Exclusively about date/times, this seems like the correct sequence (older to newer): 1 > 8/23/2010 8:27 2 > 8/24/2010 1:38 3 > 8/24/2010 1:44 4 > 8/24/2010

Exclusively about date/times, this seems like the correct sequence (older to newer): 1 > 8/23/2010 8:27 2 > 8/24/2010 1:38 3 > 8/24/2010 1:44 4 > 8/24/2010 4:35 5 > 8/24/2010 9:33 Which should imply that there has been some other communication through other means between #1 and #2.