Question from: /u/Try_Using_Your_BrainLet me start by saying that I am in no way trying to start a fight or attack anyone.I understand this inherently. My hope is that these discussions will lead to more well thought out positions.I have a few small questions/theories that I think could make both the 001 sighting and the "where's the girl" lines converge.Before I start, I will state that:1. You have brought two important factors into the discussion that is important to consider, i.e. the portability of the radios and time to call in the license plate.2. My personal opinion is that the below timeline is the most viable one made for the "Official Oxygen position" (OOP).3. My additional personal opinion is that the most viable version of the (OOP) should be stated so that researchers understand the assumptions made for the (OOP) and its strengths and weaknesses. Researchers should be able to determine if the best formed proposed timeline for (OOP) is "good enough."4. My additional personal opinion is that the (OOP) still falls short.(Rearranged for flow)Do we believe that between arriving and leaving the only exchange was the BOLO?I presume you are referring to H2. Although not apropros to the point implied, there are 6 time association to H2 in the log: dispatch, enroute, arrival, cleared, BOLO and notes taken when H2 was cleared.1. We have to assume that there is some major points missing from the narrative in the log: Where are the notes about H2 talking to FW and TW or BA?I would not characterize the missing time associations as major - therefore preventing reasonable conclusions from being drawn about any of them.It would be ideal for us to have original LE documentation that includes time associations for H2's discussions with both FW/TW and BA.However, we have been able to make some time associations based upon statements made by both FW and BA. Although, I cannot state that we have a irrefutable time association for H2's arrival at FW/TW based upon their statements, I can say that we can arrive at some reasonable conclusions if we assume that H2 took reasonable actions throughout his time during the incident.On the other hand, we do have a good approximation of H2's arrival at BA, and this time association assumes the same reasonable actions for H2 throughout.I will say that your alternative proposed timeline (APT) does not violate the below fundamental time associations for FW/TW or BA. Fundamental time associations include, but are not limited to: BA's arrival time, BA's departure time, 7:35 arrival of vehicle (and lastly) H2 arrival time at BA.However, my personal opinion is that the (APT) is inconsistent with the idea that H2 took the most efficient and appropriate actions between his arrival at the scene and his discussion with BA.I will further state that some of the time assumptions in the (APT) are marginally inconsistent with some details stated by Art and Maggie in EP 65 & 66. They have made statements that imply that H2 wasted no time after his arrival while looking at the Saturn and then going to the Westmans.Additionally, the (APT) leaves about 2:30-4:30 unexplained between the FW/TW interview and the BA interview.Lastly, and most importantly, the (APT) disregards Cecil Smith's arrival time in official LE records (police report (7:45) and the Grafton County Sheriff Logs 7:46:20). Instead, the (APT) treats a theoretically derived H2 arrival time of 7:35 as more authoritative than LE records. The 7:35 arrival time is derived from a combination of Witness A's account from that evening and Cecil Smith's assertion that he was driving Haverhill's SUV 001 on that same evening.2. I would assume the first thing that the officer arriving at the scene would call in the platesThis is supported by a statement made by Cecil Smith to the Murray family and mentioned in the The Caledonian-Record on February 9, 2009: "Murray's family said Smith told them he thought the driver of the Saturn was Murray's father, to whom the car was registered."3. Police officers wear portable radios - that is the thing they talk into on their shoulder - so they do not need to be in their car to send or receive information.(rearranged for flow)Regardless of anyone's thoughts on CS and 001, it is completely feasible that an officer could have know about "the girl" relatively quickly after arriving at the scene even without seeing her.It's also feasible that dispatch is providing updated info real-time as the get info from Hanover (even before talking to BA or his wife).This is a perfectly reasonable assumption and would explain how, between H2's assumed plate inquiry and arrival at FW's door, H2 would know about "the girl." Of course, this assumption can only be made if we assume that H2 was notified about "the girl" after 7:43.4. The "Narrative" section of the police log is entered manually (like a text string) so the times entered are manual not "time stamps"Agreed and I have never assumed otherwise.and therefore could reasonable be a minute or two off.A minute or two. But not 10 minutes, as the (APT) states.So could the timeline not look like (*base copied from Devlyn99):7:26 Accident is heard by Westmans.Not unreasonable.7:27 Faith calls 911.Agreeed7:29 Atwood arrives and offers assistance.Agreed (1-2 min per FW)7:31 Atwood drives home to call 911.Agreed (1-2 min per FW)7:31-7:35 Maura leaves the scene.7:32 - post "flurry of activity" - and if you have Smith there at 7:35, she really would have had to start walking at about 7:337:35 Faith hears car pull up, sees an officer, hangs up with 911.Agreed. However, you assume its Smith, I say it could have been any vehicle.7:35-7:37 Smith checks area of Maura's car, looks inside & see's no one.2 minutes is a bit slow, but OK. I say 1 minute 30 seconds, so alternatively 7:36:30.7:37-7:39 Smith radios in to check on owner of the car.2 minutes is a bit slow, but OK. I say 30 seconds to radio, he doesn't have to sit due to portability. He has a possibly injured driver to be concerned with. So alternatively 7:37.In my time line, I give Cecil Smith a minute and 30 seconds to do all the above. I added 30 seconds for the license inquiry.7:39-7:42 Smith walks over to speak to WestmansArt says 50 seconds. So alternatively 7:37:50. Of course that is before 7:43, so its impossible.7:43 Smith can ask the Westmans "where's the girl" during his first conversation with them without having been to BA or seeing MM before hand.to ask if the driver is in their house and while walking Smith is updated by dispatch about the call between BA and Hanover 911. (Dispatch could have been on the phone with Hanover and sending updates via radio to Smith while he looks around the site or even stands at the door of the Westman's)If we accept (APT) from 7:43 - we have disregarded some wasted time. However, (APT) attempts to explain with the following:It makes no sense that he would throw the car in park and run to the door of the Westmans; he is going to do some looking around and data collecting before running off to their house even if it's noted as "the first thing" he did.Arguably, you are at 7:37:50 when H2 arrives at FW. In any case, he couldn't be at the Westmans until after 7:43.(APT) has him taking 6 minutes in what could reasonably take 2:50 seconds in my opinion, especially if the driver's health is a concern and H2 is acting responsibly.And then there is the rest of the time line to consider:7:43:50 - H2 arrives back at his vehicle (50 seconds)7:44:50 - H2 drives to BA's bus. (1 minute) The above is in conflict with a fundamental time: H2 arrives at BA at 7:43 + 7 to 9 minutes, which is 7:50 - 7:52. This is another fundamental problem with (OOP) & (APT), not to mention that it disregards official LE records.Try_Using_Your_BrainResponse to /u/HunterPenseI appreciate all your comments. I tend to think logically and think that proof by contradiction can be very useful in keeping things straight in my mind. If I try to prove the timeline for the OOP and some things just don't fit, then I can I see why things didn't (or couldn't) have occurred in that order. I also feel that a certain acceptance of misalignment can be expected for human error but am critical of how much to allow before it's just cramming a square peg into a round hole.I presume you are referring to H2. Although not apropros to the point implied, there are 6 time association to H2 in the log: dispatch, enroute, arrival, cleared, BOLO and notes taken when H2 was cleared.I am not only referring to H2 but also the other 12 (I think that was the official count) individuals from GSO dispatch that were on site but, according to the narrative, never relayed any information back to dispatch. In other calls we can clearly see a volley of information back and forth between the scene and dispatch - all of which ends up in narrative entries - that are just not present in this call. (DISCLAIMER: This is not a thinly veiled conspiracy theory in disguise) I assume that there are narrative entries from this call that have been withheld from general distribution for whatever reasons that LE found appropriate. I think that they would perhaps add some more clarification. If they were not withheld and just never happened I would find that interesting. I would expect to see, at the very least some entries similar to:H2 ADV NO OPERATOR W/ VEH WILL CONTACT CALLER TO DETERMINE OP LOC.H2 ADV EMS AND FIRE CLEARED; NO OP LOCATEDAlthough these would be narrative, and therefore, subject to no official time entries, it would make more sense that there would be some entries. In cleaar contrast to this call see call 04-4761 where H2 responds and no one is there:H2 ADV CAME ONTO LIME KILN FRO RT 25, NO ONE HERE, CONTINUING TO POWERLINESIn terms of time, the "missing narrative items" are not major. In terms of the overall "flow" of the events of the evening, I think they could be considered major but that is a bit of me assuming that there is valuable information just out of reach. Let's just say, I wouldn't bet the house on the missing information being end-all.I will say that your alternative proposed timeline (APT) does not violate the below fundamental time associations for FW/TW or BA. Fundamental time associations include, but are not limited to: BA's arrival time, BA's departure time, 7:35 arrival of vehicle (and lastly) H2 arrival time at BA.However, my personal opinion is that the (APT) is inconsistent with the idea that H2 took the most efficient and appropriate actions between his arrival at the scene and his discussion with BA.I think we are on the same page here - it could of happened as outlined in the APT- but still want to know if it did happen. This was the dialog I was hoping to spur.I will further state that some of the time assumptions in the (APT) are marginally inconsistent with some details stated by Art and Maggie in EP 65 & 66. They have made statements that imply that H2 wasted no time after his arrival while looking at the Saturn and then going to the Westmans.This is where my logic starts to get messy. I actually spent some time in my driveway with a stop watch and 2 cars trying to "simulate" some of the activities that I think a LEO would have done at the scene, but I am not a LEO and had to use some "best guess" science. I tried to set my pace based upon how I thought LE would react to certain aspects - LE would want to make sure there was no injuries (act fast), after that, this is routine in NH (slow down) etc. I came up with such a range of time estimates that it felt like whatever I did use was just back to guessing.Additionally, the (APT) leaves about 2:30-4:30 unexplained between the FW/TW interview and the BA interview.I didn't really look past the FW/TW timeline, but you are correct in order to make sense it would need to fit ALL the known times.Lastly, and most importantly, the (APT) disregards Cecil Smith's arrival time in official LE records (police report (7:45) and the Grafton County Sheriff Logs 7:46:20). Instead, the (APT) treats a theoretically derived H2 arrival time of 7:35 as more authoritative than LE records. The 7:35 arrival time is derived from a combination of Witness A's account from that evening and Cecil Smith's assertion that he was driving Haverhill's SUV 001 on that same evening.I made a pretty big assumption here that I think makes logical sense so feel free to go after it if you see a flaw. I assume that CS used the official dispatch time (GSO) as the time that he entered (rounded nicely) in his official report. CS wrote his official report on the 15th (6 days after the accident) and I assume he filled out the time details by looking at the dispatch logs himself. I say this because otherwise we would have to assume that he took notes as the ambulance arrived in order to remember that they arrived at 1956 - the time listed in the log. I know that a certain level of detail is expected from someone that routinely fills in police reports, but I also assume they learn to mine technical details from other sources. If this is where CS retrieved the time of his arrival we no longer have two sources that put his arrival time at 7:45 but one source and a second that then sited the first. It is easier to believe that one error could have been made (a late log entry from GSO) and then carried through to other sources that used that time. The question then: Is it reasonable that a LEO could call in a late arrival AND a dispatchers could log an arrival late such that the error adds up to at least 10 minutes? This may be the point of "too much misalignment".This is a perfectly reasonable assumption and would explain how, between H2's assumed plate inquiry and arrival at FW's door, H2 would know about "the girl." Of course, this assumption can only be made if we assume that H2 was notified about "the girl" after 7:43.This is where I may give or take a few minutes for human error associated in the manual time entry in the narrative, but for all intents and purposes, I can not assume that dispatch was aware of "the girl" any earlier than say 7:40. If we follow the OOP, FW hung up with GSO at 7:35 when SUV001 arrived. D11 then answered a call (04-4753) for Grafton at 7:36. She spoke with the caller (est: 1:30 to get the whole story), called "Merle" from Grafton's, spoke with his wife (est: 0:45), then sent a page to "Merle" (est: 0:30). This puts us at 7:39. If this is the point that Hanover gets in touch with D11, they need to explain their call with BA so that D11 and Hanover know that they are talking about the same call [est 1:00] so we can assume that D11 could have told CS then, and then called BA and spoke to his wife and added the narrative at the end of the exchange, listing the time as 1943. However this adds even more time to the delay between the FW/TW and BA interviews. Keeps adding to the misalignment.7:31-7:35 Maura leaves the scene. 7:32 - post "flurry of activity" - and if you have Smith there at 7:35, she really would have had to start walking at about 7:33In my opinion, of my own opinion, this is the biggest "hole" in the timeline. I am not hung up on "the girl" for all the reasons above and allow some leeway in a number of other exchanges but I am often stuck here. 2 minutes is a long time to hold your breath but not a long time to get out of any possible line of sight on an open roadway.7:35 Faith hears car pull up, sees an officer, hangs up with 911. Agreed. However, you assume its Smith, I say it could have been any vehicle.I actual don't necessarily assume it was CS, but use this timeline as a way to prove/disprove if it could have been CS.Arguably, you are at 7:37:50 when H2 arrives at FW. In any case, he couldn't be at the Westmans until after 7:43.(APT) has him taking 6 minutes in what could reasonably take 2:50 seconds in my opinion, especially if the driver's health is a concern and H2 is acting responsibly.I have a hard time trying to get to a "reasonable" time for these activities and therefore, I would have a hard time trying to argue that 3 minutes was not enough time.And then there is the rest of the time line to consider:7:43:50 - H2 arrives back at his vehicle (50 seconds) 7:44:50 - H2 drives to BA's bus. (1 minute) The above is in conflict with a fundamental time: H2 arrives at BA at 7:43 + 7 to 9 minutes, which is 7:50 - 7:52. This is another fundamental problem with (OOP) & (APT), not to mention that it disregards official LE records.I guess I get to look at the rest now to see if I can or can't make that fit.Initial response:Lots of good original thought here. Where original thought is expressed, progress is made.D11 then answered a call (04-4753) for Grafton at 7:36. She spoke with the caller (est: 1:30 to get the whole story), called "Merle" from Grafton's, spoke with his wife (est: 0:45), then sent a page to "Merle" (est: 0:30).Now, I haven't thought your post over - or prepared myself for responses. In general, I will say this: An examination of detail, as you have done, is greatly encouraged here.I guess I get to look at the rest now to see if I can or can't make that fit.I applause and encourage your work to make the best argument for (AAP/OOP). As you know it is not my position. However, I believe it fundamentally important that the strongest, most legitimate and well thought out theoretical frameworks be expressed for positions people take within the community. This will allow researchers to honestly assess the positions that they take in both the immediate circumstance and in the wider discussion of an overall theory.AJAYM22A question in regards to Butch Atwood- Critical Statement #1Cecil Smith Arrived At Butch Atwood's Bus 7 - 9 Minutes After His Phone Call to Hanover Dispatch EndedAfter reading the two newspaper articles that are referenced in the above claim, it would seem that the 7-9 minutes the articles mention pertains to the time elapsed between Butch leaving Maura and Cecil arriving on scene, as opposed to the elapsed time between the end of Butch's 911 call and the arrival of Cecil at his bus.The Caledonian-Record 2/20/2004:"After about seven to nine minutes, he looked out and saw the Haverhill Police. Atwood believed the situation was under control and went to the school bus to tend to his paperwork.The next thing he knew, Haverhill Police Department Sgt. Cecil Smith was banging on his bus window. Smith asked him if he had called in the accident and seen anyone at the scene. Atwood told Smith he had seen a girl about 20 with dark hair.Smith said when he arrived, Murray was no longer with her car. In the seven to nine minutes between the time Atwood had left Murray to call for help and the time Smith arrived, Murray had vanished."If that were the case, the times line up perfectly with witness A's account.Thoughts?