In the latest press conference on the Las Vegas mass shooting, Clark County Sheriff Joseph Lombardo took a sledge hammer to the official story. When he was done, the already collapsing narrative was in shambles. All that remained were a pile of unanswered questions.
In this post you’ll find 3 instances where Lombardo completely undermines what used to be the official Las Vegas mass shooting story and at the end of the post, you’ll find a quick deconstruction of the flawed logic that up until yesterday no one was allowed to question.
The Suspect Has Never Been Seen With Anyone Else….
….Except maybe a woman a few days before the shooting.
In yesterday’s press conference Sheriff Lombardo said, “We have uncovered over 200 instances of the suspect traveling throughout Las Vegas and he has never been seen with anyone else.” The video below is cued to that point.
Yet, just 4 days earlier, NBC reported that, “Investigators say they still want to speak to a woman who was spotted with paddock in the days before the shooting.”
Which one is it? Was Paddock seen with a woman in the days before the shooting? Or have police yet to find anyone who ever saw Paddock with another human being? Or were the claims made by both NBC and Sheriff Lombardo too vague to provide any clarity?
I’m going with the third option. To begin with Miguel, of NBC, cites an unnamed source. The source could be his pet poodle for all we know. We have no idea how credible this source is or is not. Secondly, they don’t tell us who or what spotted Paddock and this alleged woman. Was it a person? A casino surveillance camera? Miguel’s pet poodle? And third, he didn’t tell us where or when Paddock and this mystery woman were spotted. When exactly is, “the days before the shooting?” Maybe if they filled in the blanks people could help them out a little. I guess they’d have to have real information to report to do that.
Lombardo was equally vague in his statement. What the hell does “Uncovered over 200 instances of the suspect traveling throughout Las Vegas” even mean? This sounds more like an intentionally vague and convoluted statement than it does useful information. What exactly qualifies as an instance? What does it mean to uncover one? Did they talk to 200 people around Vegas who only ever saw Paddock by himself? Did watch footage from 200 different surveillance cameras that all featured Paddock hanging out by himself? Did they talk to 200 taxi cab drivers who all recalled the lone passenger? Did they track his online hotel bookings? Did they retroactively track his cell phones locations? Credit card receipts, if even had one? What about the barista at Starbucks who claims to remember Paddock being mean to his girlfriend? Was she lying? Did they not talk to her? What the hell are you talking about Lombardo?
NBC wasn’t alone in their reporting of the mysterious woman who was “spotted” with Paddock. ABC News reported that the woman seen with Paddock had been identified as a prostitute. The article states, “The woman who was seen with Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock days before the massacre was a prostitute, officials tell ABC News.” Of course they don’t elaborate and both the source and the prostitute remains unnamed. Vague, Vague, Vague.
And finally, there’s the story of…..the second hooker. Not the second shooter. They don’t care about that. In fact, the media have assured us that anyone who breathes a word about a second shooter is a racist conspiracy theorist. Fortunately, the U.S. editor of the U.K. based Sun News has provided us with a second hooker. The Sun reports that a Hooker reveals how Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock acted out violent rape fantasies and bragged: ‘I was born bad’. Now that’s a story! Unfortunately the escort chose to remain nameless. There article also makes no attempt to build credibility around the claim. It is worth noting that the anonymous prostitute allegedly claimed that her relationship (I guess they were dating) with Paddock ended in 2016. This would make it unlikely that she’s the same prostitute from the previous stories, making her……the second hooker.
There Was No Note Found In Paddock’s Room...
..But there was a document. Huh? You’ll understand shortly.
In the leaked crime scene photo, which is weird enough in and of itself, there is a note sitting on a table. Speculation that the note was a suicide letter was dispelled two nights ago during a 60-minutes interview with a police officer who was on the scene. In the interview the officer confidently tells us that numbers were written on the note and that those numbers were used to help the shooter know where to shoot. CNN and other networks held panels discussions with former intelligence officers who discussed how the killer used these “calculations” to help him kill as many people as possible.
Here’s a direct link to the video on 60 minutes website incase the youtube version gets flagged as fake news and removed.
But then, the day after the above interview took place, Sheriff Lombardo was asked about the same note. His answer was puzzling. Here’s a transcript of the interaction with the cued up video below that.
Journalist – “Can you tell us about the note…..?”
Lombardo- “What note?”
Journalist – “The note that was in the suspect’s room.”
Lombardo “There was not a note in the suspects room. We recovered a document that had numbers associated to it and I’m not at liberty to make a guess on what that was for?”
Bonus Question – Who’s more intense during this exchange? Sheriff Lombardo? Or the creepy guy behind him who’s making sure that Lombardo doesn’t say the wrong thing?
What’s up with Lombardo’s weird response to the question about the note/document? I feel confident that the journalist was asking about the piece of paper that’s circled in the crime scene image below, the same one the police officer on 60-minutes spoke about.
Is that the document the Sheriff Lombardo refers to? Sure, it could be called a document depending on what your definition is. It could also be called a note. Regardless of its technical definition, it’s weird for someone to reject that a note was found simply because they prefer to call the note a document. That is unless Lombardo isn’t actually talking about the note pictured above. Is he talking about something else? I doubt it, but I’m not ruling anything out at this point.
For our purposes however, I’m going to assume that Sheriff Lombardo is talking about the note pictured above, and that he knew exactly what the journalist who questioned him meant. Why did he say that he’s not at liberty to even take a guess as to what the numbers on the note mean? If you watch the news, it’s pretty clear that just about everyone else has not only agreed on what the numbers meant, they’re also openly discussing it. So what’s his problem? My guess is that from an investigative stand point the question about the note is not yet settled. Investigators and those who saw the note probably proposed multiple theories that are currently being explored. Meanwhile one or two people expressed their opinion about what the numbers meant to the media, and those opinions were reported as though they were conclusive findings. If there is any truth to my theory then it’s understandable that Lombardo doesn’t want to comment on it. If he does and the theory currently going around proves wrong, then Lombardo will find himself behind that podium again on the defense, having to field questions about why the narrative has changed again.
The Security Guard Was Shot BEFORE The Gunman Began Firing On Concertgoers Below…..
…as opposed to after like was previously reported.
The old narrative was that a security guard named Jesus Campos distracted the shooter and helped stopped the attack, getting shot in the process. Here’s how the story was being reported
But then yesterday, the story changed to this. The video is cued.
The old story about Campos was vital to the narrative because it answered the all important question, “Why did the shooter stop shooting?” Now that we know that Campos was shot before the shooter began firing on the crowd, the previous explanation that Campos is why the shooter stopped firing on the crowd is no longer valid. This reopens the question of why did he stop shooting.
It’s also worth pointing out that the NIGHT BEFORE Lombardo’s press conference, he and four other officers appeared on an episode of 60-minutes that opened one of the segments with the host saying, “He may have killed many more if not for a security guard who arrived within 12 minutes of the onset of the attack.” So this was the narrative up until the night before last. They probably didn’t film the show the night before last, but had something changed before then, they wouldn’t have willingly aired statements that would be contradicted the very next day.
During his interview, Lombardo even spoke about the heroism of the security guard. I know because I read the transcript before it and that portion of the video were removed from the website. The links to that portion of the interview still show up in a Google search.
On top of that, just days earlier, CNN reported, “Clark County Undersheriff Kevin McMahill also commended the security guard as “very heroic.” When asked why he thought Paddock stopped shooting at concertgoers, McMahill said Tuesday he believed Paddock’s attention had been diverted as he fired at the security guard.” This was a consistent message being delivered on all fronts….until it suddenly changed.
Miscommunication is understandable. It’s possible that the security guard initially told police what happened during the heat of the moment while they still believed they had an active shooter. If that’s the case, then it’s quite possible that they misunderstood what he said. If there was a language barrier then miscommunication under those circumstances could even be considered likely. If reports are true that police sent the guard away to get help for his wounds, then it’s also possible that there was no immediate way to clear up any confusion about his story.
What cannot be explained away however is why any confusion wasn’t quickly cleared up. The security guard is the only person who got anywhere near the shooter while the shooter was still alive. Surely clarifying all the details of his story was a top priority for investigators. How could they go for so long and not realize that they had it wrong? Did Lombardo really just discover that they had the story wrong? If so, how is this possible? Did they not follow up with the security guard? Was the security guard lying? If it took over a week for investigators to discover that they were wrong about such a vital fact, what else might they be wrong about? How can we trust any information we receive from them? Or did Lombardo and other investigators know that the story being reported was inaccurate? If so, why didn’t they correct it? Why did they instead play into it?
And finally, just for fun, let’s look at a quick example of how flawed the logic of what was previously the official story was.
Watch this video, hopefully before it gets taken down. The host of 60-minutes, who interviewed the cops, gives a preview of the interview. One of his co-host asks him how the police found the shooter. Listen to his answer and consider the logic of it. Keep in mind that, at this time, this guy believed that the shooter was in the middle of the attack, and that the security guard diverted his attention away from it. Also keep in mind that the security guard was unarmed.
“How did they find him?” “There was a security guard who was responding to a door ajar alarm, and he walked near the door. And the shooter had cameras set up, and they believe they saw the security guard coming in and he opened fire, 200 rounds shot at the security guard. Got him in the leg. Didn’t kill him. He survived.” Up until yesterday, that’s the story we were asked to believe. That’s the story that if you questioned validity of, you’d be called crazy.
Consider the logic. The sound of the gunfire coming from the Paddock’s hotel room could be heard LOUDLY from the concert venue nearly 300 yards below. If the gunshot sounds are that loud from three football fields away, can you imagine how loud they must have sounded from just a few feet away in the hallway just outside the shooters door? Yet, in the 60-minutes preview video, they’re operating under the assumption that an unarmed security guard ignored all his good sense and approached a door behind which a deafening ruckus of gunfire could be heard.
They’re also operating under the assumption that the security guard approached the door not because of the ear drum shattering sounds coming from behind it, but because he was investigating a door ajar alarm. And finally, the 60-minutes team also assumes that the shooter is simultaneously firing his weapon at thousands of people 300 yards away while ALSO monitoring the hallway camera closely enough to spot the approaching security guard. The whole premise is ludicrous, yet it was the generally accepted story.
It makes far more sense that the guard would approach the room if there was no shooting going on, which we learned yesterday was the case. It also makes far more sense that the shooter would notice the security guard on the camera monitor if he isn’t preoccupied with firing a seemingly endless number of rounds into a crowd three football fields away. It could also be argued that it’s hard to believe that the security guard only got hit in the leg once despite 200 rounds being shot at him, but I can see a scenario where he gets hit once and then takes cover somewhere while the gunman continues to fire at will.
The real question now is what made the shooter stop shooting? Oh, and who the actual shooter, or shooters were? I’m not ruling out that Paddock was involved in the shooting. As of now however, they’ve provided no real evidence that it was actually him who pulled the trigger. His body is unrecognizable in the leaked crime scene photo. I want to know how they identified the body the quickly.
To hear about about the Las Vegas shooting, including more about Paddock’s con man father, check out episode 71 of the propaganda report podcast at the link below.
To be updated about future post and new episodes of this podcast follow this blog and click on the iTunes or Google Play icon on the homepage to subscribe to the Propaganda Report Podcast.
Categories: quick hits