Thread by @fishinabarrel1

Could "____ as ____" be an accomplice? #LasVegasShooting

PDF 17, pages 13 & 14 are the statement of Officer K. Parenteau, who from the time he arrived on-scene until he was released at 5:40am the morning of 10/2, had the duty of calling back people who had called 9-1-1 and may have more information.

One of the people he called back was Marilou Danley's ex-brother-in-law, who had called to give the police the phone # of someone he obviously thought might be involved. For some reason, he must have immediately thought of this person when he saw the news, and called in the tip.

Here's what Parenteau wrote:

The timing is important. This report was filed on 10/6 at 11:45am. The calls to this person of interest which went unreturned began 4 days earlier on 10/2. By 10/6 when the report was filed, this person was apparently a known entity based on the way Parenteau referred to him.

It's not Marilou whose number he gave, because it's a "he". And he doesn't bother explaining the relevance of this person, which implies it was already well-known to the investigation by 10/6. He simply says, "provided a phone number for ____ as ____."

That part was a puzzle, but I think I solved it. In fact, I think I have all of the redactions figured out, even the guy's phone #. I'm not going to post any names, though, because I think Twitter frowns on that kind of thing. But I will tell you this…

It's solvable with information that's already in the public domain and indexed on Google. And the "____ as ____" is the only part that really matters, so here's my big tip: The reason for the "as" is because an alias is involved. Happy hunting! :D

@ThreadReaderAp_ unroll