On scene investigator banned from Mandalay Bay, MGM, for life after he discovered this!

Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

Thanks David64; you list so many things that really "don't add up" as far as a crime scene, etc eh?

Like you said, even someone who hasn't followed it that close, still thinks something stinks...

Yep, pretty bloody obvious I reckon...

Pravdaseeker



a reply to: DAVID64

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: Ridhya

Is there a formal investigation report, or even a draft? There is nothing to indicate what the formal investigation has revealed or not. If you want to point me to a legitimate source from the official investigation that indicates they are lying then please do so. There is certainly a lot of opinion, comment and the rumour mill is in overdrive, but nothing official as far as I can see.

Otherwise, experience has shown that people create a myth so they can prove a fact against that myth.

I think it has more to do with what we aren't getting to quell suspicion! There is absolutely NOTHING that would hinder the investigation by releasing video surveillance in areas where you would expect video surveillance to exist, showing Mr.Paddock moving about the building!

Nope. Nothing.

Now, why not? Is it because MGM doesn't wish to release information pertaining to the full extent of its security/surveillance? i.e. hidden cameras, etc.?

Considering they are being sued by victims for their response time to which LVPD has changed the timeline 3 times already, could LVPD be rearranging the events to fit a narrative that would be beneficial to MGM in court?? Lessening their liability????

Hmm.

Maybe the surveillance would actually hurt their case, and image, as they DO have the evidence of him prepping the attack.

Or they don't, and still that puts them in a bind because now they're incompetent.

This is why we have brains so we can think for ourselves. We can theorize and run hypothetical scenarios when our guts tell us something just doesn't jive.

You're a good little sheep if you are completely dependent on being told what is true or false instead of questioning inconsistencies and outright bs.

But to each their own I suppose. Doesn't hurt to think sometimes...

..unless it literally hurts you to think sometimes.

a reply to: pravdaseeker

What I am saying is this:

What I am implying, is that until the investigation is complete, until either further arrests have been made, until comprehensive answers have been arrived at, which take into account all witness statements, blood evidence, evidence recovered at autopsy, every piece of evidence from the injured, until the scenes of crime have been fully processed, and the months long job of sifting that HUGE sum of data for suggestive information has been completed, all the police can or should provide, is a rough outline of their current theory of the crime. This they did on the night.

If they come across evidence which requires the police agencies to put out a public request for some kind of assistance, the donation of private CCTV footage from businesses or residences in a given area, a request for information about a certain individual, or an E-Fit, featuring an unidentified suspect of some sort, then they MAY, depending on what manner of suspect we are talking about, decide to put out a public appeal. But we have to be realistic about time frame here.

This is probably one of, if not the largest crime scene ever created by way of a shooting, certainly by way of body count, the amount of blood evidence, the sheer area covered by the killbox, the cone of fire, and the elevation of the shooters position. If done correctly, thousands of square yards of material will need to have been collected, which takes time, sure, but not nearly as much time as actually processing the materials recovered. We are talking about tens of thousands of man hours of work on the part of forensics experts, hundreds if not thousands of hours of use of very delicate and expensive machinery, whose processes take a great deal of time per use, whose expensiveness means that only a limited number are available to a given laboratory...

You have to understand, that although this event needs clearing up, there are also all the run of the mill crime scenes that a city like Vegas produces, still to go through. The Mandalay Bay shooting, although hugely important, will not be able to take up ALL the forensic laboratories time, because there will still be other scenes to process, other evidence to examine from other crime scenes, other evidence having to take up machine time. Crime labs often work on a backlog anyway, so although a certain amount of rush will have been put on certain things, prioritised at the beginning of the investigation, the evidence cannot even be half way done going through the laboratory examination necessary, to make head or tail either of the evidence, or how it fits into the wider picture.

All sorts of things MAY have happened, all manner of other players MAY be involved, and even with witness statements (the LEAST reliable source of data for any investigator of any merit) being given, but as to what can be said for certain? Until the last drop of blood, the last bullet casing, the last fragmented round, the last fibre, hair or epithelial evidence has been properly dealt with by the labs involved, the police would be firing blanks to say a damn thing!

originally posted by: EternalShadow
I think it has more to do with what we aren't getting to quell suspicion! There is absolutely NOTHING that would hinder the investigation by releasing video surveillance in areas where you would expect video surveillance to exist, showing Mr.Paddock moving about the building!

Well, we are two weeks in from the murder of nearly 60 people. It's ridiculous to expect that the police would have conducted an investigation and released a report in that time. Additionally, it's a stupid to expect them to release bits and pieces (such as video footage) to satiate the demands of voyeurs and armchair detectives.

The absence of a police report is not evidence of a conspiracy, or cover-up. However, if you want to reach your own conclusions based on your imagination, or be led by speculative YouTube videos or unnamed "independent" investigators, then crack on.

a reply to: paraphi

Indeed.

In fact, if you want a decent indicator of a cover up, it would be the police having a detailed narrative to provide us, within the small (relative to the scale of the crime) amount of time which has yet passed, between the event and now!

Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

Ok, TrueBrit... I see your point, and some are well made mate, thanks...

So, in reality, the answers are coming someday..... Like when the surviving baby orphans of the Vegas shooting victims are wasting away in an old folks home from alzheimers disease with soiled nappies, and a drool bucket strapped onto their jowls?

Because that is about how long it will take for all that legal stuff you mentioned to happen,,..

Ok, sorry, maybe I was being immersed with ironic pessimism when I just wrote the above..dark humour to help cope with the trauma drama of it all, maybe.

I still maintain the official story stinks like a bucket of rotten prawns in the summer high noon sun. My opinion only of course..Ha!

Thanks again for your valid points mate.

Pravdaseeker




a reply to: TrueBrit

This comes to mind when i read this.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: EternalShadow
I think it has more to do with what we aren't getting to quell suspicion! There is absolutely NOTHING that would hinder the investigation by releasing video surveillance in areas where you would expect video surveillance to exist, showing Mr.Paddock moving about the building!

Well, we are two weeks in from the murder of nearly 60 people. It's ridiculous to expect that the police would have conducted an investigation and released a report in that time. Additionally, it's a stupid to expect them to release bits and pieces (such as video footage) to satiate the demands of voyeurs and armchair detectives.

The absence of a police report is not evidence of a conspiracy, or cover-up. However, if you want to reach your own conclusions based on your imagination, or be led by speculative YouTube videos or unnamed "independent" investigators, then crack on.

Let me put it this way:

There are leaked photos of a man dead on the floor of his suite surrounded by a ridiculous amount of weapons, but nothing else leaked to substantiate him ever getting to that point..

It's ass backwards. The photos were released for shock value, plain and simple. Whereas, video of him actually bringing in multiple bags, boxes, or suitcases should have been released first.

When Tupuc Shakur was killed in Vegas, we saw the video footage of him and his associates fighting in the lobby of a casino which led to him being shot outside the casino. Did we see his autopsy photos first, or the video?

You're telling me a couple snippets of video showing Paddock making his trips was and is less important than seeing his crime scene photos?

Oh that's right get that out first, that way yup...he did it....look at that....yup....look at all those guns...yup it was him....

Pssfft...

a reply to: EternalShadow

what would YOU gain and or deduce from :

" video of mr paddock transiting the hotel public areas ??? "

its a serious question - so have the decency to think about it - before answering

because all you would see is a bloke with some cases in a corridor // lobby // lift [ possibly being trailed by hotel porters with more cases ]

what would that atcually tell you - other thsan people and porters transit the public areas of hotels with luggage ???

ETA - how would you know that any porters following mr paddock are even carrying mr paddocks luggage ? [ unless you have @ the door footage of mr paddocks room ]

Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

Thanks EternalShadow, again more valid points...

Or logical type conclusions maybe.. a little bit of Sherlock Holmes flowing in the veins there..

Thanks..

Pravdaseeker


a reply to: EternalShadow

a reply to: pravdaseeker

First of all, its not LEGAL stuff that needs to happen. Its scientific stuff, lab work and field forensics, you understand? The information which provides narrative, comes as a result of a picture painted with DNA, fingerprints, hair, clothing fibres, gunshot residue, trace evidence tracked into a place on a shoe, a footprint, the angle of impact of a bullet, the presence of a bullet casing in a particular location.

This work takes time. Its not even a matter of legal issues yet, although, no doubt, requests for search warrants and the like are being formulated, the investigation expanded where necessary (which, itself may generate further evidence which needs addressing in the same manner).

Its worth pointing out at this stage, two very important things.

First of all, forensic sciences operate at a glacial pace, by the measures the layperson applies to them. We are all used to watching CSI, and other similar shows, where everything happens in fast forward, to maintain the attention of the viewer, pandering to the accelerating decline of attention spans amongst an increasingly impatient viewership. However, in actual fact, to be any use whatsoever, things have to be done correctly in scientific terms, otherwise conclusions reached and results gained, will have a higher than acceptable percentage chance of being in error. Evidence handling procedure has to be adhered to, not just because legally speaking it must be, but because it is the only sure way to make certain that evidence is neither tampered with, nor mixed up from case to case, or victim to victim, for example. Small errors at this stage of investigation, in the labwork, can create absolute havoc, not just in the courtroom, but in terms of finding out what the hell ACTUALLY happened in the necessary degree of detail.

Second, the truth, even a harrowing, disturbing and upsetting one, can bring closure. But lies, or erroneous statements being bought forward, previous to the evidence being correctly processed, examined and its implications properly understood, would not. Let me offer an example.

A child dies while in the care of its father, who is separated from his wife. He is the only other person living at the address, where the young deceased person is found. The police are called by the father. They find bruising on the childs neck, and bring in the father for questioning.

Based on a shallow interpretation of the scene and the events which lead to the arrival of the police, arresting the man and going ahead and charging him would seem reasonable...

But, much later, after the evidence in the room is gone over carefully, by trained professionals and their bags and bags of scientific tricks, it turns out that someone else entered the abode, through the window of the childs room, using some clever, low impact method which only got caught because a keen eyed scientist notices a tiny piece of evidence on the window frame, or next to the childs bed, which shows that the killer entered that way, and weighed fifty pounds less than the father.

Going with the first read does not offer closure, does not do anything positive, either for the case from the legal perspective, or in terms of offering the relatives of the dead or the injured solace. All it does is muddy the water, make the truth harder to actually pin down, and biases peoples minds against what turns out to be a more accurate picture of what happened.

The big picture takes time to paint. It might not be years, but it will be a damned sight longer than a couple of weeks, judging by the weight of evidence material that needs to be properly examined. Thats just a reality of the process, and the process is the only way to arrive at reasonably realistic conclusions about what happened.

originally posted by: Ridhya
a reply to: paraphi
That still doesn't detract from the fact that he's absolutely right! Investigators lied about the cameras, maintenance elevators, access card, well everything really!

It's like they're being sloppy on purpose...

Did they lie, or have they not made the camera recordings public? Huge difference.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: EternalShadow

what would YOU gain and or deduce from :

" video of mr paddock transiting the hotel public areas ??? "

its a serious question - so have the decency to think about it - before answering

because all you would see is a bloke with some cases in a corridor // lobby // lift [ possibly being trailed by hotel porters with more cases ]

what would that atcually tell you - other thsan people and porters transit the public areas of hotels with luggage ???

First of all, obviously it would SHOW him.

Secondly, why haven't we seen that if it's so trivial in your opinion

a reply to: pravdaseeker

Pretty good work by this Falco guy. Only thing I can see wrong was his showing of the service elevator and saying Paddock didn't need a key card. If it's like most, the card is inserted once you get on the elevator to reach the upper floors or a specific floor in the building. No need for exterior access panels with that.

Is it possible the authoritise and the Hotel security staff are wanting to be deliberately vague about the camera footage too, because they don't want people to know how good or bad the coverage actually is?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: paraphi

Indeed.

In fact, if you want a decent indicator of a cover up, it would be the police having a detailed narrative to provide us, within the small (relative to the scale of the crime) amount of time which has yet passed, between the event and now!

Exactly! If all the details and timeline were consistent from the get go, that would indicate a story agreed upon before alll the facts were known. In other words, it is lack of contradictions that would be suspicious, and might indicate a cover up.

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: EternalShadow

what would YOU gain and or deduce from :

" video of mr paddock transiting the hotel public areas ??? "

its a serious question - so have the decency to think about it - before answering

because all you would see is a bloke with some cases in a corridor // lobby // lift [ possibly being trailed by hotel porters with more cases ]

what would that atcually tell you - other thsan people and porters transit the public areas of hotels with luggage ???

First of all, obviously it would SHOW him.

Secondly, why haven't we seen that if it's so trivial in your opinion

Because nothing is trivial to conspiracy theorists, and an absence of information is better than information that can be twisted to serve a conspiracy theory.

originally posted by: EternalShadow
Let me put it this way:

There are leaked photos of a man dead on the floor of his suite surrounded by a ridiculous amount of weapons, but nothing else leaked to substantiate him ever getting to that point..

So? Would you be satisfied if the police just leaked everything? Maybe, released all the videos and interviews of the injured, aggrieved and bereaved. What would make you satisfied once you have seen the footage of the murderer picking his nose in the lift? What would you then need to see?

I think it's a new hobby, this morose and voyeuristic need for people to know how horrible events happened immediately. Perhaps driven by the fantasy forensics of CSI, where in a hour episode things are solved just like that.

a reply to: tigertatzen

Every single blessed time.

Yep he sure does - I couldn't be bothered with hi strolling, thanks for calling it

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: EternalShadow

what would YOU gain and or deduce from :

" video of mr paddock transiting the hotel public areas ??? "

its a serious question - so have the decency to think about it - before answering

because all you would see is a bloke with some cases in a corridor // lobby // lift [ possibly being trailed by hotel porters with more cases ]

what would that atcually tell you - other thsan people and porters transit the public areas of hotels with luggage ???

ETA - how would you know that any porters following mr paddock are even carrying mr paddocks luggage ? [ unless you have @ the door footage of mr paddocks room ]

My guess would be that there is video of one or more agents of whatever agency following him. Similar to the TX terrorist shooting and the FBI agent that just happened to be in the car behind the shooters but did nothing.