Judge Rules Documents Seized From Sandy Hook Shooting Must Remain Secret

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: eisegesis

All of it is likely fake and placed there. If no one sees it they can claim whatever they like, people are good at finding discrepancies.

To all of those who feel there was nothing fishy in this whole thing I feel you are blind so who cares if you think me a nut.

The Hartford Courant submitted Freedom of Information Requests for 35 documents related to the Sandy Hook shooter. These documents include drawings, the "Big Book of Granny", class photo from Sandy Hook Elementary School from 2002-2004, "Lovebound" a play about a love affair between a 10 year old boy and a 30 year old man, and the infamous "Spreadsheet of Mass Murders".

So is Lovebound written by him? That's a pretty big coincidence that springs forth in pedophile rings, and frankly with how disgusting American leaders and The Inbred Royal Family are, it wouldn't surprise me if this went all the way to the top.

a reply to: eisegesis

I honestly don't think there is very much that a government should use secrecy laws to hide. If their dealings are honest and not vested interest that is, there is no need for it.

It would cute out speculation and bribery both of which we could do without when one looks at the state of the world today. The question is always exactly who is being protected by secrecy laws and especially why?

..thats because the hand written notes are clues to the fact that mind manipulation was taking place... imagine if his words on paper were all to similar to those whispered by Sirhan Sirhan

a reply to: eisegesis
Us both, if not all of us are ignorant, ignorant in the manner that no matter what when how why or wtf.....!!!!


We never #F know anything any #f more....wow, so sorry, just. I dont even know anymore, but thanks for this....not surprised of course but yeah....we the locos in here

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

This judge absolutely made the proper ruling.

The judge wrote that his decision on the case would apply to all future cases in which public disclosure is sought of privately created documents not used in a criminal trial that police have seized from innocent victims

For instance the police search your home and take your diary where you list your bank account pin and passwords. The diary is found to have no worth in the charges against you, but now your whole diary is made available to the public.



You think that sounds right?

Dead people don't require privacy, nor do mass murderers deserve it.

That should probably read "nor do alleged mass murderers deserve it."

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: MALBOSIA



Fine. personally i know what happened at Sandy Hook. I love studying criminal cases, forensics, the history of it, etc.



But seriously, this perpetrator was just bats***. He made a mess of a bunch of trapped school children with hi velocity rounds form a military style rifle.



There isn't much to analyze further. It should just be allowed to fade away.

I think there may be legitimate doubts as to the identity of the perpetrator(s) in this case.

Definitely shouldn't be allowed to just fade away.

Was Adam Lanza Murdered?

Sandy Hook Forensic Evidence

CT State Trooper Testimony Suggests 2nd Sandy Hook Shooter

Did an AR-15 Do This?

What REALLY Happened at Sandy Hook

originally posted by: BiffWellington

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: MALBOSIA



Fine. personally i know what happened at Sandy Hook. I love studying criminal cases, forensics, the history of it, etc.



But seriously, this perpetrator was just bats***. He made a mess of a bunch of trapped school children with hi velocity rounds form a military style rifle.



There isn't much to analyze further. It should just be allowed to fade away.

I think there may be legitimate doubts as to the identity of the perpetrator(s) in this case.

Definitely shouldn't be allowed to just fade away.

Lol, go protest that to the town folk and police station there, see where that gets you. Go bang on the doors of victims families and grill them about your suspicions that their kids weren't murdered by a murderer… double lol…

Sit down. Or get upset about s*** that really matters, this countries gubment is mass murdering whole nations…

a reply to: intrptr

Oh I have no doubt that those kids were murdered. I just doubt that it happened the way we've been told.

I personally think that those so adamant about getting access to someones private data are at such a loss in their own lives they need to fulfill it by living vicariously through others lives in this manner. It is sad, really if you think about it.

My personal data, regardless of what anyone WANTS is mine, period. It is protected by our own United States Constitution. Don't like it, have the amendment repealed. Then I can request all of YOUR personal data to to use as I see fit.

I this particular case, the evidence collected was not ALL used in the court proceedings. Therefore, it is not considered part of public record. Therefore, it is not subject to being released under FOIA. If anyone wants that information, then speak to the estate itself. Speak to the people that now own that data, likely his living family. That is how the law works. DO not like it, then petition to change the law.

Anything less is merely whining and tantrums IMO.

a reply to: eisegesis

This just came down today:www.msn.com...


Maybe someone w/a law degree can figure out how to get the outlawed data into court records???

Sandy Hook families can sue gun industry
By Ken Dixon and Dan Tepfer Updated 8:24 pm, Thursday, April 14, 2016

www.ctpost.com...

a reply to: SeaWorthy

That decision will get overturned upon appeal.

If it doesn't, that opens up a wonder chest of litigation that the court system doesn't want to deal with...

Sue the manufacturer of a tool used, oh, wait, a stolen tool, in the commition of a crime?

Ford motors gets sued because a Mustang is used in a bank robbery? Or a DUI? No. Not a good idea.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
I personally think that those so adamant about getting access to someones private data are at such a loss in their own lives they need to fulfill it by living vicariously through others lives in this manner. It is sad, really if you think about it.

My personal data, regardless of what anyone WANTS is mine, period. It is protected by our own United States Constitution. Don't like it, have the amendment repealed. Then I can request all of YOUR personal data to to use as I see fit.

I this particular case, the evidence collected was not ALL used in the court proceedings. Therefore, it is not considered part of public record. Therefore, it is not subject to being released under FOIA. If anyone wants that information, then speak to the estate itself. Speak to the people that now own that data, likely his living family. That is how the law works. DO not like it, then petition to change the law.

Anything less is merely whining and tantrums IMO.

So another words you are having a tantrum about the fact that we do not trust that cases like this and many others are likely being handled improperly.

Why should the LAW have access to it then, especially if they are not going to use it in a court case.

No matter how you slice it, it sounds like you fully trust the system, and the LAW.

Can anyone tell my why the gov would hold back facts that would shed light on an incident that took the lives of children? For the love of all things right, why would they want to sue a weapons manufacturing company but NOT want to release info? Can someone please make sense of this?

originally posted by: THEBEARDEDGOAT
Can anyone tell my why the gov would hold back facts that would shed light on an incident that took the lives of children? For the love of all things right, why would they want to sue a weapons manufacturing company but NOT want to release info? Can someone please make sense of this?

The government is withholding evidence that it collected because it was not deemed useful in the court case... that evidence is now protected under privacy laws again. The same way the government seizes hard drives of criminals and finds all sorts of other nonsense unrelated to the case and does not release it. If you don't trust that the government handled the case well you can solicit the evidence from the estate of the murderer.

As for suing the gun manufacturer all I can guess is these families are desperate to hold everybody accountable that could've made this happen. And while I feel a deep sorrow for these families they are unjust in filing suit against the gun manufacturers. The judge made a mistake allowing this case to go forward but it's likely an appeals court will overturn it.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Krakatoa
I personally think that those so adamant about getting access to someones private data are at such a loss in their own lives they need to fulfill it by living vicariously through others lives in this manner. It is sad, really if you think about it.

My personal data, regardless of what anyone WANTS is mine, period. It is protected by our own United States Constitution. Don't like it, have the amendment repealed. Then I can request all of YOUR personal data to to use as I see fit.

I this particular case, the evidence collected was not ALL used in the court proceedings. Therefore, it is not considered part of public record. Therefore, it is not subject to being released under FOIA. If anyone wants that information, then speak to the estate itself. Speak to the people that now own that data, likely his living family. That is how the law works. DO not like it, then petition to change the law.

Anything less is merely whining and tantrums IMO.

So another words you are having a tantrum about the fact that we do not trust that cases like this and many others are likely being handled improperly.

Why should the LAW have access to it then, especially if they are not going to use it in a court case.

No matter how you slice it, it sounds like you fully trust the system, and the LAW.

No tantrum here. Just adult discussion and use of actual facts in a debate. Tell me, what facts have you brought to this discussion that are not based upon emotional responses? Just because I acknowledge that the law exists, and am willing to understand that law, and abide by it, does not mean I am colluding with the government in some wild conspiracy. There is a way to get at this information, and I have outlined them clearly. If you (or anyone else) REALLY want access to it, then make it happen. That is not going to happen by just typing here on an Internet forum and whining incessantly that "We deserve to see it", etc..

Work to change the system if needed, be part of the solution. Otherwise, it is all just sounds like a child complaining to me.

But then, I could be wrong. I am not infallible, nor is anyone else here, regardless of their own ego.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Please stop calling us whiners, children or "sad" for that matter. It detracts from your entire point.

Adult discussion? Not yet...

If I'm not mistaken, you've cast the first stone.

But then, I could be wrong. I am not infallible, nor is anyone else here, regardless of their own ego.

If you admit to possibly being wrong, don't come on so strong and label people you find unpalatable any of the three descriptions listed at the beginning of this post. While I respect your opinion and hopefully future contributions, being an adult does not constitute calling or labeling others, without knowing them fully, anything less than "unconvinced" by the official story. We are free thinkers and are not easily persuaded.

a reply to: eisegesis

I stand corrected. You are right. Let me correct my statements. You are not whiners, you are acting like whiners and children. Adults identify a problem, develop a solution, and carry forward with that solution. Children simply complain about something expecting others to give them what they want.

So, please stop acting like that. I have offered viable solutions for you and others to get access to the information your seem so adamant you need to see. I challenge you to follow through with actions and not words.

a reply to: eisegesis

since when did the feds respect private property? Such favouritism is sickening.

a reply to: eisegesis

Don't we already know enough about this to say that this kid was either not involved, a patsy, or something else? Sandy hook was really fishy. Of course they aren't going to release that stuff. *sigh*