Overlooked evidence in School shooting

The fact is we have no facts.. The news networks failed from the first hours onward by spreading disinformation. They couldn't even name the correct killer until many hours after the incident. Instead of waiting for any police statements they went right into hearsay, delivering lie after lie desperately trying to get ahead of other networks. They should be ashamed for such poor behavior. I saw everything from the man in the woods was the father to the mother was a doomsday prepper expecting economic collapse. Such random chaos at the scene, it was no wonder police would be handcuffing people in the surrounding area. Here's the thing, we like to question everything. Heck that's why we frequent this website, but from years of witnessing such atrocious behaviors and crimes in our world, there is one thing you can count on. By the time any facts add up and make themselves known the world at large will have already moved on to the next event. We have the attention span of a puppy.

IF it is true he had his brothers ID would that not suggest it may have been intentional to confuse the investigation?? Are we really expected to believe he had that ID OR are we expected to believe he was smart enough to bring this ID knowing it would confuse the police and did he really not see his brother for 2 years? Something is not right about this for sure......another overlooked point the media is not even touching on.

Sorry if I've missed if this video has been posted, but there are so many threads going on.

Have you seen the interview with the medical examiner? It's not a crime to be goofy, but this guy contradicts many points of the investigation. He even says the long gun was used inside the school, but it was found in the car.

Trying to link that video again and then I'm giving up and going to find a corner to pout in.

reply to post by ZiggyMojo

Actually you're wrong.. It's a lot more than $200.00 and having a chief law officer in your area sign off. You go through a rigorous background check that puts a regular background check to shame. There are SEVERAL steps in the paperwork process, and you end up paying close to $20,000.00 USD by the time it is all said and done.

Actually I'm not. I stated the steps involved in the process including the background check and the only monies you have to pay to the government for the right to own a full-auto weapon is $200.00 for the federal tax.

First of all you stated that is was illegal to own fully automatic weapons in the U.S. which is completely incorrect. Then when I list the actual steps in order to own and fully automatic weapon in the U.S. you have a come back and try to make out like it is a lot tougher and more expensive than it really is.

As long as you are 21 years of age and a citizen of good standing (meaning you have never been in trouble) you will have no problems passing the background check. Sometimes the hardest part of obtaining the tax stamp is actually getting the local chief law enforcement official to actually sign off. Sometimes this would be the sheriff or the Chief of Police depending on where you live (city or county). Fortunately there is even a work-around for that thanks to BATF regulations. You can submit your paperwork and background as a corporation and you don't have to have the local cheif law enforcement officer to sign off.

I have been a police officer for 15 years and have owned several Class III firearms (full auto for those that don't know) and yes even police have to go through the same standards as any other civilian when applying for Class III status. So if you want to argue points about the truth of ownership of Class III weapons in the United States at least know what you are talking about.

reply to post by mikelkhall


I would add to that, you better make sure you have proof on you at all times when you are transporting or shooting the fully auto weapon, because more often than not, you will attract the attention of law enforcement who will ask for said proof.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by SpaDe_

 

Its weird, especially with the fact he surely knew he wouldn't last long enough to use/reload every 'single' bullet..
to stop and do that over and over, doesn't seem like it...

Well he geared up to walk into a school he is loosely connected to and shoot up a bunch of kids. I dont think he followed any specific logic.

reply to post by CaptainBeno


Did you link this video because this was the modification performed on the weapon recovered at the scene?

No I didn't think so.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals

Originally posted by liquidsmoke206
Motive: don't need one, kid was mentally disturbed and from what I've read likely on some very powerful psych meds...a common link to this kind of thing. Some people are just nuts.

Um, yes we do and so do courts of law.

In fairness, courts do not need "motive", they need to show intent. A motive is simply one way of showing intent.

reply to post by Razimus


Firstly, the mother didn't need to work, she was loaded with a huge alimony payment from Mr Lanza in excess of $200000 per annum (as evidenced by the divorce petition). Second, it has now been established (for a few days apparently) she has never worked at the school either as a teacher or volunteer and thirdly, there is no evidence whatsoever apart from hearsay that she was going to have him committed,in fact on another website her sister in law stated that Mrs Lanza was in fact house searching for a smaller place she could manage easier for her and Adam as she had multiple sclerosis and was finding the large house difficult.

I will try and find the link to that piece but I've read so much this week my brain hurts!

I posted this in another thread but it applies here......This man Gene Rosen had 6 kids sitting in his yard that morning these are interviews with him in a timeline........

www.cbsnews.com...

Early morning on the 15th first interview......Says the kids were distressed.......no mention of man yelling at them
He claims a bus driver picked them up somewhere and just dropped them off at his house.....WHAT???????????
He then says I don't know how they fled......and talks about a gun......as in 1 gun........

usnews.nbcnews.com...

Says he does not know how they got there?? I thought a bus driver dropped them off.....What about the man??
the kids talk about 2 guns......I think this is in the correct time position not sure though......


www.hlntv.com...

This is from Nancy Grace 17th PM He says a very loud man was talking loudly and harshly to them......and he thought maybe it was part of a play......WHAT??????? School bus driver who identified herself.... it was a woman.....does not mention the man leaving......the kids were saying I don't have a teacher......She has been shot.... 2 boys said he had a big gun and a small gun.....


foxnewsinsider.com...

Later on the 18th or maybe 19th not sure... says the kids repeated our teacher is gone.......not dead gone...... weird.....kids said big gun and little gun ....says nothing about a bus driver or another man yelling at them and also says this......I DID NOT AMEND ANYTHING THEY SAID..........

abcnews.go.com...

This is from the 19th today........he says a man was talking to the kids then left......but the bus driver stayed.....also he was coming out of his loft....oops the other one said he was coming back from a walk...
teacher is dead she fell......they saw her get shot??????????????? and saw blood in her mouth??????
the kids went to the firehouse?????? He later says they came and got them at his house......2 guns big and small


I posted 2 conflicting interviews yesterday.....and now we have a FoxNews asking him he why he has different versions or that he is changing what the kids actually said?? What is with the bus driver and or the guy? Did these kids see 1 gun or 2 and did they actually see the gunman or their teacher get shot?? I know he is in shock and might be a little confused but not that confused. Let me say something loud and perfectly clear.....IF I KNEW CHILDREN WERE WITNESSES TO A MURDER I WOULD CALL 911 IMMEDIATELY. Anyone who is a witness needs to talk to police immediately ESPECIALLY KIDS FOR THEIR OWN PROTECTION. Feel free to help me out here......

reply to post by ipsedixit


Maybe perhaps mother isn't dead? Whenever someone is shot in the face little alarm bells ring for me, always strikes me that they are trying to make identification difficult. Perhaps the big banks have her in hiding as a way of making Mr Lanza not testify.....bah all speculation I doubt we'll ever know the truth unless by some miracle an insider turns renegade joins ATS and announces it to the world as a Christmas present!

reply to post by raedar


wow, that medical examiner is totally crazy, but I guess you'd have to be to do and see what he's about to.

He's a little frazzled, and maybe a little crazy, but I don't see anything in that video that would lead me to believe he's in on any kind of plot or cover up.

There's probably no conspiracy but why so much conflicting information?

Its not like everytime there is an incident where people die that there is always confusion but always when its difficult to identify the culprit/s during the event.

Here we have wrong ID on shooter, mother gets face blown off, computer is smashed to bits, someone gets arrested running into woods. The gun that killed the kids is in the car. Police fire off shots and apparently wound 2 people etc. And there so much more.

Its all a bit puzzling! And why??? dont the authorities at least give some clarity to dispel the confusion and missinfo?

I also think that this is odd. How did he put that many bullets out in that short of a time?

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by SpaDe_

 

Its weird, especially with the fact he surely knew he wouldn't last long enough to use/reload every 'single' bullet..
to stop and do that over and over, doesn't seem like it...

but, perhaps part of his train of thought, figured he might as well rig the outfit out to its maximum capability. full of bullets, all buttons done, all straps tied.. a big finale, ya know?

For him to grab so many guns from his mom, tells me he had access to the entire cabinet and supply.

So, being she was such a gun 'nut', sounds more likely she'd have some automatic weapons, somewhere.

why didnt he grab those?

question, could his ammunition have fitted in an uzi?

It is not on record that she possessed any fully automatic weapons legally. If she had owned any legally it would have been immediately reported I can guarantee that.

As far as the ammo being used in an Uzi. The UZI uses a 9mm round, so to answer your question yes the handgun ammo if he had it would have functioned just fine in an UZI.

reply to post by RP2SticksOfDynamite


You are incorrect that the rifle used was found in the car. A shotgun was found in the car. This isn't your fault, as the media has reported it both incorrectly and correctly.

It doesn't help anyone including yourself to be repeating information we are 99% sure is incorrect. Someone else will now go on and argue that the Rifle used was in the car spreading more incorrect information. I am telling you this not off of a news report, but based on watching the video many many times and identifying the firearm in the trunk. Certainly not everyone, but a far majority of people also agree it was a shotgun in the trunk. Some sources say Police have confirmed this, some sources still say it is a rifle. It is a cluster F for sure.

that gene character is VERY STRANGE.

usnews.nbcnews.com...

near the end
"i want these childrens goodness to point us in the right direction"



but really i just want to point out that if 6 kids show up on my lawn absolutely terrified and crying im callng the cops. im not inviting them in for cookies, snacks and to play with a teddybear

Originally posted by sputniksteve
reply to post by RP2SticksOfDynamite

 

You are incorrect that the rifle used was found in the car. A shotgun was found in the car. This isn't your fault, as the media has reported it both incorrectly and correctly.

It doesn't help anyone including yourself to be repeating information we are 99% sure is incorrect. Someone else will now go on and argue that the Rifle used was in the car spreading more incorrect information. I am telling you this not off of a news report, but based on watching the video many many times and identifying the firearm in the trunk. Certainly not everyone, but a far majority of people also agree it was a shotgun in the trunk. Some sources say Police have confirmed this, some sources still say it is a rifle. It is a cluster F for sure.

Concede the point! But that was only one item i raised in my post!!!

reply to post by RP2SticksOfDynamite


You are right, forgive me for only pointing out the 1 issue. I don't take any issue with the rest, and agree it is quite odd. However it wouldn't do anyone any good what so ever to not notify you of the mistake made. Like I said, about half the people talkign about this are making the same mistake, parroting what we hear from the news, who are also making a mistake.