Sandy Hook Advisory Commission Becomes Irrelevant

August 18th, 2014 | Breaking News

What’s the point of the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission? According to the recent article in the New Haven Register, Sandy Hook report unlikely to include analysis of gunman, the Commission has spent twenty-months preparing a report that apparently will not specifically address the mental health treatment received by Sandy Hook shooter, Adam Lanza.

While it’s not surprising that the Commission has decided that “our report is not going to be a deconstruction of Adam Lanza,” this announcement is embarrassing. The Commission was set up by Governor Dannel P. Malloy to make recommendations about a host of issues, including mental health care in Connecticut, based on the tragic incident at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Without specifically addressing Adam Lanza’s mental health treatment leading up to the shooting, one can only speculate whether this entire exercise is simply fulfilling a prearranged mental health and gun control agenda.

Ablechild certainly understands the difficulties associated with obtaining Lanza’s mental health records, as our non-profit sued the state for the records and was arbitrarily denied, based on the state’s opinion that we were not stakeholders. Ablechild, of course, would argue that everyone in the state and throughout the country is a “stakeholder.”

But what are the odds that the state would refuse to provide this information to a Commission set up by the Governor for the specific reason of understanding the shooter’s state of mind at the time of the shooting? It defies all reason and, therefore, makes any “recommendations” of the Commission irrelevant.

For that matter, what are the odds that Peter Lanza, father of the shooter, would deny the Commission information about his son’s mental health? After all Lanza opened up to The New Yorker magazine, providing specific information about Adam’s antidepressant use. The Commission admits that it met with Peter Lanza. If not Adam’s mental health, what exactly was discussed? Really, what could Lanza offer other than information about Adam’s mental health?

Moreover, Advisory Commission Chairman, Hamden Mayor Scott Jackson, explained that although a request was made, the state’s Child Advocate office apparently failed to deliver information about Lanza’s mental health. Is it possible that the Commission could not lean on the Governor to make this happen? It simply defies logic that a state agency would deny the Governor’s request, unless, of course, the Governor, and the Commission, simply has no interest in getting to the answers that might have contributed to Lanza’s violent behavior.

Commission Chairman, Jackson, says the report would “not be an intellectual exercise.” Is this a joke? Based on the fact that the Commission apparently has no intention of including Lanza’s mental health records, “intellectual” is the last thing this report could be called. A waste of time, energy and resources seems a more appropriate description of the Commission’s efforts.

In fact, there seems little reason to even attach the words Sandy Hook as part of the Commission’s title. It should, at this point, simply be referred to as the Governor’s Gun Conrol and Increased Mental Health Advisory Commission.

Without any discussion of Adam Lanza’s mental health treatment, leading up to the shooting, no one can claim the Commission’s report has any relationship to the murderous actions that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

The families of the victims and people of Connecticut should be disgusted. They will pay the bill and bear the brunt of the Commission’s baseless “recommendations.” Ultimately, though, one has to wonder what is the “state secret” surrounding Adam Lanza’s mental health treatment?

 

 

Is Sandy Hook Father Asking the Wrong Questions?

August 14th, 2014 | Breaking News, Press Releases

In a recent article in the pressherald.com, father of Sandy Hook victim Avielle Richman, Dr. Jeremy Richman, is looking for answers, saying “we’re scientists. We ask ‘why’ for a living.” So one can only wonder why he’s failed to ask the questions that scream for answers.

As the father of one of the victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, Dr. Richman is on a broad, all encompassing mission to understand the workings of the brain of those who commit violent acts. Clearly this is a noble cause. But Ablechild cannot help but wonder what action Dr. Richman has taken to understand the murderous behavior of his child’s killer, Adam Lanza.

Specifically, it is well known that Ablechild sued the state of Connecticut in order to have Lanza’s medical/mental health records, autopsy and toxicology reports released for public review. Ablechild was denied this request as the state randomly concluded the non-profit was “not a stakeholder.” Ablechild believes that we all are stakeholders.

But it seems impossible that the state would deny a request by the family of one of the victims. Clearly the Richman’s would be considered “stakeholders.” Did Dr. Richman contact Ablechild to lend his support in these efforts? No. Has Dr. Richman ever requested that the state release this important information? Ablechild is unaware of any of the victim’s families requesting this information be made public.

It is no secret that Lanza had mental health issues. The problem, though, is that the State Police investigation of the shooting incident provides no information about Lanza’s mental health “treatment” after 2007 – five years prior to the shooting.

The public is aware that Lanza was “treated” at the Yale Child Study Center for OCD and was prescribed two antidepressants – Celexa and Lexapro – experiencing serious adverse reactions to both psychiatric drugs, as reported by his mother. But that was five years prior to the shooting.

What mental health “treatment” did Lanza receive after his “treatment” at Yale? It seems unrealistic that this grieving father would initiate this daunting brain campaign without having investigated every possible lead for answers about the man who killed his daughter.

After all if Lanza had been receiving mental health “treatment” prior to the shooting that consisted of psychiatric drugs, that information may be useful in understanding Lanza’s violent behavior. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has placed “Black box warnings” on all antidepressants as they may cause suicidal ideation and a host of other adverse reactions, including mania, psychosis and hallucinations.

Prior to the shooting was Lanza prescribed one or several psychiatric drugs to “treat” his OCD? Nobody knows. This information has not been made public. Has Dr. Richman made an effort to meet with Peter Lanza to glean information about Adam’s mental health “treatment?”

As a neuroscientist who has worked with pharmaceutical companies, Dr. Richman cannot ignore the fact that psychiatric drugs may actually cause violent behavior and, thus, information about Lanza’s mental health “treatment” may actually help understand his violent behavior. Failing to request specific, detailed information about Lanza’s mental health history seems odd.

Furthermore, has Dr. Richman, or any of the victim family members, requested information about the sealed, stamped envelope found in the Lanza home addressed “for the Young Students of Sandy Hook Elementary School?” Does Dr. Richman, or any of the victim families, know what was inside that envelope? Have the family members questioned the State Police about how the DNA of a convicted offender from New York was found on that envelope, while Adam and Nancy Lanza’s DNA was eliminated?   Do the family members wonder why, out of thousands of pieces of paper removed from the Lanza home, this particular envelope was fingerprinted and tested for DNA? What made this piece of evidence so important?

Additionally, has Dr. Richman, or any family members, questioned the State Police about the oddities of the ballistics report. For example, have any the family members raised questions about the weapon used to kill Nancy Lanza – the Savage Mark II rifle? Testing revealed the weapon has no fingerprints or DNA from Adam Lanza, but does have DNA for some unknown person.

Dr. Richman’s desire to understand the workings of the human brain of those who commit violent acts is a noble cause, but one cannot help wonder why Dr. Richman, and the other family members, appear to have no interest in the mental health records of the man who killed their loved ones or, for that matter, the ever increasing number of oddities in the official investigation of the shooting.

Ablechild believes these are basic questions that may help provide the answers that Dr. Richman is seeking and, also, make sense of the millions of dollars that were immediately appropriated by the State Legislature for increased mental health services.

 

 

Sandy Hook: Grief Shared, Answers Denied.

July 28th, 2014 | Blog

In response to the commentary which ran in the Hartford Courant on July 27th,tilted Our Grief Denied: The Twisted Cruelty of Sandy Hook Hoaxers, Ablechild understands Mr. Pozner’s frustrations with those who suggest there is more than is being admitted to in regard to the 2012 tragic events at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

While Mr. Pozner believes the “hoaxers” intend to draw more people into “this destructive tale of misinformation,” one could argue that the investigation, itself, is partly responsible for the nagging questions about what transpired on that dreadful day.

Almost immediately Ablechild believed that public disclosure was necessary in order to understand the motive behind the brutal attack and, in the spring of 2013, Ablechild sued the state to obtain Adam Lanza’s medical/mental health and toxicology records. The state denied Ablechild’s request based on an arbitrary ruling that the non-profit was not a stakeholder.

In December of 2013, the investigative report was released and Ablechild has since read (several times) each and every page of the heavily redacted report. There are numerous oddities within the investigative report that scream for answers and, more importantly, leave one questioning why investigators failed to follow leads and provide the public with all the investigative material.

First, why is the public (including the victim’s families) being denied disclosure of Lanza’s medical/mental health records and toxicology report? It is natural to assume that there would be some interest on the part of the victim’s families to want to know what drove Lanza to this deadly act. This information might shed some light on those questions. A year and a half later this information still is a mystery.

Additionally, in regard to investigative questions, one cannot help but wonder what the odds are that 148 bullets/bullet fragments were extracted from the crime scene and none – zero – can be matched to the barrel of the Bushmaster Rifle reportedly used in the shooting incident.

More bizarre is the stamped envelope that was retrieved from the Lanza home and addressed For the young students of Sandy Hook Elementary School.”   This envelope was tested for fingerprints and DNA. Both Nancy and Adam Lanza were eliminated as contributors, but a DNA “hit” was made and it belongs to a known convicted felon in New York.

What was in the envelope and how did the DNA of a convicted felon find its way onto the envelope and into the Lanza home? It’s anyone’s guess because the State Police did not feel it was necessary to answer those questions in the report.

One also has to wonder how it is possible that the weapon used to kill Nancy Lanza- the Savage Mark II rifle – does not have any fingerprints or DNA for Adam Lanza, but the cartridges of the weapon tested does have a DNA “hit” for some unknown person.

It also is curious that the ballistic tests done on the only two weapons reportedly used in the shooting – the Bushmaster Rifle and the Glock 10mm – came up with interesting findings, including “No positive identification could be made to any of the bullet evidence submissions…”

There also is the issue of the Garmin Nuvi information provided to track Lanza’s whereabouts leading up to the shooting. Based on the investigation, there are two Garmin Nuvi models – a 550 and a 200. Which one was actually taken into custody? Reports are provided for both the 550 and the 200.

The questions surrounding this investigation are too numerous to go into in one piece, but the point, of course, is that there are too many questions. There is too much stonewalling, beginning with the redaction of so much of the report. And the investigative information that was provided is, frankly, shoddy.

Certainly one can sympathize with Mr. Pozner’s need to grieve, but the nation was drawn into this horrific event with the families and also is trying to make sense of such a senseless act. Moreover, enormous amounts of money have been appropriated in the aftermath of Sandy Hook to increase mental health services throughout the nation. These costly legislative measures were passed based on absolutely no information that Adam Lanza lacked mental health services and, in fact, based on the investigative report, it appears it is quite the opposite.

Mr. Pozner cannot ignore that Sandy Hook spawned a nation-wide attack on the 2nd Amendment rights of every American, and many of the families have been outspoken supporters of these efforts. While Ablechild holds no opinion on this issue, it seems unrealistic on the part of the victim’s families to so publicly support these restrictive efforts and not expect those who oppose the issue to question the facts that caused the action.

Based just on these two legislative measures, mental health and gun control, it seems unreasonable that the public would simply ignore the facts of this investigation. It is unclear whether or not Mr. Pozner read the entire investigation, but Ablechild believes the families of the victims deserve better. Questioning the investigation isn’t the problem. An inadequate investigation is the problem.

 

 

 

Teachers Trained to Promote Mental Illness?

July 25th, 2014 | Breaking News

The July 24th article in the Connecticut Mirror, by Arielle Levin Becker, titled Moms of children with mental illness share their pain, tell their stories, push for change, while anecdotal, the article provides little in the way of bolstering the cry for increased spending on mental health services. It does, however, provide three sentences that are at the heart of the mental health debate.

Becker writes “But they also note that there are differences between mental illness and physical conditions.” “There is no x-ray or blood test for most mental illnesses… there is subjectivity in the treatment of mental illness…”

First, it’s important to be clear: there is no x-ray, blood test, urine test, MRI or CAT scan that can detect any abnormality in the brain that is any alleged psychiatric disorder. It is not a case of “most mental illnesses,” there are, in fact, no objective tests to detect any alleged mental illness.

Even Keith Stover, an apparent lobbyist for the Connecticut Association of Health Plans, and was interviewed for the article, is confused about psychiatric diagnosing. According to Stover, “there’s rarely a clear diagnostic test that leads to an exact treatment protocol.”

There’s nothing “rarely” about it. Other than a doctor’s opinion of one’s behavior there are no diagnostic tests that lead to either an exact diagnosis or an exact treatment protocol. Psychiatric diagnosing is completely subjective and the pharmaceutical companies have no idea how the drugs work in the brain to treat any alleged psychiatric disorder.

The fact that insurance companies are required to cover treatment for psychiatric disorders is interesting in, and of, itself. Imagine for a moment that a doctor files a claim on behalf of a patient for heart surgery but provides absolutely no objective tests that an abnormality actually exists. The first question from the insurer would be “where’s the tests to show this procedure is necessary?”

And, adding insult to injury, given that there is no scientific or medical proof that any abnormality in the brain exists for any alleged mental illness, there continues to be an onslaught of demands for increased mental health screening, earlier and younger.

Along with the demands for increased screening comes even greater demands to an already over burdened educational system with training teachers and other school personnel on mental illness and the “stigma” associated with it. Ablechild believes that children should be sent to school to be educated not medicated.

More than that, though, what exactly will these educators, who are not doctors, be taught about mental illness? Will educators be provided with accurate information about the subjectivity of psychiatric diagnosing, which actually leads to the stigmatization when the child is labeled with an alleged mental disorder? Is this “training” intended only to promote the “treatment” of mental illness? More importantly, will educators be taught to identify adverse drug reactions and how to report these drug reactions to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by using the MEDWATCH adverse drug reporting system? And, who bares the cost of all of this mental health educating? The taxpayers?

Since the tragic incident at Sandy Hook, the state has poured millions of dollars into increased mental health services and, sadly, none of that legislation was based on any investigative information that the shooter, Adam Lanza, lacked mental health services.

In fact, based on the information that was made publicly available, Lanza was the poster child of mental health services and, perhaps, it is the services he received that may have contributed to his actions. Lawmakers, though, did not even consider this option.

Ablechild believes that a much greater review of the subjectivity of psychiatric diagnosing needs to be done before more taxpayer funds are allocated for increased mental health services. Because the question that one cannot help ask is if the mental health “treatment” being prescribed to Connecticut’s youth is working, why isn’t anyone getting better?

 

 

Connecticut State in Mental Health Denial

The recent July 9th Ct. Mirror article, Children Stuck in Crisis, accomplishes the intended purpose of deceptively convincing the people of Connecticut that there’s a severe mental health services crisis in the state.

On the surface, the article’s author, Arielle Becker, provides a compelling scenario of the state’s youth failing to get the needed mental health care and forced to rely on emergency room services. The problem with the presentation is Becker’s failure to address a key piece of information in the reported mental-health-crisis-puzzle – the increased psychiatric drugging of Connecticut’s children.

The entire article focuses on the specific case of Peter, a 6 foot, 220 pound 13-year old, who apparently has been in the care of mental health professionals for many years of his young life. Peter is described as having “psychiatric issues and a developmental disorder that places him on the autism spectrum.”

Becker does not provide any details about Peter’s psychiatric history, including information such as when he first was diagnosed with a psychiatric mental disorder, the number of specific mental disorders he has been labeled with and, most importantly, which mind-altering psychiatric drugs he has been prescribed during his young life.

These are not unimportant questions, especially when one considers the known adverse reactions associated with most psychiatric drugs. For example, antidepressants carry the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) “Black box” warnings for increased risk of suicidality. Other known adverse reactions associated with antidepressants include aggressive and abnormal behavior, hallucinations, mania and psychosis.

Other psychiatric chemical “treatments” include anti-anxiety and antipsychotic drugs, which also carry such adverse reactions as hostility, confusion, hallucinations, agitation, restlessness and tremors.

Becker, in an attempt to get to the bottom of this mental health services crisis explains that “some mental health care providers link it to an increase in the number of children with mental health needs…others see a greater willingness to recognize problems because awareness of mental illness has grown.”

What obviously is missing from the list of reasons for the “crisis” is the increased prescribing of dangerous psychiatric drugs. In fact, the only mention of any psychiatric drug “treatment” comes at the end of the article when Becker finally reveals that Peter was seen by psychiatrists at the Institute of Living and “his medication was changed.” That’s it. Pathetically, that is the extent of the conversation about psychiatric drugging.

But the lack of important information doesn’t end there. Becker also does not provide any information about all the previous failed attempts to “fix” Connecticut’s broken mental health system. For example, in 2008, lawmakers attempted mental health fixes through the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental HealthConnecticut’s Mental Health and Transformation State Incentive Grant.”

This $13 million dollar “fix,” as explained by Project Director, Pat Rehmer, as “Transformation efforts and activities are broad based and far reaching as they have been implemented across multiple state agencies offering the state’s citizens an array of accessible services and supports that are culturally responsive, person and family-centered.”

Certainly sounds like this “fix” should have helped Peter but, alas, it is another costly, failed mental health Band aid. Not surprisingly, this “transformation” also did not address the ever-increasing use of psychiatric drugs for “treatment” of Connecticut’s children.

Is it any wonder, then, that the “crisis” not only exists, but is worsening? The people of Connecticut still are not getting accurate information, and it is these omissions that render this article irrelevant in the debate for increased mental health services.

Ignoring important information does not benefit those who are suffering, nor does it help those in a position to make the necessary, and deadly serious, changes that are needed.

 

 

URGE CONGRESS TO DEFEAT ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE MENTAL HEALTH SPENDING

A recent “E-News” bulletin by the pharmaceutical supported National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) urged Congress to pass legislation to “improve” mental health care in America. The bulletin urges its members to contact their U.S. Representatives to “reinforce our commitment to action.” Nonsense. This is totally industry driven, with no public support.

NAMI members were provided information about two bills currently pending in Congress: The Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act (HR 3717) introduced by Congressman Tim Murphy (R-PA) and the Strengthening Mental Health in our Communities Act of 2014 (HR 4574) introduced by Congressman Barber.

Both of these bills benefit the ever-growing mental health/psychiatric industry and pharmaceutical companies, and both pieces of legislation use shooting incidents as the impetus for Congressional action. Murphy’s bill apparently is in response to the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School and Barber’s is in response to the 2011 Tucson mall shooting where Congresswoman Giffords and also Congressman Barber were victims.

“Improved mental health” is the mantra of both bills, suggesting that mental health care in America is subpar. So let’s look at what mental health information is available for both of these shootings.

According to media reports the Tucson shooter, Jared Loughner, had, in his junior year of High School, broken up with a girlfriend and was dealing with the death of his grandfather. Loughner was seen by psychiatrist, was diagnosed with depression and prescribed medication.

Although it is reported that Loughner never took the prescribed medication, it was at this time that friends began to notice a change in Laugher’s behavior. It also is reported that Loughner never showed any signs of violence or displayed any kind of threatening behavior…until the shooting.

Fast forward to the Sandy Hook shooting. It is reported that the 20-year old shooter, Adam Lanza, suffered from OCD and a profound form of Autism. This data reflects Lanza’s mental health status as a 15-year old, literally five years prior to the shooting. The State Police Report of the incident provides no mental health data about the mental health treatment Lanza may have received in the five years leading up to the shooting.

Five years before the shooting, Lanza was “treated” at the Yale Child Study Center and was prescribed two antidepressants, Celexa and Lexapro, and reportedly experienced serious adverse reactions to both drugs. That is the extent of the known mental health treatment Lanza received.

Both of these shooters had access to mental health professionals, both were diagnosed with psychiatric mental disorders and both received prescriptions for psychiatric drugs. What part of America’s mental health system failed them? Both sought out mental health services and both received the apparent recommended mental health treatment.

Psychiatric diagnosing is completely subjective, and psychiatrists are the first to admit that they are unable to predict whether a patient will become violent. In the case of Lanza, Yale Child Study Center’s, Dr. Robert King, reported “while I was concerned clinically with his rigidity and social constriction, I noted nothing in (the shooter) which would have made this unfortunate outcome foreseeable.”

According to Rep. Murphy, a clinical psychologist, “civil rights concerns are misplaced. When you’re in jail, homeless or in a coffin, what rights do you have?” That is an excellent question, but not for the reasons Rep. Murphy is using.

Ablechild sued the state of Connecticut to obtain the medical/mental health records, toxicology and autopsy report for Lanza. The state denied the request on the grounds that Ablechild was not a “stakeholder.” As a deceased person, Lanza has no rights and, therefore, his records should be made public.

Ablechild urges its Members and all interested parties to write to their Members of Congress demanding that not one more dime of taxpayer money be appropriated for increased mental health services until:

Federal legislation is enacted that in the case of mass shootings (2 or more) the toxicology, medical/mental health and autopsy reports of the perpetrator(s) are released for public review.

Federal legislation is enacted that would make it mandatory that mental health
data, including prescription drug information (regardless of age), is made
public in cases of mass killings (2 or more).

Federal legislation is enacted to set up a national database to collect information
on criminal acts and psychiatric drug history at the time of arrest.

While Representatives Murphy and Barber clearly are concerned about the state of the nation’s deteriorating mental health treatment services, with 70 million Americans taking at least one psychiatric mind-altering drug, there is a much larger discussion that both pieces of legislation fail to address.

With one-in-five Americans receiving mental health services in the form of psychiatric drugs, and what appears to be increasing numbers of violent acts, is it possible that the problem lies in the kind of mental health “treatment” being provided? Rather than rush to increase costly mental health services, perhaps an in-depth look at the “services” being provided is a better use of time and taxpayer funds.

 

 

 

The Sandy Hook Advisory Commission and the Evidence of a “Convicted Offender.”

June 24th, 2014 | Breaking News

Last week the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission threw another crumb to the masses, letting them know that, well, even though they can’t get any of the records and documents they want, they’ll forge ahead and produce a report, making mental health recommendations, that has absolutely nothing to do with Adam Lanza’s mental health history.

In the seventeen months that it has taken the Commission to get to this point, it is interesting how it repeatedly complains about being unable to obtain mental health records relating to Adam Lanza. Okay. Got it. But what about the records the Commission does have access to?

Remember that the Commission enlisted the services of a law firm to make sense of, or “catalogue,” the State Police Report of the shooting, so making sense of the 6700 pages of investigative material should not have been too terribly taxing for the Commission. And if the Commission took the time to read the investigation, then they are aware of an interesting piece of physical evidence that may shed light on the motive behind the shooting.

As part of the State’s investigation of the shooting, a sealed and stamped white envelope addressed “For the young students of Sandy Hook Elementary School,” was removed from the Lanza home and entered into evidence.

Both finger print and DNA testing was performed on this sealed envelope. No finger prints were found on the envelope but, more importantly, Adam and Nancy Lanza were eliminated as possible contributors to the DNA found. A positive DNA profile was identified. Whose DNA was found?

According to the Police investigation “the DNA profiles from items #3G1 (swabbing of envelope flap) and #4-2S2 (swabbing .22 caliber cartridges) were searched against the Connecticut and National DNA Databases. On January 7, 2013, a hit was obtained with the Convicted Offender DNA profile from New York State Police Investigation Center DB#Y10011106A.”

Wow, the DNA of a “Convicted Offender” in New York was found on the envelope; that was found in the Lanza home; that was addressed to “the young students of Sandy Hook Elementary School.”

The obvious question is how did the DNA of a “Convicted Offender” in New York get onto the envelope, that was addressed to the “young students of Sandy Hook Elementary School,” that was found in the Lanza home? Who is this “Convicted Offender,” and what is his connection to Nancy and Adam Lanza and, for that matter, what is his connection to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting?

More importantly, what was found inside this sealed and stamped envelope? Did a “Convicted Offender” write a letter to the “young students of Sandy Hook Elementary School?” It’s anyone’s guess. The State Police investigation does not provide any information about any follow up about the “Convicted Offender,” what was found in the sealed and stamped envelope, or how it could have gotten into the Lanza home. Why?

This is an important piece of evidence that may shed some light on the murderous actions of December 14, 2012. Why would the State Police believe it was of interest to list the sealed envelope as evidence, test it for finger prints and DNA, provide the results, but not provide any information about the contents of the envelope – even if the envelope was empty?

This evidence should be of interest to the Commission simply by virtue of the possibility that it may provide insight into a motive behind the attack. Has the Commission requested this information from the State Police? Will the Commission provide this information as part of its final report?

Only time will tell. But it sure seems like this is physical evidence that the Commission would find of some use.

 

 

 

 

The Mental Health Agenda of Sandy Hook

The 47 recommendations presented yesterday by the Task Force to Study the Provisions of Behavioral Health Services for Young Adults is nothing short of a never-ending mental health assault on the families of Connecticut. Forty-two of these recommendations benefit the psychiatric and drug industries, while only five address quality of service and human rights.

The most galling part of the 60-odd page report is that, while its recommendations are reportedly in response to the passage of P.A. 13-3, which was in response to the Sandy Hook shooting, nowhere in the report is there any information provided about Adam Lanza’s mental health.

In fact, on page 1 of the report, the Task Force writes, “among other issues, the event (Sandy Hook) focused attention on Connecticut’s behavioral health services for young adults and raised questions about the extent of their availability, accessibility, and affordability.” Why?

If the mental health legislation (P.A. 13-3) was passed in response to the shooting at Sandy Hook, wouldn’t the focus be on the mental health treatment Adam Lanza received? Wouldn’t the Task Force be interested in the 2007 “treatment” provided to Adam Lanza by the Yale Child Study Center, including Yale mental health providers who labeled Nancy Lanza as “non-compliant” because she refused to continue Adam on a psychiatric drug that was causing serious adverse effects?

One would think that if these increased mental health services were in response to the actions of Adam Lanza, then his mental health “treatment” would be the focus of any recommendations. Of course, given that the last five years of Lanza’s mental health history is missing from the State Police Investigation of Sandy Hook, it would be difficult for the Task Force to provide any real insight. But here’s the rub, the Task Force apparently didn’t even ask for mental health data on Adam Lanza. Why?

Given the complete lack of interest in the mental health “treatment” of Adam Lanza – the reported reason behind the push for increased mental health services in Connecticut – one can only assume there is another agenda.

Without getting into too much detail, what becomes immediately clear is that the Task Force is hell-bent on “early recognition, assessment, intervention and treatment of childhood and adolescent behavioral health disorders.” In other words, because of Adam Lanza’s mental health (which no one seems remotely interested in) Connecticut’s preschoolers and adolescents need to be screened for mental disorders, and the sooner the better.

To insure that the State’s preschoolers are properly screened and “treated,” the Task Force is recommending truckloads of taxpayer dollars to pay for an army of mental health guessperts to identify these alleged mental disorders. It doesn’t matter that no psychiatric disorder is based in science. It doesn’t matter that the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the premier mental health agency in the world, admits on its website that science doesn’t know what causes any psychiatric disorder, the Task Force cannot stop itself from passing on the fraud.

For example, on page xi of the report, the Task Force recommends to “increase the age of majority to 18 years old for making decisions regarding one’s mental health and substance abuse treatment, given the current understanding of mental illness to be a biologic disease.”

Sure, that may be the State’s and the Task Force’s “understanding” of mental illness, but it’s wrong. Continuing to spew this disinformation does not help those suffering, and certainly raises questions about the Task Force’s understanding of mental illness and the reported “treatment” options.

The most important section of this report comes as part of the human rights issues. The Task Force, apparently unwilling to tackle the issue, passes off the discussion of forced psychiatric care onto “a separate Task Force,” which also would address the use of psychiatric drugs on children who refuse such treatment.

The Task Force’s unwillingness to address these important issues does not, however, stop it from recommending to “…provide aggressive outpatient services, shy of forced medication, to clients with severe illness in Connecticut.”

Mental health “treatment” always comes back around to psychiatric drugging and, perhaps, that is the reason the Task Force deliberately steered clear of Adam Lanza’s mental health history. After all, if it were revealed that Lanza received the best mental health care possible, what reason would there be to increase mental health services within the state?

Worse, still, if it were revealed that Lanza actually received quality mental health care, then it’s quite possible that the mental health community’s “treatment” may actually come under fire. In the end, though, without any information about Adam Lanza’s mental health, these are 47 mental health recommendations too many.

 

 

 

 

More Delays on Sandy Hook Reports

June 10th, 2014 | Breaking News

The Sandy Hook Advisory Commission, SHAC, and the State Child Advocate’s office still have produced no reports and the deadlines continually come and go with virtually no interest on the part of Governor Malloy or state lawmakers.

What is of interest, though, is the complete run-around and disconnect by those involved in producing the reports. For example, last week Ablechild contacted Hamden Town Mayor and SHAC Chairman, Scott Jackson, regarding the status of releasing the commission’s final report. Mayor Jackson’s secretary reported that the commission was meeting every Friday in the Governor’s office.

Upon contacting the Governor’s office, Ablechild was advised by Associate General Counsel to the Governor, Eleanor Michael, that “minutes from the January and February 2014 Sandy Hook Advisory Commission meetings can be found at the following link.” Michael further explains, “as the website reflects, the last meeting of the Commission was held on February 28, 2014.”

Contrary to Mayor Jackson’s secretary, the Commission is not meeting every Friday in the Governor’s office and apparently has not held a meeting since February 28th of this year. And, according to the Commission’s website, of the nineteen meetings held between January of 2013 and February of 2014, transcripts are provided for only four of these meetings.

Given the secrecy surrounding the entire Sandy Hook investigation, it seems completely normal that the public would not be provided actual transcripts of these meetings. But it does fly in the face of Mayor Jackson’s promise that “there will be a written account that can serve as a record of the Commission’s activities and will detail what the Commission investigated, why it investigated issues, and how it reached consensus on recommendations.”

As for the State Child Advocate’s office, recall that Ablechild was advised in late April that the Advocate’s office had, in February of this year, received the requested records for Adam Lanza and it would be at least two months before the Advocate’s office would complete its report.

Last week, however, Assistant Child Advocate, Faith Von Winkel, advised Ablechild that the report may not be completed for another year, explaining that the apparent reason for the delay is because multiple children were killed. This makes no sense.

The Child Advocate’s office is not reviewing multiple files of the children killed at Sandy Hook but, rather, is focusing on the records of Adam Lanza. Von Winkel further advised Ablechild that “we cannot put out a report that in any way would hurt the families of Sandy Hook.”

Seriously? What part of Adam Lanza’s school and mental health records would “hurt” the families of Sandy Hook? The same argument can be made that the families are being hurt because the Child Advocate’s office has failed to provide information that may have contributed to Lanza’s deadly actions.

But this really is a moot point until both the SHAC and the Child Advocate’s office provide the reports repeatedly promised, but continually delayed. The question that needs to be addressed is why, eighteen months after the shooting, those tasked with providing the reports have failed to produce them?

Sandy Hook Police Investigation Reveals Two GPS Models in Mass Murders

May 30th, 2014 | Breaking News

The State Police Report of the Sandy Hook shooting has revealed some interesting inconsistencies about the Garmin GPS system that investigators examined to provide a snap shot of Adam Lanza’s whereabouts, months and days, before the shooting.    

Ablechild long has believed that the entire medical/mental health history of Sandy Hook shooter, Adam Lanza, was needed in order to make informed decisions about the future of the State’s mental health services.  Despite suing the State, in early 2013, for these records, including Lanza’s autopsy and toxicology results, the State denied the organization’s request, explaining that, as a 501c3, Ablechild was not an “interested party.”

Nevertheless, in an effort to try and understand the deadly actions of Lanza, and perhaps glean some mental health information, that may shed some light on the circumstances surrounding the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Ablechild has painstakingly combed through the entire (thousands of pages) State Police Report of the incident.  The documentation regarding what is reported to be Adam Lanza’s GPS system is confusing, at best.

The first report of the “Examination of GPS (Garmin Nuvi 200)” is dated May 11, 2013 (File ending in 59, Book 3, #0051670) and the investigating officer is Michael Mudry, who explains that he is tasked with examining the Garmin Nuvi 200 that was seized from the Lanza residence.

Officer Mudry further explains in this report that the GPS was originally seized by the Eastern District Major Crime Squad (EDMC), turned over to the FBI for extraction and Mudry burned a CD-R of the information for his examination of the GPS.  Officer Mudry also explains in this report that in February of 2013, he contacted a customer service representative at Garmin, who provided detailed information about ” the Garmin Nuvi 200…”

In another report regarding Lanza’s GPS (File ending in 59, Book 8, #001180469) dated August 29, 2013, Officer Mudry explains that the contents of a white plastic garbage bag found in the closet of Lanza’s bedroom include “one -Garmin Nuvi .”

Now, in a September 11, 2013 report (File ending in 59, Book 2, # 00171468) by Officer John Kimball, the Garmin Nuvi 200 suddenly and inexplicably is being identified as a “Garmin Nuvi Model 550) – that’s right a “550.”  Officer Kimball explains that his supervisor has asked him to examine the GPS that was seized from the Lanza home, but “it was later learned that Detective Michael Mudry already has examined the GPS.”

Officer Kimball acquiesces to officer Mudry’s report, which is part of this file.  This is where it gets interesting. Officer Mudry explains in this report that on July 31, 2013, he was assigned by Sgt. DeCesare “the task of examining a Garmin Nuvi Model 550 Global Positioning System (GPS) device which had been removed from a 2010 Honda Civic (Connecticut Passenger Plate: 872YEO) located at the Sandy Hook Elementary School.”

Weirder still, Officer Mudry no longer is relying on the FBI extraction data, as claimed in the May 11, 2013 report but, rather, “upon first examination, I determined the device battery was dead. I used a Mini-USB cable to connect the Garmin to my department Hewlett Packard laptop computer. In addition to powering the unit, this method allowed me to inspect the internal memory of the GPS device from my laptop.”

So in this report Officer Mudry is actually connecting the Garmin Nuvi Model 550 device – not the Garmin Nuvi 200 data extraction obtained from the FBI – to his computer for his examination. Furthermore, the GPS was “removed from the 2010 Honda Civic located at Sandy Hook Elementary School,” not seized from the Lanza home as reported in the May and August reports.

In a “Summary for Sergeant Michael DeCesare,” which still is part of this same report, Officer Mudry advises “I have begun going through the Garmin Nuvi Model 550 GPS device removed from Lanza’s 2010 Honda Civic (Ct Plate: 872YEO).”

If Officer Mudry was examining a “Garmin Nuvi Model 550,” why would he contact Garmin customer service for information about a “Garmin Nuvi 200?”  For that matter, why would the FBI be examining a “Garmin Nuvi 200” if the 550 was actually removed from Lanza’s car?

Certainly one would expect these detectives are capable of determining the accurate model number of the evidence they’re examining.  So which is it? Was the Garmin 200 or 550 removed from the Lanza home or Lanza’s Honda Civic at the school?

According to Officer Mudry’s report (depending on how one decides which Garmin device was examined, and from where the device was seized) the “journey” data provided by police, from whatever Garmin, ends on December 13, 2012 – the day before the shooting.

This isn’t a small issue.  Here’s why.  If the Garmin Nuvi Model 550 was removed from Lanza’s Honda Civic located at Sandy Hook Elementary School, then one would expect the “journey” data would reflect Lanza’s travel to Sandy Hook Elementary School on the morning of December 14th. It doesn’t.

Given the seriousness of this investigation, it is difficult to accept that law enforcement is unable to provide accurate and consistent reporting of important physical evidence.

But for Ablechild’s purposes, the information gleaned, from whichever Garmin, reveals dozens of “journey” entries, including numerous trips to the now well-known movie theatre where Adam Lanza utilized the “Dance, Dance Revolution” game.

In fact, what is odd about these “journey” hits is that it appears that Lanza was not the “recluse” the public has been led to believe, considering that he often would arrive at the theatre sometimes as early as 1:00 a.m. and not return home until dawn.  What is odd about these particular “journey” hits is that the theatre closes by 2:00a.m.  No explanation is provided as to what Adam Lanza was doing during these early morning hours.

There are other “journey” hits that may suggest Adam Lanza may have been traveling to these locations for some kind of mental health treatment.  Several of the “journey” hits are locations where behavioral and cognitive health centers are located. Another location is a private school that offers Mandarin lessons which, reportedly, Adam was taking.

Of course, because the State Police Report fails to provide any mental health data for the last five years of Adam Lanza’s life, it’s anyone’s guess what Adam Lanza’s mental health status is and whether his travel “journey” data has any connection to mental health treatment.

 

Page 5 of 13« First...34567...10...Last »
Website Design by Chroma Sites