Shannan Gilbert's 23 Minute 911 Call #2

Bose

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2019
Messages
205
Reaction score
478
I missed/couldn't find the presser, if there was one, unfortunately.

There was a data dump released on the Reddit LISK forum though, purportedly from John Ray. I won't link it here, it probably would need a new thread or to be posted on a different thread. There are some interesting documents in there, and a little bit of information others may not have seen, yet, and potentially might want to discuss here on the forum, info from LE reports at the time, and original autopsy information. However, there are several photographs, including Shannan's remains. Please keep that in mind if you seek the documents out.
 

PreciousDust

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
520
Reaction score
273
From yesterday:

John Ray, at 2:42:
She encounters someone who struggles with her, and you hear blood curdling screams from her and then she takes off again. That’s what’s on the police tape, I’m not revealing anything on the tape I have because I’ve been asked by the court not to, but I am addressing the tape the police did release.
Italics mine.
 

fred&edna

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
7,263
Reaction score
29,897
Well, the bottom line with this recording is... SG counted on the 911 operators to trace her location (sadly, that was not possible), and she was truly afraid (whether drugged or not, I don't know). I didn't/don't like nor trust JB. I didn't/don't like nor trust MP. I believe JB and MP had prior communication before SG was driven to Oak Beach. Hackett is a total creepy weirdo and he certainly did and said so much to involve himself in the case. 'Seems strange he'd do that simply because he's a blowhard. Everything about this case... it still doesn't make any sense.
 

Girlinterrupted

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2017
Messages
89
Reaction score
259
May 1, 2010 4:58 AM Shannan Gilbert: ...I’m never getting drunk again.
May 1, 2010 4:58 AM Shannan Gilbert: Why? I never do.. I never did.
May 1, 2010 4:58 AM Michael Pak:
Yes you did.. everybody does.. everybody did.. and you just started.
May 1, 2010 4:58 AM Shannan Gilbert: Mike please. Mike please. Please

First, tysm for taking the time to transcribe this @white rabbit and @Bose.

I'm having a hard time hearing with one line: "I'm never getting drunk again."
And Pak's response doesn't really make sense if Shannan is talking about getting drunk. idk what she may have said or if im just hearing incorrectly. I do think she says "I'm never ____ again"
But shortly after that exchange comes:

May 1, 2010 4:59 AM Shannan Gilbert:
So this was all setup?
May 1, 2010 4:59 AM Michael Pak: You're joking with me right?
May 1, 2010 4:59 AM Shannan Gilbert: Why?
May 1, 2010 4:59 AM Michael Pak:
I don't know what you want me to do with
that.
May 1, 2010 4:59 AM Shannan Gilbert: Alright I'll say I was lying. I was
lying.


And then she starts begging again.
Also, at some point Pak says, ok, I'll be in the bathroom. He never goes as far as I can tell bc theres never a break in Shannan's begging him. Unless she retreated to the bathroom and he followed her. That's a total contradiction to his deposition. He claimed Shannan was hiding in the bathroom for a period of time. He claimed he left and went back to his car where he miraculously saw Brewer smoking on the deck of the west side of the house (where he physically couldn't have seen him) if he was parked where he claimed he was parked. That's when Pak claimed he yelled up to Brewer that Shannan was still inside. Unless that part of the call is edited out, Pak didn't retreat back to the car in frustration.

My very initial opinion of the call is the same opinion I've had. Shannan never arranged this meeting. Pak set it up with someone else - Brewer was an easy meet point- no kids, no wife. I think he was happy to do it. But Brewer was not the guy. Pak took orders from someone else.
This meeting, like most, wasn't only for sex.This was a 4 hour trip scheduled for a 2 hour date with a random stranger who contacted Shannan (independently) off Craigslist and who she trusted to pay her cash on arrival (after a 2 hour drive out) despite never meeting him?
No. No, not at all.
Shannan was intelligent.
Unfortunately. as smart as she was, she ended up in a situation where the line between the "good guys" and the "bad guys" was significantly blurred and she was trying to navigate her way through.

As for the SCME's report (sorry if slightly off topic) how does it come to be that her bra is found in two halves? A bra would have to be cut or ripped open to be in 2 separate halves. Elements would damage the bra, it would be tattered and covered in mud, but not in 2 halves meaning each cup of the bra was separated from the other.
Just thoughts.
edited bc my thoughts never come out right.
 
Last edited:

Bose

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2019
Messages
205
Reaction score
478
May 1, 2010 4:58 AM Shannan Gilbert: ...I’m never getting drunk again.
May 1, 2010 4:58 AM Shannan Gilbert: Why? I never do.. I never did.
May 1, 2010 4:58 AM Michael Pak:
Yes you did.. everybody does.. everybody did.. and you just started.
May 1, 2010 4:58 AM Shannan Gilbert: Mike please. Mike please. Please

First, tysm for taking the time to transcribe this @white rabbit and @Bose.

I'm having a hard time hearing with one line: "I'm never getting drunk again."
And Pak's response doesn't really make sense if Shannan is talking about getting drunk. idk what she may have said or if im just hearing incorrectly. I do think she says "I'm never ____ again"
But shortly after that exchange comes:

May 1, 2010 4:59 AM Shannan Gilbert:
So this was all setup?
May 1, 2010 4:59 AM Michael Pak: You're joking with me right?
May 1, 2010 4:59 AM Shannan Gilbert: Why?
May 1, 2010 4:59 AM Michael Pak:
I don't know what you want me to do with
that.
May 1, 2010 4:59 AM Shannan Gilbert: Alright I'll say I was lying. I was
lying.


And then she starts begging again.
Also, at some point Pak says, ok, I'll be in the bathroom. He never goes as far as I can tell bc theres never a break in Shannan's begging him. Unless she retreated to the bathroom and he followed her. That's a total contradiction to his deposition. He claimed Shannan was hiding in the bathroom for a period of time. He claimed he left and went back to his car where he miraculously saw Brewer smoking on the deck of the west side of the house (where he physically couldn't have seen him) if he was parked where he claimed he was parked. That's when Pak claimed he yelled up to Brewer that Shannan was still inside. Unless that part of the call is edited out, Pak didn't retreat back to the car in frustration.

My very initial opinion of the call is the same opinion I've had. Shannan never arranged this meeting. Pak set it up with someone else - Brewer was an easy meet point- no kids, no wife. I think he was happy to do it. But Brewer was not the guy. Pak took orders from someone else.
This meeting, like most, wasn't only for sex.This was a 4 hour trip scheduled for a 2 hour date with a random stranger who contacted Shannan (independently) off Craigslist and who she trusted to pay her cash on arrival (after a 2 hour drive out) despite never meeting him?
No. No, not at all.
Shannan was intelligent.
Unfortunately. as smart as she was, she ended up in a situation where the line between the "good guys" and the "bad guys" was significantly blurred and she was trying to navigate her way through.

As for the SCME's report (sorry if slightly off topic) how does it come to be that her bra is found in two halves? A bra would have to be cut or ripped open to be in 2 separate halves. Elements would damage the bra, it would be tattered and covered in mud, but not in 2 halves meaning each cup of the bra was separated from the other.
Just thoughts.
edited bc my thoughts never come out right.

Happy to help in whatever way I can, I have to give all credit to @White_Rabbit for transcription, that was a big undertaking, and great job.

I'm still on the fence with the "I'm never getting drunk again" quote, as I heard it a little differently. But, I think that's a good point to this exercise, in that different people will possibly hear different things. I believe I made a notation that I heard it as referencing going to New York. However; my hearing is not perfect, and prone to errors, just as any human.

IMO, we're missing at least two things in this phone call, superficially, that would help further in interpretation. First, we don't know a lot of the non-verbal things that were going on. Sounds of something tumbling down stairs (but no evidence of being frightened in regards to that, on the phone). We don't know what gestures were made toward Shannan. For all we know, every time she asks why, some physical gesture could be happening from a wag of the finger showing disapproval, to something more threatening.

In the data dump released, there was mention that Shannan had another phone and possibly tried to use it, prior to the released 911 calls, but it was taken from her by MP.

I feel, and this is just my opinion, knowing that she was on the phone with authorities, those in the background of the call were careful how they worded things, and there could be some gaslighting going on toward Shannan. The demeanor of the 911 operators seemed to acknowledge they knew something was wrong, and they were trying to get to her. If the 911 operators felt that way, and they deal with calls all the time. I'm not going to talk about their handling of the job, instead, point to they were speaking amongst each other and trying to figure out/relay information, and also get Shannan's attention and more information from her. I believe they did care, IMO.

I agree with you, in that, the call didn't do much to change my ultimate opinion. I think your theories are the most plausible, of all. That is no offense to anyone else, just my personal opinion, it's what makes most sense to me at this point in time.

The only thing I could think of with the two halves of the bra, would be, if it was a bra with front closure and the plastic broke where the closure is. However, I don't remember there being mention of what type of bra it was. So, I don't think we have that info as to whether it was that type of bra, or there was evidence of it being cut in half. (?)

The thing that stood out for me the most, in all of the papers released, at this point in time, was the mention of posting ads on Craigslist. That, and the way things were worded, gave me the initial impression Shannan, Pak, (and possibly AD, too), were still working in some capacity with those you have mentioned before, Ruis or associates. I didn't see anything that would contradict that, upon first skim/reading.
 

3Patriots

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2019
Messages
143
Reaction score
250
Let's not forget Brewer talking about "but at the end of this, the police are going to have a lot of pie on their face" and "there is a lot out there I know, I don't want to say this because a lot of them are my friends" and "Dude, there you don't know the truth, something really big. I do have a big chit on that, but i have to hold it back."
Then get to his interview with Frank Mackay earlier this year and he knows no one, BTW...
Point is, Brewer acknowledged that the truth about Shannan would equal pie on the face of police (likely a misquote of the common 'egg on the face' cliche). SG case needs to be examined through that lens. What truth would lead to that brand of embarrassment?
 

Bose

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2019
Messages
205
Reaction score
478
Let's not forget Brewer talking about "but at the end of this, the police are going to have a lot of pie on their face" and "there is a lot out there I know, I don't want to say this because a lot of them are my friends" and "Dude, there you don't know the truth, something really big. I do have a big chit on that, but i have to hold it back."
Then get to his interview with Frank Mackay earlier this year and he knows no one, BTW...
Point is, Brewer acknowledged that the truth about Shannan would equal pie on the face of police (likely a misquote of the common 'egg on the face' cliche). SG case needs to be examined through that lens. What truth would lead to that brand of embarrassment?
I remember those interviews, whatever truth he may have said, I couldn't and still can't take much of what he said as trustworthy. It's very possible that he knows things involving the police, and we know there was (maybe still is) corruption. Maybe he was involved in it. But, this is a guy who interacted with Shannan, and a few hours later, she was dead. No matter what he said, how he said it, about how things went down that night, he didn't care about her or what happened to her at the time, IMO, still doesn't care, and just wants to deflect away from his role in that night.
 

Jes8614

New Member
Joined
May 14, 2022
Messages
6
Reaction score
7
Her Throat had been drilled through! Smfh! Who would have a drill … a dentist?
 

PreciousDust

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
520
Reaction score
273
John Ray's press conference, 5/17:

_________________________________________
At 15:12:
Reporter: Did you listen to the full tape?
John Ray: Yes.
Reporter: Is that what you have had all of these years? That same exact twenty-two forty-seconds.
John Ray: I can’t say I still am under a restriction not to talk about what I have on the tape, because the court hasn’t changed that…
Reporter: Does that sound consistent with what you have?
John Ray: Same question with a different….I understand your question…
Reporter: (scoffs, scattered laughter, unintelligible)
John Ray: I can only say that I heard the police tapes, I’m talking about the police tapes. The tape, we all know, was supposed to have been 23 minutes long…it was actually slightly less than 23 minutes long, but it was not 21 minutes long.
_________________________________________

When I clock the full tape on youtube, it seems like 22+ minutes to me, but John Ray was ready for the question and attorneys choose their words carefully, so his mentioning "21" means something. What's clear, though, is that John Ray again can't and won't say that the recording that he received under court order matches the tape played last Friday.

My estimation of John Ray has grown over the years. He's an advocate for his client and wants to keep the case front and center, however he can get that done. That's what attorneys do, particularly the good ones. I'm not sold on Hackett, but I think even Ray suspects Hackett might be just a small part of a large equation. At any rate, I don't think he's being coy when, regarding the question of whether the publicly released 911 call is the same as his copy, he says "I can't talk about that", thus implying that there's something rotten in Denmark. He'd easily have been able to say "Yeah, sure it's the same, of course" if he wanted to; he doesn't say it because there is something rotten in Denmark.

What can it possibly mean that at this late date, when the Suffolk police department is seemingly trying to take affirmative steps to rehabilitate their reputation, that they would still perpetrate a lie to the public? That they'd say "here, listen to the full tape", but then it's not actually the full tape? All of the explanations for it are grim, unfortunately. Let's take the most benign example I can come up with, here's that scenario, not that I necessarily subscribe to it. Warning, Imaginary Scenario Begins Here - Joe Brewer (who, btw, scenario or not, I don't think killed anyone), is the main reason the call has never been released. He says a few things (or even one thing) during the call that he'd be embarrassed having friends and relatives hear, and refuses to OK the release to the public (in this scenario, he has that right of refusal, no idea if that's law or not). The call not being released all this time, it had nothing to do with any investigation continuing (in this made-up scenario). In addition, he doesn't like the way his 911 call sounds, so refuses to have that released too. Still, John Ray wins the right to hear the full tape, and does. What's released to the public, though, is with Brewer's curse words, or whatever, removed. Ray has agreed to keep mum about this change, or is reminded by police that by agreement he can't discuss it, and life goes on (again, all that merely speculative scenario).

So, in that very basic scenario (and all other scenarios are progressively darker), why can't the police just say, "look, we had to excise a bit of personal information, but otherwise the tape is complete"? The reason they can't do it is because the public won't buy that due to their current distrust of the department - the police want to rehabilitate their image, not further tarnish it. In this most simple of scenarios, it's still a major law enforcement fail - you can't lie your way to a position of trust. In the interview on Jay Oliver's show that I posted upthread, John Ray goes out of his way to suggest that he believes Commissioner Harrison is above-board and honest, Ray blames the old guard for even current police missteps (like the police presentation, with snippets and explanations, that Ray objected to). I heard Frank Mackay talking to someone at his new station (WABC, Frank's going there as a news director), and Frank pointed out that DA Ray Tierney didn't even attend the police presser.

Edited: to fix start-time of passage.
 
Last edited:

DetectiveB

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2012
Messages
150
Reaction score
326

Betty P

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
16,131
Reaction score
68,155
What can it possibly mean that at this late date, when the Suffolk police department is seemingly trying to take affirmative steps to rehabilitate their reputation, that they would still perpetrate a lie to the public? That they'd say "here, listen to the full tape", but then it's not actually the full tape? All of the explanations for it are grim, unfortunately.

This isn't the first time I've seen law enforcement do the same thing with a recorded 911 call. They put out the recording to the public to "clear the air" or "stop the rumors", but the tape has been edited, sometimes obviously. LE are sometimes just arrogant and try to "gaslight" the public or that they won't be held accountable. I don't know, but I've seen it happen before. If they have a prosecutor on staff whom they know will back them up by not pursuing proper charges, they're safe. JMO
 

Betty P

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
16,131
Reaction score
68,155
John Ray's press conference, 5/17:

_________________________________________
At 15:12:
Reporter: Did you listen to the full tape?
John Ray: Yes.
Reporter: Is that what you have had all of these years? That same exact twenty-two forty-seconds.
John Ray: I can’t say I still am under a restriction not to talk about what I have on the tape, because the court hasn’t changed that…
Reporter: Does that sound consistent with what you have?
John Ray: Same question with a different….I understand your question…
Reporter: (scoffs, scattered laughter, unintelligible)
John Ray: I can only say that I heard the police tapes, I’m talking about the police tapes. The tape, we all know, was supposed to have been 23 minutes long…it was actually slightly less than 23 minutes long, but it was not 21 minutes long.
_________________________________________

When I clock the full tape on youtube, it seems like 22+ minutes to me, but John Ray was ready for the question and attorneys choose their words carefully, so his mentioning "21" means something. What's clear, though, is that John Ray again can't and won't say that the recording that he received under court order matches the tape played last Friday.

My estimation of John Ray has grown over the years. He's an advocate for his client and wants to keep the case front and center, however he can get that done. That's what attorneys do, particularly the good ones. I'm not sold on Hackett, but I think even Ray suspects Hackett might be just a small part of a large equation. At any rate, I don't think he's being coy when, regarding the question of whether the publicly released 911 call is the same as his copy, he says "I can't talk about that", thus implying that there's something rotten in Denmark. He'd easily have been able to say "Yeah, sure it's the same, of course" if he wanted to; he doesn't say it because there is something rotten in Denmark.

What can it possibly mean that at this late date, when the Suffolk police department is seemingly trying to take affirmative steps to rehabilitate their reputation, that they would still perpetrate a lie to the public? That they'd say "here, listen to the full tape", but then it's not actually the full tape? All of the explanations for it are grim, unfortunately. Let's take the most benign example I can come up with, here's that scenario, not that I necessarily subscribe to it. Warning, Imaginary Scenario Begins Here - Joe Brewer (who, btw, scenario or not, I don't think killed anyone), is the main reason the call has never been released. He says a few things (or even one thing) during the call that he'd be embarrassed having friends and relatives hear, and refuses to OK the release to the public (in this scenario, he has that right of refusal, no idea if that's law or not). The call not being released all this time, it had nothing to do with any investigation continuing (in this made-up scenario). In addition, he doesn't like the way his 911 call sounds, so refuses to have that released too. Still, John Ray wins the right to hear the full tape, and does. What's released to the public, though, is with Brewer's curse words, or whatever, removed. Ray has agreed to keep mum about this change, or is reminded by police that by agreement he can't discuss it, and life goes on (again, all that merely speculative scenario).

So, in that very basic scenario (and all other scenarios are progressively darker), why can't the police just say, "look, we had to excise a bit of personal information, but otherwise the tape is complete"? The reason they can't do it is because the public won't buy that due to their current distrust of the department - the police want to rehabilitate their image, not further tarnish it. In this most simple of scenarios, it's still a major law enforcement fail - you can't lie your way to a position of trust. In the interview on Jay Oliver's show that I posted upthread, John Ray goes out of his way to suggest that he believes Commissioner Harrison is above-board and honest, Ray blames the old guard for even current police missteps (like the police presentation, with snippets and explanations, that Ray objected to). I heard Frank Mackay talking to someone at his new station (WABC, Frank's going there as a news director), and Frank pointed out that DA Ray Tierney didn't even attend the police presser.

Edited: to fix start-time of passage.

That's a very damning indictment of PH. A lot of evidence showing he probably killed SG. But the detective who investigated her murder was long time friends of PH and his family, so...

ETA: I remember when the police said SG drowned before it was revealed that she was found lying face up. Crazy times when they finally found her body.
 
Last edited:

WINDSOR

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2011
Messages
1,371
Reaction score
3,439
John Ray's press conference, 5/17:

_________________________________________
At 15:12:
Reporter: Did you listen to the full tape?
John Ray: Yes.
Reporter: Is that what you have had all of these years? That same exact twenty-two forty-seconds.
John Ray: I can’t say I still am under a restriction not to talk about what I have on the tape, because the court hasn’t changed that…
Reporter: Does that sound consistent with what you have?
John Ray: Same question with a different….I understand your question…
Reporter: (scoffs, scattered laughter, unintelligible)
John Ray: I can only say that I heard the police tapes, I’m talking about the police tapes. The tape, we all know, was supposed to have been 23 minutes long…it was actually slightly less than 23 minutes long, but it was not 21 minutes long.
_________________________________________

When I clock the full tape on youtube, it seems like 22+ minutes to me, but John Ray was ready for the question and attorneys choose their words carefully, so his mentioning "21" means something. What's clear, though, is that John Ray again can't and won't say that the recording that he received under court order matches the tape played last Friday.

My estimation of John Ray has grown over the years. He's an advocate for his client and wants to keep the case front and center, however he can get that done. That's what attorneys do, particularly the good ones. I'm not sold on Hackett, but I think even Ray suspects Hackett might be just a small part of a large equation. At any rate, I don't think he's being coy when, regarding the question of whether the publicly released 911 call is the same as his copy, he says "I can't talk about that", thus implying that there's something rotten in Denmark. He'd easily have been able to say "Yeah, sure it's the same, of course" if he wanted to; he doesn't say it because there is something rotten in Denmark.

What can it possibly mean that at this late date, when the Suffolk police department is seemingly trying to take affirmative steps to rehabilitate their reputation, that they would still perpetrate a lie to the public? That they'd say "here, listen to the full tape", but then it's not actually the full tape? All of the explanations for it are grim, unfortunately. Let's take the most benign example I can come up with, here's that scenario, not that I necessarily subscribe to it. Warning, Imaginary Scenario Begins Here - Joe Brewer (who, btw, scenario or not, I don't think killed anyone), is the main reason the call has never been released. He says a few things (or even one thing) during the call that he'd be embarrassed having friends and relatives hear, and refuses to OK the release to the public (in this scenario, he has that right of refusal, no idea if that's law or not). The call not being released all this time, it had nothing to do with any investigation continuing (in this made-up scenario). In addition, he doesn't like the way his 911 call sounds, so refuses to have that released too. Still, John Ray wins the right to hear the full tape, and does. What's released to the public, though, is with Brewer's curse words, or whatever, removed. Ray has agreed to keep mum about this change, or is reminded by police that by agreement he can't discuss it, and life goes on (again, all that merely speculative scenario).

So, in that very basic scenario (and all other scenarios are progressively darker), why can't the police just say, "look, we had to excise a bit of personal information, but otherwise the tape is complete"? The reason they can't do it is because the public won't buy that due to their current distrust of the department - the police want to rehabilitate their image, not further tarnish it. In this most simple of scenarios, it's still a major law enforcement fail - you can't lie your way to a position of trust. In the interview on Jay Oliver's show that I posted upthread, John Ray goes out of his way to suggest that he believes Commissioner Harrison is above-board and honest, Ray blames the old guard for even current police missteps (like the police presentation, with snippets and explanations, that Ray objected to). I heard Frank Mackay talking to someone at his new station (WABC, Frank's going there as a news director), and Frank pointed out that DA Ray Tierney didn't even attend the police presser.

Edited: to fix start-time of passage.
I am pretty sure Brewer had no legal right to hold up the release of the tape. He might have if he went to court and had a Judge stop the release based on the fact the tape was prejudicial to Brewer's interests. But that did not happen.
Regardless of what was on the 911 tape, most people have already made up their opinion of Brewer's character and worth. Nothing on the tape would change that.IMO
 

Betty P

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
16,131
Reaction score
68,155
I am pretty sure Brewer had no legal right to hold up the release of the tape. He might have if he went to court and had a Judge stop the release based on the fact the tape was prejudicial to Brewer's interests. But that did not happen.
Regardless of what was on the 911 tape, most people have already made up their opinion of Brewer's character and worth. Nothing on the tape would change that.IMO

Interesting, I've never heard of a case where 911 calls were withheld for this reason. Do you think John Ray was told this by LE simply as an excuse to not release the tape?
 

PreciousDust

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
520
Reaction score
273
I am pretty sure Brewer had no legal right to hold up the release of the tape. He might have if he went to court and had a Judge stop the release based on the fact the tape was prejudicial to Brewer's interests. But that did not happen.
Regardless of what was on the 911 tape, most people have already made up their opinion of Brewer's character and worth. Nothing on the tape would change that.IMO
Interesting, I've never heard of a case where 911 calls were withheld for this reason. Do you think John Ray was told this by LE simply as an excuse to not release the tape?

I should have known, no matter how much I emphasized that I was discussing a hypothetical that I had just made up as an example, that this would happen.

John Ray's tape is not the same one played Friday, as implied by John Ray at his press conference, and I believe him. I don't know how the tapes differ, just that it's a big story that they do differ. It could be the biggest story involving the release of the tape, even if there's a relatively benign explanation for it, and with no additional hypothetical examples forthcoming.
 
Top