Who Has Heard Burke's Voice on The 911 Tape?

[Agatha_C]

Tadpole12, thank you for the information on white noise, I'm sure those that didn't understand how it works appreciate the lesson, as I already know about white noise. Which is why I listened to my findings again this morning and posted my blunder. However, what is at the end of that recording is not white noise and there is no mistaking what is being said by the female voice (sounding exactly like PR). Anyone that does not hear talking at the end of that recording, needs to pump up the volume.

 

[DeeDee249]

For a scary evening, rent 2005's movie "White Noise". It's about EVP (electronic voice phenomena).

 

[Tadpole12]

Tadpole12, thank you for the information on white noise, I'm sure those that didn't understand how it works appreciate the lesson, as I already know about white noise. Which is why I listened to my findings again this morning and posted my blunder. However, what is at the end of that recording is not white noise and there is no mistaking what is being said by the female voice (sounding exactly like PR). Anyone that does not hear talking at the end of that recording, needs to pump up the volume.

Heyya AC.

Then I better do that, lol.
'Pump up the volume.'
Break out the vintage cerwin vegas?

 

[Agatha_C]

LMAO.. Cerwin Vega's, That was funny Tadpole.

 

[Tadpole12]

Okay, got 'em uploaded all in a single folder on Mediafire. Thanks, cynic. Looks like that's perfect place for this.

I've got the two original files I worked with:
"tape1" is the entire unfiltered recording.
"tape2" is the entire recording with the begining cut and some of the "noise" eliminated.

Then my edits:
"jbr-911-cut" is the last 42 seconds of the call.
"jbr-911-enhanced" is the last 42 seconds with some of the noise filtered out and the keyboard clicks' volume reduced (also volume increased at end where "third voice" occurs).
"jbr-911-helpmejesus" is the area where Patsy supposedly repeats her now famous words.
"jbr-911-whatdidyou" and "jbr-911-whatdidyou2" are where I tried to get the words that the "third voice" (assumed to be Burke) speaks "What did you find?"
"jbr-911-begining" is just the first part of the call where Patsy's change in tone occurs.

As I said in my previous post, I really suggest that you download WavePad to listen to them so you can isolate an area and listen over and over. Also, I'm far from any kind of expert at this, so maybe someone else can help me find John's voice. Actually, though, I don't think it's there. I believe that what we have available had been edited before it was released to the public. If you look at the sound patterns (in "tape 1"), there is a three second dead space that begins after Burke says, "What did you..." So what the fourth word is, we can only guess or believe from media reports. But I believe that is the proof that it had been altered before it was released. I think that is where John reportedly says, "We're not speaking to you." If that is the case, it certainly makes me scratch my head and ask why it would be so important to erase that one part. Any speculation? Suggestions?

Here's the link to the folder:

http://www.mediafire.com/?sz5vaaab2evbo

If anyone has problems or finds more "stuff" in the recordings, let me know.

bump for reference.

 

[BBB167893]

Gee .. I never received such a welcome .. is it because I do not subscribe to the RDI philosophy? :waitasec: j/k

I also do not subscribe to the IDI philosophy .. I attempt only to follow what is presented as actual fact in this case. Now and then I might miss what is actual fact and confuse certain issues but it never is with an intent to do so. :angel:

You do all you can do, Chuck. That's all any of us can be expected to do.

 

[otg]

Agatha C and Wonderllama, it just now occurred to me that I didn't welcome either one of you to Websleuths and the JonBenet forum. Please accept my apologies. I'm truly glad you're here and looking forward to more of your great posts!
Becky

Gee .. I never received such a welcome .. is it because I do not subscribe to the RDI philosophy? :waitasec: j/k

I also do not subscribe to the IDI philosophy .. I attempt only to follow what is presented as actual fact in this case. Now and then I might miss what is actual fact and confuse certain issues but it never is with an intent to do so. :angel:

Actually, Chuck, it was because I could tell by the number of your posts that you were not new to Websleuths. It would seem that I owe you a welcome to the JonBenet forum. Welcome! I happen to believe you have made some excellent posts and points.
Becky

Don’t feel bad, CM, about not being welcomed by Beck. Looking at your and her date of membership, you both registered in the same month. Maybe it should have been you welcoming her back in February, 2005 :smile:.

I haven’t welcomed new posters since I registered, because I felt somewhat like a guest myself in the short time I’ve been here (having only registered a month or so ago). I guess by now my newbie status has expired, so I will make a point in the future to make others feel welcome too.

As to a reason or motive behind one person or another being more or less welcome, I don’t think so. Most people here seem open to new ideas and new ways to look at something. Sometimes people get a little passionate in their responses, but it's just because they feel strongly about this, and because it's frustrating to watch it go on for so long with no "justice" having been served. If we came to a point that we all agreed with one another, there wouldn’t be much of a point in discussing our opinions. It would sure make for a boring "discussion" forum. Were that the case, someone would start a new thread stating his/her opinion, and then every response would just be ITA, ITA. ITA.

So thank you for your disagreements, and don’t get mad at me if I disagree with you. Deal?

Oh! And welcome, ChuckMaureen.
.

 

[otg]

I've tried listening to the tape using Audacity (also free, my favourite kind of software), and it is clear that PR, or whoever, says something different to the "Help me Jesus" lines from before.

I downloaded and tried the Audacity software, wonderllama. It’s almost the same as the one I use. Seems like it has about the same options for editing and effects. I’ll try using it when I have the time and see which one I prefer. Thanks, WL.

(BTW, either program can be used to reverse a recording. Good for reverse speech analysis, if you're into that sort of thing, and looking for hidden messages in old Beatles music.)

This makes me wonder.

1. If she does say "They're going to arrest me", it of course implies she knows that it is not a kidnapping...but doesn't mean she did it.

2. If it is BR saying it, then he also knows something is wrong which could only point to him having some involvement. It would explain the scold from JR (which I honestly can't hear) and ties in well with the comment only being said if someone KNOWS a non-kidnapping has occurred.

2a. If BR DID accidentally kill his sister, one assumes that of course the Rs are going to get him out of the way and throw in as many red herrings as possible to keep him protected.

On the possibilities of the phrases and who said them, I agree. However, I do believe the one saying something about being arrested is Patsy. It seems to be the same tone and cadence as spoken immediately before in the “Help me, Jesus” sequence, and it seems to be almost a continuous flow of the same sentence. JMO, but it makes more sense than thinking that it is someone else.

This whole thing does your head in thinking about the various possibilities.

However, I am now of the opinion that guilty or not, BR NEEDS to be spoken to.

Does Burke need to be spoken with? Yes, and apparently the BPD thinks so too.

Out of interest, what would the penalty have been for 2nd/3rd degree murder/manslaughter for a 9 year old?

My understanding of the law in Colorado at the time this happened is that anyone under the age of ten could not be charged with a felony. A felony would include murder in any degree, or any of the lesser homicide charges (manslaughter, wrongful death). But as I’ve pointed out before, I doubt that anyone in the Ramsey family would have known that at the time.
.

 

[wonderllama]

otg - audacity is a good little program, I use it for editing mp3s all the time, highly recommend it.

For the record, I think the extra bit after "Help me Jesus" is PR for all the reasons you said. The tone, the flow...it's the same voice!

Interestingly enough, I watched 'Perfect Town Perfect Murder' yesterday (on youtube) and the inclusion of the police listening to the enhanced audio of the call was intriguing.
If they supposedly have that evidence, why is the enhanced version not in the public domain and why has nobody in authority ever run with it?

 

[ChuckMaureen]

***
I slowed the playback and increased the pitch proportionately of the end section of the 911 that contains background voices:

I do, indeed, hear a young male asking:

"Are you goin' to arrest me?"
(it is not PR saying that, as the tempo and speed with which that phrase is spoken is quicker than PR's lead-in rhetorical questions)

.. in response to what sounds like PR seemingly rhetorical questioning:

"Baby
[*], what did you find, what did you do?"
* Does PR say "Baby" or "JB" or "Jamie"?

If only JR, PR, BR and JBR were in that house the evening of Dec 25 and in to the morning of Dec 26, 1996 then I can only believe PR was speaking to BR.

What occurred that evening and / or that morning that caused BR to ponder: "Are you goin' to arrest me?"

 

[otg]

(otg edit)
Interestingly enough, I watched 'Perfect Town Perfect Murder' yesterday (on youtube) and the inclusion of the police listening to the enhanced audio of the call was intriguing.
If they supposedly have that evidence, why is the enhanced version not in the public domain and why has nobody in authority ever run with it?

I think I can answer that, but it again brings up the question I have -- the answer to which may give a clue as to the thinking of those who would possibly prosecute a case.

The enhanced version was something the BPD had done that they used to question the Ramseys. Even if it proves Burke was awake and there in the room at the time of the 911 call, it doesn’t make a case for who was responsible for JonBenet’s death. It does disprove their contention that he slept through the entire ordeal. So while the enhanced version could be used in court, it wasn’t something that they felt they had to release as part of the U.S. FOI Act, or at least no one has pursued it.

What I question is the blank part at the end of the released recording. From reports, what had been heard went something like this:

Burke: “What did you find?”
John: “We’re not speaking to you.”
Burke: “But what DID you find?”

The recording only has Burke speaking the first part of “What did you...”, before it is cut off. And since you use Audacity, you can see that the space after that is dead silence and then white noise. So what it appears to be is that they were trying to cut out John’s voice only.

Why cut out just that portion? John (as well as Patsy) could be prosecuted for the cover-up -- altering the scene of a crime. Burke, under 10yo, could not be prosecuted for anything. I believe they wanted to save the evidence against John for future prosecution, and for that reason, cut out his voice on the recording that was released to the public. I don’t know that, it’s just my guess. In any event, that by itself is not enough to stand up alone in court as proof of any guilt. I know SuperDave will say there is a lot more circumstantial evidence in addition to any one thing, but we’re talking about a District Attorney who had never prosecuted any major cases, and who had usually at best only worked out plea deals with suspects for reduced sentencing. He also knew the dream team of lawyers that the Ramseys had already assembled to fight anything he did. So nothing ever became of it.
.

 

[wonderllama]

Well, releasing the end part of the tape which would reveal that BR was awake and talking would actually (I'd have thought) add legitimacy to the authorities desire to speak with him.

I'd have thought there would be some sort of obstruction of justice claim available.
It's tough when I can only reference Australian law/mechanisms when thinking about this.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Well, releasing the end part of the tape which would reveal that BR was awake and talking would actually (I'd have thought) add legitimacy to the authorities desire to speak with him.

I'd have thought there would be some sort of obstruction of justice claim available.
It's tough when I can only reference Australian law/mechanisms when thinking about this.

Wow, wonderllama, it would be tough trying to get a feel for the American Justice system from Australia. But here's the real problem. In most of the other 49 American states, the Ramseys would have been questioned at the police station that very day, regardless of "who" they were. It would seem that Boulder has it's own way of doling out justice and it's a very rare thing indeed. I'm amazed that every criminal in the country hasn't already moved to Boulder. If I were a criminal, that's exactly where I would want to be after everything that's happened in this case (and there are others, SuperDave has a thread devoted to this very thing). So, even if you read up on our justice system, it will give you no insight into what happens in Boulder.

 

[otg]

Well, releasing the end part of the tape which would reveal that BR was awake and talking would actually (I'd have thought) add legitimacy to the authorities desire to speak with him.

I'd have thought there would be some sort of obstruction of justice claim available.
It's tough when I can only reference Australian law/mechanisms when thinking about this.

Well, I'm no lawyer (and proud to say that one too), but the States do have obstruction of justice also. As I understand it, it's hard to prosecute (intent has to be proven), and low in the amount of punishment that would be given, if found guilty. Therefore it becomes more threatened by authorities than ever pursued. And of course, defense attorneys know this as well.

After John and Patsy in questioning were told that Burke's voice was indeed on the recording of the 911 call, they did alter their stories a bit to say that they hadn't realized that he had actually been awake, but they didn't know it. (I know, that doesn't explain away that they were talking to him on the recording, but that's what they claimed.)
.

 

[otg]

I'm amazed that every criminal in the country hasn't already moved to Boulder.

:floorlaugh:​

.

 

[wonderllama]

...snipped by me...

After John and Patsy in questioning were told that Burke's voice was indeed on the recording of the 911 call, they did alter their stories a bit to say that they hadn't realized that he had actually been awake, but they didn't know it. (I know, that doesn't explain away that they were talking to him on the recording, but that's what they claimed.)
.

Does that not make Burke a suitable witness to interview, I mean the reality being that the phone call would have been made almost immediately after finding the note, thus implying he was "present" from the get go.

And if the Ramsey's were prepared to alter their story to accommodate Burke being awake, surely JR would need to find a way of explaining 'having a chat' with him if they released the end segment of the 911 call.

By the way, I know we all wonder the same things...and I'm also sure that many of us feel we know why we are still wondering the same things...things which could easily be answered, in my opinion, by a genuinely innocent individual. Alas....

 

[otg]

Does that not make Burke a suitable witness to interview, I mean the reality being that the phone call would have been made almost immediately after finding the note, thus implying he was "present" from the get go.

And if the Ramsey's were prepared to alter their story to accommodate Burke being awake, surely JR would need to find a way of explaining 'having a chat' with him if they released the end segment of the 911 call.

By the way, I know we all wonder the same things...and I'm also sure that many of us feel we know why we are still wondering the same things...things which could easily be answered, in my opinion, by a genuinely innocent individual. Alas....

Yes, to all of the above, IMO.

But to add to your query... If they admit that he was in the room and in the conversation, the next question would be what else were they "disingenuous" about? And if Burke was there when the 911 call was made, why did they send him straight to his room to be asleep before anyone got there?

See? One question just leads to another. Best to just say "no" (you know, when the police come calling).
.

 

[Tadpole12]

Yes, to all of the above, IMO.

But to add to your query... If they admit that he was in the room and in the conversation, the next question would be what else were they "disingenuous" about? And if Burke was there when the 911 call was made, why did they send him straight to his room to be asleep before anyone got there?

See? One question just leads to another. Best to just say "no" (you know, when the police come calling).
.

RDI wise, having the Ramseys concede that BR was awake, only makes me wonder if BR was in bed and he was not the 3rd party overheard in the 'enhancement'.

 

[wonderllama]

So, and I'm being a little lazy here, where was Burke when the police arrived...who was the first to SEE him after the 911 call?

 

[Agatha_C]

What did BR change into? Did they get his night close or just those worn to the party? Did he carry a book-sack out?

Why is it, I don't know if LE got BR's PJ's?