The Obscene Phone Calls

We don't know what this caller left on the message eventhough someone listened to it. We don't know what this caller said when he called on Sunday eventhough Janelle actually answered the phone and heard what he said but doesn't remember......I recieved an 'obscene' call once about 15 yrs ago and I still remember exactly what he said and how he said it because it way creepy, out of the ordinary and unexpected.

"Obscene' can mean so many different things.

- I am watching you, I see you, etc.

- saying sexually explicit things to the person on the other end about what they desire to do to them or tell them about what they are doing to themselves

- Violent. I fantasize about raping you, killing you, etc.

- Not saying anything - just heavy breathing, moaning, etc

If LE knew about these calls it is unbelievable they did not trace the phone records -at least to our knowledge, right?

IF it was the perp they were calling on Friday to see if anyone was home. For all we know they could have called back later and Sherrill answered and I think it is very likely that is waht the perp wanted - someone to be home.
Then they call on Sunday. Perhaps it was their way of re-visiting the scene. They got a kick out of the fact that people had discovered the women were gone and were in the house waiting for the them to come back.

Or, of course, it could all be coincidence.

I have considered the possibility that LE actually does know what the message was on the answering machine and they know what was said to Janelle when she answered Sunday but they want to keep that info secret and they want the perp to think they don't have that info either so they lied and they asked Janelle to lie about the calls.

gaia227 said:

We don't know what this caller left on the message eventhough someone listened to it. We don't know what this caller said when he called on Sunday eventhough Janelle actually answered the phone and heard what he said but doesn't remember......I recieved an 'obscene' call once about 15 yrs ago and I still remember exactly what he said and how he said it because it way creepy, out of the ordinary and unexpected.

"Obscene' can mean so many different things.

- I am watching you, I see you, etc.

- saying sexually explicit things to the person on the other end about what they desire to do to them or tell them about what they are doing to themselves

- Violent. I fantasize about raping you, killing you, etc.

- Not saying anything - just heavy breathing, moaning, etc

If LE knew about these calls it is unbelievable they did not trace the phone records -at least to our knowledge, right?

IF it was the perp they were calling on Friday to see if anyone was home. For all we know they could have called back later and Sherrill answered and I think it is very likely that is waht the perp wanted - someone to be home.
Then they call on Sunday. Perhaps it was their way of re-visiting the scene. They got a kick out of the fact that people had discovered the women were gone and were in the house waiting for the them to come back.

Or, of course, it could all be coincidence.

I have considered the possibility that LE actually does know what the message was on the answering machine and they know what was said to Janelle when she answered Sunday but they want to keep that info secret and they want the perp to think they don't have that info either so they lied and they asked Janelle to lie about the calls.

Click to expand...

It's possible I suppose but I would doubt that they would want to keep this information to one cooperating witness because ultimately it will leak out. Anytime a secret is shared with more than one person it ceases to become a secret.

What I would be more inclined to believe is that early phone calls to the home were predicated on the basis of what Jannelle was concerned about. She had to be working on about five hours of sleep at the time she first began placing the calls to the home. I would postulate that she had reason to believe they may not have arrived safely. Erasing those calls, using the convenient excuse some calls were "obscene" provides the rationale to erase her numerous calls. Why did she make those calls?

This is why I have been adamant that the time lines of everyone be thoroughly examined in detail for any inconsistencies.

A hallmark of any proper investigation is that the list of suspects be quickly pared and that exact time lines be established to eliminate their access to the crime scene. We can logically assume that Jannelle didn't abduct the women but it is what she may know but hasn't told that I find most promising. There is something not right about this whole deal especially since she was reported to be crying later in the afternoon. She had to know something was wrong but yet the cops didn't get called until 9 PM that night. I'm not getting this apparent concern early on and near panic later in the afternoon. This is not adding up.

She seemed visibly irritated when on camera many years later. Perhaps she had good reason because the cops kept coming back and asking the same questions. Why are they asking those questions?

The obscene phone calls may in the end be nothing but a red herring. We don't even know, to my knowledge, for a certain fact those phone calls were ever placed. But the rest of the calls may have told the tale. It certainly would have firmed up the time lines which are critical to the investigation.

The obivous question is was the phone picked up or were the calls monitored on Sunday. If monitored, most likely the BF would also have heard the calls and verify what the caller said. If she answered the phone, he could only state what she told him the caller said.

olddog said:

The obvious question is was the phone picked up or were the calls monitored on Sunday. If monitored, most likely the BF would also have heard the calls and verify what the caller said. If she answered the phone, he could only state what she told him the caller said.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry. What does "BF" stand for? I'm somewhat unclear about your post. If the first responder picked up the phone while the calls were placed it is obvious that the police would have only the word of the person answering. If the call went to the answering machine then it would be on the recording tape. It's late and I'm just not entirely clear with your meaning.

BF=Boyfriend.

I think what the line of reasoning is here: If the calls went to an answering machine, while being answered by a live person, Jannelle, AND the answering machine continued to run and play over a monitor, then Mike, in this case, would actually hear BOTH sides of the conversation. If not, and there was no monitor with audio out, he would only know what Jannelle SAID and what SHE said, the caller said.

In other words, with the speaker on during the call, we hear the ENTIRE conversation. If the speaker was NOT on, we only hear ONE side of the conversation. Further, if this occurred before other responders got there, we have only two witnesses to this, at best, regardless the monitoring circumstances.

My personal answering machine in 1992, (which was already three years old then), was two standard cassette tapes (they would play on any cassette deck). If I picked up a call after the machine got it, it would continue to run, and audio of the call (both sides) fed out. Some systems, in those days, stopped when you picked up the receiver.

former central time said:

BF=Boyfriend.

I think what the line of reasoning is here: If the calls went to an answering machine, while being answered by a live person, Jannelle, AND the answering machine continued to run and play over a monitor, then Mike, in this case, would actually hear BOTH sides of the conversation. If not, and there was no monitor with audio out, he would only know what Jannelle SAID and what SHE said, the caller said.

In other words, with the speaker on during the call, we hear the ENTIRE conversation. If the speaker was NOT on, we only hear ONE side of the conversation. Further, if this occurred before other responders got there, we have only two witnesses to this, at best, regardless the monitoring circumstances.

My personal answering machine in 1992, (which was already three years old then), was two standard cassette tapes (they would play on any cassette deck). If I picked up a call after the machine got it, it would continue to run, and audio of the call (both sides) fed out. Some systems, in those days, stopped when you picked up the receiver.

Click to expand...

I appreciate that information. For the life of me I couldn't figure out what it meant. I am now aware of what you are saying. My digital answering machine goes to the recorded message after four rings and if I don't answer it I have to listen to the machine blaring out at me while I am talking on the phone. Very frustrating. I should read the instructions on how to extend the rings.

Since this was an older tape type answering machine I wonder if any effort was ever made to listen to the alleged obscene calls and other calls that were allegedly erased. In the end it might have been useless but it would have cleared up this long lingering question much the same as has been debated endlessly about the broken globe.

Thank you for clearing this up.

Sorry about using the "Text message" abreviation, I am getting as bad about using them as many of my friends. A sad comment on where our language is headed.
The point was as stated, If Janelle picked up the receiver, most machines will stop feeding audio to the speaker.

If that was the way that particular machine worked (and many of the era did) she could have made up anything about the what the caller said. If however they both listened to the caller over the machines monitor, her boyfriend could accurately tell what the caller said.

So on one hand you would have direct evidence, on the other you would only have hear say evidence

olddog said:

Sorry about using the "Text message" abreviation, I am getting as bad about using them as many of my friends. A sad comment on where our language is headed.
The point was as stated, If Janelle picked up the receiver, most machines will stop feeding audio to the speaker.

If that was the way that particular machine worked (and many of the era did) she could have made up anything about the what the caller said. If however they both listened to the caller over the machines monitor, her boyfriend could accurately tell what the caller said.

So on one hand you would have direct evidence, on the other you would only have hear say evidence

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. I wish I could turn off the recording on my machine as it drives me nearly mad at times. (If I don't pick up by the fourth ring.)

But to the substance of the issue, I wonder how closely Jannelle was questioned about what the conversations were. And didn't a number of messages get deleted? Who heard these messages? That would not be hearsay if both heard them. I would think both she and her boyfriend at the time would have heard the exact same messages; some or perhaps all, which were described as obscene. If both heard those messages that would be direct evidence, would it not?

As I understand it there were both recorded messages and actual phone call(s) while they were in the home. But my recollection could be flawed.

Missouri Mule said:

Thanks for the info. I wish I could turn off the recording on my machine as it drives me nearly mad at times. (If I don't pick up by the fourth ring.)

But to the substance of the issue, I wonder how closely Jannelle was questioned about what the conversations were. And didn't a number of messages get deleted? Who heard these messages? That would not be hearsay if both heard them. I would think both she and her boyfriend at the time would have heard the exact same messages; some or perhaps all, which were described as obscene. If both heard those messages that would be direct evidence, would it not?

As I understand it there were both recorded messages and actual phone call(s) while they were in the home. But my recollection could be flawed.

Click to expand...

It could still be hearsay if "both heard those messages", b/c, after all, it is only what they would both be SAYING they'd heard; no calls were necessarily proven as having been made, period; and even if they had been, and heard by both, there isn't any proof that what was reported as having been said by the caller is any truer.

anyc said:

It could still be hearsay if "both heard those messages", b/c, after all, it is only what they would both be SAYING they'd heard; no calls were necessarily proven as having been made, period; and even if they had been, and heard by both, there isn't any proof that what was reported as having been said by the caller is any truer.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I don't understand the definition of "hearsay." It has been my understanding that if a person testifies to something it is from their own recollection of what they said or heard; etc., and not from a third party it would be direct evidence. Hence it wouldn't be hearsay although, as you say there is no way to prove they actually heard the messages. That can be true of any testimony that cannot be proven by other means. It is still direct testimony as it is coming from the mouth of the person giving such testimony from facts they saw or heard themselves and not from another party.

"HEARSAY EVIDENCE

Hearsay testimony is secondhand evidence; it is not what the witness knows personally, but what someone else told him or her. Scuttlebutt is an example of hearsay. In general, hearsay may not be admitted in evidence, but there are exceptions. For instance, if the accused is charged with uttering certain words, a witness is permitted to testify that he or she heard the accused speak them.

The following examples illustrate hearsay that is inadmissible:

1. SN Water, the accused, is being tried for desertion. BMC Boate cannot testify that BM3 Christmas told him that SN Water said he (Water) intended to desert.

2. The accused is being tried for larceny of clothes from a locker. A testifies that B told him that she saw the accused leave the space where the locker was located with a bundle of clothes about the same time the clothes were stolen. This testimony from A would not be admissible to prove the facts stated by B.

Neither BMC Boate nor A would be allowed to testify, but the trial counsel could call BM3 Christmas and B as witnesses...

(Snip)


http://www.tpub.com/maa/38.htm

Missouri Mule:

I became a bit confused, myself, about the hearsay rule, after reading your post.
I found this while looking up other cases of answering machine messages/hearsay rules:

"...we also express our views that testimony concerning the content of the voice mail message is not barred by the best evidence rule (which does not apply to tape recordings, see Commonwealth v. Duhamel, 391 Mass. 841, 844 [1984]), and that Officer Hodson's testimony as to the content of the message was not hearsay, as the purpose for which it was offered related to the fact that it was made, and to whom, rather than to the truth of any matter asserted in it. See Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 410 Mass. 521, 526 (1991).(13)"

Considering the above, I'm sure you're right in this case.

kemo said:

The principle of the hearsay rule, from what I can tell is that any "utterance" that is not made under oath or in a court sanctioned setting, does not meet the standard of "truthfulness" to be introduced as evidence. In this case, I believe that Jannelle could testify that she heard an obscene message and whether or not she recognized the voice but she could not disclose any details of the obscene message that suggest motive or details of the crime that might be "evidence". Normally, there is no issue of "truthfulness" in a "generic" obscene call, but if that call contained a detail, such as a "hatred of blondes", that might be excluded as hearsay.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Kemo - you've explained it a lot more succinctly than I could!
:crazy:

It's also pertinent to note that anyone in the house who picked up the phone, listened to or erased messages could state what he or she heard but there would be no objective evidence to support his or her account or testimony. That is no different than any other eye- or ear-witness account. It all depends on how much credibility one can accord the witness. For example, a husband (who has killed his wife) can have an accomplice call his home or cell from the wife's phone and then later make up the content of a call from the "wife." Or in another situation, an innocent witness might embellish or downplay information to keep some other misdeed a secret.

I really wrestle with the idea that Janelle and Janis heard a bunch of messages but weren't able to recall the content of them. Were they that poor with detail? I'd have to guess no. They must have been listening intently to whatever the messages said, as they were seeking important information and a critical time. I'd at least expect them to be able to offer some details.. but to go totally blank and have the messages completely disappear is a perfect storm.

If the messages were ordinary, like, don't forget the meeting tomorrow, I can see forgetting details, such as what meeting and where. And in Janis's case, the stress of having a missing child might make big gaps in short-term memory. But it is also worth noting that when listening to someone else's answering machine in someone else's house, one would expect a person to be very careful to list callers, etc., in the event that a message was accidentally erased.

What's there to say that every detail of every phone call is not known to SPD? Perhaps LE has told both Janelle and Janis McCall not to speak about the contents of the calls as I believe they did concerning the broken porch globe. SPD is under no obligation to inform the public. And obviously the information has not led anywhere since it has not helped to close this case in almost 19 yrs. It's just another of many dead ends.

Hurricane said:

What's there to say that every detail of every phone call is not known to SPD? Perhaps LE has told both Janelle and Janis McCall not to speak about the contents of the calls as I believe they did concerning the broken porch globe. SPD is under no obligation to inform the public. And obviously the information has not led anywhere since it has not helped to close this case in almost 19 yrs. It's just another of many dead ends.

Click to expand...

What's to say that every detail IS known to the SPD? What's to say that Jannelle and/or Janis were NOT told NOT to speak about the contents of the calls? Why should we assume that whatever was said on the phone has been properly investigated?

I've never understood why the benefit of the doubt should be given the police department. On the other hand I don't give them all the blame but to give them a free pass is overdoing the "trust" thing. When we start believing the public pronouncements of public officials is infallible we are well on the way to a dictatorship.

Missouri Mule said:

What's to say that every detail IS known to the SPD? What's to say that Jannelle and/or Janis were NOT told NOT to speak about the contents of the calls? Why should we assume that whatever was said on the phone has been properly investigated?

I've never understood why the benefit of the doubt should be given the police department. On the other hand I don't give them all the blame but to give them a free pass is overdoing the "trust" thing. When we start believing the public pronouncements of public officials is infallible we are well on the way to a dictatorship.

Click to expand...

I guess the difference is that unlike you I don't feel that SPD has the obligation to run their case by me. There are hundreds, if not thousands of unsolved cases here on Websleuths alone and because they are unsolved the common theme over and over again is coverup; police corruption, police incompetency, conspiracy, etc. Whether the contents of the phone calls are known or not, or if they have any real evidence or not, they are under no obligation to keep the public informed.

Hurricane said:

I guess the difference is that unlike you I don't feel that SPD has the obligation to run their case by me. There are hundreds, if not thousands of unsolved cases here on Websleuths alone and because they are unsolved the common theme over and over again is coverup; police corruption, police incompetency, conspiracy, etc. Whether the contents of the phone calls are known or not, or if they have any real evidence or not, they are under no obligation to keep the public informed.

Click to expand...

That's true enough but it also invites public skepticism. Why SHOULD the public believe they are being well served. I never took allegiance to the Springfield Police Department. So far as I know the department could be run by incompetents and corrupt officials. It wouldn't be the first time in American history. One only has to look at the sordid history of the New York, Chicago, New Orleans and Los Angeles police departments for gross corruption and police brutality. Come to think of it, isn't that what was the norm in the days of the Soviet Union?

But I never wanted to make this about police corruption. I did want to ask a direct question. Why SHOULD we believe their public pronouncements? I'm not getting that part. Have they earned our trust? Methinks not.

I actually DO believe any decent police department has a duty to keep the public well informed about the progress of unsolved cases. I can think of no logical reason not to do so. I also think it is the smart thing to do. When I worked for the public I always found it to my benefit to keep the customers well up to date on the case. It earned their trust and cooperation. And it is hard to argue how people are going to be encouraged to come forward if they do not have faith in their public officials. The department is only shooting itself in the foot by slamming the lid on a two decade old case. There is just no upside that I can see.