http://webbsleuths.com/patsy911.mp3

I hear a hysterical woman, out of breath, frantic, but in control. And I think that is perfectly normal under the circumstances.

After the hangup I hear the 911 operator typing, nothing else.

Maybe tonight they will play more tape and Katie won't talk over it. I hope so as I don't want the BORG to have any way to say that TR or NBC didn't play fair.

Do you remember the news reports of the "ghost conversations" (as I will forever term the non-existant "enhanced" crap) taking place between two calls? Seems that was all BS.

Dave "enhanced" the tape and asks that we listen to this with headphones.

I did - I think the operator asked Patsy if her name was "Patsy" - and I think the sound after the click was something as innocent as someone's deep breath or movement in the room. I detected no conversation.

I think the cops went fishing with an enhancement, came back empty handed and lied about it.

I wonder if they have a written report from the firms they used to enhance the tapes.... were they that anxious to please that they would put a lie in writing?

Here is an even MORE "enhanced" version of the particular place where it is supposedly John saying, "We're not speaking to you" or words such as that. Listen to it a dozen times, one after the other, focus on hearing John's voice. If you squint and try not to pee at the same time, you might hear something.

I didn't - you might - - True BORG sure will.

That's it! How to tell if you are really BORG! If you can hear John and Burke talking on the 911 tape, you are BORG to the bone.

BORG to the bone huh? You've inspired me. I hope you like this parody more than my last one.

BORG to the Bone

words: Slapfish

On the day I saw Ramsey I knew they did it
All the cops gathered round to figure out how they hid it
The head cop spoke up, and said leave this one alone
He knew right away, he was BORG to the bone
BORG to the bone
BORG to the bone
B-B-B-B- BORG to the bone
B-B-B-B- BORG
B-B-B-B- BORG
BORG to the bone

He pointed his finger at the victims family
If you need evidence I値l make up what you need
Evidence to the contrary don't bother me none
See my names in the paper cuz I'm BORG to the bone
BORG to the bone
B-B-B-B- BORG
B-B-B-B- BORG
B-B-B-B- BORG
BORG to the bone

I値l make that rich woman beg and I値l make her squeal
When I tell the papers yeah, she値l make a deal
If I make up a story I won't have to atone
Cuz everyone loves me cuz I知 BORG to the bone
B-B-B-B- BORG
B-B-B-B- BORG
B-B-B-B- BORG
BORG to the bone

----------------------

I also sent Jams an amplified version of the section wherein we are supposed to hear "We're not talking to you" or words to that effect. If Jams posts that, also, the best way to listen to that is to listen to it in a loop (also with headphones) and listen to it over and over again. It's too short to listen to just once and hear anything. You can also play with equalizer settings as you listen.

Certainly no conversation.

When you realize they tweaked a third generation tape, a copy of a tweaked tape that was a copy of an original tape that was a message taped over something before....

This isn't evidence.

Let's go back to reverse speech and tea leaves.

For what it's worth, I believe that if the phone had been off the hook there would be no need to enhance the tape...whatever was said would have been audible. And, if Burke had testified that he had been downstairs talking to his parents we would have heard about that incessantly.

The entire investigation by the BPD is a gross miscarriage of justice.

You can't inadvertently not hang it up, without it being obvious, and we wouldn't have heard the click. If the phone had fallen off its cradle, we would have heard it....a thudding on the tape, if the line connection were not broken. So...the call was terminated by Patsy, but the dispatcher was still on the line. That whole story is so crazy, because Patsy did hang the receiver up--you can hear it.

If there was any conversation after, then perpaps it was another call from another person in the room with the dispatcher......or a reused tape.

"Bullwinkle is a do..."

And we all know who Bullwinkle is.

Actually, I agree with Braveheart, except that I'm not familiar with the squeaky reel, although I should be. This sound is so far down in the noise that it's almost not there. This suggests crosstalk, radio interference --- or perhaps other 911 dispathers, etc. as other people have said. It could possibly be a bad circuit component. It sounds like AGC (automatic gain control) is cutting in and out as the dispatcher says, "Patsy?"

There are also too many high frequencies for it to have been conversation from the phone that Patsy had just been using, unless John or Burke Ramsey sounded like a cricket in late 1996. Given that the typing sounds are so crisp, the mic that is used on the dispatch end sounds as though it is allowing higher frequencies to pass. This suggests that if the sounds are conversation and assuming they are not radio interference (which can sound very scratchy), they must be coming from the dispatch end, as Maikai has posted.

It might as well be Rocky's famous message....

Maikai, I was just sitting here thinking the same thing--any noise after the hangup had to be on the dispatcher end--and that was just clicking of keys. You're absolutely right about the phone either being hung up or not if it was a wall phone. And if it wasn't a wall phone it would still have been like covering the phone with your hand while talking--at the very least. But all this considered there is still absolutely nothing there. Someone needs to search some records to see if money passed between someone on the BPD and the people who supposedly came up with those amplified tapes!!! What a load of bunk this is and what a crime in of it itself that this has been foisted off on everyone as truth!!!

Smokey, I think you're absolutely correct!! And I think the Ramsey's attorney believes this also. You could tell he was livid about the whole affair. Don't be surprised if the BPD is next on his list (if it's not already!!)

It would take an expert in telephony to determine whether or not the telephone has actually gone on-hook. Fortunately, there are people who can determine these kinds of things by listening to recordings for clues. There are people who can tell you exactly what kind of switching circuit is being used, and so on. I think it would be interesting to request such an opinion. BPD should have done that, also --- and maybe they did. Wouldn't that be interesting? It may play a large part in a civil suit later on.

Sometimes I would swear that I hear a squelch circuit coming into play; other times I don't. It also appears to me that there is a change in the background noise as the phone appears to go on-hook; some of the ambient background noise disappears. There may also be a subtle change in the sidetone, but I can't hear it.

No one should assume that just because they heard a "click" that the phone is "off." However, I do agree that there isn't any evidence at all to the contrary and that the alleged conversations are just what was described by those who said that BPD was finding evidence to fit their theory, even to the point of lying and fabrication. I just point out that we need to be careful not to be inaccurate here in this forum, either. The point is: hearing a mere click is not enough, but there may be enough evidence on that tape that BPD should never have pursued this line at all.

Email supposedly on the way.

I'm not sure what a "squelch circuit" is, but since the ransom note said John was being monitored, is it possible the perp(s) monitored the 911 call to police? Perhaps this is a simple explanation for the perceived change in background noise. IOW, perhaps Patsy hung up, but the perp was still connected from another location i.e. telephone pole, basement, another phone, etc.

I have call forwarding, but don't use it. Does anyone know if it's possible for someone visiting the Ramsey home to program the phones to forward all, or certain calls, to another local location without detection? Could someone at the forwarded location be on the line at the same time as someone in the Ramsey home if a call came in? I recall there was a special ring sequence to identify forwarded calls, but that's about all I remember, and never got around to reading the directions, as usual.

There was a 911 call made during the Ramsey Christmas party on December 23, 1996. Could they have attempted to use a call forwarding feature to intercept calls from police or FBI on Dec.26, 1996, or to time a police response?

I see no reason to monitor or intercept 911 calls or to time police response. The perpetrator would gain nothing and lost alot.
Once a cop car rolls up, they've called. What would a few minutes earlier notification gain the perpetrator?

Gee, I thought DB was going to explain what a squelch circuit was, but he didn't. :-(

Sorry I didn't say more about it. This type of circuit basically cuts off transmission when there is no signal present. It's used, for example, in some radio transmitters to keep from transmitting low-level noise constantly. Low-level noise constantly being transmitted is extremely annoying to people who are otherwise occupied, for example a pilot flying a plane. Whether or not there are squelch circuits in phone switching networks, repeaters, 911 call centers, or in the Ramseys' phone I have no idea, but it could also save money and energy. Although I've never looked, speakerphones almost certainly have some circuit like this in the mic circuit that cuts the talker's voice off and annoys the listener, as I'm sure you've experienced. The beginnings of sentences can be cut off due to delay of reactivating the transmission once the talker's voice crosses a threshold volume.

Yes, someone certainly could have been monitoring the phones. DB mentions that the only advantage is a few minutes notification. No, that's not the case for all theories of what the crime is all about nor for all possible perpetrators. Yes, that is the case for certain theories and perpetrators. The advantage depends upon the theory of the crime and the characteristics of the perpetrator. He may, for example, have been a kidnapper who was half-expecting John to discreetly call one of his FBI friends. In that case, he wouldn't necessarily have known unless he was monitoring the phones. But it's good to see that Don is consistently objecting to this idea! He's obviously awake and paying attention. (Hi there Don.)

>Yes, someone certainly could have been monitoring the phones.
Okay, lets assume some sort of electronic sophistication.
How about that robbery in a mansion in Paradise Valley wherein sophisticated equipment was used that would have made some military units envious. (This is the case wherein a super-duper burglar alarm was defeated by simple 'dognapping' and then calling the homeowner two days later. The ecstatic homeowners grabbed a bottle of wine and drove to the nearby address to get their dog but instead found masked, well-armed gunmen who said to the wife: 'the correct code to your burglar alarm or we blow your husband's brains all over you right now'). The police chief there runs a small, patrol-oriented force. He knew he was in over his head and he called for help.
What does all this have to do with monitoring of phones in the Ramsey Case? Well, do you really think all that Paradise Valley planning and super-duper electronic equipment was used because the thieves were after a paltry sum?
So if you want to advance the notion that sophisticated electronic equipment was utilized and that advance access to 'the pairs' (telephony term) was obtained, then you have one heck of alot of time and talent being invested in a simple little home invasion.

>DB mentions that the only advantage is a few minutes notification.
Okay, I'll amend that. Strike 'advantage' and insert 'information'.
How valuable that information was depends on poster's various theories.

>He's obviously awake and paying attention.
Haven't been awake for eons. Certainly wasn't awake on the afternoon and evening of Sept 10th. Alas.

I guess I wasn't clear about signal and noise. I was speaking informally. Indeed, it's not a signal-to-noise problem. The squelch circuits I am familiar with operate to cut off the microphone when the transmitter is keyed, so at most all one receives is carrier, which obviously is discarded upon reception (no signal in the sense of communication information). So, as I believe you described, no background noise is transmitted (noise in the sense of extraneous noncommunicative signal).

The cocktail party effect: I'm not sure whether you're trying to be serious here or not. The cocktail party effect is where one is LESS able to hear due to reverberation. There comes a point where you cannot even hear someone standing very close to you due to all the other conversation. Everyone begins to speak louder and louder, with no improvement in ability to perceive what is being said. Everyone starts to move closer to the people they are trying to listen to, etc. (See, for example: Allan D. Pierce. Acoustics: An Introduction to its Physical Principles and Applications. Acoustical Society of America / American Institue of Physics, 1989, pages 276-277. Originally published by McGraw-Hill in 1981.) Now there may be some psycho-acoustic effect wherein one can still recognize the voice of one's spouse, but I don't have any information on that --- certainly not that this is the definition of the cocktail party effect.

I still think it's premature and arbitrary to rule out the possibility of phone monitoring. The phone monitoring may have been done to gather information IN ADDITION to the fact that "authorities" were being contacted, for example prior to the crime. I wouldn't assume that there was monitoring, either. There really isn't any evidence of it that I am aware of.

There is no way any person could have listened to that tape and actually heard any other voices at all. It was an intentional fabrication. Nothing else.

There needs to be an example set and ST is the perfect person to make an example out of.

He was a criminal with a badge, and his victims were the Ramsey's.

What did you find? We're not speaking with you! HE MADE IT UP. What a sicko!!!

ST was not the guy in charge---there's others, IMO, that should be called on the carpet during the "leaky" timeframe---for not countering the leaks......recognizing they had a problem with at least one detective who made up his mind.

There are cases of cops that were charged with civil rights violations and fabricating evidence....question in my mind is, is it fabricating evidence, if they have a report that backs up what they believe?

I wonder if Mary Keenan is planning on taking any action against the BPD for this kind of behavior?

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/22ramsey.html
----------------------------------------
Ramsey call for probe gets little response

By Christopher Anderson
Camera Staff Writer

A charge by attorneys for John and Patsy Ramsey that the investigation of JonBen騁 Ramsey's murder should itself be investigated appeared Friday to have little official impact.

Boulder police and the Boulder County District Attorney's office said they will not investigate the leak of a transcript from an audio-enhanced 911 tape. The tape reportedly reveals that on the morning JonBen騁's body was found, her 10-year-old brother, Burke, was awake an hour earlier than the Ramseys told investigators.

Jim Carpenter, Gov. Roy Romer Romer's spokesman, said Friday that the governor had not heard the Ramseys' request, which was sent to media. Carpenter also said the governor has rejected former Ramsey friend Fleet White's call for a special prosecutor in the unsolved case.

In a harsh statement Thursday, Ramseys' attorneys said they had not seen a transcript of the tape, and they requested that a grand jury "investigate and indict those public officials, past and present, who have leaked every critical item of evidence in this investigation."

"The public officials who have responsibility for stopping these outrages have done nothing," the attorneys said.

Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner said Friday he is confident that the source of the leak was not in his department and that it could have come from multiple sources.

He also said the Ramsey attorneys' angry letter and other criticism of the police department have lost their impact.

"This has been going on for so long that we hardly pay attention to it anymore," Beckner said.

Wesson also said it appears the Ramsey lawyers are taking a cue from independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr's investigation of President Clinton, in which officials have attempted to use politics to turn the public against the prosecutor. "It's just an interesting strategy to get people to start talking about leaks ... and misconduct," Wesson said
____________

Interesting how this law professor (and the article itself) has turned it around from the Ramsey attorneys requesting accountability for these leaks that make the Ramseys look like liars to the leaks working in favor of or being a strategy of the Ramsey attorneys. Looks to me like a case of blaming the victim.

I'd still like to know if Aerospace ever provided any kind of report on this attempted enhancement.

I've never really thought there was true corruption going on in Boulder. I'm wondering now if I was wrong.

There's no doubt in my mind nor has there ever been, the BPD was definitely corrupt.

The Ramsey's rights were violated from day one. They were NEVER afforded the presumption of innocence. Instead they were targeted without any evidence.

So the BPD made up some ridiculous stories, including the PINEAPPLE, imo, to try and make them appear guilty in the minds of the media and the public.

I hope Mary Keenan does the right thing...they should not be allowed to get away it. There should be an example set so this ever happens to another victim of a crime.

I think it could be argued their civil rights were violated in other ways. Because of the way the BPD leaked information the Ramseys were vilified publicly. They have, in a sense, been found guilty by the media and the public without a fair trial.

In a courtroom the evidence against them must be examined by both sides. But the BPD has superceded the justice process by releasing information of an inflammatory nature and then refusing to share it with the Ramseys so they might verify it's accuracy in a public forum.

The term 'cocktail party effect' is also used to refer to the selective attention and the ability of a listener to discern a 'signal' when more 'noise' is added. It can be approached from a neurocognitive viewpoint which deals mainly with contempuous complacency: a listener will sit there bored stiff if all he is going to have is hours of silence punctuated by moments of actual signal. To maintain selective attention, add some noise.
A listener can be bombarded with sounds from many speakers but can selectively pay attention to one particular speaker even though all messages are intelligent and of similar form and content often due to the presence of background noise and social cues. This is one reason why trying to develop a neural network that will isolate one speaker in a crowded room does not seem to get anywhere, yet a human can do it intuitively.

Thanks. I've not heard of that use of the term before, but I've not read much on psycho-acoustics, focusing on physical acoustics instead. My reading on psycho-acoustics is arguably also physical acoustics: mainly head-related transfer functions (HRTF's) and similar localization topics rather than discrimination. You wouldn't happen to have HRTF experience, would you? If so, please email me. I haven't had much luck.

Perhaps some may be interested in what a noise-reduced version sounds like. Attached is the "We're not speaking to you" supposed section of the 911 tape.

I won't put all the technical jargon here but let's see what you can hear.

I suggest you try to hear "Red, White and Blue" as well as "We're not speaking to you." I maintain that if you can hear one phrase, you can hear the other.

Try to IGNORE the burbling sound; this is what the noise has been reduced to. Try to listen to the other sound that is left.

I agree with Jams in principle. If you don't like, "Red, White, and Blue," try "You're a spinach."

Oh, and Jayelles, if you are listening in, be sure to tel WS I'm serious about this one.

I don't kid about aliens.

oh that's so sad! Why did the public never get to hear that? I feel so bad that I listened to the media and used to think they were guilty, that was genuine panic in her voice. I can't believe what they've been through, and now with her cancer being back. Too sad!!

Don't mind me, I can't explain how a simple transistor radio works! I appreciate you & Don taking the time to so throughly answer some of my questions.

If this was an "inside job" I also wondered if someone attempted to use the "call forwarding" feature to monitor calls going into the Ramsey home on Dec.26 in order to intercept the calls, and listen to the conversation from another location.

I've never thought it was a sophisticated "spy" network, but possibly a "wanna be" police officer with a criminal bent and taste for espionage. I know they have "spy" shops & stuff in shopping malls in large cities like Miami.

As I recall, when my children were teenagers we had a phone feature in which there was a certain ring pattern when "their" friends called, versus a general call. I wondered if calls forwarded to another phone might also cause a unique ring pattern which could alert the "kidnapper" even if he couldn't listen in on the conversation.

I've never believed Burke's voice was on the tape, and believe the Ramseys are innocent.

PS Another thing that intrigues me is how Slapfish came up with that hat! I smile & wonder everytime I see it. :) Obviously, I'm easily intrigued! Slapfish, are you the child of aliens?

I don't know anything at all about call forwarding except that it costs more than I'd want to pay for it.

With electronic eavesdropping, there wouldn't necessarily be any kind of detectable signal at all. In my days of youthful indiscretion, it seems that I recall taking an ordinary dial phone and hooking it up to a panel of connections in a service closet. That's pretty simple, isn't it? Unless one heard the crunchy sounds resulting from aligator clips grabbing the electrical posts and sparking just a bit, no one would have heard anything.

We weren't eavesdropping; we were just ordering pizza on a WATS line. And this is so long ago that I'm sure the statutes of limitation for those various "crimes," if you want to call them that, have long past. On the other hand maybe I just dreamt all this or saw someone else doing it. You know, I think it may have been Don.

"On the other hand maybe I just dreamt all this or saw someone else doing it. You know, I think it may have been Don."

:) Now, that you've mentioned it, I think it probably WAS Donnie. He most likely burned the spaghetti again & needed pizza.

Don, do you have call forwarding? And where were you the night Dave ate your pizza?

SO -- IMO any conclusions anyone might want to draw regarding Burke's presence or absence would have to be premature. We never actually heard that part, all we heard was Katie Couric.

Not that I have EVER bought into the theory that anything of importance is actually recorded on that tape anyhow. People have a way of hearing what they want to hear. If you listen carefully you can even hear a ticking clock "talking" to you. Nevertheless I'm really curious to actually hear the WHOLE tape, with everything on it, as well as the enhanced version the BPD used. We haven't yet heard either as far as I can tell.

Now as for analyzing a line in order to determine if there is an interception device thats real tough. Alot of interception does not involve physical intrusion or actual connection to the line, mere proximity is enough. Now if you know where 'the pairs' are located and have access to the box a direct connection is going to give you great quality, but you would have to be able to detache your equipment fast and make tracks real fast. And at 5:52am 'making tracks real fast' might bring you to the attention of a car going the other way with its lights flashing. Installing something such as a 'harmonica bug' which shunts the 'off hook' signal into oblivion would have worked. That way the phone could be monitored as could all room conversation because the phone would have been electronically 'off hook' while it had been physically replaced properly in its cradle. But that means he would have had to have prior access to the home and that the bug would have still been there.

True, this does not take super sophistication electronically. Just as "script kiddies" exist for hacking the equivalent exists for telephone tappers. Anyone can wander into these 'spy shops' and 'telephone stores' that sell bugging books but its all a joke and no self respecting tapper would be caught dead using that equipment.

I really can't see anyone investing time, money and effort into tapping a telephone when all he was after was some thrills in the basement. Now if it had been a real kidnapping with a real ransom for a sensible amount of money, I might consider the phone being tapped.

As to the 'final moments of the tape' I admit that, as usual, those TV talking heads opened their yaps at the wrong time, but the tape on LKL clearly showed silence except for the 911 operator's keyboard with its clacking keys. No voices, No words, No Nuttin'.

Katie:...where JonBenet's body was discovered, 8 hours later.
P(Patsy): Police!(breathing heavily)
D: Whats going o..
P: I'm at _(unintelligible) 55 15th Street
D: What's going on there ma'am?
P: We have a kidnapping. Hurry...please!
D: Explain to me what's going on, okay?
P: There...we have a ...There's a note left and our daughter is gone.
D: A note was left and your daughter is gone? How old is your daughter
P: She's six years old. She's blonde (edit). Six years old.
(pause, scratching sound)
D: How long ago was this?
P: I don't know I just found the note. Oh my God!
D: Does it say who took her?
P: What?
D: Does it say who kidn_her?(short skip in tape?)
P: I don't know. It's a ...There's a ransom note here.
D: It's a ransom note?
P: It says SBTC...Victory. (4 breaths)
pause a few seconds
D: _?(unintelligible, end of word)
P: Please!
D: Okay what's your name. Are you Ka...
P: Patsy Ramsey, I'm the mother. Oh my God! Please!
D: Okay, I'm sending an officer over, okay? Do you know how long she has been gone?(edit)
P: Please!
P: Do you know how long she has been gone?
P: No I don't. Please, we just got up and she's not here. Oh my God, please! Please send somebody? Please
D: I am honey. Take a deep breath and I'm...
P: Hurry, hurry, hurry!
D: Patsy, Patsy, Patsy, Patsy
Katie: Just what happened after Patsy...

I'm not sure what you are listening to. Is it from the web site? Is is the MP3 file Jams posted?

The pause may be you're connection catching up, assuming that you are doing this online. You should try downloading the whole thing, then playing it. There isn't any pause in the tape. The whole tape is about 1:14 or so.

MP3 files compress audio. In order to do this, they cut up the audio into sections. If one of the cuts occurs in the middle of a word, it can be unintelligible. This may be the reason why it's hard to understand. MP3 files are a compromise between size and quality. WAV files are a little too big for storing on the Internet, so you won't often see them. If it were easily done, I would have provided the original 20 MByte file, but that's just too big.

I agree with Don that we almost certainly heard the whole tape on LKL, just as they advertised it would be, uninterrupted.

For the most part, I disagree with DocG's characterization of Katie having talked over the alleged conversation. If one wants to say that she started talking over ONE of the alleged statements at the end of this conversation --- well, as long as she started talking at any time before the end of the tape, this argument could always be made. It is quite clear that Katie did NOT talk over the the "We're not speaking to you" part of the supposed conversation.

Concluding that Burke was not there isn't premature; it's post-mature. There isn't one iota of evidence that he was present and speaking after the call was made. We can conclude that Burke was not present from John's statements, from Patsy's statements, and from Burke's statements. To some extent, we can also conclude it from the tape. Claims were made that the tape shows Burke's presence. This puts the Ramseys' statements at risk. Furthre analysis shows the claims to be false. This failure supports the Ramseys' statements because it is consistent with their statements. Their statements passed a critical challenge (with flying colors).

During the search for Xiana Fairchild I got involved with a psychic in South Dakota who suggested I use EVP to try to find the location of her body. We had found a possible site but it was a large area and so to narrow it down we needed to use various techniques like EVP and dowsing. Believe it or not, nothing worked.

Here's some EVP sites.
http://theshadowlands.net/ghostwav.htm

EVP is a way to communicate with spirits. Researchers believe that the voices of the dead can be recorded and played back on magnetic audio tape. It is the most modern way to communicate with the spirit world. Some skeptics believe that they are not voices of the dead but radio or CB transmissions.

It has been said that Thomas Edison was working on an EVP device. However the credit for discovering EVP goes to Fredrich Jurgenson when he was recording bird sonds in the Sweedish countryside and on play back he distinctly heard the voice of a man discussing nocturnal bird songs in Norwegian. He had heard nothing during the recording but many voices on playback, some giving him instructions on how to record more voices. EVPs are also called Raudive Voices after Konstantine Raudive who recorded 100,000 voices. He published "The Inaudible Made Audible". EVP research is done all over the world but most heavily in the United States and Germany. The Association for Voice Taping Research was founded in the 1970's in Germany, and American Association - Electronic Voice Phenomenon in 1982. Conferences are conducted world wide by engineers and electronics experts who devise special sophisticated equipment to record EVPs.

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/3799/sg-sounds.html

http://photos2.ghostweb.com/evp.html
The International Ghost Hunters Society has been a pioneer and leader in the EVP development for the ghost hunting community since 1996. Today, many ghost clubs include EVP on their web sites. Electronic Voice Phenomena is a process whereby the voice or voices of the dead are embedded onto magnetic recording tape by a process that we do not understand.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/dirvoic3.html
All through history there have been reports of voices and sounds manifesting at a distance from the person(s) who heard them. St.Paul on his way to Damascus was taken aback when he heard a voice saying "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?...And the men that journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no man."(Acts 9:4-7).
But also under less dramatic circumstances voices were heard, often in the vicinity of children - the so-called poltergeistphenomena.

How desperate and ignoraant were these cops that they would take a 911 tape and try to turn it into something it was NOT.

They couldn't think of anything better to try and frame this family? That's what it boils down too. They weren't looking for evidence BUT instead, ways to FRAME them. :(

I just listened to it from the url for the first time as I had saved it to my hard drive and it sounded fine both ways. There is no gap.

Dave, thanks I downloaded it and the 45 second gap went away. I was under the impression that the NBC tape (URL at top of this thread) had Katie Couric's voice over the portion which was thought to have Burke's "What did you find" and John's response, "We're not talking to you". Since there was not enough time on that URL after the four "patsys" for that to occur, I presume that URL is useless in reviewing the possibility of that exchange. So I would prefer to hear the end of the tape which supposedly is not obliterated by Katie Couric or anyone else, and supposedly has several seconds of noise which was enhanced to suggest the exchange.

Does anyone follow what I am saying? How can that be possible, (the Burke-John exchange) unless there is time on the tape for it to occur. That would take at least three seconds, possibly four or even more. There is a noise like typing or possibly from the mechanics of the recorder itself, on that portion. But there is nothing that I would call a voice exchange.

So my presumption is that either there is no such voices or, if there is, it must have been after the end of that URL.

Eve2, you are right about the "blonde", where I thought it was "gone". So I edited my post above.

Here's a question: After the hangup, how much time do you think would have elapsed for the "conversation" to have begun? We hear several seconds of what sounds like keyboard clicking. So, how much longer do you think the dispatch tape ran, recording the Ramsey "call" post-hangup? Would it be a couple of seconds? Several seconds? (Why would a 911 tape recording continue to record AFTER the call was terminated?)

It seems that the tape goes silent about 5 seconds following the hangup and THEN Larry King speaks.

Would the dispatcher's tape run longer than that following a hangup? I think the silence signifies the END of the dispatcher's tape recording.

I don't think there is any voice exchange on the tape we have so far (edit: after the four "Patsy's"). There is "recorder noise".

edit: I think the enhancement was simply trying to make a voice exchange out of that noise and it is, therefore, false, or trying to make something out of nothing.

I have a medium quality set of headphones. If there is something there that I can't hear, then it must be very faint.

In my opinion, there is no doubt that typing is audible on the recording.

The "We're not speaking to you" alleged conversation begins immediately after the dispatcher's last "Patsy?" You can hear this using studio-quality headphones and a high-fidelity recording --- but you cannot really hear what was claimed because it's not distinguishable from "You're a spinach," Jams' "Red, White, and Blue," or what I heard once, "God's many beleaguered." In the past four and a half years, I have worked with audio quite a bit. I immediately heard what BPD was wondering about as soon as it was played by NBC, but I don't believe that there is really any converation there, certainly not what they said was there. If you don't have a high-fidelity recording, studio-quality headphones, and audio enhancement software, nor audio experience, you may have a REALLY hard time figuring out what the heck they are talking about. You'll only hear a click, then several Patsy's followed by what appears to be silence, then typing. But there is a lot more there to hear if you have the right equipment and experience, it's just that none of the alleged conversation is intelligible even WITH good equipment and experience.

At least two-thirds of the alleged conversation should be on that MP3 file, and should be on the NBC recording. Any part that is missing from the NBC recording should be on the LKL "end" recording. Jams posted what I recorded at the end of the LKL recording, and there still is no distinguishable conversation. If you obtained the "official" copy, you will probably be disappointed. I don't believe it's going to be any more useful than what you already have with the NBC recording and the LKL end of the tape except it will not be an MP3 compression so Patsy's words may be slightly more comprehensible. It also won't be enhanced (neither dynamically compressed nor made into a binaural recording) so some parts of it will be harder to hear.

If anyone does obtain this in the near future, it might be helpful to have posted the last few seconds to compare with what is already posted. I don't expect any difference.

Here's another idea. Compare the ghost sounds on this site to the sounds we are talking about:
http://theshadowlands.net/ghostwav.htm

They definitely seem like voices to me. Yet the 911 recording does not. See what you think.

Oh, Whew! Thanks, Dave. I really thought I was waaaayyy out there somewhere in dum-dum land (with an acute hearing problem). I am so glad you cleared that up (seriously).

The NBC version of the 911 tape is a joke. Katie Couric, as I suspected (Jameson did too, by the way, if you read her first post again), chimed right in with her pointless comment JUST at the crucial moment we were all waiting for. She just obliterated it -- clearly she is totally clueless as to what that tape is all about.

So WHY all this crowing on and on about how this somehow proves something about the investigation? As in some sort of conspiracy on the part of the BPD (also apparently the CBI, FBI, Secret Service, who else?). The important part of the tape wasn't heard at all on the Couric show. NO conclusions should have been drawn at that point. Everyone should just have been scratching their heads.

NOW, finally, thanks to the repeat performance for Larry King, who, thank God, DID wait long enough before chiming in with HIS two cents, we have a recording that DOES make sense. I.e., it does reveal a portion of "dead time" at the end of the tape where there might possibly have been some sort of conversation of the sort that was reported by Steve Thomas. And thanks, Dave, for your intelligent and reasonable comments on the technical aspects. I too doubt very much that we can hear anyone at the Ramsey household on that tape. And even if we could, I feel sure that what was actually said and by whom would be virtually impossible to detect with any degree of consensus.

Nevertheless, we must remember that Thomas himself claimed that enhancements made by the FBI and Secret Service (???) yielded no useful result. It was only the Aerospace enhancement that was (allegedly) intelligible at all. And THAT has never been made public. So WHAT point has been made, exactly, by Lin Wood, in releasing this recording?

I doubt any enhancement of the tape will ever be conclusive enough to serve as evidence. But that certainly does NOT mean the police, Steve Thomas, or anyone else was engaged in some sort of conspiracy -- that's ridiculous. If they thought they heard something at the end of that tape they had a duty to work as hard as they could to enhance it as well as humanly possible. They did that. And then they heard something they thought was meaningful. How is that a conspiracy against the RAmseys? Because they heard what they wanted to hear? Hey YOU folks heard what YOU wanted to hear in a playback of that tape which made no sense at all (thanks to Katie). Loosen up, folks, there was no conspiracy. Lots of mistakes were made for sure. And for sure lots of people are seeing and hearing ONLY what they want to see and hear. Just about everyone commenting on this case, sadly. What a shame.

>The NBC version of the 911 tape is a joke. Katie Couric, as
>I suspected (Jameson did too, by the way, if you read her
>first post again), chimed right in with her pointless
>comment JUST at the crucial moment we were all waiting for.
>She just obliterated it -- clearly she is totally clueless
>as to what that tape is all about.

As I recall, Katie "chimed in" about 5 seconds after Patsy hung up. Katie also was quite aware of what the specialists had (not) found on the tape. I think that is an unfair assessment of what Katie was working with (she already knew there was nothing for us to hear) and longer silence (while the show was broadcasting) would have been pointless.
>
>So WHY all this crowing on and on about how this somehow
>proves something about the investigation? As in some sort
>of conspiracy on the part of the BPD (also apparently the
>CBI, FBI, Secret Service, who else?). The important part
>of the tape wasn't heard at all on the Couric show. NO
>conclusions should have been drawn at that point. Everyone
>should just have been scratching their heads.

I believe that is what many of us were in fact doing (scratching our heads).

I know for a fact that over the past two days I have posted (several times) something wasn't right about the whole deal (and I don't think I felt I was alone on that score). Can you answer them for me? What made the BPD go to an enhancement in the first place; was it the first electronic 'erp' sound or the second electronic 'erp' sound? Explain this whole fiasco, if you will. What started the BPD on this track?

(BTW, IMO, mistakes are one thing false stories are quite another.)

No, DocG, ST did NOT say the FBI and Secret Service obntained no useful result. Read his own words in his deposition:

195

1 A. I'm not sure that the first two
2 agencies ever heard anything because I'm not
3 sure they ever listened to the tape. I'm
4 just --
5 Q. Did you not bother to ask the
6 FBI, I mean, you -- please, Mr. Thomas?
7 MR. DIAMOND: Two questions.
8 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) Did you ever
9 bother to call the FBI and say, gentlemen,
10 what did you find about the 911 tape?
11 A. I'm sure Detective Hickman, whose
12 assignment this was, may have done that.
13 Q. Well, what, did you ask Hickman
14 what did the FBI say? You know, we've spent
15 a lot of time with the FBI, Tom, what did
16 they say? Did you ask him?
17 MR. DIAMOND: Did he ask him
18 what?
19 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) What the FBI had
20 to say about the 911 tape?
21 A. Again, as I've said it's my
22 understanding, Mr. Wood, that I don't know
23 whether or not the FBI or Secret Service even
24 tested the tape. The first testing that was
25 done on it, to my knowledge, was through the
196
1 Aerospace Corporation.
2 Q. And did you -- have you ever
3 tried at any time as you sit here today to
4 make any efforts to find out about whether
5 the FBI or the Secret Service even tested the
6 tape and if so, what their results were?
7 A. I don't know that.
8 Q. Have you made any efforts is my
9 question?
10 A. No.
11 Q. As we sit here today, you've never
12 made any effort to find that out --
13 A. No.
14 Q. -- right? Am I right? Sometimes
15 the no comes out differently. The question
16 is you've never made any such efforts to find
17 out about the FBI or the Secret Service
18 testing of the tape?
19 A. I have not made calls or efforts
20 trying to determine that to the FBI or Secret
21 Service.
22 Q. As we sit here today you have not
23 done that?
24 A. That's right.

Doc, you ask what the tape proves. It proves there was no conversation, it proves the Ramseys DID NOT lie about any conversation, and it proves Steve Thomas lied in his book about the alleged conversation. And, it proves that the unnamed inside sources who spun this "enhanced tape" business to the media were conducting a public campaign to discredit the Ramseys by making them out to be liars.

Mary Keenan released a copy taken from the original 911 call tape and that was given to NBC via Lin Wood. Their experts found no evidence of a third voice or any conversation after the hangup. Keenan's office released the same tape to the public which is consistent with the tape used by NBC. There is no logical reason to doubt the validity of the testing done by NBC or the authenticity of the tape distributed by Mary Keenan to Lin Wood and the public. The reason you don't hear any of the conversation as alleged by 'unnamed sources' and ST is simple - it was never there. It's a fabrication intended to unfairly portray the Ramseys as liars.

The tape does not prove they didn't kill JonBenet, but it does prove how low the BPD would go to smear them.

DocG, to me it shows that Patsy Ramsey was a frantic mother reporting the disappearance of her daughter.

All the inuendos and claims that she faked her demeanor during the call are dispelled by releasing the recording. Patsy was so obviously distraught, upset, anguished-- that by no stretch of the imagination can anyone even remotely claim that she was faking it.

Also, by releasing the tape of the interrogation, Lin Wood showed that Patsy never waivered in her replies nor in her defense of John.

I think releasing these tapes swung over many who had been blinded by the BPD's campaign to convict Patsy and John, swung them over to the side of justice and truth. And, in the process, opened the eyes of many to show just how far the BPD would go in their attempt to bring down the parents of this murdered child.

What's funny is, the first time I listened to it, I was looking for "We're not talking to you", and heard something that could have been it. Then I listened to the CNN file. But, after returning to the original file, I no longer heard anything like "we're not talking to you". I heard "nice pig shadow" that time.

One thing that I noticed, though, is that Patsy had OBVIOUSLY been running throughout the house -- up and down stairs -- because she was not just upset, but she was somewhat winded.

I would think that if they had planned the whole thing (coverup, or whatever, which is crazy) then she wouldn't have been running around before making the call.