Skip to main content

Child Advocate Report, Claims Adam Lanza “Untreated?”

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

This is Dedicated to All Children

The long awaited report from the Connecticut Office of the Child Advocate regarding the shooting at Sandy Hook openly admits that the state failed Adam Lanza by not adhering to the special education laws already on the books.  This reinforces AbleChild’s efforts for full disclosure of Lanza’s medical and mental health records to demonstrate the rise of school shootings and their link to psychiatric drug use.

Like almost every aspect of the Sandy Hook shooting incident, this report does not provide actual documentation to support its conclusions, but, rather, a “story” has been crafted for public consumption in an effort to gain support for an increase in the already intrusive mental health programs within the State.

Recall that in the spring of 2013, AbleChild sued the State for release of Lanza’s medical/mental health records and autopsy/toxicology findings.  The State has not released those findings. Rather than rule on AbleChild’s request for full disclosure, the State FOIA Commission determined it was a “legal matter,” and left AbleChild, who had petitioned on behalf of the public, the only option of a lengthy and costly litigation to the Connecticut Supreme Court.

AbleChild’s attorney, Jonathan Emord, wrote that the Medical Examiner’s refusal to disclose information requested by AbleChild “violates the equal protection and free speech clause of the Connecticut and federal Constitution.” AbleChild argued that failure to disclose this information is a public safety issue and tied to a national crisis of school shootings.

What seems clear from the Advocate’s “story,” however, is that Adam Lanza received numerous evaluations and completely subjective psychiatric diagnoses, beginning with the “Birth to Three” system.  Over the course of the next thirteen years, Lanza had been diagnosed with no fewer than nine disorders or disabilities and had been evaluated by no less than three psychiatrists.

Oddly enough, while it seems clear from the Advocate’s “story” that Lanza’s “Individualized Education Plan” (IEP) “Team” was at least aware of his mental health issues, albeit having an incomplete record, the “Team” was not as concerned about Lanza’s educational progress. For example, according to the “story,” Lanza completely skipped the entire eighth grade and still was allowed to enter the ninth grade. How exactly did the IEP “Team” make this decision? A show of hands? Secret ballot? All those in favor say, “aye?”

Adam Lanza, according to the “story,” was not receiving home-bound or hospital based tutoring.  He was not attending school at all, for the entirety of his eighth grade year but the IEP “Team” got together in June of 2006 to set up Lanza’s class schedule for the ninth grade? This is incredible.

All too often the Advocate’s “story” places blame on Nancy Lanza, when, in all actuality it was the psychiatrists, psychologists, IEP “TEAM,” and the Yale Child Study Center that dropped the ball which is clearly evidenced by the numerous admissions that, “there are no records…”.  One thing is certain, the decision to allow Adam Lanza to enter the ninth grade, without having completed any of the required work in the eighth grade, could not, by law, be made by Nancy Lanza.

And, to make matters worse, Lanza apparently was allowed to remain out of school, with no tutoring or Home-Bound services based on his psychiatrist’s evaluation…the same psychiatrist, Dr. Paul Fox, who was referred to Nancy Lanza by the Newtown School system and who subsequently voluntarily gave up his license to practice in New York and Connecticut because of his sexual relations with patients. The same Dr. Fox destroyed his patient records, fled the country, and is currently living in New Zealand.

Despite what appears to be a complete disconnect between the school district and Dr. Fox, the Child Advocate’s Office recommends that these kinds of referrals by the school to outside psychiatrists continue. Where is the oversight? Who determines which psychiatrists are qualified? And, given that Fox destroyed all of his records in this case (and who knows how many other referrals) where is the accountability?  This is the exact reason informed consent is critical and should always include the right to refuse psychiatric labels and drugs.

Also of interest is the never before released information about “The Big Book of Granny.” Recall, that this school project has been used repeatedly by “mental health professionals” to make the case that Lanza’s violent tendencies began at a very young age.  Now, thanks to the Child Advocate’s “story,” the public has learned that this was a joint effort and co-written by another fifth grade boy.

The question, of course, is how much of the violence can actually be attributed to Adam Lanza? The Child Advocate’s office does not answer that question, but, rather, continues down the psychobabble path that the book stands out “to mental health professionals” as a text marked by extreme thoughts of violence and there should have been an intervention. But whose “thoughts of violence?”

In the end, and of little surprise, the Child Advocate’s Office provides pages and pages of recommendations that will increase mental health intrusions into the school system. And all of these recommendations are based on flawed, misleading and incomplete records of the “services” provided to Adam Lanza.

Mom of George Washington Carver Arts & Technology Student Wants “Nemphos” Mental Health Records Revealed for Public Safety

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Violence.

A Baltimore mother, who has a child attending the school where the recent aborted mass-shooting plot by 16-year old Sash Nemphos was foiled, has contacted AbleChild. This mother’s concerns shine a light on the idiocy of Connecticut Governor Malloy and his Sandy Hook Advisory Commission’s latest recommendations targeting homeschoolers in the aftermath of Sandy Hook mass murder. Governor Malloy’s Commission wants “special education program teams,” to conduct mental health assessments on children homeschooled.

Rather than address, and make public, the specific mental health history of Newtown shooter, Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission intends to force the State’s ever-broadening mental health policies on the families of those who choose opt-out of the public school system to homeschool.

The Baltimore mother only recently returned her child to the Maryland public school system after years of homeschooling. Having been acutely aware of the recent school shootings, this mother rightly questions, whether the would-be school shooter’s intended actions in any way were precipitated by psychiatric drugs, prescribed to “treat” an alleged mental disorder?

This Baltimore mother’s call for the attempted shooter’s mental health records further support AbleChild’s belief that the mental health/medication history of school shooters is a public safety issue across the Country.

According to police reports, sophomore Nemphos had homemade explosive devices and had a gun at his home, intending to go to the Baltimore area George Washington Carver Center for Arts and Technology and use these weapons to kill. The planned attack only was uncovered by police officers when they stumbled upon the plot while investigating a series of auto break-ins.

This question is as relevant today for this Baltimore area mother as it was on December 14, 2012 for the parents of Newtown, where Adam Lanza carried out a brutal killing spree, taking the lives of 26 innocent people.

What is odd about the Commission’s decision to drag homeschoolers into the mental-health mix, like every other aspect of the Lanza investigation, is that, to date, no factual, supporting information has been provided to back up this recommended action. The Commission has not provided the public with any specific information about Lanza’s education history, including any specific information about the reported years Lanza was homeschooled.

The fact that the Commission has inserted homeschooling into the Sandy Hook mental health equation becomes even more bizarre when one considers that according to publicly available information, the only time Adam Lanza was “homeschooled” was for a few months in the fall of 2005 – seven years prior to the shooting incident. During this time, a psychiatrist, Paul Fox, saw Lanza. Between 2006 and 2007, mental health professionals at the Yale Child Study Center also saw Lanza. And, in 2006, Newtown High School psychologist, Michael Ridley, evaluated Lanza.

While the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission would like to suggest that because Lanza was homeschooled he, therefore, slipped through the mental health cracks, no information has been made publicly available to support these assertions.

The available information paints a very different picture. Lanza’s mental health issues were known throughout his public school years and accommodations were made by the public school system to help the family with Lanza’s reported deteriorating mental health.

The Baltimore mother who contacted AbleChild summed up what really is at the heart of the Sandy Hook tragedy when she wrote, “More now than ever, our children are being placed on psychiatric drugs, which carry warnings of psychosis, suicidal and homicidal thoughts and tendencies. Many of these kids will tell their parents that they don’t like the way these drugs make them feel, but are forced to take them anyway. For every one of these children who carries out an act of violence there are hundreds more screaming for help, but the only help they get is more drugs.”

This mother wants to know whether the would-be child killer in Baltimore was taking psychiatric drugs. Like AbleChild, she believes that it is a matter of public safety. The people of Connecticut have yet to learn the motive behind the Sandy Hook attack and, as the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission seems more interested in creating new victims of the mental health system at the expense of homeschoolers, it seems likely they never will. The Commission’s unwillingness to reveal Lanza’s mental health/medication history does nothing to ensure the public’s safety.

 

 

Sandy Hook Promise at Odds with Constitution and Other Parents

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

Sandy Hook Promise founder, Rob Cox, recently asked the question, “Did the law, and our Constitution, make this massacre easier to carry out?” His organization advocates for massive mental health screening for all children, according to the Burlington Free Press article, “Sandy Hook lessons yet to be learned, two years later“.

This is the same “mental health screening” that clearly failed Adam Lanza at Danbury Hospital, where he was screened by the Department of Psychiatry for harm to himself and others and released prior to the mass murder in Sandy Hook, Newtown, Connecticut.

According to the Burlington Free Press Interview, “In asking these wrenching questions, Cox was essentially framing the mission of the organization he would help to forge during the coming weeks in Newtown, Sandy Hook Promise.”

This has prompted AbleChild cofounder, Patricia Weathers, to ask some pointed questions to the founder, Mr. Cox, who has garnered the attention and support of the mainstream media, politicians, and financial supporters.

“This stunning “anti-constitutional” mission of the Sandy Hook Promise should have us all alarmed,” says Patricia Weathers.

The question, Mr. Cox, why are you not asking for the medical and mental health records like AbleChild, or finding it a little “strange” to say the least that there are just too many discrepancies in the reporting?

Why does Sandy Hook Promise blame the Constitution and yet does not want access to all the data involved in the “treatment” that failed this young adult?

Cox seems to buy into the State’s “Lanza Narrative”  that he didn’t get mental health treatment or needed drugs instead of looking to facts within the police investigative report.  Is this why Cox hasn’t asked for the records to be opened or held the State of Connecticut and the Sandy Hook Commission accountable to the public?

My son was placed on psychiatric drugs with dangerous side effects and had a violent adverse event.  Being a mother who testified before the FDA and Congress with the hundreds of parents that have had children who have died as a result of antidepressants linked to violence and suicide, I know that parents who want answers DON’T STOP until all information is revealed and all questions are answered. These parents, despite their loss, fought through the bureaucratic rhetoric to get to the truth and based on this truth changed appropriate laws and worked to get a Black Box Warning on the drugs and TV Ads so that other children would not share the same fate. They were not pawns for one political group pushing an agenda. They saw through this and the pharmaceutical conflict of interest within the government.

Perhaps this is why the Sandy Hook Promise doesn’t have all the Sandy Hook victims’ families that lost a child on that horrifying day supporting their efforts.  A fact Cox admits in the article.

An organization like Sandy Hook Promise, that blame the Constitution and uses innocent victims to spread misinformation without having all the facts is reprehensible.  This organization, by pushing forced mental health treatment and gun control without public hearings is endangering our children and violating parental rights.  This flies against the very foundation of this Country.

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

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

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

Written by Sheila Matthews on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

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

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

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?

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

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?

Written by Sheila Matthews on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

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

Written by Sheila Matthews on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

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.

 

Sandy Hook: Grief Shared, Answers Denied.

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

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.