sonshine said:

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

laurarichardson said:

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:

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.

Ah, there it is.

[Edited 3/7/18 16:10pm]

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.

Your first paragraph right there is contradictory. I guess it's your way to change tack when you see the error in your own argument. Look, if we don't know from the warrants that cameras were removed, then how can 'footage not exist'. At least now you're questioning the validity of Chazz Smith's secondhand account of what someone may have said.

Again, where does it say in the search warrants, anywhere that 'no footage exists'? I mean I''m interpreting your language accurately, based on words like 'MENTION' and 'EXISTS', and I'm still waiting.

According to people who have been to Paisley Park additional signs were inside the building. You cannot legally record people without posting signs.

The signs inside the building need to be posted were the public can see them they do not have to be posted in every room. Why does this have to be explained to you?

Also who turns off all of their security when they are in a 65k foot facilty by themselves. I have my security on in my home when I am in my house as well as when I am gone. I would suggest you check out the Carver County Police log to see how many treaspassers Prince had out at Paisley. He needed security and he decided to send security guards away and have a stituation were no footage was avalible to anyone on April 21st at a time when he was supposed to be gravely ill.

Think about it.

Past Incident Reports at Paisley Park

Incident Report #13014849 - 05/23/2013
Incident Report #14003340 - 02/03/2014
Incident Report #15001043 - 01/12/2015
Incident Report #16001588 - 01/15/2016
Calls for Service at 7801...04/27/2016
Calls for Service with Lo...04/27/2016

disch said:

That’s an exterior security camera. The “big ass sign” is to scare off potential trespassers. You see kind of thing on pretty much every building of this nature. ( That’s not the same thing as signs within the building saying what everything in every room is being constantly recorded for professional or whatever use. - Do you really not see the difference between these things? And how exactly does this tie into princes suicide and/or murder? Even if the whole interior was “wired for sound,” why would you expect prince would have turned this audio recording system on when he was home alone? laurarichardson said:

fortuneandserendipity 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.

Your first paragraph right there is contradictory. I guess it's your way to change tack when you see the error in your own argument. Look, if we don't know from the warrants that cameras were removed, then how can 'footage not exist'. At least now you're questioning the validity of Chazz Smith's secondhand account of what someone may have said.

Again, where does it say in the search warrants, anywhere that 'no footage exists'? I mean I''m interpreting your language accurately, based on words like 'MENTION' and 'EXISTS', and I'm still waiting.

I will go back and look it up. It was discussed on this board that no footage exisited. It should be obvious that the police would mean footage for that day but I guess it is not obvious to you.

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?

.

I am referring to the security camera's.

.

As we all know, PP was wired so Prince could record music in any room he chose. The system he had set up to record would only be audio recordings.

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.

.

Well, Prince's laptop was moved and people were in and out of Paisley on the 21st, so there is really no telling if there was footage or if it was purposely "removed".

laurarichardson said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

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.

.

Who's fingerprints were on Prince's laptop and why would someone move it?

cloveringold85 said:

laurarichardson said:

cloveringold85 said:

.

Well, Prince's laptop was moved and people were in and out of Paisley on the 21st, so there is really no telling if there was footage or if it was purposely "removed".

We will never know why the police did not take the computer on the 21st or who moved it. I can tell you a certain fan/ collector has a screen shot of some computer in Paisley with a bunch of Porn movie titles. I can tell you this person has screen shot of one of Prince’s notebooks and this was before the auction. This person claims to have got this stuff from a family member. People were running around in PP messing and taking things.

.

The Carver County Sheriff did not do a proper investigation. I don't think they were equipped to handle such a case. The fact that Paisley Park was not deemed a crime scene on the 21st, really bothers me to no end!! No one should have been allowed on the premises other than the Sheriff and investigators, period!! The crime scene was contaminated, and so many people dismiss that fact (not saying you).

.

The fact that Prince's laptop was moved is highly suspicious. Nothing in PP should have been touched.

.

That's interesting on the screen shots. The porn thing is not so shocking to me. I'm more upset and shocked that people were walking around PP, when they had no reason to be there.

cloveringold85 said:

There is nothing that is forever "removed" from a computer or laptop.

Police should have taken the laptop and not have left it at Paisley and people should not have been allowed to give away notebooks and send out screen shots.

You are missing the point that this was a sloppy investigation from day one. It does not mean a conspiracy was taking place but it is not a good look on that police department.

disch said:

After the laptop was retrieved it was subjected to a forensic exam by an expert flown in from out of state. It would be REALLY hard for someone who isn’t a top level computer expert to hide stuff from a forensic specialist. Additionally princes emails were subpoenaed directly from google (this stuff is from the warrabts) - If someone were trying to hide something important on princes laptop, they would’ve just taken the whole laptop and thrown it in a dump or something. Since they didn’t I feel pretty confident the experts would’ve been able to get anything if value off it and/or from the emails. cloveringold85 said:

.

Well, Prince's laptop was moved and people were in and out of Paisley on the 21st, so there is really no telling if there was footage or if it was purposely "removed".

[Edited 3/7/18 21:46pm]

[Edited 3/8/18 5:39am]

I agree on how this was handled. If only for the reason that this was an international icon - they should have locked down PP and brought in the Feds. Botched from Day 1.

disch said:

Oh I believe that there were such signs inside during events. I wasn't doubting that. I never went to an event at PP so I never saw it there, but I've certainly seen signs like that at other public events.

-

I was saying there is likely a difference between that security sign outside the building and interior signs telling people they'e being recorded during events. A lot of times those "you're being filmed" signs at events aren't so much about security systems as about legal releases to use footage from the event in various professional capacities.

-

I don't really want to belabor the point about where and when and what was being filmed by security cameras in PP's interior, especially at times when it wasn't open to the public, because none of us have actual facts about that. This topic came up in relation to what a footage may (or should) have been available showing prince inside the building in the night of April 20.

XxAxX said:

disch said:

That’s an exterior security camera. The “big ass sign” is to scare off potential trespassers. You see kind of thing on pretty much every building of this nature. ( That’s not the same thing as signs within the building saying what everything in every room is being constantly recorded for professional or whatever use. - Do you really not see the difference between these things? And how exactly does this tie into princes suicide and/or murder? Even if the whole interior was “wired for sound,” why would you expect prince would have turned this audio recording system on when he was home alone?

Disch I've personally seen these signs. Every single dance party featured the "you are being filmed" warning right in the entrance. If you've been there I don't know how you missed this.

[Edited 3/8/18 9:19am]

Since I'm the one who brought up Kevin Smith, I can tell you he mentioned the interior signage during a talk on a college campus. I saw the talk on YouTube. I assume it is still there. IIRC he was hired for a Rainbow Children documentary/event when Prince was bringing regular people into PP to talk about his new album, God, etc.

Knock it off. Signs are inside and out and people who have been their are telling you this. If is about security systems and legal reasons. Do you think he put the signs up for no reason?

According to the police no footage is avalible.

disch said:

Oh I believe that there were such signs inside during events. I wasn't doubting that. I never went to an event at PP so I never saw it there, but I've certainly seen signs like that at other public events.

-

I was saying there is likely a difference between that security sign outside the building and interior signs telling people they'e being recorded during events. A lot of times those "you're being filmed" signs at events aren't so much about security systems as about legal releases to use footage from the event in various professional capacities.

-

I don't really want to belabor the point about where and when and what was being filmed by security cameras in PP's interior, especially at times when it wasn't open to the public, because none of us have actual facts about that. This topic came up in relation to what a footage may (or should) have been available showing prince inside the building in the night of April 20.

XxAxX said:

disch said: Disch I've personally seen these signs. Every single dance party featured the "you are being filmed" warning right in the entrance. If you've been there I don't know how you missed this.

[Edited 3/8/18 9:19am]

laurarichardson said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

Your first paragraph right there is contradictory. I guess it's your way to change tack when you see the error in your own argument. Look, if we don't know from the warrants that cameras were removed, then how can 'footage not exist'. At least now you're questioning the validity of Chazz Smith's secondhand account of what someone may have said.

Again, where does it say in the search warrants, anywhere that 'no footage exists'? I mean I''m interpreting your language accurately, based on words like 'MENTION' and 'EXISTS', and I'm still waiting.

I will go back and look it up. It was discussed on this board that no footage exisited. It should be obvious that the police would mean footage for that day but I guess it is not obvious to you.

To: fortuneandserendipity

Below is what I had posted in Part 1 on video:

Reply #1109

Below is the link to the 5/24 search warrant that states there is no video surveillance. It doesn't provide any further detail on video so there is no way of knowing the overall status: were there cameras that were just turned off or no cameras at all, etc.

https://www.documentcloud...-2016.html

leec1 said:

laurarichardson said:

I will go back and look it up. It was discussed on this board that no footage exisited. It should be obvious that the police would mean footage for that day but I guess it is not obvious to you.

To: fortuneandserendipity

Below is what I had posted in Part 1 on video:

Reply #1109

Below is the link to the 5/24 search warrant that states there is no video surveillance. It doesn't provide any further detail on video so there is no way of knowing the overall status: were there cameras that were just turned off or no cameras at all, etc.

https://www.documentcloud...-2016.html

To: laurarichardson

It only mentions cell phone data. Nothing whatever to do with cameras, monitors or anything CCTV related.

Laura, you have lost me on what you're even arguing.

-

The question was: Is the lack of security video from the night of April 20 strange/atypical (i.e., a sign that cameras were specifically shut off that night when typically they would be recording), or typical? You're saying it's strange/atypical and I'm saying, we don't know, because we don't know what was typical practice at PP (where and what was covered by video surveillance esp at times when the building wasn't hosting an event.)

-

We don't agree and there's nothing more to say about that.

-

(And your bullying tone -- demanding me to "knock it off" -- is out of line.)

laurarichardson said:

Knock it off. Signs are inside and out and people who have been their are telling you this. If is about security systems and legal reasons. Do you think he put the signs up for no reason?

According to the police no footage is avalible.

disch said:

Oh I believe that there were such signs inside during events. I wasn't doubting that. I never went to an event at PP so I never saw it there, but I've certainly seen signs like that at other public events.

-

I was saying there is likely a difference between that security sign outside the building and interior signs telling people they'e being recorded during events. A lot of times those "you're being filmed" signs at events aren't so much about security systems as about legal releases to use footage from the event in various professional capacities.

-

I don't really want to belabor the point about where and when and what was being filmed by security cameras in PP's interior, especially at times when it wasn't open to the public, because none of us have actual facts about that. This topic came up in relation to what a footage may (or should) have been available showing prince inside the building in the night of April 20.

[Edited 3/8/18 9:19am]

[Edited 3/8/18 11:33am]

Fortune, I think leec is referencing the fifth paragraph of page 3 states:

"You Affiant is aware that there is no security presence at Paisley Park nor is there any video surveillance." That's all it says about video.

fortuneandserendipity said:

leec1 said:

To: fortuneandserendipity

Below is what I had posted in Part 1 on video:

Reply #1109

Below is the link to the 5/24 search warrant that states there is no video surveillance. It doesn't provide any further detail on video so there is no way of knowing the overall status: were there cameras that were just turned off or no cameras at all, etc.

https://www.documentcloud...-2016.html

To: laurarichardson

It only mentions cell phone data. Nothing whatever to do with cameras, monitors or anything CCTV related.

disch said:

Fortune, I think leec is referencing the fifth paragraph of page 3 states:

"You Affiant is aware that there is no security presence at Paisley Park nor is there any video surveillance." That's all it says about video.

fortuneandserendipity said:

To: laurarichardson

It only mentions cell phone data. Nothing whatever to do with cameras, monitors or anything CCTV related.

Thanks for that, and I apologise. I did quick search under terms camera, monitor, cctv. I'll quote the paragraph in full.

"During the course of this investigation, Investigators learned that Prince had not been seen or heard from since 4/20/2016 around 2000 hours. Your Affiant is aware there is no security presence at Paisley Park nor is there any video surveillance. Your Affiant is also aware that Prince lived at Paisley Park by himself."

Here I'll be naughty but fair by applying Occam's Razor again. (no doubt pissing off a couple of orgers in the process)

The most likely case scenario is that the sign in the photo is misdirection - as a means of deterrence. And the few cameras sighted at Paisley Park are dummy ones, if indeed there was CCTV (maybe a recent fan visitor can shed light on that). Most reasonable conclusion is that because they're saying there was NO video surveillance, that means there was NO camera system present. Which is different from saying it was switched off, faulty, tampered with, or shock horror.... removed

We know from the numerous people who worked for him over the years what the typical practice was. Why would he have security cameras for years and that not be in use. It was often used as a public space.

I am sorry I find it odd that he had security ( not going to debate that anymore) and the cameras were not working while he was alone in a 65k building and ill. Coincedentialy he just happens to die and no security footage is availibe or if Charles is correct no cameras were even around.

You believe in conicedences I do not. You do not believe anything anyone has to say who worked for Prince or spent two minutes in the building.

disch said:

Laura, you have lost me on what you're even arguing.

-

The question was: Is the lack of security video from the night of April 20 strange/atypical (i.e., a sign that cameras were specifically shut off that night when typically they would be recording), or typical? You're saying it's strange/atypical and I'm saying, we don't know, because we don't know what was typical practice at PP (where and what was covered by video surveillance esp at times when the building wasn't hosting an event.)

-

We don't agree and there's nothing more to say about that.

-

(And your bullying tone -- demanding me to "knock it off" -- is out of line.)

laurarichardson said:

Knock it off. Signs are inside and out and people who have been their are telling you this. If is about security systems and legal reasons. Do you think he put the signs up for no reason?

According to the police no footage is avalible.

[Edited 3/8/18 11:33am]

[Edited 3/8/18 12:05pm]

fortuneandserendipity said:

disch said:

Fortune, I think leec is referencing the fifth paragraph of page 3 states:

"You Affiant is aware that there is no security presence at Paisley Park nor is there any video surveillance." That's all it says about video.

Thanks for that, and I apologise. I did quick search under terms camera, monitor, cctv. I'll quote the paragraph in full.

"During the course of this investigation, Investigators learned that Prince had not been seen or heard from since 4/20/2016 around 2000 hours. Your Affiant is aware there is no security presence at Paisley Park nor is there any video surveillance. Your Affiant is also aware that Prince lived at Paisley Park by himself."

Here I'll be naughty but fair by applying Occam's Razor again. (no doubt pissing off a couple of orgers in the process)

The most likely case scenario is that the sign in the photo is misdirection - as a means of deterrence. And the few cameras sighted at Paisley Park are dummy ones, if indeed there was CCTV (maybe a recent fan visitor can shed light on that). Most reasonable conclusion is that because they're saying there was NO video surveillance, that means there was NO camera system present. Which is different from saying it was switched off, faulty, tampered with, or shock horror.... removed

How is it different from removed when people who worked for him have said he had cameras all over t he place for years. Why put up signs and why would he be turning PP into a museum and not have video surveillance.?

laurarichardson said:

How is it different from removed when people who worked for him have said he had cameras all over t he place for years. Why put up signs and why would he be turning PP into a museum and not have video surveillance.?

But there is a big difference between removed once upon a time, as in given up or to be replaced - and cameras removed by someone suspiciously. What I was meaning in that context, I don't see anyone 'suspiciously' removing cameras. The way it's worded in the search warrant, there wasn't a live system there. Therefore nothing to take away.

It seems there were practices in the five years or so before 2016 where money was spent on other things, and perhaps there was some scaling back on overhead. That being said, I cannot understand a star of his magnitude living so closely to a main thoroughfare with basically no security when he was home at night (assuming staff went home for the night). No cameras, no alarm system maybe, no one at the gate. All that was between him and a criminal/tragedy was a key to a door or a pane of glass in a window. It simply doesn't make sense except to think he was letting go of everything on the earthly plane, bit by bit. The memoir, the museum plans, etc. - why did these all come together in the last months of his life? All I can think is he thought he had a bit more time left and then he found out he didn't. Just my opinion.