My expert said:-

1) that the process involves the use of sophisticated equipment by a trained person - hence 'expert'. These people are routinely called as expert witnesses in trials.

2) that the equipment can distinguish human voice from other sounds enabling all other noises can be stripped from the recording.

3) that the most popular defence is 'previous recording' but that the person analysing the tape would normally have made a judgement on that before submitting his/her report. I specifically asked about previous recordings.

4) that it would basically boil down to what a jury decided after they heard the enhanced tape for themselves.

MARGOO>>"I have not seen any report or reference to an Aerospace "expert" interpreting the sounds of the enhanced version of that tape into anything let alone a 3-way conversation."

I don't think we've seen many of the reports in this investigation and neither should we have. The BPD didn't even share this 'evidence' with the DA's office initially.

MARGOO>>Det. Melissa Hickman is the only person I have heard who has turned the enhanced version of sound into a 3-way conversation between Patsy, John, and Burke.

Melissa Hickman is not an expert.

Melissa Hickman has no credentials that I am aware of that would make her credible as to the interpretation she gave the enhanced sounds.

According to Steve Thomas (depo), the equipment Melissa Hickman used to decipher those sounds and create a conversation was inadequate BPD equipment.

Melissa Hickman had no voice prints of Patsy, John, or Burke to assign them as the speakers of what she interpreted the sounds to be.
"

I will say again that I don't think her interpretation of WHAT was said is particularly significant. It is WHO is speaking them that is important. I don't think Patsy's spoken words are being disputed here. The tape has her voice throughout for comparison. She was still close to the phone as she hung it up and her words "Help me Jesus" are words which are in character with Patsy. I shouldn't think anyone needs to be an expert to decipher that.

Basically, it may boil down to whether John's voice and Burke's voice are there too. Now I don't think anyone here is disputing that John's voice might be heard in the background (are they???). We know John was there. So I think it boils down to this third background voice and whether it is the voice of a young child. I'm not sure that anyone needs to be an expert to distinguish between the voices of an older man and a young child.

Voice prints would certainly have been useful at the time.

The playback equipment in the BPD was being used to listen to the enhanced tape - not to decipher the original tape. Surely the purpose of enhancing would be so that it could be heard through regular playback equipment? But you are correct. If the detectives were less than sure about WHAT was being said through their inferior equipment, then SUPERIOR equipment might make everything much clearer.

***

The 911 tape is a biggy for me because it's always been one of my sticking points. I don't subcribe to BDI, and I think he could have legitimately and innocently been on the tape. The question remains that if he was up, why did the Ramsey say he wasn't?

I am perfectly confident that I could remain unbiased if I had the opportunity to listen to the 911 tape. If I heard dolphins I would say so. What I won't do is make my mind up based on the 'say so' of people who are clearly biased in this. I criticise Steve Thomas for basing so much of his theory on the 'say so' of Wickman and Trujillo. I very much like to verify my information and that is why I will reserve judgment on the 911 tape until I either hear the enhanced tape for myself or hear the testimony of an independent expert witness.

At the end of the day, even if Burke's voice is determined to be on the tape, it doesn't prove that a Ramsey killed Jonbenet. It will only serve to prove deception by the parents and to question their motives for that deception.