I'm guessing the 2:27 is actually PM. MM was up all night looking for Smich, if he'd messaged at 2:27 she wouldn't have been worried.
From the spreadsheet: " 2:30 am Pickup truck enters hangar via north entrance."
By 7:58 they were picking her up.
I'm guessing the 2:27 is actually PM. MM was up all night looking for Smich, if he'd messaged at 2:27 she wouldn't have been worried.
Maybe bc he was texting (or imessaging or whatever) from a different place then he normally would? Adds credibility to his phone dying IMO.....
good point.....
I always say it's estimated time for arrival.Enroute time actual = eta
Enroute time estimate = ete
For you if you didn't know before (as I) .....
The person on the other end messages: "Reaching you now, ete 20mins, bring change of clothes." The iPad messages back: "My phones being retarded. Link me when you back these ways."
by Adam Carter 2:37 PM
Between that and the BBQ comment, I'm beginning to feel sick
These people all seemed to use each others phones so possibly you are correct.What if "Baby." is Nougda? and that's why Mark clarifies? Then it would make sense why Marlena's still freaking out at 6am.
Just thinking.
Colin Butler ‏@ColinButlerCBC 15s15 seconds ago
Another one from May 5 2013 tells the iPad user "mission day" and then "bring a change of clothes" #Bosma
Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 51s52 seconds ago
Exchange between Crown Leitch and witness about figuring out time of texts. Factoring in daylight savings...#bosma
Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 22s23 seconds ago
Then incoming text: "reaching you now, ete (sic)n20mins, bring change of clothes." 1 pm. Next message 7 hrs later
Ann Brocklehurst ‏@AnnB03 15s16 seconds ago
"bring change of clothes" says a text to diplomaticx on may 5, 2013. Earlier message said it was mission day
These people all seemed to use each others phones so possibly you are correct.
These people all seemed to use each others phones so possibly you are correct.
If they all use each other's phones then how is this evidence? You need to be able to tie a phone to a user. If they couldn't do that, it wouldn't be admissible in court.
True, but how can you possibly be certain who is using any device? We've heard about conversations with Millard on CNs phone and with Smich on MMs phone. How do we know who's who?
maybe because he said "it's Mark"?