[wisconsinconservative]

According to the officer who reproduced the report(who was one of the responding oficers), it is absolutely accurate as to the details of the original report. He stated it was easily readable on the microfilm screen but illegible in printed form.

" The quality of the microfilm onto which the report was transferred has degenerated; the report can be read on the microfilm screen but it is largely unreadable in printed form. Due to the circumstances of this case, I have reproduced the report in its entirety so the record can be preserved. This new entry is absolutely accurate as to the content of the narrative, which could be easily read on the microfilm screen. The captions are also easily readable on the microfilm screen and they, too, were reproduced accurately as to content. Only small. technical aspects of the captions are different because the report writing format has changed since 1990."

What I would like to know is why it was reproduced by this officer on October 22, 2003??? Did somebody ask for it to be done? That would have been around the time that the feeding tube was re-inserted, right?

[Krodg]

I misread his comments. Thanks for clearing that up.

[nicmarlo]

What I would like to know is why it was reproduced by this officer on October 22, 2003???

That's exactly what I was wondering.