« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Don’t Know or Haven’t Said??? Or What???

By: kowalski (Diary)  |  December 18th, 2012 at 02:58 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

There’s some really important information that was supposed to have existed in the immediate aftermath of the shooting in Newtown that has vanished from everyone’s visibility:  the motive of the criminal established by evidence found at the scene or at his home:

If people recall, in the first 24-48 hours after the massacre, the State Police in Connecticut were quoted by the media as saying that they had recovered “very good evidence” that would paint a “complete picture” about the motive for the shootings.

In recent days, that motive and that evidence – whatever it was or whether or not it ever existed – has apparently vanished:

The Washington Post is now saying:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/for-lanza-family-son-adams-difficulties-dominated/2012/12/17/3c0e8eb0-4890-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html

“While investigators don’t know or haven’t said why Adam Lanza went on a horrific killing spree at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., a clearer portrait of the family that raised him is emerging through interviews around the country with friends and family and in divorce documents sealing the end of the Lanza’s marriage three years ago.”

Well, which is it?  Is it that they don’t know?  Or is it that they haven’t said?  Or is it that they never had?

Or is it that they have a lot of information they’ve decided is too sensitive and important to share?

It’s an important question in the debate that’s going on right now, and it doesn’t square with the earlier statements attributed to authorities that they had evidence that shed light on the motive:

Here’s the Yahoo news article from Saturday:

http://wap.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/news/blogs/lookout/evidence-found-shooter-home-may-point-motive-police-155657663.html?.b=index%2F&.ts=1355628640&.ysid=dZKeMxoAsJWjxqErOe40AWrC&.intl=US&.lang=en

“Police on Saturday said evidence recovered at gunman Lanza’s home may provide a motive for the massacre.

State police spokesman Lt. Paul Vance declined to provide specifics about the evidence but said, “we’re hopeful it will paint a complete picture.”

Here’s CBS New York:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/12/15/investigators-work-around-the-clock-to-learn-more-about-newtown-school-shooter-adam-lanza/

“Asked at a news conference whether Lanza had left any emails or other writings that might explain the rampage, state police Lt. Paul Vance said investigators had found “very good evidence” and hoped it would answer questions about the gunman’s motives. Vance would not elaborate.”

So we went from people “working around the clock” and having “very good evidence” that would hopefully paint “a complete picture” to basically nobody knowing anything – or not saying anything – about what all of that was about.

All of us are about to embark on a long and grueling process to discern what might be done to prevent shootings of this type in the future, and mysteriously one of the most important pieces of information that might help us – the evidence that was supposedly discovered shedding light on the motive of the gunman – has gone from being “very good evidence” to absolutely unavailable.

Why?

 

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • westcoastpatriette

    I noticed the same thing, kowalski, and it is all very suspicious if you ask me. Initially, the state police were enthusiastically saying they thought they had the evidence to prove and explain motive completely, and now they are shutting down. This morning they were saying that they found Lanza’s hard drive smashed to smithereens — and if I remember correctly, initially they were saying that was where this evidence was supposed to be — on his computer. They seem to be changing stories faster than they change their underwear.

    • kowalski

      You would think that the people in Newtown, at least, would like to know about the evidence that the State Police had uncovered or not uncovered shedding light on the motive of the gunman. More than anyone else in the universe, they deserve to know.

      I mean, these statements by the State Police were unambiguous. They said they had found “very good evidence” that would help paint a “complete picture” – and now there’s just nothing.

      So where are the intrepid investigative reporters at the Washington Post and the New York Times? Or anywhere else for that matter? Or doesn’t that matter?

      I mean, when an official representative says they have “very good evidence” and then several days later there’s just a black hole of information, something doesn’t exactly square up. I’m not even a professional journalist and I can tell you that.

      Where’s Bob Woodward when you need him? You can’t get from one to the other, they’re not even close.

      • westcoastpatriette

        Aha, kowalski, there was just a report on Cavuto’s show that Fox news investigative reporters claimed that a relative of Lanza’s mother told them that she was planning on going through the courts to get her son a permanent conservatorship so she could place him in a mental health facility against his will and that Adam was furious about it. Also, the same relative claimed Adam was jealous of the time his mother spent volunteering at Sandy Hook elementary school. Certainly, if these things are true they could explain motive.

        The main state trooper, however, refused to acknowledge (on Cavuto) if the info was true or if he knew about it. Also refused to acknowledge the story about the hard drive being destroyed. Claims he is not at liberty to discuss details.

        • kowalski

          Well that jibes in a way. She pulled him out of school and she was basically his guardian and steward thereafter. That kind of relationship can present all sorts of problems, and I heard she was planning to move the two of them to Washington State.

          It’s going to be very important to find out more about the relationship between this killer and his mother. I think there’s a lot there and it’s not being told.

          I think we should be withholding judgment on the whole thing until we know a lot more about what was really going on.

        • kowalski

          It’s looking more like she wanted to commit him and he wasn’t all super-duper happy about that. And I understand why, because he knew that being committed to a mental institution in this country is pretty much a death sentence right now. From her perspective, she was probably sick and tired of taking care of him all by herself, sheltering him, and doing her best. He was getting to be a man, not just a child, and that’s a lot tougher for a single mom to deal with, no matter how much money she has.

          He’s not a little boy any more. He’s a big boy. With hairs between his legs, and much stronger than she is, and a diminished perception of pain. He’s not a cute kid any more.

          Particularly if he wasn’t improving measurably, maybe she was worn out and ready to institutionalize him. She’s watching her life dwindle every single day and basically thinking: “I can’t keep this up. I’m sacrificing everything I have for this kid who isn’t getting better. And now he’s a fully grown man. He’s dangerous. Oh ***t. What am I going to do?”

          It doesn’t look like either of them were having much fun with that big house in Connecticut. He decided he had other ideas when she decided to commit him, so he decided to shoot her and then kill a room full of children, and then kill himself.

          It’s a lot more complicated than people thought. It’s a poor case to base nationwide “gun control” on if that’s true. It gets worse by the minute. Looks like divorced family + sick kid + sick family and I’m not interested in hearing about their problems keeping guns away from their overgrown, mentally-impaired manchild with nearly $300,000 a year and “quality of life payments” and neither should you be.

          It’s a pretty bad case to base national gun control on. That’s not going to stop the Democrats, though.

          • westcoastpatriette

            For him to get that angry about it suggests to me that it was an unhealthy relationship all the way around. She was probably over-protective, over-indulgent and allowed him to control her his whole life. But, I agree. It certainly has nothing to do with gun control issues.

          • kowalski

            I think she reached the point where her patience ran out and she was looking for a way out. He knew it, he knew he was about to be sent up the river, and that was that.

  • Viet71

    As a Connecticut resident, I can report the Connecticut state (and local) police are the typical police force: largely honest, mainly competent, but nothing to write home about.

    • kowalski

      I don’t have anything bad to say about the Connecticut State Police, per se. I’ve met several of them and never had anything bad to say about them. All the ones I’ve met (not in any official capacity, thankfully) have been what they’re supposed to be: professionals who serve the public and do a job that I really would rather not do – at least day in and day out. I’m not disparaging them in any way. I know they have some of the toughest jobs out there. I support the police – in Connecticut, in Massachusetts, and in a lot of other places – through means both related to my business and otherwise.

      But that doesn’t change the fact that we’ve got information that supposedly existed, that we were told existed, and which was crucially important to establishing a motive, that’s now apparently NLA. It’s important to know the facts of this “random mass shooting” because this is widely viewed as a “tipping point” event on gun control in the United States. What happens as a result of Newtown is *going* to effect hundreds of millions of people, one way or the other. So the missing information is important.

      I want to know what, exactly, we’re supposed to be tipping over. The motive in this massacre is not meaningless. It existed and it does exist, and it’s important to know as much about it as we can.

      Lots of things change because of the circumstances of this thing, and until we know the facts, we shouldn’t make *any* decisions.

  • Jon “Occam” Blue-Collar

    I fail to see the need for establishing the motive for Lanza’s evil actions and the resulting massacre of innocent lives. Navel gazing his actions only serves to humanize his character and his persona and in turn at the hands of this administration, as you can see in the daily headlines, vilify guns and their owners.

    I understand the public wants to know his motives to possibly correct anything “we” might have failed this person on, be it care at a mental health facility or stricter controls on guns and their owners. This does not change the fact he is not the first mass murderer and he won’t be the last, all of their motives varied, understanding them does not change their end result. His personal story of “why” only championizes him to those in society willing to mimic his massacre. It will not bring peace to his victims or their families, and it will not stop the next Adam Lanza. I choose not to indulge this monster as anything comparable to normal by humanizing his motives and trying to understand them.

    I understand this is difficult to accept for our nation, but there is no one to be punished or brought to justice in this crime, the assailant is dead.
    As for government, you cannot look to it to legislate human behavior and its many motives, that is the role of society, not politicians. Until we learn this lesson there will be many more Sandy Hooks, Ft. Hoods and Columbines, especially with the headline notion of disarming ourselves makes us safer as a society.