Tunisia attack: Essex nurse claims second gunman was firing at the height of hotel shooting

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Found the picture of the dead gunman, definitely still all in black. Not going to post it as it's probably too graphic for t&c but it's definitely out there if anybody cares to look for it.

@ intrptr - there's pics and video of him at the waterline in all black so I don't think so. That'd be a quick change and lots of witnesses.

Plot twist - all the lifeguards appear to be in red shorts. Hmm?

Then I want to interview witnesses and determine how many saw someone with a gun in red as opposed to the number of people that saw someone in black. Mistaken identity?

Maybe they were killing the terr and somebody thought an officer was a bad guy.

Shoot outs are a lot of loud (and I mean loud) reverberating gun fire and panicked people running ever which way.

Easy to become confused at source and direction of harm and escape.

a reply to: intrptr

Perhaps, but a simple show of hands for who saw red and who saw black is an over simplification I think.

One shooter on the beach, the alleged other inside the hotel. Were the shootings carrying on simultaneously, as witness suggest? Witnesses have said a gunman burst into a reception area and started shooting while the other guy was still on the beach.

Accepting the possibility that there was a plainclothes or off-duty cop engaging the subject, how does that account for the shooter in red shorts stepping over the nurse more than once? What about the report that the police were chasing a second gunman and were engaging him?

I see where you're going I just don't think it's quite as simple as confusing red shorts for black.

I hope we see serious action against daesh after this atrocity.
Churchill would have levelled al raqqah if he was PM.
And I would have agreed with the decision.

Its time to take the gloves off and start defending your citizens Mr Cameron.

Couple things I'd like to add. If you're a victim in an active shooting incident it's pretty traumatic and your mind can play tricks on you. I think if I was shot in both legs and laying on the ground I might have a hard time recalling colors also . I also think if I had a rifle and was on the balcony i would try to shoot the SOB .


Does anybody think it could've been a civilian attempting to help?

originally posted by: Greathouse
Couple things I'd like to add. If you're a victim in an active shooting incident it's pretty traumatic and your mind can play tricks on you. I think if I was shot in both legs and laying on the ground I might have a hard time recalling colors also . I also think if I had a rifle and was on the balcony i would try to shoot the SOB .


Does anybody think it could've been a civilian attempting to help?

I guess it could have been a civilian trying to help, but the rate of gun ownership and the restrictive nature of their laws leads me to think it wasn't.

I do find it odd that the stories say the shooter shot the women in the legs and the men in the head. Not sure why that has been pointed out in a couple of stories I have read.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I can see your point about the gun laws. If it happened in the US you could simply lay your gun on the ground when the police showed up. I'm not familiar with the gun laws in Tunisia but if they are harsh. Even if I was trying to render aid I might not want to be there when the police showed up .


The discrepancy you pointed out seems a little fishy to me. I mean their (ISIS) interpretation of the Koran gives them permission to kill the infidels not wound them ?

a reply to: Shamrock6

Your link did not work for me? Can you fix it I would be very interested in reading that story .

a reply to: Greathouse

Tunisia actually does allow gun ownership but it's pretty heavily regulated. You have to establish a need, any purchases and exchanges have to be registered, etc. The rate of ownership is less than 1 gun per 100 people.

www.gunpolicy.org... Is a good website for learning about a country's firearms laws. It's not 100% accurate across the board because it does rely on home country input and the website can't be everywhere all the time. But it's good for a quick snapshot of the gun culture in a given country.

As for the link, Vasa reposted my link in working form. I don't know what happened when I pasted mine in.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Thanks for the site I will add it to favorites .


When I clicked on your link it said oops The page you were looking for is not found. I'm curious as to whether they pulled the article. It has happened to me it seems like every time I failed to take a screen shot of something significant is when they do it . Lol

a reply to: Greathouse

Lol sadly it's nothing so sinister. Vasa's link is the exact page. I posted from mobile and sometimes when I try to put up a link it gets sideways on me and I don't know why.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I see where you're going I just don't think it's quite as simple as confusing red shorts for black.

Eye witness testimony not with standing, other shooter incidents had multiple gunman till it was sorted out.

My guess is this will turn out the same.

Its always some lone nut. Unless cctv footage captures otherwise…

I just saw some phone footage on the BBC took by a hotel worker. He follows the man in black shooter at a distance then on the beach he has the gunman about 100 yards from him but then asks another gunman closer to him "why are you shooting them, they are only tourists". I didn't get the gunmans reply.

This whole thing has had me asking the same question since it happened. What the hell are westerners doing vacationing in North Africa ?

There are so many other places to vacation.

a reply to: crayzeed

I assume the question was in Arabic? None of the videos I've seen had any English conversation in them

a reply to: Shamrock6

Yes, he asks in Arabic. Unfortunately the video stops there. I would be very interested in seeing the rest of it to get some idea of what was going through the mind /minds of the shooter/so. I found it strange that the video cuts off after he asks the question. ..

a reply to: Shamrock6

Maybe I missed it somewhere, but I can't see anything in that piece about this second person being dressed any differently, nor is there anything in it about a retired cop reporting similar.

In addition, this is third-hand information from the victims father, not a statement from the victim herself. We're not even debating the time line of events that she recalls and whether they do actually follow a narrative, we're believing the retelling of the account from someone who wasn't even there, and which has then likely been edited too.

I'm inclined to believe this is individual confusion. We've seen videos of a lone gunman running up the beach, toward the hotel he then attacked. There is no one else there, no gunfire while he's running, no sign of any other living person in his vicinity while he's making his way to the lobby.

The different gun is not that shocking either, he had hand grenades too, why is it deemed unlikely he had a second gun? He's been seen in photos posing with more than one weapon, clearly he had access to more than one gun and it's not unreasonable to assume that he could have had a handgun.

We don't know any of the details of the weapons other than he used an assault rifle and grenades. He's been depicted with several guns in at least one other photo I have seen.

IMO, there's nothing to say there was another gunman.
It's understandable that there would be confusion. There were police opening fire on him too.
This isn't even a witness saying this, it's her father, who wasn't there. There are plenty of other witnesses who haven't reported a second gunman.
There's also no reason for the Tunisian authorities to lie about the existence of another shooter. Tourism has already taken a significant hit, they're closing down Mosques, witnesses have the freedom to report what they saw and experienced... denying the existence of another shooter doesn't benefit anyone.

a reply to: Rocker2013

The article on DM has the interview of both the retired police officer and the descriptor of "red shorts." I'm exceedingly reluctant to use DM as a primary source, even if that means using another source with less info. The retired cop also says there was a gunman in red shorts, but he differs from the nurse by saying the guy in red shorts had a rifle. The cop and the nurse weren't together, and weren't even in the same areas at the same times. So yes, there is a witness saying this. Just not in the article that was sourced.

I don't doubt that there was confusion. I'm not sold on the idea that there's a second gunman on the loose still. I do find it curious that there are multiple witness accounts of more than one gunman, coupled with the interior ministry saying they were chasing a second gunman.

I'm not saying I stumbled upon some great coverup. I just find it curious. As for a government not having a reason to lie? Please. There's always a reason. It may just not be necessary to do so.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Oh, I understand your reluctance to offer the DM as a source, and I agree. But surely that highlights too the lack of credibility of the statements?

I haven't seen this mentioned on any other source, and I know that if I knew this to be true as a victim of this I would be screaming it on the BBC. So I have to wonder why these two people reporting that there was another shooter are not being interviewed on the BBC and making this public. The BBC has no reason to not be sharing that information, they would be on it in a second if it were credible.

It is curious, I agree. If there really are witnesses saying the same thing independently then it needs to be discussed and explored.

I'm inclined to believe that perhaps the DM is not being honest.
If it is, and there are witnesses saying they saw another man in red with a gun, we have to then consider how that could have possibly come about. It could be that staff picked up a discarded weapon during the events for instance. There are witnesses saying that the staff of the hotel formed a Human shield around the doors to stop him from getting in. We know he reloaded too, so he had more rounds, and grenades, it's possible he had more than one gun.

I'm inclined to think that it's misidentification of innocent people involved in this.