Fbi analysis
#1
Conclusion Audio 911

After extensive processing and analysis, we conclude that recordings of the 911 emergency call made by Patsy Ramsey to report the kidnapping of her daughter JonBenét do not contain any audible conversation between any of the Ramseys following Patsy's hanging up the phone. There are too many discrepancies between the expectations of voice characteristics and the characteristics of the noises which some have reported as conversation for the hypothesis of additional conversation on the recording to be accepted. There appear instead to be several different noises with different characteristics, including at least one that has a cadence and is repeated. It is suggested that the combinations of these noises provide merely an appearance of conversation, particularly to wishful thinkers after the idea of conversation has been suggested to them. Unfortunately this noise has not only been falsely portrayed as conversation, but the idea that it is conversation has been boot.
Reply
#2
Kaligirlsam,

The incomplete quote above was from my own personal analysis of the 911 call.  It is not from the FBI.  

The last sentence is cut off at " has been boot."  The actual quote is:

"... but the idea that it is conversation has been bootstrapped into a demonstration of deception by the Ramseys, and then to a virtual proof of the guilt of at least one of the parents."

----------

I performed this analysis with commonly available software (except for one program that I wrote myself), using commonly  available equipment and simple principles from elementary physics and audio engineering so that even interested hobbyists and students could easily duplicate and verify my results.  Forensics audio people have a different objective: "What was said?" not "Was anything said?" or "What is this?"  If they are told it's conversation, they usually accept that claim and don't test whether that's actually possible or not like I did with that 911 recording from the Boulder County DA's office.  They also don't worry about whether John or Jane Doe can duplicate their results; in fact, most of them couldn't care less.  They know perfectly well who they are working for.
Reply
#3
I am so glad you cleared that up, Dave. I really get furious when I see Roscoe Clark posting misinformation on this case like he is some expert on the brink of solving this. I have found probably half of his information to be bogus. When I approached him and asked questions, questions that would have proven my estimation of his worth faulty, he refused to engage. But he has so much wrong.

Like the location of the elevator base in the Ramsey basement. Like this DNA report he credit to the FBI. Roscoe just isn't a good source of information and it is a shame he is revered by some as a good IDI contributor.

Point is not to be an IDI contributor but to reveal the truth so a killer can be caught.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)