Las Vegas Massacre - FBI wipes clean laptops and mobile phones of witnesses

1. This is criminal destruction of evidence.

2. They're trying to limit liability.

3. They're going to rewrite the narrative.

a reply to: StallionDuck

The problem with that scenario is that if a Fed asks you if you have a phone and you say no, if you do have one, you've committed a federal crime. It's the same crime that Martha Stewart went to fed prison for.

In Canada they would be charged with Digital Tampering, which is the destruction of personal, digital property without the permission of the owner. It's a criminal offense. I wonder if there is a similar law in the States.

originally posted by: Lurker1
1. This is criminal destruction of evidence.

2. They're trying to limit liability.

3. They're going to rewrite the narrative.

I agree with you...

They could try to recover their lost data with all kinds of software. I would almost bet one might be recovered and posted on 4chan. You never know, it might be the audio, footage of the shooters, or a fake etc...

The FBI really knows how to raise red flags.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: StallionDuck

The problem with that scenario is that if a Fed asks you if you have a phone and you say no, if you do have one, you've committed a federal crime. It's the same crime that Martha Stewart went to fed prison for.

That's why you can say "I have a right to remain silent" and then you can repeat over and over "Am I under arrest? What crime am I charged with? I demand to speak to my lawyer!".

Please remember this!

originally posted by: CraftBuilder
In Canada they would be charged with Digital Tampering, which is the destruction of personal, digital property without the permission of the owner. It's a criminal offense. I wonder if there is a similar law in the States.

Because the "evidence" isn't being used by the citizens to prosecute (and instead it's the state that would prosecute if any living persons were identified and charged), it would be upon the defendant in that case to pursue "tampering with evidence" as part of their strategy.

That's my initial guesstimate so I'm not sure exactly how it'd work out, because as these legal things go - you come up with initial ideas then research them and find tons and tons of detailed information that further hones your original idea and or creates new avenues of thought to pursue.

Also, considering that these citizens wanted to sue for destruction of property, there may be a 'tampering with evidence' type angle to pursue in that case, but I'm not sure how it'd play out and what exactly the actual wording of the claim would be. That's because the evidence of the property's existence is the property/evidence itself - so I'm not really sure.

Clearly this line of thinking would require a ton of research, and I couldn't find what I was looking for on my initial searches. I don't know the right keywords off hand and I'm not well versed in the federal laws on private digital property destruction by government officials and exactly what types of reimbursement the private citizen is entitled to.

a reply to: muzzleflash

I guess the best strategy would be to upload or copy to a thumb or hard drive somehow, and right quick after an incident.

originally posted by: Lurker1
a reply to: muzzleflash

I guess the best strategy would be to upload or copy to a thumb or hard drive somehow, and right quick after an incident.

There's no way you or I would naturally think of that, before this at least.

Think about it, hundreds of people around us get shot, including our friends/family.
Is the first thing you think of "Oh, the govt will delete this evidence on my phone, I better upload it!". No, not for me at least, until NOW after they pulled this crap. Now I know they will delete it, before Now I had no expectation of such a thing.

Of course, we probably would upload that evidence naturally right away (once we found safety) to inform our friends/family online of what just happened simply because it's incredible and unbelievable. At least I would if I even thought to *(and had the ability to) take out my phone and actually record the incident *(or if I were already in the act of recording when the incident began).

But normally no, I had no expectation for the govt to round up everyone's phones and just delete everything. I normally don't expect regular cops to be totally corrupt and knowingly participating in a coverup via destruction of evidence / personal property with such impunity.

Now that it's all said and done, yes, now I think of uploading everything immediately and also stalling and forcing them to get a warrant to see my phone. Only because I now realize that this is how it works.

a reply to: Lurker1

My expectations now are:

That individual police officers recognize the gravity of this situation and come forward to the public and reveal what they know is going on behind the scenes and whistle-blow this corruption (or at least explain why it isn't corruption and how we got it all wrong).

If no police officers, sheriffs, or FBI agents are forthcoming with this explanation or whistle-blowing testimony, I guess that means the entire orchard is diseased and that the previous belief that "not all cops are bad, only a few apples are" is irrational and naive, and that it's true that all of them actually are bad because they are a cohesive unit that operates with a singular mind.

And if a cohesive unit operates with a singular mind, that's a hive mind of drones doing the queen's bidding.

So if there is any corruption at all, than the entire hive is corrupt, because it only has one mind. Therefore all liability is spread evenly across the entire hive for that hive's actions. So one drone being corrupt means all drones are corrupt.

Or maybe someone can come forward and dispel this frightening conclusion and reassure me?
Either or. I'm going to have to roll with black or white here because I cannot find a middle ground.
Too many people are involved in this coverup and so would know at least a detail or two to shed light upon what's really going on here.

If the FBI removed things from your phone I'd be worried they were going to be visiting you. They can't return items with anything illegal on them. For example Las Vegas fbi is trying to find out who this women is because she molest's a child in the video. Now the FBI apparently has no information on the video so I'd say it probably one of the hundreds of cell phones left at the scene.

www.fbi.gov...

originally posted by: 727Sky
a reply to: stormcell

From your link

Workers at the Route 91 festival during which Stephen Paddock unleashed his massacre have reportedly been given back their phones and laptops by the FBI only to discover that all messages and videos from the night of the attack have been wiped clean.

According to a Las Vegas resident who posted a status update on Facebook, “A bunch of people that worked the Route 91 said they got their cell phones back today. They all said that all their phones are completely wiped clean! All messages and info from that weekend are completely gone. Anyone else experience this?”

“A few different people who were vendors there are all saying the same thing,” the woman later comments.

Well that would prevent some of the multiple shooter talk, for if no video it didn't happen !

Everything about LV shooting is weird... I wish I could trust some government agencies more..

How can they get away with this??? Well, besides the fact they are the GOVERNMENT. Don't they know how to save/forward data without deleting it? geez. Must have went to the same BS101 - Intro to Government Procedure IT class as Hillary did.

a reply to: stormcell

Interesting....so, never give the anything that isn't backed u a thousand places, and already shared with the media, I guess.

Steve Jackson......same ones that did the Illuminati card game, right?


Huh.....

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: StallionDuck

I agree, always back everything up then give it to the authorities. Though, in these instances with the vendors and businesses...it seems like they did not have time to do so and gave them up in good faith. Sigh.

The Las Vegas Police Gang have a conundrum. Everywhere in amerika cops seize cash when they catch a motorist holding. I have been wondering if the LV chapter Police Gang are allowed the same robbery with impunity, since obviously the money there is going to be flushed down toilets in the form of gambling...so there's no need for motorists to fear police thug robbery while in Vegas. The mob would crush them if so much as a dollar were to be seized by cops. But anywhere else, cops just steal your wad.

How does one 'back up' cash, before 'giving' it to 'authorities'?

This is a living nightmare.
Of course they will seize electronics, seize data.
They steal cash for chrissakes, but only if the
amount is conspicuous relative to your social status.
In otherwords, unless you are wealthy, you have no business holding cash,
the very lifeblood of livelihood. And we stand for this?

# 890

a reply to: CynConcepts

There is what they would like and then there is what is legal.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: StallionDuck

The problem with that scenario is that if a Fed asks you if you have a phone and you say no, if you do have one, you've committed a federal crime. It's the same crime that Martha Stewart went to fed prison for.

I think that only applies if I were or suspected of committing a crime.

I could also just play a mute and not answer any questions, stuff my phone down my drawers when I see them coming.

Either way.. I'll take the chance.


I wanted to add... My phone stays locked at all times anyways with a passcode. I believe there are problems with authorities getting into phones that are locked. I'm sure there is a back door and this is the fed we're talking about but I hear a lot of stories about authorities not being able to get into phones that are locked on Iphones and Samsung type phones. I have a Samsung so might be a problem for them.

But still... I'll take the chance and tell them I'm a hippy and I have no use for the electronic soul stealing devil. Then I'll follow up by speaking in tongues at the top of my voice! Or at least what I hear people sound like when they're speaking in tongues.

a reply to: stormcell

Oh, prisonplanet... AKA infowars 2.0 (depending on which came first). Either way, Alex Jones...

Finding legit infornation there is a diamond in the rough. It's there, but few and far between.

By his own admission, Alex Jones is "playing a character" he's a "performance artist". It's nothing more than a very lucrative business for him. He is a profiteer. That's it. Nothing more. He is Mainstream Media in a cloak of subversiveness.

www.mystatesman.com...

If this information is true, then we need to find better sources. It will never be taken seriously otherwise. Maybe never at all now that an Alex Jones affiliated site covered it, which if you ask me could potentially be one of Alex's hidden goals.

originally posted by: missed_gear

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: CynConcepts

I agree, always back everything up then give it to the authorities

Never voluntarily give, even in an instant such as this.

Make them get a warrant.

They will scour your device.

 

Whether true or not...and I too question the source

Most persons have automatic back-ups daily.

If not, they can rely on the recipients conversations...plus the recipients forwarding of such conversations...text, social media, email etc. etc.

The information just not vanish because a phone is supposidly wiped.

Sort of related, I know a "friend of a friend" who was at The Pulse when it happened. She was unharmed, but texted or posted on Facebook or some other media that she had seen two shooters there. The next day, that post or text or whatever it was had been removed. I'm pretty sure it was FB.

All evidence against the official narrative is removed. History is written by the victors.

a reply to: stormcelli see it could be done to kill multiple shooter theory or on the other hand to keep key evidence they collected from media so they would not tip off other suspects.

If this really happened, the wiping of the phone videos, etc., it is a significant "tell" indicating bad faith on the part of investigators.

Found this comment interesting from Bitchute, www.bitchute.com...
ROUTE 91 WORKERS: VEGAS-ATTACK DATA WIPED CLEAN FROM CELL PHONES

The narration of this article does not constitute an endorsement of its contents or point of view, by this channel. Our viewers and subscribers are encouraged to draw their own conclusions.

So, all the data that was backed up to cloud storage, texted to other individuals, and upload to other sites was wiped clean?

There is video of the shooting already on YouTube.

I only found, out of all the individuals that supposedly had data wiped, the instance was only reported by two unamed sources?

Is there any other evidence of the data wiping occurring in the face there is already video of the shooting on YouTube?