New 911 lab update

Re: my input.what i heard this time..

No problem purr,

I tried very hard to post the entire version slowed, which is what you see above only in 4 pieces, but the file is too large to post in it's entirety. If you like I can slow it some more and re-post them, I actually find that the slower it is the easier it is to understand what's being said; that's how I found "Hurry right in". I thought she was saying "My name is" which sounds nothing like it, so I can see where you are coming from.

BTW: The male voice appears in Clip #1 (above) between 5 and 6 seconds on the clock, it's something like 39 seconds long so listen right in between "Patsy"'s and I guarantee you will hear it.

 

My thoughts exactly!!

 

thanks so very much!

you are a sweetheart!

purr

 

When is someone in a position of power going to do right by this murdered child...? sigh.......


I'm so disgusted with the lot of them....

 

Originally posted by Tricia

What is everyone so afraid of? Lin Wood? In my opinion the guy is a shakedown artist. Someone else's term not mine.


I think anyone with assets is afraid of Lin Wood because of his 'track record' and because he can pretend to be intimidating at times, inside he probably holds in more fear and anxiety than any other person I know; nobody could be THAT sure of himself??


If the Mob tried to do what Lin Wood does they be tossed in jail. Basically Wood says, "I'll go away and it will be cheaper if you just pay me up front otherwise I make sure I drain you." Uhh isn't that extortion?

Again, his 'track record' of attacking wealthy corporations and people with whom their overall conclusions ending before they ever get to court, sounds a hell of a lot like Boulder to me.

Why didn't any of the earlier labs pick this up? Why is everyone afraid to speak the truth?

I don't think the earlier labs had the knowledge with respect to the Ramsey case like we do, the labs and experts don't have any real reason to find anything like we do; we all have silent purposes for being so involved that are similar in entirety but differ greatly in content because we all have our own reasons for seeking answers and thirsting justice for JonBenet. They are merely doing their jobs and nobody could blame them, maybe our personal knowlege alone makes us a shoe in to understand the ramblings because we've all heard that annoying voice of Patsys a hundred times. (probably more for most of you)

 

Different labs often arrive at different findings with audio tracks because they use different techniques. However, one thing that's been gnawing at me is the question that if Keenan released a magnetically erased tape to Lyin' Wood and the media, was that the same erased tape that got sent to the FBI for "analysis"? Was the chain of custody Keenan to Woodie to the FBI? Or if it was direct, did Keenan send the same copy? And did the FBI release an official report of their analysis to the public, or did they send a confidential one to Keenan or Woodie, from which they "interpret" the findings to the public?

The RST did this sort of thing with Cellmark and the degraded DNA sample sent to them: Cellmark said quite simply that if multiple donors were responsible for the extra markers found in the sample (rather than an effect of the amplification process itself), then nobody at all could be properly included or excluded. Trip DeMuth took this back to Al Qaeda Hunter with the announcement of "the DNA did not match the Ramseys", which was disingenuous because it didn't match anybody at all. It couldn't, in that degraded state.

Perhaps the 911 tape is similar, in that labs such as the FBI one made certain analyses and the RST distorted those findings?

 

Lyin' Wood is not unique among tort lawyers. It's a common strategy to go in and suggest that the defendant settle in order to prevent the higher cost of litigation. In fact, the Michael Jackson Spin Team claims that's what was done to them in the previous accusations of their client. Settlements of that nature factor in courage and moral principle at least as much as objective rightness or wrongness of a claim. For example, Steve Thomas' publisher could probably have made a successful defense against Lyin' Wood's libel claims, although it wouldn't be quite so easy as a flood of motions to dismiss. They would have to go to trial, have to mount the defense, have to argue it painstakingly, spending a lot of time and resources doing so. They could have proven Woodie wrong, but the publisher was led to believe (possibly by their own legal counsel) that the cost of proving Woodie wrong would approach, if not surpass, the sum for which he'd settle. And it's likely that the specific terms of the settlement had some clause that allowed a payment in arrears, a balloon payment, or a percentage of profit arrangement to make the timing of the financial proposition more pleasing than the up-front costs of litigation.

It's obvious Woodie counts on settlements, and his jaw will probably hit his desk if Fox actually takes this new round of extortions to trial. In a trial he will have to prove that Fox KNEW of evidence of an intruder, which will require him scrape up some internal Fox document (which we all know doesn't exist) which has a compelling intruder-sustaining nature to it, and then establish that Fox buried that knowledge with reckless disregard for the truth and in a defamatory way. Woodie WILL lose if this goes to trial. The temptation for Fox will be to offer enough of a "settlement" to pay for maybe a Starbucks coffee and see if Woodie takes the bait as an excuse to claim "victory" once again. If they negotiate a number, that number is bound to be low.

I hear you, Trica and others, that this sort of thing should NOT be legal; but it is. The Mob could do it too, and also get away with it, as long as they use lawyers instead of 400 lb gorillas named "Guido" to carry out the extortion.

Many things could possibly explain the discrepancy. Chain of custody of the audio sample sent to the other labs hasn't been fully established, for scrutiny. And they might have gotten the same "redacted" copy Lyin' Wood has been using to toot his dishonest horn. And it may very well be that Aerospace's equipment and techniques are actually more advanced than those used by the FBI: the Defense Department (Aerospace's main client) has a long history of relatively deeper pockets than the FBI, although the new calculus of "Homeland Security" might shake up the equation a bit.

 

Why does anyone think

Wood keeps filing these ridulous lawsuits? It's a no-brainer - he's never had to actually try a case in a court room. He has mastered the art of filing lawsuits. He chooses only those with deep pockets because he knows they will always settle for lesser amounts rather than throw away money on a long, drawn-out court case where they are paying huge money to fight the case. It smacks of extortion to me, but as Adrian says, it's legal.

The big corporations don't want to be bothered; rather than get into spending wads of money, they settle for pennies on the dollar and get the little creep off their backs. It's not that they can't win a lawsuit against him - they certainly could if they wanted to. It's all about the almight dollar, not justice. They couldn't care less, and it's business. Most people know that a settlement is not an admission of guilt by any means.

It really amuses me when I read posts talking about the lawsuit against Steve Thomas. As far as I'm concerned, Thomas didn't get hurt at all by that lawsuit. The side-effects of it hurt him - losing his house, paying his lawyers, but he walked away without paying one red cent to Wood or the Ramseys, and his book is still on the bookshelves, and he can talk all he wants about what happened during that case. Wood failed to get Thomas. He got the publishing company, though. It's all about the money. Justice doesn't even enter into it.

Go figure.

 

Re: Why does anyone think

Taking it a step further, if Rupert Murdoch decided he wanted to open up every edition of Fox News with a little ticker-tape blurb stating "The Ramseys killed their baby and bought their way out of it", ironically HE could buy HIS way out of it just by trickle-feeding Lyin' Wood enough money to keep him horse-humping for the remainder of his short evil days on this very ironic earth.

Similarly, Bill Gates could buy the priviledge of announcing Scamsey guilt on MSN--just pay the hush money to the snivelling little gutter creature Lyin' Wood (who always did remind me of Smeagol Gollum, holding onto his doctored 911 tape like a "Ring of Power" and calling it "my precious").

And Donald Trump might do it just because--if his friends were to double-dog-dare him.

The Scamseys would get their poooooooor widdo feeeeeewings hurt by all that name-calling, but Woodie wouldn't let them do otherwise but sit back and collect the payments, as a sinecure for being America's Pariah Family. If the Scamseys were innocent that certainly wouldn't be justice, but since they're not, it's just intellectual commerce. A freak show of murderers and influence peddlers on stage for America to gawk at, a reflection of our own justice system's worst foibles, transmuted to entertainment, here in a land where everything gets recycled.

It may even become the next big reality TV show: "The Murderers". The cam follows Phatsy around as she does her best impression of Tammy Faye Bakker, absurd eyelashes and all, moaning about how the "lynch mob" are "after her", to adoring fame-whores and various hired friends. You might object and say this concept was already tried with the Anna Nicole show, but remember that Anna's gravesite deposit was an old man who went out with a smile on his face. This new show could have many more side-plots, like maybe following John Andrew into college date-rape situations, or getting a glimpse of Uncle Johnny sidling uncomfortably into an adult book store, trying not to look obvious as he scouts out the "Barely Legal" section; or if viewers have the stomach for it, get a load of Burke's creepy transformation into a clone of Jack Osbourne... is this a can't-lose pitch to the networks or what?

 

I hear it now

I can hear the first part, but I hear, "Oh, we need 'em."

At the end, Patsy's voice is absolutely clear saying Help me, Jesus. I heard one male voice saying "talking." I played it over and over again until I finally picked that part up. Then, I played it some more, over and over, to be sure I wasn't imagining it. I wasn't. I don't have earphones, so I'm listening from the speakers. Perhaps if I listened with earphones, I could hear it better.

What I would give to hear the original tape. The investigators heard it a lot better than we can hear it. So much for Wood's and jameson's claims that Steve Thomas lied. It's becoming more and more clear just how truthful Steve was in his book and how dishonest the RST is.

 

I agree, but I wish Steve Thomas wouldn't have walked away. I've not walked in his shoes so I won't judge him but, I really wish he would have stayed a voice for JonBenet.

 

I can't prove this, but I think it literally would have cost him his life to stay. Something was making him very ill, and when he left the case, he got better. Imagine that.

 

From Steve Thomas' book

Here's Steve Thomas' explanation of his condition that caused him to leave the department, although it's not mentioned in the below snippet, stress would only have made it worse for him and had he continued his body would have continued to produce the same antibodies that were consuming his thyroid gland; this would have been fatal to him like Patsy was to JonBenet IMO.


Paperback page 325:

"Something else was also going on. My lethargy, headaches, continued weigh loss, and growing back pain forced me to see a doctor, although I didn't tell anyone about it. She asked if I'd been irritable, depressed, or found it difficult to conversate. All of the above, I said. And during the next several weeks I endured a regimen of intensive physical examinations and blood tests.

Finally the doctor gave me the grim news that I had something called chronic lymphocytic thyroiditis. The thyroid gland, which a person cannot live without, was failing, and my body was producing antibodies that were consuming my thyroid. It could develop into more serious problems, she said, although I thought what she had already told me was serious enough."

 

Getting back to your tape JIC

Yes, I remember reading this part of Steve Thomas' book. I think he did a tremendous job of investigating the JonBenét case.

Getting back to your 911 tape, JIC. It seems we are all hearing something different, but I think the main concern here is the fact "we are" all hearing something which proved Lin Wood was trying to pull a fast one with his 911 version of the tape. His jaw must have dropped when 48 Hours turned him down.

 

Re: Getting back to your tape JIC

Elle,
Your right, it matters very little that we can't all agree upon what's being said vs what isn't being said; the main objective was to see if others HEARD anything, and they did

I agree that Lin Wood was probably pretty insulted when a show like 48hours turned him down, I wonder if he has better luck with the ladies?? Probably not, it takes a certain kind of woman to marry a lawyer like Lin; not everybody loves an extortionist

 

"Hurry right in" VS "Hon. We need em"

I have clipped out the first 3.23 seconds of the 911 call

This one is preserved, nothing has been done to make it any clearer, slower, or understandable...

 

And this is the exact same clip only slowed 1x.

 

John, God, or Gone...

I can hear three things in this clip, and it can't be all three (maybe not any) Does anyone have any idea what this clip says...

I can hear one word, which sounds like God when played at the original calls' speed sounds like John or Gone at a slowed speed, I can hear the sound of the "_one" I just can't figure out what the beginning sound is.

This clip is VERY fast, it doesn't even reach 1second so I would advise any listeners to loop it or replay it incessantly at different volume levels.

 

Another oddity, while I'm at it

The below clip I found interesting because Patsy tried to say ransom note but stopped short and said "there's a note left and our daughter's gone!"

It's strange to me because when Patsy finally mentions a few moments later that it is indeed a 'ransom note', the operators voice changes drastically when she asks "it's a ransom note?" It's like Patsy was unwilling to say that much until the operator kept her on the line for so long (in the event of her guilt) what was she in a hurry to do?