Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) All right. That's really all I need to know. Now, I want to ask you about
the 911 tape which was -- became controversial because of alleged background noise and voice,
possible voice identifications. Did you ever have occasion to listen to the 911 tape analysis that was
done by a lab in Los Angeles or somewhere in California purportedly to show that Burke's voice was
on the back of that tape?

A. Yes.

MR. WOOD: He listened to the analysis?

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Did you ever have occasion to hear the tape and actually hear what the
people were reporting as being Burke's voice in the background?

A. Not on the aerospace engineering equipment but on lesser equipment inside the Boulder Police
Department, yes.

Q. So it was actually audible on that equipment at the Boulder Police Department?

A. No, Mr. Hoffman, let me make sure I understand you. What are you -- what was audible?

Q. Burke's or the voice of someone who could have been Burke Ramsey talking in the background
at the very end of Patsy Ramsey's, you know, conversation with 911.

A. Well, you're cutting right to the punch line. There is a long story behind it but, yes, myself and
others listened to that tape and heard this third voice.

Q. So do you -- were you able to identify that third voice, you personally?

A. Well, I don't have any training in voice identification, but certainly it sounded to me to be a young
male voice.

MR. WOOD: Are you asking him, Darnay --

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Were you able to draw based on your own personal experience of
hearing this tape that there was a voice of somebody who sounded like a young boy?

A. Yes, that was my personal observation coming away from that.

Q. Do you have any reason to believe that that voice could have been the voice of Burke Ramsey?

A. That's what I believe.

Q. Is it based on ever having heard Burke Ramsey speak?

MR. WOOD: You're talking about just listening to the child speak, whether or not he has done a --
that's a sufficient voice exemplar for testing purposes?

MR. HOFFMAN: No, no. I just want to know in the same way that you can look at handwriting for,
you know, purposes of article 9 -- article 900 in the Rules of Evidence, that whether or not based on his
own personal experience if he's ever heard Burke Ramsey and whether or not he thought that was
Burke Ramsey based on his own knowledge of what Burke Ramsey sounded like.

MR. WOOD: I understand. I'm not -- he can answer. But I'm certainly notacceding to your
interpretation of rule, whatever you're talking about, article 900.

MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. Well, I'm not asking you to accede. Actually, Lin, you don't really even
have to be involved in this, so quite frankly it's my question --

MR. WOOD: I will because I represent --

MR. HOFFMAN: And I don't know if it's appropriate for you to always to be trying to clarify it and
put your spin on it. I'm asking Mr. Thomas whether or not --

MR. WOOD: Why don't you ask him a question --

MR. HOFFMAN: -- he could identify the voice as being that --

MR. WOOD: -- that makes some sense and I might not have to try to clarify it.

MR. HOFFMAN: -- of Burke Ramsey.

MR. WOOD: Why don't you just ask him a straight-up question. I want to make sure and I have a
right to make sure that the record is understandable. You may not like that and I'm not trying to spin
it. I'm trying to make sure we understand because candidly and respectfully some of your questions
are difficult to follow which apparently --

MR. HOFFMAN: Okay. Well, you know, you have that problem yourself, Lin. So and I've --

MR. WOOD: I agree.

MR. HOFFMAN: -- heard Mr. Diamond have to go in and ask for clarification; lawyers sometimes
have that problem --

MR. WOOD: I agree.

MR. HOFFMAN: -- not personal to you or to me.

MR. WOOD: I don't disagree with you.

MR. HOFFMAN: The fact is --

THE REPORTER: One at a time, please.

MR. HOFFMAN: I would like to be able to ask Steve Thomas this question without your helping with
the clarification of it.

MR. WOOD: Well, just as long as the record -- go ahead and ask him the question. I just want to
make sure that I have the right to understand what you're asking, too. But go ahead and ask him and
let's get an answer.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Okay. Do you have any reason to believe that the voice was Burke
Ramsey that you heard on the tape?

A. Yes, that's my belief and, absent there being other parties of whom or which I'm unaware in the
house that morning, this third party to me is believed to have been Burke Ramsey.

Q. What do you base that belief on --

MR. WOOD: I think your time is up, Darnay.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) -- that that voice is Burke Ramsey?

MR. WOOD: Darnay, I think your time is up. Is it up?

MR. RAWLS: Yes.

MR. WOOD: Go ahead and ask your last question. I didn't mean to cut you off.

MR. HOFFMAN: Given the fact, Lin, that you've interjected and eaten a little of my time up, I think
you should allow me that. Thank you.

MR. WOOD: As long as it doesn't cut into my time of what I know today to be 3 hours and 50
minutes.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Mr. Thomas, can you answer that?

MR. DIAMOND: It cuts into my time, Darnay.

MR. WOOD: I don't think you have time today.

MR. DIAMOND: I've got time to go home. Go ahead, ask your question.

Q. (BY MR. HOFFMAN) Yes. Mr. Thomas, is there any -- what is the basis for your concluding
that the voice that you heard on the 911 tape was the voice of Burke Ramsey?

A. The basis of that and very -- having to synopsize this for you, Mr. Hoffman --

Q. Um-hum.

A. -- was Detective Hickman's travel to the Aerospace Corp. in Southern California, their
enhancement of that garbled noise at the end of that 911 call, those engineers preparing a report and
making findings I think identical to the detective who was there with the tape, her returning to the
Boulder Police Department with this information and then each of the detectives listening on admittedly
lesser equipment inside the Boulder Police Department to these findings, I concurred with others that
there was a third voice on that tape that I believed to be Burke.

MR. HOFFMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Thomas.

THE DEPONENT: Thank you, Mr. Hoffman.

MR. WOOD: If we can go for about five or a few minutes I want to just kind of touch on a few things
that you brought up, Darnay, and then we will break for lunch.Is that okay guys?

MR. DIAMOND: That's fine.

MR. HOFFMAN: Fine.

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY-MR.WOOD:

Q. The FBI analyzed the 911 tape and they did not find any such language, true?

A. I don't know what the FBI and Secret Service did because it was my understanding there may
have been equipment that was incompatible to conduct this testing or for whatever reason but bottom
line is the Secret Service and --

Q. The FBI?

A. Federal Bureau -- yeah, were unable to --

Q. They didn't hear the voice that Aerospace heard, right?

A. I don't know what they did or didn't hear or what they did or didn't test. I don't -- I think one of
those agencies didn't even have equipment to test the tape.

Q. So you think the FBI didn't reach a conclusion with respect to the 911 tape; is that your
testimony?

A. I don't know what the FBI or Secret Service concluded, I know what Aerospace did.

Q. And you also know that the tape was taken to a fourth group and they came up with different
words from the tape than what Aerospace had come up with, true?

A. I know that Mr. Hofstrom took the tape to his brother-in-law for enhancement.

Q. Are you suggesting that his brother-in-law somehow falsified a report?

A. Did I say anything like that?

Q. No, sir, I'm just asking you're not suggesting that, are you?

A. No, you mentioned a fourth testing facility and I simply replied that Mr. Hofstrom took the tape to
his brother-in-law.

Q. So for whatever reason the FBI doesn't hear the third party, the Secret Service doesn't hear the
third party, Aerospace claims to hear it and then the fourth group hears something different; is that a
fair generalization of the 911 tape?

A. I'm not sure that the first two agencies ever heard anything because I'm not sure they ever
listened to the tape. I'm just --

Q. Did you not bother to ask the FBI, I mean, you -- please, Mr. Thomas?

MR. DIAMOND: Two questions.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Did you ever bother to call the FBI and say, gentlemen, what did you find
about the 911 tape?

A. I'm sure Detective Hickman, whose assignment this was, may have done that.

Q. Well, what, did you ask Hickman what did the FBI say? You know, we've spent a lot of time
with the FBI, Tom, what did they say? Did you ask him?

MR. DIAMOND: Did he ask him what?

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) What the FBI had to say about the 911 tape?

A. Again, as I've said it's my understanding, Mr. Wood, that I don't know whether or not the FBI or
Secret Service even tested the tape. The first testing that was done on it, to my knowledge, was
through the Aerospace Corporation.

Q. And did you -- have you ever tried at any time as you sit here today to make any efforts to find
out about whether the FBI or the Secret Service even tested the tape and if so, what their results
were?

A. I don't know that.

Q. Have you made any efforts is my question?

A. No.

Q. As we sit here today, you've never made any effort to find that out --

A. No.

Q. -- right? Am I right? Sometimes the no comes out differently. The question is you've never
made any such efforts to find out about the FBI or the Secret Service testing of the tape?

A. I have not made calls or efforts trying to determine that to the FBI or SecretService.

Q. As we sit here today you have not done that?

A. That's right.

> those engineers preparing a report and
making findings I think identical to the detective who was there with the tape

The previous information on this, probably from PMPT, stated specifically that the engineers did the technical work only and it was the detective who determined what she could or could not hear on the end product.

It would have been nice if Lin Wood would have asked ST if they had anyone who wasn't predisposed to finding evidence of guilt listen to the new tape in order to have an objective opinion of what was there. Some technical questions to ST would have been nice, too. Like what made ST believe that whatever noise that was filtered and amplified was actually recorded when the 911 call was made.

But, Lin Wood doesn't seem to be too worried about it. I sense he has an Ace in the hole on the enhanced 911 tape.

I thought Lin Wood's success in running NYL's time out on the questioning about the tape was pretty good.

Lin has the 911 tape - - he will release it so everyone can hear it - - not the enhanced tape but the real thing.

The "enhanced" tapes are wothless - - two agencies got no third voice, two other agencies picked up other conversations but they didn't match.... the tape was one that had been used before, "ghosts" of earlier tapes could be what the other agencies picked up.

The real 911 tape is what is important - Lin has it andI think it wont be long before we all hear it.

Burke's voice is NOT on it.

Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Mr. Thomas -- yeah, I've got it -- the 911 tape. Did you ever hear any
explanation as to why that tape was garbled in part?

A. At some point during the investigation I recall the tape coming to Detective Sergeant Wickman's
attention initially because the 911 operator who took that call thought there may have been something at
the end of the conversation that was unintelligible.

Q. I appreciate that information. But I would like to get to my question because my time is limited
today at least and whether we finish or not is another issue. But my question is, did you ever, sir, hear
any explanation as to why a portion of the 911 tape was garbled?

A. I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking me why --

Q. Yeah, was anybody trying to figure out why -- the 911 tape is a tape in realtime, isn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. And one would think that you would hear in realtime voices that are on the tape. You say there is
something garbled. Was there ever any attempt to find out why this portion of the tape might be
garbled and not discernible to the human ear without some scientific analysis? That's my question.

A. I don't think that it was garbled in the sense that there was a defect in the tape or something,
that's certainly not my understanding. I think the description of garbled was meant to include the fact
that as this phone was apparently being attempted placed back into the cradle, there was some
conversation that was not as clear as Patsy Ramsey speaking directly into the phone, to the 911
operator.

Q. You knew the phone from your investigation was a wall phone, didn't you?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you hear any effort on the tape to try to hang the phone up, a banging or a tapping or
anything of that nature?

A. The call obviously concludes with the line disconnecting but, no, not that I recall today without
listening to the tape of the phone banging.

Q. Do you know whether the 911 tapes that were being utilized at the time were recycled in the
sense that they might be taped over after a period of time?

A. I don't know.

Q. Was any effort made by the Boulder Police Department, to your knowledge, to try to ascertain
that information?

A. I would certainly think they did.

Q. But do you know the answer?

A. I don't have any knowledge of that.

Q. Secondhand or otherwise?

A. No.

Q. Take a look at your book, if you will, for me, page 15. Are you with me?

A. Yes.

Q. "In preliminary examinations, detectives thought they could hear some more words being spoken
between the time Patsy Ramsey said 'Hurry, hurry, hurry' and when the call was terminated." Have I
read that correctly?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that the truth, is that accurate?

A. Yes.

Q. "However, the FBI and the United States Secret Service could not lift anything from the
background noise on the tape." Have I read that correctly?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that the truth?

A. As we discussed earlier, yes.

Q. I thought you said you didn't know what efforts, if any, they had made earlier?

A. I said in one case at least I don't know that they had the proper or necessary compatible
equipment to try to enhance this tape, nor did I know of them ever submitting a report.

Q. All I would like to know is did the FBI to your knowledge or the Secret Service to your
knowledge ever send the tape back and say we don't have the proper equipment to see if we can lift
anything from the background noise on this tape?

A. Again, we have discussed that and that's my testimony, that not being my assignment, it was my
understanding that the tape came back from the FBI and the Secret Service without anything definitive,
but I recall there being an issue that somebody didn't have proper equipment to do the testing.

Q. Well, you don't say anything like that here. This is definitive. The FBI and the United States
Secret Service could not lift anything from the background noise on the tape. Is that a true statement
or not?

A. Whether, because they didn't have the correct machine or because they didn't lift anything if they
did do some testing, yes, that's a true statement.

Q. Why wouldn't you -- I mean with all due respect I don't think you were trying to do the Ramseys
any favors in this book. Why wouldn't you have said here that they couldn't lift anything from the
background noise on the tape but that may have been the result of inappropriate equipment. You didn't
say that or discuss that in your book, did you?

A. If we're talking about the production of the book, it was certainly limited. I couldn't put
everything in this case into the content of the book.

Q. The bottom line is we're confident that someone in the Boulder Police Department can answer
the question about the findings by the United States Secret Service and the FBI about this 911 tape.
That's in the case file, isn't it?

A. Undoubtedly.

Q. Good. And I don't believe I asked you this; I wanted to. Are you aware of any attempts to take
a voice exemplar from Burke Ramsey and have it analyzed against the voice you think your human ear
tells you or because it's a third-party voice that it's Burke Ramsey, any efforts to do a scientific analysis
by way of a voice exemplar between Burke Ramsey's voice and the voice you think might have been
his on the 911 tape?

A. I certainly never received an assignment like that, nor do I recall hearing or knowing of anyone
else who did.

>> those engineers preparing a report and
>making findings I think identical to the detective who was
>there with the tape
>
>The previous information on this, probably from PMPT, stated
>specifically that the engineers did the technical work only
>and it was the detective who determined what she could or
>could not hear on the end product.

You are correct Guppy (PMPT pb p372-373). As Thomas acknowledges, Hickman brought the enhancement home to Boulder and they all listened on their ordinary equipment there and Hickman transcribed it. It is also interesting to note in PMPT that the police withheld this information from the DA's office for more than a year.

>
>It would have been nice if Lin Wood would have asked ST if
>they had anyone who wasn't predisposed to finding evidence
>of guilt listen to the new tape in order to have an
>objective opinion of what was there. Some technical
>questions to ST would have been nice, too. Like what made
>ST believe that whatever noise that was filtered and
>amplified was actually recorded when the 911 call was made.
>But, Lin Wood doesn't seem to be too worried about it. I
>sense he has an Ace in the hole on the enhanced 911 tape.
>

There's more to come, isn't there? Maybe Lin does ask these questions

LAST EDITED ON May-17-03 AT 03:53 PM (EST)
 
Thought there would be more (thanks, Jameson).

Q. Why wouldn't you -- I mean with all due respect I don't think you were trying to do the Ramseys any favors in this book. Why wouldn't you have said here that they couldn't lift anything from the background noise on the tape but that may have been the result of inappropriate equipment. You didn't say that or discuss that in your book, did you?

A. If we're talking about the production of the book, it was certainly limited. I couldn't put everything in this case into the content of the book.

Q. The bottom line is we're confident that someone in the Boulder Police Department can answer the question about the findings by the United States Secret Service and the FBI about this 911 tape. That's in the case file, isn't it?

A. Undoubtedly.

Q. Good. And I don't believe I asked you this; I wanted to. Are you aware of any attempts to take a voice exemplar from Burke Ramsey and have it analyzed against the voice you think your human ear tells you or because it's a third-party voice that it's Burke Ramsey, any efforts to do a scientific analysis by way of a voice exemplar between Burke Ramsey's voice and the voice you think might have been
his on the 911 tape?

A. I certainly never received an assignment like that, nor do I recall hearing or knowing of anyone else who did.

***

No, he didn't do the Ramseys any favors in his book and IMO it appears - by his omissions (and there are many) - that he did whatever he could to NOT provide a balanced account of the evidence and what the investigators knew.

May I ask how they came to the conclusion that Patsy was having trouble hanging up the phone if there is no noise indicating that?

And if there was no technical problem with the actual tape and no overriding noise of the phone clicking against the wall unit as she's trying to hang it up, what exactly made the voice so unintelligible that it had to be enhanced with space-age equipement? Bizarre. They are a bunch of clowns, the whole BPD.

The more I read, the more shocked I am at what ST DOESN'T know. It's very shocking that he proposed to be so interested in justice for JonBenet and doesn't even know, or didn't bother to really investigate this case. It's so maddening.

LAST EDITED ON May-20-03 AT 02:54 AM (EST)
 
And if there was no technical problem with the actual tape and no overriding noise of the phone clicking against the wall unit as she's trying to hang it up, what exactly made the voice so unintelligible that it had to be enhanced with space-age equipement? Bizarre. They are a bunch of clowns, the whole BPD.

That's what struck me too, ziggy. I could understand if the voice/s were very distant and weak (due to the phone not being hung up properly and a connection therefore still intact, but conversation not being directed into the mouthpiece), but to be GARBLED/unintelligable? That does not make sense to me either.

ST says Burke's voice could be heard on the 911 tape but never compared the tape to Burke's voice, nor attempted to obtain a tape recording of Burke's voice.

Par for the course, and utterly sickening! Thomas has committed a terrible crime against Burke Ramsay by saying his voice was on the tape - when there's no factual proof ANY third voice was ever on the tape, least of all, Burke's.

I don't know how Steve Thomas can live with himself. He really should read up on the Aisenberg case, preferably in a very small room with no amenities!

http://www.sptimes.com/News2/Sabrina/default.shtml

ST says Burke's voice could be heard on the 911 tape but never compared the tape to Burke's voice, nor attempted to obtain a tape recording of Burke's voice.

A sound
presumed to be a young voice
presumed to be Burke's

could be heard on the Aerospace enhanced version of the tape.

Yes Smokey, another good point. Some detective eh? Don't bother with the details or proof Steve- you're a legend in your own mind!

I think I should start a thread: What Steve Doesn't Know and we can list the stuff he just didn't bother to find out while he was investigating the murder of a beautiful little girl. I am sickened by him.

Margoo, I should have said he 'led the reader to believe' Burke's voice was on the tape, because he admittedly doesn't come out and state it as a fact. But his lack of interest in finding out for sure one way or the other before coming to such a conclusion and then putting it in print, leaves me speechless!

Ziggy, the more I read, the more I'm convinced Thomas was playing to his internet fan club, and couldn't be bothered to test his hypothesis against the evidence. It became a mutual admiration society between Thomas and his fans at the expense of JonBenet Ramsey and her family.

With all of the new threads here lately, somehow I missed that there was more to come. Thanks for putting the rest up.

Anyway, late last year or early this year I was discussing the "enhanced" 911 tape at another forum. I believe it was Imon who brought up the question about voice prints. I went off and did some research, and found that the standard procedure is to acquire three exemplars of the exact words or phrases in question from the person suspected to be the source of those same words or phrases on the recording. Those exemplars can then be compared to the recording.

So, if the BPD didn't acquire exemplars from Burke, they didn't try to identify whatever it was on the tape they said was Burke's voice. The same goes with examplars from John and Patsy. That itself is very significant, because this was supposed to be direct evidence that the Ramseys were lying about the sequence of events on the night JonBenet was murdered.

We have known for a long time that Thomas had no positive id of Burke's voice, because he slipped up during an internet chat when he said that if the voice wasn't Burke's, it belonged to another kid in the house they didn't know was there. If he had a positive ID, he wouldn't have said that.

Thomas' contention that the FBI didn't have the "correct machine" or "compatible" equipment is specious or meaningless. The FBI is not limited to using just the technology it has on hand. They could have walked the tape into Aerospace just like the BPD did.

I think what he really meant was, just like with the 911 tape and handwriting analysis by the Secret Service, he didn't receive the "correct" results, so he had to keep looking.

>> thought Lin Wood's success in running NYL's time out on the questioning about the tape was pretty good.

And do you think this strengthens the Ramsey's case? The fact that their lawyer deliberately sabotaged the opposite lawyer's questioning time on this important matter? The question was straight foward enough. What did Lin Wood have to fear from the answer. Wood was stroppy enough when his own questioning time wasn't moving along as fast as he wished and he was quick enough to ask for more time at the end. This particular little sideshow during the deposition was both unnecessary and unprofessional IMO.

LAST EDITED ON May-31-03 AT 04:19 PM (EST)
 
The biggest time waster was Steve Thomas who was highly motivated to run the clock with nonanswers and constant requests to restate the question. Each side was footing the bill according to time spent for their side of the time clock. It appears ST seemed to appreciate and respect that running of the clock (and corresponding billing) a little more when the Plaintiff's lawyer was 'on the clock'. On occasion he even tried to assist NYL in getting to the point. OTH, he seemed obstructive (along with his representative, Mr. Diamond) and intent on running the clock when it was under the Defendant's 'dime'.

Margoo, what a surprise! My point was to Guppy, but since you've responded on his behalf...

We will agree to disagree. Obviously, it is difficult to tell without hearing/seeing the tape, but, IMO, Lin Wood was argumentative and on reading the deposition, I noticed that he constantly interrupted Steve Thomas. Steve Thomas OTOH remained polite and allowed Wood to finish asking his questions. There are people who talk and people who listen. In my experience, you learn more by listening. Lin Wood lost himself some valuable recording time because he kept butting in and got involved in cross-talk and ended up having to restate the question on several occasions. Steve Thomas was absolutely correct to ensure his questions were clear before he answered. Lin Wood also repeated several questions which had already been answered - something that I noticed he did in Beckner's deposition too.

Now thankfully, I am not looking at this case through Ramsey-tinted spectacles, nor am I looking at it through BORG-tinted spectacles (questioning Ramsey does not equate to BORG although RST would have it so). I have no particular feelings about Steve Thomas because his involvement in the case does not change the evidence one way or another. I don't condone what he did and I cringe when I see that he didn't check facts provided by Trujillo and Wickman before committing them to his book.

We learned little of value from Thomas' deposition. Certainly nothing to advance the investigation. It was dirty-underwear laundering that's all.

Rest assured, my book will have all facts verified and sources checked ;-)

I don't believe I was answering you on anything. I was making an observation based on the point of the time clock.

You must be a lawyer. Arguing semantics appears to be a speciality.

LAST EDITED ON May-31-03 AT 06:37 PM (EST)
 
Your involvement in posting on a thread is not what motivates me to voice my views and interpretations.

>We have known for a long time that Thomas had no positive id of Burke's voice..

I think the whole point being missed (or purposely overlooked by the RST) is that there is a THIRD voice on the tape. So either the Ramseys are hiding the truth about Burke, or they asked the intruder to stay for breakfast. Take your pick.

Lin Wood has the tape and he is now legally allowed to share it and talk about it. He has started to do just that and there will be news on that very soon.

I don't know when we will get to hear it - - but we will - - and there is no voice on the tape other than Patsy, the dispatcher, and perhaps John.

Not sure if it will be made available on the Internet -- maybe.

Will it be a copy of the enhanced tape? - because I am told by a forensic tape expert that listening to the actual tape will reveal nothing.

> What did Lin Wood have to fear from the answer.

Nothing. And, there is nothing to this line of thought unless you think NYL's questions were going to score points for the Ramseys. This was not unlike a basketball game - NYL was supposted to score points for Steve Thomas when he had the ball.

LAST EDITED ON Jun-01-03 AT 07:08 AM (EST)
 
> I think the whole point being missed (or purposely overlooked by the RST) is that there is a THIRD voice on the tape.

Well, Steve Thomas says there is a third voice. Steve Thomas also says voices number one and two are there. We already know ST testified he had no knowledge of any attempt to acquire exemplars from Burke in order to positively ID his "voice."

I'm going to leap to the conclusion that no exemplars were collected from John and Patsy to positively ID their "voices" either.

When you get right down to it, the issue is not if a THIRD voice is on the tape, but if there are ANY voices on the tape that have anything to do with this case. We don't know that what the lab extracted and blew up wasn't a partially erased remnant of an old telephone solicitation recorded months before the night of the murder.

>>Nothing. And, there is nothing to this line of thought unless you think NYL's questions were going to score points for the Ramseys. This was not unlike a basketball game - NYL was supposted to score points for Steve Thomas when he had the ball.

Well clearly Lin Wood thought that NYL's questions were going to score points for the Ramseys or he wouldn't have tried so valliantly to prevent them being asked. It was a straighforward enough question with a striaghtforward enough answer. The quesiton is - why do you so rejoice in Lin Wood's efforts to waste NYL's time?

> The quesiton is - why do you so rejoice in Lin Wood's efforts to waste NYL's time

Because NYL is the bad guy. Lin Wood is the good guy.

By the way, if you are really writing a book, I would appreciate it if you would title the chapter on the "enhanced" 911 tape:

My Bad - Guppy Was Right.

I think

I think

"Guppy's logic - fair or foul?"

Would be a better title :P

enhanced? He's generally so meticulous, perhaps he will have his own testing done, and have that expert's opinion in hand before he releases it.

Did Lin have it enhanced? I don't know but that might be interesting - - maybe they can pull up the entire 911 phone call from 6 weeks before the murder - - one where someone is screaming, "What did you find?"

The 911 tape that will be released will be the real one - - not one "enhanced by BORG". If your friend feels it won't aid the BORG cause, he is right - - because Burke wasn't in the room, wasn't talking to anyone at that time of day... his voice is NOT on the tape.

The forensic tape expert that I have been corresponding with is not my friend and he is not 'BORG'. He was not involved in the Ramsey case nor is he even familiar with the Ramsey case. We discussed only facts, processes and technicalities.

You were not there. You do not know if Burke was there or not. You have only the Ramseys word that Burke was there. That does not make it a fact.

I accept only facts. Everything else is speculation.

LAST EDITED ON Jun-01-03 AT 06:01 PM (EST)
 
Fact: JonBenét is dead.

Fact: the DA who has the case and has seen every bit of evidence in the case says:

"Since Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey have not even been charged, much less convicted, they must be presumed innocent and must be treated accordingly." - DA Mary Keenan

and

"I have carefully reviewed the Order of United States District Court Judge Julie Carnes in the civil case of Wolf v. John Ramsey and Patricia Ramsey. I agree with the Court's conclusion that 'the weight of the evidence is more consistent with a theory that an intruder murdered JonBenet than it is with a theory that Mrs. Ramsey did so.'"

I guess you won't be posting anything but those FACTS in future?

I have no problem with either of those statements. I agree wholeheartedly with both of them. The weight of the evidence is more consistent with an intruder than Patsy Ramsey and the Ramseys are certainly entitled to the presumption of innocence.

1) Please show me where I have said otherwise?

2) And your point is?

>>I guess you won't be posting anything but those FACTS in future?

Guess again. There are many facts in this case. The Ramseys presumption of innocence and the fact that the evidence is more consistent with an intruder than with PDI are just two of them.

That Burke's voice is not on the 911 tape is not a fact. It is a theory and one which is disputed by experts.

LAST EDITED ON Jun-01-03 AT 07:26 PM (EST)
 
> It is a theory and one which is disputed by experts.

OK, I'll bite. To my knowledge, there are no experts of any type who have said Burke's voice is on the "enhanced" 911 tape. However, there are experts who have said there is nothing there.

Which "experts" have said Burke's voice is on the tape?

edited to add: The experts I am referring to have said there is nothing extra to be found on the 911 tape itself, not on the "enhanced" 911 tape hidden deep in the bowels of the BPD.

Jayelles:

Nowhere is there any lab report stating that BURKE'S voice is on that tape. Doesn't exist.

What you have is the fact that when labs enhance tapes they can often help clarify the conversations by removing background noises. They can boost the volume. Andsometimes when they are working with tapes that have been used before, sometimes they can bring up conversations from old recorded conversations.

The cops have said they have more converstaion on the enhanced tapes - - what was said? Take your pick - - different labs got different results.

But no one says it was BURKE, only Burke, that morning. Fact is, Burke was upstairs that morning, not in the kitchen or back hall when the call was made. The authorities do know that. Not only from J&P's interviews but also from Burke's testimony. Burke told his story several times to different questioners - - never waivered. Not his voice on the tape.

And the cops - - not one of them is disputing that now.

And you won't see any lab report saying that Burke's voice is on that tape.

Thank you jams.

So, there you have it, Jayelles. You have Steve Thomas - and I might remind you he has a bit of a credibility problem - saying Burke's voice is on the "enhanced" 911 tape, and you have the FBI the Secret Service, and, most importantly, jameson, saying it isn't there.

It isn't there. It never was, it never will be. There was never any reason to take the BPD's word over our two of the three premiere national crime fighting organizations in the U.S.

Rest assured that Scotland Yard would say the same thing. (I know, it isn't in Scotland.)

That means it is time for you to give up the wild goose chase and join the RST. We're right, and you might as well be, too.

I would consider the forensic tape analysts at Aerospace to be experts. They had the state-of-the-art equipment and they conducted a perfectly clinical process. If the result of this is an enhanced version of the tape which has a voice on it -- which sounds like a young child -- in a house where there IS a young child (who has admitted that he was awake and heard his parents shouting), then I will remain open minded about whether Burke's voice was on that tape. Nowhere have I stated that Burke's voice is on that tape. The possibility remains however that it may be.

Two labs were unable to enhance the tape and two labs enhanced it to hear the voices - but interpreted the actual words in different ways. Sounds like it's 50:50 in favour of the voice being there. "What" he allegedly said is inconsequential. If he was up and curious, why did his parents say that he was not?

In the meantime, I will place more value upon the word of someone who has heard the enhanced tape over that of someone who hasn't.

If it weren't for the fact that complete sentences that seem to loosely correspond to the crisis at hand were deciphered on the enhanced tape, I'd pass it off as garbage. A child's voice, identified as Burke's, as well as voices identified as John's and Patsy's, were heard on the enhanced tape. The repeated, "Help me Jesus!" just sounds like something Patsy would really say. If you attribute what was said to "ghosting" from other recordings, then we have a mighty coincidence that a child, a man, and a woman (crying, "Help me Jesus!") can be heard on the enhanced tape after the Ramseys thought they hung up the phone.

Because of the disagreements about what EXACTLY is on that tape, I'm sure the tape cannot ever be used as evidence should the case ever go to trial. It's hard to know whether Linn Wood's bravado in dismissing the tape is because he knows there is really nothing there, or because he knows the tape could never be used regardless of what might actually be on it. We mustn't forget that Wood is by definition biased towards his clients. For these reasons, the tape remains an unanswered question in my mind.

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0821jonn1.html

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.

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.

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.