I wasn't there I believe it was B. However, given the history of this country and given the desire to put boots on the ground in Syria, I'm not going to rule out A or C. It's Hegelian Dialectic at its finest if that's the case.
You would have to be seriously retarded to believe either one.
No, just within their own right to believe how they wish. However, I'd expect someone to actually give insight as to why they believe it instead of just pointing to the guy at the scene, who was wearing the masonic hat, who gave an interview, and saying "LOOK MA ILLUMINATIIIIIEEEES!!!!!!"
The FBI, ATF, Sheriff and SBPD secured the scene, tore the apartment apart, took what they needed and left.
I believe they did this.
Why would they keep the "crime scene" intact if both suspects are dead.
Because there is a possibility you may actually have to return to gather evidence to help another case or to prevent an attack. There is a possibility that something was compromised, a chain of command was broken and you need to revisit the scene again.
It doesn't make sense to keep it from being tainted because there won't be a prosecution.
See above.
The "crime scene" is the workplace where the shooting took place.
And their home, the place where they manufactured bombs and conducted other illegal activities.
This will help you out. The second paragraph is crucial:
[ame]http://ngmsar.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Crime-Scene-Preservation.pdf[/ame]
So even though the link does mention them by name, you have primary, secondary and tertiary crime scenes. Primary would be the location of the shooting. Secondary would be the car as that is where they also fired from and where they were killed. The tertiary would be the apartment or any other locations directly linked to the initial crime.