laurarichardson said:

The only person who probably knows the answers to all of these questions is Kirk. And he isn't talking. Meron should know about the CCTV, but she hasn't talked, either.

Rebeljuice said:

cloveringold85 said:

Sheriff Olson was asked about the security system at PP:

.

QUESTION: Sheriff, were there surveillance cameras at Paisley Park and do you have them?

OLSON: That is -- that will be part of the investigation. I don't want to comment on that right now.

.

.

Full Transcripts can be read here....

.

http://transcripts.cnn.co...cg.01.html

.

Hmmm........WHY didn't Sheriff Olson want to comment on the security system? He did not specifically say if the camera's were turned-off and/or removed. Hmmm....

.

Just seems to me that the Carver County Sheriff wanted to pick and choose which questions they wanted to answer. I know they could not disclose very much, because it was a new investigation, but they could have at least been able to answer very basic questions, imo.

that will be part of the investigation. I don't want to comment on that right now. This is just a standard answer due to him either not knowing the status of the cameras at this point or, he was just not willing to disclose any information about it right now. Lots of questions are met with that kind of stock answer, especially at the beginning of an investigation. Nothing sinister here.

As for the cameras themselves. i don't think they were removed. They are probably still there right now. They were obviously not working or turned off however.

The way I see it - Prince was not well leading up to his death. He complained to his chef about a stomach upset. He wasn't eating properly (he was very thin) and he cancelled the original Atlanta shows "due to flu". I think he was trying to self detox and the withdrawals were playing havoc with is body. If he was constantly ill, throwing up, in the toilet and generally struggling, I can see him turning the cameras off. Afterall, security and staff have access to the footage on a daily basis. If he is hiding his attempts at withdrawal, it makes sense to turn off the things that record everything everywhere.

I imagine there have been many occasions where he has turned off the cameras and sent staff home. Being on the pull comes to mind... So having the cameras switched off and sending staff away whilst in the middle of a struggle to withdraw from opioids makes sens to me.

.

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.

fortuneandserendipity said:

laurarichardson said:

This is not a social media rumor. Charles stated in the interview that the cameras were removed.

Perhaps they were defective and being replaced but what are the chances this project was occuring while he was in Paisley Park by himself and sick. Oh and he also sent everyone home just when the cameras were being replacaaed. I am sorry too many coincendences.

No one stated this tells us anything about what transpired if true it tells us something odd was going before the event occured. Why would you think the cameras were too expensive? Prince was sitting on 40 million in cash.

[Edited 3/6/18 9:10am]

We have one source for the 'cameras were removed' tale, and that person (chazz smith) is thought by many - with half a brain - to be unreliable, not least because he was cut out of Prince's life long ago.

See Chazz interview http://prince.org/msg/15/...?&pg=3 and podcast on youtube

.

1Sasha said:

The only person who probably knows the answers to all of these questions is Kirk. And he isn't talking. Meron should know about the CCTV, but she hasn't talked, either.

.

Exactly! Kirk said he has the "vault" in his head and he's not talking and he's gonna respect Prince's privacy.

I addressed those "hypotheicals"

disch said:

I also listed 2 other possible reasons, and as I mentioned I could dream up more. They’re called “hypotheticals.” Google it. laurarichardson said:

This is what you typed.

disch said:

Maybe the cameras were too much of a hassle or expense to maintain?

I responed

fortuneandserendipity said:

laurarichardson said:

This is not a social media rumor. Charles stated in the interview that the cameras were removed.

Perhaps they were defective and being replaced but what are the chances this project was occuring while he was in Paisley Park by himself and sick. Oh and he also sent everyone home just when the cameras were being replacaaed. I am sorry too many coincendences.

No one stated this tells us anything about what transpired if true it tells us something odd was going before the event occured. Why would you think the cameras were too expensive? Prince was sitting on 40 million in cash.

[Edited 3/6/18 9:10am]

We have one source for the 'cameras were removed' tale, and that person (chazz smith) is thought by many - with half a brain - to be unreliable, not least because he was cut out of Prince's life long ago.

See Chazz interview http://prince.org/msg/15/...?&pg=3 and podcast on youtube

Did you listen to the interview?

Even if he is making this up there is no footage. What are the chances that he would die in that building on the day the cameras were not on?

IF you believe in these types of coincidences then you must believe in the Easter bunny.

[Edited 3/6/18 12:32pm]

Because he knew no footage exsisted and he is now retiring

cloveringold85 said:

Rebeljuice said:

that will be part of the investigation. I don't want to comment on that right now. This is just a standard answer due to him either not knowing the status of the cameras at this point or, he was just not willing to disclose any information about it right now. Lots of questions are met with that kind of stock answer, especially at the beginning of an investigation. Nothing sinister here.

As for the cameras themselves. i don't think they were removed. They are probably still there right now. They were obviously not working or turned off however.

The way I see it - Prince was not well leading up to his death. He complained to his chef about a stomach upset. He wasn't eating properly (he was very thin) and he cancelled the original Atlanta shows "due to flu". I think he was trying to self detox and the withdrawals were playing havoc with is body. If he was constantly ill, throwing up, in the toilet and generally struggling, I can see him turning the cameras off. Afterall, security and staff have access to the footage on a daily basis. If he is hiding his attempts at withdrawal, it makes sense to turn off the things that record everything everywhere.

I imagine there have been many occasions where he has turned off the cameras and sent staff home. Being on the pull comes to mind... So having the cameras switched off and sending staff away whilst in the middle of a struggle to withdraw from opioids makes sens to me.

.

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]

laurarichardson said:

disch said:

Ok I’ll try to explain as clearly as I can. None is us has enough information to make any sound conclusion about the reason for the lack of video surveillance footage on the night of April 20. We can imagine many, many reasons (those 3 were examples of the many possible) and because we have no facts we cannot deduce further than that. Imagining causes is thus just a silly game because without more facts, we cannot know. - It is futile to try to imagine every conceivable reason and then argue about each one here. Such an exercise would be a complete waste of all our times (well, even more of a waste of time than this thread always is). laurarichardson said:

I addressed those "hypotheicals"

correct but just one more strange thing amongst a myriad of strange shit.

laurarichardson said:

cloveringold85 said:

1Sasha said:

The only person who probably knows the answers to all of these questions is Kirk. And he isn't talking. Meron should know about the CCTV, but she hasn't talked, either.

.

Exactly! Kirk said he has the "vault" in his head and he's not talking and he's gonna respect Prince's privacy. :r

My ONE wish is to interview Kirk ONE ON ONE. I have so many questions.

Once again big ass signs state that people are being recorded. He had parties and events and would have been responsible if anything happened to anyone in that building. Do you know back in the 90s his bro ther Duane threw a women out of PP on her face and Prince was sued. He would of had to have secuirty cameras just for insurance purposes. People who worked for him in recent years have said he had security cameras.

The search warrant tells you no footage. Why would the police even care about footage that does not show his image and why would security camera not be in an elavator?

Do you realize that the process of turning the building into a museum was already under way this was going to continue to be a public space.

Broken on the day he died and possibly the same day he may have been going to rehab -- Hard to believe the chances.

Malfuctioning on the day he died and possibly the same day he may have been going to rehab -- Hard to believe the chances.

Turned off - Yes because someone wanted them off.

Removed - because someone wanted them removed.

Prince not in sight of working cameras because he did not want to be seen. If you are not hiding anything you have no reason to dodge a camera and I doubt he had cameras in the bathroom.

disch said:

We do not know that April 20 was the only day that lacks security video. We also do not know if footage exists but just doesn’t reveal anything worthwhile (ie, it shows other parts of the property but not where prince was located). To suggest that we know anything about this is false. - This is only strange if it deviates notably from a norm. We don’t know what the norm was so we can’t gauge its strangeness. laurarichardson said:

Did you listen to the interview?

Even if he is making this up there is no footage. What are the chances that he would die in that building on the day the cameras were not on?

IF you believe in these types of coincidences then you must believe in the Easter bunny.

[Edited 3/6/18 12:32pm]

[Edited 3/6/18 13:21pm]

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]

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.

fortuneandserendipity said:

laurarichardson said:

Because he knew no footage exsisted and he is now retiring

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

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.

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.

zenarose said:

Re: Cameras at Paisley Park, I do not believe that the camera system was disabled. Please don't shoot me, just hear me out. I can speak from an asset protection perspective. Logically speaking, there could have been let's say 130 + cameras inside PP. A "home/business" with all the valuables, equipment, gold bricks, ect, would be heavily insured and protected by security, private company or owner hired. By security, I mean a guard. Also, there could be a private company (outside) to monitor alarms fire and burglar. There could have been a CCTV operator on premises to operate the camera system and to monitor activity inside and outside. I'm pretty sure there was probably a camera room. It's pretty simple. There would be TV monitors and there would be x amount of cameras per monitor. There would probably be a mix of Stationary and PTZ (Pan,tilt,zoom) cameras. They can be programmed to record and retain video for up to 90 days. Now my point is that PP was more likely than not, heavily secured. With Prince being out on tour,ect common sense tells you that there was protection. The CCSO wouldn't need a search warrant to view video "inside" PP only if they removed it. It is possible that the Feds included any video in their search warrant they executed mid May 2016. We don't have access to the Federal warrants or information on their investigation. Law Enforcement doesn't have to disclose information or tell the truth. For all anyone knows, there is video but to protect that evidence or the risk of it being stolen,ect, and the media obtaining it, it is possible they lied. No way IMO, was the camera system turned off. Maybe some of the cams repositioned, but not off. Think about it.

the thing is, about a week after his death my friend, who knows someone who works for the security company that handled PP, told me that the security company had to go out to PP to "turn the security cameras back on"

Excerpts from the Chazz interview.

"Obviously when we were here and he passed. I got calls immediately and they said it was a death investigation. So immediately – i’m just trying to clear this up for sure - I didn’t think anything else but what happened to him. Something happened that wasn’t cool.

That plane, he was supposed to have died on the plane and of course my phone blew up and everybody was talking about it and some people were saying things and some people were not. But i immediately knew there was some type of bad energy that shouldn’t have been there. And I took it from there."

So his phone blew up. In other words, lots of people were calling him to ask what happened. Yeah, it would be understandable if his mind was overloaded from all the attention in the aftermath of the tragedy. Excitable but nervous tension. But he sets his stall out early. It's a death investigation, a lot of mystery to it, people are demanding answers, others giving answers, and some of those people not close to what's going on. But he was his cousin, so he knew there was bad energy and he saw it as his responsibility to take it on himself: the unofficial investigation.

"Now as far as answers, it’s still open but i’m going to tell you this. For this whole year i’ve gotten so much information from people that either played with him, worked with him, had anything to do with him from the smallest to the biggest, to the fan, to journalists that i spoke to on a huge high level, to actually people that were bodyguards that were from the nation of islam for prince [sic] and they were telling me things. They were, it was, it’s been just a... I’ve learnt so much man that I can’t even tell you."

That whole section is hilarious. He's got to have wrapped up this unofficial investigation by now! He's even got info from excitable fans, journalists that weren't allowed to take notes or tape interviews, and fundamentalist muslims, the type who frequently claim 9/11 was an inside job. ffs!

see,wierd shit

XxAxX said:

zenarose said:

Re: Cameras at Paisley Park, I do not believe that the camera system was disabled. Please don't shoot me, just hear me out. I can speak from an asset protection perspective. Logically speaking, there could have been let's say 130 + cameras inside PP. A "home/business" with all the valuables, equipment, gold bricks, ect, would be heavily insured and protected by security, private company or owner hired. By security, I mean a guard. Also, there could be a private company (outside) to monitor alarms fire and burglar. There could have been a CCTV operator on premises to operate the camera system and to monitor activity inside and outside. I'm pretty sure there was probably a camera room. It's pretty simple. There would be TV monitors and there would be x amount of cameras per monitor. There would probably be a mix of Stationary and PTZ (Pan,tilt,zoom) cameras. They can be programmed to record and retain video for up to 90 days. Now my point is that PP was more likely than not, heavily secured. With Prince being out on tour,ect common sense tells you that there was protection. The CCSO wouldn't need a search warrant to view video "inside" PP only if they removed it. It is possible that the Feds included any video in their search warrant they executed mid May 2016. We don't have access to the Federal warrants or information on their investigation. Law Enforcement doesn't have to disclose information or tell the truth. For all anyone knows, there is video but to protect that evidence or the risk of it being stolen,ect, and the media obtaining it, it is possible they lied. No way IMO, was the camera system turned off. Maybe some of the cams repositioned, but not off. Think about it.

the thing is, about a week after his death my friend, who knows someone who works for the security company that handled PP, told me that the security company had to go out to PP to "turn the security cameras back on"