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 ...
I'm a plant because I know that children exposed to gunfire and dead bodies would not be laughing and joking about it all the next day. If I'm a plant, then the traumatized Soldiers and Civilians at Fort Hood would have no problem singing and dancing "Call Me Maybe" at the Grammy's after their Battle Buddies were murdered by Hasan. Right?
I'm a plant because I see through this sadistic, staged plot at Sandy Hook as a Reichstag Fire scheme to destroy the 2nd Amendment.
Get over yourself, and read something outside the realm of CNN.com.
could be ex wizard
Are you sure that this witch can be trusted???
For those that think toxic chemicals in the dirt are a joke...well..there’s this
If you are in Ct. I guess you better do some research to find out if you are going to be exposed to Mad As A Hatter chemicals
“Connecticut is among a half-dozen states with a property condition disclosure form that doesn’t specifically ask homeowners to divulge to buyers whether hazardous materials are present on a residential lot.”
I hate the lying adults complicit in this fraud, as I hate those who consistently stonewall the facts for them.
I see through their lies, as I see through their false emotions.
You still haven’t answered me
Are you STILL claiming that Police Officials threw clothing evidence out of a car to land in front of the car at a crime scene and also land several feet away from the car instead of leaving the evidence as they found it.
No -- they used levitation to do it and their psychic powers to see into the trunk. Thanks for helping me to see the light.
The towers were designed to absorb the impact of the largest commercial airliner of the day, the Boeing 707.
Got any evidence that says they looked inside the trunk prior to obtaining the search warrant???? Using the words that they searched the trunk. There are words on the scanner that they were searching inside the building.
So you ARE claiming that the police disturbed evidence at a crime scene instead of waiting for CSI - even to the point of throwing clothing out onto a pavement and contaminating it.
Yeh -- they reported the shotgun that was in the trunk on the LIVE police dispatch 15 minutes after getting there.
They either looked inside the trunk and saw it or they used their super power Xray vision to see through the metal. Super heroes can do that, you know.
<>Got any evidence<>
1] Interview with one of two mothers who witnessed the 8 to 10 kids running down to the firehouse, the Lanzas Honda with black sweatshirts strewn on the ground and all 4 doors open [indication that it had probably already been searched], the broken plate glass window at the front door, the unusual quiet just before the final gunshots rang out from inside the school, and the kids subsequently and orderly evacuating the building:
2] Video at 0:24 of the broken plate glass window at the front door of the school:
3] Police dispatch with video [at 0:50] of the broken plate glass window at the front door of the school:
4] Police Dispatch of the Sandy Hook shooting:
5] STATE POLICE IDENTIFY WEAPONS USED IN SANDY HOOK
6] Details of shooting at Wikipedia with other resources and links:
7] State Police: All 26 Newtown victims shot with the Bushmaster
8]Marilyn Gudsnuk real Sandy Hook eye witness. Sees 2 boys in front of fire station running from the school as 7 or 8 police cars were going in opposite direction.
“Yeh — they reported the shotgun that was in the trunk on the LIVE police dispatch 15 minutes after getting there.”
They said no such thing.
There was NOTHING said about a gun in a trunk.
Was he INSIDE the building?? For all you know he was referencing shot gun shells.
“1] Interview with one of two mothers who witnessed the 8 to 10 kids running down to the firehouse, the Lanzas Honda with black sweatshirts strewn on the ground and all 4 doors open [indication that it had probably already been searched],”
ABOSOLUTLY NOT AN ACCURATE CONCLUSION.
You DO NOT KNOW HOW those items got on the pavement.
It is more reasonable to ASSUME that they were like that before the police got there than it is to ASSUME the police contaminated a crime scene and tainted important evidence.
So what we have is STILL NO EVIDENCE that the police searched the trunk before they got that search warrant and before they went inside to find Lanza shooting.
All we have is Uncle Chip trying to force a narrative
A narrative that would indicate the Law Enforcement contaminated a crime scene and it’s evidence.
Perhaps they are bungling fools and tainted evidence. That is what you have to believe to believe Uncle Chip’s scenario.
9:55:25: Be advised, we have multiple weapons. One rifle and a shotgun
Nice. You’ve been reduced to directing childish insults to me based on my screen name. Internet victory is mine!
You mean the children are still ALIVE? Thank goodness.
So how did the black sweatshirts wind up on the parking lot outside the vehicle??? and why were all four doors opened???
How did the shooter’s car find its way to the parking lot? Did anyone see it get there? Didn’t think so. Worthy of more study.
“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.
Pleidians ehhhh??? I think we have some here.
Well, I guess you could point out that there are actual dead children, whose actual dead bodies were carried out of the school by actual people, and then examined by an actual medical examiner, and then interred by an actual funeral director, and buried in an actual grave, while these "lying liars who lie" stood by.
I'm sure that each of the liars who lost a child WISH they were lying about their children being dead.
On the other hand, most of us aren't obsessing over the grief patterns of the parents of 6-year-olds horribly killed in a senseless act of violence. SO long as they aren't trying to take rights away, I don't even CARE if they aren't perfectly truthful when they speak of their relationship with their kids, or their feelings.
The only purpose to bring up this kind or ridiculous argument is to try to assert that there were not actual dead kids. Once you are forced to accept the basic, undeniable FACT of dead children, it really makes NO DIFFERENCE at all whether Crazy Gene is looking for a moment of fame, or some parent or another can't cry on demand, or has a rose-colored view of their life that wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.
But sadly, some people seem to think that is all that matters.
Unless your argument is that the toxic chemicals formed a sentient being which rose up, went to the local walmart, bought a gun, and wandered into the school and shot the kids while Adam watched, and then flushed themselves down the drain, nobody I imagine really CARES about the chemicals in the dirt one way or another.
If there are chemicals in the town, I feel sorry for those who have to deal with it. It didn’t kill the kids. And even if it contributed to the mental instability of Adam, it didn’t make Adam kill the kids.
I hadn’t even THOUGHT of that.
What if the car was like Christine? Then maybe the car drove itself to the school, and threw open it’s own doors, and spit out all the clothing.
Or maybe Adam was just cleaning his car that day, and he wanted a quiet place to do it, so he drove to that parking lot, and opened all the doors, and was getting everything out so he could vacuum. But the mercury seeped up, got into his brain, and made him decide to kill the kids instead.
How do they know that this particular car is the shooter’s car?
No wait, I understand now. And it all revolves around the nuns. Well not "nuns". Just ONE nun. One Very Special Nun:
Do you have that in black??? If so then we have another mystery solved.
No, because the Flying Nun was a symbol of all that was good and right, and therefore had to be white, because that was before we understood racism.
I really thought I could find a group of “flying nuns”, like a troop that did parajumping like the flying elvises, but I got bored after 5 seconds and just grabbed the Flying Nun.
OK. Got it.
BTW. At 9:55 if I remember what was posted correctly, Officer said “one rifle and a shotgun” I thought the rifle was in the school. As we all saw, just a shotgun in the trunk right? Actually “Multiple weapons. One rifle and a shotgun.” Which, according to some meant 4 handguns. Or else, where are the handguns? "So then how did they know about the shotgun at 9:55:25 on the police scanner???" I don't know. You tell me. I thought the shotgun was among the multiple weapons referenced. You know. along with the rifle. Which had to be inside cause it wasn't in the trunk. Right?