911 Call

[DeeDee249]

...and PR shows no hesitation or concern for the context of the ransom note which clearly states not to alert the police.

Why wouldn't she have mentioned that the perps don't want police involvement so the police will have to arrive in unmarked cars from the street behind them?

I would've devised a plan to avoid alerting the perps that I'm getting the police involved.

Afterall, there were clear instructions to use that good ole' southern common sense, right? :facepalm:

Well that was their whole reason for the call, right? They already had a dead victim. Now- they needed to have a reason for that dead victim that did not involve them. So the wrote the note with the warning not to talk to or call anyone or she would be killed, then- they called everyone, including police! So now they had an explanation for the dead child. She was killed because they called people.

 

[CircuitGuy]

CircuitGuy, you think the word at the beginning sounds like “one” instead of “Hon’”. I can understand that because the first part of what was being said is not on the recording, and “one” would fit in with the context of making a 911 call. But the second word spoken sounds nothing to me like “Hi” instead of “Hon’”. The rest, you say, might be “a coincidental product of ambient noise and the enhancement algorithm used”. I’m not qualified to try and debate that with someone who has a Master’s in electronic signal processing, so I’ll take your word for it.

I had one grad class in speech signal processing at USF 10 years ago and haven't used it since. Everything we did was in MATLAB. You seem to me more up on modern tools than I am. Plus the class focused on speech recognition algorithms for use in call centers and smart phones and a little bit on removing noise.

My point is that I know if you keep trying different filters, eventually you'll hear something that sounds intelligible, but it may not be real.

I suppose it’s not the exact words spoken that’s as important as what I wanted everyone to pick up on from the beginning of the call. It’s the change in Patsy’s tone between what she is saying at first to someone in the room and her speaking to the 911 operator. It’s the sudden blurting out of the word “POLICE!” to alert anyone else that she has a connection and should therefore “shut the hell up”.

I do not hear the change in tone. I believe the words I identify as "Hi, we need" were intended for the 911 operator and were in the same tone. The word "POLICE" stands out and does sound to me as exactly what you said, as if someone walked up as if they were about to say something and she wanted to tell them to shut up.

I also think it could have just been Shatnerification. People make fun of Shatner's speech style, but some actors are trained to talk like that to convey emotion and get attention on the stage.

In my mind it's a coin toss between silencing someone and Shatnerification.

 

[CircuitGuy]

Well that was their whole reason for the call, right? They already had a dead victim. Now- they needed to have a reason for that dead victim that did not involve them. So the wrote the note with the warning not to talk to or call anyone or she would be killed, then- they called everyone, including police! So now they had an explanation for the dead child. She was killed because they called people.

I know you're probably already implying this in a tongue-in-cheek way:That scenario would require the killers to be hiding in the house, hear them call the police, kill JBR, and escape unseen.

 

[otg]

I had one grad class in speech signal processing at USF 10 years ago and haven't used it since. Everything we did was in MATLAB. You seem to me more up on modern tools than I am. Plus the class focused on speech recognition algorithms for use in call centers and smart phones and a little bit on removing noise.

My point is that I know if you keep trying different filters, eventually you'll hear something that sounds intelligible, but it may not be real.

My reason for "cleaning up" the recording was to simply remove the ambient mechanical buzz and tone down the loud keyboard clicks at the end so the voices in the background are more discernible. Once you can hear it and know where it occurs, you can listen to the original and easily hear it. Kind of like one of those "hidden object" drawings where you look for some common object hidden among the lines of the picture, you can't see it at first until someone else points it out for you. Then you can't look at the picture without instantly seeing the object that you couldn't find before.

But I've been listening to the beginning again after reading your previous response. I may have to agree with you on one point about the exact words spoken, but I'll save that for later when I have a chance to put it together.

I do not hear the change in tone. I believe the words I identify as "Hi, we need" were intended for the 911 operator and were in the same tone. The word "POLICE" stands out and does sound to me as exactly what you said, as if someone walked up as if they were about to say something and she wanted to tell them to shut up.

I also think it could have just been Shatnerification. People make fun of Shatner's speech style, but some actors are trained to talk like that to convey emotion and get attention on the stage.

In my mind it's a coin toss between silencing someone and Shatnerification.

"Shatnerification?" Oh, my. You mean to say he was trained to speak like that? (And I always thought it was just bad acting.)

But let's move on, CG. Hopefully you'll be able to hear Patsy's pleas for help from Jesus.

 

[CircuitGuy]

This is the original recording in its entirety that Tricia obtained from the DA’s office. I took that and used a program called Wavepad (free for anyone to download). Using it, I took a sampling of the ambient recorded sound before the connection was made (the buzzing you hear at the beginning of the original recording) and then let the program wipe that sound out from the entire tape. That made any voices sound "cleaner". Then I lowered the sound level of the individual keyboard clicks after Patsy thought she had hung up so they are not as distracting. The result is here. Without the same technology that professionals have, that’s the best I can do.

After the 911 operator says her last “Patsy”, this is the isolated portion where Patsy’s “Help me Jesus” can be heard. It has been reported that she repeats it three times, but in listening to it again, I think the first time she says something else (not sure yet what), and then says “Help me Jesus” two times. I’m going to separate it from the other two so we can compare it. I’ll post the results later. But if you are able to discern what she is saying immediately after trying to hang up, this is where it’s at.

This is very helpful. You reduced that buzz that sounds like the 60Hz (50Hz in Europe) from power supplies that finds its way into all analog circuits if you don't take steps to keep it out.

I don't know what she's saying. It sounds like "Sweetie. Help me Jesus. Help me Je-ZOO."

The "Sweetie" is missing syllables. West Coast speakers do this, making the word sound like Swee to my ear. She was from the South, where words appear to take on extra syllables to my ear, making "see" sound dragged out like "see-ee". She may have been saying "see", although I don't know why she would say that, unless "see" is a space filler word like "hey" is in my part of the country. It could be "please", which would make more sense, but it sounds different from her earlier "please" to the operator. My best guess is "See?"

The last part is just as hard. It sounds to me like she's saying "Help me Jesus. What would you do?"

It tempting to think she was saying "Please, help me Jesus. What would you do?" That would be consistent with what a Christian might say in any crisis.

 

[wengr]

I would be interested to know what the original recording format was at the 911 facility?
Was this call originally recorded to analog tape? And if so what format? Cassette possibly? -or did they have a direct to digital recording system in place by the mid ninties?

 

[CircuitGuy]

That's the part that I believe was deliberately erased. It's also where the reported exchange between BR and JR occurs:

BR: What did you find?
JR: We're not speaking to you.
BR: But what DID you find?
​

But whoever did the erasure didn't get all of it. It's cut off right after, "What did you..."

Does anyone have any knowledge about the reason for the erasure:

• There was no erasure. The call ended at that point, and that caused the noise to stop temporarily and resume four seconds later.
• Accidental erasure - Operator or machine error
• Police obscured that part for investigative purposes - If someone has info from the missing part, the police know he was either there or someone directly involved told him.
• Conspiracy - There was damning conversation captured. The people who control the tape erased it on purpose to help someone either as a favor or b/c they think the evidence points to the wrong person. I could see multiple officers agreeing to hide evidence that they think points to the wrong person. If the evidence is really damning, like if it says who did it, I can't believe more than one crooked official would participate in the coverup.

It's hard for me to understand why they would release the call but cover up four seconds of it.

 

[CircuitGuy]

BR: What did you find?
JR: We're not speaking to you.
BR: But what DID you find?

Is this only valuable in that it suggested the R's lied about BR being asleep from the very beginning?

Do you believe this dialog suggests BR had just woken up and heard them talking about having "found" the RN?

Or do you think it could be anything, like a family member having asked him to look for a personal item like glasses unrelated to the case?

 

[CircuitGuy]

But if you are able to discern what she is saying immediately after trying to hang up, this is where it’s at.

BBM

If the phone didn't disconnect b/c it was improperly cradled, why did it disconnect seconds later?

• Only seconds after the call to 911, someone wanted to place another call, e.g. to friends. If this is the case, the caller would have likely picked up the receiver, not heard a dial tone, and pressed hook switch to get a dial tone. Was this on the un-altered tape?
• Someone realized it was off the hook and re-cradled it, ending the call. It would be nice if this were the case b/c it might have picked up a damning "Oh $hit" moment. I doubt that happened.
• The 911 operator didn't hear any further conversation and ended the call. This is unlikely b/c Kolar said she felt freaked out by something. They're supposed to stay on the line anyway. The 911 center in my area recently got in trouble for failing to call back a dropped call.

 

[otg]

I would be interested to know what the original recording format was at the 911 facility?
Was this call originally recorded to analog tape? And if so what format? Cassette possibly? -or did they have a direct to digital recording system in place by the mid ninties?

Maybe someone else can find the reference (I couldn’t). But as I recall, there was a question about the format when the tape was taken to Aerospace. I think it turned out to be just regular analog cassette which made it easier for Aerospace to work with.

 

[otg]

Does anyone have any knowledge about the reason for the erasure:

• There was no erasure. The call ended at that point, and that caused the noise to stop temporarily and resume four seconds later.
• Accidental erasure - Operator or machine error
• Police obscured that part for investigative purposes - If someone has info from the missing part, the police know he was either there or someone directly involved told him.
• Conspiracy - There was damning conversation captured. The people who control the tape erased it on purpose to help someone either as a favor or b/c they think the evidence points to the wrong person. I could see multiple officers agreeing to hide evidence that they think points to the wrong person. If the evidence is really damning, like if it says who did it, I can't believe more than one crooked official would participate in the coverup.

It's hard for me to understand why they would release the call but cover up four seconds of it.

The only person(s) who would have knowledge of the reason would be someone who wouldn’t be saying why it was done. We can only guess at the reason for it. But you touched on what I think is important: Was it deliberate -- or accidental? I believe it was intentional. With the program I mentioned that I use, I see a graph of the sound. I can see the difference between the “buzz” of the recording equipment before a connection is made and the ambient sound during the connection when no words are being spoken. The missing section looks almost exactly like the first nine seconds of the recording before the connection was made (the equipment “buzz”). Working with this digitally, I can insert dead silence over any section and it will show a completely flat line. But since the missing four seconds shows the equipment sound (the “buzz”), my guess is that it was physically erased using recording equipment. IOW, it was "recorded over". That’s probably also why they were unable to erase the exact start of the conversation that they wanted off. Had they been using a digital program like the one I use, they would have been able to see exactly where the words occur that they wanted to remove. They could have even inserted a portion of ambient sound copied from another portion of the recording to make it less obvious. But they didn’t. Instead, what we have is a recording they altered and released which has a small portion of the end section where the conversation that has been reported occurs.

Now, to play devil’s advocate to my own position, let’s say it was an accidental erasure. How coincidental would that be that it just happens to have occurred at the location of the “proof” that the Ramseys lied about BR being there with them in the room while they were calling police? Kind of like the missing 18-1/2 minutes of the Nixon White House tapes (from Wikipedia):

According to President Nixon's secretary, Rose Mary Woods, on September 29, 1973 she was reviewing a tape of the June 20, 1972, recordings when she said she had made "a terrible mistake" during transcription. While playing the tape on a Uher 5000, she answered a phone call. Reaching for the Uher 5000 stop button, she said that she mistakenly hit the button next to it, the record button. For the duration of the phone call, about 5 minutes, she kept her foot on the device's pedal, causing a five-minute portion of the tape to be re-recorded. When she listened to the tape, the gap had grown to 18½ minutes and later insisted that she was not responsible for the remaining 13 minutes of buzz.
​

I believe both the Nixon tapes and the Ramsey 911 tape were deliberately erased for reasons we’ll never know. Too bad Charlie Brennan and Mimi Wesson aren’t also suing to get the original or the Aerospace enhanced version of that 911 call.

 

[otg]

Is this only valuable in that it suggested the R's lied about BR being asleep from the very beginning?

There’s that. But even more importantly, it suggests that BR was not only there, but that he was aware of exactly what was going on. The Ramseys admitted later (after they found out that the police knew BR was there) that he was indeed awake. Even then though, they couldn’t get their stories straight about exactly when he awoke, where he was, or whether they knew about it or not. (See post [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9961468#post9961468"]here[/ame].)

CG, I mentioned previously that you had made me listen to the beginning of the tape more closely trying to figure out the exact word that was the first word spoken. I’m still working on it, but I think now that first word (what I initially thought was Patsy saying the first of two “Hon’”s,) could be BR’s voice.

If that’s the case, can you imagine what that would mean?

Do you believe this dialog suggests BR had just woken up and heard them talking about having "found" the RN?

No, I believe he was there the whole time. JR was there trying to keep him quiet.

Or do you think it could be anything, like a family member having asked him to look for a personal item like glasses unrelated to the case?

I think BR being in the room during the call and aware of exactly what had happened to JonBenet (not necessarily all the staging that had been done) was asking Patsy why they were calling 911 at the beginning of the call. Patsy was about to explain to him (while she was holding the receiver) that “We need ‘em” (my speculation: “...to come here.”) when she realized the phone call had been answered. Her exclamation of “POLICE!” was JR’s cue to keep BR quiet (I think she loved giving stage directions). After they all thought the call had ended, BR asked about this “ransom note” he heard Patsy talk about on the phone. He probably hadn’t had all that was being done explained to him. In fact, JR even became perturbed at him even asking about it by telling him, “We’re not speaking to you.”

 

[otg]

BBM

If the phone didn't disconnect b/c it was improperly cradled, why did it disconnect seconds later?

• Only seconds after the call to 911, someone wanted to place another call, e.g. to friends. If this is the case, the caller would have likely picked up the receiver, not heard a dial tone, and pressed hook switch to get a dial tone. Was this on the un-altered tape?
• Someone realized it was off the hook and re-cradled it, ending the call. It would be nice if this were the case b/c it might have picked up a damning "Oh $hit" moment. I doubt that happened.
• The 911 operator didn't hear any further conversation and ended the call. This is unlikely b/c Kolar said she felt freaked out by something. They're supposed to stay on the line anyway. The 911 center in my area recently got in trouble for failing to call back a dropped call.

Good questions. Too bad the DA’s office suppressed the Ramsey phone records. They might have answered these question for us.

I too doubt the last of your suggested reasons. I don’t think the 911 operator would have disconnected it herself -- especially since she was hearing more conversation going on while she was typing into her computer. For all she knew, the “kidnapper(s)” might have still been in the house and confronting the family.

It could have been that the misplaced receiver simply fell into place, or it could have been that someone noticed it not in place and hung it up. (I still don’t believe this happened on the wall phone in the kitchen.) Or it could have been that it was noticed when the next call was about to be placed calling everyone they knew (except the Stines?) to come over.

The phone records were vital to knowing exactly what was going on. Did they call the police first, or did they call a lawyer or any of their friends before dialing 911? Friends were showing up almost immediately. How much time did they have before the police were notified? And why on earth did the DA have these records sealed and kept from the investigators of a child’s rape and murder (which they believed at that time)?

Like you, CG, I have more questions than answers. But my questions are mostly around the motivations of the people who stifled the investigation from the start.

 

[Tadpole12]

BBM

If the phone didn't disconnect b/c it was improperly cradled, why did it disconnect seconds later?

Heyya CircuitGuy,

Remember back in the day ....

In the nineties, some phones had a disconnect button, mid 'handset',
and the feature, often didn't disconnect the connection properly, on the first try, at least. Frustrating feature.
Wall mounted kitchen type phones often had this button, and did not necessitate the hand set being returned to the cradle.

 

[otg]

But I've been listening to the beginning again after reading your previous response. I may have to agree with you on one point about the exact words spoken, but I'll save that for later when I have a chance to put it together.

CG, I mentioned previously that you had made me listen to the beginning of the tape more closely trying to figure out the exact word that was the first word spoken. I’m still working on it, but I think now that first word (what I initially thought was Patsy saying the first of two “Hon’”s,) could be BR’s voice.

If that’s the case, can you imagine what that would mean?

I think BR being in the room during the call and aware of exactly what had happened to JonBenet (not necessarily all the staging that had been done) was asking Patsy why they were calling 911 at the beginning of the call. Patsy was about to explain to him (while she was holding the receiver) that “We need ‘em” (my speculation: “...to come here.”) when she realized the phone call had been answered. Her exclamation of “POLICE!” was JR’s cue to keep BR quiet (I think she loved giving stage directions).

Okay, I isolated and put together first the two words (or syllables) that were recorded in the 911 call. Then I looped them six times, and then a seventh time with a little more space between them for comparison. What I had previously thought was the word "Hon'" spoken at the end of a sentence, and then again at the start of another sentence, I think now is actually two different speakers. If you use one of the two programs I mentioned before, you can see they don't even look alike.

So the new recording is here. Listen and decide for yourself if you think it is the same person, and maybe what the words are that are being spoken. For context, listen again where they occur in the beginning of the recording here.

(Now if only there is some kind of free voice print analysis program available.)

 

[gramcracker]

the leaked transcript said:

BR: Please, what do I do?
JR (angrily) We are not speaking to you
PR: Help me, Jesus, help me, Jesus
BR: [Well], what did you find?

interesting context if "what do I do?" was actually "what did I do?"

IMO LE held back the end of the enhanced tape because it contradicted the claim that BR was asleep

 

[dodie20]

BBM

If the phone didn't disconnect b/c it was improperly cradled, why did it disconnect seconds later?

• Only seconds after the call to 911, someone wanted to place another call, e.g. to friends. If this is the case, the caller would have likely picked up the receiver, not heard a dial tone, and pressed hook switch to get a dial tone. Was this on the un-altered tape?
• Someone realized it was off the hook and re-cradled it, ending the call. It would be nice if this were the case b/c it might have picked up a damning "Oh $hit" moment. I doubt that happened.
• The 911 operator didn't hear any further conversation and ended the call. This is unlikely b/c Kolar said she felt freaked out by something. They're supposed to stay on the line anyway. The 911 center in my area recently got in trouble for failing to call back a dropped call.

I think these phones generally took awhile to disconnect. I remember getting hung up on occasionally, and sitting there like a dummy still talking and saying 'hello, hello, are you still there'? So, the phone may have been cradled properly but for a few seconds, was still connected. I miss those phones! Nothing felt better than slamming one down when you were mad at someone, ha ha. Pushing the end button on a cell just doesn't cause the same satisfaction. moo

 

[Tadpole12]

For reference,

jbr-911-call.avi
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgpRPn2xCPg"]jbr-911-call.avi - YouTube[/ame]

They're gonna arrest me.avi
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rLhjhM0HBE"]They're gonna arrest me.avi - YouTube[/ame]

New enhanced audio Patsy Ramsey 911 call
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=686Ic9-yIwo"]New enhanced audio Patsy Ramsey 911 call - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Tadpole12]

So the new recording is here. Listen and decide for yourself if you think it is the same person, and maybe what the words are that are being spoken. For context, listen again where they occur in the beginning of the recording here.

Ty otg,

Hon' Comparison.mp3
http://www.mediafire.com/listen/uchke1pmj8cha4w/Hon'+Comparison.mp3

There really is a suggestive component to listening to enhanced audio.
The first time (mulptiple listentings) I heard elp or 'kelp'

Second listenings, I could not distinguish anything audible.

 

[otg]

I would be interested to know what the original recording format was at the 911 facility?
Was this call originally recorded to analog tape? And if so what format? Cassette possibly? -or did they have a direct to digital recording system in place by the mid ninties?

Maybe someone else can find the reference (I couldn’t). But as I recall, there was a question about the format when the tape was taken to Aerospace. I think it turned out to be just regular analog cassette which made it easier for Aerospace to work with.

From the Bonita Papers:

After re-listening to the recording of the 911 call made by Patsy in the early morning of December 26, detectives thought they could hear a conversation in the background while Patsy was attempting to hang up the phone. On April 21, Detective Melissa Hickman flew to Los Angeles to meet with Mike Epstein and Jim Roeder, engineers at Aerospace Corporation, for purposes of enhancing the recording of the 911 call received at the Boulder Regional Dispatch Center.

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.​