NV - 59 Dead, over 500 injured in Mandalay Bay shooting in Las Vegas, 1 Oct 2017 #9

[kittythehare]

TY!

Per the search and seizure warrants all applications state the following 4 violations

a. Destruction/Damage of Aircraft or Aircraft Facilities-18 U.S.C. 32(a);
b. Violence at an International Airport-18 U.S.C. 37(a)(2); and
c. Unlawful Interstate Transport/Delivery of Firearms by Non-Federal Firearms Licensee 18 U.S.C. 922 (a)(3) and (5);
d. Aiding and Abetting 18 U.S.C. 2.

I have since reviewed each US Code listed above via https://www.gpo.gov

US Code 32(a)
§32. Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities
(a) Whoever willfully—
(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce;

US Code 37(a)(2)
b. §37. Violence at international airports
(a) Offense.—A person who unlawfully and intentionally, using any device, substance, or weapon—
(2) destroys or seriously damages the facilities of an airport serving international civil aviation or a civil aircraft not in service located thereon or disrupts the services of the airport,
if such an act endangers or is likely to endanger safety at that airport, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and if the death of any person results from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

US Code 922(a)(3 and 5)
§922. Unlawful acts
(a) It shall be unlawful—
(3) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, the State where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State, except that this paragraph (A) shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm by bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of residence from transporting the firearm into or receiving it in that State, if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such firearm in that State, (B) shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section, and (C) shall not apply to the transportation of any firearm acquired in any State prior to the effective date of this chapter;
(5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides; except that this paragraph shall not apply to (A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence, and (B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;
§2. Principals
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684; Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 655, §17b, 65 Stat. 717.)

The section as revised makes clear the legislative intent to punish as a principal not only one who directly commits an offense and one who "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures" another to commit an offense, but also anyone who causes the doing of an act which if done by him directly would render him guilty of an offense against the United States.


I am not a lawyer nor have legal credentials however the confusion, from my perspective, is where is the division of LVMPD and the FBI roles in this investigation?

The FIT report provided details that the FBI was investigating. Why?

Are we to deduce that SP was possibly known to the FBI and LVMPD failed to stop him?

In other mass shootings has the local law enforcement ever spoke on behalf of the FBI?

well done you. Thanks for reposting it.
I never saw it before but I never saw an interim/preliminary report either in any mass shooting or act of terrorism.

The warrants were signed by the Feds and they were considered to be public information.

Theres a local LE involvement but necessarily, because of the nature of the crimes, they are prosecuted federally. Here there is nobody prosecuted yet, we are told that one person might be and it will be a federal prosecution as far as I remember from Sheriff's presser.. I think he might also have said that it was unrelated to the shooting. I think Fox news reported, on the same night the report came out, that it was related to the child *advertiser censored*, but I don't recall the Sheriff saying that..

I think the report was issued at the Sheriff's request.

I think it was an act of damage limitation and that he believed it would further his personal ambitions in the forthcoming job competition.

He did not write that report, and I have wondered, more than once if he ever even attended the scene, personally, because he got so much so wrong so often.

He did state at presser that he did not want the fbi to be present.o be perceived as the man in charge, the man who controls the information-flow.

I wouldn't be at all sure the fBI would regard his actions in a favourable light.

Again, the report should have started with the words
'at x o'clock on x a date the first call was received.'

Putting it in 'laymans terms' can easily be interpreted as a poor excuse for a report with ominous omissions- though I respect there may be a good reason to withold the 10 pages of warrants, probably only one or at most 2 pages of those will be specific to the person or entity they are investigating. I have a secret hope that they are investigating the MB..

I doubt he was known to FBI or LVPD prior to the massacre.

 

[Gooddeeds]

How can we prove the report is incorrect when it only provides about .02% of the information. There is no evidence in the report. Nothing. Just unsubstantiated so called “facts”
And then when some of us try to substantiate those so called “facts” such as how Paddock was even identified we get mocked as conspiracy theorists.

Imagine that, trying to substantiate facts is now considered chasing nutty conspiracy theories.

I’m going to attempt to explain my position. My internal conflict is most likely as a result or angle of ‘principle’, I think anyway.

If a crook is giving you a report that looks to be thorough and in part is new information, does one accept that? Because if you do accept it you are condoning the act all together.

Upon reviewing the 2nd report attempt and coming away with ‘Ok finally, this is a good bit of info that they didn’t give us before, let’s take that and work with it’. It promotes overlooking what’s still not corrected. Its a false sense of security that no one is immune from. Subconsciously we know what was missing from the onset, it’s still missing today, regardless of ANYTHING.

It doesn’t matter how many pages, hours, this or that. What matters is truth, anything less should not be entertained. We are negligent by not demanding it.

The Sherrif wants us to lean in on the ‘new stuff’....all the pages....

The dentist screws up one complete side of your mouth really bad. Refuses to acknowledge it, wants you to forget about it, won’t give you the X-rays but promises by the next visit you will see things come together. The day comes, you are presented with some new stuff..... ‘for the other side of your mouth’. Will not budge on discussing the massacre on the original side. Do you let him proceed with the new stuff or walk out? If he proceeds you are condoning his work and morals.

Caiirs help me with the babble, I’m not doing it justice...as I am not the LPC and more that you are.

 

[Gooddeeds]

The problem is proving anything..
Can we prove the report is incorrect, if so how?

We have the proof. It is proof by omission. Let us not be ensnared by impartial truths.

 

[kittythehare]

I’m going to attempt to explain my position. My internal conflict is most likely as a result or angle of ‘principle’, I think anyway.

If a crook is giving you a report that looks to be thorough and in part is new information, does one accept that? Because if you do accept it you are condoning the act all together.

Upon reviewing the 2nd report attempt and coming away with ‘Ok finally, this is a good bit of info that they didn’t give us before, let’s take that and work with it’. It promotes overlooking what’s still not corrected. Its a false sense of security that no one is immune from. Subconsciously we know what was missing from the onset, it’s still missing today, regardless of ANYTHING.

It doesn’t matter how many pages, hours, this or that. What matters is truth, anything less should not be entertained. We are negligent by not demanding it.

The Sherrif wants us to lean in on the ‘new stuff’....all the pages....

The dentist screws up one complete side of your mouth really bad. Refuses to acknowledge it, wants you to forget about it, won’t give you the X-rays but promises by the next visit you will see things come together. The day comes, you are presented with some new stuff..... ‘for the other side of your mouth’. Will not budge on discussing the massacre on the original side. Do you let him proceed with the new stuff or walk out? If he proceeds you are condoning his work and morals.

Caiirs help me with the babble, I’m not doing it justice...as I am not the LPC and more that you are.

I hear what you are saying and I empathise with it.

BUT- I think it's necessary to read it.. to analyse what's wrong with it and to create a coherent document listing the omissions,
-the anomalies
- the contradictions
Evaluate them all and try to figure out the whys of it.
What's not adding up? If we can work together to make this list and add or subtract from it and it is substantial, it is possible we will discover much.

I believe their descriptions of Paddock's movements on the early September date.. but I doubt I will ever understand them.

 

[Gooddeeds]

I hear what you are saying and I empathise with it.

BUT- I think it's necessary to read it.. to analyse what's wrong with it and to create a coherent document listing the omissions,
-the anomalies
- the contradictions
Evaluate them all and try to figure out the whys of it.
What's not adding up? If we can work together to make this list and add or subtract from it and it is substantial, it is possible we will discover much.

I believe their descriptions of Paddock's movements on the early September date.. but I doubt I will ever understand them.

Yes thank you, I forgot to include to keep pressing forward with what we know and what we should know in order to be able to share heartfelt insight with others even outside of WS. Whether it’s an acquaintance, family member, anyone who shows interest with integrity of what really went down. I personally don’t want this to be written off, it’s huge for our country.

Maybe, just maybe we can at least in the short term be helpful in not letting Joe go for round 2.

 

[CoolJ]

I hear what you are saying and I empathise with it.

BUT- I think it's necessary to read it.. to analyse what's wrong with it and to create a coherent document listing the omissions,
-the anomalies
- the contradictions
Evaluate them all and try to figure out the whys of it.
What's not adding up? If we can work together to make this list and add or subtract from it and it is substantial, it is possible we will discover much.

I believe their descriptions of Paddock's movements on the early September date.. but I doubt I will ever understand them.

So who gets to decide what doesn’t add up? Everything you stated is what some of us have been trying to do.

Ok let’s try this for not adding up... straight out of the FIT report: It says Paddock requested room 235 on any floor.... but the report says the shooting was “meticulously planned”

So why did the lone shooter with a meticulous plan not even care what floor he was on? How was he supposed to achieve his plan from the 3rd floor on the other side of the building?

 

[Gooddeeds]

Anyone have a clue on what caused them to say Campos was shot after SP stopped, and 7 days later corrected that ‘mistake’ by saying he was in fact shot before SP shot out the window?

Because I’ve wondered what was it that would make them issue a public correction to further confuse the confusion? It had to be something that was worth it.

Another possible: they didn’t plan on making it public until they were ordered to by someone else. MB?

 

[Gooddeeds]

So who gets to decide what doesn’t add up? Everything you stated is what some of us have been trying to do.

Ok let’s try this for not adding up... straight out of the FIT report: It says Paddock requested room 235 on any floor.... but the report says the shooting was “meticulously planned”

So why did the lone shooter with a meticulous plan not even care what floor he was on? How was he supposed to achieve his plan from the 3rd floor on the other side of the building?

I had not thought about that! The doors, locks and the rooms are difficult to line up (for me). I need more clarity on the locks.

There is no way he would have attempted this from a lower level room. It could have been a decoy move upon his booking. But that’s a minimal decoy for him in the scheme of things. He seemed to be more focused on the bigger things.

 

[CoolJ]

Anyone have a clue on what caused them to say Campos was shot after SP stopped, and 7 days later corrected that ‘mistake’ by saying he was in fact shot before SP shot out the window?

Because I’ve wondered what was it that would make them issue a public correction to further confuse the confusion? It had to be something that was worth it.

Another possible: they didn’t plan on making it public until they were ordered to by someone else. MB?

I think they were trying to create a “hero” as part of their narrative but they realized it wasn’t going to match up with the rest of their evidence.

 

[neesaki]

These may have been posted before, referencing the emails about what appears to be the selling weapons:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-knew-las-vegas-gunman-stephen-paddock-had-big-gun-n837471

[FONT=&amp]The records also did not say whether Danley knew in advance about Paddock's plans and why Paddock apparently emailed himself about buying and selling weapons and accessories.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]Another document said Paddock apparently sent messages between separate email accounts with similar names referring to buying and selling assault-style rifles and so-called "bump stock" devices to make the guns more rapid-fire.[/FONT]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/12/us/las-vegas-attack-gunman-paddock.html

In an email Mr. Paddock sent on July 6 to an account that also may have belonged to him, he wrote: “try an ar before u buy. we have huge selection. located in the las vegas area.” Another email sent between the accounts read, “for a thrill try out bumpfire ar’s with a 100 round magazine.” By “ar,” Mr. Paddock appeared to be referring to rifles.

The affidavit later adds that “investigators have been unable to figure out why Stephen Paddock would be exchanging messages related to weapons that were used in the attack between two of his email accounts,” and that it was possible that someone else was controlling one of the accounts. If that was the case, the investigator said, the F.B.I. needed to identify that person.

 

[Gooddeeds]

I think they were trying to create a “hero” as part of their narrative but they realized it wasn’t going to match up with the rest of their evidence.

In their minds he was a hero because he was shot and continued to work while the race was on to stop SP, versus not having to be on the lookout for SP.
That sounds like them.

 

[Gooddeeds]

I too don’t understand why they didn’t cover the body. Someone else posted that but I don’t recall the discussion. That is sloppy work for this High Roller LVMPD. Any other reason of advantage for it?

 

[Gooddeeds]

I hear what you are saying and I empathise with it.

BUT- I think it's necessary to read it.. to analyse what's wrong with it and to create a coherent document listing the omissions,
-the anomalies
- the contradictions
Evaluate them all and try to figure out the whys of it.
What's not adding up? If we can work together to make this list and add or subtract from it and it is substantial, it is possible we will discover much.

I believe their descriptions of Paddock's movements on the early September date.. but I doubt I will ever understand them.

How should we go about doing the above?
Anyone good with a rough template of sorts to best follow along? I know we have pages of things we have individually expressed that don’t add up but for a redirect in effort of specifics, a fresh start might be more helpful. An outline? Categories? Suggestions?

It doesn’t matter what it is that doesn’t add up, list it.

 

[kittythehare]

How should we go about doing the above?
Anyone good with a rough template of sorts to best follow along? I know we have pages of things we have individually expressed that don’t add up but for a redirect in effort of specifics, a fresh start might be more helpful. An outline? Categories? Suggestions?

It doesn’t matter what it is that doesn’t add up, list it.

yeah, list it.
then see.?

(my prob is that am severely limited in IT skills..

Maybe if everyone spent a day or two doing their own lists that in the end someone would be able to put them all on one list and number them
then we could discuss them by number. argue them and verify each thing?

Then, or at same time.. make another list of things the anomaly might be pointing towards and with supporting info and background..

and dive in there and look at what seems likely??

Sorry it sounds so pedantic and am sure there are much better, more efficient ways.. but so many diverse opinions and ideas to be accommodated..

Actually, I hope someone else has a much better idea for this?

 

[CoolJ]

Where are the bullet holes in the door in picture 2 of the FIT report?

Compare to picture 16.

Anybody explain this one to me ?

 

[coastal]

I too don’t understand why they didn’t cover the body. Someone else posted that but I don’t recall the discussion. That is sloppy work for this High Roller LVMPD. Any other reason of advantage for it?

Shock value. Also, it sets a tone, a color, for public perception, hinting at things like justice and closure, to ease the public mind.

When Rebecca Zahau died in Coronado, CA, she was found hanging from an outside balcony, naked, her arms bound behind her and to her bound legs. News helicopters overflew the scene, and broadcast images of her remains without blurring any details, in real time, several times during the day. When the ME arrived 14 hours later, she was still uncovered.

It was the most shocking thing I've ever seen. It was so disrespectful, of Rebecca, and of us, the public...and I still can't unsee it, eight years later. I believe that entire display was intended to set a tone, by which Rebecca's death should be perceived by the public, and to a great degree, IMO, it worked. I suspect the same kind of thing with Paddock's photo.

 

[Gooddeeds]

Where are the bullet holes in the door in picture 2 of the FIT report?

Compare to picture 16.

Anybody explain this one to me ?

The only possible explanation is that pic #2 is not real clear, nor is it close up enough to see the holes? This is a big ‘possible’.

Look at pic #9. In the far right top corner you can see that same door.

 

[Gooddeeds]

Shock value. Also, it sets a tone, a color, for public perception, hinting at things like justice and closure, to ease the public mind.

When Rebecca Zahau died in Coronado, CA, she was found hanging from an outside balcony, naked, her arms bound behind her and to her bound legs. News helicopters overflew the scene, and broadcast images of her remains without blurring any details, in real time, several times during the day. When the ME arrived 14 hours later, she was still uncovered.

It was the most shocking thing I've ever seen. It was so disrespectful, of Rebecca, and of us, the public...and I still can't unsee it, eight years later. I believe that entire display was intended to set a tone, by which Rebecca's death should be perceived by the public, and to a great degree, IMO, it worked. I suspect the same kind of thing with Paddock's photo.

That sounds like a horror story! Gosh that is awful, I can imagine how it’s a permanent imprint for you.

 

[1&2&3]

This is in response to CARIIS, post. #831. My iPAD is stubborn on what it will select to copy.

‘I think he is referring to the bogus report released in the last week or so. The report is so haphazard - it like pick from column A or B (chinese menu)

“There is not one subject that he did from his check out forward. It was selected tid bits all along”.

Thanks for this statement! As I read the posts on Doug Poppa’s page, it was like reading a rough draft with pieces of this and that thrown in where it did not belong. No organization at all!

I had read the original report when it came out and thought it was so poorly written, how had it been approved for publication! However, seeing it in the little snippets that Doug had written it in, I was truly scratching my head, rereading a snippet again to realize there was no continuity in the writing. Do you think it was done this way purposely to confuse the reader? That was my reasoning so we could not keep track of all the errors in the report. If this is a clue to the way the LVPD thinks, acts, and is run, we can now understand why nothing about this massacre is making sense in reporting it!

My opinions only.

 

[CARIIS]

Anyone have a clue on what caused them to say Campos was shot after SP stopped, and 7 days later corrected that ‘mistake’ by saying he was in fact shot before SP shot out the window?

Because I’ve wondered what was it that would make them issue a public correction to further confuse the confusion? It had to be something that was worth it.

Another possible: they didn’t plan on making it public until they were ordered to by someone else. MB?

My take on that first 24 hours of lies was hist attempt to reduce the horrid response time.

At first he kept carrying on about amazing the response was until the media started to mention that it took them what 75 minutes?

They had to give them time for some things to be taken care before breach

Anyone who wanted something like this stopped calls SWAT stat -- it is that simple

Rigging up a guy with one kind of training with another who has totally different with another is another and another is another is a total joke

I have this noiion that SWAT stuff is real team oriented - I find it ironic that one that accidentally showed happened to have two door bombs on his person

ahhhh I missed this bad me !! Incredible!

c. Unlawful Interstate Transport/Delivery of Firearms by Non-Federal Firearms Licensee 18 U.S.C. 922 (a)(3) and (5);