Weird statement, did he misspeak and really mean *potential witnesses*?
If he did not misspeak, WTH.
No, I think he meant “potential suspects”. It would be absurd to ASSUME that Adam acted alone. If he DID act alone, you’ll figure that out when, after you do all the investigation, you can’t find anybody else who worked with him.
If you start by assuming he was a lone gunman, you’ll ignore anything that points elsewhere, and probably never find anything different.
How do we know that Adam didn’t tell his plan to someone else? Or if there was something that happened in the school that triggered his attack, something that itself might have been criminal? Did the mother have all her guns legally, or were some of them purchased illegally? If illegal, was it because some gun store didn’t follow the law, or did the mother lie on the forms?
I’m not saying that any of those things are true. I’m saying that, in an investigation, there are a lot of things to look at, and you want to keep witness statements confidential both to protect witnesses (if there IS another conspirator), and to keep other witnesses from having tainted stories because of what they read from others.
If we find out Adam was alone, that won’t surprise me. It wouldn’t particularly surprise me if there was somebody else involved, although I would be surprised if it was another active shooter. But maybe a facilitator.
One thing that we know little about is the mother being shot. We know she was shot, but how do we KNOW that Adam did it? I don’t think they have said that the bullets were matched. Or what if someone wanted her dead, and set off Adam so he’d do it? See, there are many possibilities to be eliminated, and I’m glad to see that the investigators aren’t wedded to a predetermined outcome.
It’s funny though watching the conspiracy nuts who act like these signs of good investigations are actually signs of a coverup. Because no good coverup is going to point out the potential “other suspects”.