benni said:

CooperC62057 said:

benni said:

Actually, she's right.

The chemical agent used in the Moscow theatre hostage crisis of 23 October 2002 has never been definitively revealed by the Russian authorities, though many possible identities have been speculated. An undisclosed incapacitating agent was used by the Russian authorities in order to subdue the Chechen terrorists who had taken control of a crowded theater.

At the time, the agent was surmised to be some sort of surgical anesthetic or chemical weapon. Immediately after the siege, Western media speculated widely as to the identity of the substance that was used to end the siege, and chemicals such as the tranquilizer diazepam (Valium), the anticholinergic BZ, the highly potent oripavine-derived Bentley-series opioid etorphine, another highly potent opioid, such as a fentanyl or an analogue thereof, such as 3-methylfentanil, and the anaesthetic halothane were proposed. Foreign embassies in Moscow issued official requests for more information on the gas to aid in treatment, but were publicly ignored. While still refusing to identify the gas, on October 28, 2002 the Russian government informed the U.S. Embassy of some of the gas's effects. Based on this information and examinations of victims, doctors concluded the gas was a morphine derivative. The Russian media reported the drug was Kolokol-1, either mefentanyl or α-methylfentanil dissolved in a halothane base.

Russia's statement[edit]

Two days after the incident, on October 30, 2002, Russia responded to increasing domestic and international pressure with a statement on the unknown gas by Health Minister Yuri Shevchenko.[2] He identified it as a fentanyl derivative,[3] an extremely powerful opioid. Boris Grebenyuk, the All-Russia Disaster Relief Service chief, said the services used trimethyl phentanylum (3-methylfentanyl, a fentanyl analog that is about 1000 times more potent than morphine, which was manufactured and abused in the former Soviet Union); New Scientist pointed out that 3-methylfentanyl is not a gas but an aerosol.[4] The research made by American scientists into fentanyl derivatives shows that their lethality level surpasses the efficiency of traditional lethal methods: the lethality degree of the chemical weapons used in World War I was 7%, while in the Dubrovka theater it exceeded 15%.[5]

Analysis[edit]

A German toxicology professor who examined several German hostages said that their blood and urine contained halothane, a once-common inhalation anaesthetic which is now seldom used in Western countries, and that it was likely the gas had additional components.[6] No other unusual chemical substances have been detected. However, halothane has a strong odor (although often defined as "pleasant" by comparison with other anesthetic gases). Thus, by the time the whole theatre area would be filled with halothane to a concentration compatible with loss of consciousness (0.5% - 3%), it is likely that Chechens inside would have realized they were being attacked. Additionally, recovery of consciousness is rapid after the flow of gas is interrupted, unlike with high-dose fentanyl administration. Therefore, although halothane might have been a component in the aerosol, it was probably not a major component,[6] or perhaps it was a metabolite of another drug.

[Edited 4/26/17 19:38pm]

I wasn't disputing that. I am disputing the intentions of the company Cephalon as anything other than creating a pain reliever for cancer patients. And if there were encouragement to prescribe for anything other than cancer it was certainly never the intention of the company's founder.

Ah, okay. I thought you were responding to cloveringold's post about the use of it as a chemical weapon. Thanks for clarifying!

laurarichardson said:

I get it sort of sounds at first that's what the sheriff is saying, but I don't actually think that's what he is saying. See my comment above: I think "filing the warrant" is legalese for officially submitting the warrant search documents. The only search (besides retrieving the laptop) occured on April 21, per the warrant documents (those April 21 documents are stamped as "filed" on April 27)

oliviacamron said:

laurarichardson said:

A while ago we where discussing the people being in Paisley Park and the area not being a crime scene Check out what the Sheriff states at the 16:00 mark about getting a warrant to just process the scence and coming back in a week. That facilty was turned over to the family after that body was removed and it appears from the sheriffs comments that a full search was not done that day just enough for the crime scene.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=McmDZ8DNAGk [Edited 4/26/17 18:40pm]

Your right Laura. They only searched the scene , not the facility . They said Paisley Park is such a big place . They said they get a search warrant in a week. So for one week, PAisley park was wide open for anything to happen in there. That's really stupid.

In this case, the search warrant was executed on the day it was issued (April 21). There is no mention in the warrant documents of another, later search and the results of the April 21 search were filed on April 27.

http://www.mncourts.gov/m...ndex-1.pdf

zenarose said:

LE can get a warrant today and "sit on it" until they are ready to use it. Example: Let's say LE has enough evidence to get a search warrant for a drug trafficking operation. LE knows that there is going to be a large shipment of illegal drugs in a week. They "sit on" that warrant until they are ready to execute it. They get a big bust and can if they so desire, enhance the charges against the offenders. My point, a warrant does not have to be executed at the time it is granted. If you don't try to read too much into it, the Sheriff gave a complete synopsis. Keep it simple and you can understand what was going on. Better that the media spin. [Edited 4/26/17 20:46pm]

said:

It is my understanding that PP was left by LE on 04-21 and LE returned at a later date. The whole place wasn't checked.

1Sasha said:

It is my understanding that PP was left by LE on 04-21 and LE returned at a later date. The whole place wasn't checked.

Exactly!!! People were inside that building doing who knows what and even if they were doing nothing they should not have been in the building at all. The building should have been secured because after all the 2nd man in charge left to go on his vacation.

THe May 6 PP-search filing was to show the results of a warrant executed April 25 spcifically to retrieve Prince laptop, which the detective explains in the warrant request they neglected to retrieve in the building search on April 21. That's all that warrant gave permission to do, and that's all that was collected:

http://www.mncourts.gov/m...ndex-3.pdf

(a separate warrant filing that day lists the results of Andrew's backpack search; that backpack had been held by police since April 21: http://www.mncourts.gov/m...ndex-5.pdf )

-

I watched the video and I'm pretty confident that "processing the scene" is sheriff talk for "did the whole search" and "filing the warrant" is sheriff talk for "officially submitted the documents showing the results of that search." There's no mention in the warrants of any other search of PP -- and the warrants are also very focused and specific (because, according to my understanding of warrant law from help with The Google, warrants have to describe what specifically is being sought and the searching is limited to that. My understanding -- and again i welcome LE input -- is that police can't just randomly show up for more searching without a specific warrant or specific permission from someone in charge of the building, and as the sheriff notes, it was unclear what person could give that permission so they got a warrant.)

-

I'm feel pretty solid with my interpretation, but anyone who thinks the police violated procedural policy and and are concerned about the impact of that: You should shooot a note to the sheriff's office and ask them when they searched PP. They'd know better than we would!

zenarose said:

See search warrant attached to May 6 filing. Detective CW requested and was granted a search warrant on 4/25/2016. Sometime during the time between 4/25 and 5/6 when it was returned and filed, the search warrant was executed. In the meantime PP was released to P's associates on the afternoon of 4/21, after which the scene was no longer pristine.

[Edited 4/27/17 5:09am]

If they violated their procedure what different does it make now. The damage has already been done. They obvisouly felt they were doing the right thing at the time and I do not think anything was done by the police to purposely ruin the investigation. I think they just made bad decisions which may cause no arrest to ever be made in this case.

disch said:

THe May 6 PP-search filing was to show the results of a warrant executed April 25 spcifically to retrieve Prince laptop, which the detective explains in the warrant request they neglected to retrieve in the building search on April 21. That's all that warrant gave permission to do, and that's all that was collected:

http://www.mncourts.gov/m...ndex-3.pdf

(a separate warrant filing that day lists the results of Andrew's backpack search; that backpack had been held by police since April 21: http://www.mncourts.gov/m...ndex-5.pdf )

-

I watched the video and I'm pretty confident that "processing the scene" is sheriff talk for "did the whole search" and "filing the warrant" is sheriff talk for "officially submitted the documents showing the results of that search." There's no mention in the warrants of any other search of PP -- and the warrants are also very focused and specific (because, according to my understanding of warrant law from help with The Google, warrants have to describe what specifically is being sought and the searching is limited to that. My understanding -- and again i welcome LE input -- is that police can't just randomly show up for more searching without a specific warrant or specific permission from someone in charge of the building, and as the sheriff notes, it was unclear what person could give that permission so they got a warrant.)

-

I'm feel pretty solid with my interpretation, but anyone who thinks the police violated procedural policy and and are concerned about the impact of that: You should shooot a note to the sheriff's office and ask them when they searched PP. They'd know better than we would!

zenarose said:

See search warrant attached to May 6 filing. Detective CW requested and was granted a search warrant on 4/25/2016. Sometime during the time between 4/25 and 5/6 when it was returned and filed, the search warrant was executed. In the meantime PP was released to P's associates on the afternoon of 4/21, after which the scene was no longer pristine.

[Edited 4/27/17 5:09am]

Personally, I don't think that there's evidence that the police should or could have handled the PP building differently, but it sounded from your posts that this was something that really bothered you and that you felt really had an impact on the investigation.

-

I guess this is one of those agree-to-disagree things that that warrants show evidence that the sheriff's office botched the PP facility search. It'd be interesting to find out, if we do, what the DEA's office found. I wonder if they are handling most of this since it seems like whatever crimes were committed here -- such as someone selling illegal drugs -- may not have actually happened in Carver County. I'm not sure how jurisdictions are determined in a situation like that,

laurarichardson said:

If they violated their procedure what different does it make now. The damage has already been done. They obvisouly felt they were doing the right thing at the time and I do not think anything was done by the police to purposely ruin the investigation. I think they just made bad decisions which may cause no arrest to ever be made in this case.

disch said:

THe May 6 PP-search filing was to show the results of a warrant executed April 25 spcifically to retrieve Prince laptop, which the detective explains in the warrant request they neglected to retrieve in the building search on April 21. That's all that warrant gave permission to do, and that's all that was collected:

http://www.mncourts.gov/m...ndex-3.pdf

(a separate warrant filing that day lists the results of Andrew's backpack search; that backpack had been held by police since April 21: http://www.mncourts.gov/m...ndex-5.pdf )

-

I watched the video and I'm pretty confident that "processing the scene" is sheriff talk for "did the whole search" and "filing the warrant" is sheriff talk for "officially submitted the documents showing the results of that search." There's no mention in the warrants of any other search of PP -- and the warrants are also very focused and specific (because, according to my understanding of warrant law from help with The Google, warrants have to describe what specifically is being sought and the searching is limited to that. My understanding -- and again i welcome LE input -- is that police can't just randomly show up for more searching without a specific warrant or specific permission from someone in charge of the building, and as the sheriff notes, it was unclear what person could give that permission so they got a warrant.)

-

I'm feel pretty solid with my interpretation, but anyone who thinks the police violated procedural policy and and are concerned about the impact of that: You should shooot a note to the sheriff's office and ask them when they searched PP. They'd know better than we would!

[Edited 4/27/17 5:09am]

[Edited 4/27/17 6:20am]

disch said:

laurarichardson said:

In various threads I have read, the subject of the short autopsy has been discussed to include whether P. had other illnesses and it not being discernible. I think some of the illnesses we can discount as not being a factor in his death are: cancer, HIV, hepatitis C.

I am stating this because I am listing the link to a HLN video below, which I did post previously, that is an interview with a medical examiner explaining about contributing conditions that were not listed on the short autopsy so they are not a factor plus the fact that there are various diseases that the Board of Health tracks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evEj813Zjzo

I am also listing links to the CDC's site which indicates what types of diseases they track along with a quote from the CDC site explaining the type of diseases they track.

https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/

"The National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS) is a nationwide collaboration that enables all levels of public health—local, state, territorial, federal, and international—to share notifiable disease-related health information. Public health uses this information to monitor, control, and prevent the occurrence and spread of state-reportable and nationally notifiable infectious and noninfectious diseases and conditions."

The link is below to the CDC list of 2016 Nationally Notifiable Conditions

https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nndss/conditions/notifiable/2016/

To me, people being photographed outside PP in April 21 doesn't show that people were wandering in and out of the building. We know the drugs were found in a search conducted at 2:34pm that day and I know I haven't seen evidence of anyone other than LE/medical entering the building between when the police first arrived and that search time.

-

Curious about "crime scene" designation? What does that mean legally, do you know (i'm not sure myself)? Do you know it wasn't declared a "crime scene"?

PurpleDiamonds1 said:

disch said:

Personally, I don't think that there's evidence that the police should or could have handled the PP building differently, but it sounded from your posts that this was something that really bothered you and that you felt really had an impact on the investigation.

-

I guess this is one of those agree-to-disagree things that that warrants show evidence that the sheriff's office botched the PP facility search. It'd be interesting to find out, if we do, what the DEA's office found. I wonder if they are handling most of this since it seems like whatever crimes were committed here -- such as someone selling illegal drugs -- may not have actually happened in Carver County. I'm not sure how jurisdictions are determined in a situation like that,

[Edited 4/27/17 6:20am]

The LE should have declared PP a crime scene until the entire building was searched. No one should have been allowed to go in and out of there. We know people were allowed in PP on the 21st, some news outlet took a picture of what appeared to be Tyka talking with Kirk? ...it was posted on here.

disch said:

To me, people being photographed outside PP in April 21 doesn't show that people were wandering in and out of the building. We know the drugs were found in a search conducted at 2:34pm that day and I know I haven't seen evidence of anyone other than LE/medical entering the building between when the police first arrived and that search time.

-

Curious about "crime scene" designation? What does that mean legally, do you know (i'm not sure myself)? Do you know it wasn't declared a "crime scene"?

PurpleDiamonds1 said:

disch said: The LE should have declared PP a crime scene until the entire building was searched. No one should have been allowed to go in and out of there. We know people were allowed in PP on the 21st, some news outlet took a picture of what appeared to be Tyka talking with Kirk? ...it was posted on here.

The 4/21 search warrant indicates crime scene.

This is what I find as the meaning of a crime scene:

Crime scene investigations refer to science used in determining facts during legal proceedings. The goals and objectives of a crime scene investigations unit are the collection, preservation, packaging, transportation, and documentation of physical evidence left at the crime scene.

disch said:

To me, people being photographed outside PP in April 21 doesn't show that people were wandering in and out of the building. We know the drugs were found in a search conducted at 2:34pm that day and I know I haven't seen evidence of anyone other than LE/medical entering the building between when the police first arrived and that search time.

-

Curious about "crime scene" designation? What does that mean legally, do you know (i'm not sure myself)? Do you know it wasn't declared a "crime scene"?

PurpleDiamonds1 said:

disch said: The LE should have declared PP a crime scene until the entire building was searched. No one should have been allowed to go in and out of there. We know people were allowed in PP on the 21st, some news outlet took a picture of what appeared to be Tyka talking with Kirk? ...it was posted on here.

It was declared a crime scene because it was an unwitnessed death.

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

disch said:

To me, people being photographed outside PP in April 21 doesn't show that people were wandering in and out of the building. We know the drugs were found in a search conducted at 2:34pm that day and I know I haven't seen evidence of anyone other than LE/medical entering the building between when the police first arrived and that search time.

-

Curious about "crime scene" designation? What does that mean legally, do you know (i'm not sure myself)? Do you know it wasn't declared a "crime scene"?

It was declared a crime scene because it was an unwitnessed death.

I do not think the scene was contaminated. I believe the bulk of evidence (aside from the laptop) was collected and preserved. Once the ME declared fentanyl, then the DEA was contacted and they did their own "search". But by then, the pills had been secured. The DEA search could have been to get a lay out of PP.

Out of curiousiy, was the lawyer in the search warrant a Bremer Trust lawyer?

nelcp777 said:

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

It was declared a crime scene because it was an unwitnessed death.

I do not think the scene was contaminated. I believe the bulk of evidence (aside from the laptop) was collected and preserved. Once the ME declared fentanyl, then the DEA was contacted and they did their own "search". But by then, the pills had been secured. The DEA search could have been to get a lay out of PP.

Out of curiousiy, was the lawyer in the search warrant a Bremer Trust lawyer?

It was a Bremer Trust lawyer who turned the laptop over.

laurarichardson said:

nelcp777 said:

I do not think the scene was contaminated. I believe the bulk of evidence (aside from the laptop) was collected and preserved. Once the ME declared fentanyl, then the DEA was contacted and they did their own "search". But by then, the pills had been secured. The DEA search could have been to get a lay out of PP.

Out of curiousiy, was the lawyer in the search warrant a Bremer Trust lawyer?

It was a Bremer Trust lawyer who turned the laptop over.

Thanks.

laurarichardson said:

cloveringold85 said:

.

Thank you. So, he was taking the pills to help him sleep, so he probably had no idea what he was really taking? I know how you feel -- it was incredibly painful to look at my Mother's Death Certificate. I just felt numb inside. You can always org note me; I am here if you need to discuss anything.

.

Yes, Prince's Death Certificate could be amended, if his family requests that. It wouldn't be that hard to do.

A while ago we where discussing the people being in Paisley Park and the area not being a crime scene Check out what the Sheriff states at the 16:00 mark about getting a warrant to just process the scence and coming back in a week. That facilty was turned over to the family after that body was removed and it appears from the sheriffs comments that a full search was not done that day just enough for the crime scene.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=McmDZ8DNAGk [Edited 4/26/17 18:40pm]

.

Thanks for that, Laura. Yes, we've been discussing that for month's now--it's a subject that keeps popping up. The crime scene was not "secured", and the investigation was very sloppy. I think CCSO was overwhelmed with such a large case and they had to bring in help from other districts.

benni said:

CooperC62057 said:

cloveringold85 said: I'll call bullshit on this right here (sorry). I personally knew the owner of that pharmaceutical company and there was never a more caring, kind and compassionate human being. His intentions were truly to develop a pain relieving drug for those suffering from cancer. Ironically, he fought and lost his own battle with leukemia several years ago, documenting every ugly step until the day of his death. Nothing sinister in his actions a day in his life.

Actually, she's right.

The chemical agent used in the Moscow theatre hostage crisis of 23 October 2002 has never been definitively revealed by the Russian authorities, though many possible identities have been speculated. An undisclosed incapacitating agent was used by the Russian authorities in order to subdue the Chechen terrorists who had taken control of a crowded theater.

At the time, the agent was surmised to be some sort of surgical anesthetic or chemical weapon. Immediately after the siege, Western media speculated widely as to the identity of the substance that was used to end the siege, and chemicals such as the tranquilizer diazepam (Valium), the anticholinergic BZ, the highly potent oripavine-derived Bentley-series opioid etorphine, another highly potent opioid, such as a fentanyl or an analogue thereof, such as 3-methylfentanil, and the anaesthetic halothane were proposed. Foreign embassies in Moscow issued official requests for more information on the gas to aid in treatment, but were publicly ignored. While still refusing to identify the gas, on October 28, 2002 the Russian government informed the U.S. Embassy of some of the gas's effects. Based on this information and examinations of victims, doctors concluded the gas was a morphine derivative. The Russian media reported the drug was Kolokol-1, either mefentanyl or α-methylfentanil dissolved in a halothane base.

Russia's statement[edit]

Two days after the incident, on October 30, 2002, Russia responded to increasing domestic and international pressure with a statement on the unknown gas by Health Minister Yuri Shevchenko.[2] He identified it as a fentanyl derivative,[3] an extremely powerful opioid. Boris Grebenyuk, the All-Russia Disaster Relief Service chief, said the services used trimethyl phentanylum (3-methylfentanyl, a fentanyl analog that is about 1000 times more potent than morphine, which was manufactured and abused in the former Soviet Union); New Scientist pointed out that 3-methylfentanyl is not a gas but an aerosol.[4] The research made by American scientists into fentanyl derivatives shows that their lethality level surpasses the efficiency of traditional lethal methods: the lethality degree of the chemical weapons used in World War I was 7%, while in the Dubrovka theater it exceeded 15%.[5]

Analysis[edit]

A German toxicology professor who examined several German hostages said that their blood and urine contained halothane, a once-common inhalation anaesthetic which is now seldom used in Western countries, and that it was likely the gas had additional components.[6] No other unusual chemical substances have been detected. However, halothane has a strong odor (although often defined as "pleasant" by comparison with other anesthetic gases). Thus, by the time the whole theatre area would be filled with halothane to a concentration compatible with loss of consciousness (0.5% - 3%), it is likely that Chechens inside would have realized they were being attacked. Additionally, recovery of consciousness is rapid after the flow of gas is interrupted, unlike with high-dose fentanyl administration. Therefore, although halothane might have been a component in the aerosol, it was probably not a major component,[6] or perhaps it was a metabolite of another drug.

[Edited 4/26/17 19:38pm]

.

We had a big discussion about chemcial warfare here a while back. I posted links about the people who were involved with the research and production of Fentanyl. I did find one site that had a wealth of information, but I was criticized here for posting it and was told that it had no validity. People can believe it or not.

cloveringold85 said:

laurarichardson said:

cloveringold85 said: A while ago we where discussing the people being in Paisley Park and the area not being a crime scene Check out what the Sheriff states at the 16:00 mark about getting a warrant to just process the scence and coming back in a week. That facilty was turned over to the family after that body was removed and it appears from the sheriffs comments that a full search was not done that day just enough for the crime scene.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=McmDZ8DNAGk [Edited 4/26/17 18:40pm]

.

Thanks for that, Laura. Yes, we've been discussing that for month's now--it's a subject that keeps popping up. The crime scene was not "secured", and the investigation was very sloppy. I think CCSO was overwhelmed with such a large case and they had to bring in help from other districts.

That is how it appears I do not think it was a conspiracy just a screw up. Police are human just like anyone else despite the belief that because someone puts on a uniform they are incapable of screwing up.

oliviacamron said:

laurarichardson said:

A while ago we where discussing the people being in Paisley Park and the area not being a crime scene Check out what the Sheriff states at the 16:00 mark about getting a warrant to just process the scence and coming back in a week. That facilty was turned over to the family after that body was removed and it appears from the sheriffs comments that a full search was not done that day just enough for the crime scene.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=McmDZ8DNAGk [Edited 4/26/17 18:40pm]

Your right Laura. They only searched the scene , not the facility . They said Paisley Park is such a big place . They said they get a search warrant in a week. So for one week, PAisley park was wide open for anything to happen in there. That's really stupid.

.

I have to say, that was really dumb that did not do a complete search of PP. The fact that they didn't do that, renders the crime scene "contaminated". So many things were left incomplete and done haphazardly with this case!

.

Yes.....Stupid is as stupid does!!

laurarichardson said:

cloveringold85 said:

.

Thanks for that, Laura. Yes, we've been discussing that for month's now--it's a subject that keeps popping up. The crime scene was not "secured", and the investigation was very sloppy. I think CCSO was overwhelmed with such a large case and they had to bring in help from other districts.

That is how it appears I do not think it was a conspiracy just a screw up. Police are human just like anyone else despite the belief that because someone puts on a uniform they are incapable of screwing up.

.

I agree. I do not want to think it was a conspiracy and/or cover-up either. It was just sloppy detective work.

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

Whether or not PP was completely searched by the standards of some of the folks here, I couldn't say, but per the warrants the police completed their one and only building search (focused on drug-related evidence) on the afternoon of April 21 (that warrant is here, and the report about what they found -- namely, the drugs -- was officially filed on April 27). The only other PP warrant was to retrieve Prince's laptop on April 25.

-

There's no evidence in the warrants that the police sought to do any building searches besides those 2 occasions or that they handled anything particularly sloppily or were overwhelmed by the task. The warrant documents all appear to be pretty comprehensive and were submitted in a very timely fashion (e.g., on the afternoon of April 21).

-

It's not like cops can just wander in and out a building randomly searching for things for days or weeks on end; they need warrants to give them permission to look in specific places for specific things.

PurpleDiamonds1 said:

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

It was declared a crime scene because it was an unwitnessed death.

I am not in LE...so don't laugh ...my answer would be I did not see yellow tape.. Also thought it was turned over to family before the building was completely searched? Does anyone know if this is a fact? I am going to try and do another search for photos as it was a concern on the org as it was going down...I think Rogifan was the original one that posted it. [Edited 4/27/17 12:50pm]

[Edited 4/27/17 15:09pm]