AN ANALYTIC PANEL HEADED BY THE ALL WISE CATFISH EXAMINES THE EVIDENCE SO FAR
10/2/2017 and concluding on 10/30/2017. Scroll to near the bottom for the concluding discussions.
|THE GREAT NAMAZU, ANALYTIC PANEL CHAIRMAN|
I've been asked to examine the evidence with the aid of a panel in the case of the Las Vegas shootings in light of the claims of ISIS that this was their doing. I've also been asked to continue and upgrade our analysis as new facts become known. The make up of the panel will likely change over time; today we include noted jurists and regular AAB legal contributor, the ghost of the late Supreme Court Associate Justice Louis Brandeis .
Thank you Namazu. A Pleasure to be here.
We also include today our intrepid editor and former admiralty investigator Johnas Presbyter
Thank You Namazu that's me on the viewer's right in my youth as a young CPO. Sorry no other photos.
NAMAZU: OK panel first a brief synopsis of what is known so far. Last night in Las Vegas a shooter suspected to be one Stephen Paddock age 64 fired automatic weapons into a crowd of concert goers at a country and western concert outside the Mandalay Resort in Los Vegas, Navada killing, at the last count we had before this meeting, 59 people and injuring 515. The extent of the injuries of the wounded are unknown to us but the probability of a rise in the death count appears probable as time wears on. By all accounts one of the worst mass shootings in US history. The main stream media is already calling it the worst but we generally believe that the massacre of men women and children at Wounded Knee on December 29,1890 with at least 250 known dead still holds that title, at least so far. (Since the victims were American natives killed in a government drive to disarm them while they stood on their treaty rights and second amendment, and the gunmen were agents of the Federal government, the left including the mainstream media generally don't like to include Wounded Knee in the tally of US mass shootings. )
The family and neighbors of deceased suspect Stephen Paddock have been responding like deer caught in the high beams of an 18 wheeler's headlights for an explanation of why he would do such a thing. He apparently left them with an impression of just being a "regular guy". By contrast the ISIS affiliated news service Amaq has claimed that Paddock was a "soldier of the Islamic State" and carried out this attack "in response to calls to target states of the coalition...". Panel, our immediate task is to analyze the probability of this ISIS statement without PC filters based on the immediately available information and to update our findings as the case unfolds. Let me turn the floor over to the Honorable Justice Brandeis for a description of the type of analytic standards we will be applying in this endeavor.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS: Thank you my wise aquatic friend. I believe that such an analytic and forensic endeavor will require the application of "intelligence" information analysis, and standards of forensics, and presentation in the beginning with such limited information, and legal standards of proof as more becomes known. The question is with the alleged perpetrator dead, will we ever be able to get beyond the civil legal standard of proof "more probable than not" to the criminal standard of proof "proof beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt" . I think that is highly unlikely. For today we need to base our deliberations on scanty evidence using intelligence analytic standards. There are security issues to consider. I think it best that I now defer to Johnas , our military member for an explanation of "intelligence standards of analysis" .
JOHNAS PRESBYTER: Than you, Your Honor. What we have to be concerned
with in military or law enforcement. or physical security analysis is discernment of
the distinction of actionable intelligence from mere Intelligence. Actionable
Intelligence is always the product of professional analysis of raw intelligence.
Actionable intelligence is not analogous to the civil law standard of proof "more
probable than not. "Intelligence" implies that the level of certainty is is less than that;
action may be required even with pertinent facts not in evidence . For example take the
term "credible threat". When intelligence analysis concludes that there is a "credible
threat " against a particular target, additional physical security measures are warranted.
Resources are committed even though the level of proof is below that of more probable
than not. With ISIS claiming responsibility for the attack in Los Vegas and promising more
of the same we should examine today's information from the view point of a credible
threat, meaning is their enough evidence of the ISIS claim of responsibility at whatever
level to warrant extra security measures for major public gatherings or are their claims
just bluster? Later as more evidence becomes available we can look again through the
lens of legal standards of proof.
NAMAZU: OK so we have the claim by ISIS that Paddock was a soldier of the so
called "Islamic State" acting on their orders. In their press releases ISIS claims that
Paddock converted to Islam about four months ago. What do we have pro and con on
JUSTICE BRANDEIS : Do we refine and clarify the language "on their orders" given
what we know about their encouragement of "lone wolfs" and the apparent lack of
formal communications between ISIS and their agents residing in the United States?
JOHNAS PRESBYTER: ISIS acts both through "handled" agents and through voluntary
respondents to their admonishments , the most forceful being Fatwas. The results are just
as deadly either way. What we are concerned with here is whether or not ISIS is
independently acting to instill terror into an incident unrelated to their actual
operations regardless of whether this specific operation is managed by Isis or
simply inspired by ISIS. To me the first piece of evidence to consider is that in recent
months ISIS social media has been urging exactly such acts, and threatening exactly such
acts not only at big public venues such as musical concerts but also smaller soft target
venues such shopping malls, and even churches. So this attack fits the mold of actions
advocated by ISIS. It would be almost illogical for them to not try to claim to be behind the
act. But claiming and actually having a connection are two different things.
NAMAZU: Is there anything in the ISIS claim that appears to give their claim of either
direction of inspiration credence?
JOHNAS PRESBYTER: Before there was much out in the media in the way of personal
information about Paddock ISIS was very specific in claiming that he had converted to
Islam about four months prior to the shootings. His family described him as a very
ordinary person of no discernible specific political orientation or religious affiliation. So
ISIS would need an explanation for the apparent sudden change, a prior conversion would
fit the narrative. But the scary part just now is that we can't at this moment coordinate the
ISS claim of recent conversion with the timing of media release of his family's description
of him. We don't know if ISIS had foreknowledge of the need to fit this into their narrative
designed to milk this incident for public fear of ISIS. But if the the first media claim of
responsibility by ISIS precedes the early releases of Paddock family interviews the
credibility of ISIS foreknowledge of the individual goes up. If he is a recent Muslim convert,
somebody had to convert him. He might have been inspired to action by ISIS social media
or he may have been urged to action by an in country ISIS "handler". ISIS for reasons of
engendering greater fear likes the "handler" narrative better.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS: Is there anything else in the alleged shooter's background that
might lend credence to ISIS claims?
JOHNAS PRESBYTER: Tangentially, the fact that he made his living according to his
neighbors as a gambler and speculator, while his family was silent on how he made a
living and the fact that he has been described as a "grandfather" but lived with
a "girl friend" indicates something of a secretive life. Also he checked into the rooms he
shot from days ahead of time, indicating along with the size of his weapons catch on
scene and additional weapons found in his home, that serious planning was involved.
These facts are in contra-indication of his family's speculation that "he just went crazy" .
This shooting evidences careful planning and logistic support. It has the ear marks of a
terrorist action. Moreover , I believe the target is significant. Many left wing types describe
country music fans as "deplorables". The left as opposed to conservatives tend to align
with Islamic interests. Additionally, country music is the main genre of commercial music
where Christian ("Gospel") music often generates "cross over" hits giving a perception of
large numbers of Christians within the country music fan base. Thus targeting a
"country audience" to the warped mind equals targeting a probable large number of
Christians. The attack seems to have Islamic ear marks.
NAMAZU: Anybody ready to pronounce a bottom line on today's question
concerning the possibility of ISIS involvement from the view point of "actionable
JOHNAS PRESBYTER: In terms of actionable intelligence I think we should assume
that the ISIS claim of responsibility is sufficiently credible if we don't nitpick
over directed or inspired attack. Given the ISIS warning months in advance of this
event and the promise of more such attacks to come immediate application of
security lessons learned is warranted. The first and most obvious lesson learned
is that security perimeters around large public events should extend as far beyond
security physical barriers as the range of high quality sniper rifles. Let's not wait for
an actual example before we also pay attention to air space over such events,
drones today are cheap. In terms of intelligence of tactical value, we shouldn't wait
for all of the media driven politically correct admonitions to avoid rush to judgement
and avoid ever associating Islam with terror to settle before immediately begining
to apply the tactical lessons of this attack. If ISIS claims responsibility, I think there
is enough here in terms of prior warnings to take them at their word in terms of
implementation of tactical lessons. The public has suffered long enough from
PC considerations deferring obvious tactical implementations by the DHS. From
the view point of tactical intelligence we should unhesitatingly act on this incident
as if it were Islamic terrorism in line with announced ISIS intentions.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS: I agree with that assessment but only in so far as it applies
as a matter of tactical intelligence. Legally, we are far from proof of any connection
between ISIS or any other source of Islamic terror related to this event. I also agree
with the necessity to detach "political correctness" from any logical analysis of such
matters whether the analysis proceeds from scientific, legal, or physical forensic,
standards . There is no discernible relationship between political correctness and any
human means of discernment of truth. Political correctness is a tool from the
UPDATE: Mysterious warning https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAL-o5lIaxQ
UPDATE 10/4/2017 THE DISCUSSION CONTINUES:
NAMAZU: I assume we agree that we ought to accept the ISIS claim of inspiration , if not direction for the purely tactical reason that ISIS advocated such actions for quite some time before this incident, and claims responsibility since, and has subsequently doubled down on the claim. I also assume we accept yesterday's conclusion that this only meets the requirements of "actionable intelligence" . Assuming all that to be in agreement with you gentlemen, has any new evidence or indications of ISIS involvement become known since our last discussion?
Panel Reporter's Note: Both Justice Brandeis and Johnas Presbyter agreed with the summary of yesterday's conclusions and then Johnas Presbyter spoke:
Last night we learned that ISIS not only claimed that the suspect Paddock had recently converted to Islam but that ISIS claimed the suspect's adopted Muslim name was "ABU ABD EL BAR.
I think under the standards of evidence for litigation or criminal trial you'd have to call that an "investigative lead".
As presently developed it doesn't qualify as evidence , not yet. If someone were to connect the name Abu Abel El Bar to an actual usage by the suspect Stephen Paddock via an e-mail or similar usage this bit of information might shift into evidence
status as the term is used in law.
Also we learned that his live in companion is from the Philippines , and that he recently sent a large sum of money there. While the Philippines is largely Catholic there is a violent Muslim minority in certain regions.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS: Objection!
I don't mean to disturb your train of thought Johnas but "objection, immaterial" is what you would hear in court if you tried to bring those facts to light in a trial. This series of indicators
needs a lot more development to qualify as evidence. By development I mean additional provable facts such as indications that the suspect's female live in companion is in fact Muslim, or that his money at least went to a part of the Philippines inhabited by the radical Muslim factions.
Panel Reporter's note: A brief recess is in progress for a side bar discussion.
1645 discussion resumed:
I agree your honor, but indicators
count in intelligence analysis. Simply as indicators
in the legal sense of word usage these indicators
go to the weight of consideration of "actionable intelligence
". They strengthen the case for taking the ISIS claims seriously and adjusting our physical security tactics now on the assumption that ISIS is attempting to orchestrate and / or inspire such attacks. Additionally, the evidence is growing that Stephen Paddock was not the stable person his family indicates but a simmering psychopath of a type that ISIS is known to recruit.
He acted in a deadly manner either as himself or in the persona of Abe Abd El Bar exactly as ISIS attempts to persuade both operatives and fellow travelers in this country to act.
NAMAZU: Late yesterday we became aware of the story being reported in certain media of a warning being issued about "dying soon" to certain persons at the concert shortly before the shooting began. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAL-o5lIaxQ
Namazu, for intelligence purposes that story would be an indicator
of possible co-conspirators which would fit the ISIS narrative, but as is ,this story is not a very strong indicator being uncorroborated. I think as evidence
we'd have to label it an investigative lead
that should be followed up on.
Basically I have to agree with Johnas, interesting but not evidence
: Anything else to enter into the discussion before we close out the deliberations for the day?
It just occurred to me that the legal system has something similar to but a bit more demanding than actionable intelligence,
it's called probable cause. Probable cause
is enough for arrest but not for conviction. I think in the case of ISIS involvement in the incident under examination , if presented as a criminal conspiracy case we've probably reached the bare minimum threshold for probable cause.
However, in the real world of law enforcement and criminal prosecution, it would be a rare case indeed where any officer would effect an arrest on probable cause so thin. In most cases arrest waits until enough evidence to indicate a strong probability of conviction has been organized. This is because an arrest starts a clock in the game called a timely trial. Suspects will not be held in custody indefinitely while prosecutor's cases are prepared. None the less, once in a while law enforcement officers arrest on probable cause with the full knowledge that a conviction can not be had on the available evidence and that the suspect will have to be released after a short period of incarceration. This is done in cases where law enforcement intelligence indicates a crime is about to be committed and an arrest will disrupt the criminal plan in progress. A criminal defendant can be arrested and released and recharged a number of times for the same crime, but can only be tried once. So sometimes arrest on probable cause too weak to assure a conviction is a tactical police decision in favor of public safety.
So then in terms of law enforcement intelligence we have reached the equivalent of naval or military actionable intelligence
for tactical physical security actions / changes and /or we are approaching, or have reached rock bottom probable cause
in terms of making a case for ISIS complicity if not inspiration, or direction in the Los Vegas shootings ?
I think so, which brings up questions concerning other forms of truth discernment. The media has been very lively in reporting anything negative from the investigative agencies that appears to exonerate ISIS or any other Islamic entity from any contribution to the events under consideration here.
Yet the indications examined so far show ample probabilities of Islamic involvement. Has political correctness so marred journalistic standards that American journalists are no longer reliable reporters or have federal investigative agency public relations become over simplified to the point that an initial declaration of "no evidence
"of involvement at this time
is so easily translated to reporting the crime as the act of a lone wolf crazy with no Islamic connection, as if it were an established fact before the bodies have even cooled.
NAMAZU: I think it is worth noting that we are a deliberative panel basing our observations on media and Internet accounts and not an independent investigative body. Therefore it is incumbent upon us to analyze the reliability of our sources of information and report our observations and opinions concerning our perceptions of the reliability of our sources. It is clear from today's discussion that the panel finds the media reports of no ISIS or other ISLAMIC involvement in this case to be premature. We also find the many media reports that Paddock / Abu Abd El Bar acted alone to be premature in light of all of the contraindications. We feel that the case for ISIS involvement is at a point of "actionable intelligence" in terms of adjusting physical security practices as if ISIS participation and continuing intentions for such attacks in the future were a fact. Today's discussions and considerations strengthen this conclusion in terms of actionable intelligence. In terms of legal proof of ISIS or other Islamic terror organization's participation we have barely approached the legal thresh hold of "probable cause". In terms of the requirements for criminal prosecution we have indications, but very little that qualifies as "evidence". Deliberations will continue as reports of the events continue. So far we suggest that physical security proceed from an adopted view point that ISIS was involved and continues to encourage if not direct this type of threat. We can make no real legal case so far for ISIS involvement, but the indicators warrant continued investigation .
Panel Reporter's Note: Proceedings were adjourned by Mr. Namazu until 1100 CST tomorrow.
Panel Reporter's Note: Discussions resumed at 1105 CST Oct.4, 2017
What do we have of interest from the morning news?
JOHNAS PRESBYTER: Marilou Denley ,
Paddock / Abu ABD El BAR's girlfriend
now known to be an Australian national of Filipino descent
has returned to the United States. She has been reported in the news previously as "cleared" of any involvement and variously reported as either a "person of interest" or "no longer a person of interest". She was in the Philippines when Paddock / Abu Abd EL BAR wired in $100,000 a week before the shootings and the FBI is interviewing her. As of the end of the net work morning TV news no word on anything coming out of those interviews yet. Clark County Sheriff Joseph Lombardo has stated that he wants to know if , and if so how Paddock / Abu Abd El Bar was "radicalized". The FBI released another statement indicating that they had no evidence
of ISIS or other Islamic participation in the event. I'll defer to Justice Brandies for comment on these reports.
I would have to avoid taking serious issue with the FBI statements that they have found no evidence
demonstrating ISIS or other ISLAMIC involvement, but I take serious issue with the media's handling of this pronouncement as if there were no indications
of such involvement. Seriously, I don't see any evidence emerging from this morning's news. I noted some Internet discussion of a possibility of a second shooter from the 4th floor and speculation that the alleged sole perpetrator could not have acted alone based on the ergonomics of sustained assault by automatic weapons. I'd speculate that these didn't act alone theories are most probably the usual conspiracy theory crowd coming out of the wood work. But it is probably too early to officially dismiss any indications of additional help or gunmen. Basically while the morning news cycle brings news of the direction of the ongoing investigation, it brings no useful new information.
This morning's news brought no new indications useful in further analysis from a law enforcement / military tactical analytical viewpoint.
The panel is in recess until more information becomes available for analysis. The next session will be announced to the participants and scheduled as soon as information warrants. The next session will be announced on the Internet for our readers at least 30 minutes before we reconvene.
Panel Reporter's Note: Session went into recess at 1140 CST, next session to be announced: Analysis continues
Panel Reporter's Note: Discussions resumed at approximately 1300 CST. 10/5/2017 and are in progress: Transcript will appear below when the session ends.
NAMAZU: OK, we're back in session. Johnas could you summarize developments over the last news cycle please?
JOHNAS PRESBYTER: Well, ISIS has issued a third claim of responsibility which seems to clarify and clean up their last two. Most notable ISIS now claims PADDOCK'S Muslim name is Abu Abdul Barr al-Amriki vice the previously reported Abu Abd El Bar. The previous name did not make a whole lot if sense in Arabic.The new moniker , based on my very limited Arabic would read something like "Abu Abdul son of America" but not exactly. The previous name may have been a translation error on the part of the reporting media. On the other hand ISIS may just be trying to enhance their claim. ISIS now says that Paddock / Abu Abdul Barr al-Amriki converted to Islam about six months ago vice four months ago as recently claimed. Also this morning the behavioral scientist talking heads began making the rounds of the morning news shows discussing motivation. Yesterday the Los Vegas Sheriff commented before the media that he felt Paddock / al-Amriki had been "radicalized".
This morning's behavioral scientists appeared to want to avoid any implication that Islam could have been involved in any Paddock / al-Amriki radicalization as is the PC norm on mainstream television. However, the concept of radicalization wasn't dismissed out of hand. More neighbors had been interviewed over the past news cycle. Unlike the initial nearby neighbors (1 couple) featured previously, the majority of the newly interviewed neighbors described Paddock / al-Amrik as anti social, "mean". The behavioral scientists then noted that the primary suspect was nearly twice the age of the "typical" mass shooter but not that far from the age of the assailant who attacked the Republican base ball practice that nearly killed Representative Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana). That gunman who had visited Bernie Sanders a few days before the shooting was clearly a radicalized democrat out to shoot people he deemed "deplorables" . Speculation this morning is that if radicalization plays a part in motivation for this crime it could be extreme left wing radicalization, the dehumanizing of Republicans into "deplorables". Additionally, a lot more information was released this morning about the logistics involved in all of the weapons and equipment at the crime scene and explosives and additional weapons found at the suspect's home. The difficulties involved in such elaborate preparations fueled speculation that Paddock / al-Amrik did not act alone.
NAMAZU: Johnas do you have an analysis to offer?
JOHNAS PRESBYTER: I don't know what to make of the third ISIS claim. The correction of Paddock's Muslim name and the "correction" by two months of his conversion date would make their claim more plausible. The timing however, is difficult to gauge. I don't know at this time if the latest from ISIS came before or after critical analysis of their previous claims hit cyber space and the media. The emergence of an alternative radicalization theory, that of the deranged shooter of "deplorables" is consistent with certain facts. First the targets were country and western fans often viewed as predominantly Christian and Republican. Second the age of the primary suspect and other similarities with the latest known "deplorables killer" tends to lend credence to this theory. On the other hand , radical muslims are supported by radical leftist. During WWII many of the Muslims of the Middle East sided with and assisted the Nazis who everyone seems to forget were leftist, national socialists. In short there is no reason to doubt that a radicalized, deplorable hating democrat could not also be a Muslim convert. Still I would stand by my earlier admonition in terms of actionable intelligence There are enough indications here to warrant adjusting our physical security tactics and policies to reflect an on going attempt by radical Islamic elements to spark more incidents of this nature. At the same time the indications also indicate that more physical security is indicated for any public gatherings of Republicans or any of the population groups labeled as "deplorables" by Hillary Clinton. This morning's news cycle brought little in the way of evidence in a legal sense.
NAMAZU: Justice Brandeis may we have your thoughts?
JUSTICE BRANDEIS: I really can't fault Johnas's actionable intelligence assessment, it would seem wise for public security authorities to proceed on the assumption that both radical Islamic terrorists and radicalized democrats are planning and have executed deadly mass attacks on population elements viewed as generally "conservative". As yet however, we have still seen little that would qualify in a legal sense as evidence of either Islamic radicalization and /or leftist democratic radicalization. I do see enough indicators of both to convince me , if I were still on the bench, that there is enough probable cause to sign an arrest warrant based on either or both theories of radicalization. However, I would sign such only if sufficient public safety concerns warranted. There certainly isn't enough evidence of either or both theories of motivation to prove motive in a trial court. A judge doesn't have to receive evidence sufficient to secure conviction to issue an arrest or search warrant, he or she only has to examine for probable cause. when there are indications that persons named in the requested warrant are about to commit a crime, a judge is justified in lowering the level of scrutiny applied to the test of probable cause. As previously mentioned the legal system can arrest, release, and rearrest a suspect but gets only one shot at conviction.
NAMAZU: OK, sounds like we have to monitor some more news cycles before offering any firm evidence based opinions. Unfortunately, Tropical Storm Nate is aimed at us and expected to blossom into a hurricane. So I'm going to adjourn this session now and we will have to wait on storm developments to determine our next meeting which I will ask the reporter to announce to the public over the Internet as soon as we are about to meet. Meanwhile everybody except me, stay dry.
PANEL Reporters note: In addition to the transcripted discussions there were numerous side bar off the record discussions and the proceedings concluded at 1500 CST. Next discussions will be announced to the public via Twitter.
PANEL REPORTER'S NOTE: DISCUSSIONS RESUMED AT 1300 CST Monday October 9th 2017.
I see everyone is here so I assume it is safe to assume everyone weathered the passage of Hurricane Nate with grace and aplomb. What have we found in the over the week end news cycle:
I found nothing that I could consider as admissible evidence per se for use in a legal tribunal but some of what I'd discount as "evidence" are clearly "facts". What separates these facts from evidence status is simply context. We don't know what context to put these facts in yet, though they lean toward a Muslim terrorist connection to the event. So they remain indications
that additional investigations are in order. Chief among these new facts is the discovery of Mr. Paddock's financial transactions that appear to suggest that he may have been a financier of terrorism. I'd like to enter into the record this account of that discovery , and ask the recorder to post a hot link to the article I am submitted for panel review:
Stephen Paddock's Casino Based Transactions Were Flagged By Federal Authorities For Possible "Covert Terrorism Financing Dating Back to 2014.
I'd also like to propose a brief recess of perhaps 20 minutes for both the panel members and our on line followers to read the article before we discuss it in open foreum.
: Any objection or comments at this time Johnas?
I also have some new considerations for the panel but these can wait until everyone has had a chance to read the material submitted by Justice Brandeis.
NAMAZU: OK we'll recess until 1330 CST
REPORTER'S NOTE: 1330 CST = 1:30PM Central Standard Time, 2:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, 12:30 PM Mountain Standard Time ,and 11:30 on the West Coast.
REPORTER'S NOTE: SESSION RESUMED AT 1330 CST:
OK gentlemen let's resume discussions.
Well as everyone can now see certain federal investigative entities have been concerned with "Mr. Paddock / al-Amriki 's" ( as Johnas is wont to refer to the suspect as) potential contributions to terror organizations, particularly Islamic terror organizations in the Philippines since 2014. Unfortunately beyond this simple fact little additional information concerning the facts relevant to this revelation are being reported in the main stream media. This concern of law enforcement certainly goes to the growing weight of indications of Islamic terror organization involvement in the events in Los Vegas. Unfortunately there is not enough information being released on the details of the relevant transactions or the context of these facts in terms of how a prosecutor might utilize them to demonstrate a prosecutorial point to call the revelations to date "evidence" in a legal sense. But this is a very interesting and key development in the investigative phase, not quite the "smoking gun" proving Islamic involvement but certainly an important indicator of things requiring further investigation.
REPORTER'S NOTE: Discussions continue but there has been an electrical power failure in the building. Reporter's computer is being run on battery power. There will be a pause in reporting while we adjust to the situation. Discussions are continuing and will be reported on shortly. Monitor Twitter for the resumption of live coverage.
REPORTER'S NOTE: Reporting resumed at 1425 CST
JOHNAS PRESBYTER: I agree with Justice Brandeis's analysis of the revelation about possible financial contributions to terror organizations by
Mr. Paddock / al-Amriki as less than legal evidence level at this point in the reports of the ongoing investigation. But this is the strongest indicator so far of two points in terms of actionable intelligence . As I stated in the previous sessions the indicators of Islamic involvement, particularly ISIS involvement are strong and getting stronger. We start with repeated and increasingly detailed claims of responsibility by ISIS. The law enforcement intelligence community and investigative agencies quickly report that they have no evidence of ISIS direction of events. The media in turn never considers or asks about the potential of ISIS inspiration for the shooting, or questions the degree of certainty of the investigative entities in their early statements contesting ISIS claims of responsibility / participation.
I continue to recommend that on the basis of actionable intelligence we should act in terms of tactical physical security changes as if it were already an established fact that ISIS was involved and intends to direct / sponsor/ inspire similar operations in the future. Among these changes we should include:
(1) In event planning expanding security perimeters upward and outward from the physical perimeters of the venue to the maximum range of typical shoulder operated firearms including high powered sniper rifles.
(2) Changes as needed in both police and civilian gun permittee "active shooter training". Armed and responding private citizens should refrain from exposing their guns when the direction of fire is not yet known or suspected to originate from beyond pistol range. Exposing a weapon under such circumstances could lead to friendly fire incidents from responding police officers. Responding police should be alert to such possibilities.
(3) Intelligence scrutiny for planned big crowd events should expand with an eye out for indicators of specific terrorist planning, and such planning / inspiration should always be assumed, and detection / counter measures always implemented. Like Hurricanes it is better to be over prepared. The nation simply cannot afford mass shooting son this the Los Vegas scale.
In addition to the revelations about the key suspect's suspicious financial transactions the news media noted that investigators found explosives in Paddock / al-Amriki 's automobile that are often associated with Islamic terror groups. To sum up, the over the weekend revelations of the investigation found in the main stream media point to stronger indicators of Islamic terrorist group involvement than was the case on last Thursday. Last Thursday I deemed the indicators as qualifying in the law enforcement / physical security sense as actionable intelligence . I am even more certain of that assessment given the revelations over the week end.
NAMAZU: Let me try to summarize. Based on the information reported about the progress of the official investigation since we recessed on Thursday, you, Johnas are more convinced than previously that at the level of actionable intelligence authorities should consider Islamic involvement and probable future Islamic directed or inspired similar events a virtual fact.
JOHNAS PRESBYTER: Absolutely, at this point Islamic involvement in the Los Vegas shootings should be treated by law enforcement and physical security professionals as a "virtual fact", "actionable intelligence" for strategic and tactical purposes in event planning and physical security for as far into the future as I can foresee.
NAMAZU: And you Justice Brandeis?
JUSTICE BRANDEIS: The financial transactions as reported go to the weight of my previously stated judgement call that probable cause has been established for Islamic involvement sufficient for arrest of any identified suspected participants. But as previously stated probable cause sufficient for arrest is not sufficient for conviction at trial and I would advise law enforcement to avoid any such premature arrest unless immediate public safety dictates a necessity. As I previously stated a suspect can be arrested and rearrested for the same charge numerous times, but once tried and found "not guilty" can not be brought before an American court on the same charge ever again.
NAMAZU: So am I correct in stating that this panel finds the idea of Islamic Terrorist involvement in the Los Vegas shootings at this point in the reports of the investigation sufficient to warrant the idea "actionable intelligence" and probable cause for arrest (but for unknown suspects)?
JOHNAS PRESBYTER: I'd agree with that summary.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS: To be excruciatingly legally correct I would need some indicators linking a specific suspect. human or corporate, to the known facts I've identified with probable cause so far to issue a warrant of arrest. So with your caveat of "except for unknown suspects", I'd also agree with that summary.
NAMAZU: Very well gentlemen, I'm going to ask you to check in as soon as you think new facts warrant further examination and we will reconvene as soon as possible after your notification to discuss them and report our deliberations to the cyber public. Times of future deliberations to be posted by the panel reporter via Twitter.
PANEL REPORTER'S NOTE: SESSION RECESSED AT 1440 CST
1750 CST PANEL REPORTERS POST: Now reviewing claim by independent journalists that police / FBI time line is off especially as regards the departure date for Marilou Denley , Paddock / Abu Abdul Barr al-Amriki 's girlfriend based on a parking receipt (potential physical evidence), Link to article: http://gotnews.com/breaking-lauraloomer-pokes-another-hole-fbis-las-vegas-narrative/
PANEL REPORTER'S NOTE: Discussions reconvened at 1530 CST on Wednesday October 18, 2017
PANEL REPORTER'S NOTE: THERE WAS A LATE AFTERNOON PANEL MEETING TODAY (OCTOBER 11,2017). The posting of the transcript was delayed by other tasks:
NAMAZU: It appears there have been some significant developments over night in the news cycle. Specifically one independent reporter has cast serious doubt on the time line for MS Marilou Denley's trip to the Philippines. Also it has been revealed by the local sheriff that the previously reported time line for the shooting of the hotel security guard by Paddock / al-Amriki was way off. It appears now that the guard was shot about six minutes before the crowd was shot into. Exactly why and when Paddock -al-Amriki shot himself, if that is what really happened is now unexplained. Gentlemen, Thoughts?
JUSTICE BRANDEIS: I have to note that the account of the different time line for the travels of MS Denley are based on a parking lot receipt. Now we are talking about documentary evidence , whether or not it would be admissible in a particular tribunal is difficult to say. It does appear that indicators are slowly being developed into evidence and the trend of the apparent narrative is changing in favor of the perpetrator having assistance from others. The case is clearly underdeveloped if we assume the media reporting is accurate. However, it appears that the local sheriff who has investigative authority and an independent responsibility to investigate is uncovering indicators that are diametrically opposed to earlier reported assertions by the FBI (assuming they were accurately reported ) to the effect that Paddock / al-Ameriki acted alone and had no ISIS or other Islamic terror group affiliation or connection. It also appears that independent investigative journalists are becoming more and more negatively critical of main stream media reporting of the developments in the case. As a panel examining these events based on media reports measured against the tests of indicators for value as evidence in either a law enforcement, physical security intelligence context or a criminal investigation resulting in trial context we have to qualify everything we published based on the reliability of the available journalistic reports. The journalism surrounding the shootings and the persons of interest at this point is becoming murky.
JOHNAS PRESBYTER: Its not only murky based on seemingly rushed reports that appear biased in favor of a narrative featuring a lone crazy gunman with no assistance involved especially from Islamic sources despite ISIS claims of responsibility, but now the conspiracy theorists are chiming in. Before the seemingly reliable reports of the time line for the shooting of the security guard now preceding the opening of fire upon the concert crowd, and the changes in the dates of MS Denley's travels one conspiracy theorists was publishing a narrative where Mr. Paddock was not the shooter but an FBI contractor posing as an illegal gun runner. In this conspiracy theory supposedly Paddock was in contact with US based ISIS agents just prior to the attack on the crowd. However, the agents were aware of his status as an FBI contractor and shot him, shot the security guard, shot up the concert crowd and cleared the room before the police arrived. Of course that leaves the question of how did such ISIS agents get out of the room without being noticed by the wounded guard in the hall? Speculative answers vary but just as important is the real question of why the Security guard didn't call for help sooner. This is especially interesting in light of the apparent personal relationship between Paddock and certain MGM management known to be friendly to Islamic causes. In the end however this is all speculative. This latest information seems to muddy the waters and raise the issue of whether or not any panel of responsible analysts can ever determine with any degree of forensic certainty what happened. At the present state of development the journalistic coverage of the event appears to be split into two schools. The first is the main stream media which appears ready to bend to almost any lengths to spin the narrative away from any indications of Islamic involvement. The second are the wild eyed conspiracy theorists who are spinning narratives all over the map . Then to this confusion we have to add the deliberate spin doctoring of the ISIS propaganda mill. I don't know if we will ever get to a real understanding of events based on reviews of the journalistic accounts.
I continue to maintain that based on the standards of actionable intelligence we should assume ISIS involvement regardless of whether that involvement featured mere inspiration or control. ISIS claims responsibility, they promise more of the same, they threatened this type of attack before it occurred and promise more. We must adjust physical security practices accordingly.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS: I agree the journalistic coverage of this event appears unreliable and slanted in several directions depending on which media we are talking about. I absolutely agree with Johnas that standards of actionable intelligence strongly indicate that physical security practices should be adjusted on the basis of the assumption that there was Islamic terrorist organization involvement and that the intention of the terrorist is to generate more similar attacks as soon as possible whether guided, organized, or simply inspired by ISIS operatives. However, I also see probable cause emerging out of the murk of the reports and bits of actual evidence. Certainly, I don't see anything like the levels of evidence needed for an arrest and trial of anyone in this case. However, I'm not convinced that the actual FBI or local Sheriffs investigations are in as much of a shambles as the apparently conflicting media reports would indicate. We have two investigative agencies, with two quite different public information policies at work. That doesn't mean their investigations are at cross purposes. We may yet see the truth emerging. I move we recess and reconvene when the news cycle warrants.
NAMAZU: Motion accepted. The Panel staff will continue to monitor the media accounts and agency press releases and report summaries to you as the published material warrants. We will reconvene when we have an informal consensus that it is worthwhile to do so. The Panel Reporter will publish reconvened sessions to all interested parties via TWITTER.
PANEL REPORTER'S NOTE: The Panel is now in recess.
PANEL REPORTER'S NOTE: The panel has not reconvened since the last recess on October 11, 2017. The mainstream media has been relatively silent in terms of new revelations. The major event in the last few days has been the mysterious disappearance of security guard Jesus Campos. The media has reported three changes in the investigative time line based on when Campos was shot. In one change he would have been shot prior to Paddock / Abu Abdul Barr al-Amriki opening fire on the concert crowd. The original version had him shot as the firing was going on, and the latest has him shot within 40 seconds before or after shooting began. Campos could certainly spread some light on the time line but has disappeared. The panel is studying the following report by which they became aware of Campos disappearance https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/jesus-campos-vegas-security-guard-shot-before-rampage-appears-to-have-vanished/ar-AAtCWGw?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=wispr and searching for other accounts of the disappearance. A reconvening of the panel is expected within the next 48 hours and will surely include discussions of this latest development.
NAMAZU: The panel is back in session. Johnas would you give us a brief synopsis of the contents of the news cycle since we recessed?
JOHNAS PRESBYTER: Since we recessed on October 11, 2017 roughly seven days ago there has been little new to report in terms of media coverage of the shootings. Much of the coverage of what little has been reported as transpired in the official investigations appears to be spin doctoring of one sort or another based largely on the time line. Much of the time line disagreements are based on the timing of the appearance of the MGM security guard on the floor where the shooting took place relative to the commencement of sniper fire. At first it was reported that the security guard, one Jesus Campos was shot during the firing on the crowd. Later it was reported that he was shot after shooting had ceased. Finally the latest version is that he was shot plus or minus 40 seconds before or after the shooting commenced. Now to add mystery to the analysis Security Officer Campos has disappeared and is no longer available for questioning. He does not appear to be at home, a home now guarded by an apparently private security agent. The on premises guard for the Campo home claims no knowledge of the whereabouts of the Campos.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS: This disappearance is indeed a troubling development but exactly why it is troubling is difficulty to say. The fact that Mr. Campos disappeared would be admissible evidence in a trial but evidence tending to prove what? At this point the meaning of this disappearance relative to the case is purely speculative.
NAMAZU: It appears to me that if indeed the investigation has not bogged down, the journalistic reporting on the shooting has receded most noticeably. Any thoughts on that?
JOHNAS PRESBYTER: I think the media coverage has contracted for three reasons. First the investigation is now bogged down in investigative effort and while more details continue to come in, no new conclusions or interesting speculations are warranted based on the most recent developments. Second, from initial to most recent developments there is a lack of support for the main stream media's preferred narrative of no Islamic involvement, or collusion of any sort by any one. The media wants this to be the solo act of a renegade lone wolf right wing gunman, but that possibility became slight when the target was country and western music fans. The targets were statistically socially conservative and overwhelmingly professing Christians. The targets were exactly the type of people Hillary Clinton labeled "Deplorables"making the possibility of "Right on Right" crime a near impossibility. Finally the right leaning conspiracy theory buffs don't have anything more definitive at this time than they had on October 10, 2017 to counter the denial of Islamic/ Leftist position that Islam had nothing to do with the crime. Frankly I don't see how these discussions can continue or be fruitful to understanding if no new information is reported. I'd suggest another recess at least through the next news cycle.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS: I would second the motion for a recess of at least one news cycle.
NAMAZU: Agreed, this panel is in recess until at least one news cycle.
PANEL REPORTERS NOTE: Panel recessed at 1610 CST on 18 October 2017.
PANEL REPORTER'S NOTE: Panel reconvened at 1300 CST on 19 October 2017.
NAMAZU: By now I suppose both of you have at least noticed that the missing security guard Jesus Campos surfaced yesterday on the Ellen DeGeneres show and answered questions, supposedly doesn't expect to grant other interviews and apparently is not hiding from investigators.
JOHNAS PRESBYTER: yes I heard and actually watched the interview.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS : I've seen the interview as well.
NAMAZU: How do either or both you see the pertinence of the interview to our search for the truth?
JOHNAS PRESBYTER: Assuming that Campos told the truth in the interview I think the interview successfully closes an important fact question in the case. His description of events strongly tends to support the publicly announced investigative position on the time line which is that the mass shootings began within plus or minus 40 seconds of the shooting of Jesus Campos.
To me Campos seemed a credible witness. Assuming that he would hold up in cross examination I think his testimony would cinch the time line. If the time line is accurate, and here I wonder a bit into Justice Brandeis's area of expertise I would feel that it is at least more probable than not that Mr. Paddock / Abu Abdul Barr al-Amriki was alone in the MGM hotel room and was the sole shooter in that hotel room. Campos can't answer the question concerning any pre- shooting aid, instruction, inspiration, etc. Mr. Paddock / al-Amriki may have received from any party or individual. I don't see any real indications just now of other shooters at other locations. But in the face of insistent claims by ISIS of responsibility, inconsistencies in other aspects of the narrative so far I'm no where near a conclusion that Paddock / al-Amriki acted alone in terms of planning, target selection, or logistics.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS: I also found Mr. Campos to be a rather credible witness at this stage and agree his statements on TV shore up the latest of the changing investigative theories on the time line. Were this a civil suite, I 'd have to agree with Johnas that the time line plus or minus 40 seconds stands as "more probable than not" the standard of proof in civil cases. So for example in a suite against MGM as owner of the hotel, the time line would go to the weight of the evidence that there was a lone shooter in the hotel room. Such a conclusion would have a diminishing effect on any liability imposed on MGM. However, the sheer size of the arsenal employed by the gunman, along with the recently discovered parking lot ticket which casts doubts on the foreign travel time line of Mr. Proctor/ al Ameriki's girlfriend leaves the hotel security with a lot of undiscovered security irregularities. The status of the "evidence" in this case so far, is far from convincing of anything except that Mr. Proctor / al Ameriki was in the hotel room alone and did all of the shooting that came from that hotel room.
NAMAZU: OK, then is it a safe conclusion to say that the panel opinion so far is that the evidence and indications reported in the media to date are sufficient to warrant a conclusion based on actionable intelligence criteria , of Islamic involvement of some sort sufficient to warrant changes in physical security practices anticipating Islamic inspired if not coordinated attacks of similar vein in the future? Does the panel also agree that the time line now appears proven to an accuracy of plus or minus 40 seconds for the commencement and termination of shooting from the hotel room where Mr. Proctor / al Ameriki's body and guns were found at least to the civil law standard of "more probable than not"? Related to the time line agreement; does the panel agree that the "proven time line" now eliminates the probability of another shooter in the same room to the civil law standard of "more probable than not"? Do we all agree that the new indications generated by Mr. Campos TV appearance tend to support the conclusions of a lone gunman in the MGM hotel room, but do not answer any other questions regarding pre-shooting planning, direction, or assistance?
JUSTICE BRANDEIS : I agree and think that is about as far as we can take it on the media reported information so far.
JOHNAS PRESBYTER: I agree and I think we need a resolution on the girl friend's foreign travel time line vs the recently discovered parking lot ticket, more on her back ground and more on Proctor / al Ameriki's travels, associations, correspondence, and other communications before we can close in on any other firm conclusions.
NAMAZU: I agree, sounds like we should again recess awaiting the next news cycle or two.
PANEL REPORTERS NOTE: SESSION WAS RECESSED at 1330 CST 19 October 2017 , NEXT SESSION TO BE ANNOUNCED VIA TWITTER TO THE ATTENDING PUBLIC:
PANEL REPORTER'S NOTE 10/20/2017: THE PANEL REMAINS IN RECESS BUT WAS FORWARDED THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FOR CONSIDERATION: ABC NEWS REPORTED THAT PROCTOR /AL AMERIKI 's HAS BEEN SENT TO A FORENSIC FACILITY OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY FOR NEUROLOGICAL TESTING TO SEE IF HE SUFFERED ANY TYPE OF BRAIN ABNORMALITY. APPARENTLY THE LOS VEGAS CORONER HAS DONE ALL THAT A LOCAL CORNOER CAN DO. BUT THE LOCAL SHERIFF KEEPS POSING THE QUESTION OF THE SHOOTER'S MOTIVE. THE LOCAL SHERIFF IS CONVINCED THAT THE SHOOTER WAS 'RADICALIZED' IN SOME WAY BY AS YET UNKNOWN ENTITIES (THOUGH ISIS TAKES CREDIT). CLARK COUNTY CORNER JOHN FUDENBERG HAS STATED THAT AN AUTOPSY ON PROCTOR/ AL-AMERIKI HAS BEEN COMPLETED BUT A FINDING ON THE CAUSE OF AND MANNER OF DEATH IS NOT EXPECTED FOR SEVERAL MONTHS. IT is not clear from the PANEL CHAIRMAN .THE GREAT NAMAZU THAT PANEL DISCUSSIONS WILL RESUME IN RESPONSE TO THIS INFORMATION OR CONTINUE TO WAIT ANOTHER NEWS CYCLE OR MORE.
PANEL REPORTER'S NOTE 10/23/2017 MORE INCOMING INFORMATION FOR PANEL CONSIDERATION ARRIVED THIS MORNING. NON MSM SOURCES ARE POINTING TO YOUTUBE POSTED VIDEOS INDICATING THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A NEAR SIMULTANEOUS MASS SHOOTING INCIDENTS AT A HOOTERS NEAR THE MGM HOTEL THE NIGHT OF PROCTOR / AL AMERIKI ASSAULT. http://www.dcclothesline.com/2017/10/23/vegas-smoking-gun-footage-shows-17-ambulances-pulling-bodies-out-of-hooters-the-night-of-the-massacre/ TGE PANEL REMAINS OFFICIALLY IN RECESS BUT IS EXAMINING THE LATEST REPORTS AND PRESS RELEASES.
PANEL REPORTER'S NOTE 10/25/2017 Shooters hard drive missing from his computer: " Investigators believe Las Vegas mass murderer Paddock removed the hard drive before he committed suicide. The San Bernardino jihad attackers did the same thing. If you recall, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik threw their hard drives in a lake near their home, and despite Herculean efforts by law enforcement, the hard drives were never recovered." from today's THE GELLER REPORT https://pamelageller.com/2017/10/vegas-hard-drive-missing.html/. The panel remains in recess, the staff continues to funnel the latest news to the members. No word yet when discussions may resume.
PANEL REPORTER'S NOTE: 10/30/2017 THE PANEL RECONVENED DISCUSSIONS AT 1645 CST.
NAMAZU: It would seem that the news services have come to a virtual halt on coverage of the official investigations, or the investigations have bogged down, or become clogged with details no one wants to talk about until facts are resolved. Our original purpose began when ISIS began taking credit for the Los Vegas shootings and our original purpose was to provide our reading public with our understanding of the real potential for Islamic involvement in this mass shooting. At the out set we noted that not everything is subject to scientific "proof", especially not human events. We suggested that we would look at the situation through the news reports and make our judgments in accordance with any or all of the following "standards of proof". We were critical of the main stream media of rushing to judgement and publishing as if a fact that Islamic factions were not involved, noting that the FBI announced that they had no evidence of Islamic involvement. We noted that there were a number of indicators of Islamic involvement that did not meet the test of evidence in a criminal case, which is to say "proof beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt". The FBI generally refers to that standard of proof when they speak of "evidence". But there are other standards of proof or grounds for action that are pertinent and should be considered. The first was the standard for actionable intelligence.
This was our earliest and even firmer conclusion that we state formally at this, the conclusion of our analysis:
1. THE FACT THAT ISIS WARNED THE US OF SIMILAR ATTACKS AND THEIR INTENTION TO SEE THEM CARRIED OUT, AND THEN CLAIMED RESPONSIBILITY IS SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO EXAMINE THE INCIDENT IN LINE WITH THE STANDARDS FOR JUDGING COLLECTIONS OF INDICATIONS AS ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE. CONSIDERING THAT ISIS REPEATED THEIR CLAIMS INSISTENTLY AND THEIR INTENTION TO CONTINUE TO ATTACK US IN THIS WAY; WE THINK IS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT ISLAMIC INVOLVEMENT AS AN ITEM OF ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE.
(1) We recommend that US intelligence, police, and physical security organizations get on a tactical footing that acknowledges the real probability of more such attacks. It is irrelevant to readiness tactics and planning whether ISIS or other Islamic terrorist elements inspired the actions of a "lone wolf" or planned and logistically provided for the subject attack. They tell us more are coming, we should learn from this one and adjust security accordingly.
(2) The Question of ISIS planning and support or simply inspiration of such attacks is not irrelevant to security intelligence, or the employment of resources. If ISIS is financially and physically supporting such attacks they have agents in this country who should be rounded up. Determining whether or not that effort is economic requires further inquiry and evaluation than the presumptions that are allowed in simply determining whether involvement of some sort is warranted as "actionable intelligence. " To that end let me turn our narrative over to Johnas for a summary of the other relevant indicators of ISIS or other Islamic involvement:
JOHNAS PRESBYTER: After ISIS began laying claim to responsibility for the attack they began referring to the suspected perpetrator that the news media refers to as "Stephen Paddock" as "Abu Abdul Barr al Amriki" which they claimed was his adopted Muslim name after his conversion to Islam. ISIS also began "providing" some details of the alleged "conversion". We note that there were reported discrepancies concerning the movements of Paddock / al Amriki's girlfriend's movements at the time just prior to and during the shootings based on a parking receipt at the MGM that conflicted with her claims of being out of the country at the pertinent times. The religious affiliation of Paddock / al Amriki's girl friend is unknown through news sources at this time. News reports indicated that an official of MGM who Paddock / al Amriki was familiar with is a supporter of, and donates to Hamas only recently eliminated from the official list of Islamic terrorist organizations by the Obama administration.
ABC NEWS REPORTED WHILE THE PANEL WAS IN RECESS. THAT THE BODY OF PADDOCK /AL AMERIKI 's HAS BEEN SENT TO A FORENSIC FACILITY OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY FOR NEUROLOGICAL TESTING TO SEE IF HE SUFFERED ANY TYPE OF BRAIN ABNORMALITY. APPARENTLY, THE LOS VEGAS CORONER HAS DONE ALL THAT A LOCAL CORONER CAN DO. BUT THE LOCAL SHERIFF KEEPS POSING THE QUESTION OF THE SHOOTER'S MOTIVE. THE LOCAL SHERIFF IS CONVINCED THAT THE SHOOTER WAS 'RADICALIZED' IN SOME WAY BY AS YET UNKNOWN ENTITIES (THOUGH ISIS TAKES CREDIT). CLARK COUNTY CORNER JOHN FUDENBERG HAS STATED THAT AN AUTOPSY ON PROCTOR/ AL-AMERIKI HAS BEEN COMPLETED BUT A FINDING ON THE CAUSE OF AND MANNER OF DEATH IS NOT EXPECTED FOR SEVERAL MONTHS. WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED THAT THE SHERIFF IS SO CONVINCED THAT THE SHOOTER WAS "RADICALIZED".
On 10/23/2017 MORE INCOMING INFORMATION FOR PANEL CONSIDERATION ARRIVED. NON MSM SOURCES ARE POINTING TO YOUTUBE POSTED VIDEOS INDICATING THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A NEAR SIMULTANEOUS ATTEMPTED MASS SHOOTING INCIDENTS AT A HOOTERS NEAR THE MGM HOTEL THE NIGHT OF PROCTOR / AL AMERIKI's ATTACK.
While in recess we received reports that FBI Investigators believe Las Vegas mass murderer Paddock / al Ameriki removed the hard drive before he committed suicide. The San Bernardino jihad attackers did the same thing. Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik threw their hard drives in a lake near their home, and despite Herculean efforts by law enforcement, the hard drives were never recovered. This tactic has some credence as standard ISIS operating procedure.
To my mind the case for continuing assumption of organized Islamic involvement in terms of the standards of "actionable intelligence" continue sufficient to warrant or second actionable intelligence based recommendation:
(2) We recommend that the FBI and others assume for the time being that ISIS or associated Islamic terrorist organizations were involved and have agents as yet undiscovered in the United States and that a systematic search for such agents is warranted and economically justified on the basis of actionable intelligence.
NAMAZU: Thank you Johnas, Justice Brandeis would you address the status of the indicators as reported in the media and examined by this panel relative to criminal or civil actions rules of evidence.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS: The arguments for law enforcement and physical security organization actions based on actionable intelligence appear in large part to coincide with the law enforcement standard for "probable cause". Any or all of the information cited by Johnas in support of his argument for actionable intelligence status for the information would be considered by a warrant issuing magistrate as going to the weight of the "evidence" for the issuance of a warrant for search or arrest if they were to point towards a specific individual, group, or address. Additional corroborative testimony or exhibits would be needed to meet the test of the preponderance of the evidence in a civil law suit. There has been nothing indicated so far in the media reports that would meet the test as free standing evidence in a criminal trial except the weapons, ammunition, body, and anything else collected from the crime scene or documents such as the parking receipt. We can see a case such as a civil suit shaping up based on the preponderance of the evidence for ISIS or related Islamic terror organization involvement sufficient to deflect any motion to dismiss. However, the evidence so far is far from sufficient to win a judgement criminal or civil.
NAMAZU: I think that is about as far as we can take it at the moment and I believe it will be months before better information will be available to the public. So we will conclude this analysis. We may or may not take it up again as the news cycles warrant. Now if I may, I'd like to ask both of you to give us your common sense opinion divorced from strict forensic or legal guidelines. How should the average American view the probability and meaning of potential Islamic involvement in this case in terms of their politics and personal safety.
JOHNAS: I'd assume that Islamic involvement by American based Islamic terror groups was a fact and that more such attacks are to come. I'd try to limit my exposure to large public gathering to those sponsored by, planned by, and patrolled by organizations that act on actionable intelligence and avoid those planned by people with their heads in the sand concerning Islamic terror in this country. Politically I'd be an advocate for limitations on all Islamic immigration until much better vetting procedures are in place. This is just common sense not "Islamophobia" or racism.
JUSTICE BRANDEIS : If I could drop the specific legal meaning of "more probable than not" in terms of the rules of evidence and revert to just common sense for a moment, this seems clear to me. It is , in a common sense meaning more probable than not that Islamic terror groups are intent on generating mass casualty incidents within the United States. To deny the Islamic nature of these groups is nonsense, to expect that the danger will subside without corrective action is foolish. Unfortunately, as a dead man I can no longer vote, not even in California. But if I were a voter I'd support limitations on Islamic immigration until there is better vetting and I'd insist that police act tactically as if these threats of mass casualty events are serious, are not the rants of simpletons, but of highly motivated zealots intent on doing exactly what they threaten.
NAMAZU: Well I guess that concludes our examination. Suffice it to say based on what's been reported in the main stream media (MSM) , without discounting the MSM as a purveyor of "fake news" or suppressor of anything not fitting the liberal narrative we must conclude that common sense indicates that it is more probable than not that there was ISIS / ISLAMIC involvement in the LV shootings. We admit that this conclusion is based on limited information and will stand corrected if subsequent history proves us wrong. But in the meanwhile we suggest that Americans take actions based on a clear understanding that they are under death threats from Islamic terror organizations.