911 Call Investigation

I'm puzzled

Is this "erasure" just on your copy or on all copies struck for the media?

 

Clearly the portion of the tape that is most in dispute is at the very end, so to me it seems obvious, and "Occam simple" (with a nod to Fedora Ex) that Keenan thought she would be slick and just destroy the evidence. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a cover-up. And covering up for people who are NO LONGER the rich influencial people they once were, that is a critical mistake. It tips their hand that there are other layers to the onion, beyond the Ramsey one.

And I think that's an even simpler, MORE Occam-Razor-Friendly explanation than to posit temporary insanity on Mary Keenan's part, at a point in time which would just happen to coincide with the point where she's considering "redacting" crucial evidence.

 

Bonita

This is what Bonita's notes say about the Aerospace Corp and the 911 call. Steve Thomas' book and my personal LE interviews verify this. (I know I've made this same post several times but IMO you can't be redundant with the truth.)

After re-listening to the recording of the 911 call made by Patsy in the early morning of December 26, detectives thought they could hear a conversation in the background while Patsy was attempting to hang up the phone. On April 21, Det. Melissa Hickman flew to Los Angeles to meet with Mike Epstein and Jim Roeder, engineers at Aerospace Corporation, for purposes of enhancing the recording of the 911 call received at the Boulder Regional Dispatch Center.

At her first meeting with the three engineers, Hickman was told that it appeared that the cassette had been recorded in a Dictaphone format which would require a special recorder to recopy. Hickman drove to the nearest Dictaphone company which was located in the San Fernando Valley. A Dictaphone technician examined the tape and told Hickman that the information was not recorded in Dictaphone format. Hickman, feeling the frustration of the proverbial goose chase, returned to her hotel.

That evening, Roeder called her at the hotel and asked her to return to Aerospace. Roeder had decided that the tape probably had been recorded on a regular format which could be copied digitally by their computer. A hard drive disk was made of the tape, and this disk was copied to a JAZ drive, a large disk with more memory than a standard floppy disk.

On the morning of April 22, Hickman met again with Roeder in his office at Aerospace. The detective and the engineer went to a small lab to work with the disk to try to filter out extraneous noise and enhance the voices in the background. Roeder made several variations using different noise reduction settings, and those recordings were then copied onto the JAZ drive. They returned to Roeder's office where they were able to further enhance the disk. With this latest enhancement, they were able to hear two voices on the tape one of which sounded like a juvenile male, and the second one appeared to be Patsy. The first words seemed to belong to the juvenile, and then Patsy is heard to say, "Help me Jesus, help me Jesus." The voice again appeared to be the "juvenile male saying, "Please, what do I do?'' Hickman and Roeder agreed to meet again in the morning to continue enhancing the tape.

When Hickman returned to Aerospace the next morning to meet with Roeder, he said that he had continued listening to the disk after Hickman had left for the evening. He and another engineer had played the original version of the 911 call that had been transferred to the JAZ drive and found that to be the clearest recording. Both engineers had heard three distinct voices on the tape and written down that they thought was being said. The tape
was then played for Hickman. After listening to the tape three or four times, Hickman heard John Ramsey say “We’re not speaking to youâ€. In what sounded like a very angry voice. Patsy then says, “Help me Jesus, help me Jesus,†and finally Burke is clearly heard to say, “ Well, what did you find?â€, with an emphasis on the word “did.†After Hickman told the engineers her impression of the conversation, Roeder handed her a piece of notepaper containing the conversation heard by himself and his fellow engineer – the conversation as written down was exactly as Hickman herself had just heard.

 

I don't buy any sort of a "redacting" excuse for this particular tape. It was well known for years that the contents of the END of the 911 tape was in dispute by the Scamsey camp. That makes the end of any sort of a recording from a prime source, *critical* evidence, and to destroy *critical* evidence, on the part of a District Attorney, just plain stinks to high heaven.

Remember, the Scamseys are no longer paying bills to Haddon, Morgan, or Foreman. If HMF is continuing to apply pressure to the DA's office behind the scenes, their motive to do so has nothing whatsoever to do with being able to bill hours to what is now Lin Wood's cash cow.

The operative paradigm before was, "simply", that Ramsey money was buying HMF's services as "fixers" to get them, and ONLY them, out of hot water. Now with Ramsey bill-paying out of the picture as a motive for that scenario, there has to be another explanation for it. Either:

Door #1) HMF just decided to work for free because they already have plenty of money, and breaking the law is just sort of a pleasant pastime for them.

Door #2) HMF never did influence the DA's office, and two consecutive DAs have unilaterally decided to put not only their jobs on the line, but their residence on the outside of prison walls, in order to protect obviously-guilty perps, for no apparent reason.

or
Door #3) Some additional key player in the Boulder power structure has a continued interest in further squashing this case.

DNA-X or no DNA-X, what we need to find is DA-X, or the X factor in influencing DA behavior in Boulder.

 

Monk

IMO no evidence has been destroyed. I would assign a 99.9% probability that the original 911 tape and several copies still contain all the sounds that occurred after the hangup attempt and that evidence is safe in the hands of the Boulder DA.

WAY too many people have heard the "enhanced" tape to allow the DA's office destroy evidence. Redaction of the copies of the tape/CD released to the public, albeit legal and dishonest at the same time, is the answer that makes the most sense to me.

 

Re: Monk

I called it "evidence" because I have no doubt Woodie will use his copy as "evidence" in his next round of defamation lawsuits. If DA Keenan altered that evidence without making the alteration publicly known, that is constructive perjury on her part, and a level of dishonesty that can't be motivated by simple "intruder theory" fanaticism.

I saw a cold case files show about a week ago where a Michigan highway patrollman was convicted of murdering his wife, and the one thing that swayed the jury the most was when the prosecution could establish that the defendant *LIED* about where he was when the gun went off (he claimed his wife committed suicide). Now, if Keenan is sitting on evidence that proves the Scamseys lied, she is sitting on evidence that can almost single-handedly CONVICT. So the question still must be asked: why sit on it? And why alter it so that the public is never aware of it, and future defamation cases are twisted sideways by it? What's in it for Keenan?

And it just so happens that of all of these "way too many" people who "heard" the tape, not a single person anywhere managed to record the enhanced version, outside of a subsidiary of the same parent company that owned Access Graphics? That's sounding a little on the coincidental side right there.

To what end? If the voices are there, Keenan has proof the Scamseys lied, and she can take that to court and win with it. So what's holding her back? It's certainly not Ramsey money. Woodie has all of that now.

 

Re: Re: Monk

You can't possibly be serious with this statement.

Win for what? Perjury? Since when were they under oath when they gave statements to reporters?

Murder? This has nothing to do with a charge of murder. It's a completely bogus issue. They have every right to lie about that, if they want to. It has no bearing on the forensic and circumstantial proof needed for making a charge of murder. Let alone getting a conviction.

And in case you have forgotten, in Colorado, when murder is on the menu, no lesser charges can be filed beforehand.

You seem to go out of your way to concoct ridiculous theories to get people riled up at the DA and other professionals. No one with any trial or big case experience would agree with anything you've offered. Sorry! But it does make one wonder why you are doing this.

 

Re: Re: Re: Monk

Juries understand lying, even if DAs and Fedoras X do not.

So detectives were completely wasting their time when they got the 911 tape enhanced. Brilliant.

In a way your sentiment is mutual, because I'm wondering why you would defend the actions of ALEX HUNTER and MARY KEENAN. Did Steve Thomas' book read to you like fiction?

 

As I've posted all along, the value of the revelations of the 911 tape go to impeachment of the Ramseys only, along with a mountain of other impeachment evidence. IOW, they lied, just about everything. Lying is not a prosecutable offense in this case and certainly isn't a fundamental building block to proving any form of homicide. Obstruction of a police investigation, however, is another matter, but far less serious an offense than homicide. They could be charged with both when the time is right.....

 

It's not an offense, it's an argument. With juries, it's usually a very effective one.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=defendant+lied+jury+found+guilty+murder

I suggest that with DAs Hunter and Keenan and probably whoever even takes Keenan's place, the time will never be right. Curiously, even after the Ramsey money (the original excuse for Alex Hunter being "gun shy") has run out.

I may be the only one on the planet who finds that suspicious on the part of DAs who are supposed to prosecute crimes, but if I am, I'm okay with it.

 

Adrian, lying isn't even a legal argument. It's simply a method by which we get a witness on the stand then confront him/her with all their inconsistencies to discredit them in front of the jury. That's impeachment, just that simple. But the impact is profound.

And no, you're not the only one on the planet who has a HUGE problem with the DA's handling of this case (former or current). But ya gotta remember, we long-timers have had several prior posters claiming conspiracy theories in this case who shall remain nameless but nevertheless obvious and fubar'd, so any discussion re conspiracies always evokes varied responses. Conspiracy theories are difficult in getting support, especially without evidence, which of course, hasn't surfaced SO FAR. But folks like you with such determination are bound to unearth some one of these days!

 

Monk & DejaNu

Please go to the Behind door #3 thread for a possible answer to your questions.

"What a tangled web you weave.........."

 

Well, I'm not sure what I can unearth, if anything at all. My basic bedrock launch pad is that the multi-generational behavior of two separate BCDAs is absolutely stinky.

Initially, Alex Hunter hid behind an implied excuse that he didn't want to get his poor widdo @ss kicked by a high-powered law firm at a trial, a firm employed by a wealthy and influential client. Never mind the fact that that hasn't kept Michael Jackson or Kobe Bryant from being taken to trial by DAs with an actual spine, but now that the Ramseys are "middle class people in a townhouse" instead of major movers and shakers who can afford the slickest of hired guns, all semblance of that excuse is gone. And yet, the behavior continues.

In a way, when I shout "WHY" at the top of my lungs, into the night air, it's nothing but rhetorical and an attempt to inspire myself to catch some minor detail somewhere in the public domain evidence that will absolutely nail a connection between the BCDA and some figure in the Boulder power machine (and make no mistake, our very own Fleet White filed an affidavit to the effect that that machine IS alive and well!)

At first I thought maybe the DNA would be forge the link, but it appears now that that was a mistake on my part. If it's a red herring for the Scamseys, it's a red herring for the machine. (When I say "machine", I mean whatever it is that causes criminal behavior on the part of two consecutive DAs).

One area of research that has been at least somewhat promising has been the loutish propaganda Mark Beckner has been giving about Boulder crime statistics. He's quoted ad infinitum in giving glowing reviews of Boulder crime saying that the majority of offenses are "bike thefts", and yet when I scroll down the page to see the actual stats submitted to the FBI, the city is fairly off the charts in VIOLENT crime, compared to the nearby university (something on the order of 6,000 offenses per year compared to about 600 at the college). That's frat parties and all. Granted, some of the nasty dealings of the overly-predictable date-raping athletes are going to be doing some of their deeds off-campus, but still, it's not like universities have Brisco and McCoy protecting the innocent there. Per capita, I would think those would be the major problem areas. I grew up in a university town, and almost always when there were police sirens, they were headed to one of the dorms or frats.

Anyway, that's peculiar, and I'm going to check into it more. The Steve Thomas lead from his book, about the City Council's extreme reaction against his drug busts in town, that's another one. Apart from that, there's only so much I can reach out and touch through IP addresses and proxies. I'd move to Colorado and physically gum-shoe if I thought I could trust the authorities there not to be as corrupt as rotted bananas.

Research from a distance has its limits.

When it comes to Mr. Bennett, I think anybody at all chosen by the likes of KEENAN, I would give the diametric opposite of the benefit of the doubt. Call it the doubt of the doubt.

If I run into nothing but dead ends, I may have to just be a lone curmudgeon going to my grave with shadowy suspicions and nothing more. I won't play-act at being Socrates, though, because I don't relish the taste of Hemlock.

I do recognize and understand how the Krebs Krapola has rubbed people's nerves raw. I'm just paranoid enough to even suspect that that ruse was done with exactly that in mind--make people once bitten several times shy against any whisper of the "c-word". But that's just me.

At the end of the day, if it does turn out that Ramseys really *were* at the pinnacle of the Obstruction of Justice pyramid, all along, I would be extremely interested how they were able to hide their money, pretend to be broke, pretend to have no influence, pretend to have a rift break out between their new lawyer and HMF, and continue to tweak the little pseudo-DA twinks behind the scenes, with no apparent evidence of such. Or maybe I won't want to know. Maybe that's what got the Krebs dogs sent after Mr. White--being a little too CURIOUS, y'know?

 

Tricia

WHEN it is public knowledge that John, Patsy, and Burke Ramsey's voices are recorded on the 911 tape AFTER the attempt by Patsy Ramsey to disconnect the call; it will be apparent to the world that John and Patsy Ramsey are liars and did NOT/do NOT want LE to find the killer of their daughter.

Whether or not this is news to LinWad is anyone's guess. If he has heard the enhanced tape THEN he might be in trouble but I doubt it.

IMO Keenan's release of the erased/redacted tape without notifying the public what she was doing is stupid and unethical but within her rights as the DA.

 

Think of the reverse implication. If the so-called "evidence" after it's doctored by Korrupt Keenan, is used in defamation cases by Lyin' Wood, that could give new steam to his gravy train. So what's in it for her? If she doesn't NEED to erase the disputed track from the 911 tape, not even for self-preservation, and probably isn't friends enough with the Scamseys to do it out of friendly loyalty, what does that leave her for motive? We do know that money is at stake from the Lyin' Wood angle, and Keenan does indeed like money.

Up until now, Lyin' Wood has been mainly just been using the doctored tape for propaganda and background work on shifting the public paradigm away from Scamsey guilt. However, I do think he intends to use this fraudulent non-evidence in future defamation shakedowns, so if we can knock this particular cannon off of his pirate's ship, that will serve to make him less able to pillage and plunder the media, going forward. Yes, he will have a tizzy, due to decreased financial opportunity for him, but his past robberies did have measures of success even without it.

I would be more specific and say that Lyin' Wood cannot PROFIT from the truth.

I'm having trouble believing that DAs will put their entire careers and their freedom as non-inmates of federal prisons, in jeopardy, just for "buddies". If I am the only one having that sort of trouble, then maybe I'm just having a bad IQ day.

It would have been suggested if the non-Scamsey DNA were for real, but I think I've seen enough compelling argument on here that the DNA is probably not for real. The victim's DNA was in good shape and the alleged perp DNA is not, and they are comingled together. That eliminates the possibility of a bleach-down being responsible for the DNA's degradation, because that also would have degraded the victim's DNA. The passing of time could explain the degradation, and that is suggestive of the "factory sneeze" theory, or at least, deposited prior to the time of the murder. (Then again, the sexual abuse also happened at times prior to the murder as well, so we're not at 100% impossibility of an extra player here.)

I'm having difficulty imagining a DA who is lazy enough and "blinders on" enough to violate the law on just that steam alone. And to me, if they're unethical, that opens the door to the suggestion they could be a part of a criminal enterprise, of some sort.

 

Please also read the Lou Smit thread.

please read
the "Lou Smit" thread
and all the posts too!

we started discussing the 911 call on that thread too.

i would appreciate your feedback!

thanks,
purr

 

Moab

Ms. Spade and I also heard the enhanced 911 tape played on one of Geraldo's shows. He had a couple going at the same time. The listing shows at Burrelles but it IS NOT included in the transcript available from the same source. I would go along with KoldKase's explanation for how it disappeared.

I have several LE contacts that have listened to the tape and verify hearing the same voices as are described in the Bonita Papers and in ST's book.

I strongly suggest that LinWad take Mike Kane up on his offer(made on Abrams) to go to Boulder and listen to the tape together. When he does listen to the tape, it will be interesting to see if he is man enough to apologize to ST and the BPD. My guess is no. Bullies are cowards at heart.

 

There HAS to be a very serious reason why Wood and the Ramsey don't want you to know that Burke was awake and present as evidenced by his voice on the end of that 911 tape, if it's truly there. I can only hear Patsy saying, "Help me, Jesus."

When you really stop and think about it, it's not a big deal that he would be standing there - I mean, I have yet to understand how or why a little kid would decide to stay in his bed and "pretend to be asleep" while his mother supposedly ran around the house screaming for his little sister.

WHY don't they want you to know that Burke was up?

WHY have they worked SO HARD to keep that private?

Whenever someone denies something so strongly it should send off a warning signal. Especially if proof exists that he was indeed awake. They are trying to distance themselves from this event (Burke being awake). Why? I can only think of two reasons:

1). They didn't want him questioned (he was asleep so he saw/heard nothing).

2). He is somehow involved.

For the life of me, I can't see Burke involved in this, but I'll tell ya what - all this tah doo about the 911 call really makes me wonder what's up.

ASK YOURSELF, WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD IT MAKE IF HE WERE UP AND STANDING THERE DURING THE CALL?

The answer to this question might lead to answers they want to remain hidden.