Las Vegas Massacre - Surveillance Footage?

Status
Not open for further replies.

deirdre

Senior Member.
no thats great ...lets wait and see then ...lets see him getting those bags of guns in the hotel ....how long shall we wait a week or 2 or 3 ..or ? why not now though ...should be no issue right ?
because mature, serious adults are not concerned with Conspiracy Theorists not understanding how the real world works.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
I see no reason police would bother releasing footage of him entering the hotel. It's a trivial thing.
Maybe I'm basing it on the way things work in the UK. I do believe police release CCTV footage of, for example, terrorists' prior movements not too long after an incident.
How long shall we wait a week or 2 or 3 ..or ? why not now though ...should be no issue right ?
What's wrong with having to wait? What purpose would it serve to release them now? Will you be happy if they come out tomorrow, or the day after?

Maybe you can play out the scenario of what you think should happen. Imagine, for example, that you're the chief of police or the head of the FBI. What would you do? And why?

Maybe take your time, grab a pen and paper, and make a bullet point list. I think it would help you see things more clearly. You don't seem to be thinking it through, beyond an initial knee jerk reaction of, "I want...they should...everything's suspicious."
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
I do believe police release CCTV footage of, for example, terrorists' prior movements not too long after an incident.
Do they? or do shop owners release them?

I'm not saying police never release things, if they want witnesses to come forward, they might release some footage of a suspect in hopes someone who had seen them might come forward. But this guys pic is already out there, so personally I wouldn't expect to see tapes until journalists FOIA them after investigation is completed.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Do they? Or do shop owners release them?
I googled "police release cctv footage of terrorists' movements" and got plenty of hits. Like this one, from five days after the Manchester Arena attack:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/27/police-release-pictures-of-manchester-bomber

And then ten days after, when they released a 'collection' of images:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahalot...he-days-before?utm_term=.hiwlNrjBA#.diYVKjOw3

So I think it's pretty standard. And there were also similar stories on the first search page from Israel and the Philippines. But maybe it's different in the US.
 
Last edited:

jonnyH

Senior Member.
Maybe I'm basing it on the way things work in the UK.
Police guidance for the release of images of suspects including CCTV in the UK is detailed here:

http://library.college.police.uk/docs/acpo/ACPO-Guidance-Release-Images-Suspects-Media.pdf

Although release of images at the earliest opportunity is encouraged I think the key phrase here is "where appropriate" which is fleshed out in section 2 and Appendix A. In practice the earliest opportunity will be when it becomes appropriate.

Appendix A highlights the risk that releasing images in some cases may be prejudicial to the suspects article 6 right a fair trial or infringe upon their article 8 rights to private and family life.

The general considerations in section 2 (my bold):

In general at any time before conviction images will not be released unless it is necessary to achieve a legitimate purpose of the investigation. What is a "legitimate purpose" is quite broadly defined and doesn't present much of a barrier, but "necessity" requires that if this purpose can be achieved by means other than releasing the images then those other means should be exhausted first.

Presumably there are similar policies in place in the US although I have been unable to find them*

*I haven't looked very hard, yet.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
all im gonna say is every part of this story sounds like its made up ...none of it makes sense and their incredible claims of 30 guns 1000 rounds and old man sneaking them up to his room setting up surveillance like he's jason bourne ...? lol I've been to vegas 40 or 50 times ...that is impossible

You are just arguing from personal incredulity. You need to make actual practical arguments other than simply observing you can't figure out how it was done.

A thousand people check into that hotel every day. It has 3,309 rooms, 24 elevators. Why exactly would surveillance cameras seeing some guy wheeling up a lot of luggage to a suite arise suspicion? He could even do it all in one trip, just tell the bell boys, "It's my crazy wife, she's bringing all her shoes", or "this is stuff for the convention", or "my camera equipment, I didn't want to leave it in the car". Or any one of a number of reasons.

People arrive at the hotel with a lot of luggage all the time, especially people who check into suites with families for an extended stay. Simply seeing someone with a lot of suitcases is not going to arise suspicion.,
 

DJC

Member
Anythings possible ......we don't have the video to prove it yet .or any proof at all .
 

vooke

Active Member
yes in Bogota i have even going to the mall your car is searched just saying
....regardless i was just pointing out that there should 1000 videos of this guy checking in ...where are they ..
Checking/scanning bags also happens in Kenya because of terror threats by Islamist militants called al shabaab. But whether it happens in the US is something any guest in a US domiciled hotel would tell.

Regarding footage, obviously hotels have their guests’ privacy to protect with/without terror attacks and that’s why you are unlikely to see them releasing the footage. Besides, the investigators must by now be busy examining them. If you’re going to get any footage,it most likely will come from the authorities,.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Checking/scanning bags also happens in Kenya because of terror threats by Islamist militants called al shabaab. But whether it happens in the US is something any guest in a US domiciled hotel would tell.

It does not. I go to Vegas often and nobody has ever checked anyone's bags. You could wheel in a cello case and nobody would bat an eye.
20171007-114100-49l6l.jpg

But he probably just used normal large suitcases, and just did a very partial breakdown of the guns, removing the stock, which takes minutes.

Back the topic of surveillance - again, with a thousand people checking in every day, some of them are going to have a lot of luggage. It's normal thing, and would not have raised any red flags. And since this has never happened before it's not exactly the type of thing they were looking for.
 

vooke

Active Member
It does not. I go to Vegas often and nobody has ever checked anyone's bags. You could wheel in a cello case and nobody would bat an eye.
20171007-114100-49l6l.jpg

But he probably just used normal large suitcases, and just did a very partial breakdown of the guns, removing the stock, which takes minutes.

Back the topic of surveillance - again, with a thousand people checking in every day, some of them are going to have a lot of luggage. It's normal thing, and would not have raised any red flags. And since this has never happened before it's not exactly the type of thing they were looking for.
I’m so used to it the time I imagine it’s ‘normal’ all over the world. That looks set to change going forward.

Concerning surveillance, I agree there is nothing volume or mass wise that would raise suspicion even if he checked in the guns all at once provided they were concealed,which they must have been anyway.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
But maybe it's different in the US.
pretty sure it was the police who released video of the Boston Bombing suspects. But as I said, they didn't have an ID on the suspects yet and they wanted witnesses who might have seen their movements throughout the day to come forward.

In this case, some guy lugging bags upstairs to his hotel room is kinda a none issue. There's no question that he got the bags up, there's no question he was checked into that room.
 

DJC

Member
pretty sure it was the police who released video of the Boston Bombing suspects. But as I said, they didn't have an ID on the suspects yet and they wanted witnesses who might have seen their movements throughout the day to come forward.

In this case, some guy lugging bags upstairs to his hotel room is kinda a none issue. There's no question that he got the bags up, there's no question he was checked into that room.
no no that is the question ....did he get the bags up there was it him where is the footage of him doing this ..why are we not questioning the official story ...his neighbour did and interview with michael savage said there is no way this guy would do anything like this ....there are questions and no definite answers .not without some video proof at least
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
no no that is the question ....did he get the bags up there was it him where is the footage of him doing this ..why are we not questioning the official story ...his neighbour did and interview with michael savage said there is no way this guy would do anything like this ....there are questions and no definite answers .not without some video proof at least
DJC this comment is ok, but for your other comments please try to stay on topic. There is a current event thread on the LV shooting for more general questions.

I think the question is why would you deny the official story so immediately, with no evidence? I'm not questioning the official story at this point because there is no reason to question it yet. The police are still in the first stages of investigation. If "he" didn't bring the bags into the hotel himself, then the police know that from video and they aren't going to tell us that now. They will want to identify and catch his accomplice. It's really difficult for me to understand how you can't understand common investigation concepts.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
no no that is the question ....did he get the bags up there was it him where is the footage of him doing this ..why are we not questioning the official story
I think the difference between you and us - well, one of the many differences - is that we perhaps have a little more patience for this sort of thing.

PS Did you have a think about the questions I asked you in Post #42?
 

darrenr

Member
...his neighbour did and interview with michael savage said there is no way this guy would do anything like this ....

I don't think we can give too much credence to statements like that. It's become a cliche that serial killers and the like are always described by their neighbours as 'quiet' people who 'kept themselves to themselves.' Somebody planning this sort of action over a long period would hardly tell the bloke next door.
 

CeruleanBlu

Senior Member.
But he probably just used normal large suitcases, and just did a very partial breakdown of the guns, removing the stock, which takes minutes.

There really is no need for the "removing the stocks" or any other disassembly. Right now, these cases are on sale for about $1100 online, and anyone with a credit card could order one.
https://uspatriottactical.com/pelican-1780hl-long-case-with-rifle-hard-liner-insert/







With the wheels on these Pelican cases, it's a simple matter for any one individual to roll 10 AR-15 rifles through a hotel lobby without many batting an eye. Add in the luggage carts hotels have available, and I personally could hypothetically carry 30 rifles in 3 of these cases plus a wooden crate of 1,600 rounds of .223 under a nice knitted blanket right through the lobby, in one trip, with hardly anyone noticing, and certainly without being stopped and searched.
 

vooke

Active Member
his neighbour did and interview with michael savage said there is no way this guy would do anything like this ....there are questions and no definite answers .not without some video proof at least

Of course there are questions because the incidence is barely days old and investigations are still ongoing, and even with footage from surveillance cameras there will still be lots of questions. Maybe a good approach to the many questions you have is to get evidence that disproves the official account, otherwise doubt for the sake of doubt is not helpful. The neighbour’s conviction that he couldn’t have done it is not evidence because those are just beliefs
 

Chuck

Active Member
no no that is the question ....did he get the bags up there was it him where is the footage of him doing this ..why are we not questioning the official story ...his neighbour did and interview with michael savage said there is no way this guy would do anything like this ....there are questions and no definite answers .not without some video proof at least

First, please use some punctuation. It's annoying trying to figure out what you're trying to argue. Second, it really doesn't matter if they release footage or not. If the videos show nothing will you accept it? My guess is that you and most CTers won't. It will either be argued that the video has been doctored or that the incriminating footage has not been released.

As with any event of this magnitude, there will always be anomalies and unanswered questions. But heck, it hasn't even been a week. And the reality is that there are far more answers than questions. CTers just don't like the answers. Mick has already shown how easy it would have been to transport that many weapons up to the room.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There really is no need for the "removing the stocks" or any other disassembly.
I was imagining using normal large suitcases to avoid suspicion, big suitcases are about 32" high, that case is 42" high. Still, it's something that has probably been seen in the hotel before as people use them for transporting all kinds of fragile equipment - and Vegas has all kinds of trade shows.

There's a variety of 42" options if you want something that's even less identifiable as a gun case.

20171007-131049-h2dug.jpg

This is all just speculation though - the main point here is that there's many ways of getting guns into a room that would not have triggered suspicion. Footage will probably be released at some point, but not just to satisfy conspiracy theorists. The police don't really care about what conspiracy theorists think.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
It stands to reason that we'll see some surveillance footage when it's no longer an open case.

I have no problem waiting. There's multiple reasons that investigators might not want the public
to see video that may incriminate a possible accomplice or two.
(and just because I see no need for an accomplice here, re. gear, etc., doesn't rule it out).

Boston was entirely different: investigators had video of two young men behaving very suspiciously,
and needed the public's help in finding them, so it made sense to release video.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Boston was entirely different: investigators had video of two young men behaving very suspiciously,
and needed the public's help in finding them, so it made sense to release video.

Yes that's pretty much the ONLY reason why they would quickly release video - if they need some help from the public in identifying someone. Some footage of events like Columbine was only released after a lawsuit.
 

Chuck

Active Member
Yes that's pretty much the ONLY reason why they would quickly release video - if they need some help from the public in identifying someone. Some footage of events like Columbine was only released after a lawsuit.

But to the larger point, releasing the vids and surveillance photos didn't stop CTers from making outrageous claims. I know people who still think that the Tsarnaev brothers were setup by the government. So, the reality is that the CTers will spin the facts to support their narrative. If they release videos of the shooter in the lobby with a boatload of oversized bags, they'll argue that he was being framed. I've found that it's virtually impossible to satisfy a CTer.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
But to the larger point, releasing the vids and surveillance photos didn't stop CTers from making outrageous claims. I know people who still think that the Tsarnaev brothers were setup by the government. So, the reality is that the CTers will spin the facts to support their narrative. If they release videos of the shooter in the lobby with a boatload of oversized bags, they'll argue that he was being framed. I've found that it's virtually impossible to satisfy a CTer.
Absolutely true. And no doubt even if a thousand hours of footage was scrutinised, if one thing looked the slightest bit fishy, the whole thing would be labelled a hoax.

Not hyperbole, either - this is exactly what happens with space deniers and NASA.

A CTer is like a jury member who, having watched multi-angle footage of a murder, heard the confession, read the plan, listened to a thousand eye witnesses, and studied the evidence of experts, find the murderer "innocent" because there was a glitch in one frame of a video tape.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
If they release videos of the shooter in the lobby with a boatload of oversized bags, they'll argue that he was being framed. I've found that it's virtually impossible to satisfy a CTer.
Yep, so not worth trying.


Absolutely true. And no doubt even if a thousand hours of footage was scrutinised, if one thing looked the slightest bit fishy, the whole thing would be labelled a hoax.
Yep. It's virtually certain that some of the video would be grainy...and almost as certain that claims of "green screen!"
would follow, from the YouTube College o' Truth crowd...
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
Convincing the public is not the police's job. Convincing a jury is, at a later stage, but with the primary perpetrator dead that will only be if the surveillance shows a possible accomplice. And if they release anything with that accomplice before they are in custody, or even identified, that accomplice is likely to flee.

Even if there is no accomplice, it's still very relevant: convincing the public, especially members of it with unreasonable expectations or proof, is not the police's job, nor is it beneficial to them or anyone to remove manpower from an investigation to do so as extra credit.
 
Anythings possible ......we don't have the video to prove it yet .or any proof at all .
Last time I went to a con, I had 2 suitcases plus three duffel bags, one of which probably weighed 60+ pounds. The bellboy didn't bat an eye. Compared to some of the cosplayers, I probably had a light load.

I gave the guy a big tip, and I bet he didn't think about what I might have had for more than a second.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Last time I went to a con, I had 2 suitcases plus three duffel bags, one of which probably weighed 60+ pounds. The bellboy didn't bat an eye.
I went in a convention centre in Birmingham, UK to meet someone just after the Manchester Arena bombing, and security there searched my wheely case and backpack, and did it again when I returned like three minutes later.

They always do that just after a terror attack - just after 9/11 they were even searching bags going into Job Centres - but they soon give it up and go back to normal. Except for airports, of course - all that wasted 100ml+ liquid... :(
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
First, I sincerely do admire the effort you're putting in to find something problematic
about what you call "the official story." I wish most people worked so hard at their jobs!

maybe its me but i never carry my bags to my room its almost unheard of in a 5 star hotel
Interesting. Since you're using this as evidence (of a sort), have you established that
Paddock actually was staying in a "5 star hotel."

...his neighbour...said there is no way this guy would do anything like this...
This seems like compelling evidence to you? Often people with an evil side will try to not reveal that
evil side to neighbors and casual acquaintances, lest that impede their ability to pull off an evil deed.
Heck, some folks have even been known to hide a darker side from someone much closer, like a spouse.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
have you established that
Paddock actually was staying in a "5 star hotel."
Mandalay Bay is a 4-star hotel.

No matter how many stars, if you tell the bell hop to bugger off you can carry your own bags. It's maybe unheard of to HAVE to, but if you want to, it's not difficult to force the matter.
 

Mukna

New Member
I know that this isn't what happened but what makes anyone think that he would have aroused suspicion even if he had walked right on in with gun bags (as well as standard suitcases)? From what I hear, the Nevada gun laws are extremely relaxed and allow open-carry without a permit.

I mean if he walked in with 10, if not more, assault rifles just in his hand and not in bags then I can imagine they might question him. But to them, he is a paying customer that for all they care is taking the guns to a range on one of the days during his stay. What reason would anyone have to think he would be using them to kill 59 people at a concert?

In the magic community they have a saying, don't run if you aren't being chased. What that means is you don't need to over-prove that the card really is on top a that is what arouses suspicion because until you mentioned it, no one was questioning it. I think the same could be said here as to why would he would need to really work to hide the weapons.

I know it's a bit of an extreme situation I'm proposing, him not hiding the fact he had guns, but I think it shows just how easy it would be to 'smuggle' these guns in to the hotel. I'm sure they get people checking in with guns all the time.

Forgive my ignorance if none of this is the case at all as I don't even live in the States let alone Nevada.
 

DasKleineTeilchen

Active Member
Forgive my ignorance if none of this is the case at all as I don't even live in the States let alone Nevada.

me neither, but I found it extremly doubtfull that a hotel with casino (hence a lot of money indahouse) would allow *any* guests to carry weapons inside the hotel or to stock firearms in their rooms, even in nevada.
 

cloudspotter

Senior Member.
me neither, but I found it extremly doubtfull that a hotel with casino (hence a lot of money indahouse) would allow *any* guests to carry weapons inside the hotel or to stock firearms in their rooms, even in nevada.

I've just checked the FAQ for the Luxor Hotel in LV and they tell you about pets, smoking, internet access and smoking weed in your room but no mention of firearms that I can see

https://www.luxor.com/en/faq.html
 

DasKleineTeilchen

Active Member
I've just checked the FAQ for the Luxor Hotel in LV and they tell you about pets, smoking, internet access and smoking weed in your room but no mention of firearms that I can see

according to an article in the NYT, its clearly forbidden in the mandalay bay hotel:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/us/mandalay-bay-hotel-security.html

this article here states that while you cant forbid people to carry arms in nevada, you can dismiss them from your proberty, if they carry guns:

https://www.dlgteam.com/casino-gun-laws/
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
Do conspiracy theorists really imagine someone watches guests coming and going, and that they will pick out someone because they have a bag with them
I think this is the big problem that confronts the conspiracy theorist all the time. CCTV cameras and security guards everywhere? = Big Brother is watching you therefore conspiracy. No CCTV footage showing anything suspicious or providing smoking guns? = cover up therefore conspiracy.

Its a bitter sweet duality in which everything just confirms their bias.
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
...his neighbour did and interview with michael savage said there is no way this guy would do anything like this
That counts for nowt.

This incident happened right outside my front door a few years ago
http://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/story/2013-08-21/kebab-shop-crash-driver-jailed/
The lady involved was a neighbour of mine, I had known her for 10 years, may be more. She was one of the nicest people you could care to meet, had friendly words for everyone and was well respected. Then one day she flipped out, got in her car and drove into a crowd of people, injuring four and caving in a shop front. It took five policemen to arrest her and take her away. Had I not seen the incident with my own eyes, I was about 50ft away on the other side of the road when it happened, I would have said something very similar to the LV shooters neighbours.

Even the nicest, quietest people are capable of the most extreme and barbarous acts. It just needs the right trigger to fire them off.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I've just checked the FAQ for the Luxor Hotel in LV and they tell you about pets, smoking, internet access and smoking weed in your room but no mention of firearms that I can see

https://www.luxor.com/en/faq.html

This is Madalay, it refers to private security personnel.
 

tadaaa

Senior Member
Do conspiracy theorists really imagine someone watches guests coming and going, and that they will pick out someone because they have a bag with them, and also had one with them the day before?

conspiracy theorists work backwards - so to them the question seems entirely logical

in the same way creationists do, they start with a Whale, and work backwards asking "what are the chances......"

the conclusion is already arrived at
 

ZoomBubba

New Member
I would imagine they were inside bags and/or cases. So what you're really saying is, "do you really think they missed a guy carrying some bags to his room?"

I think one reason they might have "missed" him was because he was a wealthy white guy who is known to have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in their casinos. The hotel may have been thinking "we want this guy to come back, so let's make sure he has no trouble getting in."
 

Rory

Senior Member.
I think one reason they might have "missed" him was because he was a wealthy white guy who is known to have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in their casinos. The hotel may have been thinking "we want this guy to come back, so let's make sure he has no trouble getting in."
That might have been the case if they were actually on the lookout for such things. But you can't 'miss' someone when you're not looking for anyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top