Have you verified that the recording and the event report are in accord w/ one another when we start the call @ 19:09?
And have you also verified that the event report shows the officer arriving @ 19:17?
So, since the time periods between events are consistent between the event report and the recording of the call, AND since the event report and the SPD report both have the SPD arriving @ 19:17, what conclusion can you reach?
It can’t be that the SCSO clock is off. I has the officer arriving on the scene at the correct time.
So what are we left with?
Transcription error looms pretty large as a likely and reasonable answer, imho.
But if you haven’t examined the evidence yet, you may not have yet reached the same conclusion.
The last poll I saw said that the majority of Americans don’t think they have enough info to make up their minds.
I think this is a bigger deal on interweb MBs than it is irl.
But those taking shots at Zimmerman have walked a mile in his?
Maybe, and if that were the only misrepresentation, I would be inclined to believe that.
You should first ask the parents and their attorney what relevance Trayvon Martin’s record at school had, since they were the ones that introduced it into the public discourse. They said he was a great student and the school loved him. Then, when asked about suspensions, they lied about them.
I just finished Zimmerman’s call and the audio recording matches Singleton’s records with a start time of 19:11:12. I haven’t done the 911 from W11 yet. The biggest difference was 3 seconds which she listed as approximate.
I don’t think there is a problem with the clock itself, but with the manual data entry and people trying to interpret a system they don’t understand and trying to second guess a woman who does it for a living, because it doesn’t fit their scenario.
I notice that the transaction numbers incremented by 14 between when Zimmerman called and the first 911 call. That is 14 calls in 5 minutes and 31 seconds. The 911 center must be fairly chaotic with operators managing several events at the same time and dealing with multiple emergency services at the same time. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the transactions are actually entered under the wrong event.
Zimmerman was calling the non-emergency number, which probably means that 911 calls would actually jump over him in the queue.
Umm…der. No shit. Unless there was an error with addition used to derive the times, that would be the case.
Have you checked it against the source document yet?
The event report shows how long it was between events like the start of the call and when the officer arrived on the scene.
Check the time stamps on the notes w/ the recording of the call.
Those time periods are verifiably accurate.
How can the times between events in the event report be in line with the recording of the call, and be in line with the SPD report as to when the officers arrived, but not be in accord with when the call started?
Like the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office? What scenario is the SCSO pushing?
Why do you think that the SCSO don’t know how to read data from their system?
I don’t know how to convey to you that we’re not talking about something I figured out. We’re talking about what the SCSO says. I have tried some very plain language.
:shrug:
Tell you what. Since you apparently can’t even afford $10 (I can only assume your mother is paying for your internet connection down in her basement) let’s do this. If you are right, I will donate $100 to the charity of =your= choice, *and *will leave this message board.
If I am right, you will post a 500 word post extolling me and my all-too-obvious brilliance, *and *then =you= will never post on these boards again. We’ll ask the mods to monitor our IP addresses if needed.
We need a volunteer to be judge & jury on this. Any takers?
(apologies if this isn’t appropriate for IMHO)
I interpret “connection time” to mean connection time.
So in some sense you’re right.
But, iirc, didn’t we get the info that the SCSO says the call started @ 19:09 from some source other than me?
Didn’t that come from an article which you linked to?
Let’s double check.
Yep. It’s from in an article cited by you, Joel. I can provide you a link to your previous post on this matter if you like.
Somehow, I interpreted the data and snuck my interpretation into the news article which you cited?
How do you figure that happened, Joel?
The Arizona Beverage Company sells several drinks including several varieties of iced tea. Martin purchased their AriZona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail product.
It appears that we humans have been getting pretty specific about who said what when and how long it took for them to say it. Facts is facts. And this fact has been available to the LSM and bloggers for quite a while. There was no “ice tea”.
No one should have to leave or pay money. I think it’s been hyped up enough now. Both sides have lain some of their credibility on the line. That’s good enough.
Serino’s report starts on 35. The timeline is on page 6 of his report. I’m not interpreting anything. I am just reading the report. You are the one saying that his report is wrong.
Why do you consider this fact relevant or worthy of even mentioning?
The *Arizona *brand became popular based on it’s iced-tea. I know plenty of people who refer to all their flavors – including the non-tea flavors – generically as Arizona Iced Tea.
You’ve brought up this total non-issue so many times, now that you continue to make a point of it, could you please explain to us why you think it’s worthy of note?
And Serino’s actual report says, and I quote (pg 38 of this pdf):
Which is why people have just been calling it ‘iced tea’. It’s really not that big of a deal and certainly has zero to do with why Martin got shot that night.
Except some people think it shows what an obviously drugged-up aggressive druggy martin was that night:
Candy is also added to this mix. Martin was buying two of the usually three ingrediants (no one has bothered to ask Martin’s family if there was any codeine at the house he was staying at) - of course the concoction is useless without the main active ingredient, but hey! Clearly this is evidence that Martin was a massive drug-user which would make him so much more likely to sucker-punch George by sneaking up behind him and…er, talking to him. Or something.
:rolleyes:
Purple Drink is, by all accounts, real, but the idea that 17yr old kids would go through the trouble to make it is pretty far-fetched IMHO. I’ve purchased various Arizona brand drinks & candy at the same time, and I’m about as far removed from the southern hip-hop culture as you can get. I also recall reading somewhere that Martin’s little brother had asked for the Skittles. JoelUpchurch, on the one in an approx. 1.7896 million chance I’m wrong, I’m still not paying you one thin dime. It’ll go to a charity of my choice.
I am familiar with what Purple Drank/Lean is. In fact, I’m familiar enough to know that Skittles wouldn’t work, since you would need a pure sugar hard-candy that would dissolve, like Jolly Ranchers. Skittles have a chewy/gummy type consistency and wouldn’t dissolve very readily.
Yeah, but that hasn’t stopped some of the less mentally stable fringe members doing the hint hint nudge nudge Martin was a druggy wink wink.
Here’s what the report says - it’s (stop me if you’ve heard this before) Detective Singleton’s manually calculated timeline (pg 38 of the link above):
Event 2012571555
One assumes Singleton is getting the 19:11:12 from the call record. That’s problematic because according to the same call record, the ‘suspicious person is running from him’ is entered into the system at 19:11:59.
So we have two conflicting records - one with a ‘running from me’ at 19:11:59, and one at 19:13:19. Both can not be right.
Might just be me, but I’m going with the automatically time-stamped call record over the manually prepared timeline based on hand-made notes.
If the call were off by 80 seconds or whatever, then the arrival time of T. Smith would be off by 80 seconds in the event report and in the Serino report.
Rather, they are oddly off by 29 seconds.