Questions you'd like answers to...

[BoldBear]

Wavepad:
http://help.nchsoftware.com/help/en/wavepad/win/noisereduction.html

Audacity:
http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Noise_Reduction

I'm familiar with audacity, but haven't touched wavepad. I have a long list of tools at my disposal for sound editing. I just consider the canned noise reduction tools to be somewhat crude. Noise reduction in the hands of a professional can be a very labor intensive process.

 

[singularity]

The word "Jesus" is no where in the enhanced audio from the CBS special. Honestly, that's the easiest mistake to pick out.

My humble opinion would be to not post what you *think* you hear until you've studied the tape for at least a week and listened to it 1,000 times.

You aren't going to listen to this audio 10 times and know what was said.

Listen to it a thousand times and you'll start hearing Dom Deluise ordering a Big Mac extra sauce, hold the lettuce.

Sometimes I wonder if we all hear PR, JR, & BR saying incriminating things simply because we want confirmation that our hunches about them are correct.

Winner winner chicken dinner....

That caught my eye, too, while taking screen captures yesterday. For some reason the placement of the bottles of cleaning spray just seems odd to me. I wonder if there are other examples around the house.

There was a bottle in JAR's room as well.

sigh: Oh well, guess I just became one of those thousands of Ramsey case nutjobs who thinks they know something no one else has considered.)

.

Maybe so but you're still one of the best beer can collectors out there.... :laughing:

 

[kanzz]

Can someone post or point me to all interview statements from both John and Patsy describing the placing of the 911 call. E.g. where they were located, where the note was while the call was placed, who was where, how far the note was away from the caller, etc etc.

Thanks.

Disgusted - I don't know if there is any one site where all interview statements can be found, esp wrt the location of each individual when the 911 call was placed, the RN, etc. You could try acandyrose (is it just me, or is candy rose a bit difficult to search and navigate?) and pbworks as a starting place.

Needless to say, anything you read is going to be the R version. I have never believed that the RN was on the stairs.

 

[Disgusted]

Disgusted - I don't know if there is any one site where all interview statements can be found, esp wrt the location of each individual when the 911 call was placed, the RN, etc. You could try acandyrose (is it just me, or is candy rose a bit difficult to search and navigate?) and pbworks as a starting place.

Needless to say, anything you read is going to be the R version. I have never believed that the RN was on the stairs.

Nor do I. When the dispatcher asks if the note says who it is from, you can clearly hear paper shuffling or being moved/turned as the answer is provided. The answer appears to be being located and read at that time. You can also hear the phone being adjusted at that point, as if the caller is switching hands or moving the phone in some other way. It's certainly possible in theory that the paper sounds might be present in other spots on the call, or might be coming from the dispatch side, but are they? While I can't know which side of the call the sounds were on, one can deductively reason which end they might be more likely to have come from based on the conversation surrounding the sounds.

In my opinion.

 

[Miz Adventure]

The note would have been on the kitchen counter, where it was written, until one of the couple, (PR most likely) removed it to the wooden floor in the hallway, before the police arrived.

She had probably not long since written it because she was probably still wearing latex gloves when she made the 911 call (if the sounds of paper can be heard on the tape).

 

[kanzz]

Nor do I. When the dispatcher asks if the note says who it is from, you can clearly hear paper shuffling or being moved/turned as the answer is provided. The answer appears to be being located and read at that time. You can also hear the phone being adjusted at that point, as if the caller is switching hands or moving the phone in some other way. It's certainly possible in theory that the paper sounds might be present in other spots on the call, or might be coming from the dispatch side, but are they? While I can't know which side of the call the sounds were on, one can deductively reason which end they might be more likely to have come from based on the conversation surrounding the sounds.

In my opinion.

BBM

Or possibly - PR is purposefully shuffling of papers to make it sound as though she's looking for that answer? I doubt we'll ever know.

Why would PR need to look at the RN to see "who took her" when she knows full well what it says and that JB wasn't taken?

PR seemed a bit confused and irritated by the question, “Does it say who took her?”, imo. She knew nobody took JB. And - when she finally gave a response, it wasn't exactly the same thing as what the RN said. It's a subtle difference. Or is it a tell?
She says, "SBTC. Victory!" But the RN says, "Victory! SBTC"

911: “Does it say who took her?”

Patsy: “What?”

911: “Does it say who took her?”

Patsy: “No! I don’t know. There’s a, there’s a ransom note here.”

911: “It’s a ransom note?”

Patsy: “It say’s SBTC. Victory! Please!”​

 

[RDI]

BBM

Or possibly - PR is purposefully shuffling of papers to make it sound as though she's looking for that answer? I doubt we'll ever know.

Why would PR need to look at the RN to see "who took her" when she knows full well what it says and that JB wasn't taken?

PR seemed a bit confused and irritated by the question, “Does it say who took her?”, imo. She knew nobody took JB. And - when she finally gave a response, it wasn't exactly the same thing as what the RN said. It's a subtle difference. Or is it a tell?
She says, "SBTC. Victory!" But the RN says, "Victory! SBTC"

911: “Does it say who took her?”

Patsy: “What?”

911: “Does it say who took her?”

Patsy: “No! I don’t know. There’s a, there’s a ransom note here.”

911: “It’s a ransom note?”

Patsy: “It say’s SBTC. Victory! Please!”​

As I'm sure you're aware, Patsy maintained that she left the RN on the floor/stairs after reading it. Funny then that she could recite the SBTC initials without hesitation. Who can remember initials like that?

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

For anyone who hasn't read this, I found it very educational to compare Patsy's 911 call to this FBI study of 911 calls placed by innocent callers vs guilty callers using statement analysis.
https://leb.fbi.gov/2008-pdfs/leb-june-2008#page30
She hits the guilty marks in many places ("We have a kidnapping" in itself is a goldmine) but the bit kanzz posted above pointing out Patsy's confusion is a great example of the 'huh' factor.

When a 911 caller unexpectedly responds to a dispatcher’s relevant question with such comments as Huh? What? or Do what? it reveals a disconnect in the thought process known as the “huh factor.” These responses indicate that callers are caught completely off guard and are not tracking their own answers (unless, of course, excessive background noise prevented them from clearly hearing the dispatcher’s ques- tions). For example, a caller reported that his wife suffered a serious accident.

Dispatcher: 911. What is your emergency?
Guilty caller: I just came home, and my wife has fallen down the stairs. She’s hurt bad, and she’s not breathing!
Dispatcher: How many stairs did she fall down?
Guilty caller: Huh?

When the dispatcher asked a relevant question regarding the accident, the caller, who had assaulted and killed his wife, could not immediately answer because he had not tracked his own fabricated story. Had the victim actually fallen down stairs, the caller should have known whether she fell down a few stairs or a whole flight and would not have been confused by this unanticipated question. The “huh factor” was present in 12 percent of the homicide calls. All but one of these callers were guilty.

We see this with Patsy. Her internal script was not prepared for the question "does it say who took her?" so she goes, "What?" In all, Patsy ends up responding to that question in 4 different ways as she tries to decide what she should reveal. After stalling with "what?" she says no, which is a clear answer. Then she takes it back - she doesn't know. Stalling again, she reminds the operator it is a ransom note. Then she changes her answer again by providing the correct answer, albeit with the "Victory!" & SBTC switched as kanzz pointed out. Which to me indicates she's reciting from memory, not reading off a page. "Victory" is an afterthought here, but it would have been the first thing she read if she was looking right at it.

Throughout the call she's really trying to impress upon the operator that she has received a ransom note - she can't shut up about it. It's more like she's calling in to report the ransom note than her missing child. But she did not anticipate being asked about its contents because she didn't think any of the crap she made up was actually important. In her mind, the only relevance of the note is that it is a ransom note because she wants to emphasize that it is from a kidnapper - she's distancing the family from the note. But to the operator, the primary relevance of the note is any useful information it might contain, not whether it is asking for ransom or not. Patsy shares very little relevant info with the operator (a related indication of deception mentioned in the study) and hangs up before she can be pressed like this again.

 

[Tortoise]

For anyone who hasn't read this, I found it very educational to compare Patsy's 911 call to this FBI study of 911 calls placed by innocent callers vs guilty callers using statement analysis.
https://leb.fbi.gov/2008-pdfs/leb-june-2008#page30
She hits the guilty marks in many places ("We have a kidnapping" in itself is a goldmine) but the bit kanzz posted above pointing out Patsy's confusion is a great example of the 'huh' factor.



We see this with Patsy. Her internal script was not prepared for the question "does it say who took her?" so she goes, "What?" In all, Patsy ends up responding to that question in 4 different ways as she tries to decide what she should reveal. After stalling with "what?" she says no, which is a clear answer. Then she takes it back - she doesn't know. Stalling again, she reminds the operator it is a ransom note. Then she changes her answer again by providing the correct answer, albeit with the "Victory!" & SBTC switched as kanzz pointed out. Which to me indicates she's reciting from memory, not reading off a page. "Victory" is an afterthought here, but it would have been the first thing she read if she was looking right at it.

Throughout the call she's really trying to impress upon the operator that she has received a ransom note - she can't shut up about it. It's more like she's calling in to report the ransom note than her missing child. But she did not anticipate being asked about its contents because she didn't think any of the crap she made up was actually important. In her mind, the only relevance of the note is that it is a ransom note because she wants to emphasize that it is from a kidnapper - she's distancing the family from the note. But to the operator, the primary relevance of the note is any useful information it might contain, not whether it is asking for ransom or not. Patsy shares very little relevant info with the operator (a related indication of deception mentioned in the study) and hangs up before she can be pressed like this again.

Yep. It's the difference between someone calling for real help, who needs the right assistance first and foremost and is prepared to answer questions and offer whatever information may be needed to get that help, and someone who doesn't really need help and is calling in just as a necessity to get it done, while wanting to direct the show. The real help on offer is not actually desired, it is more an annoyance that she has to make this call and meanwhile gets interrupted by questions.

It's the same when the first officer arrives and John complains in many interviews about having to persuade police that they have a real problem and that JonBenet hasn't just run away. "For heavens sake she's 6 years old!" he repeats it so often I can hear his voice.

These are both signs that they had a script of how it would play out, and police procedures got in the way of their smooth presentation.

 

[AndHence]

According to their version of events, Patsy called 911 while John read the ransom note on the floor in his underwear. In the call, it sure feels as though Patsy is reading from the note but there is no way she would be able to see the note given where the call was placed and where John was hunched over it. Also curious is the complete lack of fingerprints from either of them on the ransom note. Their story is that the note was found on the staircase, picked up by Patsy, possibly handed to John, and then placed on the kitchen floor. No prints.

Patsy probably knew that if the ransom note was discovered to have been written in the house using items from the house, it would look even more suspicious if the only prints recovered were from members of the Ramsey family. What I don't understand here is why John offered up the pad the note was written on to investigators. It's possible he was clueless and just slowly piecing together what had taken place as the morning went on, but it is worth examining further.

 

[Disgusted]

BBM

Or possibly - PR is purposefully shuffling of papers to make it sound as though she's looking for that answer? I doubt we'll ever know.

Why would PR need to look at the RN to see "who took her" when she knows full well what it says and that JB wasn't taken?

My personal opinion on that would be that in the incredible stress, she had to look to remember the BS written on the paper. Could she have thought about it and come up with the answer eventually? Probably. Was it easier to just flip to page 3 and read it? Yes.

At the point of the 911 call I think Patsy was likely in shock, probably mid-nervous breakdown or some type of temporary psychosis brought on by the night's events. A person can only take so much and at the placement of the call, I believe she had completely broken. She was wailing "her remains" as the call was placed, but when she heard the operator, the shift in voice to "Police" is nothing short of dramatic. She pulled it together enough to present the call the best she could. Once that call was made, I bet she was completely spent.

IMHO.

 

[Disgusted]

For anyone who hasn't read this, I found it very educational to compare Patsy's 911 call to this FBI study of 911 calls placed by innocent callers vs guilty callers using statement analysis.
https://leb.fbi.gov/2008-pdfs/leb-june-2008#page30
She hits the guilty marks in many places ("We have a kidnapping" in itself is a goldmine) but the bit kanzz posted above pointing out Patsy's confusion is a great example of the 'huh' factor.



We see this with Patsy. Her internal script was not prepared for the question "does it say who took her?" so she goes, "What?" In all, Patsy ends up responding to that question in 4 different ways as she tries to decide what she should reveal. After stalling with "what?" she says no, which is a clear answer. Then she takes it back - she doesn't know. Stalling again, she reminds the operator it is a ransom note. Then she changes her answer again by providing the correct answer, albeit with the "Victory!" & SBTC switched as kanzz pointed out. Which to me indicates she's reciting from memory, not reading off a page. "Victory" is an afterthought here, but it would have been the first thing she read if she was looking right at it.

Throughout the call she's really trying to impress upon the operator that she has received a ransom note - she can't shut up about it. It's more like she's calling in to report the ransom note than her missing child. But she did not anticipate being asked about its contents because she didn't think any of the crap she made up was actually important. In her mind, the only relevance of the note is that it is a ransom note because she wants to emphasize that it is from a kidnapper - she's distancing the family from the note. But to the operator, the primary relevance of the note is any useful information it might contain, not whether it is asking for ransom or not. Patsy shares very little relevant info with the operator (a related indication of deception mentioned in the study) and hangs up before she can be pressed like this again.

Excellent observations, I would just like to add that I believe you have highlighted a critical point in the call. In addition to what you said, I believe she was at that moment also distracted by something happening in the house. Probably someone coming across her making the call, or trying to get her attention.

One other interesting tidbit:

At one point in the call she begins to refer to the note as a letter, stops mid word and changes to saying we have a note. Not sure if there is any significance there, or not. Either she didn't want to refer to it as a letter, or she wanted to get the point across that it was a ransom letter/note.

IMHO.

 

[Rott Mom]

I watch too many crime shows - as I'm sure we all do - it is very rare for the 911 caller to hang up before being told to by the operator - IMO. Something was going on in that house enough for PR to end the call herself.

 

[kanzz]

BBM

Or possibly - PR is purposefully shuffling of papers to make it sound as though she's looking for that answer? I doubt we'll ever know.

Why would PR need to look at the RN to see "who took her" when she knows full well what it says and that JB wasn't taken?

PR seemed a bit confused and irritated by the question, “Does it say who took her?”, imo. She knew nobody took JB. And - when she finally gave a response, it wasn't exactly the same thing as what the RN said. It's a subtle difference. Or is it a tell?
She says, "SBTC. Victory!" But the RN says, "Victory! SBTC"

911: “Does it say who took her?”
Patsy: “What?”
911: “Does it say who took her?”
Patsy: “No! I don’t know. There’s a, there’s a ransom note here.”
911: “It’s a ransom note?”
Patsy: “It say’s SBTC. Victory! Please!”​

My personal opinion on that would be that in the incredible stress, she had to look to remember the BS written on the paper. Could she have thought about it and come up with the answer eventually? Probably. Was it easier to just flip to page 3 and read it? Yes.

At the point of the 911 call I think Patsy was likely in shock, probably mid-nervous breakdown or some type of temporary psychosis brought on by the night's events. A person can only take so much and at the placement of the call, I believe she had completely broken. She was wailing "her remains" as the call was placed, but when she heard the operator, the shift in voice to "Police" is nothing short of dramatic. She pulled it together enough to present the call the best she could. Once that call was made, I bet she was completely spent.

IMHO.

BBM
To the bolded - this is your opinion, but not what I hear so far.. not what is a fact as of yet, though it does not point away from PR's guilt in the cover-up in this crime.

Since you snipped my post, I thought I'd paste all of it for context. I just don't see why she would have to look at the RN that she authored to know that it said, "Victory! SBTC". But again, she misquoted it. So it doesn't appear to me like she was looking at it when she responded to that question. And that is the greater point I was making.

I think the bulk of what PR said in the 911 call is a dramatic performance.. all but that which nobody was supposed to hear, that is. She was caught off guard when she was asked, “Does it say who took her?”

 

[AndHence]

It's also notable that neither the ransom note nor the 911 call refer to JonBenet by name.

 

[Ambitioned]

Yup, distancing.

 

[Rott Mom]

I've always said that.

 

[Tortoise]

My personal opinion on that would be that in the incredible stress, she had to look to remember the BS written on the paper. Could she have thought about it and come up with the answer eventually? Probably. Was it easier to just flip to page 3 and read it? Yes.

At the point of the 911 call I think Patsy was likely in shock, probably mid-nervous breakdown or some type of temporary psychosis brought on by the night's events. A person can only take so much and at the placement of the call, I believe she had completely broken. She was wailing "her remains" as the call was placed, but when she heard the operator, the shift in voice to "Police" is nothing short of dramatic. She pulled it together enough to present the call the best she could. Once that call was made, I bet she was completely spent.

IMHO.

BBM

Respectfully I disagree with this. I can hear why you believe that is what she's saying, but it is so different from when it is played at the correct speed (what I hear is "Hurry..we need an") that I believe the slowing down process has distorted not only the words but also her state of mind and emotions. MOO.

 

[Tortoise]

It's a bit like the word police. If you slowed it down that much it would probably sound like p..l..e..a..s..e.

 

[kanzz]

For anyone who hasn't read this, I found it very educational to compare Patsy's 911 call to this FBI study of 911 calls placed by innocent callers vs guilty callers using statement analysis.
https://leb.fbi.gov/2008-pdfs/leb-june-2008#page30
She hits the guilty marks in many places ("We have a kidnapping" in itself is a goldmine) but the bit kanzz posted above pointing out Patsy's confusion is a great example of the 'huh' factor.

When a 911 caller unexpectedly responds to a dispatcher’s relevant question with such comments as Huh? What? or Do what? it reveals a disconnect in the thought process known as the “huh factor.” These responses indicate that callers are caught completely off guard and are not tracking their own answers (unless, of course, excessive background noise prevented them from clearly hearing the dispatcher’s ques- tions). For example, a caller reported that his wife suffered a serious accident.

Dispatcher: 911. What is your emergency?
Guilty caller: I just came home, and my wife has fallen down the stairs. She’s hurt bad, and she’s not breathing!
Dispatcher: How many stairs did she fall down?
Guilty caller: Huh?

When the dispatcher asked a relevant question regarding the accident, the caller, who had assaulted and killed his wife, could not immediately answer because he had not tracked his own fabricated story. Had the victim actually fallen down stairs, the caller should have known whether she fell down a few stairs or a whole flight and would not have been confused by this unanticipated question. The “huh factor” was present in 12 percent of the homicide calls. All but one of these callers were guilty.

We see this with Patsy. Her internal script was not prepared for the question "does it say who took her?" so she goes, "What?" In all, Patsy ends up responding to that question in 4 different ways as she tries to decide what she should reveal. After stalling with "what?" she says no, which is a clear answer. Then she takes it back - she doesn't know. Stalling again, she reminds the operator it is a ransom note. Then she changes her answer again by providing the correct answer, albeit with the "Victory!" & SBTC switched as kanzz pointed out. Which to me indicates she's reciting from memory, not reading off a page. "Victory" is an afterthought here, but it would have been the first thing she read if she was looking right at it.

Throughout the call she's really trying to impress upon the operator that she has received a ransom note - she can't shut up about it. It's more like she's calling in to report the ransom note than her missing child. But she did not anticipate being asked about its contents because she didn't think any of the crap she made up was actually important. In her mind, the only relevance of the note is that it is a ransom note because she wants to emphasize that it is from a kidnapper - she's distancing the family from the note. But to the operator, the primary relevance of the note is any useful information it might contain, not whether it is asking for ransom or not. Patsy shares very little relevant info with the operator (a related indication of deception mentioned in the study) and hangs up before she can be pressed like this again.

BBM

:goodpost: Bravo!