These Big Vegas Shooting Questions Still Remain Unanswered


by Richard Pollock, Freedom Outpost:

Seasoned law enforcement and military experts have expressed serious doubts about the thoroughness of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s preliminary report about the deadliest mass shooting in American history.

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to reflect the release of the autopsy report by the Clark County coroner. On Friday the coroner’s pathology report on Stephen Paddock was released to the Associated Press and the Las Vegas Review-Journal. You can see it here.

The pathology report shows a normal 64-year-old, slightly overweight man. The toxicology report showed evidence of Nordiazepam, a sedative, Oxazepam, an anti-anxiety drug also used for alcohol withdrawal, and Temazepam, used for sleep disorders. Caffeine was in his bloodstream, but there was no presence of alcohol.

Seasoned law enforcement and military experts contacted by The Daily Caller News Foundation have expressed serious doubts about the thoroughness of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s preliminary report about the deadliest mass shooting in American history.

In releasing the interim report Jan. 18, Clark County Sheriff Joseph Lombardo stressed it was not his department’s “standard practice” to release a report on an open case, but he “felt it was important” to release an “overview” due to the high number of victims in the Oct. 1 mass shootings when Stephen Paddock killed 58 people and wounded more than 700.

With an arsenal of 18 AR-10 and AR-15 rifles in two hotel rooms, Paddock targeted concertgoers attending an open air country music concert across from the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino in Las Vegas. About 22,000 people attended the concert, which Paddock quickly turned into a killing ground.

Lombardo added that the department’s findings are “not intended to be a comprehensive and final account of the facts and evidence gathered.” A final report will be released, but no date has been set.

Larry Hadfield, a Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) public information officer informed TheDCNF Jan. 30 that the department had no further information to provide about the shooting and refused to answer any of the questions submitted by TheDCNF in a Jan. 22 email.

“We are unable to answer any of your questions at this time,” Hadfield said.

However, the interim nature of the report did not satisfy veteran law enforcement and military experts contacted by TheDCNF.


“This report gives you more questions than it gives you more answers,” concluded Ron Hosko, former assistant director of the FBI, in an interview with TheDCNF. “I’m just scratching my head.”

“Nearly four months after the massacre, the inquiry into the largest mass shooting in modern American history is still mired in questions,” CNN wrote after the release of the preliminary report,

Overshadowing the Las Vegas report on the mass murder is Clark County Coroner John Fudenberg’s continuing defiance of a court order to release Paddock’s autopsy. A key missing element in the LVMPD report is its failure to include autopsy and toxicology reports. Two LVMPD detectives attended the actual autopsy.

TheDCNF reached out to three experts with law enforcement and military experience to review and assess the Las Vegas Police Department’s preliminary report into the shooting.

They are:

  • Ron Hosko who retired in 2014 as the FBI’s assistant director of the Criminal Investigative Division, capping a 30-year career at the bureau. He served as the bureau’s inspector who conducted investigations into serious and fatal shootings by the FBI. Hosko was awarded the FBI’s Shield of Bravery for his actions during a violent ransom kidnapping. He was the special agent in charge of the FBI’s Washington, D.C. Field Office and was in charge of its criminal division. He currently is the president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund.
  • Wayne Black is a law enforcement official with 40 years experience in law enforcement and private security. He has conducted many after-action murder investigations and was the only American investigator to officially review death of Princess Diana. He currently provides private security services.
  • Brian Gould is a 20-year veteran with the U.S. Army of which 17 years was with U.S. Special Forces. For eight years he was attached to a unit within Special Forces called the “Commanders and Extremist Force” that specialized in direct action, special reconnaissance and counter-terrorism. He also served as senior strategic planner at Special Operations Command at U.S. Central Command. Gould also spent five years on a special military unit that investigated war criminals in Europe.

All three experts agreed the report sidestepped many issues surrounding the shooting. “There a lot of inconsistencies that just don’t line up with the narrative,” Gould said. “I don’t want to sound too sarcastic about it, but I think they’re just trying to cover their ass with this report.”

“They got the shooter. I think they’re happy with that ending … But there are a lot of questions that leave a lot of holes in this investigation,” he told TheDCNF.

“This report begs the questions from anyone who has investigative experience,” added Black.

“I think everybody wants to have closure,” Black said. “The people in Las Vegas who make a living from tourism wanted to be able to say, ‘well that’s over with.’ These guys are probably saying, ‘we got to give these guys something, so let’s give them a generic piece and see if it works.”

The LVMPD, not the FBI, now is the lead agency in the shooting, according to Sandra Breault, the FBI spokeswoman in Las Vegas. “Metro remains the lead investigative agency,” she told TheDCNF.

Here are some of the more important questions TheDCNF experts said were not properly addressed by the police.

Still Unanswered: What Was Paddock’s Motive?

Hosko, a former top FBI official, was blunt in his assessment. “They haven’t gone into the why,” he said. “Tell me more about what was driving this guy. They interviewed many witnesses. What did they say? That part’s not in there. There’s no substantive part that tries to explain ‘why.’”

Read More @