5 mysteries in NY shooting after gunman crossed US to storm Manhattan office & kill 4 – but spare woman leaving elevator
The lone gunman carrying a semi-automatic rifle brazenly walked into a skyscraper less than a mile away from Times Square to launch a bloodbath that rocked the city overnight.
13
13
13
13
The shooter was named as Shane Tamura, 27, by NYC Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch.
Tamura attacked 345 Park Avenue on East 52nd Street between Park Avenue and Lexington Avenue at about 6.30pm (11.30pm BST) on Monday.
He stormed the high-profile office block, sprayed the lobby with gunfire and killed four people including an off-duty police officer.
A fifth victim, who was critically injured and is understood to be an NFL employee, remains at New York-Presbyterian Hospital, officials said.
Emergency responders desperately tried to save those shot, and a bloodied victim was seen being carried along a street while others tended to a person lying on the ground outside.
Hundreds were left running for their lives as they desperately tried to flee the horror.
Cops responded with counter-terrorism units, a bomb squad, and a heavy weapons team.
As an investigation into the shooting rampage continues, several key details have emerged that deepen the mystery of the shooter.
Why did the gunman travel across four states?
Tamura, 27 and a Las Vegas resident, travelled cross-country to carry out the shooting right in the heart of Manhattan.
According to the New York Police Department (NYPD), Tamura started from Las Vegas, and then his car travelled through Colorado on July 26.
He then travelled through Nebraska and Iowa on July 27, and was seen in Columbia, New Jersey, on July 28.
The vehicle entered New York City shortly thereafter, before he reached Manhattan.
He then double-parked his BMW, got inside the building and massacred four people before turning the gun on himself.
A photo obtained by the New York Post appeared to show Tamura - who went to high school in California - had a concealed firearms permit.
Why did he choose a high-profile skyscraper?
Tamura stormed the 345 Park Avenue office building - right in the heart of Manhattan - to carry out his shooting rampage.
The 634-foot skyscraper - owned by Rudin management - houses several financial firms, including Blackstone, Deutsche Bank, and KPMG.
It also houses the NFL headquarters and the office of the Consulate General of Ireland.
Rudin is one of the largest privately owned real estate companies in New York City.
13
Tamura took the elevator to the 33rd floor which was occupied by the landlord's office.
He then "began to walk the floor, firing as he travelled' and killed one more man, Tisch said.
Tamura then shot himself in the chest, she added, with his body left splayed on the ground in a walkway inside the office.
There were no indications so far that Tamura had prior connections to the real estate industry or to the city.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that a Blackstone chief was among those killed.
Why did he spare a woman in elevator?
The shooter let a woman walk by unharmed, New York City Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch said during a news conference.
It is understood that after shooting several people while entering the building, the gunman called for an elevator to go up from the lobby.
In a chilling moment of mercy, Tamura then spared the life of a woman who came face-to-face with him as she exited an elevator.
13
13
'A female exits that elevator, and he allows her to walk past him unharmed,' Tisch said.
Tamura previously shot at a woman in the lobby, it is understood, making the case more mysterious as to why he spared the second woman's life.
Why did he turn the gun on himself on the 33rd floor?
The suspected shooter first exchanged fire with a New York Police Department officer in the lobby.
Then the gunman went up to the 33rd floor, where he shot his last victim, officials said
The NYPD said they received calls from the 32nd and 33rd floors.
Workers desperately ran for their lives in suits while those trapped in Blackstone's office built a barricade across the door with furniture.
13
13
Cops then received reports of a body found in a stairwell with a rifle with an apparently self-inflicted injury, the official told CNN.
NYPD Chief Tisch said: "He goes up to the 33rd floor... and begins to walk the floor firing rounds as he travels.
"One person was struck and killed on that floor."
Ms Tisch said Tamura then fatally shot himself in the chest.
Was the attack targeted at the NFL because of 'brain disease'?
The NFL occupies floors five to eight in the building.
One of the people "seriously injured" in the shooting was an NFL employee, The New York Post reports.
Tamura, who cops said had a "documented mental health history", had a suicide note in his pocket that alleged he suffered from chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a brain disease linked to head trauma.
CTE is a condition commonly associated with football players, as repeated head injuries can cause the disease.
It has been widely reported that Tamura, back in his college days, played football - and has been described as a standout athlete.
What is CTE?
CHRONIC Traumatic Encephalopathy is known as a brain condition that is often linked to repeated head trauma.
The condition is diagnosed after death and is commonly found in pro-sports players due to concussions.
Some symptoms of CTE include memory loss, confusion, impaired judgment, depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, and progressive dementia.
These signs can begin to appear after years or even decades after the last brain trauma.
A CTE scan is used to diagnose the brain disease after someone has passed away as there is no test to run while someone is alive.
Doctors often slice brain tissue and use special chemicals to make the abnormal tau protein visible to examine for patterns related to CTE.
In the note, which was several pages long, Tamura blamed football for his apparent struggle with CTE, cops said.
He mentioned in the note that his brain should be studied and added: 'You can't go against the NFL, they'll squash you.'
According to CNN, he wrote in it: 'Terry Long football gave me CTE and it caused me to drink a gallon of antifreeze.
'Study my brain please I'm sorry Tell Rick I'm sorry for everything."
Terry Long, a former football player for the Pittsburgh Steelers, died by suicide after drinking antifreeze in 2005.
Former classmate Caleb Clarke told NBC that Tamura hadn't lived up to the promise he had shown.
He said about his former classmate: 'The only thing I can really think of is there was a point where it looked like the sky was the limit, and then it wasn't anymore."
Cops are now desperately trying to piece together why he carried out the sick shooting and are yet to officially reveal the motive of the attack.
13
13
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
28 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Murdoch takes on Trump in press baron's last stand
When Rupert Murdoch stepped down as executive chairman of both News Corp and Fox just under two years ago, it was seen as a cautious first step into retirement for the nonagenarian media tycoon. Although still ultimately in charge of his empire, Murdoch has handed day-to-day responsibility over to his son Lachlan. Meanwhile, he has focused his attention on succession planning, including a bitter legal battle with his own children over the family trust. But any suggestion that Murdoch might slide into a quiet dotage now appears premature. Donald Trump's $10bn (£7.5bn) defamation lawsuit against Dow Jones, which publishes the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), is aimed squarely at Murdoch himself. The legal challenge is the latest salvo in Trump's increasingly aggressive assault on the media. It also sets up what will likely be a final battle for the world's best-known newspaper tycoon – and one that could define his legacy. As one of his former executives puts it: 'The American president has taken on Rupert Murdoch, an extraordinary media force for the last 50 years ... It's a box office story.' Trump's lawsuit relates to a WSJ story alleging that Trump sent the late paedophile Jeffrey Epstein a 'bawdy' birthday card complete with a drawing of a naked woman. Trump, who called the Journal's editor Emma Tucker from Air Force One in an effort to shut down the story, has branded it 'fake' and is seeking $10bn in damages. Trump has sniped at Murdoch, insisting the tycoon wants to settle. In a further provocation, lawyers for Trump last week filed a motion demanding an expedited deposition of Murdoch, citing the fact that the mogul is 94 and 'has suffered from multiple health issues throughout his life'. The scale of these alleged health issues was laid bare in a 2023 Vanity Fair article. It revealed Murdoch had been taken to hospital with a severe case of Covid-19, alongside several other incidents. Alex DeGroote, a media analyst, says the prospect of a trial in which Murdoch would have to take the stand is 'surely not a prospect Dow Jones and the WSJ want to entertain'. He adds that the tycoon may have been shaken by his recent legal clash with Dominion Voting Systems. In a case that signalled the end of Murdoch's cordial relations with Trump, Fox in 2023 agreed to pay $787m to settle a lawsuit with the voting machine company after the channel repeated the president's false claims that the 2020 election was rigged. That said, Murdoch would have a decent chance of success in any legal battle. Unlike in Britain, US libel laws are stacked in favour of the defendant. Trump will have to prove 'actual malice', meaning the WSJ knew the story was false and deliberately published it anyway. It is a high bar for Alejandro Brito, the Miami-based sole practitioner Trump has hired to represent him, to meet. Mark Stephens, a media lawyer at Howard Kennedy, says there are 'fundamental flaws' in Trump's lawsuit and it is likely to be thrown out, potentially as a Slapp [strategic lawsuit against public participation]. 'The case seems designed to try and chill down discussion of this topic, so you're trying to prevent public discussion of this issue and that has all the hallmarks of a Slapp,' he says. Yet it comes amid an increasingly aggressive assault on the media by Trump. The president has said the mainstream media is 'on notice' after securing settlements from both ABC and CBS in recent lawsuits. Alongside the financial and reputational implications, Trump can also cause problems outside the courtroom, as demonstrated by the move to ban the WSJ from a recent press trip to Scotland. The decision by CBS to capitulate in a $16m lawsuit filed by Trump has been widely interpreted as a way of securing approval for an $8bn takeover of its parent company Paramount. Stephen Colbert branded the settlement a 'big fat bribe' and was axed from the network shortly afterwards. By contrast, though, many believe Murdoch will not roll over and that the WSJ will stand by its reporting. '[Trump] assumes someone will settle and pay him an improbable amount of money, and I suspect that's not Murdoch,' says Stephens. The former executive adds: 'So many people think that Murdoch is the suppressor of a free press. Here you've got a very good example of the fourth estate standing up to the American president.' The source also points to the fact that two key figures – Robert Thomson, the Australian News Corp boss, and Emma Tucker, the British editor of the Journal – may be more willing to stand up to the US head of state than their American colleagues. Another senior figure who previously worked at News Corp agrees that Murdoch will 'close ranks' in defence. 'When you work there you're constantly under attack internally, except when something like this happens,' the executive says. 'They tend to fight hard amongst themselves in normal times, but when there's a crisis they say, 'We're backing you 100 per cent.'' Murdoch's support is not always longstanding, however. James Harding, the former Times editor who now runs The Observer, was quietly pushed out in late 2012 – reportedly after the tycoon baulked at his support for Obama in the presidential election. Could Tucker face a similar fate? It is far from the first time that Murdoch – a key inspiration for Logan Roy, the ruthless media patriarch in HBO hit Succession – has courted controversy or gone into battle against powerful foes. His reputation was cemented during the Wapping dispute, a year-long stand-off with print workers in 1986 in which the tycoon eventually broke the powerful unions. Perhaps most notorious, however, were revelations that journalists at the News of the World had eavesdropped on private messages. While Murdoch has always insisted that he did not know phone hacking was going on at his publication, he was forced to shutter the tabloid and his UK publishing empire has paid out more than £1bn in compensation and other related costs to victims. In the Murdoch empire, even family members are not off-limits in pursuit of victory in business. The patriarch last year clashed with three of his children – Prudence, Elisabeth and James – over his attempt to change the family trust to hand over complete control to Lachlan. Following a high-profile legal battle that drew comparisons to Succession, Murdoch was ultimately defeated, setting the scene for an almighty tussle over his legacy. But his battle with Trump highlights the conflicting positions Murdoch is required to hold as the owner of news outlets that are, variously, sycophantic to Trump and doggedly determined to hold him to account. What's more, it raises fundamental questions about whether it is his commercial interests or passion for journalism that will ultimately win out. Murdoch once claimed that the reputation of his media outlets was 'more important than the last hundred million dollars'. Yet the tycoon has previously been accused of cosying up to China's communist regime and indulging censors in Beijing in an effort to protect his business interests. Ahead of his takeover of Dow Jones in 2007, a group of China-based WSJ writers accused the mogul of 'sacrificing journalistic integrity to satisfy personal and political aims'. In 1998, he ordered publisher HarperCollins to kill a book by Chris Patten, Hong Kong's last British governor, because of its critical stance towards Beijing. In his latest legal battle, it is not Chinese authorities that Murdoch must be sensitive to, but his own Trump-supporting audiences. In a sign that Murdoch is looking to expand his influence in new areas, News Corp this week unveiled plans to open a new outpost of the New York Post based in Los Angeles. Robert Thomson, the News Corp boss, vowed the new title, dubbed The California Post, would be an 'antidote to the jaundiced, jaded journalism that has sadly proliferated'. Playing both sides While Dow Jones has said it will 'vigorously defend' against any lawsuit, both Fox and the New York Post have remained silent on the issue, suggesting Murdoch may be trying to play both sides. DeGroote says: 'Would it be in his commercial interest to wreck the relationship between his own viewers, his own readers and his titles by being seen to pursue an anti-Trump agenda?' The WSJ is by no means a struggling newspaper business. It had more than 4.3 million subscribers at the end of March, while Dow Jones posted quarterly revenues of $31m. Fox, which pulled in $1.6bn from its cable network in the same three month period, remains the real money-spinner, however. While British broadcasters are struggling to retain viewers in the streaming age, Fox News continues to dominate the US ratings with an average primetime audience of 2.6 million in the second quarter. At the same time, it has been making advances in its digital offering. Fox recently struck a licensing deal with Ruthless, a popular podcast hosted by Republican influencers, while it is set to launch a new streaming service this autumn. Murdoch's supporters argue that he will not be swayed by commercial interests. 'The value of those companies has only grown and I think he takes a really long view – certainly long for someone who's 94 years old,' says the former News Corp executive. Others believe Trump's decision to take on the mogul will backfire. Stephens says: 'By taking this suit he's potentially putting the entire Murdoch press offside. Is that sensible for a Republican president? Essentially the megaphone to Trump's base is held by Rupert Murdoch.' He adds that this is an example of the so-called Streisand effect, where efforts to cover something up only result in greater public awareness. It is not lost on many, however, that Murdoch may prove to be the last true press baron. The role of the newspaper proprietor has traditionally been a powerful one, steering a title's editorial direction and wielding influence over presidents and prime ministers. William Randolph Hearst, the inspiration for the titular character in Orson Welles' classic film Citizen Kane, is often considered to have helped push the US into the Spanish-American war at the end of the 19th century thanks to sensationalist reporting in his tabloids. Lord Beaverbrook, the Canadian-British newspaper publisher whose empire included the Daily Express, has taken credit for the downfall of David Lloyd George's post-war government in 1922. Murdoch must now decide whether he is up for a blockbuster fight with the president that would almost certainly define his legacy as a newspaper man. His stance will also be crucial for Tucker, whom he elevated from editorship of The Sunday Times to lead the WSJ newsroom in 2023. The Briton's willingness to make difficult decisions appears to have impressed Murdoch and she is generally well-regarded at the US newspaper, despite a backlash last year, when journalists plastered her office in Post-it notes in protest against job cuts. That was a minor skirmish from which she emerged unscathed. The stakes for Tucker now, as she comes under Trump's legal assault, could scarcely be higher. For Murdoch, the reputation he has cast for himself over decades as a bulwark of a free press is on the line. Murdoch's status is unique. Jeff Bezos, owner of The Washington Post, is undoubtedly a mogul and a far wealthier one, but with tech rather than media values. His tendency to intervene in his publication in ways that have pleased Trump has already come under scrutiny. 'This is the last of the big tycoons in newspapers,' says Murdoch's former lieutenant. 'There's just a lot less money to be made in newspapers than there was and so it won't produce these very powerful media tycoons in a world where the media landscape is pretty fragmented and atomised.' 'Any number of people might have more money than Murdoch and they might even desire to have that level of influence, but they may not know how to do it. It's a skill to remain relevant and ultimately what he's done is stay relevant.' As a result, the newspaper proprietor in its traditional sense – as a wielder of political power and influence – seems an endangered species. So as Murdoch faces down the president of the United States, it may be the last stand for the last press baron.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The conviction of Colombia's ex-president is a sign of hope amid autocracy's rise
On 25 October 1997, paramilitary groups descended upon the remote 300-person farming town of El Aro, in the Colombian state of Antioquia. Over the next five days, the drug-running paramilitaries slaughtered 17 people, raped multiple women and burned the town down, forcing the remaining townspeople to flee. The attorney Jesús María Valle had been pleading with the state governor, Álvaro Uribe, for over a year to stop the paramilitaries' brutal takeover of the countryside and collusion with the military. Instead, Uribe labeled Valle an 'enemy of the armed forces'. In a statement to prosecutors after the El Aro massacre, Valle asked for a full investigation into what he described as an 'alliance' in Antioquia among paramilitaries, the military and Uribe to kill civilians and seize their land, in the name of fighting the country's leftwing Farc guerrillas. Within days, two men in suits strode into Valle's law office in downtown Medellín and shot him dead. On 1 August, Uribe, who went on to become Colombia's president in 2002, was sentenced to 12 years of house arrest after a Colombian court convicted him of bribing a witness who had linked him to the paramilitaries. The conviction could still be overturned on appeal, but the fact that it has happened at all is a striking development that would have seemed almost inconceivable a decade or so ago. In a time of rising autocracy and abuse, including in the US, it also offers reasons for hope. For decades, Uribe seemed almost untouchable. As president, he gained domestic and international acclaim – including the US Presidential Medal of Freedom from George W Bush – because of his successes, with billions of dollars in US military aid, in beating back the abusive Farc. When I met him in 2004, he strode about his conference room, lecturing me and my then colleagues on how nobody had done more than he had to bring safety to the country. Glowing portrayals of Uribe's record at the time routinely glossed over his efforts to pass laws favoring the paramilitaries and to undermine investigations of their links to those in power. During his presidency, the Colombian supreme court conducted what became known as the 'parapolitics' investigations into about one-third of members of Congress for collusion – including in many cases electoral fraud – with the paramilitaries. Uribe engaged in a furious smear campaign against the justices and his intelligence service engaged in illegal surveillance of the justices and independent journalists. Yet over the years, senior paramilitary leaders have testified to the involvement of the army and Uribe's chief of staff in Antioquia, Pedro Juan Moreno, in the El Aro massacre. Multiple investigations have documented widespread collusion between paramilitaries and important sectors of the military and political establishment at the time. There is also evidence – including statements that I obtained in a prison interview with a paramilitary leader – that Uribe's office, when he was governor, had close ties to paramilitaries, and that Moreno approved Valle's murder. Uribe has repeatedly denied it all. The conviction this week emerged in the context of a supreme court investigation into allegations that Uribe started a paramilitary group in the 1990s. Uribe claimed early on that the allegations were manufactured by a member of congress, but the court found there was no basis to his claims. Instead, the supreme court ordered a new investigation into possible witness tampering by people working for Uribe (then a senator), including alleged payments to paramilitaries to change their testimony. Uribe quit his senate seat, forcing the case to be moved from the supreme court to a lower court, and – with prosecutors seemingly unwilling to move it forward – it looked for years like the case might just die out like many other previous investigations. However, with a new chief prosecutor in place, the case picked up steam again, finally resulting in this week's conviction. Not surprisingly, Donald Trump's US administration has been trying to discredit Colombia's courts, with Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, decrying the 'weaponization of Colombia's judicial branch'. But this is all now part of a tired playbook. It's the same rhetoric Trump and his allies have been using to discredit US courts – even Trump appointees – that have ruled against them. It's how Trump has talked about the case against his buddy Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, and about the investigations conducted by the international criminal court. And it's how Uribe himself smeared activists like Jesús María Valle in the 1990s and sought to undermine the Colombian supreme court in the early 2000s. But, to me, this week's ruling stands for something else: that no matter how much power leaders may amass, they are not ultimately above the law. And no matter how desperate the situation, with courage and commitment, there is much we can do to create a path toward accountability. Maria McFarland Sánchez-Moreno is CEO of RepresentUs and the author of the award-winning book There Are No Dead Here: A Story of Murder and Denial in Colombia. She spearheaded Human Rights Watch's work on Colombia during most of Uribe's presidency
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Palestine Action's future plans are disturbing, Yvette Cooper claims as she urges protesters to stay away
Yvette Cooper has said she has seen some 'disturbing information' relating to the future plans of proscribed terror group Palestine Action, urging people not to protest in support of the organisation. Speaking ahead of a major demonstration to protest the decision to ban the group, the home secretary warned the public that 'this is not a non-violent organisation', adding that more information about the group is likely to be revealed in future court cases. It comes after Downing Street on Monday warned: 'Those who seek to support this group may yet not know the true nature of this organisation'. The move to ban Palestine Action came after two Voyager aircraft were damaged at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on June 20, an incident it subsequently claimed, which police said caused about £7 million worth of damage. Speaking to Sky News on Tuesday, Ms Cooper said: 'The proscribing process is based on detailed security assessments and security advice to me as home secretary, and I have to take that immensely seriously. 'It's based on violent action and injuries that this group has taken, including on national security targets, but also injuries to people, and also some disturbing information referring to future planning as well. 'So that's the information that I have to take immensely seriously when making those proscribing decisions.' Speaking ahead of a planned mass protest in support of the group taking place on Saturday, Ms Cooper said: 'I do understand there will be people who do not know, who are wanting to protest, what the nature of this group is. 'Let's be clear: this is not about Palestine or protesting about Palestine. This is about a particular, narrow, specific group that has both a violent record and information and about future planning as well. 'More of that information is likely to be really revealed once court cases come through, and can't be in advance. But I would say to people, this is not a non violent organisation.' The Metropolitan Police and other forces nationwide have warned anyone found to be expressing support for Palestine Action will be arrested, following the government's decision to ban the organisation last month. Defend Our Juries said it planned to bring together at least 500 people for its planned demonstration against the ban on Saturday with organisers 'very confident' they have recruited enough participants, a spokesperson for the campaign group said. But they have denied that its planned mass protest will try to overwhelm the police and justice system. A High Court ruling on Wednesday decided that Palestine Action's co-founder Huda Ammori had several 'reasonably arguable' beliefs in her challenge over the group's ban that would be heard at a three-day hearing in November, but a bid to pause the ban temporarily was refused. The ban means that membership of, or support for, Palestine Action is now a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison, under the Terrorism Act 2000. More than 200 people were arrested at a wave of protests across the UK in response to the proscription last month, as part of the campaign co-ordinated by Defend Our Juries. Many of the protesters were detained after writing and holding up the message 'I oppose genocide I support Palestine Action' on placards or pieces of cardboard.
