Judge orders Sandy Hook 911 tapes released!

I always felt this should have been a long time ago. On the day of the shooting I was listening it live on my scanner. And no I never heard any shots fired as I tuned in about 20 min. after it started.

- A New Britain Superior Court judge this afternoon rejected Danbury State's Attorney Stephen J. Sedensky III's request to keep secret the recordings of emergency 911 calls from Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Judge Eliot D. Prescott, in a 33-page decision, gave Sedensky until December 4 at 2 p.m. to release the recordings, which sources have said include two gun shots but no graphic sounds from victims during the December 14 shooting.

www.ctpost.com...

Well found... whether they will submit appeal to a higher judge we will see... Of interest and giving some hope is the following quote

"I am delighted to see the system work and that we have a thoughtful judge who wrote a careful, lawyerly decision," Perpetua said in a phone interview. "I hope that the result will be further disclosure of the actual and complete records of the investigation, not simply the ones picked and chosen by law enforcement officials. I think the judge sends a powerful and cogent message that it's not solely for law enforcement officials to decide what should be represented to the public. People have a right to know how their law enforcement officials are working for them."

reply to post by captiva

They will do it .the First Selectman of Newtown is tired of just these bits and pieces being given out.

It will be interesting to see who tries to shut this down. Will it be the victims don't want them released? Will it be the government slapping National Security rubbered stamped letters down? So who will be the first to do this. Or will it be so important to keep it secret that they will use all of above and more as a sledgehammer approach?

JBA2848
It will be interesting to see who tries to shut this down. Will it be the victims don't want them released? Will it be the government slapping National Security rubbered stamped letters down? So who will be the first to do this. Or will it be so important to keep it secret that they will use all of above and more as a sledgehammer approach?

I'm guessing the excuse will be the victims and their families. Nothing stirs up emotions like a bunch of slaughtered children. Children died, how dare we ask questions?
All the tv has to say is that the victims and families are horrified at the idea of the audio from their screams and murders being publicized, and there ya go, no audio made public.

reply to post by nighthawk1954


It's encouraging to see that at least the judges from the state of CT still know how to follow the law.

Hopefully other critical evidence will also be released as is dictated by law.

And no - I don't want to see any pics of the children's bodies so don't even try lobbing that lame canard in my direction. There is a ton of other evidence that is not so inflammatory. Time to release it.

reply to post by Riffrafter

It's encouraging to see that at least the judges from the state of CT still know how to follow the law.

Hopefully other critical evidence will also be released as is dictated by law.

Sorry, I'm new to these threads. What law are you referring to?

This is a big slap in the teeth for law enforcement..aka police, who threatened everybody and their granny about using social media in relation to Sandy Hook. That was stupid, and only added to people who might have had reservations about some aspects. Even the coroner's remarks on the day were strange.

The tapes will at least give some kind of sequence of events on the day to clarify things.

The judge also mentioned "other audio tapes" Anybody know what that reference is to?

I watched a video a month or so after it happened. In it they showed a couple of camo dressed guys running thru the woods. They were stopped and questioned, but were released. Odd. Then there was the police recording of the first officer to come across Adam Lanza, and his words were "there goes the short life of Adam". Just curios, how would he know his name, being the first responder. Especially when the ID on him was his brother's! No pics of his forced entry, no bullet holes, no blood, no bodies. Big False Flag IMO

reply to post by smurfy


There were other recordings for other dispatch centers...Newtown first then State Police and maybe FBI. Plus many of our surrounding towns that answered the call for mutual aid . As that is how it works here in Connecticut, from Fire, Police and EMS.

I knew it was a false flag when the cable news channels were showing "breaking news" footage from dash cameras inside responding police cars. Give me a break! I hope it does come crashing down on all their heads, as Dr. Carver the medical examiner said.

reply to post by DJW001


There are a few mentioned right in the source article. There are also others.

But you already knew that. Nice try though...

reply to post by Riffrafter

There are a few mentioned right in the source article. There are also others.

But you already knew that. Nice try though...

I'm sorry but I'm not from Connecticut. I have no idea what authority the Freedom of Information Commission has. I don't even know if it's a state commission or a "De Jure Commission" of some sort. Either way, the judge who does have authority in this case has released the tapes. Enjoy..

Mikeultra
I knew it was a false flag when the cable news channels were showing "breaking news" footage from dash cameras inside responding police cars. Give me a break! I hope it does come crashing down on all their heads, as Dr. Carver the medical examiner said.

Any tapes they may "release" could easily have been created by this time, so it has been to long to verify anything, if they were released right off they would be "more' not totally credible.

Char-Lee

Mikeultra
I knew it was a false flag when the cable news channels were showing "breaking news" footage from dash cameras inside responding police cars. Give me a break! I hope it does come crashing down on all their heads, as Dr. Carver the medical examiner said.

Any tapes they may "release" could easily have been created by this time, so it has been to long to verify anything, if they were released right off they would be "more' not totally credible.

I sat here for hours listening to the scanner and took notes if their difference , I will tell you.
As I have friends that lost their kids and our Fire Dept was on standby.

nighthawk1954
reply to post by smurfy

 

There were other recordings for other dispatch centers...Newtown first then State Police and maybe FBI. Plus many of our surrounding towns that answered the call for mutual aid . As that is how it works here in Connecticut, from Fire, Police and EMS.

Thanks for that, it's much the same idea here.
Looking at that CTPost article, you kind of get the feeling that there are reservations about events from that media.
I am too far removed to think that anything other than what happened did happen, but when people on the ground are concerned about official behaviour, as someone in the article mentions about the picking and choosing of what is given to the public, that is not nannying, it is obfuscation. Either way, that is not good, nor right.

reply to post by smurfy

I read the report it was consistant with the first responders that I know that we're there.

DJW001
reply to post by Riffrafter

 

There are a few mentioned right in the source article. There are also others.

But you already knew that. Nice try though...

I'm sorry but I'm not from Connecticut. I have no idea what authority the Freedom of Information Commission has. I don't even know if it's a state commission or a "De Jure Commission" of some sort. Either way, the judge who does have authority in this case has released the tapes. Enjoy..

Well, leaving aside your comment about being "new to these threads" even though you authored one (which was what prompted my comment), I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

In addition to FOIA laws there are also state laws and rules governing the release of evidence in any criminal case in CT. As this was tried before a state judge I'm assuming the states attorney was first attempting to abrogate or get around those laws and rules. No dice. This is a murder case so the state courts would normally retain jurisdiction. Final act of desperation would be to try and get this handled under federal jurisdiction even though there is no legal precedent for it at all in a case like this. And if that happens you *know* this stinks from top to bottom.

I am from CT and live in the Sandy Hook area. I really hope there isn't anything to hide, but the way this has been so abysmally mishandled from the get-go just screams otherwise. What conspiracy and why I make no specific claim about.

But there has definitely been a conspiracy to withhold evidence - that much is abundantly clear. But why? Cui bono?

Regardless, the authorities have done neither themselves nor the people of the state of CT any good by their mishandling of this event. They have made an already awful situation even worse. That alone is unforgivable.

If there is nothing to hide then why are they hiding it & fighting tooth & nail against releasing the evidence as required?

And if there is something to hide they need to be forced to stop hiding it. Looks like we're going that route at this point in time as they have so far been unwilling to release anything absent a court order. And I mean *anything* other than their own words & statements. They even ignored a direct request & statement from the Governor of the state of CT. Think about that for a minute...

Those facts alone should be setting off alarm bells with everyone.

On a final note, I've already typed a lot more than I wanted initially. I guess you got me after all...but no worries - it won't happen again.

reply to post by Riffrafter


If you were got, I'm glad! Thanks for allowing me to learn something new today on your behalf. I am interested to see what will be heard on these calls if anything, out of the ordinary.

nighthawk1954
reply to post by smurfy

 

I read the report it was consistant with the first responders that I know that we're there.

This is something additional to what you have linked to?