Informed Consent Needs to Grow in Brooklyn

October 14th, 2014 | Breaking News

Recently, it has come to AbleChild’s attention from a New York grandmother, who filed a report with AbleChild in September that a public school district in Brooklyn, NY does not feel that U.S. Law -Title 20 1232h, Protection of Pupil Rights (Hatch) Amendment applies to them. AbleChild has long endorsed this law and its complimentary supported amendment letter (Hatch) because both directly support informed consent rights regarding psychological testing in public schools throughout this nation.

Title 20 U.S. Code 1232h- Protection of Pupil Rights gives the power to the parent to refuse any survey, analysis, or evaluation that reveals information concerning mental or psychological problems of the student or the student’s family, or their beliefs. This Right to Refuse applies to all subjective psychological evaluations, surveys and questionnaires that are used to diagnose our children with a mental health disorder.

“Both Title 20 and Hatch give parents not only the right to make critical decisions regarding their children within education, but provides for safeguards to ensure that a parent can raise their children in the way they believe is appropriate, label and drug free”, said Patricia Weathers, AbleChild Cofounder and mother of two boys. Weathers went further by stating that, “Schools should not be allowed to make decisions regarding mental health services, psychiatric diagnoses or psychiatric drug “treatment” for children. Schools should stick to education. Parents always have the right to refuse any and all of these and should not be told they are “non compliant”. Parents have the right to choose as part of informed consent.”

“This grandmother reached out to AbleChild because her request to her grandson’s school for an educational evaluation to determine if he was in need of special services was denied.  She was told that she was “non-compliant” when she refused the psychological portion of the evaluation on her grandson.  She tenaciously advocated for her grandson’s educational needs by printing out both Title 20 and The Hatch Amendment and submitting them to her grandson’s school. As per her account of the matter, “The school seemed unaware of the law and uninterested in learning about my right to refuse the psychological portion of the evaluation. I had to insist that both the law and the amendment letter that I filled out were submitted into my grandson’s file because the school psychologist didn’t think that I had the right to put anything into his school file.”

AbleChild questions whether the school district is actually ignorant of the law or is banking on an uneducated parent/caregiver who doesn’t question authority or know his or her rights. Either way, this incident demonstrates that much more awareness needs to be given at both the educational and parental level on informed consent regarding mental health and education.

For more information on AbleChild, to report your own experiences with these issues, support a parent’s right to choose and refuse, or join this organization, please visit www.ablechild.org.

Ablechild Board Member Featured Speaker Risperdal-Gynecomastia Litigation

October 3rd, 2014 | Breaking News

Ablechild is pleased to announce that one of its founding board members, Derek Braslow, will be a featured speaker concerning the Risperdal-Gynecomastia litigation at the National Mass Torts Made Perfect Conference in Las Vegas, on October 10, 2014.

Derek has long been an advocate for America’s children and is looking forward to updating some of the nation’s pre-eminent trial attorneys on preparations for the first Risperdal trial, scheduled for November 3, 2014 in Philadelphia.

“Gynecomastia, or the swelling of breast tissue in males,” says Braslow, “can be a devastating consequence of taking Risperdal – especially to young boys going through adolescence.”  “Risperdal was not approved for any indication for children or adolescents until October 2006, and thereafter, only for limited indications in that age group – yet many doctors did and continued to prescribe Risperdal off-label for this age group – without appreciating the actual benefits and risks of this psychotropic drug.”

Risperidone is an “atypical antipsychotic,” so called because these drugs are chemically different from and have different side effects than the older antipsychotic medications. While science does not understand the exact mechanism of Risperidone, it is believed that Risperidone affects the way the brain works by blocking the receptors on some of the brain’s nerves, thus altering communication normally done by chemical neurotransmitters.

Johnson & Johnson received FDA approval for Risperdal (their brand name for Risperidone) in 1993 for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in adults only. It was later approved in 2006 for irritability associated with autism in children. Despite not being approved for children and adolescents for any indication prior to 2006, it was promoted “off-label” for a variety of mental health conditions, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety, sleep difficulties, depression, Tourette syndrome, stuttering, and obsessive-compulsive disorders.

In addition to causing Gynecomastia, Risperdal carries the risk of other serious side effects as well, including suicidality, heart failure, stroke, uncontrollable movements, diabetes, and neuroleptic malignant syndrome.

Ablechild couldn’t be more pleased that Derek will be the featured speaker on such an important issues affecting so many of today’s youth.

Acknowledgement of Governor Rowland on Informed Consent

September 22nd, 2014 | Breaking News

Ablechild acknowledges the recent conviction of former Gov. John G. Rowland, but equally must acknowledge his courageous actions in 2001 when he championed and signed legislation (Public Act 01-124), An Act concerning recommendations for and refusal of the use of psychotropic drugs by children and utilization review determinations related to mental and nervous conditions, effective on October 1, 2001, the Governor signed the bill on June 28, 2001.

The Connecticut public act was the first of its kind throughout the country and spurred a 2003 federal bill, The Child Medication Safety Act 2003, to protect children and their parents from being coerced into administering a controlled substance in order to attend school, and for other purposes.

Governor Rowland also was responsible for the 2003 administrative action that prohibited the prescribing of the antidepressant, Paxil, for a six-month review period, for use with foster care children. This followed the October, 2003, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issuance of a suicide warning on Paxil and other antidepressants causing suicidal ideation in children. Since then the FDA has placed “black box” warnings (the most serious drug warning) on all antidepressants due to the increased risk of suicidality in children.

Most importantly, Governor Rowland instructed Theodore S. Sergi, the Commissioner of Education to issue a letter to Ablechild on May 21, 2001 that states, “the State Department of education does not endorse any checklist nor recommend treatment of services for ADHD.”

Prior to Governor Rowland’s signature on this landmark legislation, workshops were held in New Haven, Connecticut, sponsored by Yale Child Study Center among other Yale divisions and Pfizer, SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, Wyeth-Lederle, entitled, “Workshop on Strategies for Drug Development and Trials in Children” May 19-21, 1997.

The Conference Workshop Summary, simply put:, “by overlooking pediatric markets and disease, the pharmaceutical industry is disregarding an important long-term source of revenue, missing opportunities for therapeutic cures and for creating long-term product loyalty. Most important however is that the therapeutic dividend of the Human Genome Project, which has fueled much of the pharmaceutical biotechnology boon since 1993, will not be realized in pediatric patients.”

“The sessions will be devoted to the new FDA regulations concerning drug testing in children. In addition, the workshop will address two issues traditionally seen as the major roadblocks to developing drugs for children identification of pediatric markets and therapeutic trials.”

Despite former Governor Rowland’s recent conviction, Ablechild cannot help but acknowledge his courage and commitment at a time when the well-being of so many of the state’s children hung in the balance and still does. We thank Governor Rowland for protecting informed consent when it comes to what the sponsors of the workshop term “roadblocks”- in more basic terms – “labeling and drugging” our children.

We wish him well through his journey in the Connecticut justice system; Ablechild has been there in defense of parents and children trapped within the powerful psychiatric and drug industry’s well-financed grip in all three branches of our government.

 

Launch of New York Chapter for Parents

This New York public event is part of Ablechild’s Informed Consent Awareness outreach to parents (Get Hatch!) celebrating 44 years since the “Right to Privacy” hearings held on September 29, 1970, on the Federal government’s involvement in the Use of Behavioral Modification Drugs on Grammar School Children.

Click here for details………………………………………………AblechildNYLaunch

Sandy Hook Advisory Commission and Child Advocate’s Office to Provide Lanza Mental Health “Narrative”

September 15th, 2014 | Breaking News

The Sandy Hook Advisory Commission met again last Friday only to provide a somewhat confusing discussion about the mental health information that has been considered about Newtown shooter, Adam Lanza, by not only the Commission but also the State’s Child Advocate’s Office.

Apparently the Child Advocate’s Office has had the ability to review Lanza’s school records and has put together a “narrative” for the Commission to review. The Commission, on the other hand, has reviewed some, but not all, mental health records and will have the opportunity to review the Child Advocate’s report with the intent of combining information to ensure there are no “omissions.”

This is good news. It’s been nearly two years since the shooting at Sandy Hook and, finally, it appears that some information – if only in narrative form – about Lanza’s mental health may come to light. The question, though, is how much information will be made publicly available?

This is no small issue. Ablechild long has held that the mental health history of Lanza should be made publicly available, if only for the purpose of justifying the State’s enormous increases in mental health services funding that was instituted within months of the shooting.

More importantly, though, is Ablechild’s concern that, with all of the costly and sweeping mental health increases, the State’s children will be unnecessarily identified and labeled with mental illnesses, based on the actions of Lanza, of which, the State has provided no supporting information.

In other words, to date, there is no detailed information about Lanza’s mental health, or lack thereof, that would suggest the need for increased mental health services. In fact, based on all available information, it appears that Lanza received mental health services from a very young age and was seen by the best mental health professionals money could buy, including the prestigious Yale Child Study Center.

The problem, as Ablechild has written on numerous occasions, is that there is no publicly available information about Lanza’s mental health services after 1997 – five year prior to the shooting. Will the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission and the Child Advocate’s Office make public any information about the five years leading up to the shooting that so far remains a State secret?

Furthermore, will either entity allow the public to review the “narrative,” and will the supporting documentation be made available for discussion? Because the mental health of the State’s children rests on the information provided by these two groups, it seems inconceivable that Lanza’s actual mental health record would remain shielded in secrecy.

The Sandy Hook Advisory Commission meets again on September 23rd to take up the differences in “narratives” collected by both groups. Ablechild believes the people of Connecticut have a right to know all the details of Lanza’s mental health treatment, especially if it is Lanza’s mental health treatment that has spurred the costly increases.

 

DCF Post-Newtown Mental Health Recommendations May Put Children at Risk

September 8th, 2014 | Breaking News

In response to the 2012 tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut’s Department of Children and Families (DCF), last Friday, unceremoniously unveiled its plan to overhaul the state’s mental health system for children.

The ten-page draft report provides no specific details about the shooting at Sandy Hook and, worse still, provides no substantiating information that the shooter, Adam Lanza, lacked mental health services. This is of interest as the “draft” report – DCF’s recommendations – focuses on “early identification and intervention” of children.

The implication, of course, is that the shooting could have been avoided had Lanza received appropriate mental health services. The problem with using the Sandy Hook Shooting as the impetus for these state-wide mental health changes, is that Lanza did receive mental health services from a very early age.

While the state has refused to release any detailed information about Lanza’s mental health treatment, the investigative record clearly reflects Nancy Lanza’s early, and continuous, efforts to provide to Adam mental health treatment. In fact, Lanza was “treated” at the Yale Child Study Center – which, coincidentally, also took a leading role in drafting these recommendations.

Given the documented problems Nancy Lanza experienced with the Yale Child Study Center, after reporting adverse psychiatric drug reactions Adam was experiencing, Ablechild is concerned about the conflict of interest in having Yale participate in any mental health recommendations.

In fact, Ablechild would argue that it is a conflict of interest for any of the “stakeholders” who may benefit financially from any of the recommendations and would suggest that the complete list of “stakeholders” be made publicly available before any funding is appropriated.

Ablechild also is concerned that DCF strategies include training on infant mental health competencies. Psychiatric diagnosing is completely subjective – not based in science – and, therefore, is dependent on verbal responses, making the psychiatric diagnosing of infants questionable at best.

Because the DCF recommendations revolve around “early identification and intervention” and much of the focus is to train school personnel in the identification of mental illness, Ablechild has put together a list of recommendations that it believes are not only appropriate, but necessary in the face of DCF’s sweeping mental health recommendations.

  • Restore Informed Consent to parents, including the full disclosure about the subjectivity of psychiatric diagnosing and the dangers associated with recommended psychiatric drug “treatments.”
  • Dismantle the Behavioral Health Oversight Committee, which is heavy with vendors appointed by Governor Malloy, and eliminate the “stakeholder” monopoly. There are too many conflicts of interest among those who will profit from the recommended changes.
  • Restore speech, language and educational evaluations as the first and most important behavioral health evaluation on point of entry.
  • Fully fund the 2001 law to track the number of children prescribed psychiatric drugs within the state mental health care system and make it publicly available.
  • Increase and fund access to natural and alternative mental health treatment.
  • Set up investigative committee to track children within state care who are solicited into drug clinical trials.
  • Make public all medical/mental health records of children who died while in state care to insure accountability.
  • Require complete toxicology tests in all suspected suicide deaths of children in state care and make findings publicly available.
  • Make available to all parents of school-age children the ability to “opt-in vs opt-out” of mental health screening.
  • Require DCF staff and all state mental health care professionals be educated in the FDA MedWatch System.

Too much of DCF’s mental health recommendations for the state’s children revolve around increased identification and “treatment,” with no discussion of alternatives to dangerous and potentially deadly side effects of psychiatric drug “treatments.” There is too much at stake to allow these all-encompassing recommendations without some kind of public disclosure of the large numbers who certainly will be affected.

It’s bad enough that the drive for increased mental health services is based on the shooting at Sandy Hook, which, to date, no publicly available information to support the need for the increased services has been provided. But forcing parents to submit their children to mental health screening, without providing all information about the potential dangers is adding insult to injury.

Short of implementing the necessary safeguards that Ablechild recommends, parents and children in Connecticut may be subjected to unnecessary and even harmful mental health services and may border on human rights violations.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Is the CT Governor’s Sandy Hook Commission at Variance with the Police Report?

August 12th, 2014 | Breaking News

What will it take to get a report from the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission? Apparently the immediacy of the task has faded, as the Commission did not find it necessary to have a meeting in July.

On one level the Commission’s lack of urgency seems understandable, as the state long ago passed sweeping mental health legislation, so one can only speculate about what additional recommendations can be made that haven’t already been instituted.

Recall that the Commission was the pet project of Governor Dannel P. Malloy to reportedly get to the bottom of what might have driven Sandy Hook shooter, Adam Lanza, to commit such a heinous attack. That was the plan eighteen months ago.

Since its inception, the Commission has whined about the lack of funds, the need for lawyer assistance in cataloguing the Sandy Hook investigation in order to understand the nearly 6700- page report, its inability to get a hold of Lanza’s mental health records and a host of other difficulties.

However, despite these stumbling blocks, the up side is that the Commission has had the opportunity to speak with Peter Lanza about his son’s mental health, they have met with victim family members and had access to records that the public, so far, has been denied. So, where’s the Commission’s report? What are the Commission’s conclusions?

More importantly, will the Commission address the obvious problems within the State Police investigation? Have the members thoroughly considered the physical evidence that screams for answers?

Specifically, has the Commission made an effort to obtain additional information about the sealed, stamped envelope found in the Lanza home and addressed “For the young students of Sandy Hook Elementary School?” DNA testing of the envelope revealed that Nancy and Adam Lanza were ruled out as DNA contributors. The DNA did, however, match that of a convicted offender in New York.

Has the Commission addressed this issue? Has the Commission been made aware of the contents of that envelope and, if so, will that information be made available to the public? Clearly, one cannot help but wonder if the information found in this envelope may shed some light on the motive behind the attack.

The envelope was of great importance to the State Police. Out of the thousands of pieces of paper removed from the Lanza home, it was this piece of evidence that was finger printed and tested for DNA. Why? Is the Commission even curious about the envelope’s contents?

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that whatever the Commission recommends it will be costly. One only need recall Public law 13-3, passed in the wake of Sandy Hook and based on no supporting documentation. That legislative nonsense cost the taxpayers millions and not one lawmaker is capable of accurately describing Adam Lanza’s mental health care in the five years leading up to the shooting incident.

But the Commission, apparently, has taken a hiatus from its important task and the people of Connecticut will just have to cool their jets, left to wonder what the impact of the Commission’s recommendations may be on their wallets. If history is any indication, it doesn’t look pretty.

Newtown Massacre & The Courant’s Endorsement of McKinney

According to the August 2nd article in the Hartford Courant titled McKinney Over Foley in Republican Primary for Governor, McKinney is the paper’s choice to remain in the Capitol because, among other things, in immediate aftermath of Sandy Hook, McKinney voted for the controversial and intrusive gun safety bill.

The Hartford Courant has thrown its endorsement to McKinney because the Senate Minority leader ignored the Republican base and voted with the Democrats where, “he could engage in the process and try to influence the drafting of the law.”

It is unclear how McKinney influenced that legislation and, actually, it would be of some interest to the voters to know what specific role McKinney played in crafting the sweeping legislative language. While the gun restrictions are repugnant to many, Ablechild is more concerned about the other legislative measures included, specifically the costly increases in mental health services forced on taxpayers.

Recall that the legislation in question was hurriedly passed with little or no public input. More importantly, the investigative report on Sandy Hook had not been completed at the time of the vote and, therefore, lawmakers, including McKinney, literally were writing legislation based on the passions of the moment, not on supporting data.

In fact, a year-and-a-half later, there still is no data to support the costly mental health measures passed in that legislation. There is no publicly available evidence that Adam Lanza lacked mental health services. Frankly, there is no information publicly provided about Adam Lanza’s mental health treatment after 2007 – five years prior to the shooting. Is this information not important to McKinney or even the Courant?

Given the obvious lack of information about Lanza’s mental health, does it not seem irresponsible that lawmakers, including McKinney, would rush the passage of costly mental health legislation? After all, there is a projected $1.4 billion deficit next year. How much of this deficit includes the newly passed increased mental health services?

Ablechild appreciates McKinney’s experience and could have used his “influence” when it sued the state for the release of Adam Lanza’s medical/mental health records and toxicology report. But there was no support from McKinney or any lawmaker. There was no, nor is there any, interest on the part of lawmakers to obtain any data about Adam Lanza’s mental health treatment leading up to the shooting.

Yes, McKinney’s 15-years of experience is helpful, but how effective is that experience if those legislative efforts are not based in documentable necessity? One cannot help but wonder how many other legislative measures were passed with McKinney’s “influence” that were based on zero supporting information?

For that matter, one has to wonder why the Hartford Courant, clearly aware of the lack of documentation regarding Adam Lanza’s mental health, continually fails to address this point. Additionally, is it not odd that, prior to the release of the investigative report, the Courant was all over the shooting at Sandy Hook but has failed to report on investigative details that scream for answers.

Specifically, is the Courant not interested in the oddity of the envelope found in the Lanza home, addressed “for the young children of Sandy Hook Elementary” and, of which, the DNA of a known offender in New York was obtained. Is the Courant not interested in what information was contained in the stamped, addressed envelope? Is there no interest by this reporting entity as to how this piece of evidence found its way into the Lanza home?

It’s one thing for lawmakers to ignore investigative material, but when a leading press organization blatantly fails to report on important investigative details, the people of the state truly are not being served.

 

Page 3 of 612345...Last »
Website Design by Chroma Sites