Susan Getzinger Exclusive Interview: Scott Getzinger’s Wife Speaks Out

Susan Getzinger Exclusive Interview: Scott Getzinger’s Wife Speaks Out

www.insanemedia.net

The hearing heard from all members of the public including testimony from local officials, local first responders and families of the Sandy Hook Elementary School system.

Many members of the community appeared to voice their thoughts and concerns about what should, or shouldn’t, be done to ensure that an event like the Sandy Hook school shootings never happens again.

Adam Lanza’s records are “Priviledged” and Patricia Sabato asks the CT Legislature “Why” and gets applause

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.youtube.com
www.youtube.com

One of the other speakers at the hearing was Susan McGuinness Getzinger. You may recognize Susan Getzinger’s name as the wife of the late prop master from the Dark Knight Rises movie, Scott Getzinger who died in a car accident in April of 2012. He was in charge of the Gotham City map that had Sandy Hook written on it, which caused many discussions in conspiracy circles. In the video she speaks about the school shooters all being on pyschotropic drugs and how vaccines have peanut oil and mercury that can cause mental illness and how the school spent $42000 fighting her about a bus stop and threatened her to take her children. I think these people are asking the right questions and this needs to be known.

www.insanemedia.net
(visit the link for the full news article)

Fine everyone wants Adam's records, then you give your medical records to everyone as well, sorry but this has gone far enough.. Can't ask for one without giving up your rights to privacy.. Or does that rule only apply to one segment of the population and not another..

I want to see your privileged records now... Don't wanna give em to me? Well hey I think I have the right to see them lady... People applauding this are not thinking of the ramifications of making one person's records public while keeping their own private..

It's a two way street, don't ask of others what you yourself won't give.

Originally posted by vkey08

It's a two way street, don't ask of others what you yourself won't give.

Adams dead. His mother is dead.

Does the brother or father object?

I couldnt give a rats ass who sees my "privileged" records upon my demise.

The moment I croak make it all public. My privacy concerns cease when my life ends.

But that's just me speaking for me.

I get what you're saying but when it comes to dead people who cares? Certainly not the dead.

reply to post by vkey08


This is a different scenario, a presumed mass murderer whom is now deceased, totally different than your ranting reply. How can you violate the privacy of a dead person?

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Slippery slope... first it's the records of the deceased, then the hospitalized then you or me, it's a debate that was offered and rejected in New Hampshire in 2001 after the WTC bombings (I was in on those hearings being assigned up in Manchester and Concord) and it should be rejected now.

I seem to remember Baines in Manchester wanting the records of all the homeless people in the city, to make sure that they weren't mentally ill, and the Manchester PD telling him he was on crack.. (then again Baines was a moron)

Originally posted by DOLCOTT
reply to post by vkey08

 

This is a different scenario, a presumed mass murderer whom is now deceased, totally different than your ranting reply. How can you violate the privacy of a dead person?

Your right to privacy does not end when you die.. esp with regards to medical records..

Originally posted by vkey08

Originally posted by DOLCOTT
reply to post by vkey08

 

Your right to privacy does not end when you die.. esp with regards to medical records..

I think it does, alive or dead you commit mass murder ALL your rights are given up right then and there.

reply to post by vkey08


adam is the alleged shooter in a mass shooting event. ergo his medical records potentially contain information which may shed light on his state of mind both leading up to and at the time of the shooting. this could be construed as evidence. witholding evidence raises questions that shouldn't need to be raised. i believe a favoured mantra of citizens who embrace an all-invasive governmental right to snoop is 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear'.

fair enough. it works both ways. a two way street as you rightly point out.

I think the big difference in privacy concerns is that Adam Lanza killed 27 people including 20 children. The public has a right to know what may have influenced him. With some notable exceptions (insurance companies, security clearance issues) no one really wants to see our medical records.

I don't see the ethical dilemma here. It's a case of national importance that is affecting the debate on policy that has the potential to affect millions of citizens. Lanza lost the right to medical privacy when he chose infamy. I for one would like to see with my own eyes things that could have contributed to his actions.

I'm sure there is one interest group that really would like those records to keep from getting out to the public---Big Pharma.

Originally posted by vkey08
Fine everyone wants Adam's records, then you give your medical records to everyone as well, sorry but this has gone far enough.. Can't ask for one without giving up your rights to privacy.. Or does that rule only apply to one segment of the population and not another..

I want to see your privileged records now... Don't wanna give em to me? Well hey I think I have the right to see them lady... People applauding this are not thinking of the ramifications of making one person's records public while keeping their own private..

It's a two way street, don't ask of others what you yourself won't give.

Adam is dead. There's a bit of a difference if you didn't notice. His image cannot be tarnished beyond what it already has been so there shouldn't be an issue, especially to privacy, which if the fed has it's way, there won't be any private medical records, especially for gun owners my friend.

Originally posted by vkey08
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

Slippery slope... first it's the records of the deceased, then the hospitalized then you or me, it's a debate that was offered and rejected in New Hampshire in 2001 after the WTC bombings (I was in on those hearings being assigned up in Manchester and Concord) and it should be rejected now.

I seem to remember Baines in Manchester wanting the records of all the homeless people in the city, to make sure that they weren't mentally ill, and the Manchester PD telling him he was on crack.. (then again Baines was a moron)

I'd like to add, his brain is being tested and prodded. His body was dissected. I doubt his consent was needed for that. His privacy went out the window when he died.

reply to post by vkey08


Why on Earth would this be so devastating to you? What do you personally have at stake in the release of this information? I could see where someone who has involvement in a cover up would be concerned like say, certain government agencies or the like. Where exactly do YOU fit in? Perhaps you can explain why this would be so personally invasive to you?

Can I ask a question to all that want his medical records released, what rights do YOU have for seeing them, beyond your own fantasies that you are going to get to the bottom of this. Everytime I see something like this people start saying "well I want to see this and that" as if they have some right to see them. Also I suspect that if they are released and do not go along with this "conspiracy" they will be called falsified because people seem to be so engrossed in their own delusions that they will just ignore anything that won't agree with them.

reply to post by Todzer


It seems more likely that the medical records might show he doesn't fit the profile of the psychotic lone gunman that the media wants to portray - or that he wasn't taking prescribed medication that are alleged to be responsible for several of these recent mass killings. In lieu of an official story, we'll just have to wait and see.

ganjoa

reply to post by ganjoa


That may be the case, I reserve my judgement until all the facts are presented but looking at the posts on this thread and others its seems that people think that they are ENTITLED to them right this second and if they do come out and go against the conspiracy I can hear the resounding chorus of "TPTB are falsifing them"

Originally posted by vkey08

Originally posted by DOLCOTT
reply to post by vkey08

 

This is a different scenario, a presumed mass murderer whom is now deceased, totally different than your ranting reply. How can you violate the privacy of a dead person?

Your right to privacy does not end when you die.. esp with regards to medical records..

I actually agree with you about not losing your rights when you die and your privacy being protected if thats what you wished however a mass murder is what makes knowing what happened in this situation different. When people go to jail do they lose some rights?

Originally posted by ajay59
reply to post by vkey08

 

Why on Earth would this be so devastating to you? What do you personally have at stake in the release of this information? I could see where someone who has involvement in a cover up would be concerned like say, certain government agencies or the like. Where exactly do YOU fit in? Perhaps you can explain why this would be so personally invasive to you?

We have fought in Connecticut for some time against a provision in Sustinet (A new Medical program to comply with Obamacare) that would make all citizens of Conn's medical files available to courts, police et al at any time without consent of the record holder. It was decided in our state that this right to keep the records private (in the case of something like this, his records were probably given by Peter Lanza to the State police, but not to the media, which is what people are asking why about) even extended past death, and that rule, has kept many things in the hands of the courts, and sealed with good reason.

I for one do not want my state, to the the first to authorize the release of medical records dead or alive to the media.. (As far as the comment about being dissected and his brain anylized, Peter Lanza as next of kin had to sign off on those tests under state law)

If Peter Lanza wants to put out Adam's records then fine, that is his right under our laws, for the press or any citizen to willy nilly want them, that's illegal and should remain so..

That's how it directly effects me, it's my state.. And as a citizen of this state, I have a vested interest in making sure they don't use this case as a testbed for more invasive regulations.

Originally posted by crystalbeing

Originally posted by vkey08

Originally posted by DOLCOTT
reply to post by vkey08

 

This is a different scenario, a presumed mass murderer whom is now deceased, totally different than your ranting reply. How can you violate the privacy of a dead person?

Your right to privacy does not end when you die.. esp with regards to medical records..

I actually agree with you about not losing your rights when you die and your privacy being protected if thats what you wished however a mass murder is what makes knowing what happened in this situation different. When people go to jail do they lose some rights?

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

reply to post by vkey08

And as a citizen of this state, I have a vested interest in making sure they don't use this case as a testbed for more invasive regulations

You mean such as gun control? That is the end game here after all. This is one of the reasons people want to know the truth, the WHOLE truth about whats going on here. There is a lot at stake and what stands to come of it seems more than coincidental, don't ya think?