Judge Rules Documents Seized From Sandy Hook Shooting Must Remain Secret

Documents seized from the home of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooter Adam Lanza will remain secret, following a Superior Court judge's ruling that the records are private property not subject to the state Freedom of Information Act.

Source: 1,2

Somebody doesn’t want us to know the details...

Last Friday, Judge Carl Schuman actually overturned a ruling by the Freedom of Information Commission after he concluded that state law requiring the return of seized property took presidency over the state’s open records law, preventing the information from being disclosed.

The case involved dozens of documents seized by police from the home Lanza share with his mother, including handwritten notes, a spiral-bound book written by Lanza titled "The Big Book of Granny" that contained violent themes, and a spreadsheet maintained by Lanza detailing mass murders, including the name of the killer, the number of victims killed and injured, and the weapons used. The Courant requested the records from the state police, and filed a complaint with the Freedom of Information Commission when the records were not produced.

The book's cover: Link

The Courant’s editor-in-chief, Andrew Julian stated, “we are disappointed in the decision and are currently assessing our options.” As usual, there seems to be a discrepancy in how the law is interpreted. Back in May, the FOIC already ruled that the information requested were in fact “public records,” allowing them to be disclosed. What is even more suspicious is after the ruling, Judge Schuman said he was “required” to draft a ruling that would cover situations that don’t present the “unusual circumstances” of the Lanza case. Wait, what did he just say?

"Future cases will undoubtedly involve this sort of involuntary seizure of a victim's diary or other personal notes, a person's phone records, computer or email communications, bank records, medical records, business records, and other items," Schuman wrote. "Exposure of these items to the public when the state has not seen a need to do so in the criminal case entails a significant invasion of the owner's privacy and interference with his or her property rights."

Investigative journalism just took another hit and us conspiracy folk are slowly being shut down. Getting access to information or even accurate information is becoming a daunting and sometimes expensive task. The judge is basically saying, if the state didn’t think the public needed to see it during the trial (what the hell?), then any further request for disclosure will be treated as an invasion of the owner’s privacy. You would think all the evidence would be reviewed during the trial and not just what the state thought should be seen or withheld. I don’t get it.

Schuman ruled that it would be "illogical" to suggest that the legislature, in enacting laws related to the return of seized property, intended property owners to have an absolute right to the return of nondocumentary property, such as clothing or money. "However, if that evidence takes documentary form, the owner loses that right and the public, in the [Freedom of Information Commission's] view, will have a right to copy and read it under the act," Schuman wrote. "There does not seem to be a logical reason for this distinction in the treatment of seized private property."

Looks like things went quiet, just like they want it. The Courant has been the first to show interest in the documents, but I’m not sure why. The request was made over 2 years ago and the result of that attempt has been stonewalled.

In his ruling to overturn the FOI decision, Judge Schuman acknowledged that there is “unquestionably a heightened public interest in these materials.”

Are these types of requests always met with the same response or only for cases with “unusual circumstances,” as Judge Schuman would describe it? It appears that if the response wasn’t typical in the past, it sure will be in the future. Even the state's Attorney General argued on behalf of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection.

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, witnesses, and suspects.

“The court must decide this case with those future cases in mind,” the judge wrote.

Maybe I’m ignorant and I’ll admit that if someone comes along and tells me this is normal. The FOIC ruled the documents to be “public,” but the Judge did not. Until the Sandy Hook incident, the law has never been challenged in court and this overruling is just another strange occurrence that can be added to the list. Thanks for reading and please be respectful.

a reply to: eisegesis

"Every attack has been a false flag" - Retired FBI agent _______.

I will research who his name and reply later.

a reply to: eisegesis

Interesting. Thanks for sharing the update - will be paying attention to what happens with this

I also found it interesting that the bushmaster (I think it was) was demonized after this attack and certain presidential candidates have tried to use Sandy Hook as a talking point for holding gun manufacturers liable for situations like this. (Also, the AR-15? I think both! )

To me, it seems similar to the people asking for Obama's birth certificate and blah blah blah, just leave them alone about these types of things

I wouldn't be surprised if COINTELPRO helps to muddy the waters but who really knows. Some conspiracy theories are just ridiculous

originally posted by: Granite
a reply to: eisegesis

"Every attack has been a false flag" - Retired FBI agent _______.

I will research who his name and reply later.

Robert David Steele he is ex CIA.
Here is his interview about Sandy Hook:
Alex Jones YT

The FBI has been organising False flag attacks at least since the FIRST WTC BOMB 1993.....
They PROVIDED the TRUCK BOMB to the terrorists......

originally posted by: bandersnatch
The FBI has been organising False flag attacks at least since the FIRST WTC BOMB 1993.....
They PROVIDED the TRUCK BOMB to the terrorists......

And when the basement was repaired, all the asbestos was replaced with stuff that wasn't so great at protecting those vaults from obliteration.

That's funny.
Government cares about a dead (guilty?) citiens privacy.
I'd wager that if I was arrested for crimes half as serious as him that right to privacy would be non existent.

but supposed murder of a school? Reapect his privacy, bro.

Well, I get it, from a certain perspective…

…including handwritten notes, a spiral-bound book written by Lanza titled "The Big Book of Granny" that contained violent themes, and a spreadsheet maintained by Lanza detailing mass murders, including the name of the killer, the number of victims killed and injured, and the weapons used.

Wannabes and copycats can't wait to emulate their fore bearers. Serial hate and murderous intent love a good pump up to incite them to action. Letting out all the details is a sure invitation to more of the same from the same kind of jerks that are out there right now, somewhere, plotting.

Mass murder is a rage cult, its members are sick in the head, why give them a fix of twistedness.

a reply to: intrptr

I understand, but that's not the point. Its about getting all the facts that may conflict with the official story. How do we know what are in those documents? The judge said he overruled with "future cases in mind," so what happens when a piece of "personal property" (evidence), comes along that isn't so twisted, but still "personal," which ends up having the ability to severely alter the outcome of a case? And why does the state get to decide what makes for good evidence?

"Exposure of these items to the public when the state has not seen a need to do so in the criminal case entails a significant invasion of the owner's privacy and interference with his or her property rights."

Really?

a reply to: eisegesis

Its about getting all the facts that may conflict with the official story.

The people that think this is all fake will still think that no matter what they produce as evidence. Thats as twisted as the truth is, imo.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: eisegesis

Its about getting all the facts that may conflict with the official story.

The people that think this is all fake will still think that no matter what they produce as evidence. Thats as twisted as the truth is, imo.

Well, let them believe what they want. Why can't any of us decide for ourselves whether or not we want to see the evidence? Why did the FOIC deem it appropriate to disclose, but not the judge? Real people need to look at sick pictures and video all day to do their jobs in the name of justice. What are they afraid of, that we'll collectively do their job better than them? Its a control of evidence and information, pure and simple. How about a choice rather than being told what is acceptable for the jury or the rest of America to look at? It can't be half as bad than what's on television nowadays.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

And when the basement was repaired, all the asbestos was replaced with stuff that wasn't so great at protecting those vaults from obliteration

See the key word in that statement ? Asbestos ? A very dangerous carcinogen . With the danger being discovered when ? Of course it was replaced.2 words: Federal Regulations.

originally posted by: eisegesis

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: eisegesis

Its about getting all the facts that may conflict with the official story.

The people that think this is all fake will still think that no matter what they produce as evidence. Thats as twisted as the truth is, imo.

Well, let them believe what they want. Why can't any of us decide for ourselves whether or not we want to see the evidence? Why did the FOIC deem it appropriate to disclose, but not the judge? Real people need to look at sick pictures and video all day to do their jobs in the name of justice. What are they afraid of, that we'll collectively do their job better than them? Its a control of evidence and information, pure and simple. How about a choice rather than being told what is acceptable for the jury or the rest of America to look at? It can't be half as bad than what's on television nowadays.

With all due respect, and without attempting to insult you, I need to ask. Why do YOU feel you are so important to need to know the personal details of someone else? I am no more important that you or anyone else in this particular case.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: eisegesis

Its about getting all the facts that may conflict with the official story.

The people that think this is all fake will still think that no matter what they produce as evidence. Thats as twisted as the truth is, imo.

Did you figure that out from the official report that was 99% redacted?

Where did you get your evidence?

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: eisegesis

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: eisegesis

Its about getting all the facts that may conflict with the official story.

The people that think this is all fake will still think that no matter what they produce as evidence. Thats as twisted as the truth is, imo.

Well, let them believe what they want. Why can't any of us decide for ourselves whether or not we want to see the evidence? Why did the FOIC deem it appropriate to disclose, but not the judge? Real people need to look at sick pictures and video all day to do their jobs in the name of justice. What are they afraid of, that we'll collectively do their job better than them? Its a control of evidence and information, pure and simple. How about a choice rather than being told what is acceptable for the jury or the rest of America to look at? It can't be half as bad than what's on television nowadays.

With all due respect, and without attempting to insult you, I need to ask. Why do YOU feel you are so important to need to know the personal details of someone else? I am no more important that you or anyone else in this particular case.

I may be very instrumental in piecing together evidence or finding a motive. ATS was already doing that a decade ago with whatever evidence was made available and it appears that we get less and less of it as time goes on. Only accept what we tell you. Who exactly do you trust to give it to you straight? This particular incident is a conspiracy to me and it doesn't have to be for you.

Just don't make an obvious attempt to hide what the FOIC viewed as acceptable for public consumption and then make sure what is labeled inappropriate for disclosure in the future is blocked from ever seeing the light of day. Based on what was said to be withheld, I don't have a clue why the jury wasn't given access to it let alone you or I. If they were, we wouldn't be having this conversation and we just might have known if Adam had help that night.

originally posted by: bandersnatch
The FBI has been organising False flag attacks at least since the FIRST WTC BOMB 1993.....
They PROVIDED the TRUCK BOMB to the terrorists......

I wouldn't be so quick to throw around acronyms, there is a large difference between the FBI and the CIA. From my experience it seems like the FBI has much more integrity than the CIA. The FBI spend a lot of time investigating and solving important crimes, the CIA are more focused on gathering intelligence and performing covert operations, and they are often very questionable operations.

screams snowjob......

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?

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.

What about that supposed letter they found?

There was another involved..