UndiscoveredTruth,
I realize you are only the messenger here, so my comments are not directed at you per se. I'm not about to guess whether or not the jury understands what he meant. I can tell you I did.
Recall he had a chart showing different colored dots representing estimates of the cell tower of where Jessica's phone was at the time a signal was received from it on December 6th. One color was used to represent the multiple estimates when she was known to be at her home in Courtland that morning, another color was used to represent the multiple estimates when she was known to be at the crime scene on Herron Rd that evening. Other color dots represented where the cell tower estimated her phone's location during the day around Courtland at other times when her exact whereabouts were not known.
After excluding outliers, which Rowlett explained were points so far away from the other location estimates made at the same time that they were obvious errors, he noticed the remaining points clustered near her home and the other points clustered near her crime scene were both centered about 0.5 miles toward the west compared to the actual known locations at those times. So he shifted all the data points 0.5 miles to the east, merely as a means of correcting the raw estimate from the cell tower to something more accurate. He was -not- fudging data, he was making a uniform adjustment to make it better match the known reality it estimated. For example, sometimes a household scale has to be adjusted to zero when it is registering some weight when nothing is on it.
If this reporter didn't understand that, probably one or more of the jurors didn't either. Hopefully, once they are allowed to discuss the case, the jurors that did understand the "shift" can figure out how to explain it to those who didn't.
Regards,
Clouseau
