About the Vegas Killer... newest info

a reply to: Boadicea

Also, if those cameras were to monitor the hall, who was monitoring the cameras?

not hard to glance over your shoulder at a laptop. and if these diagrams exist and list the locations of items please post them to back up your claim. also if they illustrated where weapons were, and we know that they made it a point to mention his gear and note on the table. don't you think they would be smart enough to list the locations of his gear and other items. just for the fact that people would be doing what everybody is doing now in questioning every little detail.

come on give them a little credit, especially if done after the fact and they control the investigation. time would mean nothing to them in setting up the scene

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: pale5218

originally posted by: xuenchen
Las Vegas news conference on now.

Is it still on, I’m at gym, they don’t watch this unless it’d sports related

The latest article...

video in the article.

Sheriff says he stands by new timeline of Las Vegas Strip shooting

Interesting stuff:

About 5:27ish in on the video at your link, Lomabardo is talking about the autopsy....

He says, "Yes, an autopsy has been performed on Mr. Paddock *pause* OR the suspect."

Is Mr. Paddock the suspect or not? Do they know who the autopsy was performed on?

Going back to this comment.

I just watched the press conference from Monday, Oct.9, and noticed that Lombardo said he does not want to use Paddock's name and risk making him relatable to people (I'm paraphrasing) so he prefers to call him "the suspect," instead.

I think that's why he said, "Yes, an autopsy has been performed on Mr. Paddock *pause* OR the suspect," now.

I just wanted to follow up on that now that my thinking has changed.

a reply to: Boadicea

IIRC, there was a witness who claimed to have "seen" the firecrackers, too. Someone posted that account in another thread. I'll dig it up if you are interested.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Your attitude is not necessary, appropriate nor appreciated.

then explain why there are the same kind of wires running across the hall in the image of the gun in the door? you do remember he had peep hole camera installed right? where if anybody walks in could see them.

What the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China??? I don't even understand what you're asking, especially in the context of my comment you were responding to. But it doesn't matter. What I remember is what we have been told and or led to believe. That's all we've got. Neither you nor I were there and personally saw and experienced a damn thing. Neither you nor I know a damn thing. And I could give you 101 possible explanations, and it's still just conjecture and speculation.

My best answer to your specific question, however, is that we have no idea how or where those cameras were initially set up, much less for what purpose, we saw no evidence that the gunman was in any monitoring those cameras, and we have no idea who did the sloppy hallway placement we saw, nor when. It could have happened many ways for all we know.

Sorry, I keep throwing out random questions/ideas, but if i don't post when I think of them I will probably forget them.

Anyhow, I know i heard Campos and at least one other person who got shot, say they're leaving the bullets in them...for now. Now, why would they do that? Concealing evidence maybe?

originally posted by: nikkib0421
a reply to: Boadicea

Have they mentioned Campos' exact location when hiding from gunfire? I would imagine, if it happened like they claim, the shooter would be watching from inside the room? Did Campos play dead right where he was shot? One would assume if you shot at a person and saw him limp away....that he would be calling 911. How in the world did the shooter(s) feel safe enough to fire on the crowd for 10 minutes after?

All good questions that need better answers than we've been getting. Of course the shooter would expect a security guard to call in for back up, so presuming the gunman could "see" into the hallway, why would the shooter stop shooting at him if he was still alive? Even if he ducked into one of the recesses, the gunman could just wait him out or go out and search him out.

Before Campos was "identified" and introduced to the narrative, I kept saying that he was the key to what happened in the hallway. He still is, but not the way I originally thought and expected.

Unless they expected to get shot by police, but obviously that didn't happen.

That doesn't make sense either. I don't know how the gunman could have expected to get away -- not in that set up. But if it was a suicide mission, then why not just keep firing at the crowd until the cops took you out?

a reply to: Boadicea

You make a good point wondering why Paddock didn't just go out in the hall and shoot him...IF the cameras were on and he could see he wasn't armed.

a reply to: Boadicea

None of it makes sense.

The sheriff, in the beginning, said he expected to get away. He said it more than once....with a chuckle and a shake of the head. Right Then I thought.....its because whoever did it DID get away.

I don't mean to rag on the Sheriff. I got a really good vibe from him early on. I feel that he is being used as the mouthpiece of the fbi. The write the lines and he reads them.

I think he is beyond frustrated with the situation and feels like his hands are tied. At the same time, I feel he owes it to the public to admit publicly that his hands are tied. Probably not the safest option, but as a public servant, it's his duty.

originally posted by: nikkib0421
Sorry, I keep throwing out random questions/ideas, but if i don't post when I think of them I will probably forget them.

Anyhow, I know i heard Campos and at least one other person who got shot, say they're leaving the bullets in them...for now. Now, why would they do that? Concealing evidence maybe?

Here's a thought...maybe Campos declined to have it removed. Maybe he is the one that wants to conceal that evidence?

Also, I haven't heard another person was shot with the bullet being left inside. You don't have a link for that, do you?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I never understood that either. If Campos was just being nosey....let him keep on walking unharmed.

If he knocks on the door, open the door, order him in and shoot him at close range.

One of the many reasons I don't think he was shot by Paddock, or anyone else that was behind that door.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Not handy, but i will dig around to see if I can find one.

Between the tv and online news it's hard to remember exactly where i saw it. I should save/write this stuff down in the moment.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

not hard to glance over your shoulder at a laptop.

Well, duh. Let me be more precise: One cannot aim and shoot a crowd of people AND monitor a laptop at the same time... neither can one aim and shoot a crowd of people AND "glance over your shoulder at a laptop." Nor have we seen any sign that there was a laptop set up for him to monitor the cameras.

and if these diagrams exist and list the locations of items please post them to back up your claim.

Oh dear Lordy. You would be talking about this diagram from the New York Times that I referred to, and which the person I was actually speaking to has also seen. And I post it for the benefit of others who may want to understand what I was referring to.

But that's not you, or you would have simply asked nicely for a link or a nod in the right direction. Instead you pull the old "links! links! prove it!!!" Since I qualified my comment with an "if," I was not making any claims, but making a suggestion -- nothing to "back up." If you really wanted to know the truth, you'd be doing your own due diligence and would have found it for yourself. For that matter, if you really wanted to know the truth, you would have seen it already and known exactly what I was talking about, before spewing opinions based on incomplete -- and therefore faulty -- information.

also if they illustrated where weapons were...

No "if" about it.

...and we know that they made it a point to mention his gear and note on the table. don't you think they would be smart enough to list the locations of his gear and other items. just for the fact that people would be doing what everybody is doing now in questioning every little detail.

Read the article for yourself and then you'll know as much as I know about that. I don't presume to know what anyone is "smart enough" to do or not do... all I can know is what they do.

come on give them a little credit, especially if done after the fact and they control the investigation. time would mean nothing to them in setting up the scene

I don't think it's me that isn't giving them enough credit. Of course time would mean nothing... they would take as much time as necessary to set up the scene they want to set up. So I'm quite sure that's the scene we have. What I don't know is what their purposes were, much less what the truth is. I only know what they want me to know.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Boadicea

IIRC, there was a witness who claimed to have "seen" the firecrackers, too. Someone posted that account in another thread. I'll dig it up if you are interested.

Thank you -- it might have been me -- but it's okay, I'm going to go back over all the comments anyway for any links to multiple shooters.

The offer and info is much appreciated though

a reply to: MotherMayEye

www.nydailynews.com...

Here ya go. The article claims the bullet is lodged in his neck.

I need to bring this plaque up, again:




David Hickey, president SPFPA, has clearly been in contact with Campos since the very beginning. The union is representing Campos.

So, I have to think that Campos led David Hickey to believe he diverted the shooter's attention away from shooting at the crowd.

How could he accept this award if it wasn't true?

Also, this award was given on October 10. That's the day after Lombardo changed the timeline and said Campos was not the reason that the shooter stopped firing on the concert...

...And STILL, they gave him the award.

Campos is the key to unraveling some big lies in the story.

originally posted by: nikkib0421
Sorry, I keep throwing out random questions/ideas, but if i don't post when I think of them I will probably forget them.

No apologies!!! It keeps us on our toes... keeps our minds open and thinking... keeps us from falling into an echo chamber... keeps us looking at and questioning the "facts" and theories. Keep 'em coming!

Anyhow, I know i heard Campos and at least one other person who got shot, say they're leaving the bullets in them...for now. Now, why would they do that? Concealing evidence maybe?

That's my suspicion. Something similar is happening in the Oregon Standoff case, where one of the defendants still has a bullet in his arm that he supposedly sustained while fired on by LE... if the bullet isn't removed, it can't be tested and identified and used against anyone.

However, it may also be more a matter of delegating resources wisely. In other words, the ratio of doctors to patients was such that they had to let the non-lethal injuries wait in order to take care of the most critical patients.

Whatever the reason is, no one has stated it explicitly and publicly.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Boadicea

You make a good point wondering why Paddock didn't just go out in the hall and shoot him...IF the cameras were on and he could see he wasn't armed.

Right??? It's like some of the facts support one narrative... and some of the facts support other narratives... but taken together, all the facts don't support any one narrative.

originally posted by: nikkib0421
a reply to: MotherMayEye

www.nydailynews.com...

Here ya go. The article claims the bullet is lodged in his neck.

Thanks!

ETA: Shot near the airport, I see.

originally posted by: nikkib0421
a reply to: Boadicea
I don't mean to rag on the Sheriff. I got a really good vibe from him early on. I feel that he is being used as the mouthpiece of the fbi. The write the lines and he reads them.

I understand, and I agree. Very early I got the feeling the Sheriff was trying to serve the people, and was being thwarted by the Feds. At some point, he just gave in. I don't know why, but he's playing the game now.

I think he is beyond frustrated with the situation and feels like his hands are tied. At the same time, I feel he owes it to the public to admit publicly that his hands are tied. Probably not the safest option, but as a public servant, it's his duty.

That's just it: The people elected him to serve their best interests and he's dropping the ball. And there is a Supreme Court precedence for the constitutionally-endowed Sheriff -- an elected official who answers to the people -- not being subject to the authority of the FBI -- who are un-elected officials answering to bureaucrats. (I don't remember the case now, but it was brought about by Sheriff Mack of Arizona, and merged with another case.) So the Sheriff more than any other law enforcement agency has the power and authority to defy the feds as he sees fit.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yes, i think he is the loose end in all of this.

I think the union, just like the hotel, NEED for Campos to be hero. Theyre fully commited at this point.