Ive read quite a bit on the Shannan/LISK case, but Im new to posting (Note to Admin: please move this where it should be if needed -- it's regarding the First Day handling of evidence and investigation. There will be more posts on this).
Im hung up on the details of Shannans case and why there are so many unsolved pieces
the following is opinion based on the facts I have.
Re: The first responding officer on May 1.
Shannans 911 call indicated that someone was trying to harm or kill her. According to Coletti, he also called 911, which gave information on where Shannan was. So the 911 dispatcher would have relayed information to the first responding officer that this was likely a crime in progress and it was happening in Oak Beach. So that officer knew the situation was a potential criminal matter. Coletti waited at the front (and only) gate to let the officer in. At that spot there was more than one surveillance camera. Coletti would have pointed at the road in front of them and said she was here (The Fairway) and ran there (Anchor), she was being followed and screaming for help. This was based on Colettis own observation as an eye witness. With all this information, any police officer worth his salt would have scanned the scene, looked for surveillance equipment that is almost always found at the entrance of a gated community, and told Coletti: I need those tapes. It is doubtful either Coletti or the responding officer knew at that time what Shannan did for a living.
Soon thereafter, detectives should have contacted the surveillance equipment manufacturer (Speco Technologies in Amityville) and asked if it was possible to monitor the footage via a web browser. The product specs for the model Intensifier2 do not indicate it has browser capability however, is it still possible to rig and monitor footage remotely? Could someone have been listening to a police scanner, heard the dispatch to Oak Beach and been watching the front gate surveillance footage? Is this possible?
Here is the important part
In the first few minutes on the scene that officer made a key decision. It certainly appears he decided then and there that this was not a crime scene. This decision was not based on Shannans choice of work (which he likely did not know) but on him knowing in what sleepy community he was standing. That factor trumped all other factors. That decision meant no surveillance video was going to be asked for. Lost evidence, the refusal to release 911 transcripts (has the tape now been destroyed?), cleared suspects, and no police reports from that morning (if there are police reports, why havent they been referenced in the media?)
It stands to reason that the ME results will almost certainly be inconclusive.
Neptune