By request and that the other thread is mannnyyyyy pagesssss long. So let's start fresh with a part 2.


First thread - http://prince.org/msg/7/451632

New thread - Continue discussion here: http://prince.org/msg/7/453224

wayyyyyy long thread.

luv4u said:

By request and that the other thread is mannnyyyyy pagesssss long. So let's start fresh with a part 2.


First thread - http://prince.org/msg/7/451632

Thanks Luv

fortuneandserendipity said:

You must be bonkers. How can you say "No footage existed" and "Someone made sure no footage would exist" and "This fact is not a myth"?!?! These are your words.

You cannot possibly say there was no footage. It may have been viewed and deemed inmaterial?! Have you ever considered that a possiblity?

Now it appears you're making out this sheriff at the press conference has an agenda and is somehow withholding information to divert from the truth lol. Maybe people aren't aware, but whenever a news conference is held after a big unexpected event, MOST questions are deflected away, simply because it's very early on and they 'CAN'T COMMENT' because 'THEY DON'T KNOW'. Such conferences held no later than a day after, or the same day sometimes, if that rings any bells.

And of course now this old sheriff guy is retiring, that makes it easier to cover his back hehe. I mean, what is the conspiracy here? What could he possibly be hiding? This whole theory about hidden/removed/deleted footage is NUTS.

laurarichardson said:

Who the fuck are you responding to? I do not think the Sheriff is in on any conspiracy. We know from the search warrants that no footage exsist. After 29 hours I would think the police could tell if the cameras were in the building, workiing or even turned on.

As far as the Sheriff is concerned he said Prince was a friend and he was going to work to solve the case. Well he cannot solve anything from the retirement chair. This is factual and the police not having any footage is factual from their warrants. Your insults, rants and trolling will not change anything.

Why has it not occured to you that if there is no mention of any cameras in the search warrants, that's not THE SAME as saying the cameras and footage don't exist, which is something completely different. Duh.

Search warrants are only required if you're removing items from the property. You don't need to remove cameras to look at them, or their hard drives. Said items were almost certainly on the premises when the cops arrived and remained there while the investigation was ongoing. They probably fastforwarded through recent footage and saw nothing untoward. Like, no sinister Kirk Johnson putting a cloth over them, or some stray cat puking over the all-important one showing P being murdered?!

THAT IS WHY THEY DON'T WARRANT MENTION. They were likely viewed and deemed of no consequential value. One rambling, unreliable 'witness', Chazz Smith on the other hand, giving a secondhand account of something going 'missing' with fuck all actual evidence doesn't even cut it. Not like Occam's Razor.

[Bait snip - luv4u]

Notably in every sence, is that there's a huge difference in thinking like Europeans do (I am one), and Americans do, on this issue. And not one or the other is better. Let that be clear.

My opinion for one is certainly not better than anyone elses. But assuption is not in my list. It's energy soaking, and leads basically nowhere. Nearly always.

-

I for one DON'T LIKE conspiracy theories and the need to blame someone.

Murder, or reasons to do so. Whatever happened, is past us. And I have confidence in professional judgement and law. As happend so far.

Will there be secrets or things kept unclear ? Possible, even sure.

My grandmother always sayd; "there will always be more secrets taken into graves, than getting solved and see the light and clearness on the surface of truth." And then she replied again, "and that's for the best of it." And I believe her, certainly as I get older. Some secrets are best not reveiled.

-

Besides all that, the only one reason why Prince was here for us was to tell stories through music.

And at the same time we could enjoying his images because he loved to show off, in a positive way.

His WHOLE LIFE he loved suprises and always prefered to kept this things wrapped up in 'mysteries', even after all those years we kind of though we knew him.

Little did he told us about himself, or even sang about it. Nothing was ever crystal clear. And I love it like that. You don't really want to know all of your idols life details.

It's a pitty we never got to read his thought on it all through his biography. (Although I expect it was all going to be more smooth words and god-talk and love and how to be 'one' altogether. I could be wrong though, as I have no idea what he wrote in those first 50 pages or so...)

-

Maybe Prince died in some sort of mystery, and I for one think it's pretty OK the way it was. Nothing to do about it anymore. He chose to suffer pain in silence, had a lot of appearances to keep up with, and that should be respected. His public image was important to him. It's how he wanted us to see him.

If there was a clear murder charge possible, or any other slight reason for that matter, we would've known that by now. All other assuptions, coicidences, created possible stories of put together elements of the last days etc... are really not that important (I believe).

You know, it will always be possible to create some sort of puzzle which seems acceptable as an assupmtion of what might have happened. But we are no real experts (neither am I), nor have few of us some insight.

-

His legacy should be much more important than anything else.

From all other pop and rock stars that commited suicide or got murdered, we know some truths and some not. I realise that what happened to them didn't change a thing about their music and legacy, somehow.

Amy Winhouse, Kurt Cobain, Janis Joplin, Jimmi H., Jim Morrison, Michael Jackson, George Michael, Elvis, Bowie, Prince, and so on and on and on...

What concernes me more is, Pop and rock music actually is pretty young if you think about it. 60 plus years or so. Idols die. On day pop and rock will be just like classical music, old(er) and for the elite, or forgotten even.

But when not forgotten, hopefully Prince's legacy will belongs to that elite.

And not the way that he died. I hope.

There will always be Music. And there will always be forgottten great artists as well.

[Edited 3/6/18 23:58pm]

Kevin Smith said at the time he was recording at PP that he saw a sign which said there was 24/7 availability to record/listen. He made a comment and wondered later how Prince knew what he said - Prince was listening in to Kevin's conversation with a staffer at PP. KS was told the entire place was wired to record/listen.

1Sasha said:

Kevin Smith said at the time he was recording at PP that he saw a sign which said there was 24/7 availability to record/listen. He made a comment and wondered later how Prince knew what he said - Prince was listening in to Kevin's conversation with a staffer at PP. KS was told the entire place was wired to record/listen.

Isn't that illegal? I mean, recording what your employees say?

ThatWhiteDude said:

1Sasha said:

Kevin Smith said at the time he was recording at PP that he saw a sign which said there was 24/7 availability to record/listen. He made a comment and wondered later how Prince knew what he said - Prince was listening in to Kevin's conversation with a staffer at PP. KS was told the entire place was wired to record/listen.

Isn't that illegal? I mean, recording what your employees say?

OR DO? With all this talk of cameras everywhere, one wonders IF it's true bc just think of all the hooking up that occurred in PP over the years, in the bed,on the stairs, etc, etc...and NO film has ever surfaced of Prince or anyone else doin' it...where were the cameras? Where is all that film???

Bodhitheblackdog said:

I don't know if such a practice was illegal. If a notice was posted - perhaps through a sign - then Prince might have been "covered" legally. As for recording other activities: maybe.

1Sasha said:

I don't know if such a practice was illegal. If a notice was posted - perhaps through a sign - then Prince might have been "covered" legally. As for recording other activities: maybe.

Well, if KS story is true, then it doesn't seem like there was a notice posted that everything was being recorded since somebody had to tell him that this is the case.

Bodhitheblackdog said:

ThatWhiteDude said:

Isn't that illegal? I mean, recording what your employees say?

OR DO? With all this talk of cameras everywhere, one wonders IF it's true bc just think of all the hooking up that occurred in PP over the years, in the bed,on the stairs, etc, etc...and NO film has ever surfaced of Prince or anyone else doin' it...where were the cameras? Where is all that film???

If the story is true, maybe these tapes are in his vault, or destroyed.

disch said:

We have not a shred of reason to believe that prince kept every square inch of pp’s interior under 24/7/365 video and audio surveillance, recording everything, for decades on end. The idea of that just nuts and prince wasn’t exactly nuts.

Bodhitheblackdog said:

OR DO? With all this talk of cameras everywhere, one wonders IF it's true bc just think of all the hooking up that occurred in PP over the years, in the bed,on the stairs, etc, etc...and NO film has ever surfaced of Prince or anyone else doin' it...where were the cameras? Where is all that film???

I fully agree, giving reasonable doubts to chemtrails are one thing, being paranoid to these levels would have shown.


Maybe Prince was never ever addicted to painkillers. Maybe this is just the best cover for a suicide ever built up, so none of Prince's friends or relatives get in trouble afterwards. "Doctor, what is the most pain-free way to die? — The one I know is an illegal drug, all I can do is give you its name".

Hey, I'm out of plots, one is a good as the next.

Vannormal suggests we can all go to bed now, he clearly needs to read some books about J.F.K. and stuff like that. The duration of an investigation is not proportional to its lack of purpose or credibility.

[Edited 3/7/18 9:57am]

disch said:

We have not a shred of reason to believe that prince kept every square inch of pp’s interior under 24/7/365 video and audio surveillance, recording everything, for decades on end. The idea of that just nuts and prince wasn’t exactly nuts. Bodhitheblackdog said:

OR DO? With all this talk of cameras everywhere, one wonders IF it's true bc just think of all the hooking up that occurred in PP over the years, in the bed,on the stairs, etc, etc...and NO film has ever surfaced of Prince or anyone else doin' it...where were the cameras? Where is all that film???

You can erase anything you do not want people to see and many people who worked for him said the entire place was wired for sound and video.

Those signs covered him legally for taping and why would they be up on the wall if he was not taping?

Think. I own the building I can turn the cameras off or removed them anytime I like.

fortuneandserendipity said:

Why has it not occured to you that if there is no mention of any cameras in the search warrants, that's not THE SAME as saying the cameras and footage don't exist, which is something completely different. Duh.

Search warrants are only required if you're removing items from the property. You don't need to remove cameras to look at them, or their hard drives. Said items were almost certainly on the premises when the cops arrived and remained there while the investigation was ongoing. They probably fastforwarded through recent footage and saw nothing untoward. Like, no sinister Kirk Johnson putting a cloth over them, or some stray cat puking over the all-important one showing P being murdered?!

THAT IS WHY THEY DON'T WARRANT MENTION. They were likely viewed and deemed of no consequential value. One rambling, unreliable 'witness', Chazz Smith on the other hand, giving a secondhand account of something going 'missing' with fuck all actual evidence doesn't even cut it. Not like Occam's Razor.

It mentions that no footage exisit it does not say anything about cameras not exisiting. The enire cameras gone came from Charles. We have no clue from the warrant if the cameras were on the premise or not.

Don't you think the search warrant was drafted for the purpose of taking the securitiy footage out of the building for review? That is what usually occurs. It does not matter if they viewed footage in PP or out or if they found working cameras with no footage concerning the investigation. At the end of the day the only info we have per the search warrants is that no footage is avalible.

Meaning you know no more about what was going with those cameras then anyone else.

You did not take the time to listen to Charles's entire interview because he said who told him about the cameras now they could have been lying out of their ass but it will all come out sooner or later so no reason for Charles to make up a conversation that did not occurr.

He said a few things that make a lot of sense to anyone who is not arrogant enough to think they know everythig. He is also not a witness to anything except the foolishness of KJ and Omarr at the memorial. Which is a whole another level of strangeness.

Weird shit is going on with this case or it would have been closed almost two years ago. I bet you thought it would be done by now but you were wrong about that and you are going to be proven wrong about a whole lot of other things.

Prince was the king of misdirection and you are falling for it.

laurarichardson said:

laurarichardson said:

It mentions that no footage exisit it does not say anything about cameras not exisiting. The enire cameras gone came from Charles. We have no clue from the warrant if the cameras were on the premise or not.

Don't you think the search warrant was drafted for the purpose of taking the securitiy footage out of the building for review? That is what usually occurs. It does not matter if they viewed footage in PP or out or if they found working cameras with no footage concerning the investigation. At the end of the day the only info we have per the search warrants is that no footage is avalible.

Meaning you know no more about what was going with those cameras then anyone else.

You did not take the time to listen to Charles's entire interview because he said who told him about the cameras now they could have been lying out of their ass but it will all come out sooner or later so no reason for Charles to make up a conversation that did not occurr.

He said a few things that make a lot of sense to anyone who is not arrogant enough to think they know everythig. He is also not a witness to anything except the foolishness of KJ and Omarr at the memorial. Which is a whole another level of strangeness.

Weird shit is going on with this case or it would have been closed almost two years ago. I bet you thought it would be done by now but you were wrong about that and you are going to be proven wrong about a whole lot of other things.

Prince was the king of misdirection and you are falling for it.

sonshine said:

laurarichardson said: "Once again big ass signs state that people are being recorded." There were no big ass signs. Once again.

.

ThatWhiteDude said:

1Sasha said:

Kevin Smith said at the time he was recording at PP that he saw a sign which said there was 24/7 availability to record/listen. He made a comment and wondered later how Prince knew what he said - Prince was listening in to Kevin's conversation with a staffer at PP. KS was told the entire place was wired to record/listen.

Isn't that illegal? I mean, recording what your employees say?

.

It's not illegal, if the person knows they are being recorded.

Okay, let's suppose the camera's were still there on the 20th-21st. It is quite possible that someone could have erased any footage that might have been recorded during that time. If Sheriff Olson stated that "there is no footage"--if footage was missing from those dates, that would raise suspicion.

.

Why would the camera's suddenly be turned-off? Who turned them off?

From Part One:

.

laurarichardson said:

Because he knew no footage exsisted and he is now retiring

cloveringold85 said:

.

In my opinion, Sheriff Olson's comment/response "I don't want to comment on that right now" seems suspicious. He kept repeating himself and said "We are only 29-hours into the investigation". Yea, yadda......yadda......I get all that, but why is he avoiding certain questions? It's not difficult to say "We are reviewing the security cameras, etc." What does he have to hide?

.

We all heard the story about his stomach problems, the Chef, not eating, the flu. It does not really add up to much.

[Edited 3/6/18 12:31pm]

Fortuneserindipty said:

You must be bonkers. How can you say "No footage existed" and "Someone made sure no footage would exist" and "This fact is not a myth"?!?! These are your words.

You cannot possibly say there was no footage. It may have been viewed and deemed inmaterial?! Have you ever considered that a possiblity?

Now it appears you're making out this sheriff at the press conference has an agenda and is somehow withholding information to divert from the truth lol. Maybe people aren't aware, but whenever a news conference is held after a big unexpected event, MOST questions are deflected away, simply because it's very early on and they 'CAN'T COMMENT' because 'THEY DON'T KNOW'. Such conferences held no later than a day after, or the same day sometimes, if that rings any bells.

And of course now this old sheriff guy is retiring, that makes it easier to cover his back hehe. I mean, what is the conspiracy here? What could he possibly be hiding? This whole theory about hidden/removed/deleted footage is NUTS.

.

.....................................

Laura said the part about "no footage existed".

.

I said the part about Sheriff Olson not being forthcoming with information. As he said, it was still early in the investigation (29 hours), but he could have just answered a simple question -- Was there, or was there NOT video footage?

.

If you don't think information gets covered-up in law enforcement; try again.

ThatWhiteDude said:

1Sasha said:

I don't know if such a practice was illegal. If a notice was posted - perhaps through a sign - then Prince might have been "covered" legally. As for recording other activities: maybe.

Well, if KS story is true, then it doesn't seem like there was a notice posted that everything was being recorded since somebody had to tell him that this is the case.

.

Prince didn't need any camera's recording, because he had Kirky, memba? He's got that vault up in his head.

fortuneandserendipity said:

Why has it not occured to you that if there is no mention of any cameras in the search warrants, that's not THE SAME as saying the cameras and footage don't exist, which is something completely different. Duh.

Search warrants are only required if you're removing items from the property. You don't need to remove cameras to look at them, or their hard drives. Said items were almost certainly on the premises when the cops arrived and remained there while the investigation was ongoing. They probably fastforwarded through recent footage and saw nothing untoward. Like, no sinister Kirk Johnson putting a cloth over them, or some stray cat puking over the all-important one showing P being murdered?!

THAT IS WHY THEY DON'T WARRANT MENTION. They were likely viewed and deemed of no consequential value. One rambling, unreliable 'witness', Chazz Smith on the other hand, giving a secondhand account of something going 'missing' with fuck all actual evidence doesn't even cut it. Not like Occam's Razor.

.

Good point about the search warrant.

cloveringold85 said:

.

It's not illegal, if the person knows they are being recorded.

I'm figuring those fabled NDA's covered that too among other stuff.

Cloveringold85 said:

cloveringold85 said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

Why has it not occured to you that if there is no mention of any cameras in the search warrants, that's not THE SAME as saying the cameras and footage don't exist, which is something completely different. Duh.

Search warrants are only required if you're removing items from the property. You don't need to remove cameras to look at them, or their hard drives. Said items were almost certainly on the premises when the cops arrived and remained there while the investigation was ongoing. They probably fastforwarded through recent footage and saw nothing untoward. Like, no sinister Kirk Johnson putting a cloth over them, or some stray cat puking over the all-important one showing P being murdered?!

THAT IS WHY THEY DON'T WARRANT MENTION. They were likely viewed and deemed of no consequential value. One rambling, unreliable 'witness', Chazz Smith on the other hand, giving a secondhand account of something going 'missing' with fuck all actual evidence doesn't even cut it. Not like Occam's Razor.

.

Good point about the search warrant.

Once again who said they did were not intending on removing the footage. If there was footage it woud be evidence and it would have been removed.

disch said:

I think we’re conflating all forms of video/audio monitoring, when in fact there is a difference between recordings mafe for potential professional use and those for security reasons. There’s no reason Prince would have activated some building wide professional recording system (if one in fact existed in 2016) when he was alone in pp, as he was in the last 6 hours of his life. And we have no information about what kind of security system was typically used at pp and where, so we don’t know that it was specifically turned off on April 20. Cloveringold85 said:

Okay, let's suppose the camera's were still there on the 20th-21st. It is quite possible that someone could have erased any footage that might have been recorded during that time. If Sheriff Olson stated that "there is no footage"--if footage was missing from those dates, that would raise suspicion.

.

Why would the camera's suddenly be turned-off? Who turned them off?

See pic below with big ass sign. There is an interview with Mike Bland were he talks about the whole place being wired for sound and video.

laurarichardson said:

cloveringold85 said:

.

Good point about the search warrant.

Once again who said they did were not intending on removing the footage. If there was footage it woud be evidence and it would have been removed.

Your assumption. Did they take away any of his possessions deemed irrelevant to the investigation, like for instance his dirty laundry or bedsheets? They would not have needed to remove CCTV to actually view it. Only if that footage showed a red flag might they have transported it off the premises: perhaps to be looked at again before, or further to, questioning somebody about it.

fortuneandserendipity said:

laurarichardson said:

Once again who said they did were not intending on removing the footage. If there was footage it woud be evidence and it would have been removed.

Your assumption. Did they take away any of his possessions deemed irrelevant to the investigation, like for instance his dirty laundry or bedsheets? They would not have needed to remove CCTV to actually view it. Only if that footage showed a red flag might they have transported it off the premises: perhaps to be looked at again before, or further to, questioning somebody about it.

We have no idea what went on with the footage or what all was hauled out of PP. You made my point that footage and or cameras would have been removed if they found something. Thus the need for a search warrant which is also used to remove items.

We know the keystone cops came back days later to get his laptop which had been moved by someone.