Addressing the Criticisms of my Report Witness A and 001: A Plausible Account

I released my findings in a report on 12/23/2019 called Witness A and 001: A Plausible Account.  As expected, I received a considerable amount of criticism, most of which ignored why the animation and report indicated times that have been deemed impossible.  I take that to mean that I failed in my presentation and did not keep the interest of the reader to the end where the real conclusion emerges.  Thus, for the sake of clarity I am going to present the conclusion unchanged from the report as a single item in reverse.

So here we go:

A plausible solution to the Witness A/001/Cecil controversy has nothing to do with the physics of the matter.  It has to do with a clerical issue in regards to the Grafton County Sheriff's Log that was really easy to overlook.  So I am not trying to "fit" anything here.  My contention is that Sgt. Cecil Smith was at the accident scene near 19:36, which allows the Witness A account to be substantiated.  I know that is a big deviation from the explanations that have been going around the internet for the past 15 years.   Here are the main things:

1.  The system they used indexes the calls by the timestamp of the first contact.  FW 911 call defines the log entry we are concerned with.  All data that comes in as the situation progresses is essentially filed under the timestamp of the initial call.

2.  It appears as if once the "incident" or "file" that is created with the timestamp of the first contact (in our case FW), as units (FD, PD, EMS) are dispatched they are added individually as entries.  In our case, Cecil Smith, Woodsville Pumper E2, and Woodsville A1) .

3.  It appears based on all the available entries that each unit can only be attached to the file once.

4.  The system allows each responding unit one set of the 4 times, Disp, En Rt, Arvd, Cleared.

The problem here is that Cecil was responding to more than one call.  So we know that his dispatch time and enrt times are for FW's Call.  But then Atwood gets through to Grafton at 19:43 as the second 911 call for the incident and requests the 10-25.

So which call is the 19:46 arrival time for, FWs or BA's?

I think it was the arrival time for BA's request for the 10-25.  And it is not because I just like it or want to push a narrative.

I think so because when I plotted out Monaghan's report as a timeline, it mentions that he heard Cecil's dispatch, Cecil signing off, then Woodsville shortly after.  Woodsville wasn't on the radio until 19:42, and then after that Cecil was on the radio saying the female wasn't with the vehicle.

Cecil's police report alludes to the same thing -- he gets there, no one is there,talked to BA,  then found out a young female was with the vehicle prior to his arrival and starts searching.

I wasn't trying to prove this theory, it just popped out to me when I was plotting data so there is no narrative.  I think it is plausible because then neither Witness A's account of 001, The Sheriff Logs, Cecil's report, nor Monaghan's report need be interpreted as anything other than what is on the paper.

I welcome hardcore criticism here, and I appreciate those who can dish it out and take it because we can figure something out here I am sure of it.