You know, I'm going to say something that some may not know, or some may and just wish I'd shut up about it--that would be old-timers who have been through this mess for 15 years. But this is fact, and it's my fact because this I saw and heard with my own eyes and ears, but I can't prove it. We've argued about this for years, so take it or leave it.
Before I ever came online to learn more and discuss this case in 2000--after reading Thomas' book and deciding I'd take the Internet plunge again, after my first expensive, failed attempt back in 1994, when they charged you by the minute: I got most of my news about this case from mainstream media. Mostly back than it was on the then highly respected local and national nightly news on the 3 major networks. Some newsprint and magazines wrote about the case, and cable news was actually better then, but if you weren't online, you didn't get the daily hubbub that was coming out in the Colorado news media--just FYI to set up the following.
In those days, no one I knew thought about or cared about the JB case. I never talked to anyone about it in my personal life--the true crime genre was my hobby, not theirs. So what I read in the print media or heard on TV, even the cable news, like Geraldo's nightly show, was just for my interest. I never dreamed of taping on my VHS machine, never thought to save stuff at all. In fact, I did not even read the tabloids about this case, though they screamed the headlines in the supermarket, of course--yes, I was too much a snob to be seen looking at or buying those. (However, I did discover that my father had a subscription for the NE and saved them like old people do, so when I'd go visit him, I would secretly read about the JB case and feel guilty the whole time. lol)
Oh, those were days of innocent intellectualism for me, I guess. I even stuck my nose up at Geraldo's disgracefully trashy daytime talk show. :blush: But I did watch the NIGHT TIME Geraldo show, where he discussed cases of the day, which had started with the OJ trial, of course.
All by way of setting up the circumstances that lead me to the following odd occurrence:
One night, before 2000 and before I ever dreamed I'd spend all these years on this case on the Internet, Geraldo played the enhanced 911 tape, or a copy he had received. The channel ran ads for about a day that he had the tape and was going to play it. It didn't seem that big a deal, in terms of playing 911 calls, truly. TV programs have played 911 calls for many years before that. I did know about the case and was following his show every night anyway, so I listened to it. He played the tape--the ENHANCED tape, which it actually took me a few more years to differentiate between the 911 call and the enhanced tape even after all this.
What I heard was this: muddled voices without any clear diction. Geraldo and his one guest who was there for commentary said they couldn't make out the words, either. The tape was played a few times, with the "words" on the screen, but what I took from it was the tone of the "other" voices. Clearly one was an older man, one was a higher pitched voice like a child's. The man's voice was harsh, and the child-like voice was pleading.
And that was it. This episode has gone down in the annals of forum history as a notoriously debated issue because the cable channel not only didn't air the "tape" segment in the rerun of the episode later that night, but it had a message at the beginning saying there was some issue with the segment--which I learned much later. It was so thoroughly wiped off the show, it did not even get included in the transcripts or tapes you could once look up and/or buy online of each show. Years later, after being called liars by so many people, some of us actually called the transcription company and tried to find any evidence whatsoever this segment was in fact played, but they had no reference to it at all.
I've actually held a grudge against Geraldo about this. lol
I'm not alone in having heard this, obviously. Many others online said they heard it, as well, but it was surprising to learn people questioned that it had been played on Geraldo's show and whether the "voices" were on the tape at all. The latter was even more surprising as Thomas wrote about it and neither Smit nor anyone who had access to the files early on ever denied it. No problem for Team Ramsey, though, who claimed otherwise.
So what happened to Geraldo's "scoop"? Another long term member of us usual suspects on the forums said she'd heard the tape played as well and was set up to record when the "rerun" was cycled again early in the morning, for later reference ON the forums. She was disappointed when the show rerun came on with the disclaimer I mentioned above.
This was no conspiracy among forum nutjobs: none of us knew each other personally or privately. The woman who saw the disclaimer is someone I don't know, never heard of before I came online, and have never been in contact with about this or any other issues. Many people said on the forums they had heard this "enhanced tape" as it also ran on a half-hour gossip mag show during that time period, a program which aired on a different channel and was owned by the same media company, obviously. One of those tabloid shows like Diane Diamond was on, etc.
So take it or leave it as you wish. I'm sure LE heard a better copy, as back in those days the "generation" was important, so I'll defer to their transcription because they all seem to have heard the same thing independently of each other, according to many sources, including Kolar now.
All I heard was a deep voice speaking harshly to the child-like, pleading voice. But I was listening to a TV transmission through TV speakers--not so good back in those days, either, compared to today.
So I bring all this up to point out that even though it may be somewhat agreed upon by LE as to what these speakers on the 911 tape were saying that night, I don't think it's 100% certain what was being said. Otherwise, why would they go to so much trouble to "independently" listen and write down what they had heard before being influenced by the interpretation of others? There could be something else there, something which could change the meaning altogether.
JMO