It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Connecticut Gov. Introduces Bill to Supress Sandy Hook Information

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   
There is a trend happening in this country were major news events are being presented to the public as fact while critical information is withheld. We are told that Adam Lanza shot his way into Sandy Hook Elementary, entering through a door that was monitored by a surveillance camera, yet we are never shown this footage, footage that would pretty much dispel many conspiracy theories surrounding this event. Now it appears the Governor is crafting legislation to ensure that all information surrounding this event will be sealed and protected from FOIA requests.



The proposal is in a bill privately crafted by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's office, the state's top prosecutor and legislative leaders. It would allow authorities to withhold from the public photographs, videos, 911 call recordings and other records depicting the physical condition of any victim of the Dec. 14 shootings, unless the family gives written permission.

The legislation would bar the release of emergency responders' audio transmissions but allow the public to view transcripts of the recordings at a cost of 50 cents a page. The bill also would limit disclosure of the death certificates of the 20 first-graders and six educators killed in the attack to immediate family members only.

Media groups and advocates of public records laws worry the bill, which is pending, would set a bad precedent by exempting specific incidents from FOI laws.


It's beyond a bad precedent, it's dangerous.



They [Media Groups] also question the bill being drafted in secrecy and not being subjected to the public hearing process like other bills are.


Of course, you can't let democracy stand in the way of suppressing journalism.



Parents of some Newtown shooting victims said at a news conference at the state Capitol on Friday that one of their main concerns was photos of the massacre scene being posted online.

"I'm fully supportive of an open and transparent government, but I can't understand how distributing graphic photos of murdered teachers and children serves any purpose other than causing our families more pain," said Dean Pinto, whose 6-year-old son, Jack, was killed in the school shooting.

"Unfortunately, newspapers are no longer the only disseminators of information," he said. "The world of information has changed substantially over the past few years and our Freedom of Information laws need to adjust to the times. There are many who lack the common sense and decency of mainstream media (and) who will freely use these images for their own disgusting purposes."


Now the agenda is clear, bar alternative media from access so that the MSM will be the only voice in events like Sandy Hook. Freedom of Information does not apply to those who question what they are being told. And really, since when does the MSM have "common sense and decency"? To me, this sounds like a direct attack on the alternative media.



Colorado officials are denying media requests for records on the Aurora movie theater shootings last year that killed 12 people and injured 70. But 13 years ago, Colorado authorities released some surveillance video of the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton that left 13 people dead, and those videos are all over the Internet.


Again, the trend is to beat us over the head with the official story while presenting no proof to support it. There were security cameras all over that movie theater, yet we're shown no footage. Note, there aren't many conspiracy theories about Columbine, and it wasn't considered indecent or disgusting to show footage of that event on the news. There is concrete proof there as to what happened. Meanwhile we are told that the FBI has surveillance footage of the Boston Bombers planting bombs at the marathon, yet we are never shown that once piece of smoking gun footage. We are told that Osama bin Laden was killed in a raid by Navy SEALS, but we aren't allowed to see the pictures.

Believe what we tell you, you don't need to see the proof, and how dare you question the official story!

Link




posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
And had places like ATS and Cluesforum left these families alone (and i'm not talking about everyone here at ATS only a select few) and not tried to confront them at their homes screaming that they really didn't lose kids and they were all actors, Malloy wouldn't have introduced this bill..

Put the blame for this where it squarely belongs... On the people that had to keep pushing the families into corners for no other reason than to fuel their own paranoia..



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Umm.. Okay, I read this earlier.


It would allow authorities to withhold from the public photographs, videos, 911 call recordings and other records depicting the physical condition of any victim of the Dec. 14 shootings, unless the family gives written permission.


and...


The legislation would bar the release of emergency responders' audio transmissions but allow the public to view transcripts of the recordings at a cost of 50 cents a page. The bill also would limit disclosure of the death certificates of the 20 first-graders and six educators killed in the attack to immediate family members only.
(Op Link)

It seems limited in scope, very specific and with supporting logic as well as public in it's details and intent. I don't see the problem here. Unless people are looking for the pics of bodies and autopsies...or video of the crime in progress, I honestly don't see the issue. If people ARE looking for that? I'd say they better either have a badge or a very good psychotherapist. They need one of the two.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by vkey08
And had places like ATS and Cluesforum left these families alone (and i'm not talking about everyone here at ATS only a select few) and not tried to confront them at their homes screaming that they really didn't lose kids and they were all actors, Malloy wouldn't have introduced this bill..

Put the blame for this where it squarely belongs... On the people that had to keep pushing the families into corners for no other reason than to fuel their own paranoia..




I don't for a minute believe that is the reason for censoring info from Sandy Hook.

There is so many conflicting accounts, disconnects, bogus reporting and out right lies that the officials, cops and media are trying to cover their azz for being so incompetent.

However I believe it goes much deeper than mere incompetence. Much much deeper!!
edit on 2-6-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by vkey08
And had places like ATS and Cluesforum left these families alone (and i'm not talking about everyone here at ATS only a select few) and not tried to confront them at their homes screaming that they really didn't lose kids and they were all actors, Malloy wouldn't have introduced this bill..

Put the blame for this where it squarely belongs... On the people that had to keep pushing the families into corners for no other reason than to fuel their own paranoia..



I'm sorry, but it sounds like a bunch of excuse making for people that have something to hide.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   
I still have some firearm instructor and cop friends in that god-forsaken cesspool of a state and the buzz is that there is a world of bungles and responder follies contained in that info making the first responders and "hero" cops out to be disturbingly inept.

Wouldnt surprise me one bit. In fact I'd expect no less from any department in that state having the experiences I've had with those clowns.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I don't understand the logic of the families, you lose your kid and you go on NATIONAL TV broadcasted who knows how many times a day to talk about the death of your kids.

Now, all crazy paranoia harassment aside, what were they expecting when they showed their faces on national TV?

Let me guess, they wanted many people to give them flowers and cards right? Donations?

If you don't want to be bothered, don't go on national TV.

Refuse the interview and say : F u## off, we lost our kid and we don't want to talk.
edit on 2-6-2013 by peashooter because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-6-2013 by peashooter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 





It seems limited in scope, very specific and with supporting logic as well as public in it's details and intent. I don't see the problem here. Unless people are looking for the pics of bodies and autopsies...or video of the crime in progress, I honestly don't see the issue. If people ARE looking for that? I'd say they better either have a badge or a very good psychotherapist. They need one of the two.


I disagree, I think this is very broad in scope, they are looking to seal records that would then be immune to FOIA requests. Transcripts can be doctored, and I challenge ATS'ers out there to even find transcripts of 911 calls made that day. Think back to 9/11, the emergency audio transmissions painted a very different story, and they too were suppressed until a FOIA request made them public. On them we heard firefighters talking about how the fires were almost out, the situation was under control, then it wasn't.

Releasing surveillance footage of Adam Lanza walking into that school in body armor, wielding an AR-15 and strapped with a dozen banana clips would certainly silence a lot of the detractors out there. That footage must exist after all, if the official story is true. We saw similar footage at Columbine, it proved beyond a shadow of a doubt what happened that day.

Again, we are told to believe the official story without being presented with proof. Just shut up and stop asking questions. Releasing photos of Osama bin Laden's corpse would be in bad taste, yet I saw Saddam hanged in public, Gaddafi dragged through the street, Uday and Quasay shot to pieces, but bin Laden? No. Meanwhile there is complete media blackout in Aurora, and now in Boston too. There was a high speed chase and a shootout yet where is the dashcam footage? Seems to me in all these cases there's something to hide.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by DirtyD
 





unless the family gives written permission.
Key phrase here.

I see no problem with this, to an extent. The graphic details, with specifics, do not need to be made public.

Also, lets remember, most of the victims were minors. It is not unprecedented to hold details back when the victim is a minor.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by DirtyD
 


You hit on the one area in this that does bother me a bit. I have no problems with the video, photos and death certs being withheld. Most of the victims are kids anyway and age always makes what gets released a touchy matter, even when it isn't a spree killing with nightmarish details to it.

The transcripts though...particularly radio logs and 911 calls. Hmm... I've been trying to figure out what is on those that is so personal or objectionable that everyone related to this bill/order is on board with it. I'll bet this started as a larger wish list of things to keep quiet and this is just what survived the process to make a bill with.

Having said that...Well, what could it be? I'm wondering HOW detailed, in a state of shock, some responders actually got about what they were seeing in a room full of kids, likely in many pieces from point blank gunfire into such small bodies. (I'm TRYING to be graphic in the very nature these are being withheld to hold, but it's hard not to in the reasoning, isn't it?)

I'm also wondering if one or more didn't flat out break down and some or all of that is caught on the radio. No scene hits worse than a child killing scene, from what I have heard from people who do this for a living. Almost 2 dozen dead kids had to be enough to nearly push some right off the edge, even with their lines of work. It's a horrible thing....

So, perhaps, that is what the transcript part is about. Simply a matter of things that wouldn't normally be a part of that area of record, being a part of this one by the horror and overwhelming nature of the event?



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by DirtyD
 





unless the family gives written permission.
Key phrase here.

I see no problem with this, to an extent. The graphic details, with specifics, do not need to be made public.

Also, lets remember, most of the victims were minors. It is not unprecedented to hold details back when the victim is a minor.


Agreed, but 911 calls and security camera footage do not need permission from victims' parents, that is unprecedented. This is evidence to a crime that is not just being withheld, but completely buried, and since the alleged perpetrator is dead, there will be no trial and this evidence will never see the light of day. Therefor, we will never have proof that it was Adam Lanza who acted alone in this heinous crime.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


According to the article, the transcripts will be made available, though at a cost. But the actual audio will be buried. Makes no sense. I certainly have no problem with gruesome images being withheld, but outside school security footage is a different story. Why prevent footage of Lanza parking his car, gearing up, and shooting his way in from being made public? Why not release the phone call made from inside the school to police dispatch reporting the crime in progress? It just throws another cloud over an already foggy story that is being sold as the complete truth.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by DirtyD
 

Do we know there is outside footage that is in any way useful? I honestly had looked at the school and grounds from media footage looking for cameras and I hadn't noticed any where they'd be relevent or useful. If they were there, I did miss them.




There is a primary corner feature of the exterior and I don't see a camera anywhere? They could have small globe cameras inside, but this is the Northeast. One doesn't put cheap cameras on an exterior and expect them to last more than the opening of the first winter. I'd expect to see them pretty clear and then, indeed, I'd ask some hard things about why 100% exterior shots of the suspect parking and entering, presumably with weapons, isn't released with anything else?

Please do correct me if I've missed something specifically identifying exterior film from the period of time it was actually happening?



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by vkey08
And had places like ATS and Cluesforum left these families alone (and i'm not talking about everyone here at ATS only a select few) and not tried to confront them at their homes screaming that they really didn't lose kids and they were all actors, Malloy wouldn't have introduced this bill..

Put the blame for this where it squarely belongs... On the people that had to keep pushing the families into corners for no other reason than to fuel their own paranoia..




Yeah, well maybe this was the endgame they were playing-- the conspiracy that people were smelling.

First, Take a tragedy (of course some would say "stage" but I don't think that's necessary here, and I'd rather not open that can of worms)

Second, get the authorities and the mainstream media to report the facts in such a way that raises more questions than it answers and gets people talking.

Third, maybe even get some agent provocatuers online to either start yelling "Crisis Actors!" or maybe even advocate the naming of names, or contacting involved parties.

Fourth, again use the media to point out the harassment of involved parties, and all the conspiracy talk-- painting conspiracy theorists in the worst light possible.

Fifth, draft legislation and pat yourselves on the back.....



I agree that either way this is a dangerous precedent. And several elements of it don't make sense to me. As mentioned-- how much could really be revealed in a 911 call? And if they're allowing the transcripts, why not the audio? What can be learned in one that can't be learned in the other? That just doesn't seem to make sense.

I don't wholly disagree with the "no photos of bodies" part, but neither do I wholly agree with it, nor does it entirely make sense to me either. On the one hand, the only purposes it could serve would be as a general record, journalistic perhaps, and of course to show the truth (which I suppose also includes the idea of silencing the doubtful.) Now, it seems to make sense, and to only be right, to help ease the pain of the families. But let's really think about that one for a second. Do we imagine these pics would be posted literally everywhere online? End up on the facebook wall of the parents, or emailed to them? Is it that the parents will go searching these pictures out, or wouldn't be able to help themselves from doing so? Or is it maybe just the idea that these pics are out there, and others are seeing what was done to their children itself, that is too painful? IMHO the last is the only "realistic" sounding answer. And that begs the question-- do we allow the precedent of snuffing knowledge and freedom of information in cases of tragedy when families of the victim want it snuffed?

On that note-- as was briefly touched on in a previous post-- I am curious which parents these are, who find the spread of information objectionable... and I can't help but wondering if they are any of the same parents who gave interview after interview on the subject in the days following the tragedy....


Even if this whole thing is on the up-and-up, I don't like the precedent-- especially the part about gagging the 911 calls and records of that type.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Sandy Hook had just upgraded their security system. The door that Adam Lanza allegedly shot his way through was monitored by a surveillance camera. According to school safety protocols, that door was to be locked at 9:30a, anyone who wished to enter after that had to present their ID to the camera before being allowed entry.




Earlier this year, the school principal, Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung, ordered a new security system installed that required visitors to be visibly identified and buzzed in. As part of the security system, the school locked its doors each day at 9:30 a.m.


Link
edit on 2-6-2013 by DirtyD because: Add link



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by DirtyD
 


Well, if that system was up and running as it sounds like it should have been, you do have a very valid point about a point of video of him without including physical shooting of victims. That last, being what I'd hope we all agree isn't public "right to know", by any stretch. The entrance into the first level of locked/secured door though? Well. I would be very curious to know why that isn't available. It should show him plain as day and with clear intent, right? Interesting on that.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Exactly, even more interesting since the governor is trying to pass back room legislation that would seal such footage from ever seeing the light of day.



At the police station, dispatchers began to take calls from inside the school. Authorities say the first emergency call about the shooting came in at "approximately" 9:30 a.m.

"Sandy Hook school. Caller is indicating she thinks someone is shooting in the building," a dispatcher told fire and medical personnel, according to 911 tapes.


According to 911 tapes that have never been released, not even a transcript. Why do they need to be protected from FOIA requests?



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by DirtyD
 


You could see all the evidence there is and the conspiracy people would still go at it. Oh that's an actor going into the school, or, that tape was doctored.

Remember the two guys in LA that shot up the police with body armor and full automatic weapons. There was tape of that yet search this site for threads about it and you will see it didn't hold back anyone from coming up with all sorts of crazy ideas.

Basically, seeing evidence does nothing but give fuel to the fire of those that do not wish to believe what they see.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Agreed, after all seeing endless footage of two planes flying into the twin towers still does not dissuade folks from claiming they were holograms. But that's beside the point. Just because the evidence may not convince the fringe, doesn't mean it's okay to bury it. I heard that same argument on the MSM about the bin Laden photos, "well the conspiracy theorists won't believe it anyway, so what's the point of showing them". I'm paraphrasing, but that was about the gist of it.

I see this as a continuing trend in the media and government, do you? And if so, are you okay with that?
edit on 3-6-2013 by DirtyD because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join