reply to post by captaintyinknots
...i'd like to highlight a point of specificity... He wasn't apprehended INSIDE the school, he was apprehended OUTSIDE the school. running AWAY from
police, INTO the woods..
as to the wording of the L.A. Times article...the way it is worded, COULD lead one to believe that the father was, in fact, the one who discovered the
child hiding in a closet....Instead of saying "he later found the child", it probably should have said something to the effect of "He was later
reunited with his daughter, who had been found by police hiding in a closet with a teacher". I think it was a case of poor wording, which i chalk up
to the generally poor command of the English language, present in so many Americans today..
This is, of course, assuming he wasn't actually allowed to go looking for his kid....procedure, and common sense would scream that wasn't the case,
but we've already seen examples of procedural adherence issues with the way the situation was handled by "authorities" throughout the day of the
shooting...the improper way SWAT "cleared" the building, and their complete inability to keep the media vultures from disseminating misinformation,
and disinformation, being the two most glaringly obvious..
and what about this purple van?
what about lanza?
what about the discrepancies regarding the weapons used?
what about the strange way the medical examiner acted?
what about gene rosen? shadow analysis put him at the firehouse around 1030hrs. his story doesn't track..
what about the multiple people detained by police that day, in suspected connection with the event?
I already asked about the school...why does it look like its about to be demolished? is there something to hide there?
there are plenty of things wrong with this event, plenty of questions to ask, none of them are crazy....
edit on 2-2-2013 by Daedalus because:
(no reason given)