Not sure what you mean here. He was announced as the killer in the national media, complete with arrest photos. I'm sure his friends didn't believe he'd done it, but the bulk of the nation (including myself) had no way of knowing police had named the wrong guy. Both police and media were reporting at that time that additional killers potentially remained on the loose, so yes, many people thought Ryan Lanza was part of the crime. "The shooter has been identified as Ryan Lanza," plus a photo of Ryan in handcuffs, has the strange effect of leading people to sincerely think Ryan Lanza killed children. The flood of hate he received was also fairly sincere. It must be factored in that Ryan was living in Hoboken NJ, where his father was reported to have been discovered dead that morning, and Ryan's girlfriend and friend reported missing.
Incidentally, I am not researching the Sandy Hook conspiracy. I am researching the Sandy Hook crime. People tend to mystify Sandy Hook and other major news stories, but it's just a crime like any other (however more horrific), and the same rules of inquiry apply as to any other. Most--we could probably say all--major crimes are complex, and the responses to them are complex. To really understand both requires, more often than not, years of effort. Case in point, Columbine: families worked tirelessly for years to make 30,000 pages of documentation from that crime public, witness names and all, to serve the national interest. Without question, lives were saved at Sandy Hook due to lessons learned from Columbine, and in no small part due to the efforts of Columbine families. Likewise, a thorough and evolving understanding of Sandy Hook and its response will undoubtedly save lives in future.
I think "CT" as a label is uninformative (as are most labels). It doesn't begin to describe a set population with genuinely shared characteristics. A "conspiracy" or at least criminal conspiracy simply means more than one person talked about committing a crime. So what you're saying is that the world population can be divided into people who think only one person at a time commits crimes vs. those who think people conspire to commit crimes, and that somehow this division indicates a significant difference in mental makeup between the two types of observers. That makes little sense, in that history shows crimes can be committed both by lone actors, and by groups of actors and abettors; it depends on the crime. I believe statistics favor the latter, which is why police tend, as they did in the Sandy Hook response, to presume multiple actors until proven otherwise. In other words, police presume the possibility of a conspiracy as an investigational starting point. So it shouldn't be scandalous that other people, too, wonder whether a crime was planned/committed by more than one person.
Also, we must keep in mind that the conspiracy in question may not be the initial conspiracy, but any any conspiracy to commit crime (e.g. withhold evidence) when responding to the crime.
It would probably be a bit more accurate to use CT for "coverup theorist," as I think that describes the bulk of suspicions more accurately in these cases. Just my two bits.