and the second one appeared to be Patsy. The first words seemed to belong to the juvenile, and then Patsy is heard to say, "Help me Jesus, help me Jesus." The voice again appeared to be the "juvenile male saying, "Please, what do I do?'' Hickman and Roeder agreed to meet again in the morning to continue enhancing the tape.

When Hickman returned to Aerospace the next morning to meet with Roeder, he said that he had continued listening to the disk after Hickman had left for the evening. He and another engineer had played the original version of the 911 call that had been transferred to the JAZ drive and found that to be the clearest recording. Both engineers had heard three distinct voices on the tape and written down that they thought was being said. The tape
was then played for Hickman. After listening to the tape three or four times, Hickman heard John Ramsey say “We’re not speaking to you”. In what sounded like a very angry voice. Patsy then says, “Help me Jesus, help me Jesus,” and finally Burke is clearly heard to say, “ Well, what did you find?”, with an emphasis on the word “did.” After Hickman told the engineers her impression of the conversation, Roeder handed her a piece of notepaper containing the conversation heard by himself and his fellow engineer – the conversation as written down was exactly as Hickman herself had just heard.

…

Coroner Meyer had noted in his autopsy examination that the food found in JonBenet's intestine would have been consumed approximately two hours prior death.
….
Patsy said she left on the white long sleeved knit top worn to the party, contrary to her statement on the morning of December 26 that she had changed JonBenet into a red turtle neck shirt.
…
She also distinctly remembered that when Burke hugged her before leaving the residence with Fleet, which differed from Fleet’s statement that Burke did not even see Patsy before they left. Patsy then mentioned that she had her
…
Pubic hairs from Patsy Boulder Community Hospital 2/13
On December 29, John and Patsy, accompanied by their attorneys appeared at Boulder community hospital to give hair and blood samples and be fingerprinted. As she was being fingerprinted, Patsy became hysterical Saying, "Why are you doing this? Do think I killed my baby?"
..
Interview of Dr. Beuf pediatrician 3/25 JonBenet had over 33 visits to the pediatrician in the last two years diagnosis was "yeast infections". I

[tipper]

So if Lou Smit says he stands by his work in the Ramsey case, you will not take that to mean that he is verifying what we know to be his theory?


jameson says there are errors in the NE tanscripts.

.Lou Smit has said specifically what evidence he has (I don't know if he has additional unpublished information) So if he "stands by it" I know what he is referring to i.e. photos, DNA, handwriting etc. and how it fits in his theory.

Aerospace hasn't said anything about what words are on the tape. So what are they "standing by?" I think they stand by the quality of their work not the content of the tape. No reputable company is going to get involved in discussing and debating evidence.

I expect Tricia's Mr. Ginsberg stands by his work too. But in his case we know what he says he found.

I think the 911 call is extremely important and if Burke and John were proven to be on it I would seriously rethink my belief that the Ramseys are innocent. It doesn't matter if Burke was up. But I can't think of any benign reason for them to all lie about it from the start.

I would love to have a clear list of ALL the errors. Schiller, ST, NE, Bonita.

[Jayelles]

Lou Smit has said specifically what evidence he has (I don't know if he has additional unpublished information) So if he "stands by it" I know what he is referring to i.e. photos, DNA, handwriting etc. and how it fits in his theory.

Aerospace hasn't said anything about what words are on the tape. So what are they "standing by?" I think they stand by the quality of their work not the content of the tape. No reputable company is going to get involved in discussing and debating evidence.

I expect Tricia's Mr. Ginsberg stands by his work too. But in his case we know what he says he found.

I think the 911 call is extremely important and if Burke and John were proven to be on it I would seriously rethink my belief that the Ramseys are innocent. It doesn't matter if Burke was up. But I can't think of any benign reason for them to all lie about it from the start.

I would love to have a clear list of ALL the errors. Schiller, ST, NE, Bonita.
I think we do know what Aerospace stand by as it has been highly publicised.

The bottom line is that ST described the Aerospace findings in his book and the people involved in it. Not one of them has come forward to dispute that.

As far as I am concerned, the matter of the 911 tape is unresolved. I "stand by" my opinion that none of us are in any position to make a judgement about this until we have heard the enhanced tape.

[tipper]

[...]
As far as I am concerned, the matter of the 911 tape is unresolved. I "stand by" my opinion that none of us are in any position to make a judgement about this until we have heard the enhanced tape.I agree.

[aussiesheila]

aussiesheila,

Burke's voice is on the final four seconds of that 911 tape. The enhancement of those four seconds wasn't a matter of just increasing the volume; it was a matter of filtering out other noises in the room but leaving the faint voices still able to be heard. For instance, the noise from a furnace blower running, or a refrigerator running, would have to be filtered out or else they would overpower the faint voices in the background. Only professionals using state-of-the-art equipment would be able to satisfactorily accomplish this. Aerospace Corporation accomplished it.

BlueCrabI understand all that BlueCrab, but I can't see how even refrigerator noises would overpower human voices in the same room to such an extent, that only Aerospace Corporation equipment was up to the task of dampening down the extraneous noises to allow Burke's voice to be detected.

What I am saying is that if Burke was still in the same room even if his voice came from well away from the telephone, that any competent backyard sound technician could have enhanced the tape such that Burke's speech could have been made audible.

The fact that BPD had to resort to the deep space tracking systems of Aerospace Corporation to enhance the voice on the final four seconds of that 911 tape, suggests to me that what was enhanced was just as Sissi described - erased voices from a previously used 911 tape.