PULSE: A Timeline for Accountability (November 15, 2025 - Present)

This is our second timeline for accountability, as the first has become so long the website began to drag when loading. We will continue to document updates here from November 18, 2025, to the present.

November 18, 2025 — We continue to seek public records and oppose the City of Orlando’s interpretation and selective application of the law—an approach that appears designed to keep incriminating evidence from public view.

Our latest records request, 25-20521, documents the actions of the City of Orlando. We believe it provides clear evidence of an ongoing cover-up.

Remember: at the same time, victims and survivors pursuing a premises-liability case against PULSE are in court fighting to preserve the building and the evidence. The City is fully aware of this—yet is still moving forward with removing “artifacts” and planning to demolish the building.

Here are some examples of local media operating as the City of Orlando's mouthpiece, reporting only their press release and completely ignoring victims/survivors. We refuse to link to these stories and will no longer share them on our social media pages. It is vital that when reporting on PULSE, corporate news agencies speak to victims/survivors directly, regardless of the topic.

Here is REQUEST 25-20521:

On February 23, 2025—nine years after the PULSE massacre—I submitted a public records request (#25-2920) for specific photographs of PULSE, which had operated for years as a nightclub in violation of its conditional use permit, as documented by the Municipal Planning Board. Several of these photographs depicted a blocked exit to the unpermitted outdoor patio—specifically, a door obstructed by a Coke-branded beverage cooler.

In response to this request, the City stated:

“All of the identified images have been withheld because they depict a portion of the body of one or more victims that were killed in an incident in which three or more persons, not including the perpetrator, are killed by the perpetrator of an intentional act of violence. As such the withheld images depict the killing of a victim of mass violence and are confidential and exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution pursuant to section 119.071(2)(p), Fla. Stat. All releasable images from the identified image set can be found on the City's Pulse Tragedy Records website.”

I challenged the City’s determination on March 10, 2025, asking that the City redact only the specific portions it claimed were confidential rather than withhold entire photographs. My email stated:

“Is it possible for the City to blur out the bodies (or part of bodies) and retain the rest of the image?

Just redact that portion of the image rather than keep the entire image from the public?

… it would probably benefit all victims/survivors if we can see all the photos with just the bodies blurred/redacted.”

For these redacted photographs, the City charged us $55.88 plus an additional $8.13. As you know, we have already spent thousands of dollars since 2019 to obtain PULSE-related records from the City of Orlando.

On March 20, 2025, the City released the redacted photos. Their release immediately generated widespread local and national media coverage—particularly because, in 2016, several news outlets were told by the City via email that no such photograph of a blocked exit existed.

Below are several examples of these stories:

• https://www.wesh.com/article/photo-2016-pulse-nightclub-massacre-blocked-exit/64313970

• https://www.the-sun.com/news/13895461/pulse-nightclub-shooting-photo-blocked-exit-coke-machine/

• https://www.advocate.com/news/new-photo-pulse-exit-blocked

• https://hoodline.com/2025/03/photo-reveals-blocked-exit-in-pulse-nightclub-tragedy-as-orlando-grieves-and-plans-memorial/

• https://westorlandonews.com/city-of-orlando-lied-hid-pulse-photos-of-blocked-door-from-public-for-9-years/

It is now evident that the City withheld these photographs by taking the position that visible blood constituted "a portion of the body of one or more victims." However, the City has released numerous other PULSE photographs containing the visible blood of victims without any redactions. I have included several (but not all) photos depicting victims' blood that the City has released without redaction as examples with this request.

The City’s decision to apply section 119.071(2)(p), Fla. Stat., to these particular photographs—but not to others from the same collection that also depict the blood of victims—demonstrates a selective and inconsistent application of the statute. The result was the withholding of images of the blocked exit from the public for nearly a decade.

Accordingly, I am now requesting:

That these photographs be released without redactions;

1. A refund of the redaction fees charged for access to these images; or

2. A written legal justification explaining why section 119.071(2)(p), Fla. Stat., was applied to redact these particular images, but not other photographs from the same evidentiary set that also contained visible blood and were released without redaction.

3. As stated in my complaint filed last week in Orange County Court (Case #2025-CA-011023-O), the City is obligated to justify all redactions. If the City cannot provide a logical and legally sound rationale for its selective application of the statute, I will take this issue to court and ask for these unredacted images as well as financial restitution for redaction fees improperly charged for records that were not made available to the public until 2025.