Continued from the last chapter.

The next blog (on this page) suggests that the providers of the elevator video and/or the police had tampered with it:

VERY IMPORTANT UPDATE:

1) Watch the Elisa Lam elevator video (4 minute version).

2) Advance to 2:40 in the film.

3) Observe the time stamp along the bottom:

xx:23:59
xx:24:00
xx:24:01
xx:24:02
xx:24:03
xx:24:04
xx:25:00 ??
xx:25:01,02,03,04,07 (3 seconds cut),11 (4 seconds cut)

56-63 seconds are missing from this "revealed footage by the authorities." Barb, you now have your answer as to why it's so blurry. They were trying to obscure the time stamp so as to hide the fact there's a whole minute missing from the footage.

(P.S. I watched every single second of the whole video and counted to make sure this didn't happen elsewhere, and it counts normally. Someone has cut a minute out of the footage. What does it show?)

February 27, 2013 at 11:28 PM Matt said...

And even stranger:

This clip has been stretched time wise to fit 4 minutes. So essentially what's happened is this: they've cut out a minute plus, then stretched the rest to make it seem like it still lasts 4 minutes, and then reduced the quality so that you'll see a time stamp and feel the footage is legitimate, when in reality careful scrutiny will show that footage has been cut out for some reason or another.

I find this a bit disturbing.

First off, I should say that my conclusions had only 25:08 and 25:09 missing because 25:10 shows along with 25:11, but they have "four seconds cut" (i.e. not quite right). Plus, they may have missed the fact that 25:12 and 25:13 are also missing.

The blog says that there is a shorter version, of 2 minutes, 38 seconds...not showing the elevator door closing and opening. Note in the comment where the reader is asked to advance to the 2:40 minute mark in order to find problems with the numbers starting a few seconds afterward. A 2:38 version (I also see a 2:39 version) was apparently put out by the insider people doing damage control.

The quote above bothered me, so I investigated on my own. The numbers in the timestamp are not in a true blur, but rather every digit is altered to differently-arranged pixels that one can read as digits with a little familiarity. The bloggers don't mention any of this, but it's assumed they were able to spot pixel changes at every new minute. That is, when the pixel shapes for the second "2" in 22:59 changed, they realized that the timestamp had tripped over to 23:00. The pixel shapes for the first "2" remained the same. Each second of time after 23:00 shows new pixel shaping for the latter two digits. The pixels for ":01" look different than for ":02," and so on, yet the pixel for the "0" remains the same...until it trips to ":11."

They are not quite correct on their claim for 56 seconds missing in the 24th minute. In effect, all 60 seconds were removed. They spotted a pixel change in the "3" of 23:59 when one expects 24:00, but didn't take the time to get to know every pixel shape for every number. If one does, it will be learned that 21:00 follows 23:59. This suggests that the latter 56 seconds of the 24th minute were replaced by events in the 25th minute, while the first four seconds of that minute were replaced by what the camera recorded (no motion) at 21:00-21-04. It suggests that some activity on the camera within the first four seconds, though not necessarily covering each of them, was not permitted for public viewing. At the second after 21:04, it trips to 25:00 (no motion in the video), suggesting that there was some motion shortly after 21:04 that we are forbidden to see. But it gets hard to understand why they would follow 21:04 with 25:00 when there were three splices in the first 14 seconds of that 25th minute. I don't know why the bloggers mentioned two of the splices but not the third, where 25:12 and 25:13 were also missing.

My understanding is that the timestamp is not formed by the security cameras themselves, but by a central system to which all cameras are connected. The timers are susceptible, for various reasons, for being untrue to real time; it's up to the hotel to assure that the settings are in real time.

The 23:00 minute mark in the timestamp is at the 1:17 minute mark of youtube time. The longer-version video starts three or four seconds earlier so that the 23:00 point is at 1:21. You can see the "22" tripping and changing shape at 23:00. The "3" digit in pixels looks more like a square "G". Here's websites that once had the short version (these are becoming scarce, not a wonder):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zq4LmWiDiC0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4InoPpIMDUw

To get your bearings as you watch the seconds tick by, the 6 digit looks somewhat like a 6, and the 1 digit looks like a 1. For the other digits, you'll need to study the pixels (small square shapes of different shades) closely over and over again to decipher them. It took me a couple of hours but you can speed the process with these tips: the 1 digit always has a bright square near its top; the 2 digit always has two white squares (more visible in the short video) extending downward on a diagonal from around the mid-section; the 4 digit has a white Christ-like cross shape in the center; the 5 digit always has a bright square/spot near the center; the 9 digit has a black square jutting to the left of a vertical bar. The 3, 8 and 0 digits are similar in most cases and need special treatment. I'll explain these in the second chapter.

With this information, you can prove to yourself that someone spliced and altered the video, made suspicious where the video is being offered in a shorter version with all the tampered segments eliminated. If the police had a good reason for editing the video, why not just say so? Why offer a video to the public with a hatchet job visible on the timestamp, only to create more mystery as to what it might mean? Offering a video with parts removed while not informing the public is a deception. Have they done the same with Elisa's parents? That would be criminal. If they gave the full version to Elisa's family, we can be rather sure that they would have shared the entirety with the public by now. How can the police not be responsible here, since they are responsible for the pixels, and therefore have a video version with the digits showing, where the digits show as explained above, a hatchet job??? This is sick. All major false-flag operations seem to involve police departments.

Let's ask why the camera timestamp does not agree with the timestamp of the youtube video. Whereas 1:17 in youtube is at the 23:00 point, the 1:58 point is at the 23:30 point, a difference of 41 seconds transpired in youtube versus just 30 seconds in the elevator video, meaning one of the two videos are not running in real time. I'm checking right now to see whether the youtube video is in real time, as compared to the clock on my computer. Yes, it is, for when the youtube video hits 2:00 minutes, it's exactly two minutes on my computer's clock, meaning that the elevator video has been fed to us slower than the reality. Why, why why???

When the youtube video starts at 0:00, the short-version elevator videos (depending on which one) start between 22:02 and almost 22:04. At 2:00 minutes in, the elevator timestamp is at 23:32 (i.e. 1.5 minutes after starting time), a ratio of exactly 2 minutes versus 1.5 minutes, or 75% reality speed. Why was this done? Apparently, at first glance anyway, it's because roughly one out of four minutes was removed so that the video needed to be extended 25% longer to make up for it. Below is the hairy situation needing some explanation, starting at the 2:40 minute point of youtube. There is no motion after 2:29 aside from the door opening and closing; the last thing we see is Elisa's heel going off the left side of the door. Any motion snipped out after that can be reckoned as either Elisa coming back to view, or the killers coming from the right side.

2:40 = 23:58
2:41 = 23:59
2:42 = 21:00 (the '23' definitely changes to '21'; the '2' does not change at all).
2:44 = 21:01
2:47 = 21:04
2:48 = 25:00 (I thought I could see evidence of a splice at 2:48 in some slight tonal changes).

2:55 = 25:04
At 2:55, at the very start of 25:04, the '4' is just a short blip and changes to a '7', meaning that almost three seconds go missing, 24:04, 24:05 and 24:06, which follows the removal of all or part of 24:00 - 24:04.

At 2:56 (just one second after 25:04), the 25:07 changes to 25:10, suggesting at least two missing seconds there, about the time it takes for a person to walk by the elevator door.

At 2:57, it rolls to 25:11, but very quickly at the start of the latter, it changes to 25:14, missing another two seconds. The door is first seen in motion at the start of 2:58 during the latter part of 25:14, and from this point onward there doesn't appear to be further editing in the timestamp. There are four splices during what should be the 24th recorded minute, yet we are being made to watch a part of the 21st minute, and a part of the 25th minute. Do not get the impression that motion in the first seconds of the 24th recorded minute was on and off, for we never see any of the 24th recorded minute. The evidence suggests that much of the 24th minute had motion, and continuing on and off until the 25:14.

The question is why they didn't replace 24:00 with 25:00. Why did they stick the first four seconds of 21:00 immediately before running the 25th minute? Perhaps they felt they needed the extra four seconds to bring the three minutes of slowed elevator video to a perfect four minutes. The fact that they didn't let it roll naturally to 24:00 suggests that motion started at/near that second.

Did the hotel owner / manager tamper with the video, and give it to the police in this condition? Very doubtful. We shouldn't assume that the Los Angeles police wanted the video to go public, for parties urged the Los Angeles police to put it out against their will. The police did not tell the world that the 24th minute was missing. If the police had reason to believe that the motion of that minute was suspicious toward the murder, why do we not hear of prosecution or questioning of the suspicious person(s)? If the suspect(s) was cleared of guilt before arrest could take place, then the police should at least show Elisa's family what the motion entailed upon the video.

The long-version video is accessible at the link below in case it disappears from links above. There is a problem in the first door closing that alerts to yet another instance of tampering. After heavy video / timestamp tampering between 23:59 and 25:14 (just 17 seconds of youtube time), the door first closes at 25:14, and the remaining 25th minute is a set of door openings and closings on different floors; it is notable that this situation was provided by Elisa herself when she pressed four other buttons, 10, 7, 4 and M, along with 14. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TjVBpyTeZM

At 22:09 (late 0:12 youtube), Elisa can be seen pressing the door-hold button for the first time. At 23:12 (1:37 youtube), she presses at least near the door-hold button. The duration between the two times is three seconds more than one minute, of timestamp time, and the door did not close in the meantime, suggesting the door is timed to remain open for more than one minute. Here is the door-panel image again, with the door-hold button being the lowest one. The B(asement) button and the door-hold button are visible in the video as slightly-lit areas, lit only by light reflection. She seems to hit the B button at times, but to explain why it doesn't light up, it may be for staff and maintenance only. I don't think she presses the door hold as she comes near it at 1:37, but she does appear to press the B button at that time. She may again be pressing the B at 1:41, at which time there is tonal change in the picture as her hand and clothing simultaneously become more blurred. Did they remove something at 1:41?

At 1:46-47, it's difficult / impossible to tell whether she's pressing the door-hold again, though she seems to be.

If you focus on where her back meets the background, there can be seen a jerk in the picture, a missing segment, I assume, during 1:48. Just watch her left hand; it's behind her hair at the lower end of the button panel between 1:46 and 1:47. Then, at 1:49, after the jerk / edit, her hand becomes suddenly visible (from behind her hair) at the top of the button panel, as though someone cut out a portion of this scene. There is no indication from her body motion that her hand moves smoothly from bottom to top of panel. After this, at 1:50, she is back to the bottom of the panel, and ends her crusade against the buttons at that time. What did they cut out at 1:48? There is no indication in the timestamp that this segment was removed, suggesting that the timestamp had been pasted in, and is not connected to the video at this particular time.

There are 70 seconds of youtube time between 1:48 and 2:58, the latter being when the door is first seen closing. Was the door timer set for 70 seconds? This 70 seconds is compelling, not just because it's a round number (i.e. to be expected when setting the door-hold time), but because there are 70 seconds in the timestamp between the first time (22:09) that she hit the door hold and the theoretical door closing at 23:19, the latter ending at the start of 1:48 point, the time of the edit! Is that exclamation mark unwarranted? Is this merely coincidental? It can appear that the door closed both at 1:48 and 2:58, which can tend to prove that they cut out a short segment to hide the door closing at 1:48. One possible problem with this theory is if she hit the door hold prior to 1:48, but let's entertain that she did not.

This theory can reveal that the segment between her entry into the elevator and 1:47 has the timestamp running at the elevator's true time but shown to us at .75 true time. Meanwhile the second segment, beginning at 1:48, has the video running at true time. Very confusing. I've spent hours trying to wrap my head around this.

To put it another way, the timestamp runs to true time as per Elisa's watch in the elevator. There were 70 seconds on her watch, and 70 seconds on the camera's timestamp, between pressing door hold and 1:48. But as the perpetrators slowed the video (her movements were slowed down), the 70 seconds take up 95 seconds of real / youtube time. The next 70 seconds of video are shown in true time (her movements are not slowed down), and the timestamp doesn't change speed so that it still runs at .75 percent the true / youtube time. If I have this right, both the timestamp and video are slowed in the first segment, and that only the video picture is faster in the second segment.

If this theory is correct, when should we expect the second door closing if the first was at 23:19? Do we add 70 seconds to 23:19? That gets 24:29. This would be correct if the timestamp were conforming to the video camera (in the second segment). It's not conforming, in this theory. The camera and timestamp were running in conformity in the first segment (no tampering needed, just a slow-down command), but not in the second. In order to create the second segment as it is, they needed to tamper -- to separate the timestamp from the video -- then slow the timestamp, and finally tack it to the video, with the latter in normal / real time. In that case, the 70 seconds of youtube time, in the second segment, will only amount to 52.5 seconds if the timestamp is run at 75 percent true speed. If we now add 52.5 seconds to 23.19, we land on 24:11 or 24:12. There are no such numbers on the timestamp, but I'm going to assume that 24:00 to 24:14 were changed to 21:00 to 25:14 to throw us off. We can look at it in one of two ways, this being the first (youtube time on the left):

1:48 = 23:19= beginning of second segment
2:41 = 23:59
2:42 = 24:00 instead of 21:00
2:43 = 24:01 instead of 21:01
2:44 = 24:02 instead of 21:02
2:46 = 24:03 instead of 21:03
2:47 = 24:04 instead of 21:04
2:48 = 24:05 instead of 25:00
2:50 = 24:06 instead of 25:01
2:51 = 24:07 instead of 25:02
2:53 = 24:08 instead of 25:03
2:54 = 24:09 instead of 25:04
2:55 = 24:10 instead of 25:07
2:56 = 24:11 instead of 25:10
2:57 = 24:12 instead of 25:11 and 25:14 (door close)

As 25:11 is just a blip, 24: 12 extends to 25:14 (because the time stamp doesn't have 25:12 and 25:13). They may have added the five seconds, 21:00 to 21:04, so that 25:00 did not come immediately after 23:59, for then 25:00 would reflect 24:00 too much. These five seconds are counterbalanced by two things: 1) the four missing seconds, 25:05, :06, :08, and :09; and, 2) the two blips, 25:04 and 25:11, have about half their time missing, adding up to about one more second for a total of five.

The missing seconds, 25:12 and 25:13, are irrelevant because, as 24:12 and 24:13, they take place after door close. While I'm using 24:12, remember that we arrived to that figure by adding 52.5 seconds to 23:19, and that landed at 24:11.5.

The list above is identical, for all intents, as the following one that does not use 21:00 to 21:04:

1:48 = 23:21 = beginning of second segment
2:41 = 23:59
2:42 = 24:00 instead of 25:00
2:42 = 24:01 instead of 25:01
2:42 = 24:02 instead of 25:02
2:42 = 24:03 instead of 25:03
2:47 = 24:04 instead of 25:04
2:48 = 24:05 instead of 25:05
2:50 = 24:06 instead of 25:06
2:51 = 24:07 instead of 25:07
2:53 = 24:08 instead of 25:08
2:54 = 24:09 instead of 25:09
2:55 = 24:10 instead of 25:10
2:56 = 24:11 instead of 25:11
2:57 = 24:12 = door close.

I might be as much as a second off somewhere, but this is close enough to get my interest. If this theory is correct, there is no longer any reason to imagine people walking by the elevator door in the missing seconds of the early 25th minute. One can now view the purpose of those missing seconds as off-setting 21:00 - 21:04.

There is a grave problem with the theory if Elisa pressed the door hold several seconds prior to 1:48. In that case, I do not think the door would have opened at 1:48 as a result of a 70-second timer. Pressing the button at 1:41, for example, would over-ride the door-hold countdown, and start it all over again. People who need doors open for longer than 70 seconds would appreciate this feature. Pressing the door-close button would override the 70-second countdown at any time.

Look at the very-compelling math below, and in the meantime don't gloss over the impossibility of the existence of the 25th minute. The timestamp starts at 22:00 (round-number coincidence?) as the elevator door begins to open. There are to be three minutes and 14 seconds (3.23 minutes) until 25:14, if the timestamp were to be played in real time. As the entirety of the timestamp plays at .75 true speed, the duration of 3.23 minutes should be 3.23 x 1.33 = 4.3 minutes, yet there are only 2 minutes and 58 seconds (2.97 min) of youtube / real time up until 25:14. In other words, this math shows 4.3 - 2.97 = 1.33 minutes too many if it's assumed that the 24th minute existed but was deleted. The police would have spotted this problem, of course. 1.33 minutes is 1 minute, 20 seconds. As there is only the 24th minute missing from the timestamp, why does the math show the extra 20 seconds too many? I don't know. I can't figure that out. But here is what I do know, that if 25:14 was really 24:14, the 3.23 minutes would become 2.23. Re-doing the math with that figure, we get: 2.23 x 1.33 = 2.97! Perfect. For, as 2 minutes and 58 seconds is 2.97 minutes, the rest of the math now works to 2.97 - 2.97 = 0.0 minutes too many. To verify the math, 2.97 x .75 = 2.23. To do it in reverse, 2.23 x 1.33 = 2.97 (whenever you want to know how long a segment at .75 speed would be in true time, multiply by 1.333)."

Here is what I think may have happened. I can see no reason that they would have wanted the door to close at 1:48. Elisa was scripted to press all the buttons in the center row when she first walked in. She was then to return before 70 seconds had transpired and hit a whack of the same buttons, but she got the door-hold button mixed up with the basement button. On account of this, she didn't over-ride the 70-second timer, and the door started to close on her. In a panic, she would have hit the B button again, but seeing that it didn't keep the door from closing all the more, she hit the button below the B, and that was the hold button that she had been missing until then. It may have taken her a second to do all that, and so they may have needed to delete one second of video to hide the door closing.

It is unexpected of a normal person, not acting a script, to be having a fit at the buttons while no other buttons light up. She does not appear to be hitting any of the outer buttons either to the right or left of the center column. She is always hitting on the middle column, but those buttons were already lit up. As this makes no sense at all, the perpetrators probably had the purpose of hitting the door-hold button while disguising it as a fit at the buttons. It's not a brilliant script, that's for sure. The childishness of this event, if that's the appropriate term, suggests that she is not doing a great acting job, if that's what she was doing to make the viewer believe that she's frustrated with the elevator malfunctioning.

It crossed my mind that the Black-Water people, or something related in the California movie industry, got her to do an acting job for the elevator camera, telling her that they would fake her death, then watch "the movie" together in the hotel lobby / office to see how well she performed. But instead of faking her death, they killed her in the 24th minute while on camera. That is a years-old theory. But this requires that they removed the entire 24th minute. However, there were supposedly no markings on her body to indicate a violent death. But then how did she die? Was it really from drowning? Imagine the difficulty of trying to get a conscious woman into that tank to have her drown in it. The killer(s) would have used an easier method, either making her unconscious, or ending her life, before climbing to the tank. The report that she drowned may be a fabrication complicit with the police.

At the start of 2:58, the door is seen instantly closed about eight inches of distance without the door sliding along for that distance. It means that a short piece of video, about one second long, is missing. Why? One might at first think it's related to the missing seconds of 25:12 and 25:13. But don't be fooled. In the first part of 25:14, the door has not yet begun to close. There are two ways to explain this. One, they spliced a segment that either ended at, or began from, midway through 25:14. Two, there was no splice, and they decided to remove about a second of video.

It takes about four timestamp seconds for the door to close completely, suggesting nine inches of travel per second on a three-foot door. I've paused the video several times in the first half of 25:14, and then double-clicked the pause button fast to make the video proceed by fractions of a second on each double click. Never does the door appear, after a double click, two, four or six inches open, but always about eight or more before 25:14 rolls over to 25:15. So, yes, about one second goes missing. This might be important if my theory above is not the truth, and if the missing segments between 21:00 and 25:14 had the motive of removing motion / people. Perhaps there was a body part visible just as the door began to close. Perhaps they had someone reach in to push the door-close button, and not being able to get the arm drawn back in time, they needed to delete a second.

The total duration that 25:14 remains in view (on the timestamp) is less than a typical second on the timestamp. Although it's almost a full second, the fact is that it's not. If they first made the video, adding a splice during 25:14, and then pasted a timestamp over the video so that 24:14 covers both sides of the splice, we would expect 25:14 to be a full second. Under the condition that they spliced anything at all at 25:14, the fact that it is not a full second suggests that they pasted the timestamp to the segment that was splice in, whether they added a segment ending at 25:14, or starting from it.

If the timestamp were true to an unspliced video both before and after 25:14, where they simply deleted a second of video, the first part of 25:14 would not have shown after the deletion. In that case, they would need to paste in the timestamp for first part of the 14th second, to hide the splice. Unfortunately, the ability to paste timestamps and timestamp segments over a video leaves questions on what they actually did here. On top of this, there is the possibility that the missing second was due to a motion-sensing camera, taking a full second to start recording once it detects motion. Such a camera stops taping when there is no motion for a certain period of time. However, in these days, it's hard to believe that a full second is required to get the camera taping. It would be as instant as the speed of electricity, wouldn't it?

An argument that may discredit the use of a motion-activated camera is when the elevator door first opens at the start of the video. The door can be seen to open gradually from first to last, with no indication of a missed second due to the kick-in time needed for a motion-activated camera.

"Many people have said that a DOOR HOLD button shouldn't keep a door open that long. I think they are wrong. First evidence is the Chinese boys who traveled to the Cecil to investigate. They confirmed that the door stays open for exactly two minutes."
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8972205

How do we know that the insiders didn't put that online? Since writing the above, I was led to a website claiming that the door was timed to hold for about one minute. The writer is a serious investigator, whom, I think, is a private investigator as per his occupation. "The button she pressed on the bottom to reopen the door was the 'Hold Door' button which will cause the door to hold open for approximately 1 minute (Brainscratch)." Apparently, Brainscratch says "approximately," not exactly one minute.
https://plexus-pi.com/news/mysterious-death-of-elisa-lam/

If my 70-second theory is correct, the numbers -- the way that 25:00 - 25:14 lines up with 24:00 - 24:14 -- suggest that the video contuinues virtually unchanged into the 24th minute, and right up to the door closing. My inclination would therefore be to view the sudden closed door (by eight inches) as a deletion of a second rather than from a splice. If the door closed naturally as per the door timer, then we wouldn't imagine an arm reaching round into the elevator to press the door close in the missing second. Was there some human body part visible in some other manner? If the second was deliberately removed (not accidental / sloppy), I'd say, yes. One second is probably not enough for Elisa to walk straight across the door. If her script included not coming on camera again, then we may assume that the one second was removed due to her killer(s) coming into view. In that case, why can't we imagine that they were on camera for some of the missing seconds, 25:05, :06, :08, :09, :12 and :13?

Earlier, I argued, probably too hastily, that these missing seconds were deleted to make up for the addition of 21:00 - 21:04. But maybe it was the other way around, that the pieces above were first removed, and then 21:00-04 was added to make up for them. However, if they wanted to get caught with a suspicious video, all they had to do was add 21:00-04, and remove some seconds shortly afterward. How could they have been so irresponsible? Maybe they were not. If one or more people were crossing the elevator door in the missing segments, why couldn't they have waited a few seconds longer until the door closed? In other words, was it part of the script to remove these seconds to make it appear that they cut across the door?

Let's take this from the top, where the video was handed to the police in the condition that we see it. This is what's pegging the police as complicit with the crime (unless the police, rather than the hotel, edited the video ). If the police were not involved with the crime, they would have spotted the video manipulations, and would be expected to go all the way to prosecution (against the hotel) with such a video. By the way the video sits, regardless of my 24:00 = 25:00 theory, the police need to treat the 25th minute as true, and therefore need to treat the video with a missing 24th minute, at which time the abduction of Elisa could have taken place before the camera. If the police department does not act appropriately toward this situation, it becomes suspicious.

If the police created the edits, we'd like to know why. They might claim that they slowed the video to give the public a better view of Elisa, yet this doesn't answer for the deletion of the 24th minute. Are we going to argue that the police added the 25th minute and moreover removed the 24th? Not me. It seems certain enough that such a thing was at the hotel end.

If nothing happened in the 24th minute, there would not have been reason to change it to the 25th, if indeed that's the whole of what the video represents. How can we explain that someone wanted to change the 24th to the 25th? Was it purely to make the viewer deeply suspicious of something toward the murder appearing on video? Isn't that self-condemning? If that doesn't seem like a very smart thing to do, there is a good argument for their snipping out 24:05, :06, then 24:08 and :09, followed by most of :11 as well as :12 and :13. It's as though three people walked across the camera, or perhaps less than three people but three times in one direction or the other. And then there was a one-second snip at 24:14 as the door started to close. The problem here is that, if the hotel handed the police this video, with the snipped seconds, it was again self-damning. One explanation is that the police chief, or someone still higher, was a very good friend or partner with someone at the hotel who had access to this video to the point of being able to alter it. This is the biggest part of this story. Perhaps the police believed that no one would decipher the pixels.

Another explanation is that there never was a 24th minute due to the camera shutting off due to inactivity. The second-last motion occurs at the start of 2:29 (Elisa's feet move off view), and the next motion, the door closing, occurs 29 seconds later at 2:58. The difference between the two events is 23:50 versus 25:14 (84 seconds) on the timestamp. If there was inactivity shortly after Elisa leaves the scene, it can explain the large jump of 84 seconds where the camera only recorded 29 of them. But if inactivity is all that happened, why did the hotel or police mess with the timestamp numbers?

If it was possible to paste in a timestamp, they would not have used the snips. They would have simply allowed the time to run normally from 25:00 through 24:14. This seemingly argues for their inability to paste in the timestamp. One may argue the same where they have 21:00 - 21:04; the best they could do was splice in that part of the video rather than paste in a segment of timestamp. But then how do we explain that most of 25:14 exists while that second is expected not to show at all, because the elevator door's position at the start of 25:15 tends to demand that all of 24:14 was snipped out. If they had the ability to paste timestamp segments, then the botched timestamp looks like a nervy game being played on the public by people who can fool around confidently with an event so dire that it involved a gruesome murder. It could appear that these people had done this sort of thing before. If we deny that the hotel was this nervy, then blame for the botched timestamp falls to the police.

It dawned to compare the lit buttons. The same buttons should not have been lit at 21:00 as they were lit after Elisa pressed them shortly after 22:00. It turns out that, as the video crosses the 21:00 point, and even after it leaves the 21:04 point, there is no change to the button panel, meaning they pasted in the timestamp (without changing the video) for the period of 24:00 to 24:04. This one paragraph alone is sufficient to begin prosecution against the hotel, if the police had a mind to, They obviously did not. Proof of tampering with a video showing Elisa on her last night alive is cause for prosecution. But the police didn't even make light of this?

The button panels shows best when the door is fully closed. As the door opens on the 10th floor, the light on the 10 button goes out. As the door opens on the 7th floor, the 7 button dims.

The 14th floor was filled with apartments, not hotel rooms: "For example if you take a look at 14th floor, there are only 15 room numbers that are used by 47 persons in long-time accommodation. At 15th floor 20 room numbers with 44 people staying." Why was Elisa up in this apartment area?

The next chapter finds a Russian who inadvertently finds (my discovery, not his) that .666 of a second is removed in the first snip.