Latest inconsistency is that the shooter didn't need a ladder to access the roof. The AC and other mechanical fixtures on the outside provided plenty of access by climbing them.
Also, according to the former director, any area they identify as a risk (like a roof with a direct line of sight to President Trump) would be mitigated via "overwatch" in one or more of 3 ways:
1. Barrier (fences, guards, locks, etc.)
2. Tech (drones, cameras, etc.) and/or
3. Tactical (sniper)
Obviously, none of those measures, if actually focused on the roof, worked.
Another thing was the method of intercommunication among Secret Service and local/state law enforcement. Their high-tech solution is to put a liaison from each agency or department in a room together. If something comes in from the local sheriff's people, they are supposed to relay that to the others who in turn should broadcast to their respective personnel.
Although there are reports being communicated about Crooks as suspicious to the local LEOs, the agents protecting Trump never once got a report of "a suspicious person" in the crowd.
The Former director kept harping on the word "threat" when asked why Crooks wasn't more closely watched or followed. She seemed to believe he was never a threat until he started shooting -- that he was merely "suspicious." Sounds like the bar that identifies a threat is too low, and the actions taken for a "suspicious person" don't treat that person any differently than the rest of the crowd.
Not quotes -- just the feel for what was said:
Q: Why didn't the sniper shoot sooner?
A: He fired as soon as he identified the threat.
Q: Why was he not seen as a threat before he fired?
A: He was only considered suspicious.
it started to sound like the Secret Service considers all Trump Rally Attendees "suspicious", and they don't intend to try and single out one person who's "more suspicious" than everyone else. Not until they are an active threat do the Secret Service act.