Connecticut State Police announced Monday they will be holding all crimes scenes connected to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting for the foreseeable future, while they investigate the horrific mass murder.Keep in mind this is the same Lt. J. Paul Vance who said that all relevant information relating to this case is coming strictly from the local, state, and federal authorities, and that independent journalists and bloggers publishing "disinformation" on social media sites may be prosecuted under federal law.
"[We have] seized the crime scenes under search warrant [and are] holding on to them indefinitely," Connecticut State Police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance told reporters at a midmorning news briefing.
Vance said it could take months for investigators to complete their examination of the crime scene at the school -- where police say 20-year-old Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 children and adults -- and the Newtown, Conn., home -- where investigators say Lanza killed his mother, 52-year-old Nancy Lanza.
"State police crime detectives have been working 24 hours a day since this tragedy occurred ... [They are] processing the evidence. Every single round of ammo will be analyzed for evidence -- each singular round," Vance said, referring to the task as a "painstaking process."
Vance declined to detail any of the evidence investigators have recovered to date, but did say Adam Lanza's electronic devices are being examined for clues to a possible motive.
"The computer crime unit [is] working nonstop examining any evidence seized, whether it be cell phones or computers ... We will certainly dissect [them]," he said.
Police say Lanza forced his way into the school around 9:40 a.m. Friday, about 30 minutes after the school day began. Lanza fired his weapons at least 100 times. The victims -- 12 girls, eight boys and six adult women -- were shot up close multiple times, police said.
Authorities have since confirmed that two adults who suffered gunshot wounds survived and are recovering at the hospital. Their names have not yet been released.
Investigators are still determining a timeline in the case to establish when Lanza's mother was killed.
A few questions come to mind: why would it take "months for investigators to complete their examination of the crime scene at the school"? If "state police crime detectives have been working 24 hours a day since this tragedy occurred", why will it still take months to complete? Why have no photos from the crime scene been released? (See Twelfth Bough's excellent post, missing and the comments). Why haven't any of the allegedly murdered children's parents or relatives asked any tough questions of the authorities?
Why are very bad actors being used to play the role of the parents of some of the supposedly murdered children, like Robbie Parker, the alleged father of Emilie Parker, a 6-year-old girl who we were told was killed at Sandy Hook Elementary? Does this guy look or sound like a father who's daughter was just brutally murdered?
It's been well established at this point that the official version of the Sandy Hook shootings is 100% bogus. If the media and government are lying to us (as always) about the events leading up to and during the school shooting, why should we trust them when they say all these children and teachers really were murdered? I have come to the same conclusion regarding the "victims" on 9/11: since the official conspiracy theory explaining that event is 100% bogus, why do people still believe "3,000 Americans were murdered" on that fateful day? (See The Vicsim Report from September Clues)
Why do we recognize that virtually everything the government and media says about monumental events such as 9/11 and the recent Sandy Hook school shooting are false, yet still believe that the victims of these tragedies are legitimate? Why do we take at face value these obviously scripted and emotion-targeting sob stories recounted by the alleged "victims'" family members and relatives?
It's important to keep in mind what Professor George J. Stein wrote in his 1995 essay "Information Warfare":
Information warfare, in its largest sense, is simply the use of information to achieve our national objectives. Like diplomacy, economic competition, or the use of military force, information in itself is a key aspect of national power and, more importantly, is becoming an increasingly vital national resource that supports diplomacy, economic competition, and the effective employment of military forces. Information warfare in this sense can be seen as societal-level or nation-to-nation conflict waged, in part, through the worldwide internetted and interconnected means of information and communication. [...]I call bullshit on this entire Sandy Hook shooting hoax. We are being fed a pack of carefully scripted lies by evil people with a pre-determined agenda. They manufacture our reality, targeting our emotions and gullible nature, in order to advance their political and social agenda. Don't be deceived. Ask questions, demand answers, and never accept anything at face value that is presented to you on the teLIEvision.
Information warfare, in its essence, is about ideas and epistemology- big words meaning that information warfare is about the way humans think and, more important, the way humans make decisions. And although information warfare would be waged largely, but not entirely, through the communication nets of a society or its military, it is fundamentally not about satellites, wires, and computers. It is about influencing human beings and the decisions they make. [...]
A major new factor in information war is the worldwide infosphere of television and broadcast news. Information warfare at the strategic level is the "battle off the battlefield" to shape the political context of the conflict. It will define the new "battlespace." We face an "integrated battlefield," not in the usual sense of having a global positioning system (GPS) receiver in every tank or cockpit but in the Clausewitzian sense that war is being integrated into the political almost simultaneously with the battle. Many people suspect that the national command authorities (NCA) are in danger of becoming increasingly "reactive" to a "fictive" universe created by CNN, its various international competitors, or even a terrorist with a video camera. This media-created universe we live in is fictive rather than "fictional" because although what we see on CNN is "true," it is just not the whole, relevant, or contextual truth. Nevertheless, this fictive universe becomes the politically relevant universe in which the government or the armed forces are supposed to "do something." [...]
Fictive or fictional operational environments, then, whether mass-targeted or niche-targeted, can be generated, transmitted, distributed, or broadcast by governments or all sorts of players through increasingly diversified networks. [...]
Let us take just one example of how current technologies could be used for strategic-level information warfare. If, say, the capabilities of already well-known Hollywood technologies to simulate reality were added to our arsenal, a genuinely revolutionary new form of warfare would become possible. Today, the techniques of combining live actors with computer-generated video graphics can easily create a "virtual" news conference, summit meeting, or perhaps even a battle that would exist in "effect" though not in physical fact. Stored video images can be recombined or "morphed" endlessly to produce any effect chosen. This moves well beyond traditional military deception, and now, perhaps, "pictures" will be worth a thousand tanks. [...]
And watch this one of Anderson Cooper interviewing the alleged parents of Grace McDonnell. And then this one of ABC’s Amy Robach interviewing the parents of alleged victim Jessica Rekos. Do any of these people seem genuine to you?
"Making sure our children and families are safe each and every day should be our top priority. Sadly, last Friday, we learned in an absolutely terrible way that we haven't done enough. No parent, sibling, or loved one should have to endure what 26 families are suffering through right now. Unfortunately, families lose loved ones every day as a result of gun violence. Too many young lives have been taken from us too soon, and Friday's unspeakable actions are another stark wakeup call that we must do more. This is not the time for soft words and empty promises, but a call for strong action."I voted for the assault weapons ban in 1994, which also included a ban of high capacity clips, and it's unacceptable that it hasn't been reauthorized. West Virginia has a proud hunting tradition and respect for the Second Amendment. But most hunters I talk with know that prohibiting the use of military-grade weapons or clips that can fire dozens of rounds in a matter of seconds will not impact those traditions, nor do they have a place on our streets. We need to pass a bill that will again prohibit such weapons."Preventing gun violence is a clear issue here, but this horrible tragedy also brings to the forefront the need for a renewed national dialogue on mental health. Today, Medicaid is the largest payer of mental health services in the U.S. Unfortunately, as both state and federal budget cuts have mounted nationwide, both inpatient and community services for children and adults living with serious mental illness have been downsized or eliminated. We must fix that. Despite the federal mental health parity law passed in 2008, which is in place to end insurance company discrimination against those seeking treatment for mental health, there is an incredible shortage of mental health providers across the country – including West Virginia. This is yet another area where action is necessary."We also need to look at the violence our kids see every day starting at a young age. By the time children reach 18 years old, they have seen tens of thousands of violent images – on television, the internet, or video games. As parents, research confirms what we already know – these violent images have a negative impact on our children's wellbeing. While we don't know if such images impacted the killer in Newtown, the issue of violent content is serious and must be addressed.
"This horrific tragedy shook communities across West Virginia and the country. But sadly, incidents with guns kill Americans throughout this country every day. And I've heard from families in West Virginia who have lost loved ones, including their own children. It would be a travesty if we only looked at Friday's attack – as well as the many other senseless tragedies we've seen – in silence and refuse to act. I'm pushing for that action now before we have to mourn more innocent lives lost."
President Obama declared on Wednesday that he would make gun control a “central issue” as he opens his second term, promising to submit broad new firearm proposals to Congress no later than January and to employ the full power of his office to overcome deep-seated political resistance.Leading House Republicans responded to the president’s pledge in the aftermath of the Connecticut school massacre by restating their firm opposition to new limits on guns or ammunition, setting up the possibility of a bitter legislative battle and a philosophical clash over the Second Amendment soon after Mr. Obama’s inauguration.Having avoided a politically difficult debate over guns for four years, Mr. Obama vowed to restart a national conversation about their role in American society, the need for better access to mental health services and the impact of exceedingly violent images in the nation’s culture.He warned that the conversation — which has produced little serious change after previous mass shootings — will be a short one, followed by specific legislative proposals that he intends to campaign for, starting with his State of the Union address next month.
My name is Natalie Barden and I wanted to tell the president that only police officers and the military should get guns. If people want to do it as a sport than they could go to a shooting range and the guns would not be able to leave there.