jameson's Links  Terms of Service  News  Chat  Forum Archives  Cord Photos  Email  

jameson's WebbSleuths

Subject: "Thomas depo 14 - 911 - part 2" Locked thread - Read only
 
  Previous Topic | Next Topic
Printer-friendly copy    
Conferences old depo and interview threads Topic #21
Reading Topic #21
jamesonadmin
Charter Member
14249 posts
Jun-02-03, 12:56 PM (EST)
Click to EMail jameson Click to send private message to jameson Click to add this user to your buddy list  
"Thomas depo 14 - 911 - part 2"
 
   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.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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.



  Printer-friendly page | Top

 
Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic
jamesonadmin
Charter Member
14249 posts
Jun-02-03, 12:58 PM (EST)
Click to EMail jameson Click to send private message to jameson Click to add this user to your buddy list  
1. "RE: Thomas depo 14 - 911 - part 2"
In response to message #0
 
   Now Lin has the tape and the legal right to let others hear it. He has already started to share it.

Barrie Hartman heard it and this is what he published yesterday:

"About the tape: Neither experts from the FBI nor the Secret Service could hear anything in the background, let alone Burke's voice. I have listened to the tape, and all I could hear was a very, very hysterical mother sobbing to a 911 dispatcher that her child had been kidnapped. I doubt that any fair-minded person would consider Patsy guilty after hearing the bone-chilling tape. Patsy's panicked cry for help is as real as it gets."


  Printer-friendly page | Top
VOR
unregistered user
Jun-02-03, 01:45 PM (EST)
 
2. "The important part!"
In response to message #1
 
   "the 911 operator who took that call thought there may have been something at the end of the conversation"


Looks like that kills the theory that the 3rd voice on the tape came from a used tape. The 911 operator would have been listening to the call in REAL TIME, not a recording.

Of course we knew all along the "used tape theory" was just spin. If the 3rd voice was from a previous recording, that anomaly would have occurred throughout the ENTIRE tape--not just in the few closing seconds of the Ramsey phone call.
Bleed-over from any previous recording(s) would have been blatantly obvious from Day-1.

Let's hope Lin Wood releases a HIGH quality copy of the 911 tape, and doesn't try to pull the wool over the public's eyes by sticking a deteriorated/old-generation piece of garbage out there. It sounds like that is exactly what Barrie Hartman was listening to--if he didn't notice the questionable sounds at the end of the tape that even the DA's people couldn't refute the existence of.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
jamesonadmin
Charter Member
14249 posts
Jun-02-03, 02:04 PM (EST)
Click to EMail jameson Click to send private message to jameson Click to add this user to your buddy list  
3. "ummmmm"
In response to message #2
 
   I don't believe you understand.

There was some question about whether the phone was hung up at the end of the 911 call. I have handled that phone myself and hung it up - - and immediately Erin Moriarty of 48 Hours pointed out that the phone was not properly in the cradle - - not hung up.

The thought is that the phone was not hung up and the recording picked up some incriminating conversation.

Patsy called other people after that 911 call - - so if she didn't hang it up correctly the first time, it wasn't off the hook for long - - but certainly long enough so that if something WAS said, it could be important.

So the world wants to know....

It is interesting that when Steve Thomas posted the transcript of the 911 call he didn't include that "near hang up" and conversation. Just wrote later about the different enhancements (more than one enhancement, more than one result.)

What still stands as an important issue is the fact that those 911 tapes are often reused and "enhancing" those tapes can bring up earlier recordings.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Jayelles
unregistered user
Jun-02-03, 02:09 PM (EST)
 
4. "My interpretation"
In response to message #2
 
   FWIW, is that there was rattling noises which you get if you don't get the receiver back on the cradle. On certain phones, there are two buttons that need to be pressed down in order for the phone to be hung up. If only one is pressed down, then the person on the other end can hear the clunking of the button, but effectively the line is still open. Other phones have one button, but it needs to be depressed for a second or two before it cuts the call off.

I understand from Thomas' description of the call that Patsy didn't get the receiver back on the cradle first go (understandable if she was shaking badly) and the operator would have heard the clunking noises and perhaps also the voices in the background. As the clunking noises were closest to the phone, they would be the loudest and would have fairly drowned the voices out. Anyone listing to a first generation copy of the tape would hear the clunking/rattling noise of the attempts to put the receiver on the cradle and nothing else.

By running the tape through a spectrograph forensic tape analysts can delete or obscure non-verbal content. What is left can then be amplified.

*****
Similar scenario
Earlier this year, the FBI enhanced a photograph for the British police working on the case of missing schoolgirl Milly Dowling. It was a CCTV image which was blinded by sunlight. In the original image there were some blurry images which could have been cars. Enhancement showed a figure beside a car, but anyone could look at the original image and say "thre is nothing there" and who could argue?

Allowing people to listen to the non-enhanced tape will prove nothing and speculation will continue.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
jamesonadmin
Charter Member
14249 posts
Jun-02-03, 02:14 PM (EST)
Click to EMail jameson Click to send private message to jameson Click to add this user to your buddy list  
5. "RE: My interpretation"
In response to message #4
 
   The phone was a wall phone - - not two buttons.

If there was just one enhanced version, this thread would be far different. But there were two enhancements done - - both came up with unique results. Kind of negates them both.

The original tape is the one that counts - - if the ramseys were talking, it will be on the tape - - it isn't like there was loud music playing or a lot of background noise - - it was 6 am and the house was quiet except for the Ramseys' voices.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
VOR
unregistered user
Jun-02-03, 06:13 PM (EST)
 
6. "RE: My interpretation"
In response to message #5
 
   >there were two enhancements done - -
>both came up with unique results. Kind of negates them
>both.


I completely disagree. The fact that BOTH enhancements came up with SOMETHING prove each other out. The enhancements may differ on what is being said, but does that REALLY matter? There is a third person talking--who was it?!

Maybe you missed my point from my previous post. The fact that the "911 operator" heard something is VERY important. He/she would have been listening in REAL TIME--no chance for the third voice to be a product of some prior recording.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Maggie May
unregistered user
Jun-02-03, 07:18 PM (EST)
 
7. "RE: vor"
In response to message #6
 
   You keep saying the 911 operator heard something. Do we know exactly WHAT the operator said she heard?


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Slapfish
unregistered user
Jun-02-03, 07:23 PM (EST)
 
9. "RE: vor"
In response to message #7
 
   >You keep saying the 911 operator heard something. Do we know
>exactly WHAT the operator said she heard?

Wondering the same thing Maggie. As I just posted, how could the 911 operator hear something but the tape not pick it up?


  Printer-friendly page | Top
VOR
unregistered user
Jun-03-03, 09:57 AM (EST)
 
20. "Maggie May"
In response to message #7
 
   >You keep saying the 911 operator heard something. Do we know
>exactly WHAT the operator said she heard?


I'm not saying it--I'm pointing out that Thomas said it. Read the depo, he implies that is what initially caused them to investigate the tape.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Slapfish
unregistered user
Jun-02-03, 07:22 PM (EST)
 
8. "RE: My interpretation"
In response to message #6
 
   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.


If the operator heard something unintelligible at the end of the conversation, wouldn't you be able to hear that on the tape? You might not be able to make out what was said without enhancement, but you would be able to hear something there. That "something" is what would promt an investigator to enhance the tape.

If nothing else is heard on the tape (without enhancement) how can an operator, without enhanced hearing, have heard something the tape did not pick up? I would like to see the notes on Wickmans interview with the 911 operator to see if this was actually said. It was probably another police lie to pressure the Ramseys.


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.

There was no banging or clicking that would obscure background conversation per ST's testimony. I think if there had been he would have recalled that the garbled conversation took place in the background as she attempted to hang up the phone and was obscured by those sounds.

When did this so called background conversation take place? There is no time at the end of the conversation for it to happen, unless it was over Patsys voice, but it has never been described that way. Also it would still be audible when listening to the recording that there was some kind of background conversation while Patsy was talking.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Margoo
Charter Member
Jun-02-03, 08:10 PM (EST)
Click to send private message to Margoo Click to add this user to your buddy list  
10. "RE: My interpretation"
In response to message #8
 
   "the 911 operator who took that call thought there may have been something at the end of the conversation"


Do 911 operators go to the trouble of digging up old tapes and listening to them? Or replay them upon completion of a call looking for distant noises and/or conversations?

In his book, Steve Thomas led us to believe he had first-hand knowledge of most if not all of the elements of the case. Throughout the depo, however, we see that whenever cornered, the 'facts' were attributed to someone else working the case and his certainty dissipated upon questioning.

Do you really believe Steve Thomas knows/knew any more about the 911 tape than he did about the other (not Patsy's) handwriting submissions?

I view Thomas's statements regarding this 911 tape with a high degree of skepticism. He earned my mistrust fair and square.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Maggie May
unregistered user
Jun-02-03, 08:17 PM (EST)
 
11. "RE: My interpretation"
In response to message #8
 
   I really have to wonder how the 911 operator hearing "something" gets to the point that it's Burke's voice on the tape. Good grief.

No matter what, the Ramseys already admitted over St. Patty's Day cookies with a reporter from a tabloid that Burke was apparently awake when they didn't think he was. Moving right along.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Jayelles
unregistered user
Jun-03-03, 03:06 AM (EST)
 
12. "jameson"
In response to message #11
 
   If you had read my post properly, you would have seen that I also referred to the other typ of phone which has one button - which needs to be pressed for a second or two before the call is cut off.

All phones have buttons of some sort to disconnect them. If the one-button phone isn't pressed long enough, the call remains open. unsuccessful attempts to replace the receiver will be heard loud and clear as a clunking sound by the person on the other end. This is what Thomas described in his deposition. He described the background voices as speaking simultaneously with this clunking sound.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Margoo
Charter Member
Jun-03-03, 04:11 AM (EST)
Click to send private message to Margoo Click to add this user to your buddy list  
13. "RE: jameson"
In response to message #12
 
   LAST EDITED ON Jun-03-03 AT 04:12 AM (EST)
 
"unsuccessful attempts to replace the receiver will be heard loud and clear as a clunking sound by the person on the other end. This is what Thomas described in his deposition. He described the background voices as speaking simultaneously with this clunking sound."

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.


Was there somewhere else in the depo that ST described this "clunking sound"?


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Jayelles
unregistered user
Jun-03-03, 05:39 AM (EST)
 
14. "Margoo"
In response to message #13
 
   >>Was there somewhere else in the depo that ST described this "clunking sound"?

No. If you care to refer back up this thread and read what I posted, you will see that I introduced the 'clunking' discussion as part of my interpretation'of what he meant when he was discussing the garbled part of the tape which causes controversy.

From the depo:-

23 understanding. I think the description of

24 garbled was meant to include the fact that as

25 this phone was apparently being attempted
227

1 placed back into the cradle, there was some

2 conversation that was not as clear as Patsy

3 Ramsey speaking directly into the phone, to

4 the 911 operator.


As you have also addressed the same point in your own post, :-

12 the line disconnecting but, no, not that I

13 recall today without listening to the tape of

14 the phone banging.


"clunking" is just my word for "banging". Previously, I had imagined that Patsy hadn't actually replaced the receiver at all and that the 'Burkes voice' was just very quiet or in the distance. I think now that I understand what he's talking about. Sometimes my kids pick up the phone at the same time as me and when they realise the call isn't for them, they put the phone down - sometimes clumsily and it's a distinctive clunking/rattling/banging noise as they try to get the receiver back in the cradle. It's impossible to continue the conversation clearly until the phone is put back properly. I now imagine the same kind of scenario with the 911 call.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
docG
unregistered user
Jun-03-03, 06:07 AM (EST)
 
15. "RE: Margoo"
In response to message #14
 
   Is Lin releasing the enhanced version or the original?


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Jayelles
unregistered user
Jun-03-03, 06:33 AM (EST)
 
16. "DocG"
In response to message #15
 
   I think he was only given a copy of the original. Whether or not he has it enhanced by his own experts will remain to be seen.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Maikai
unregistered user
Jun-03-03, 07:54 AM (EST)
 
17. "Re-used tapes?"
In response to message #16
 
   Are they erased first....or are calls simply recorded over them? It doesn't make sense that the Ramseys would lie about Burke being up---they could have just said he heard the commotion and came out of his room.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
AvidReader
unregistered user
Jun-03-03, 07:59 AM (EST)
 
18. "RE: Re-used tapes?"
In response to message #17
 
   Tapes record over the top of the old message.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
jamesonadmin
Charter Member
14249 posts
Jun-03-03, 09:43 AM (EST)
Click to EMail jameson Click to send private message to jameson Click to add this user to your buddy list  
19. "RE: Re-used tapes?"
In response to message #18
 
   If Burke had been up and in the room - - there would have been NO REASON to lie.

Furthermore, what parent would do that- - put the kid back in his room and tell him to lie and expect a 9 year old to keep that kind of secret - - just makes no sense.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Slapfish
unregistered user
Jun-03-03, 10:47 AM (EST)
 
21. "RE: Margoo"
In response to message #14
 
   >"clunking" is just my word for "banging". Previously, I had
>imagined that Patsy hadn't actually replaced the receiver at
>all and that the 'Burkes voice' was just very quiet or in
>the distance. I think now that I understand what he's
>talking about. Sometimes my kids pick up the phone at the
>same time as me and when they realise the call isn't for
>them, they put the phone down - sometimes clumsily and it's
>a distinctive clunking/rattling/banging noise as they try to
>get the receiver back in the cradle. It's impossible to
>continue the conversation clearly until the phone is put
>back properly. I now imagine the same kind of scenario with
>the 911 call.

You can imagine that scenario all you want, but according to ST there was no banging, clicking, tapping, clunking, thunking, clacking or rapping as the phone was being hung up.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
tipper
unregistered user
Jun-03-03, 11:06 AM (EST)
 
22. "RE: Margoo"
In response to message #21
 
   "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."

Without proper punctuation or a chance to listen to the audio this can either mean the phone did bang or it didn't.

For example:
"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 ...of the phone banging."

OR

"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... not that I recall ...without listening to the tape of the phone banging."

Within the context of the question I'd say it was the first interpretation.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Jayelles
unregistered user
Jun-03-03, 12:26 PM (EST)
 
23. "Banging Phones"
In response to message #22
 
   OK Slapfish, I have really tried to explain what I mean by clunking noises. Please remember that I am a 'foreigner' and try not to be unkind about any differences in my use of the English language!

I don't know how else to describe the noises that one hears when the person at the other end of the line is trying to hang a phone up.

Thomas quite clearly describes that Patsy "apparently had trouble hanging up the phone" (ST paperback p14).

Tell me Slapfish, how would it be apparent that someone had difficulty hanging up the phone if there weren't any clunking or RATTLING (is that a better word?) noises of the attempts to put the receiver in the cradle?

Tipper, the depositions are checked and signed by the deponents. I think the punctuation is pretty clear in this case. If there were no commas, then it might give your thoughts some credence, but I think you are stretching to support these claims that there were no 'phone being replaced with difficulty' noises at the end of the call.

I don't even understand why Slapfish & co need to deny that these noises are there. If she was hysterical, it seems perfectly reasonable to believe that her hands were shaking.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
jamesonadmin
Charter Member
14249 posts
Jun-03-03, 12:46 PM (EST)
Click to EMail jameson Click to send private message to jameson Click to add this user to your buddy list  
24. "RE: Banging Phones"
In response to message #23
 
   When I a at my computer, I use a wall phone that is mounter on the side of the computer desk. I always fumble when hanging it up and for sure there are plenty of noises at the other end of the line. Doesn't mean anything but that I fumble when I hang up.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Jayelles
unregistered user
Jun-03-03, 01:34 PM (EST)
 
25. "RE: Banging Phones"
In response to message #24
 
   This discussion is getting unreal.

Who said the noises meant anything other than Patsy fumbled/had difficulty with/had shaky hands ..... when she replaced the phone.

The noise of Patsy fumbling to hang up the phone is what may be drowing out the other voices on the tape - and why the voices cannot be heard without enhancement.

A whole ridiculous discussion has grown out of my (seemingly) inept description of the 'trying to hang up the phone' sound.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
tipper
unregistered user
Jun-03-03, 01:39 PM (EST)
 
26. "RE: Banging Phones"
In response to message #25
 
   I agree Jayelles - I started to respond to you saying I thought we were more or less in agreement re phone noises but then I got so tangled up in what I was trying to say and couldn't remember why it was being discussed to begin with so I gave up. The one absolute I WILL say though is we need to invent a new word for the clicking/clacking/thumping/banging/whatever noise the phone makes when its being hung up.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
jamesonadmin
Charter Member
14249 posts
Jun-03-03, 03:47 PM (EST)
Click to EMail jameson Click to send private message to jameson Click to add this user to your buddy list  
27. "Burke"
In response to message #26
 
   Burke pretended to be asleep - - he fooled his parents and a cop. No way he was in the kitchen talking. LE had the theory and they got to interview Burke about all that - - he told them he was pretending to be asleep at that time - - in his room.

The cops accepted that - - so should the posters.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Jayelles
unregistered user
Jun-03-03, 04:01 PM (EST)
 
28. "RE: Burke"
In response to message #27
 
   I will accept that he was in his room faking sleep if and only if his voice isn't on that tape. Until then, I shall keep my mind and my ears open.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Slapfish
unregistered user
Jun-03-03, 04:24 PM (EST)
 
29. "RE: Banging Phones"
In response to message #23
 
   >OK Slapfish, I have really tried to explain what I mean by
>clunking noises. Please remember that I am a 'foreigner'
>and try not to be unkind about any differences in my use of
>the English language!

I'm not making fun of your English and I understand exactly what you are saying.

>
>I don't know how else to describe the noises that one hears
>when the person at the other end of the line is trying to
>hang a phone up.

Clunking is fine. What I'm saying is there WAS no clunking. NONE.


>Thomas quite clearly describes that Patsy "apparently had
>trouble hanging up the phone" (ST paperback p14).

Yes, he says that, but then when asked further he said

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.

Banging, tapping, or ANYTHING of that nature. To that ST says NO.

If there were trouble hanging up the phone then the banging, tapping, clanging, clunking etc... would be audible to the unenhanced ear. No one has heard anything like that when listening to the tape.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Jayelles
unregistered user
Jun-04-03, 03:16 AM (EST)
 
30. "RE: Banging Phones"
In response to message #29
 
   Slapfish I am done with this discussion. We can agree to differ on why those who heard the tape thought that Patsy had some difficulty in replacing the receiver.

Q. Q1Can you hear any effort on the tape to try to hang the phone up, Q2a banging or a Q3tapping or Q4anything 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.


Which question was Thomas saying he didn't recall the answer to?

Q1 - Whether there was effort in replacing the receiver?
Q2 - Whether there was a banging noise?
Q3 - Whether there was a tapping noise?
Q4 - Whether there was any as yet unspecified noise?

Four questions and one reply. It isn't clear which point he is responding to and you are very welcome to ASS-U-ME you understand what is being answered here. The only thing that is clear is that Thomas referred to 'the tape of the phone banging'. So if you think he is saying that there is no phone banging on the tape of the phone banging, feel free.

I shall reserve judgement on the tape and what can and can't be heard - either on normal version or enhanced version - until I hear it for myself or an independednt expert witness comments.



  Printer-friendly page | Top
docG
unregistered user
Jun-04-03, 06:44 AM (EST)
 
31. "What's the point?"
In response to message #30
 
   What's the point of releasing the original and not the enhanced version? No one has ever claimed they could hear much of anything until listening to the enhanced version.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
jamesonadmin
Charter Member
14249 posts
Jun-04-03, 07:44 AM (EST)
Click to EMail jameson Click to send private message to jameson Click to add this user to your buddy list  
32. "RE: What's the point?"
In response to message #31
 
   2 enhanced versions that don't tell the same story - - and you want Team Ramsey to release them like they have some credibility?

Even the BPD wouldn't be THAT stupid!


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Slapfish
unregistered user
Jun-04-03, 05:41 PM (EST)
 
33. "RE: Banging Phones"
In response to message #30
 
  
>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.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree since you are unwilling for whatever reason to accept that when ST said No, that he meant No.

>Q. Q1Can you hear any effort on the tape to try to
>hang the phone up, Q2a banging or a Q3tapping
>or Q4anything of that nature?

Q2, Q3 and Q4 are NOT new or different questions. They are qualifyers. He was asking was there something on the tape that led ST to believe that Patsy had trouble hanging up the phone. What sounds might lead a person to believe that the person on the other end is having trouble hanging up the phone? Tapping, clacking, clicking, banging, clanging, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. How much more ALL inclusive can he be in the question.

ST's answer to this all inclusive question is NO.

Then ST says "without listening to the tape of the phone banging". What is he saying? He doesn't remember ANY banging but if he listened to the tape again and he heard banging, then he would say "yes" there was banging? So, since he admits that he doesn't recall hearing any sounds that would lead him to believe that Patsy was having trouble hanging up the phone, then why did he believe that was the case? What led him to that conclusion?

AND if there were no sounds at the end of the tape, what promted police to send the tape for enhancement?


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Margoo
Charter Member
Jun-04-03, 07:36 PM (EST)
Click to send private message to Margoo Click to add this user to your buddy list  
34. "RE: Banging Phones"
In response to message #33
 
   "the 911 operator who took that call thought there may have been something at the end of the conversation" (Steve Thomas)

Do 911 operators go to the trouble of digging up old tapes and listening to them? Or replay them upon completion of a call looking for distant noises and/or conversations?

I asked this question earlier. It is a serious question. I envision a 911 operator clocking in to work and getting on the switchboard/phones, taking calls, making dispatching calls for applicable assistance, ensuring tapes are rolling, and whatever else.

I do not envision at any point in his/her shift replaying old tapes.

In a case that ends in a suspicious death, I could envision the DA's office or Law Enforcement obtaining a copy of the 911 call/tape. I don't envision the "911 operator" playing detective and being the one to contact LE or the DA's office of the tape's contents.

Do you?


  Printer-friendly page | Top
why_nut
unregistered user
Jun-04-03, 07:52 PM (EST)
 
35. "Margoo"
In response to message #34
 
   Do 911 operators go to the trouble of digging up old tapes and listening to them? Or replay them upon completion of a call looking for distant noises and/or conversations?

I asked this question earlier. It is a serious question. I envision a 911 operator clocking in to work and getting on the switchboard/phones, taking calls, making dispatching calls for applicable assistance, ensuring tapes are rolling, and whatever else.

I do not envision at any point in his/her shift replaying old tapes.

It is possible.

http://www.nbc5.com/News/1464264/detail.html

In her response, Wright said the call came in on a cell phone, there was a bad connection, and it was hard to understand. The operator also says equipment problems created a delay.

But Wright claims there was a reason for the delay in the police response. In her response to the complaint against her, she said the call came in from a cell phone and she had to get the address first. As soon as she got the address, she said, the phone went dead. She also said the call was breaking up and she couldn't understand what White said, so she hit a feature that allows for a replay of the call.

In the report, Wright says, "The recording didn't come up. As a result, I had to search for the call."


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Margoo
Charter Member
Jun-04-03, 07:59 PM (EST)
Click to send private message to Margoo Click to add this user to your buddy list  
36. "RE: Margoo"
In response to message #35
 
   LAST EDITED ON Jun-04-03 AT 08:00 PM (EST)
 
I don't doubt it is Possible.

In this example, the operator (Wright) needed to know at that moment what the circumstances were and 'pressed the replay button'. In the Ramsey case, the call was very clear - address, reason for the call .... The replay button was not required in the Ramsey case. All was quite clear. Once the day was done - or the tape full (or whatever) - on Dec 26/96, there does not seem to have been any indication that the 911 operator would have replayed the tape. The timing of LE being informed of something "else" on the Ramsey 911 tape was not immediate. If I am not mistaken, it was about 3 months later (trip to Aerospace in early April I believe). What prompted this 'report' from the 911 operator? Or prompted the replay (presumably by the operator - at least according to Steve Thomas) months later?


  Printer-friendly page | Top
Slapfish
unregistered user
Jun-04-03, 09:51 PM (EST)
 
37. "RE: Margoo"
In response to message #36
 
   It also doesn't explain why she would hear something at the end of the tape that no one else could hear and it also negates the argument that she was talking about what she could hear in real time.


  Printer-friendly page | Top

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic