December 14, 2012: What really happened? (children, murder, shooting, justice)

[latetotheparty]

Originally Posted by charisb

This reflects a big negative of the internet--people get all of these bits of information, and then go though everything with a fine tooth comb. And then everyone becomes an expert.
So those of you who see a conspiracy, what is your theory of 'what really happened?'

I was wondering the same..... and WHY??

I remember some mumblings about "control" in the Peter Lanza thread.... but nothing was ever explained about what, how, who or why.......

[mjd07]

Hi SteveC1024, I read your entire post and I agree that it's unfair to call anybody that has questions about the events surrounding Sandy Hook (or any other public tragedy) a "conspiracy theorist." I believe that some people look for conspiracies where none exists while some people never question anything they are told via the mass media. I would like to think that honest, fair and logical processes should cause us all to be somewhere in the middle of these two extremes.

With that said, I do not mind discussing these points with you, one by one, on the condition that the discussion remains respectful and productive. In the interest of manageability, I will format my responses with one point on your list with my response underneath. If you think there is a more manageable way to do this, please let me know.

1) Despite all the interviews published by the media of the victims' parents, there is one detail
that is always missing: how were they notified of the incident? They always say that they "heard of the shooting", but never "I got a call from Officer X" or "my neighbor Y told me". There is never a named individual who first told them what happened, and suggested they go to the school.

Many online and television news sources clearly stated that parents were notified via the schools emergency broadcast system. Psychologically, in the event of a crisis or trauma, it is very common to forget "small" details when asked. It doesn't mean the person is lying or purposely evading the question. It simply means they have more important and pressing issues on their mind and minute details, like the name of who may have called them about a school shooting where their own child/ren may have been harmed, aren't as easily accessible in short-term memory.

[mjd07]

2) We were told that because the school was labeled as a crime scene, the parents were
forbidden from seeing their children's bodies. This seems very suspicious, as all homicide victims are normally identified by their next of kin before being transported to the medical examiner's office. Law enforcement claimed this was done so as not to "contaminate" the crime scene, but if the perpetrator was already dead and could not be brought to justice, what evidence needed to be protected from "contamination"?

There is nothing strange or abnormal about this. Standard operating procedure in most law enforcement agencies is to MINIMIZE contamination from outside sources. Nobody is ever allowed to go running through a police scene regardless if it's a flood or fire or mass murder. That's not protocol and it will not happen.

Secondly, many medical examiners will ask next of kin to come to the morgue to identify their loved one. it almost never happens at the scene of the crime (or accident), if for no other reason than most crimes scenes are being processed or possibly cleaned up before some bodies are identified and next of kin can be located. That wasn't the case here. There was no question about who was in attendance that day, so why would parents be subjected to seeing their either deceased child or traumatized child in that setting?

[mjd07]

3) No parent ever questioned the law enforcement's decision to forbid them from viewing the bodies.

One, it is impossible to know this with absolutely certainty. Secondly, we are trained to obey authority figures (ie. law enforcement, doctors, religious figures, etc.) and most people will try to be compliant especially when asked nicely.

The protocol for protecting the crime scene put the officers in a position to have to tell the parents that they could not go see their children yet. It would be the same as a fire fighter holding back a rescued family that wants to rush back in to save somebody else or some item from a fire. Almost nobody is going to question authority in those circumstances.

[mjd07]

4) No photograph was ever released of the crime scene or the bodies.

5) No video surveillance camera captured footage of Adam Lanza entering the school with weapons, of the children being evacuated, or of the bodies being carried out for medical examination.

While this may seem odd given the speed by which information is transmitted in this age, it's really not that strange. It has always sounded like it was a close-knit community and it is not unheard of for law enforcement or those in town leadership to request no photographs or videos. Lack of those photos does not prove anything.

[mjd07]

6) We were told that there was no camera in place on the morning of December 14, but there had been prior to the shooting. Initially, the media reported that Adam Lanza had visited Sandy Hook on December 13, and had an altercation with four staff members. If the camera was working on December 13why was this altercation not captured on video?

Many survellience videos are reused over and over again. They aren't saved indefinitely, if at all. It could have been erased as soon as the next depending on the school had the system set up. Why would lack of video proof of the confrontation mean anything significant?

[mjd07]

7) Every child's funeral was held with a closed casket, with one exception, Noah Pozner; in his case, only his eyes were made visible.

Closed caskets are very common in cases of severe trauma to the head and/or body. The choice to have closed caskets for their children is the right of every parent that lost a child in this tragedy and, most likely, helped the mourners have some semblance of peace by not having to had the last memory of their loved not be awful traumatic injuries.

Every U.S. soldier that is killed in combat has his/her body shipped back to the U.S. for proper burial. Would anyone seriously suggest that none that was real?

[mjd07]

8) Video surveillance footage from the rear of the school shows a number of unidentified people
being chased on foot by police, before the chase simply stops. Who are they, and what was their relation to the case?

Can you post to any video you think shows this?

[mjd07]

9) We were told that the surviving students and staff were reunited with their families at the Newtown fire station. Newtown is a city with a population of 20,000, much like my own town of Somers, NY, just 30 miles away. I don't know the exact size of the Newtown firehouse, but I think it's safe to assume it's relatively the same size as the Somers one. Sandy Hook had 480 students, most of which lived with both their parents. That's 960 people, not to mention other relatives that may have also shown up. Add the 70 staff members, with one next of kin each, and you've got 1,100 people. It would be logistically impossible to fit this many people in a small town firehouse. Where are the pictures of them being jammed in the firehouse like sardines?

They would be packed like sardines if this is how it happened. More realistically, parents went to the fire station to be reunited with their children and then left. Why would reunited family members continue to stand around?

[mjd07]

10) According to the press conference held on Saturday, December 15 with medical examiner Dr. H. Wayne Carver, the victims were identified by showing a photograph of their body to their next of kin. Yet, no parent has ever corroborated this detail. Every parent interviewed has unanimously stated that he/she was told to wait in the back of the firehouse after signing in, and after all the parents who had been reunited with their children had left, the remaining parents were told the horrifying news by Governor Dannel Malloy that there were no more survivors. No mention of Dr. Carver, no mention of a photograph.

Given the size of this town and the number of murder victims, it seems not only possible but necessary for the Medical Examiner to do his best to get the correct information to the correct family members and address the remaining parents. While showing photographs may not have been the most gracious way to have family members identify their deceased loved ones, it was probably more efficient and less traumatic than having them all go down to the morgue to identify them. Again, though, why would anything a distraught parent said or didn't say within hours of this tragedy make the whole thing suspicious?