911 Call

[UKGuy]

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.​

otg,
Thats as good as it gets. BR was present and correct. Now was his Q a further attempt at naive staging, which his parents were happy to collude with, or does JR's abrupt “We’re not speaking to you” signal we the parents know BR, so shutup?

I'm guessing this where James Kolar originates his BDI theory from the breakfast bar down to the basement?

Or does BR truly know nothing about events relating to JonBenet and recieves the “We’re not speaking to you” as a signal to as no more difficult questions?

.

 

[otg]

The link is no longer working, but here is the original link to the entire article (of which this is a small part -- my estimate: 10%):

(bbm)

6/2/1999
​

Magazine: Lawyer given tape of 911 call
by B.J.Plasket
Daily Times-Call

BOULDER — June is already looking a lot like May for the Ramsey grand jurors.

The jury probing the 1996 death of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey did not hold its semi-regular Tuesday session, while most of the news was being made elsewhere. The jury also skipped several Tuesday sessions last month.

And, much like the events of May, most of Tuesday's news centered on JonBenet's 12-year-old brother Burke, who was nine when she was slain in the family home.

Newsweek, in an edition to be published this week, claims Burke Ramsey 's lawyer was given a copy of the tape of Patsy Ramsey 's 911 call early in the morning of Dec. 26, 1996.

Burke Ramsey reportedly testified before the grand jury nearly two weeks ago and, according to the June 7 edition of Newsweek, Burke's Atlanta-based lawyer, Jim Jenkins, was given a copy of the tape.

Earlier reports said the tape contradicts statements given by JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy, indicating Burke was in bed during the entire ordeal.

An enhanced version of the tape reportedly contains Burke's voice asking questions and the voice of an adult male — presumed to be John Ramsey — telling him to go back to bed.

Analysts and prosecutors have said Burke Ramsey 's testimony could be a key to the now 29-month-old investigation. He is not considered a suspect, police and prosecutors have said.

The Newsweek report said District Judge Roxanne Bailin ordered District Attorney Alex Hunter to turn over a copy prior to Burke's testimony. The article reportedly says Bailin ordered the tape to be turned over because Colorado law allows grand jury witnesses to see copies of earlier statements.

According to the Newsweek article, John and Patsy Ramsey accompanied their son to Boulder for his late May appearance.


​

So for the 911 recording to be a copy of BR's (a "grand jury witness") earlier statement, Judge Bailin had to be certain his voice was on the tape.

 

[wengr]

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.

​

Many thanks otg, for this very informative post. It's all of interest to me as I have a good bit of experience with the manipulation of digital audio with digital audio workstations (DAW), as is typical in the music production and recording industry.
I have zero experience with forensic audio processes, but I expect many of the basic processes would be somewhat similar.
Some initial thoughts are:

1 I have no idea what a Dictaphone format on an analog tape would be - but I find it interesting that three Aerospace engineers cannot identify a standard audio cassette recording.

2 I assume that most of "audio enhancement" is actually the application of noise reduction techniques. Analog tape has it's own inherent noise. There is always a noise floor. Similar usually to white noise, (like static between radio stations), and this will be present along with any other noise from problems with components in the system like ground loops etc.

3 The trick to this "noise print" type of digital noise reduction is to get a good isolated sample. Imo, the versions of the recording which I have heard do not show much opportunity for good samples. White noise might pretty much be white noise. I wonder if they went to the trouble of taking a sample from another recording, or better yet, a number of other recordings, in order to establish a baseline noise print?

4 I have to believe that the state of the art in matters such as these has advanced since 1997. Someone should go back to the original cassette and do it again with current gear and techniques.​

 

[wengr]

So for the 911 recording to be a copy of BR's (a "grand jury witness") earlier statement, Judge Bailin had to be certain his voice was on the tape.

I like your logic here, but is it not possible that the Judge decided to hand over the tape because there was contention over who was actually speaking on the tape, and she felt it prudent to cover all possible bases - without her having a definite personal opinion as to who is actually speaking on the tape?

 

[otg]

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?"

I’ve seen different versions of the exact wording of the extra conversation, gram. I haven’t yet been able to find JR’s voice, but others have said they hear it. The version you quote above shows JR’s angry retort before Patsy’s “HMJ, HMJ”. There is something there -- which I had previously thought was another “HMJ”, but looking at it closer, I don’t think so now because it sounds like only two syllables (instead of the four in "HMJ"). Here is just that section if you want to listen to only it.

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

Perhaps since “(Judge Roxanne) Bailin ordered the tape to be turned over because Colorado law allows grand jury witnesses (BR) to see copies of earlier statements”, the portion with BR’s voice on it was considered to be a “witness statement” entered into GJ testimony, and therefore it was subject to GJ secrecy rules. Patsy and JR were not called as witnesses, and therefore only the 911 call without BR’s voice on it could be released. Maybe (I’m speculating here) that was why an attempt was made to erase it.

 

[otg]

(snipped)

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

Your saying that, and my laughing at it, gives away our age, dodie. :giggle:

 

[BOESP]

<snipped>
There is something there -- which I had previously thought was another “HMJ”, but looking at it closer, I don’t think so now because it sounds like only two syllables (instead of the four in "HMJ"). Here is just that section if you want to listen to only it.

<snip>

I've listened to every link posted today, at least five times each. I hear, "Help Me Jesus" but also on the above link it sounds like "Help me Jesus. What did you do?" It sounds like Patsy.

I have heard (years and years ago) the tape with John's voice saying "We're not speaking to you." My take on the tone in his voice leaned toward him not wanting to be interrupted because he is totally focusing on something so important that he does not want any nosy kid questions disrupting his train of thought.

I haven't ever interpreted any of the tapes as Patsy asking if she would be arrested. Also, I only heard Patsy's voice on the samples given today.

otg, thanks for all the work you've put in on the tapes. You too Tadpole.

 

[Anyhoo]

My take on the tone in his voice leaned toward him not wanting to be interrupted because he is totally focusing on something so important that he does not want any nosy kid questions disrupting his train of thought

You are the first person I have seen to have put this into words. This is exactly my take on it. I've always had serious problems with BDI proponents jumping all over this to suggest the parents were angry at BR because he had killed his sister, as if this was some kind of BDI smoking-gun. Your explanation makes much more sense to me.

 

[CircuitGuy]

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 here.)

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?

OMG. It sounds like "[Why are you calling 91] 1?" "Hon, we need e... POLICE" The "one" sounds like a rising tone indicating a question!

This is extreme speculation, but for the first time it seems possible to me.

 

[otg]

OMG. It sounds like "[Why are you calling 91] 1?" "Hon, we need e... POLICE" The "one" sounds like a rising tone indicating a question!

This is extreme speculation, but for the first time it seems possible to me.

I agree, CG. I does make more sense like that, than Patsy ending a sentence with "Hon'", and then starting the very next sentence with the same word. And if you listened to the other recording, you can compare the two words back and forth.

Thank you for this. If BR's voice is at the very beginning as well as the very end, that means he was there the entire time as I had always suspected. And I know... and I agree... we're only speculating here.

 

[DeeDee249]

I can't make out much of anything besides Patsy's hyperventilated comments. But one reason the tape may have been deliberately erased in sections is to remove anything implicating the child under 10- BR.

 

[otg]

Many thanks otg, for this very informative post. It's all of interest to me as I have a good bit of experience with the manipulation of digital audio with digital audio workstations (DAW), as is typical in the music production and recording industry.
I have zero experience with forensic audio processes, but I expect many of the basic processes would be somewhat similar.

Then any help you can give or input you have will be greatly appreciated. I don't claim any kind of special skills. Between you and CircuitGuy, maybe we can make some progress in this. I feel like we already have to a certain degree. I'm stoked!

Some initial thoughts are:

1 I have no idea what a Dictaphone format on an analog tape would be - but I find it interesting that three Aerospace engineers cannot identify a standard audio cassette recording.

I don't either. Would a Dictaphone use a standard cassette but record differently than a standard cassette recorder?

2 I assume that most of "audio enhancement" is actually the application of noise reduction techniques. Analog tape has it's own inherent noise. There is always a noise floor. Similar usually to white noise, (like static between radio stations), and this will be present along with any other noise from problems with components in the system like ground loops etc.

Yes. And keep in mind that what "we" have to work with is about a third or fourth generation copy of the original. So we'll never be able to get the quality that Aerospace was able to get with their more sophisticated software and equipment.

3 The trick to this "noise print" type of digital noise reduction is to get a good isolated sample. Imo, the versions of the recording which I have heard do not show much opportunity for good samples. White noise might pretty much be white noise. I wonder if they went to the trouble of taking a sample from another recording, or better yet, a number of other recordings, in order to establish a baseline noise print?

I have no idea what Aerospace was able to do or how they did it. I know what I did, and that was simply sample and remove the mechanical buzz of the recording equipment (taken from the area before the phone connection was made). Then I lowered the volume of the individual keyboard clicks toward the end (very tedious, BTW). In an earlier version, I had sampled the area after the phone connection was made and before the voices began (only 1-second long), but it ended up distorting the sound quality too much. (You or CG could probably explain why -- I just know it happened.)

4 I have to believe that the state of the art in matters such as these has advanced since 1997. Someone should go back to the original cassette and do it again with current gear and techniques.

I'm sure a lot has improved in 16 years. But I suspect from everything I've read, they had enough in 1997 to establish what they needed to know: BR was awake and in the room during the call. Aerospace had the advantage of using the original recording and state of the art equipment at the time (better even than our FBI or Secret Service). Too bad we'll never get to hear the product of their work.

(oops! Did I use the word "stoked" somewhere?) :saythat:

 

[otg]

I like your logic here, but is it not possible that the Judge decided to hand over the tape because there was contention over who was actually speaking on the tape, and she felt it prudent to cover all possible bases - without her having a definite personal opinion as to who is actually speaking on the tape?

I don't think it was her "personal opinion" -- I think that with the information she had from the investigators, she felt it was strong enough to establish that BR's voice was indeed on the tape. She may have also listened to it herself, but I don't think she made that decision only on her own opinion. Was it simply a prudent decision considering the disagreement of some? Maybe. But at least now we know (I think anyway) what reasoning went into the decision to hand over BPD's "bombshell" evidence to the Ramsey legal team.

 

[wengr]

Then any help you can give or input you have will be greatly appreciated. I don't claim any kind of special skills. Between you and CircuitGuy, maybe we can make some progress in this. I feel like we already have to a certain degree. I'm stoked!

Agreed. Your efforts here are really appreciated.

I don't either. Would a Dictaphone use a standard cassette but record differently than a standard cassette recorder?

No idea. I wonder if there was a physically different cartridge/cassette for a dictaphone machine, and Aero assumed the actual tape and recording format would be different - But it's just 1/4" cassette type tape in a different cartridge? All pure speculation.

Yes. And keep in mind that what "we" have to work with is about a third or fourth generation copy of the original. So we'll never be able to get the quality that Aerospace was able to get with their more sophisticated software and equipment.

Only analog reproduction (or substandard digital sample rate conversion) should suffer generation loss. If it was a file on a JAZ drive in '97, maybe it has not gone thru so many analog reproductions? Whatever the case, all we can do is the best we can do.

I'm sure a lot has improved in 16 years. But I suspect from everything I've read, they had enough in 1997 to establish what they needed to know: BR was awake and in the room during the call. Aerospace had the advantage of using the original recording and state of the art equipment at the time (better even than our FBI or Secret Service). Too bad we'll never get to hear the product of their work.

I'm going to put the word out to some other people in the industry. I'm pretty certain that no one I know has any forensic audio experience, but there is a possibility that someone has done some audio restoration work. That is usually a situation like a label wants to release something, but the old master tape is not in suitable condition. So digital restoration can bring it back to a certain degree. If any of these folks give me some ideas, I'll get on it.

 

[Tadpole12]

Agreed. Your efforts here are really appreciated. No idea. I wonder if there was a physically different cartridge/cassette for a dictaphone machine, and Aero assumed the actual tape and recording format would be different - But it's just 1/4" cassette type tape in a different cartridge? All pure speculation.

Heyya wengr.

"There are three dictation tape sizes : Mini Cassette : Micro Cassette : Stenorette Cassette."

Analogue Dictaphone Tape Recorders
http://www.voicex.com.au/Analogue-Tape-Dictaphone-Recorders.html

 

[wengr]

Heyya wengr.

"There are three dictation tape sizes : Mini Cassette : Micro Cassette : Stenorette Cassette."

Analogue Dictaphone Tape Recorders
http://www.voicex.com.au/Analogue-Tape-Dictaphone-Recorders.html

Thanks. I wonder if it was the Stenorette that they were dealing with? The micro and mini I think they would be familiar with as they were used in typical home answering machines, etc.

 

[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.

We can speculate about the reason for the erasure and we’ll still never know with certainty the answer. But I’ll show you what makes me believe it was intentionally done and you can decide for yourself if you agree. You (CG) and wengr can, I’m sure, explain why this occurs in technical terms, where all I can do is say I know it happens. The combination of equipment being used on a recording will create an ambient sound that gets recorded along with any sounds that the recording device picks up. This usually manifests itself as a constant “buzz”. With the software I mentioned earlier, you can “see” the sounds in a graph that represents the intensity of the sound (actually it’s a histogram, but the term is not as important as the concept). If you widen the graph, you can see what a sound or a word looks like. For example, after Patsy thought she had hung up the phone, the 911 operator says her name four times. Following is the graph showing the four times she says “Patsy” (shown in the red squares within the blue highlighted area):

You might notice that in the second one, there is an additional blip of some sound in the center. But looking at the other three, you can see the similarities -- taking into account the speed and intensity at which they are each spoken.

Using the program, I can cut or copy a section of sound and paste it into another file (just like you might do with words in a document) so we can compare them. That’s what I did with the electronic buzz from the beginning of the recording (during the 911 call) and the buzz that’s recorded in the missing four seconds toward the end. Following is the graph of the two buzzes, alternately repeated and heightened for a visual comparison (If you want to listen to it, you’ll find it here).

Here is the same graph of the two sounds side by side, stretched out, not heightened:

And then stretched out, and heightened:

Hopefully, what this all shows is that the two sounds of the electronic buzzing were made by two different machines. Because of where the second buzz occurs, IMO, this shows that that missing four seconds of conversation was deliberately erased mechanically (using a different tape recorder). Had they done the erasure digitally, there would be no buzz at all where it was erased, it would simply be a flat line as it is in the space between the two. But since the erasure was done mechanically and the attempt at erasure was not exact, the version of the recording that was released publicly still has a small portion of the beginning of what was reported to have been said and a buzz from the device used.

After you’ve had a chance to read this and listen to the portions of the recording I’ve linked up to this point, I’ll post where all this is leading: BR’s voice.

 

[otg]

(snipped)

Only analog reproduction (or substandard digital sample rate conversion) should suffer generation loss. If it was a file on a JAZ drive in '97, maybe it has not gone thru so many analog reproductions? Whatever the case, all we can do is the best we can do.

I can't say for certain, but I believe the only recordings on the JAZ drive were done by the technicians at Aerospace. The recording that was released to the public was reproduced by someone in the DA's office. The original 911 recording was copied to another tape (by my understanding) which was then used to make other copies -- both cassette and CD (they didn't want to continue using the original over and over again and take a chance on damaging it). The one on cassette would have to be converted to digital format for us to hear it, but the CD would already be digital. I'm not sure which is the one we have available.

I'm going to put the word out to some other people in the industry. I'm pretty certain that no one I know has any forensic audio experience, but there is a possibility that someone has done some audio restoration work. That is usually a situation like a label wants to release something, but the old master tape is not in suitable condition. So digital restoration can bring it back to a certain degree. If any of these folks give me some ideas, I'll get on it.

Boy that would be fantastic, wengr! Good luck on that. I hope something comes of it.


BTW, did you know that after leaving the service, WWII's most decorated soldier attempted a career as a sound engineer before becoming an actor? He used his middle initial of "O" in his name during that period of time, but had to abandon that career because everything he did kept having something go wrong.



(Okay, so that last part was just a feeble attempt at a cheap laugh, but it got you to thinking. Didn't it?)

 

[otg]

For PR to immediately pick up the phone and insist police come immediately indicates she knew Jonbenet was already dead and there were no kidnappers to worry about.

I agree. Also, as dodie20 pointed out in the 911 thread, there's no hint of doubt in her mind. PR never even suggests that this is some sick joke or some kind of confusion. She immediately accepts the RN at face value. Even when people witness a crime in progress, they often assume it must be a drama act or misunderstanding.

Also, I have heard no suggestions that they were afraid the kidnapper might still be in the house and be a threat to them or BR.

I'm off topic for this thread. I'm just saying I agree with Arnie that the JR and PR knew JBR was dead and they knew who did it.

Something else along the line of the above posts from another thread that I think is worth mentioning... I’ve noticed in the accepted transcription of the 911 call, Patsy is shown to say, “We have a kidnapping.” Listen to that portion here, and see if that is correct, or if you think what she actually says is, “We had a kidnapping.” (emphasis mine)

I don’t think it would be over-analyzing what was said to suggest that by using the past tense (“had” instead of “have”), Patsy knows it’s not still in progress -- it’s over, it’s done, whatever happened to JonBenet is finished. There is no kidnapping that is in progress.

When Susan Smith reported her kids “missing”, the sheriff who interviewed her (Howard Wells) over several days noticed that when she spoke of her kids, it was always in the past-tense (e.g., “They were good kids,” not “They are good kids.”). He had learned at a training seminar at CASKU that people who did this know subconsciously their loved one is already dead. It was because of this that he felt she knew they weren’t just missing, but were indeed already dead. With that tip-off, he told her a little white lie, offered to pray with her, and got her to confess.

Is it really that farfetched to suggest that Patsy gave herself away by saying, “We had a kidnapping”?



(As a side-note, Sheriff Howard Wells in 2010 pled guilty himself to making false statements to federal agents from the FBI about his involvement in hiding his receipt of taxable interest income and the existence of documents acknowledging the same.):

http://www.fbi.gov/columbia/press-releases/2010/co092110a.htm

 

[questfortrue]

(snipped)
I can't say for certain, but I believe the only recordings on the JAZ drive were done by the technicians at Aerospace. The recording that was released to the public was reproduced by someone in the DA's office. The original 911 recording was copied to another tape (by my understanding) which was then used to make other copies -- both cassette and CD (they didn't want to continue using the original over and over again and take a chance on damaging it). The one on cassette would have to be converted to digital format for us to hear it, but the CD would already be digital. I'm not sure which is the one we have available.

Boy that would be fantastic, wengr! Good luck on that. I hope something comes of it.


BTW, did you know that after leaving the service, WWII's most decorated soldier attempted a career as a sound engineer before becoming an actor? He used his middle initial of "O" in his name during that period of time, but had to abandon that career because everything he did kept having something go wrong.


(Okay, so that last part was just a feeble attempt at a cheap laugh, but it got you to thinking. Didn't it?)

BBM :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: