Attempted Transcription of the Jan. 1978 call

[relentless]

WARNING THIS THREAD HAS BEEN MOVED THE NEW TAPE AND TRANSCRIPT ARE NOW AT
earonsgsk.proboards.com/thread/24/january-1978-phone-call-victim

Below is my try at transcribing the background voices in Jan. 1978 call to an EAR victim. The victim had been getting obscene calls before and after being attacked by the EAR and Sacramento detectives put a wire on her phone.

Adult female (unintelligible) sounds like (but is not):
what, you called me a bull

Adult female (one word) could be:
why or what

Younger adult female, could be:
get off right there

Younger adult female:
Phone call, tells me I got to pay in the loan next year.

or could be:
Phone call, tells me I got pain in the low neck area

Younger Adult Female:
I don't want to go back to jail ever

Adult female:
every so often make a payment, right?

Adult male 1:
Ok

Adult male 1:
unintelligible

Adult Female:



Adult male 1:
Ok

Adult male 1:

(a sneeze)

Younger Adult Female:
I have no idea how to pay it

Adult Female:
work.

After listening to this again and again, I think she is saying something else
Adult female:
Were you going to make a call or are you getting a call?

Young boy:
Hey chuclehead.

Automated voice:
Full


End.


I am still working on this tape and will up date this transcript as I uncover more stuff.




Source of the tape: www.lamag.com/offtherecord/2013/2/27/hear-the-golden-state-killer

To download a copy of the edited version of the Jan. 1978 call, with the caller's content removed, see below:

www.filedropper.com/january1978calltovictimeditedandamped-copy

[drifter]

relentless ...

You evidently did not see my posted message in your other thread.

Please give us the background of this phone call.

How do we know that it was from EAR? How do we know the receiver is a victim? From what source did you acquire the phone call transcript?

What leads you to believe the transcript is credible?

Everyone on planet Earth may know the answers to these questions already. But I'd still like for you to respond.

I just cannot get excited about "evidence" that pops out of thin air.

Thanks,

Drifter

[geko]

Relentless, I can here about 90% of what you have transcribed. Post edited.

[relentless]

Geko, yes, sorry of all spots to make a mistake, I have corrected the transcript. Thanks for catching that.

[gskonstracker]

Relentless, please forward this information to the EAR/ONS website or the Sacramento police, if you have not already done so.

[gskonstracker]

[relentless]

my bad, sorry tracker

[geko]

Lol

[lepke]

Maybe EAR/ONS is pooping himself (again).

[cerulean]

Thank you for your hard work, relentless. I guess your name was accurate. My friend hasn't gotten back to me yet. He sent me a cryptic mail at around midnight two days ago that makes me think he's excited to be doing this or scared out of his wits, can't tell which. But hopefully he gets back to me quickly.

Im sending you a PM.

Happy 4th of July, everyone!

[drifter]

relentless,

Thanks for your explanation.

So the tape you're working with is the famous heavy breathing "Gonna kill you" tape.

You cited the LA magazine article as source for the tape. But I don't take that website very seriously, and rarely read through it.

Most researchers are more aware of the www.ear-ons.com/index2.html website (ear-ons) with that frightening image. It would have been nice if you had cited the ear-ons website as your source rather than the LA mag article, and done so in your first thread.

But in your defense, I'll point out that the older site does not give the date of the heavy breathing "Gonna kill you" tape, an oversight of that website's creator.

All of which is to say that we on this website need to be mindful of the rubbish that passes for evidence in this case (some stuff in the LA mag article) and respond only to legitimate evidence.

Your work is based on evidence that is indeed legitimate!

But for clarity purposes, always give the pertinent background info so that sticklers for detail like myself won't keep bugging you (pardon the pun).

Good job. Keep up the really good work.

Cheers,

Drifter

[relentless]

Drifter, I did not cite the www.ear-ons.com because that is not where I obtained the tape. I cited to the location of where I obtained the tape. Why would I cited to something I did not use? The ear-ons.com tape has background music on it, while the LA Magazine tape was a clean version and was much much easier to work with.

[cerulean]

Jul 3, 2013 18:15:00 GMT -5 relentless said:

Drifter, I did not cite the www.ear-ons.com because that is not where I obtained the tape. I cited to the location of where I obtained the tape. Why would I cited to something I did not use? The ear-ons.com tape has background music on it, while the LA Magazine tape was a clean version and was much much easier to work with.

Not only is the LA Magazine clip cleaner, it is also longer. The one on the EAR-ONS site not only had music added to it but they also edited out parts of the call.

[drifter]

Jul 3, 2013 18:15:00 GMT -5 relentless said:

Drifter, I did not cite the www.ear-ons.com because that is not where I obtained the tape. I cited to the location of where I obtained the tape. Why would I cited to something I did not use? The ear-ons.com tape has background music on it, while the LA Magazine tape was a clean version and was much much easier to work with.

relentless,

Here is what I would like to have seen as introduction to your first thread: "New Jan. 1978 call to the victim tape"

Something along the line of ...

"In Jan., 1978 an EAR victim received a call from what LE believes was the EAR. That call was the famous heavy breathing, "Gonna kill you" tape, cited at the ear-ons website. The same call can be found at the LA. magazine article website, located here (cite url). I have used the LA website source because (give your reasons). What follows is my interpretation of the voices in the background at the location from where EAR made his call..."

That's it. Just a brief intro giving a little background on the call. Such an intro would have put your thread in the proper context, and clearly delineated it from other EAR phone calls.

Drifter

[drifter]

Any chance the call could have been made from public place like restaurant, hospital waiting room, airport terminal, or pay phone near parking lot?

On the face of it, would seem that call was made from private home.

Drifter

[relentless]

Drifter, I have made the corrections, now please let it go.

[truthandsoul]

*GROUP HUG*

[sandia]

Jul 4, 2013 10:11:41 GMT -5 truthandsoul said:

*GROUP HUG*

LOL, I second that emotion

By the way, I listened to the tape again with the transcript and it really helped and now I can clearly hear it EXCEPT for that elusive name. Can't hear ANYTHING. I don't have headphones though, perhaps that is the problem. Whenever you feel you can reveal it, please let me know either on this board or by P.M. I am so curious.

[gskonstracker]

Jul 4, 2013 0:39:19 GMT -5 drifter said:

Any chance the call could have been made from public place like restaurant, hospital waiting room, airport terminal, or pay phone near parking lot?

On the face of it, would seem that call was made from private home.

Drifter

I personally think it is in a private home because there are no other voices or strange outside noises.

[sandia]

Jul 4, 2013 19:18:13 GMT -5 gskonstracker said:

Jul 4, 2013 0:39:19 GMT -5 drifter said:

Any chance the call could have been made from public place like restaurant, hospital waiting room, airport terminal, or pay phone near parking lot?

On the face of it, would seem that call was made from private home.

Drifter

I personally think it is in a private home because there are no other voices or strange outside noises.

That makes sense to me.

[relentless]

My speculation is the family is preparing for dinner, it sounds like dishes clinking in the background.

[relentless]

I think the younger woman was taking about bail when she mentioned "tells me I got to pay in the loan next year". Why else would she be concerned with going back to jail, you can't go to jail for not paying a loan, that is a civil matter. But if your bail is revoked, your back in the slammer.

[cerulean]

Do you think they still have the records from 1978? I'd search Contra Costa County. I suspect she was arrested on a drug charge. She sounds like a pothead.

[relentless]

Most likely, it was the 1970's and even Relentless was a bit of a pot head back then and my favorite t-shirt was my "let's party"shirt. Those were the days.

[sandia]

Jul 5, 2013 17:31:15 GMT -5 relentless said:

I think the younger woman was taking about bail when she mentioned "tells me I got to pay in the loan next year". Why else would she be concerned with going back to jail, you can't go to jail for not paying a loan, that is a civil matter. But if your bail is revoked, your back in the slammer.

Bingo, I second your idea. That fits!

I do "not" think they will have records from back then. I was trying to track a poi, got his phone number and called it. It was the Shasta County Adult parole board. The lady that answered the phone ended up being very nice and cooperative. To make a long story short she said they did not have records of this person and that they would not have records of parole or even court records from 30 years ago. That is such bad news. The statute of limitations on rape has run out for EAR and if I recall correctly the records were destroyed and thanks to Larry Crompton who saved the records we wouldn't know the information he put in his book. I believe Det. Crompton, said LE was upset with him for having the records.

[geko]

Does anybody else think that the obscene caller must be an immediate member of this family ? Would you hover around the phone of your partners parents ? I don't know many, if any, that would. He surely didn't ask to use the phone or the adult female wouldn't ask him if he was making or waiting for a call.
So what position could this chap hold ?

[relentless]

Geko, I am rethinking that line at the end, I think I am hearing something else now. However, how he got away with making this call is beyond me. The only thing I can think of is that he told his family he was calling a girlfriend and they gave him some privacy.

[sandia]

geko and relentless, Again such good points! That call does make me lean toward thinking he is a member of the family. I was going to offer son-in-law as a possibility but then relentless' idea that they would give him privacy if he was calling a girlfriend seems like a really good thought. Then for some reason the child calling someone a chucklehead makes me have an inkling that he was calling out to GSK and if he was, that would tend to make me think that GSK was pretty young. No older than early 20's. Chuckelhead indicates to me someone that might do dumb things or goof ups or get in trouble, yet it doesn't seem like you would refer to a really mean, dour person in that way. So again the image I am getting is GSK can switch on a somewhat normal demeanor when he wants to. However the profilers say he would have a hard time holding onto a job where he has to interact with others and would be an unpleasant person, so I don't know.

[cerulean]

Jul 6, 2013 4:26:32 GMT -5 geko said:

Would you hover around the phone of your partners parents ? I don't know many, if any, that would.

If he's a psychopath he probably likes to take chances and be twisted. Making that call so close to your mom or people you know would make him happy. Or it may be the only phone in the house and just happens to be close to where the others are,

I think he is probably not married or a longtime partner of the younger woman, because if she were talking about how to pay off loans and he father was givng her advice on how to, her husband or boyfriend would be right there next to her listening, because they would probably share money.Then again he could have said, Hit your dad up for a loan while I make a phone call.

That kid sounds so young, he is probably just calling someone else what they call him. You know how real little kids do that? Hey chucklehead sounds like something a boy would call a young kid as opposed to a female.

[cerulean]

Jul 5, 2013 22:44:22 GMT -5 relentless said:

Most likely, it was the 1970's and even Relentless was a bit of a pot head back then and my favorite t-shirt was my "let's party"shirt. Those were the days.

Could you get jailed for having a little pot back then? Or would she need to have a lot of pot, like she was selling it. Or heavy drugs like heroin? I thought the restrictive drug laws only happened when Reagan got into office.
She just mumbles like all the potheads Ive seen in shows from that era.You can imagine she says "man" and "groovy" a lot.