Skip to comments.Sandy Hook DA cites 'potential suspects,' fears witness safety
Posted on 02/06/2013 11:30:20 AM PST by ExxonPatrolUs
Connecticut State's Attorney Stephen Sedensky has argued that unsealing warrants in the Sandy Hook case might "seriously jeopardize" the investigation by disclosing information known only to other "potential suspects." Sedensky said that unsealing the warrants would also: ""identify persons cooperating with the investigation, thus possibly jeopardizing their personal safety and well-being." "
(Excerpt) Read more at digitaljournal.com ...
“You have more to worry about than Sandy Hook. Do you really know exactly WHERE you are.....even?”
Sure I know. Anywhere you go, there you are.
9:55:25: Be advised, we have multiple weapons. One rifle and a shotgun”
Just pretend you are actually a prosecutor or defense attorney.
Does that sentence prove that it was the gun in the trunk???
A thousand times NO
You are forcing a narrative that depends on the cops being bungling fools and contaminating evidence.
The real question here is why are you doing it!
Maybe they ONLY popped the trunk to see if a kid was inside and didn’t touch anything. That’s possible. But you claim they searched the entire car and threw evidence over a door to the front of a car.
I don’t believe they were that inept as it comes to a crime scene.
“So how did the black sweatshirts wind up on the parking lot outside the vehicle??? and why were all four doors opened???”
There are other possible answers than to believe the police enforcement contaminated the scene - which is what your narrative requires.
Here is one more thing. At the time they get to the school they don’t know that the owner of the car is dead.
So THEREFORE there are rules to follow as it pertains to searching an immobile car that isn’t going to go anywhere.
We're waiting ..............
No -- but that together with the statement of the officer who found the weapons and the video of the police removing the shotgun from the trunk and the official police report does.
Do you have any evidence to the contrary???
I didn't think so --------
The video of the police removing the weapon from the trunk is at night after they had a search warrant for the car.
What is so hard for you to understand that at the time LEOs arrived on the scene they had no idea that the owner of the car was dead OR EVEN THAT IT WAS A SUSPECTS CAR.
They also did not know that he would shoot himself and that there were no other perps. In fact , at that time, there were possible other perps running around.
So why would you want to force a narrative that requires them to search a car when it is possible that the evidence could be thrown out by a trial court or on appeal..and do it in such a way that it contaminates the crime scene AND the evidence.
I think the reason you are forcing this narrative is because it means that it is possible there was more than one shooter.
I can come up with other explanations for that crime scene that would still mean one shooter...but apparently it is imperative that you force a narrative that requires LEOs to be inept when it comes to a crime scene and prosecution.
That car was not stopped by police. It was immobile. It wasn’t part of an arrest. It could have been a parents car.
And it wasn’t going anywhere.
They had time to get a search warrant before they searched it. A search warrant that is still sealed.
One reason (and one that would be a reason you are so forcefully pushing a narrative that makes the LEOs look bad)
is that there was more than one shooter.
It’s also possible those items were discarded as they fled the scene - to tie in with the Nun on the Run in the purple van story.
Another reason is those items could have covered up the guns and were tossed aside by Lanza. He could have opened all of those doors.
Or the witness could by lying and the doors weren’t open.
There are a number of reasons that don’t require the LEOs to do warrantless search on an immobile car not going anywhere where they contaminate the crime scene.
It flew in like the Batmobile
Did anyone see it get there?
It has a cloaking device.
Worthy of more study.
So the nuns disrobed after they got out of the car?? What sisterhood order wears black sweatshirts??? the order of the black hoodie???
So then how did they know about the shotgun at 9:55:25 on the police scanner???
How did they know that there was a shotgun if it was still in the trunk and they hadn't looked in there???
You do not know that they were black sweatshirts.
They have not been identified.
Except for one person claiming they were black sweatshirts. They are large items. That are black.
One eye witness does not mean it is true- especially that one.
How is it that she didn’t see any cop cars, fire engines, police or anything as she stood at that door.
Because the first police on the scene parked their cars neatly between the lines in the parking lot and they blended in with the other cars. Check the aerial video. Unless you were looking for them you wouldn't notice them.
“So then how did they know about the shotgun at 9:55:25 on the police scanner???
How did they know that there was a shotgun if it was still in the trunk and they hadn’t looked in there???”
Again, the scanner does specifically identify the location of the shotgun. It does not specifically AT ANY TIME mention they are searching the car.
There is more than one explanation for that comment INCLUDING that he was wrong with the comment.
But I don’t rule out that they popped the trunk to look for a child inside AT SOME POINT but not before they first went inside the building. At that time they were dealing with an active shooter.
I have said this over and over and over and over that it is possible that they popped the trunk to look inside for a child BUT NOT TO THOROUGHLY SEARCH THE TRUNK.
I think they could get that act through the court system with no problem.
What I do not believe they did is what you claim they did and IF they did...they were bungling fools.
You may need to prosecute MULTIPLE people in a mass murder. You do not toss clothing evidence over a car door to the front of the car onto the pavement AS THE SHOOTER IS INSIDE A BUILDING SHOOTING AT KIDS. If you do, YOU ARE AN IDIOT.
Which begs the question of why you keep trying to force a narrative that makes them look like fools.
“Because the first police on the scene parked their cars neatly between the lines in the parking lot and they blended in with the other cars. Check the aerial video. Unless you were looking for them you wouldn’t notice them.”
This has got to be one of the most absurd things you have said about this.
Mass murder going on in a school with an active shooter and they are going to neatly park their cars in a parking lot.
So you are accusing them of lying.
So then without your search warrant they could SEARCH BUT NOT THOROUGHLY SEARCH THE TRUNK???
Did they have to keep one eye closed as they searched -- and maybe just use one hand???
How does that work???
If you see a shotgun during the NOT THOROUGH SEARCH, do you pretend that it isn't there???
Why do you think that everything people say is either their personal opinion or assertion, or is a direct refutation of or statement of your opinion?
I can say “I thought Jesse didn’t have parents” without it meaning I thought YOU said Jesse didn’t have parents. If I’m arguing with one person who says “Neil isn’t Jesse’s father”, and then you say “Jesse’s father neil” (I’m not saying you did, this is an example), I could say “But wait, I thought Neil wasn’t Jesse’s father”, and it would simply mean that something YOU just said seemed to contradict something some OTHER poster said.
Just like you keep claiming the Uncle Chip is asserting things, when he’s just quoting from news articles. If there were clothes laying on the ground, they got there somehow. It is reasonable to think the police may have caused that when searching the car, if there is no evidence that anybody else tossed the car. Frankly, I’ve pretty much ignored the whole “what got thrown out of the car”, because it is so in the noise relative to the bigger conspiracy issues (just like crazy gene).
Mad Hatter does have origin — Hatters used mercury, and mercury exposure over time can literally make you mad. Not natural gas leaks though.
And “Mat Hatter” had a connection to Danbury — there was a store call the “Mad Hatter” in Danbury, but it closed.
And there is a Hattertown, and a once-thriving hat industry that has all but dissappeared.
But I don’t see what any of that has to do with some mentally unstable guy shooting up an elementary school.
It doesn't make them look foolish in the least.
No evidence was tainted, police who followed could see that the vehicle had been searched, and the black sweatshirts probably needed to be shaken out to make sure there was nothing in them.
Did you want them to fold them neatly and put them back???
However your accusing them of lying on the police scanner about the shotgun is ... beneath contempt ... but par for you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.