Especially at this late date I don't see any advantage whatsoever it gives MPD to hide COD.I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I guess we can agree to disagree on what LE was doing with the wording and why.
About the dates - those I provided were accurate and derived from careful examination, and they were based on the notary date when the judge signed the warrant, rather than dates when the document was later filed or released to the public. (Look for yourself, if you wish.) That chronology is what it is, and we have to factor it into our analysis.
About the "wordsmithing games" (great terminology!!) - you question whether LE could have even thought they could keep the public and media from knowing that MB was killed by gunshot. Refined enough, as you put it. But sometimes the proof is in the pudding, as they say -- isn't "MB was killed by gunshot" STILL TO THIS DAY a fact that few outside this forum are probably aware of?
And we do have some evidence of how they were trying to operate. We do know that MPD would not talk about cause of death (ever). When asked about cause of death, they said they would release that later - and never did. They certainly have never tried to clear up the misperceptions about COD that even still exist. And while they may not have had the experience to suggest that they would take such a route to hide the gunshot, they were being advised from the outset by experienced FBI and ATF who likely had plenty of experience.
Frankly, based on the totality of how they acted, I have no doubt they tried to bury this fact, and did so successfully. What I fail to see is why - it's not like they could gain an advantage by being able to hide COD from the actual perp.
The way the Geofence warrant is worded by using the term "first activated" suggest there were more than one activation prior to around 3:50 AM. And MPD has also been quoted in early articles about the cameras acting intermittently that night. However, given the track record with MPD and their wording it is anyone's guess as to what any of it means.
Especially at this late date I don't see any advantage whatsoever it gives MPD to hide COD.
No, not to this point.@Gumshoe Stories
Have you been able to find out if the NE doors were broken outward or inward?
No, not to this point.
RSBM.
This is exactly what I was getting at. It sounds to me like the cameras activated again (and again?) prior to SP being seen on camera. I wonder if SP was already in the building. However, the rest of the Geofence warrant implies that LE thinks SP tested the alarm and then left the premises.
And I agree with you on which cameras may be triggered by outside activity. While it is not inconceivable that outside activity triggered the cameras, it doesn't really mesh with how the cameras operate.
This is precisely my point! Withholding the COD only makes sense if it gives one an investigative advantage. However, with MB's COD now in the public sphere, that advantage is gone. Even if relatively few people know that she was shot, mentioning her COD will not aid in identifying the killer (because it's not information ONLY the killer knows). Because of that, I would think that mentioning her real COD would be beneficial because it may cause someone with relevant knowledge to come forward.
Agree. If withholding the COD gives the investigation an advantage, why would the FBI give that top secret info to a non-profit organization to publish on their public database?
No pictures.GS, do you have a picture of the damaged door by chance? I only recall seeing it covered with plywood. Thanks
-Nin
They were very quick to barricade, it seems.No pictures.
It would take a ladder for the perp to reach the cameras at the SW corner.Is there a reason SP wouldn't bag the cameras or otherwise obstruct their lens? Seems like they would if it was a burglary or targeted. Are the cameras too inaccessible?
Question for those who lean toward this being a burglary as opposed to a targeting of Missy....what of great value to SP could have been in the church? Seems to me, it couldn't have been money, or enough money to justify all the costuming and planning and risk. SP on video that we have seen, doesn't seem to know where to look, and doesn't seem particularly intent on finding anything....just casually observes nooks and crannies. Seems like he/she would have had a better idea of WHERE to look, take it, and then get out as soon as possible, instead of dawdling aimlessly as he/she appears to do. JMO
Plenty would. It happens every day. Most states have a separate murder classification in their statutes that is known as “felony murder”. This is for when murder occurs during the commission of some other crime. Could be a home invasion, a store robbery, a burglary, whatever.How many burglar's would kill someone who caught them in the act and had no way to identify them? Why not simply flee the scene
Absolutely agree with you on that last part.My question was not directed at any person in particular. My position developed over time, observation and what evidence was presented. The new fact that she was shot, doesn't change my perspective, but does reinforce my frustration all along that the initial investigation was less than stellar, to be kind, and lacking in transparency. jmo
Question for those who lean toward this being a burglary as opposed to a targeting of Missy....what of great value to SP could have been in the church? Seems to me, it couldn't have been money, or enough money to justify all the costuming and planning and risk. SP on video that we have seen, doesn't seem to know where to look, and doesn't seem particularly intent on finding anything....just casually observes nooks and crannies. Seems like he/she would have had a better idea of WHERE to look, take it, and then get out as soon as possible, instead of dawdling aimlessly as he/she appears to do. JMO
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.