+1
Here's a huge problem I have with the relative silence. Powdered Water brought up crime scene investigations and such...
With crime scenes, especially unsolved ones, there's a lot to consider and there are many good reasons to keep information under wraps until such time as arrests can be made and a case may be taken to court: first, you don't want to tip-off those involved, then there's allegations, lawsuits, potential counter lawsuits for false allegations or arrests, accomplices, crime scene contamination, witness protection, witness statements, admissible evidence, police involvement, who will represent the prosecution, what the defense for the accused is going to use in court, discovery, disclosure, potential jury pool contamination due to leaked information or rumors, and on and on - much of it relating to proving the case against the accused, the prosecution of the case, avoiding counter suits, and the ultimate court judgement.
But this is different. The authorities basically declared the case solved on day 1 as far as who was responsible and he can't be tried because he's dead!
They declared Paddock acted alone and had no contacts, affiliations, causes or accomplices - therefore there are no accusations of others to consider, no rights of "people of interest" left to worry about, no witnesses to protect, no groups to involve over the influence they had on the accused, etc. This case was wrapped as far as "Who dunnit" and how on day one.
So that leads me to really question the silence regarding the investigation. According to the FBI, they now only need to look at the particulars as to "why" Paddock committed this crime (which they keep telling us we may never know), but the "who" is already solved.
There are no witnesses to worry about protecting from retaliation, there are no other parties to worry about, there are no jury pools to worry about being contaminated, there's no case or lawyers to worry about in regards to the crime because the ONLY person involved in committing it is accounted for and dead.
This, of course, is all according to the authorities account of what happened and who was responsible.
So then why the big lack of disclosure toward many of the questions and details I outlined and the many more I didn't? What is the NEED to be silent over so many of the unaddressed issues? What do they need to "protect" by remaining silent if the only person responsible is dead? Do you see what I'm saying?
Staying mum might be more "normal" for cases where you have alleged suspects being defended by lawyers that will be making a plea in a court of law involving examination of evidence and witnesses to determine guilt, but this is different. And it's why we usually get a ton of information on lone killers who are killed during their rampage along with many of the circumstances surrounding it - there's no NEED to be silent when the ONLY person responsible is dead.
The silence here doesn't make sense.
Last edited by Captain Steel; 11-21-17 at 05:29 PM.