NV - 59 Dead, over 500 injured in Mandalay Bay shooting in Las Vegas, 1 Oct 2017 #8

[Pamela_Brewer]

Yes they are since a judges ruling as reported on Oct 20th
[video=cnn;cnnmoney/2017/10/18/ellen-security-guard-las-vegas-jesus-campos-sje-lon-orig.cnnmoney]http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/20/us/las-vegas-shooting-mgm-evidence/index.html[/video]

"This order prevents MGM from sanitizing and destroying evidence of the hotel room the shooter used before victim's representatives have their one chance to inspect and photograph the room," said attorney Brian Nettles in a press release.

Also it's so unsafe a priest is allowed access Oct 26 but they want to keep the lawyers out because it is unsafe in its current condition as of October 20? I wonder what is so unsafe about it besides 2 windows missing?

"What remains will be preserved, but it's frankly unsafe to keep (the hotel room) in its current condition," said Brad Brian, an attorney who argued on behalf of MGM Thursday.

I don't care how long the priest was in there, how dare they put someone's life at risk if it is this unsafe lawyers cant be in there.

Moo

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

Lead? From the gunfire maybe.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/kids-health/lead-poisoning-hidden-danger-shooting-ranges-n237766
MOO

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[ohreally]

U

Yes they are since a judges ruling as reported on Oct 20th
[video=cnn;cnnmoney/2017/10/18/ellen-security-guard-las-vegas-jesus-campos-sje-lon-orig.cnnmoney]http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/20/Uyus/las-vegas-shooting-mgm-evidence/index.html[/video]

"This order prevents MGM from sanitizing and destroying evidence of the hotel room the shooter used before victim's representatives have their one chance to inspect and photograph the room," said attorney Brian Nettles in a press release.

Also it's so unsafe a priest is allowed access Oct 26 but they want to keep the lawyers out because it is unsafe in its current condition as of October 20? I wonder what is so unsafe about it besides 2 windows missing?

"What remains will be preserved, but it's frankly unsafe to keep (the hotel room) in its current condition," said Brad Brian, an attorney who argued on behalf of MGM Thursday.

I don't care how long the priest was in there, how dare they put someone's life at risk if it is this unsafe lawyers cant be in there.

Moo

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

The order was to protect the evidence. I don't see anything in it that says MB has to give the lawyers access by a certain date.

 

[bluesneakers]

Yes they are since a judges ruling as reported on Oct 20th

"This order prevents MGM from sanitizing and destroying evidence of the hotel room the shooter used before victim's representatives have their one chance to inspect and photograph the room," said attorney Brian Nettles in a press release.

Also it's so unsafe a priest is allowed access Oct 26 but they want to keep the lawyers out because it is unsafe in its current condition as of October 20? I wonder what is so unsafe about it besides 2 windows missing?

"What remains will be preserved, but it's frankly unsafe to keep (the hotel room) in its current condition," said Brad Brian, an attorney who argued on behalf of MGM Thursday.

I don't care how long the priest was in there, how dare they put someone's life at risk if it is this unsafe lawyers cant be in there.

Moo

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

The order says prevents them from sanitizing and destroying evidence, but does it say if or when they have to grant them access? My questions were: are they legally required to grant them access? What laws are they breaking by not allowing the attorneys into the room?

 

[canadiangirl]

Unsafe could equal two broken windows. A suicidal person could jump. Or a person could fall out. Unless the priest was suicidal, or really beyond careless, I'm not sure how they put his life in danger. They can bless the room if they want to. It is their property. I think its hyperbolic to accuse MGM of putting a priest's life in danger.They asked him to bless it for the sake of their employees and their comfort. He agreed. What is the issue?

Apparently they are not allowed to clean the area to preserve the way it looked post massacre. Blessing the area is not cleaning it. It doesn't appear they did anything wrong.

Also, don't be fooled by the showboating of attorneys who are salivating at a huge lawsuit and payoff. That is what the do....

Then IMO a lawyer in the room is no more unsafe then a priest. Jmo

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

 

[canadiangirl]

The order says prevents them from sanitizing and destroying evidence, but does it say if or when they have to grant them access? My questions were: are they legally required to grant them access? What laws are they breaking by not allowing the attorneys into the room?

It says in the article I posted and my copy/paste.
"This order prevents MGM from sanitizing and destroying evidence of the hotel room the shooter used before victim's representatives have their one chance to inspect and photograph the room, " said attorney Brian Nettles in a press release.

They would require access to the room to inspect and photograph it. Since a judge ruled in the lawyers favour then I believe they are legally required to grant them access. Do you think that's incorrect? That they aren't required to grant access under a court ruling?

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

 

[bluesneakers]

The order bans them from sanitizing or destroying the area. It does not say anything about not blessing it or having a spiritual cleanse conducted. Unsafe could equal two broken windows. A suicidal person could jump. Or a person could fall out. Unless the priest was suicidal, or really beyond careless, I'm not sure how they put his life in danger. They can bless the room if they want to. It is their property. I think its hyperbolic to accuse MGM of putting a priest's life in danger.They asked him to bless it for the sake of their employees and their comfort. He agreed. What is the issue?

Apparently they are not allowed to clean the area to preserve the way it looked post massacre. Blessing the area is not cleaning it. It doesn't appear they did anything wrong.

And if promise you, if MGM corp is barring them access and defying an order, they will take it to a judge and gain immediate access through a warrant. Don't be fooled by the showboating of attorneys who are salivating at a huge lawsuit and payoff. That is what they do

Yeah, I don't see what's so nefarious about letting a priest into the room, especially if it was to comfort their employees.

And as long as they don't destroy evidence (and it sounds like the attorneys are more concerned with evidence that's not in the room anyway) MGM isn't doing anything illegal by letting the priest in and the lawyers out.

Sheppard's attorney Brian Nettles asked for the order to preserve key card records, surveillance video, radio traffic and anything connected to the shooting.

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/jud...gm-resorts-from-destroying-evidence/840638985

 

[canadiangirl]

U
The order was to protect the evidence. I don't see anything in it that says MB has to give the lawyers access by a certain date.

It says... "This order prevents MGM from sanitizing and destroying evidence of the hotel room the shooter used before victim's representatives have their one chance to inspect and photograph the room," said attorney Brian Nettles in a press release.

How are they going to do this without access to the room?

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

 

[bluesneakers]

It says in the article I posted and my copy/paste.
"This order prevents MGM from sanitizing and destroying evidence of the hotel room the shooter used before victim's representatives have their one chance to inspect and photograph the room, " said attorney Brian Nettles in a press release.

They would require access to the room to inspect and photograph it. Since a judge ruled in the lawyers favour then I believe they are legally required to grant them access. Do you think that's incorrect? That they aren't required to grant access under a court ruling?

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

You still haven't answered my question so I assume you are saying MGM has broken no laws, only that you disagree with their actions.

 

[bluesneakers]

It says... "This order prevents MGM from sanitizing and destroying evidence of the hotel room the shooter used before victim's representatives have their one chance to inspect and photograph the room," said attorney Brian Nettles in a press release.

How are they going to do this without access to the room?

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

What is the exact date? When is MGM's legal deadline to allow lawyers access to the room?

 

[bluesneakers]

U
The order was to protect the evidence. I don't see anything in it that says MB has to give the lawyers access by a certain date.

I don't either, and if there was a deadline the lawyers would be knocking on the door that very day demanding access, and calling press conferences if they were denied.

 

[canadiangirl]

You still haven't answered my question so I assume you are saying MGM has broken no laws, only that you disagree with their actions.

I don't understand your argument here. It was a judges ruling. I didn't say they broke a law. I asked how a priest was allowed in but lawyers are not when the ruling was on Oct 20th. I assume they have until a certain date for this to happen. And no I don't agree with MGM and the argument it's unsafe for lawyers but then allow a priest access. All my opinion

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

 

[Spice]

Then IMO a lawyer in the room is no more unsafe then a priest. Jmo

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

Right. But what you are missing is that MGM corp is not going to roll out the red carpet to a team of lawyers that are seeking restitution to determine liability. They are not going to be like "Oh, you want to sue us? PLEASE come right in". They will drag their feet and use their mighty resources to stymie this lawsuit for as long as they can while operating within the law.

You cannot compare a priest that they personally asked to the property and a legal team that wants to build a case to sue them.

The statement about "safety" is a legal tactic by their lawyers to stall. And until they are ordered to allow the legal team physically on the property (Not just ordered to maintain the crime scene by not cleaning it) they will continue to stall. It's that simple. MGM corp is a corporation and their actions going forward will not be altruistic. They will protect their interests.

 

[bluesneakers]

I don't understand your argument here. It was a judges ruling. I didn't say they broke a law. I asked how a priest was allowed in but lawyers are not when the ruling was on Oct 20th. I assume they have until a certain date for this to happen. And no I don't agree with MGM and the argument it's unsafe for lawyers but then allow a priest access. All my opinion

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

My only argument is I don't believe MGM has broken any laws but not allowing the lawyers access to the room, no matter what their reasons are.

These were my questions:

Is MB legally required to allow the lawyers access? Are they breaking any laws by not granting their requests for permission to view the crime scene?

The order says prevents them from sanitizing and destroying evidence, but does it say if or when they have to grant them access? My questions were: are they legally required to grant them access? What laws are they breaking by not allowing the attorneys into the room?

What is the exact date? When is MGM's legal deadline to allow lawyers access to the room?

Your answer was the same copy and paste you'd already used, which was exactly what had prompted my questions in the first place.

 

[ohreally]

https://www.casino.org/news/judge-orders-mgm-to-preserve-evidence-at-route-91-shooting-sites
According to this article the attorneys and their experts were scheduled for their inspection on MB on October 31. I have not seen anything stating that it was not done so I can only assume it was done.
It' possible that the reason the priest came in before the attorneys and their experts was because the attorneys scheduled for the 31 to have everyone available and the priest (one person to schedule) was available earlier.

 

[Spice]

It says... "This order prevents MGM from sanitizing and destroying evidence of the hotel room the shooter used before victim's representatives have their one chance to inspect and photograph the room," said attorney Brian Nettles in a press release.

How are they going to do this without access to the room?

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

The answer to your question, again, is WHEN . When will they be ordered to allow the legal team on the property. The order you linked , spoke only of what they are ordered to preserve in the interim. The legal process is slow. Motions have to be filed and adjudicated. Very skilled and lawyers will work to thwart the actions of the other on both sides For now, it looks like MGM is barred from cleaning or destroying the area UNTIL the legal team is allowed access.

That's it.

So far, it looks like they are doing just that. So what is the question/problem ?

 

[bluesneakers]

https://www.casino.org/news/judge-orders-mgm-to-preserve-evidence-at-route-91-shooting-sites
According to this article the attorneys and their experts were scheduled for their inspection on MB on October 31. I have not seen anything stating that it was not done so I can only assume it was done.
It' possible that the reason the priest came in before the attorneys and their experts was because the attorneys scheduled for the 31 to have everyone available and the priest (one person to schedule) was available earlier.

Thank you. I think the priest was just there and was asked to do it as a favor, but allowing attorneys into the room is a whole legal thing. They can't have them just wandering in and out. Imagine the lawsuits that would come out of that!

 

[JaneEyre]

I don't understand your argument here. It was a judges ruling. I didn't say they broke a law. I asked how a priest was allowed in but lawyers are not when the ruling was on Oct 20th. I assume they have until a certain date for this to happen. And no I don't agree with MGM and the argument it's unsafe for lawyers but then allow a priest access. All my opinion

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

From your link:

"What remains will be preserved, but it's frankly unsafe to keep (the hotel room) in its current condition," said Brad Brian, an attorney who argued on behalf of MGM Thursday.

At least part of your argument here is that MGM deems it unsafe for the lawyers to enter, but not the priest. However, I don't see them saying that here. I see them arguing that certain repairs need to be made while everything else can be preserved.

Who knows how long it will take to arrange to get each and every lawyer to trot through the place? MGM seems to be arguing for repairs (likely the windows) whether or not every lawyer has made it through yet. God only knows just how many lawyers will come out of the woodwork on this and over what length of time.

Allowing a priest to do a quick blessing of the room did not put his life at risk, IMO.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[bluesneakers]

The answer to your question, again, is WHEN . When will they be ordered to allow the legal team on the property. The order you linked , spoke only of what they are ordered to preserve in the interim. The legal process is slow. Motions have to be filed and adjudicated. Very skilled and lawyers will work to thwart the actions of the other on both sides For now, it looks like MGM is barred from [Cleaning[/I] or destroying the area UNTIL the legal team is allowed access.

That's it.

So far, it looks like they are doing just that. So what is the question/problem ?

That they're hiding something from the attorneys (unlikely), or maybe hoping they never have to let them in (likely)? Delaying the visit as much as possible because that's what always happens in legal matters (also very likely)?

The thing is they have expensive lawyers figuring out what to do and MGM is going to put MGM first, period, but they don't want to break the law. Imagine if it were any other large corporation under any circumstances - it would be exactly the same thing.

 

[Gooddeeds]

It says... "This order prevents MGM from sanitizing and destroying evidence of the hotel room the shooter used before victim's representatives have their one chance to inspect and photograph the room," said attorney Brian Nettles in a press release.

How are they going to do this without access to the room?

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

-No lay person gets access to a crime scene for many reasons. In this case where would the line be drawn?

Priest
Rabbi
Cantor
Bishop
Dr. Phil
Deacon
Elder
Vicar
Chaplain
Zen Master
Prophet
Billy Graham
Depak

 

[JaneEyre]

-No lay person gets access to a crime scene for many reasons. In this case where would the line be drawn?

Priest
Rabbi
Cantor
Bishop
Dr. Phil
Deacon
Elder
Vicar
Chaplain
Zen Master
Prophet
Billy Graham
Depak

It was released already by LE and not an active crime scene.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk