Pretty standard procedure during an ongoing investigation .. things don't often get opened up until it's case closed.

In line with the official story, it would probably have to do with the brother (the one that hadn't seen him in 2+ years), father or friends of the shooter.

Not saying that I believe the official story.

good luck ever seeing the real paperwork.. if anything ever is released it will be heavily modified... they need time to work on it you know..

I find this very interesting. I took note, that they now mention Nancy Lanza’s car was parked in the garage, they also say " the car Adam Lanza drove to Sandy Hook elementary", which now not necessarily means that the car was Nancy’s as stated before! Of course she could have had more then one car.

It was suggested to me before, that the media had it all wrong and the info was not released for very good reasons, which would support a theory that there might have been another shooter.

Sedensky also said the possibility has not been ruled out, and that releasing the information would make it difficult to solve crimes that others might have committed..

Sedensky said in his applications that the affidavits contained information "not known to the general public" and that premature disclosure would "seriously jeopardize the outcome and success of the investigation"

I think it shows that the publics demand for information sometimes can interfere with finding justice. It's THE question... Our right to know... Or the victims right to justice. And of course we have to trust that the seal of records really is for justice. For my question let's assume it is. Tough choice...?

Since they have a dead shooter, maybe they are looking at other covenient crimes to hang on the guy.....

Seriously though, the smashed computer is the key as far as i can tell......its the one wierd item that has me fascinated......i believe it was done to protect someone...
Should they reconstruct the hard drive, i am thinking they may find that Adam had some kind of mentor......

Originally posted by stirling
Since they have a dead shooter, maybe they are looking at other covenient crimes to hang on the guy.....

Seriously though, the smashed computer is the key as far as i can tell......its the one wierd item that has me fascinated......i believe it was done to protect someone...
Should they reconstruct the hard drive, i am thinking they may find that Adam had some kind of mentor......

I agree. I couldn't think of a reason to smash the computer. The only reason I couldn't debate in my head was to make sure you don't take someone down with you. could very well be the result of someone not helping him though. His last bout with anger before his temper made him trash the computer, and then begin that horrid day

Originally posted by Vaeduri wonder what other kind of crimes have been committed..

One I can think of off the top of my head would be the falsifying of witness statements. Specifically the report from the Newtown Bee that they spoke to someone claiming to be the principal...after she had died.

I would think that impersonating a dead person would be a crime.

But seriously...we shouldn't be talking about this. Think about the children.

You'll be told...what you need to know when you need to know it...

Originally posted by Ladyk74
I find this very interesting. I took note, that they now mention Nancy Lanza’s car was parked in the garage, they also say " the car Adam Lanza drove to Sandy Hook elementary", which now not necessarily means that the car was Nancy’s as stated before! Of course she could have had more then one car.

It was suggested to me before, that the media had it all wrong and the info was not released for very good reasons, which would support a theory that there might have been another shooter.

Sedensky also said the possibility has not been ruled out, and that releasing the information would make it difficult to solve crimes that others might have committed..

Sedensky said in his applications that the affidavits contained information "not known to the general public" and that premature disclosure would "seriously jeopardize the outcome and success of the investigation"

edit on 28-12-2012 by Ladyk74 because: (no reason given)

You do realize that a reporter wrote the article, right? And since the search warrants are sealed the reporter's wording of the article has zero bearing on your theory about the car being owned by somebody else.

Make sense?

The search warrants are sealed.

The reporter doesn't know who owns the car.

The "interesting" wording makes no logical sense. Nice try though at keeping your theory going. Guess you'll have to wait 90 days. That's a lot of time for speculating about conspiracies and cover-ups.

Did you ever think logically about the 2nd shooter theory? If the police suspect a second shooter is on the loose and collectively they agreed not to inform the public, they would all be fired and/or possibly prosecuted.

Keep up the great research!

Originally posted by bknapple32

I agree. I couldn't think of a reason to smash the computer.

To quote the Boomtown Rats on the subject of school yard shootings:

"They can see no reasons
'Cause there are no reasons
What reason do you need to be shown"

Lanza wasn't necessarily acting rationally and there could be any number of seemingly illogical reasons why he smashed his computer.

You do realize that a reporter wrote the article, right? And since the search warrants are sealed the reporter's wording of the article has zero bearing on your theory about the car being owned by somebody else.

Make sense?

The search warrants are sealed.

The reporter doesn't know who owns the car.

The "interesting" wording makes no logical sense. Nice try though at keeping your theory going. Guess you'll have to wait 90 days. That's a lot of time for speculating about conspiracies and cover-ups.

Did you ever think logically about the 2nd shooter theory? If the police suspect a second shooter is on the loose and collectively they agreed not to inform the public, they would all be fired and/or possibly prosecuted.

Keep up the great research!

I'm not keeping a theory going, I merely stated I found it interesting especially:

Sedensky also said the possibility has not been ruled out, and that releasing the information would make it difficult to solve crimes that others might have committed..

I also believe that I have other reasons to think there might have been a second shooter, and it could be the case that the police does not know who is involved for sure, but might have evidence we don't know of, that supports that theory and does not release that info for various reasons.


Why not explore the possibility that the car might have not been N. Lanza's? I also did not mention any names in my above post. Thank you.

Originally posted by DelMarvel

Originally posted by bknapple32

I agree. I couldn't think of a reason to smash the computer.

To quote the Boomtown Rats on the subject of school yard shootings:

"They can see no reasons
'Cause there are no reasons
What reason do you need to be shown"

Lanza wasn't necessarily acting rationally and there could be any number of seemingly illogical reasons why he smashed his computer.

i agree. You can not use logic as to whysomeone commits ab illogical act.

Originally posted by Vaedur

Sedensky said in his applications that the affidavits contained information "not known to the general public" and that premature disclosure would "seriously jeopardize the outcome and success of the investigation" by "divulging sensitive and confidential information" known only to investigators.
Although no arrests have been made and "none are contemplated," Sedensky also said the possibility has not been ruled out, and that releasing the information would make it difficult to solve crimes ...

Could jeopardize the investigation.....No arrests are contemplated.

I wonder what part of the investigation could be jeopardized? The whole world knows this kid did it. He's been named as the "dead shooter" by the police and the media and no other arrests are being contemplated.

If there are no other participants that day I can't imagine what part of their investigation could be jeopardized.

If he wasn't the only shooter then surely they'd let the public know there's a psycho on the loose.

Perhaps they're considering charges against all the un-named officials (local and state) that were feeding info to the media minutes after the police arrived.

When they say it could jeopardize the investigation, what they are really saying is that they are stuck in damage control mode and many people know it.

Originally posted by sconner755

Originally posted by Ladyk74
I find this very interesting. I took note, that they now mention Nancy Lanza’s car was parked in the garage, they also say " the car Adam Lanza drove to Sandy Hook elementary", which now not necessarily means that the car was Nancy’s as stated before! Of course she could have had more then one car.

It was suggested to me before, that the media had it all wrong and the info was not released for very good reasons, which would support a theory that there might have been another shooter.

Sedensky also said the possibility has not been ruled out, and that releasing the information would make it difficult to solve crimes that others might have committed..

Sedensky said in his applications that the affidavits contained information "not known to the general public" and that premature disclosure would "seriously jeopardize the outcome and success of the investigation"

edit on 28-12-2012 by Ladyk74 because: (no reason given)

You do realize that a reporter wrote the article, right? And since the search warrants are sealed the reporter's wording of the article has zero bearing on your theory about the car being owned by somebody else.

Make sense?

The search warrants are sealed.

The reporter doesn't know who owns the car.

The "interesting" wording makes no logical sense. Nice try though at keeping your theory going. Guess you'll have to wait 90 days. That's a lot of time for speculating about conspiracies and cover-ups.

Did you ever think logically about the 2nd shooter theory? If the police suspect a second shooter is on the loose and collectively they agreed not to inform the public, they would all be fired and/or possibly prosecuted.

Keep up the great research!


Just have to try and stir up stuff with your sarcasm, I see who you are.

Originally posted by Sek82
When they say it could jeopardize the investigation, what they are really saying is that they are stuck in damage control mode and many people know it.

you may be correct there. maybe they ran out of black ink to blackout info and are awaiting a shipment.