Nearly Two Months After Sandy Hook-Reports:State Atty Admits:Possibility of Multiple Shooters?

reply to post by whatsecret

I assume that when he says "commission" he is referring to the panel of municipal officials, mental health experts, security professionals and social-service providers.

Why assume? The commission is not an investigative or enforcement body.
www.governor.ct.gov...

What might be the reason for Not showing them all of Lanzas medical/ mental records?

You quoted his reason.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by whatsecret

 

I assume that when he says "commission" he is referring to the panel of municipal officials, mental health experts, security professionals and social-service providers.

Why assume? The commission is not an investigative or enforcement body.
www.governor.ct.gov...

What might be the reason for Not showing them all of Lanzas medical/ mental records?

You quoted his reason.

edit on 2/10/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

The Sandy Hook Advisory Commission is a 16-member panel of experts created by Governor Malloy to review current policy and make specific recommendations in the areas of public safety, with particular attention paid to school safety, mental health, and gun violence prevention.

What recommendations on mental health can they make if they are not allowed to see the details of mental health history?

reply to post by whatsecret

What recommendations on mental health can they make if they are not allowed to see the details of mental health history?

What gives the commission the authority to see the details?

The mental health aspect of the commission's mission is stated here:

“This includes ensuring that our mental health system can reach those that need its help, looking for ways to make sure our gun laws are as tight as they are reasonable, and making certain that our law enforcement has the tools it needs to protect public safety, particularly in our schools.”

www.governor.ct.gov...

reply to post by Phage

What gives the commission the authority to see the details?

The same thing that gives them the authority to make recommendations.

The mental health aspect of the commission's mission is stated here:

“This includes ensuring that our mental health system can reach those that need its help, looking for ways to make sure our gun laws are as tight as they are reasonable, and making certain that our law enforcement has the tools it needs to protect public safety, particularly in our schools.”

Without the details what makes them think access to mental health help is the problem in the first place? I'm saying that without the details noone can make an informed recommendation. There's something in those details that they don't want to deal with.

reply to post by whatsecret

The same thing that gives them the authority to make recommendations.

Can I refer you to your previous post?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
What gives a non-investigative, non-enforcement, advisory commission the authority to see the health records (of anyone)? If the commission had the authority and requested the records, they would get them.

I'm saying that without the details noone can make an informed recommendation.

They can't make recommendations about improving the mental health care system? Why not?

reply to post by Phage

They can't make recommendations about improving the mental health care system? Why not?

Because the purpose of the commission in part is to determine what policy needs to be changed to prevent another Adam Lanza. How will they know what policy or treatment failed to prevent Sandy Hook and make recommendations how to fix it?

What gives a non-investigative, non-enforcement, advisory commission the authority to see the health records (of anyone)? If the commission had the authority and requested the records, they would get them.

They are the final stage of the investigation. Don't you find it a little strange that they were created in response to this incident and are expected to come up with a plan to how to prevent this in the future but they can't see all the details?

It's like asking a car mechanic why your car is leaking oil but not allowing him to look under the hood. I just don't get it, why create a commission if they can't give an informed advise...

reply to post by whatsecret

How will they know what policy or treatment failed to prevent Sandy Hook and make recommendations how to fix it?

By studying current policies and looking for ways to improve them.

They are the final stage of the investigation.

They are not involved with the investigation but I hadn't heard the investigation is in its final stages either. The commission does not have the authority to view health records. Would it be helpful to them? Maybe. But Loughner's records were released. Did it help prevent this from happening? Not really, all it did was demonstrate that mental health is a very problematic public issue. Something that anyone in law enforcement or the mental health field will tell you.

I just don't get it, why create a commission if they can't give an informed advise

To feel better about it. To make an effort to try to prevent it. I doubt it would do any good no matter how much information they have.

The warrants were for searches, on different dates, of the Lanza home, and of Adam Lanza’s mother’s two cars. One of the cars, a 2010 black Honda Civic, was the vehicle which Lanza allegedly drove to the crime scene. The other, a 2009 silver BMW, was parked in the garage attached to the Lanza home. The court motion seals the affidavits stating what was found upon execution of the warrants for another 90 days, until late March.

so, basically they did find something in either the cars or the home that leads them to believe that other people were possibly involved and/or that witnesses could possibly be in danger if they disclose what they found in the cars or the home.

since there is no way that they shooter knew beforehand who might witness what he was about to do we can assume that he could not have purposely left anything in the house or the car with the intent of endanger the witnesses.
Why would the shooter even care about witnesses since it seems like he never intended to leave the school alive anyway?

The only thing that they could have found in the cars or the home that could possibly endanger the witnesses is information pointing to others being involved.
The shooter is dead he`s no danger to the witnesses and the witnesses are no danger to him because he`s dead.

dead people have nothing to fear from the witnesses.
people who weren`t involved have nothing to fear from the witnesses.

The only person or persons who would have something to fear from the witnesses, and might present a danger to the witnesses, are people who are still alive and who were involved.

By not telling us anything the police have already told us everything.

If they found nothing to indicate that others were involved then there would be no danger to the witnesses and they could tell us now what they found.

I`m not sure that I completely believe that they did find anything to suspect others were involved or that witnesses might be in danger. It`s just as plausible that they found information that would be very embarrassing to some people and could make them guilty of negligence in what happened.

reply to post by Tardacus

so, basically they did find something in either the cars or the home that leads them to believe that other people were possibly involved and/or that witnesses could possibly be in danger if they disclose what they found in the cars or the home.

At the time, in December, the possibility of others being involved was (and should have been) considered. For all we really know, it still may be. But that does not mean there was another shooter.

The only thing that they could have found in the cars or the home that could possibly endanger the witnesses is information pointing to others being involved.

Wow. You're a really good investigator to leap to that conclusion while having no idea of what was actually found.

The only person or persons who would have something to fear from the witnesses, and might present a danger to the witnesses, are people who are still alive and who were involved.

Really, you don't think that vigilantes exist? You don't think they might act on insufficient information?

reply to post by Tardacus


In my opinion they are sealing the records because it gives them more options to keep milking it for their political agendas. Until we see exactly what was going on before and on the day of the shooting they can make up anything they want and use it for making more laws and regulations.

Originally posted by whatsecret

They are the final stage of the investigation. Don't you find it a little strange that they were created in response to this incident and are expected to come up with a plan to how to prevent this in the future but they can't see all the details?

It`s more than a little strange it borders on insanity.

At this point it is impossible for them to make recommendations because they don`t know what really happened yet, until the investigation is completed they would just be making recommendations based on assumptions and speculation.

In fact even creating a recommendation panel at this point is premature and completely worthless.
since they don`t even know what the facts are at this point how can they even be sure that they have the right "experts" on the panel?

for example:
what if the completed investigation reveals that he was possessed by demons? do they have a demon possession expert on the panel?
What if the investigation reveals that alien body snatches from uranus stole his body and committed the murders? do they have a alien body snatcher expert on the panel?

Those are extreme and silly examples but the point remains that without knowing the facts of the completed investigation they have no way of even knowing what experts to include on the panel.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Tardacus

 

so, basically they did find something in either the cars or the home that leads them to believe that other people were possibly involved and/or that witnesses could possibly be in danger if they disclose what they found in the cars or the home.

At the time, in December, the possibility of others being involved was (and should have been) considered. For all we really know, it still may be. But that does not mean there was another shooter.

The only thing that they could have found in the cars or the home that could possibly endanger the witnesses is information pointing to others being involved.

Wow. You're a really good investigator to leap to that conclusion while having no idea of what was actually found.

at this point in time with everything the public knows about the case the witnesses aren`t in danger.
so whatever they found they believe that it is sufficient enough to cause someone to do something drastic and attempt to endanger the witnesses.
assuming nobody else is involved then what innocent person or persons would want to do something drastic and illegal to the witnesses,based on what was found?
what would be the motive for an innocent person to do harm to innocent witnesses who pose no threat to them?

The only person or persons who would have something to fear from the witnesses, and might present a danger to the witnesses, are people who are still alive and who were involved.

Really, you don't think that vigilantes exist? You don't think they might act on insufficient information?

edit on 2/10/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/10/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

why would vigilante want to kill a witness? The witness didn`t have anything to do with the murders.
more importantly what could they have possibly found that would cause a vigilante to want to kill the witnesses after seeing what they found but not kill them now?

reply to post by Tardacus

at this point in time with everything the public knows about the case the witnesses aren`t in danger.

Perhaps, but this "news" is from December. There is about a month left in the order authorizing the extension.

why would vigilante want to kill a witness?

Here's a purely hypothetical scenario but without actually knowing what evidence exists there is no way to speak other than hypothetically.

In the trunk is a letter to Lanza from...someone. In that letter the person expresses sympathy to something Lanza has ranted about to them. That person has been interviewed and not considered a suspect however a distraught parent (or a mentally unstable person) assumes that person was complicit or had reason to believe that Lanza was going to take action and, in their mind, holds that person equally responsible for not notifying authorities. That person takes it upon themselves to act because, like many here, they have no confidence that the authorities will.

People jump to conclusions. People make assumptions based on insufficient information. People act on those assumptions, sometimes violently. A single piece of evidence when taken out of context can lead to wildly inaccurate assumptions. This thread is a perfect example. Old information presented as new.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by whatsecret

 

You think that is unusual while an investigation is ongoing?
Why not just wait and see what happens when it's all over?

If one believes that there is a coverup or an injustice, it is folly to allow said coverup to continue until its self determined conclusion for that conclusion invariably involves the sweeping of the floor of all evidence.
Would an NFL team kick the ball to the other team and wait back at their own endzone for the receiving team to return it and then try to stop them only at the line? Emphatically, no! They would, and do, chase the ball and stop them as deep in their own territory as possible in order to stop their advance.
If there is no conspiracy or coverup, then it will be evident through transparency. Likewise, wrongdoings, should they exist,will be more easily exposed at the outset.

reply to post by wirefly

If one believes that there is a coverup or an injustice, it is folly to allow said coverup to continue

What if one is wrong?
What if what one believes interferes with the investigation of a terrible event or leads to more violence?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Tardacus

 

at this point in time with everything the public knows about the case the witnesses aren`t in danger.

Perhaps, but this "news" is from December. There is about a month left in the order authorizing the extension.

why would vigilante want to kill a witness?

Here's a purely hypothetical scenario but without actually knowing what evidence exists there is no way to speak other than hypothetically.

In the trunk is a letter to Lanza from...someone. In that letter the person expresses sympathy to something Lanza has ranted about to them. That person has been interviewed and not considered a suspect however a distraught parent (or a mentally unstable person) assumes that person was complicit or had reason to believe that Lanza was going to take action and, in their mind, holds that person equally responsible for not notifying authorities. That person takes it upon themselves to act because, like many here, they have no confidence that the authorities will.

People jump to conclusions. People make assumptions based on insufficient information. People act on those assumptions, sometimes violently. A single piece of evidence when taken out of context can lead to wildly inaccurate assumptions. This thread is a perfect example. Old information presented as new.

edit on 2/10/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I can see how that could very likely happen. That`s what I was alluding to in my post when I said that they might have found information that would embarrass or point to guilt by negligence. of other people.

By witnesses I was thinking along the lines of people who were there and actually saw what happened, but yes I definitely do believe they found something that is going to make someone look bad and point to possible negligence.
maybe a friend or his doctor or someone else did or didn`t do something that was grossly negligent.
and had they done something differently the whole thing could have been prevented.

reply to post by Tardacus

That`s what I was alluding to in my post when I said that they might have found information that would embarrass or point to guilt by negligence. of other people.

Yet you discount the possibility that someone completely innocent may be wrongly held responsible and subjected to violence. You assume that any name that comes up in the case must have something to hide. You discount the possibility that revealing information about evidence could interfere with the investigation, even to the point of allowing someone else who may have been involved to escape.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by wirefly

 

If one believes that there is a coverup or an injustice, it is folly to allow said coverup to continue

What if one is wrong?
What if what one believes interferes with the investigation of a terrible event or leads to more violence?

edit on 2/10/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I already covered that. If there is no wrongdoing, it will be borne out in the investigation of the evidence. Do you really believe that waiting until they say it's over, that there will still be evidence left behind contrary to that?

I'm not advocating anything besides allowing for the accountability that is provided for in checks and balances of our system to be in full effect.

reply to post by wirefly

I already covered that. If there is no wrongdoing, it will be borne out in the investigation of the evidence.

You don't understand how the release of evidence to the public can interfere with an investigation? Simple case; someone is interviewed and reveals something about the case not known to the public but held in evidence. Hmmm...

You think the scenario I suggested about vigilante violence is impossible?

I'm not advocating anything besides allowing for the accountability that is provided for in checks and balances of our system to be in full effect.

You are advocating a short circuit of that system.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by whatsecret

 

I'm pretty sure they will.
The public will demand it.

I dont see a lot of public demand to find out who wore the extra gas mask in the Colorado event......or who opened the back door for the shooter....
Or havent seen much get straightened out over the licence plates and the black hondas or the
nun that escaped the scene in a van with the back window shot out at sandy H either....
But its pretty obvious that no matter what happens the PTB will make whatever they like out of the whole scenario....
Nothing just happens normally anymore...Its all used as propaganda for somebodys agenda.