Las Vegas Shooting

[wenrob]

There have been conflicting reports from law enforcement.

What do you mean?

 

[Pea-n-Me]

What do you mean?

What do I mean? Just what I said, I've read conflicting reports today.

Here's just one.

From US News & World Report:

"Investigators want to interview Paddock's girlfriend, who was out of the country at the time of the shooting.

On Tuesday, they called Marilou Danley "a person of interest" and said the FBI was bringing her back to the U.S. on Wednesday for questioning. On Tuesday, the 62-year-old was in the Philippines."

https://www.usnews.com/news/enterta...-happening-motive-unknown-in-las-vegas-attack

 

[wonder whisper]

Ah, I'm beginning to see what you mean...


There have been at least two direct quotes here saying she has no involvement.

As I put it in another post, the girlfriend is in on/off "person of interest" mode, a somewhat unusual situation that seems to change with every press conference and which has been going on for almost two days now. I'm willing to bet the longer she stays overseas out of U.S. jurisdiction, the louder the noise level about her is going to get.

And also agree with the points some are making about her being in a "no win" position given the fervor to find someone to blame for what happened. I.e., if she stays in Manila or Australia, she's at risk of being accused of "fleeing justice" and will enter an Amanda Knox-like existence of a perpetual cloud of doubt hanging over her.

If she returns to the U.S., she's at risk of being vilified and/or subjected to a plethora of civil suits (you can be sure lawyers are already reaching out to the families of victims and will target everyone and anyone (the hotel, the concert promoters, the performers, all subcontractors who has anything to do with the event, etc.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Well according to that article, the FBI is "bringing her back to the US". Whether it's true or not, I guess we shall see.

It seems to me that as the person closest to him, they just want to find out what she knows, unless they have more information on her that they aren't sharing with the public.

 

[wenrob]

What do I mean? Just what I said, I've read conflicting reports today.

Here's just one.

From US News & World Report:

"Investigators want to interview Paddock's girlfriend, who was out of the country at the time of the shooting.

On Tuesday, they called Marilou Danley "a person of interest" and said the FBI was bringing her back to the U.S. on Wednesday for questioning. On Tuesday, the 62-year-old was in the Philippines."

https://www.usnews.com/news/enterta...-happening-motive-unknown-in-las-vegas-attack

It’s an ongoing investigation not even 48 hours old. They’re updating what they know as they go.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

It’s an ongoing investigation not even 48 hours old. They’re updating what they know as they go.

Exactly.

 

[wonder whisper]

This is very true. I, personally, don't see any reason to suspect her of any involvement. But, law enforcement officials would be negligent if they didn't interview her, just as they would be negligent if they didn't interview the shooter's mother and brother and business partners and anyone else he might be close to. They need to establish for certain that he was the "lone wolf" he appears to have been. That's just doing their job.

She, on the other hand, has every reason not to want to set foot in the US. She's a target, and there are a lot of people who would like to pin this on her for a lot of different reasons. So, if they want to talk to her in person, they're just going to have to fly out to wherever she is. Otherwise, they'll have to settle for phone or Skype interviews.

Hire the Israelis. They will snatch that "high limit hostess" in an hour and have her delivered to Marine Corps Base Quantico by 8am the next day.

 

[nd5056]

So don't even try. Might as well not even have laws. They will just break them.

You really think that applying more laws and regulations will scare them away???

 

[wonder whisper]

I believe Peggy was quoted as saying she hadn't seen him in years.

She was.

But if I can remember nuances, quirks and the values of my uncle Phil who passed away over twenty years ago, Peggy can certainly reflect on the persona of her prior husband and at a minimum theorize on what may have made him go psycho.

 

[wonder whisper]

Why would they "must have some perspective"?

I've been divorced from a man for over 20 years. Had no contact from him what so ever with his family in that time either. No kids together.
If he committed a crime now I would have no insight for them. No idea of his mental or physical state, his possessions, his income level, his address, his romantic interests, his current religious or political views. People often change from when they are in their 20s.

Your "complete cutoff" experience isn't necessarily the norm and may in fact be rarer than you realize. My wife's parents as an example - they divorced in their late 30s, but have not broken off all contact and are well aware of each other's location, relationships and current situation. And you assume people maintain no consistent persona elements as they age, something the psychiatrist I dated while in graduate school would take major issue with.

The bottom line is investigators have nothing to lose by interviewing these women and could potentially gain some important insights if put in the hands of the right investigator, specifically one trained in forensic psychology.

 

[mummabear]

I don't think the gun fetish is in our nature.

I think the US has a very long history with guns from the Wild West to the Civil War, I think America was really forged with guns unlike any other nation I can think of.

Further comment removed after recieving points for other related posts.

 

[mmouse37]

Why did he send $100,000 to the Philippines recently? Was he setting his girlfriend up for the future without him or was it used for something else. Very curious.

MJ

 

[wonder whisper]

My mom and dad have both been married three times apiece. I can guarantee you neither has any insight about what the other is like some 47+ years after they divorced. Their second spouses would have even less of a clue as they don’t share any children or grandchildren.

Yes and no. Yes, investigators shouldn't expect a prior spouse to have intimate details on what their ex is like today. But no, that does not mean the prior spouse can't help the investigator to understand what makes the ex tick. No matter how much time has passed since they were together.

How so? You would be amazed at what insights an interview by a trained forensic psychologist can dredge up. And what many here appear to not understand is that there's more to profiling someone than just the picture painted by their present or recent circumstances. Or put another way, you build a fuller picture based on a complete history including the present and past.

The Sheriff is pretty pissed about that pic. If I had to guess someone’s career is going to end over that.

If someone's career is going to end over that one, the Sheriff must be planning to imprison someone over the other ones out there that include not only the weaponry in the hotel suite but also the body of the psychopath. FYI, all these the pics were on an obscure Ukrainian site. To quote a famous line from a Ukrainian character in the first "Taken" film,"good luck"....to anyone trying trace how that obscure site got them.

 

[mummabear]

Domo, I think you are out of line for these boards. I understand your passion but take it elsewhere!

Let it never be said I don't take tips. I'll tone it down

I agree he has the right. However, as I understand the DISBoard policy, I don't think this is the place.

I think @Domo along with everyone else on this thread have been really respectful.

I completely respect all opinions for sure but what does pitting country against country and all the talk of "my country does better than yours" actually help in this thread? Now I totally get having one's own thread if you wish on gun control it just feels like...

No one of course has to listen to anyone just putting out my opinion here.

I don’t get the feeling that anyone is piting one country against another, just saying if x doesn’t have this problem (and that could be any problem, why does NZ have such a horrific child abuse problem?) than why not, what are they doing differently than we are, and could that work for us over here.

 

[mummabear]

Why did he send $100,000 to the Philippines recently? Was he setting his girlfriend up for the future without him or was it used for something else. Very curious.

MJ

I would like to think if my multimilloriane partner was about to kill themselves and were setting me up for the future they would transfer more than $100,000.

The question in regards to the girlfriend is did he plan it knowing she would be away or send her away because he had planned it?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I don’t get the feeling that anyone is piting one country against another, just saying if x doesn’t have this problem (and that could be any problem, why does NZ have such a horrific child abuse problem?) than why not, what are they doing differently than we are, and could that work for us over here.

I respect that. However I could quote multiple posts that are what I'm talking about but honestly it's not worth it. It would only serve to continue the whole gun control talk that is not one for the Boards.

 

[wonder whisper]

Why did he send $100,000 to the Philippines recently? Was he setting his girlfriend up for the future without him or was it used for something else. Very curious.

MJ

You are not alone in being curious. No one knows why the money was sent, but what is clear is that a string of coincidences are aligning in a way that is making the "high limit hostess" look more and more suspicious. Specifically:

• She coincidentally leaves the country shortly before Sugar Daddy goes on his rampage.
• She coincidentally receives $100,000 from Sugar Daddy once outside U.S jurisdiction.
• It coincidentally begins to appear over the last two days that U.S. investigators are flaying around with their on and off "subject of interest" classification, which suggests they are struggling with the fact they are not in a position to force her to return to the U.S.

Which leaves me with the same thought I made in a prior post:

Hire the Israelis. They will snatch the "high limit hostess"off the streets of Manila in an hour and deliver her to Marine Corps Base Quantico by 8am the next day.

 

[wenrob]

Yes and no. Yes, investigators shouldn't expect a prior spouse to have intimate details on what their ex is like today. But no, that does not mean the prior spouse can't help the investigator to understand what makes the ex tick. No matter how much time has passed since they were together.

How so? You would be amazed at what insights an interview by a trained forensic psychologist can dredge up. And what many here appear to not understand is that there's more to profiling someone than just the picture painted by their present or recent circumstances. Or put another way, you build a fuller picture based on a complete history including the present and past.



If someone's career is going to end over that one, the Sheriff must be planning to imprison someone over the other ones out there that include not only the weaponry in the hotel suite but also the body of the psychopath. FYI, all these the pics were on an obscure Ukrainian site. To quote a famous line from a Ukrainian character in the first "Taken" film,"good luck"....to anyone trying trace how that obscure site got them.

I haven’t seen them and I don’t want to but if these are in fact evidence photos from the scene I don’t see how they wouldn’t be able to eventually figure out who put them out there. I’m not sure how an obscure website would make this person or people untouchable in that regard. Never said anything about imprisonment so I don’t even know how to respond to that.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

It appears as if the girlfriend is already back on US soil, arriving in Los Angeles last night.

http://www.wlwt.com/article/las-veg...rns-to-us-for-questioning-1507105176/12777346

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...friend-marilou-danley/?utm_term=.c080ffcc442d

 

[mom2rtk]

Why would they "must have some perspective"?

I've been divorced from a man for over 20 years. Had no contact from him what so ever with his family in that time either. No kids together.
If he committed a crime now I would have no insight for them. No idea of his mental or physical state, his possessions, his income level, his address, his romantic interests, his current religious or political views. People often change from when they are in their 20s.

But I assume you weren't married to a psycopathic mass murderer? Perhaps this person had some behaviors that were notable even many years ago that would be insightful to the investigation.

It appears as if the girlfriend is already back on US soil, arriving in Los Angeles last night.

http://www.wlwt.com/article/las-veg...rns-to-us-for-questioning-1507105176/12777346

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...friend-marilou-danley/?utm_term=.c080ffcc442d

Just saw footage of a van at LAX with her supposedly inside.