Report on 911 tape

[BlueCrab]

There's no cover up in the Ramsey case.

Here's some of what Hunter & Kane had to say about the conclusion of the grand jury and no indictment:

"I must report to you that I and my prosecution task [Mike Kane, Mitch Morrissey and Bruce Levin] force believe we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at the present time.''


"Theories are not what we take into courtrooms; evidence is what we take into courtrooms. It is fundamental to the justice system that we rely on evidence, even in cases where the entire American public is asking for justice.'' -Alex Hunter

Mike Kane:
"There was absolutely no dissent in any respect to the decision made in this case. . . . Without a doubt this case at this time isn't fileable" - Mike Kane

LP,

So, if kids killed JonBenet, just what would you expect Hunter and Kane to say? For instance, would they say:

"Well, the evidence is conclusive that children too young to prosecute murdered JonBenet. However, since Colorado law prohibits us from prosecuting them because of their ages and from saying who they were, you will just have to guess who they are."

Of course not. If children killed JonBenet, Hunter and Kane would say exactly what they did say.

JMO

 

[Watching you]

LP, I have a big problem with anyone saying what happened inside that grand jury. You don't know what happened, I don't know what happened. Yes, I believe there is reason to believe they may not have heard the enhanced tape, the reason being that prosecutors do not always present all their evidence at a GJ hearing. I do NOT know that they didn't present the 911 tape at the hearing, but I do NOT know that they did, either, and I can't just assume they did. You can assume it if you want, but that's just exactly what it would be - an assumption on your part.

"I must report to you that I and my prosecution task [Mike Kane, Mitch Morrissey and Bruce Levin] force believe we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated at the present time.''

Where in this quote does it say the GJ decided not to indict anyone? I don't have Hunter's entire speech in front of me, but if I remember right, he never said what the GJ decided. He said the GJ had finished its work and followed up with the above quote that "I and my prosecution task force believe..." I take issue with anyone who says the GJ didn't return an indictment. That's not what Hunter said. He said the GJ had finished its work. Period. Anyone can assume what he wants to assume, but again, it's only an assumption. I don't know what the GJ decided, and neither do you.

Bottom line - assumptions are not facts. Unless someone inside the GJ has spoken against the court order not to or one of the other officials talked, the public has not been given information as to the recommendations of the GJ or whether or not the enhanced 911 tape was presented.

Assumptions - there are far too many of them being presented as fact. It's like building a house on sand to build a theory based on assumptions.

 

[Britt]

That's not what Hunter said. He said the GJ had finished its work. Period. Anyone can assume what he wants to assume, but again, it's only an assumption. I don't know what the GJ decided, and neither do you.

Right, WY. The GJ was an "investigative tool" and Hunter possibly never intended for it to actually make a decision or indict a Ramsey or otherwise undermine Hunter's control of the Ramsey situation.

The only thing WE websleuthers know about the grand jurors' opinion is what Nehemiah reported: that her Ramsey-grand-juror acquaintance said the proceedings were "sickeningly political." That doesn't much sound like a contented, decision-making grand juror. That sounds like a frustrated grand juror.

 

[Watching you]

It's probably a good thing we don't know what went on in that grand jury, Britt. If it's anything like the rest of the case, sickeningly political is probably an understatement.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

WY, if you think someone was indicted, please share who it was and how it was kept secret.

Everything posted in this forum is "opinion only". It says so on the door to this forum, and we are required to have "opinion only" indicators on a signature for our posts. So don't be too worried if you think someone here "states" something happened or didn't happen because all posts are "strictly opinion only".

 

[Watching you]

WY, if you think someone was indicted, please share who it was and how it was kept secret.

Everything posted in this forum is "opinion only". It says so on the door to this forum, and we are required to have "opinion only" indicators on a signature for our posts. So don't be too worried if you think someone here "states" something happened or didn't happen because all posts are "strictly opinion only".

LP, where did I say someone was indicted? Is this the way you interpret everything? I have no idea what that grand jury did, and neither do you. That is exactly the point I am making. Hunter used the grand jury as an investigative tool. None of us knows if there even was a vote to indict or not to indict.

It's one thing to have an opinion; it's another to state your opinion as fact, as in "There's no cover up in the Ramsey case," and "The grand jury heard the 911 tape," and it's the killa's DNA. Those are statements of fact, not opinion. There is a big difference.

 

[Shylock]

Has anyone ever answered the question....were these recycled tapes?

Nobody with any real knowledge has ever stated either way. It would have been a good question to ask Thomas during one of his chat sessions.

If you're thinking the voices on the tape might be left over from a previous recording you can forget that idea. Bulk erasing does a perfect job. And besides, prior conversations, just like mechanical noises, would appear throughout the tape--not just in an area where a frantic mother would have thought she hung the phone up but didn't.

 

[Spade]

Within a few days of Keenan's release of the 911 tape/CD, I personally turned copies over to a Denver audio recovery expert. My goals were:

1. To recover the voices on the tape that occured after Patsy's attempt to hang up the phone.

2. To verify that the voices (pre/post-hangup attempt) were placed on the tape from the same location.

To accomplish #2, a robot was programmed to listen to the tape tens of thousands of times and commit to memory the background sounds on the pre/post-hangup attempt recording. Their conclusion was that the sounds came from the same location. (The Ramsey house) IMO This information conclusively debunks the allegation of LinWad that ST personally/the BPD "planted" the voices on the 911 tape.

There are many posts on this expert's opinion and a very revealing spectrograph of the call at FFJ. The firm that did the work has asked to remain anonymous.

 

[sissi]

Steve's book,page 334.
Of course anyone who found fault with Thomas is guilty of heresy as is anyone (regardless of impeccable credentials) who found the intruder theory more plausible.
IMO

 

[BlueCrab]

Within a few days of Keenan's release of the 911 tape/CD, I personally turned copies over to a Denver audio recovery expert. My goals were:

1. To recover the voices on the tape that occured after Patsy's attempt to hang up the phone.

2. To verify that the voices (pre/post-hangup attempt) were placed on the tape from the same location.

To accomplish #2, a robot was programmed to listen to the tape tens of thousands of times and commit to memory the background sounds on the pre/post-hangup attempt recording. Their conclusion was that the sounds came from the same location. (The Ramsey house) IMO This information conclusively debunks the allegation of LinWad that ST personally/the BPD "planted" the voices on the 911 tape.

There are many posts on this expert's opinion and a very revealing spectrograph of the call at FFJ. The firm that did the work has asked to remain anonymous.

Spade,

Thank you for getting your copy of the 911 tape examined by the audio expert using his robot system of anayzing background noises. Background noises not noticeable to most people, such as a refrigerator motor running or even a clock ticking, are essential to establish authentic continuity of the tape.

The 911 tape with Burke's voice on it, IMO, is the single-most important piece of evidence that proves the Ramseys were lying and covering up beginning from their very first contact with law enforcement. There was no legitimate reason for the Ramseys to lie about anything at 5:52 A.M. -- a time when JonBenet's life hung by a thread.

JMO

 

[sissi]

The Ramseys weren't lying.
Steve used a method in his book of deliberately not mentioning credentials and often going to a step lower using terms such as "brother in law" to negate the credentials of others who would otherwise be considered experts in their field. His deliberate use of "brother in law" was designed to make the reader discount the FACT that a qualified laboratory,maybe more so than the Denver based Aerospace ,had NOT found Burke's voice on that tape. I can't give a lesson in reading and how to sort through the flotsam and jetsam without angering those who choose to "believe" Steve's crap. I know this,and am sorry ,however,whenever a qualified scientific facility is used,or a qualified detective,or even a cop,and their answers don't match up with Steve,you can find his references to them are designed to negate their credentials.
Clearly,very clearly Burke's voice is not on that tape,and clearly the sending to the Lab in Los Alamos DID cast doubt on the Aerospace interpretation of Steve's.
He said. "THEY WOULD NOW BE ABLE TO POINT OUT TO A JURY THAT EVEN THE PREOSECUTOR'S OFFICE AND THE POLICE DID NOT AGREE ABOUT WHAT WAS ON THE TAPE"

WHY? BECAUSE it isn't there,and Steve's personal interpretation would not stand up in a court of law if the jury couldn't hear it,the DA couldn't hear it,Steve heard what he wanted within the rhythmic noise. Nothing more.
IMO

 

[Barbara]

The Ramseys weren't lying.

WHY? BECAUSE it isn't there,and Steve's personal interpretation would not stand up in a court of law if the jury couldn't hear it,the DA couldn't hear it,Steve heard what he wanted within the rhythmic noise. Nothing more.
IMO

What you seem to continually forget or ignore is that Steve did not "personally interpret" anything. Aerospace heard it, as did other detectives and LE personnel in Boulder. Steve did not initiate this "noise" on the tape. Whether or not Burke's voice is on it or not, Steve Thomas did not initiate this, nor was he alone in what was heard. No matter how many times or how often you spin this, this is not the working of Steve Thomas. He just wrote about the event; he didn't discover the voices. That was Aerospace.

 

[sissi]

Aerospace enhanced the tape,it was then up for interpretation.
IMO

 

[Spade]

Sissi- "His deliberate use of "brother in law" was designed to make the reader discount the FACT that a qualified laboratory,maybe more so than the Denver based Aerospace ,had NOT found Burke's voice on that tape."

Aerospace Corp is located in El Segundo, CA and provides high tech lab services to LE under a contract with the Justice Dept. In 1996, they received a multi-million dollar grant from the US Department of Justice to bring their facility to "state of the art".

IMO Bluecrab is absolutely right. The Ramsey's LIED to LE from the 1st contact.

 

[Barbara]

Aerospace enhanced the tape,it was then up for interpretation.
IMO

Stop to think WHY it was given for enhancement in the first place. It is because "something/someone" was heard. As far as being "then up for interpretation", there must be quite the conspiracy for so many people in LE, OTHER THAN THOMAS AND IN ADDITION TO THOMAS to have heard voices.

Wow, this conspiracy could put OJ's conspiracy to shame!

 

[Ivy]

Around the time the enhancement was done, Maxi remarked in a post that expecting to clearly hear the extra voices (John's and Burke's) on the unenhanced 911 tape and discern the words would be as ridiculous as expecting to see DNA in blood with the naked eye.

I thought it was a good analogy and hoped it would stifle RST criticism of the enhancement. I should have known better.

imo

 

[Barbara]

Around the time the enhancement was done, Maxi remarked in a post that expecting to clearly hear the extra voices (John's and Burke's) on the unenhanced 911 tape and discern the words would be as ridiculous as expecting to see DNA in blood with the naked eye.

I thought it was a good analogy and hoped it would stifle RST criticism of the enhancement. I should have known better.

imo

It is an excellent analogy, but one must realize that NOTHING stifles RST criticisms of anything that shows the Ramseys in a bad light.

 

[BlueCrab]

sissi,

There were no "interpretations" needed to understand what was on the original 911 tape after it was professionally enhanced. Numerous individuals in LE and elsewhere heard Burke's voice at the end of the tape. These are FACTS, not interpretations. Since a copy of the tape has since been given to the Ramseys, and the chain of custody broken, it's impossible to tell what has been deleted by Ramsey sympathyzers just by listening to the third and fourth generation copies. LE has the only credible copy of the tape. IT has Burke Ramsey's voice on it.

JMO

 

[Spade]

Recent book said this about the Ramsey 911 tape:

"The recording of the 911 tape contained information that was inconsistent with statements given to the police by the Ramsey's".

 

[Shylock]

His deliberate use of "brother in law" was designed to make the reader discount the FACT that a qualified laboratory,maybe more so than the Denver based Aerospace ,had NOT found Burke's voice on that tape.

Nice try sissi, but blaming Steve Thomas dosen't accomplish anything. The lab at Los Alamos DID find Burke's voice on the tape. The only difference was they thought he was saying the meaningless phrase "I shout at you".
You manage to forget that in your selective reading of Steve's account.

You also manage to forget that other people like Kane and Lee also said there was something on the tape.

And finally you totally ignore the fact that Keenan released a REDACTED version of the tape to the public. The tape contains a 4-second gap--right where Steve says Burke's voice is. If Burke wasn't on the tape there would be NO REASON for Keenan to be editing out sections of the audio.