With all due respect, I think you are misinterpreting that text in isolation, and not part of the broader conversation taking place, Context is important when analyzing individual communications. Nicol sends text to group of 8, and one of that group recommends he call command. (You don’t see all of the conversation in my slide because it was not meant to capture the whole conversation, just the key parts related to determining the criteria for where he was seen using the rangefinder. Other text messages not captured in the AAR are not provided, but can be found in the full timeline. BeC only provided text messages from a few BeC ESU team members. Other text messages were shared with command, which is BuC, and BeC did not have access to their phones.)
Nicol does radio command as suggested, but like in his text message, he does not provide a direction of travel. Text messages coming from command request direction of travel, and that request is passed back down to Nicol from Priolo, who is almost certainly one of the 8 group chat members. Nicol responds with his text that includes he was “up against the building.”
So, that text was absolutely in reference to where he was seen using the rangefinder, it just took the text exchange a while to go full circle due to the number of people or layers it went through.
Here is the more complete timeline, just paraphrased, as it pertains to the reporting of the suspicious person. And please refrain from telling me I’m including evidence that doesn’t exist. Take the time to look through the multiple timelines yourself to get the full picture. I did.
As for the criteria I based my inference on, taken from the evidence, there is another criteria your proposed location fails to meet, like the AAR 2 south wall. Nicol lost sight of him as he was heading “away from the event.”
As for my sidebar analysis, that is my personal work performed to examine evidence to make an inference about the location of the rangefinder sighting, because that was not revealed to us, for use in my broader work that is a timeline analysis of Crooks’ movements while on the AGR Grounds. Satisfied that I have done a thorough job examining that evidence to make my inference, I have no need to consider others’ speculations that have not been as thorough, and contradict the evidence. It is not a standalone work posted to try and convince others of that location. I merely share my work with others.
I don’t mind people challenging my work, when it’s done in a respectful and constructive way. Two heads are better than one, and like the proverb says, “As iron sharpens iron, so do men sharpen me.”
