Las Vegas Shooting Officer Statements Challenge LVMPD “Single Shooter” Narrative

Laura Loomer Uncovers Court Docs That Blows The Lid Off Vegas Massacre’s Official Story

Laura Loomer is a conservative investigative journalist and activist. Originally from Arizona,

Laura began her career working as an undercover journalist for Project Veritas from 2015-2017.   –

She covers politics, anti-Semitism, immigration, terrorism, the Islamification of the West, and voter fraud.

Loomer’s investigations have been broadcasted on every major national mainstream media outlet in the United States, as well as many international publications.


Documents released on Thursday from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department LVMPD point to multiple shooters and a contaminated crime scene in an already controversial investigation into the Las Vegas shooting over a year ago.

The LVMPD released 18 voluntary statements made by officers who responded to the shooting in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017. One of the documents that stood out from the rest was the sworn statement of Sergeant William Matchko (P#8525), document #11, in which he states the LVMPD knew of multiple shooters who they planned to wiretap after they discovered Stephen Paddock’s dead body in a suspected suicide.

In what is a routine procedure, officers are often asked to give a statement very soon after an event, commonly referred to as a witness officer interview. Matchko’s interview was conducted by the LVMPD –  Force Investigation Team on October 3, 2017, at 6:40 PM, just two days after the Las Vegas shooting.

Matchko got to Mandalay Bay shortly after the shooting had stopped but joined the teams who eventually made their way into the room over an hour after the last shots were fired. Before the breach of room 32-135 at the Mandalay Bay hotel, the reported location where the shooting reportedly took place, he was overlooking the men who were making their way down the 100 wings towards 32-135.

In Sergeant Matchko’s statement, he described how upon entering room 32-135, he immediately realized that alleged Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock had been dead for a long time prior to SWAT entering the room.

“So I go in there. Um, and I could see the suspect laying on the ground and the blood had started to, ah– started to coagulate by his head. So it appears that based on the time I didn’t–there–I didn’t think it– it looked like there was no way that the gunshots that we did from the time frame based on the blood coagulating like they shot him. You know, when I looked at him I immediately thought to myself this guy has been dead for more than the time we’ve been in this room.”

On January 30, 2018, a series of police search warrant documents regarding the Las Vegas shooting were unsealed by a Nevada judge. One of the documents unsealed details a search warrant request from 3:02 a.m. on Oct. 2, in which Sergeant Jerry MacDonald, the sergeant who sought the search warrant and also helped author the preliminary investigative report, said officers witnessed Paddock kill himself.

“As SWAT officers breached room 135, they observed Stephen Paddock place a gun to his head and fire one round.”

MacDonald’s statement in that initial warrant request was the first warrant request he authored after the Vegas shooting.

However, According to an investigative report released by LVMPD on Jan. 19, the 10-minute shooting spree ended at 10:18 p.m. on Oct. 1.

At 11:20 p.m., LVMPD SWAT and members of the Strike team entered room 32-135 and *found* Paddock dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Not only does Sergeant Matchko’s statement directly contradict LVMPD Sheriff Joe Lombardo’s claim that Paddock killed himself just moments before SWAT entered the suite at Mandalay Bay, but it also contradicts claims made by Sergeant Jerry MacDonald, in which he stated that officers witnessed Paddock commit suicide.

On that night, police say Paddock, 64, opened fire from his 32nd-floor suite at the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino onto a crowd gathered at a country music festival, killing 58 people and injuring over 800 more. LVMPD and the FBI have still not provided a motive for the shooting, remaining adamant that Paddock was a “lone wolf”.

Further examination of Sergeant Matchko’s statement also challenges claims made by Lombardo and the FBI that Paddock was a lone wolf shooter.

Matchko stated and emphasized that “there’s a million other active shooters” at the time officers found Paddock’s dead body inside suite 32-135 at the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino.

“They go in, they say, “We’re gonna blow this other door.” “Um, as they walk into the room, mind you on the radio there’s a million other active shooters being called out in all these other hotels. They put the second charge on the door. Um, they blow the door. As soon as that I hear the second explosion now the fire alarm goes off again and I hear the (unintelligible). I hear the what sound like a burst fire but it was very muffled. So it sounded like two or three rounds went off. And I’m – I’m down there I’m trying to make my way through the room I’m like, okay, I was like, “Did the suspect shoot at us? Did we shoot the suspect, are we in a gunfight, what’s going on,” and they were all pretty calm. So they all seemed a little bit like embarrassed. And I guess one of – O’Donnell or one of them had a negligent or accidental discharge I don’t know what the proper term would be.”

Matchko ‘s statement continues:

“Look, you guys are gonna stay here with me. We’re gonna work on Intel gathering and we’re gonna work on, you know, preserve this crime scene.” And I told the rest of the guys to get your shit and go to the New York New York ’cause the New York New York had two active shooters called in at the same time at that very moment.”

The night of the shooting, Matchko received a call from Captain Tomiano who he says told him:

“Hey, you need to go in there and you need to be looking for his (Paddock’s) ID and look for anything that we can get to gather intelligence under exigent circumstances to prevent the rest of these shooters.
We need to figure out who the rest of these shooters are because we’re gonna try to go up on wiretaps on the phones.” So he’s like, “Go in there, get any phones that you can. Get the phone numbers off of ’em and start figuring it out.” He radios back “Look, well I don’t know if he has his phone on him, I’m gonna have to move him,” and they’re like, “Well you gotta move him, you gotta look for the phone, you gotta find it.””

Not only does Matchko’s statement mention that there were multiple shooters, but his statement also recalls an order from Captain Tomiano who told him they needed to “prevent the rest of these shooters. We need to figure out who the rest of these shooters are” because the LVMPD wanted to put “wiretaps on the phones”.

Along with numerous statements about multiple shooters, Matchko’s statement also confirms LVMPD officers intentionally tampered with the initial crime scene upon entering room 32-135, with orders from Captain Tomiano to move Paddock’s body.

“And then we found his main phone – well, no, we – we rolled him – so I grabbed him by the arm. I picked the suspect up on his side. The blood came out of his mouth when out next to his face.” “I rolled him back he was obviously dead ’cause he had a bullet in his head. So I put him back down, he went back in the same position but now the blood on the side of his face is from me rolling him. Um, he had nothing on him.”


Matchko’s statement suggests Paddock had no blood on his face before Matchko touched him. Is this also when the blood fell onto Paddock’s shirt making it appear as though he was shot in the chest? There is no mention of any of this in the preliminary or final FIT reports released by LVMPD, which begs the question, what other pertinent crime scene information or details pertaining to the shooting was left out of the LVMPD report?

The official narrative is given by the LVMPD and the FBI for the night of the shooting has not wavered for over a year. Along with insisting Paddock was the only shooter, authorities also have refrained from identifying this crime as an act of terrorism (despite the fact that ISIS has claimed responsibility for the Vegas shooting), and they have refused to elaborate on the many officer statements and call logs that show Paddock was not alone in the room and reports of active shooters were called in after Paddock’s alleged suicide.

Sheriff Lombardo of the LVMPD has refused to give further interviews or press conferences related to the event or address the new information released under the court order, which continues to be released but unreported.

Lombardo has also issued a ban on department employees speaking to the press about the new information. This ban prevents members of the media or the public from confirming any steps taken that may explain some of the discrepancies between the official police timeline and the new information in the documents.

Sheriff Lombardo was challenged on the initial timeline at a live press conference based on evidence to support an earlier check-in date of September 25, 2017, and only then after being confronted on live TV did he provide the correct details. Over one year later and similarly, new information that proves Lombardo misinformed the public in the aftermath of the shooting continues to be released.

Despite being banned from the LVMPD press conferences by Lombardo’s orders, investigative journalist Laura Loomer continues to challenge the official narrative and timeline of the Vegas shooting. So far the document dump, reported on exclusively by Loomer, showed the alleged gunman, Stephen Paddock, warned an Uber driver of a “terrorist attack” at the Mandalay Bay days before the shooting, his bank account had been frozen due to suspicions of funding terrorism, three other women were registered to his hotel room, Mandalay Bay security stated in a call that there were multiple shooters, and Paddock’s girlfriend had ISIS connections on Facebook.

It’s been over a year since the Las Vegas shooting and we still have no answers and are seeing almost zero media coverage about the Las Vegas shooting, the worst mass shooting in US history. Despite being the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, the American public has received little to no information regarding how an alleged lone gunman amassed an arsenal of weaponry, ammunition, and equipment without detection or help, and what motivated the act of mass murder.

As new evidence and police documents regarding the shooting continue to be released over a year later, the mystery surrounding the shooting and the theories regarding multiple shooters continues to grow with statement’s like Matchko’s, which casts further doubt on whether or not Paddock truly was a lone shooter and how long he was dead before officers entered the room.

What else is the LVMPD hiding, and how come they are only now releasing these shocking officer statements over a year after the Las Vegas shooting?

LVMPD did not reply to a request for comment regarding their sergeant’s statement about multiple shooters and crime scene contamination.



California: It’s illegal to bury people in San Francisco.

Burying the dead has been illegal in San Francisco since 1901. Because space was limited and real estate at a premium even back then, the city outlawed burials and moved all cemeteries to neighboring Colma, CA. Currently, the dead in that city outnumber the living by a ratio of 1,000 to 1.

State AG: PG&E could face murder charges

PG&E could be exposed to potential criminal charges as serious as murder in the deaths of 86 people during last month’s Camp Fire

Power company PG&E could be exposed to potential criminal charges as serious as murder in the deaths of 86 people during last month’s Camp Fire, if the utility is found responsible for “recklessly” causing the fire to burn.

That revelation came in a brief from the California attorney general’s office, which was asked by a federal judge to weigh in on the potential for criminal charges in the fire—the deadliest and most destructive fire in California history.

The official cause of the Camp Fire is still under investigation, but the first flames spotted by fire crews were located directly beneath an active PG&E high-tension power line about eight miles from the town of Paradise.

Forty thousand people lived in the town and the ridge around it. Almost all of the community’s homes and businesses were lost. Most of the 86 people killed were found dead in their homes or outside on foot, though some lost their lives when their cars burned during evacuations.

Many in the fire’s path said they had no warning that the flames were coming, spread by hot embers carried in high winds.



The attorney general’s brief stresses that its brief is not a preview of pending charges, but rather an outline of what charges could be possible under California law depending on the findings of the investigation into the fire’s cause.

“Ordinary negligence” would not be enough to convict PG&E of a crime at all, the brief says.

But if a jury finds “criminal negligence” or “recklessness” on the part of PG&E, the company could be charged with any of four possible criminal violations:

  1. Failing to clear vegetation from a power line or pole (misdemeanor)
  2. Starting a wildfire (felony)
  3. Involuntary manslaughter (felony)
  4. Implied-malice murder (felony)

The brief cautions that even if PG&E were found responsible for causing the fire, any potential criminal liability would depend on the “mental state” of the company.

“If PG&E caused any of the fires, the investigation would have to extend into PG&E’s operations, maintenance, and safety practices to determine whether criminal statutes were violated,” the attorney general’s office wrote. “This brief expresses no position on any such factual questions.”

A home burns in the Paradise area during the Camp Fire. When it burned down the town of Paradise, the Camp Fire became the deadliest and most destructive wildfire in California history.

Lawyers representing victims and survivors of the Camp Fire have already filed multiple civil lawsuits seeking damages for the death and destruction cause by the fire.

PG&E has warned investors that it does not have enough insurance coverage to pay those damages if it is found liable for causing the fire.

In a written statement to ABC10 on Friday night PG&E did not directly address the potential for criminal charges, saying that it was focused on “assessing our infrastructure to further enhance safety and helping our customers continue to recover and rebuild.”


The brief from the attorney general’s office was requested by the federal judge overseeing PG&E’s felony probation.

In 2016, PG&E was convicted of multiple federal felonies after the deadly 2010 San Bruno gas pipeline explosion. The convictions included five counts of willfully skirting federal pipeline safety laws and attempting to obstruct the federal investigation into the disaster.

As a result, PG&E was fined, sentenced to 10,000 hours of community service and put on five years of probation. If the company commits another crime during that time, it would violate their probation.


That’s why Federal Judge William Alsup asked for the state attorney general to weigh in on whether “reckless operation or maintenance of PG&E power lines would constitute a crime under California law.”

As part of its sentence for the felonies, PG&E also was required to accept a court-ordered monitor. Rather than something like an ankle monitor to track its location, PG&E’s monitor is a human being named Mark Filip—a former federal judge assigned to keep an eye how PG&E’s compliance with federal laws and the court’s rulings.

Alsup also ordered answers to a list of questions about the fire from the monitor, PG&E, and the federal prosecutors in the San Bruno case.

Among the answers the judge demanded is “an accurate and complete statement of the role, if any, of PG&E in causing and reporting” the Camp Fire and any other wildfires that have occurred in California since PG&E’s felony judgement.

Those answers are due New Year’s Eve.


Harvard University Study Reveals Astonishing Link Between Firearms, Crime and Gun Control

According to a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which cites the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation, the more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity.

In other words, more firearms, less crime, concludes the virtually unpublicized research report by attorney Don B. Kates and Dr. Gary Mauser. But the key is firearms in the hands of private citizens.

“The study was overlooked when it first came out in 2007,” writes Michael Snyder, “but it was recently re-discovered and while the findings may not surprise some, the place where the study was undertaken is a bit surprising. The study came from the Harvard Journal of Law, that bastion of extreme, Ivy League liberalism. Titled Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?, the report “found some surprising things.”

The popular assertion that the United States has the industrialized world’s highest murder rate, says the Harvard study, is a throwback to the Cold War when Russian murder rates were nearly four times higher than American rates. In a strategic disinformation campaign, the U.S. was painted worldwide as a gun slinging nightmare of street violence – far worse than what was going on in Russia. The line was repeated so many times that many believed it to be true. Now, many still do.

Today violence continues in Russia – far worse than in the U.S. – although the Russian people remain virtually disarmed. “Similar murder rates also characterize the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and various other now-independent European nations of the former U.S.S.R.,” note Kates and Mauser . Kates is a Yale-educated criminologist and constitutional lawyer. Dr. Mauser is a Canadian criminologist at Simon Fraser University with a Ph.D. from the University of California Irvine. “International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error.”

By the early 1990s, Russia’s murder rate was three times higher than that of the United States. Thus, “in the United States and the former Soviet Union transitioning into current-day Russia,” say Kates and Mauser, “homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce, other weapons are substituted in killings.”

“There is a compound assertion that guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why the United States has by far the highest murder rate,” report Kates and Mauser. “Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated,” the statement “is, in fact, false.”

Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark, which have high rates of gun ownership, have low murder rates. On the other hand, in Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, the murder rate is nine times higher than Germany. Their source of information? The United Nations’ International Study on Firearms Regulation, published by the UN’s Economic and Social Council and the United Nations Commission on Crime-Prevention and Criminal Justice.

When Kates and Mauser compared England with the United States, they found “’a negative correlation,’ that is, ‘where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest.’ There is no consistent significant positive association between gun ownership levels and violence rates.”

In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released an evaluation from its review of existing research. After reviewing 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and its own original empirical research, it failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents, note Kates and Mauser.

“The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control,” write Kates and Mauser. “Armed crime, never a problem in England, has now become one. Handguns are banned but the Kingdom has millions of illegal firearms. Criminals have no trouble finding them and exhibit a new willingness to use them. In the decade after 1957, the use of guns in serious crime increased a hundredfold. In the late 1990s, England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban of all handguns and many types of long guns. Hundreds of thousands of guns were confiscated from those owners law-abiding enough to turn them in to authorities.” But crime increased instead of decreasing.

Ignoring these realities, gun control advocates have cited England, as the cradle of our liberties, as “a nation made so peaceful by strict gun control that its police did not even need to carry guns,” write Kates and Mauser. “The United States, it was argued, could attain such a desirable situation by radically reducing gun ownership, preferably by banning and confiscating handguns.”

Somehow, it goes unreported that “despite constant and substantially increasing gun ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions in criminal violence,” write Kates and Mauser. “On the other hand, the same time period in the United Kingdom saw a constant and dramatic increase in violent crime to which England’s response was ever-more drastic gun control. Nevertheless, criminal violence rampantly increased so that by 2000 England surpassed the United States to become one of the developed world’s most violence-ridden nations.

“Gun owners across America reading this right now will say: ‘Well, duh!’” writes Michael Snyder. Even so, the California state legislature recently approved $24 million to expedite the confiscation of 40,000 handguns and assault weapons purchased legally, according to the Huffington Post. Gun registration records are being used to seize those California guns from owners who legally purchased and registered the guns – but who the state of California has now decided pose a risk to public safety.

“We are fortunate in California to have the first and only system in the nation that tracks and identifies individuals who at one time made legal purchases of firearms but are now barred from possessing them,” said Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco).

Senator Leno’s measure utilizes $24 million from Dealer Record of Sale funds. That account holds fees collected during any transfer or sale of a firearm in California. Assemblyman Brian Jones (R-Santee) voted against the measure because he said the fees were intended to cover background checks – not underwrite confiscations, the Huffington Post noted.

“What we are seeing is ideology in collision with reality” writes Terry Roberts in California’s North Coast Journal newspaper. Confiscations are being made for all the wrong reasons, he says. “Recent mass shootings were all in places that were ‘gun free zones.’ The theater in Colorado was the only theater out of seven in the near vicinity of the shooter with ‘no firearms allowed’ posted outside. Ditto, for the other mass shootings. They were all in ‘gun free zones.’”

“Where have the worst school shootings occurred?” writes John Lott. “Contrary to public perception, Western Europe. The very worst occurred in a school in Erfurt, Germany in 2002, where 18 were killed. The second worst took place in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996, where 16 kindergarteners and their teacher were shot. The third worst high school attack, with 15 murdered, happened in Winnenden, Germany.” The fourth worst? Columbine.

“Most often, the mere presence of a firearm is enough to stop criminal activity in its tracks,” writes Scott Bach, president of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs. “To the woman whose clothes are about to be torn from her body by a knife-wielding rapist in a deserted parking lot, a handgun in the purse is a lifeline. It is a genuine equalizer that may mean the difference between her life and her death. It gives her a chance when she otherwise would have none.”

“Criminologists of all political persuasions, in over a dozen studies,” writes Bach, “estimate that firearms are used for protection against criminals several hundred thousand to 2.5 million times per year, often without a shot fired. This is a staggering statistic, but it’s not one you are likely to hear on the evening news. Why is it that you don’t hear about the homeowner who defended his family before the police could arrive; or the shopkeeper who saved his own life and the lives of his customers; or the woman who stopped her own rape and murder; or the teacher who stopped the school shooting?”

“Yet when a single criminal goes on a rampage, that’s all you hear about, over and over and over again, along with angry cries to ban firearms,” writes Bach. “Why? A study by the Media Research Center concluded media coverage of firearms is overwhelmingly biased. In a recent period, “television networks collectively aired 514 anti-gun stories, to a mere 46 that were pro-firearm, a ratio of more than 11-to-1 against firearms.”

“And did you know that there is now an official propaganda manual that has been put out for gun control advocates?” asks Snyder. “This manual actually encourages gun control advocates to emotionally exploit major shooting incidents to advance the cause of gun control.” It’s a how-to manual on manipulating the public’s emotions toward gun control in the aftermath of a major shooting.

“A high-profile gun-violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence,” asserts the guide, an 80-page document titled “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging,” “We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence.” It also urges gun-control advocates use images of frightening-looking guns and shooting scenes to make their point.

“The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak,” the guide insists. “The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts.” In other words, they time their propaganda carefully. Just when it will alarm you the most.”

“We are only being told one side of the story,” notes Bach. “When we hear only one side, we assume that what we are told is all there is to know, and we do not inquire further.” The reality is that criminals “really, really, really don’t want to get shot,” writes Snyder. “When you pass strict gun control laws, you take the fear of getting shot away and criminals tend to flourish.”

In some American cities, “where strict gun control laws have been passed,” writes Snyder, “police are so overwhelmed that they have announced that they simply won’t even bother responding to certain kinds of crime anymore. The truth is that the government cannot protect us adequately, and that is one reason why millions are arming themselves and gun sales have been setting new records year after year.”

Little-Known Gun Facts:

1)Over the past 20 years, gun sales have absolutely exploded, but homicides with firearms are down 39 percent during that time and “other crimes with firearms” are down 69 percent.

2)  Almost every mass shooting that has occurred in the United States since 1950 has taken place in a state with strict gun control laws. With just one exception, every public mass shooting in the USA since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns.

3)  The United States is Number 1 in the world in gun ownership, and yet it is only 28th in the world in gun murders per 100,000 people.

4) The violent crime rate in the United States actually fell from 757.7 per 100,000 in 1992 to 386.3 per 100,000 in 2011. During that same time period, the murder rate fell from 9.3 per 100,000 to 4.7 per 100,000.

5) Overall, guns in the United States are used 80 times more often to prevent crime than they are to take lives.

6) Despite the very strict ban on guns in the UK, the overall rate of violent crime in the UK is about 4 times higher than it is in the United States.

7) In one recent year, there were 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the UK.

8) In the United States, there were only 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people during that same year. Do we really want to be more like the UK?

9) The UK has approximately 125 percent more rape victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does.

10) The UK has approximately 133 percent more assault victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does. UK has the fourth highest burglary rate in the EU.

11) The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.

12) Down in Australia, gun murders increased by about 19 percent and armed robberies increased by about 69 percent after a gun ban was instituted.

13) The city of Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States. So has this reduced crime? The murder rate in Chicago was about 17 percent higher in 2012 than it was in 2011, and Chicago is now considered to be “the deadliest global city,”

14) After the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring every home to have a gun, the crime rate dropped by more than 50 percent over the course of the next 23 years and there was an 89 percent decline in burglaries.

15) According to Gun Owners of America, the governments of the world slaughtered more than 170 million of their own people during the 20th century. The vast majority of those people had been disarmed by their own governments. Why? It wasn’t to stop crime.