911 Call

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by Bobbarita, Oct 11, 2010.

  1. UKGuy

    UKGuy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,634
    Likes Received:
    953
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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?

    .
     
  2. otg

    otg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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.
     
  3. wengr

    wengr New Member

    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.​
     
  4. wengr

    wengr New Member

    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     
  5. otg

    otg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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.


    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.
     
  6. otg

    otg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    48
    (snipped)
    Your saying that, and my laughing at it, gives away our age, dodie. :giggle:
     
  7. BOESP

    BOESP Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,751
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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.
     
  8. Anyhoo

    Anyhoo New Member

    Messages:
    537
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  9. CircuitGuy

    CircuitGuy Member

    Messages:
    378
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    18
    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.
     
  10. otg

    otg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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.
     
  11. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,027
    Likes Received:
    122
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.
     
  12. otg

    otg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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!

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

    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.

    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.)

    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:
     
  13. otg

    otg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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.
     
  14. wengr

    wengr New Member

    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
    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 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.
     
  15. Tadpole12

    Tadpole12 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    1,387
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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
     
  16. wengr

    wengr New Member

    Messages:
    230
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  17. otg

    otg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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):

    [​IMG]



    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).

    [​IMG]



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

    [​IMG]



    And then stretched out, and heightened:

    [​IMG]



    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.
     
  18. otg

    otg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    48
    (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?)
     
  19. otg

    otg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    48

    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
     
  20. questfortrue

    questfortrue Active Member

    Messages:
    986
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    28
    BBM :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice