Oh I have learned more than you think. I have in fact learned not to trust your judgement as you will twist and turn every which way you can to arrive at the point where you want to be. Whenever a point you have raised can no longer be sustained, as has happened several times in this discussion, you just move on to the next speculative point. Your latest effort being that somehow the person who typed the transcript was confused.
Another one of your "reasonable speculations"? 
Yes. It is. I leave it to the reader to go to
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/To see the transcripts of what was said on the Police Radio.
At the top of the first page, in the third paragraph, you will find the phrase “Real Player downloaded and installed”. Click on that to download the Real Player application that will allow you to listen to parts of the broadcast. It takes around 10 minutes to figure out how to download and install.
And looking at the transcripts and listening to portions of the broadcast, judge for yourself if my premise is correct. And never trust the word of Martin about what is recorded without checking it out for yourself.
What is my premise? That the person who transcribed the recordings did not do a good job of identifying who was talking to the Dispatcher. He may have recorded what was said pretty well, but misidentified the speaker on multiple occasions. What are some of the indicators of a mistake?
1. If the transcript says “Officer A” gives a location where he is at, and two minutes later again gives the location where he is at, which is 13 miles away, then “Officer A” did not make both statements. These are two different statements made by two different officers.
2. If the transcript says that “Officer A” asks for instructions, is given an address to go to, and acknowledges the instructions. And then a minute later “Officer A” appears to suffer a major memory lapse and again asks for instructions, is given the same address to go to, and again acknowledges the instructions, these statements were not all made by “Officer A”. Instead these are instructions given to two different officers telling them to go to the same address.
3. If the transcript says that “Officer A” talks to the Dispatcher, and the Dispatcher responds as if he was talking to “Officer B”, then it was actually “Officer B” who was talking to the Dispatcher.
I will leave it to the reader to judge whether this is a reasonable premise or not.
Your "version" is nothing more than a string of self serving arguments based on a false premise. You need to listen to the actual broadcast. The dispatcher does not say "nineteen"... he says "nine ten" whatever that means.
No. I listened to the recording. The Dispatcher says “10” pause “19”. Clearly the Dispatcher is about to say a common phrase, like “10-4”. But then corrects himself and says “19”, indicating that he is talking to Officer Owens, not Officer Sabastian. He is definitely not saying “9-10”, which Martin can’t even come up with a theory about what that would be code for.
Again, I urge the reader not to take Martin’s word for it, not to take my word for it, but to download the Real Player application, which I gave some instructions on earlier, so they can listen to the recording and judge for themselves.
