1. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member


    As has been reported on various news sites, the latest report (but not final) is being released this Monday (today? Or next Monday?) to the Connecticut states' division of criminal justice website.

    I expect the possibility of a renewed interest by CTers of this case, and also I anticipate some of them to revisit this case and nitpick more details, especially with the amount of info that will be released.

    [MOD UPDATE: Links to report]
    Here's the report (rehosted for speed, original here )

    That's just the summary, there's another 26MB file, here:

    The above PDF is in a difficult-to-view format with multiple sub-PDFs, I have extracted the individual PDF files, and included the summary file in this zip archive:

    And attached each individual PDF below, for easier reference. The numbers at the start of the file name refer to page numbers in the collated appendix, and can me used as shorthand to reference a file (e.g. 038_046)

    Attached Files:

    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 26, 2013
  2. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Even some of the headlines will fuel the fire:

  3. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    There seems to be a few news sites already (USA today, guardian express, Washington post as you mentioned) that have put the 'secrecy' spin on the case.

    I'm interested in this particular case because I was never really into conspiracy theory in general until someone turned me to all the YouTube videos surrounding this case.

    I personally feel almost everything thrown out there as proof of a false flag event at Sandy Hook has been debunked, and just from reading through this site and similar sites I began to see how easily people take news pieces and spin them into conspiracy. Every detail they can find becomes proof of their idea of government involvement or cover up or something similar.

    We'll see what new angles people take with the release of this information.
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The problem really boils down to:
    I think whats going on is that Sedensky feels a large responsibility towards the families, and so is taking unusual measures to protect their privacy by pushing the boundaries of what he can withhold, or delay releasing. Of course it's just going fuel the conspiracy fire. But then, everything does, just in different ways.
    • Like Like x 3
  5. Joe Newman

    Joe Newman Active Member

    You could be right, but you yourself are engaging in a fine display of non-ct spin. You set it up as spinning the secrecy angle, as if that is crazy talk, but regardless of whether one believes it a ff or not, there's no question it has been shrouded in secrecy. Some see that as suspicious, others make excuses for it, but either way it's there.

    It's true that people can spin things into a conspiracy but they spin them away from one with equal or greater fervor. As well, I find the idea of what constitutes "successfully" debunking something to be really flimsy in a lot of cases. "It could just as easily be" or "just because a doesn't necessarily mean b" does not constitute debunking something, so I agree that there will be a lot of people "nitpicking" the details because there are still a lot of questions that many people don't feel were dealt with. At the same time, I expect it simply reiterate the story as it stands.
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: Nov 25, 2013
    • Like Like x 2
  7. JeffreyNotGeoffrey

    JeffreyNotGeoffrey Active Member

    Ooof, epic. I never did understand these nobodies demanding information about an ongoing criminal investigation. First it's an open case still, and second the special nature of the victims does mean the case would be handled a little differently. I'm also pretty sure the people handling the case are taking their time to get as much down as possible. This is probably the biggest case most of the investigators and techs have ever worked on, maybe even in the state. Of course it would take time, and of course due to the large amount of victims and bullets used there would be a lot of forensic evidence to digest. Those tests aren't just done in a vacuum. New cases often have to get in line behind existing case loads. It just tires me when people with absolutely no criminal science background, or science background either, assume they could have handled the case better. If that is the case why aren't you a lead investigator for some DA's office? They are double checking, but it is obvious Adam Lanza did it.
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    So basically any court case where they withhold evidence from the public until the case is over could be spun into a conspiracy theory because of 'secrecy.'
    'They're obviously hiding something.'
    That's the point I'm trying to make, most of the theories surrounding Sandy Hook rely on first reports, eyewitness accounts, and the 'secrecy' of the crime scene. It's a whole lot of 'let's throw things at the wall and see what sticks'. So far nothing sticks.

    @Mick West , thanks for the OP edit, although I was curious, is this the final report? I read the final report would be thousands of pages.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Joe Newman

    Joe Newman Active Member

    I suppose any case could, but I'm not sure what that has to do with this one. The secrecy aspect to this one, however, did not appear with the report. It's been a question all the way. This isn't going to change that, nor will speculating as to why the state's attorney is acting as he is. And to be clear, it's not a bunch of AJ wannabe cters alone who are expressing concern.

    I didn't follow this one at the start, so I missed that phase. I first looked into it when word was going around about hoax vid and it being debunked. I went looking for the vid, but didn't find it, just the article that was said to debunk it.

    I did find another vid, though, which was two hours long, maybe more. Having watched that sans any of the original reports or any of that phase, I found it to raise lots of questions and the debunker article wasn't touching on them very well, so perhaps the original hoax vid didn't either, I don't know.

    Regardless, it wasn't a case of just throwing shit at the wall. I haven't followed it in a long time, but I don't recall seeing my concerns debunked, though perhaps they have been and I didn't get the memo.

    That said, the workers having to sign nondisclosure statements didn't help with the secrecy angle and this one had a lot of weirdness on a lot of levels, so it will no doubt receive a lot of "nitpicking" given that the evidence is being withheld.

    I haven't looked at any of the report, but again, my guess is it will just be an affirmation of the standard story.
  10. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    But at the end of the day, all you're left with is 'this seems weird' or 'why don't they release this info' etc. you mentioned you have some 'concerns' that haven't been debunked, so maybe you could start some threads and see where they end up. I guarantee they've either 1) been debunked on this very forum or 2) are just simple misunderstandings.
    I followed Sandy Hook from day 1, as it was being reported. I ran into conspiracy videos galore and there was a time when I was buying into it myself. But I took a step back and a good hard look at everything and realized a) most of the conspiracies are total nonsense and b) I have no reason to doubt the 'official story.'

    Have you personally been to Newtown?
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2013
    • Like Like x 3
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It says it is the final report. Most of it is in the second file which contains multiple pdfs, but still it only seems 200 pages or so. I think the "thousands of pages" refers to the full evidence file, which has not been released.

    that would be things like interviews with everyone involved, thousands of photos, etc.
  12. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The reason for lack of video:
    From 125_133
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2013
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I've updated the OP with all the individual appendix files.

    Also stuck the post, so it will always appear at the top of the SH forum.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    There's more to come:

  15. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    the nondisclosure is a "crimes against children" law thing. and ct victims of violence. many states have similar laws. some new legislation http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/archives/entry/new_law_puts_connecticut_in_the_minority_on_disclosure/ will hopefully protect our victims even more in the future. workers reporting bullet holes, blood stains, urine stains from babes who peed their pants etc serves no purpose but to further traumatize families and other children in the community.

    What evidence is being withheld? pictures of the bodies? pictures of blood? What is Connecticut withholding that is different then any other crime against children in other states?
  16. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    • Like Like x 1
  17. Joe

    Joe Senior Member

    here is the audio of Adam Lanza calling into a radio show a year prior to the shooting . If you listen he is talking about the monkey that ripped off the face of some lady in Connecticut . I think he felt bad for the monkey and even felt he was in the same position . Clearly proving he was a in need of help .
  18. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  19. William Krul

    William Krul New Member

    I wonder what the folks here think about ( http://chemtrailsplanet.net/category/sandy-hook-shooting/ ) in which a "Manual search of the Social Security Death master file lists reveals no deaths and no victims in the alleged Sandy Hook murders" ..... Glad I stumbled on to this site while searching for info RE: Wolfgang Halbig. Cheers.
  20. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    I think it's a lie. I just did a search for [ REDACTED ] and the child came up.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  21. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Yep - no problem searching from this part of the world and getting a result (specific identifying info removed)-

    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  22. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    The question is why didn't you try to search? Or are you just asking questions?
  23. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  24. james moore

    james moore New Member

    I have had someone raise questions about the DNA testing, and the apparent lack of DNA on some or the evidence in his mum's house (and the 'other offender' appearing on some evidence).

    Has anyone looked into this? I want to check first before i start to spend time looking into something that has potentially already been explained.


    1. [​IMG]
    1. [​IMG]
    1. [​IMG]
  25. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    Looks like stuff taken out of context. Just a test to identify the DNA contamination that would have taken place so as to exclude it from other results if it showed up again?
  26. james moore

    james moore New Member

    I figure that it is something simple like this, but i've read through the pages (from the link provided), and honestly i don't feel as though i can get a handle on the content well enough to understand exactly what it means.

    For example, if Adam Lanza's DNA is not on the door handle of the car, is this because he was wearing gloves, or that absence of DNA doesn't necessarily mean that he did not touch the door handle etc.

    I don't want to add another theory into the debate i'm having, but i want to be able to come back with a plausible explanation backed up by factual data, content and a proper interpretation of this information.

    So any help that anyone could give would be greatly appreciated.
  27. Svartbjørn

    Svartbjørn Senior Member

    DNA collection does NOT work like it does on CSI... now, Im not saying thats where your getting the ideas of how things work but its how the general public understands things, so Im using it as a baseline example.

    In reality, DNA is extremely delicate.. sunlight can destroy it, chemicals on the ground or in the air, cleaning agents (like having your car washed) can destroy it... thats why when investigators go looking for DNA they're doing swabs in the corners of objects, in crevices, tiny lil gaps etcetcetc.. swabbing the door handle most likely wouldnt turn up any DNA OR the DNA was in such bad shape when it got to the lab, there werent any 'usable samples' so, effectively there's no DNA.

    People LOVE touting DNA as infallible and the be all end all holy grail of evidence, and its really really really not. Its time consuming to collect and test, its a pain in the ass to test, and the tests themselves are extremely expensive to conduct. If you can get a GOOD large sample of DNA to test, its great.. blood stains, semen, roots of hair are good but they dont last long in the open environment.. so you need a LOT to piece the puzzle together.

    So to answer your question, its possible that there was none because he was wearing gloves (I have no idea, im not that familiar with the details), it could be that the samples were just too cruddy and degraded to use, or there just werent any samples on the door... he'd have to cut himself, or pinch the skin or a whole slue of things for there to really be anything to test on something as mundane as a door handle.. that god knows how many OTHER people had put their hands all over. Hope this helps.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  28. Stefania

    Stefania New Member

    When people desperately want to see something, they'll see it everywhere no matter what. I'm glad you didn't fall in the trap.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  29. TheRevWells

    TheRevWells New Member

    So much information/evidence has been put out for all to see within the public report of the Sandy Hook School Shooting and those 911 calls, wow, some of those were very hard to listen to. Watching the videos of them going through the school, as well as, the Lanza family home, was hard to watch as well and I am glad things were indeed redacted. No one needs to see the victims, at least in my opinion, even if those pictures and info were not redacted, what good would it do honestly? I can imagine what would be said if they were not redacted - wow, that is some great special effect makeup right there, you can tell they are fake because this or that doesnt look like it does, etc etc etc. Those videos are indeed chilling. While they are not showing the stuff that has been redacted, we know what took place there and in the Lanza home as well, and still its very chilling, at least for me, to watch. Ive watched most of the evidence videos and never will I watch them again, but that is just me. Even with all the information/evidence out there, people still question and some even may still harass the families that lost loved ones and to me and in my opinion, that is nothing short of evil in its purest form.

    But, I wonder what would happen if someone who was in the CT community would of experienced a tragedy, such as this one or one of the many others they label as fake, I wonder if they were involved in one, being a victim or losing someone unfortunately, I wonder if that would be enough to make them question the CT community and possibly get out, or, would they now be considered a part of the cover up, the sham as some call it, by others in their own CT community? I do wonder if that has happened before and if so, I wonder if it caused them to leave the CT community
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  30. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    I dont know if he was a full fledged conspiracy theorist per se, but the Sheriff in the Umpqua shooting had shared a Sandy Hook hoax video on his FB page a few months after SH.

    I do wonder how he feels about it, but i doubt he would talk as the one news interview i saw where they asked him, he denied sharing the SHHoax video and his statement. (People did archive it, but I'm not sure calling him out about it would help anything in anyway, i imagine he has had a change of heart.)

    Esp. since Umpqua area seems pretty pro-big-guns. At least with SH being in a liberal state they could claim "taking guns away as motive".. I dont know what the Umpqua motive would be according to CTs.. i havent watched those false flag videos except a few crisis actor ones.
    • Like Like x 1
  31. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    Dutchsince pretty much freaked out during the looting near his home in Michigan.