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

Print This Post Print This Post

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.

Adam Lanza, Governor Malloy, Mental Health Records, Psychiatric Drugs, Psychiatrists, Sandy Hook Advisory Commission

Comments (4)

  • Thank you for pursuing this. What should have happened with that DNA match is there should have been a search warrant court order to re-test and verify the identity of the individual that was identified. Why would they not have done this? There is compelling evidence of multiple assailants.

    A man was observed in cuffs in the parking lot and reported by at least 4 law enforcement personnel in their statements.
    This man did not have an explanation for why he was there nor did he have a reason to be there.
    This man was described as wearing a brown jacket which is precisely consistent with the description of the shooter by one of the child witnesses.

    I have yet to find the documentation that identified the relevant facts leading to the apprehension of this man. I was unable to ascertain which officer, or officers, identified this man, where he was caught and under what circumstances.

    A. What we have been able to ascertain in the case file documentation is the following:

    1. The man in cuffs was observed with other “officers” by Lt. Vanghele, Detective VanNess, Sgt Signore and Officer Heibeck
    2. VanNess stated that she observed him almost immediately after she arrived on the scene at 10:01:42. So obviously he was identified and apprehended before that time.

    B. Other observations that may apply:

    1. Penna was escorting a man in cuffs at 10:02:41 but he apparently makes no reference to this in his official statement. Was this the New York man in cuffs taken to the Newtown police department?

    2. At 9:49:16- Cario, Kick and Bahamonde responded to a potential 2nd shooter by the playscape. Cario’s statement notes that he went outside but makes no reference of an encounter and that he was back in a minute. Kick’s statement appears to make no reference at all. I cannot find Bahamonde’s statement.

    3. Fox News Initially reported that a second shooter was taken into custody and that SWAT was deployed to his house and that a body was found there. That report was halted and purged in mid broadcast.

    4. In Vanghele’s statement he directs two Brookfield Officers to search the man’s car. The Lt Vanghele made a rather amazing comment. He did not know the outcome of the search of the man’s car. Can you imagine that Lt Vanghele would not be interested about the outcome of that search? Apparently the outcome was such that it warranted the handcuffed man a visit to the Newtown PD.

    Lt Vanghele was aware that the subject was released from custody and was apparently satisfied with the explanation that the man had an APP that directed him to the school. Would you expect more exculpatory information that that ? Even if that was a reasonable explanation for being there, which it is not, why didn’t the man explain his “APP” story initially? Remember he was there for hours and had no explanation to provide.

    C. Police Statement Documentation References Book 6:
    1. Lt. Vanghele document 00002060
    2. Detective VanNess document 00001113
    3. Sgt Signore document 0040428
    4. Officer Heibeck document 00040345
    5. Officer Penna document 00258036
    6. Sgt Cario document 00026724
    7. Officer Kick document 00258277
    8. Child Witness document 00258277

    D. The children witnesses describe the shooter as “a man the age of a Dad”, “wearing army type clothes”, “wearing a brown jacket” – Interestingly enough that 3 men were apprehended outside the school- a father ( Chris Manfredonia), a man in camo (apparently an armed off duty SWAT officer from another town) and a man in a brown jacket.

    E. DNA Evidence at the Lanza home on a letter addressed to Sandy Hook Elementary School matched a New York registered felon. A New York Area man was apprehended at the school and could not explain why he was there.

    What investigative procedures were applied after the discovery of that DNA analysis result and what was th edisposition of those invetigative procedures ?
    Convicted Offender DNA profile on the New York State Police Investigation Center DB# 10011106A
    page 06232

    Natalie Hammond stated that the shooter wore a mask and there are radio transmissions searching for suspects in a van wearing a ski mask.

  • Remember that all day long they reported that the shooter was the son of a kindergarten teacher ?

    Google “Sandy Hook + son of a kindergarten teacher” and the mystery is revealed and the puzzle pieces made clear.

    The initial report never said Nanccy lanza was a teacher. The report said that the shooter was the son of a kindergarten teacher.

  • A press release was indeed issued by Peter Lanza’s Public Relations representative, Errol Cockfield. Cockfield is an executive with the world’s largest multinational PR firm, Edelman, which does not represent private citizens. The press release promised that Lanza would meet privately with one representative of the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission. The reason for this, was the recent release of the first SH Investigation report, which had few facts, plenty of speculation, and did not include any of Adam’s mental health treatment records. Even the SH Advisory Commission was highly critical, and Cockfield reacted to the pressure by promising to produce Lanza. Of course, ‘Lanza’ never showed. Evidence suggests that Peter Lanza, who goes by several aliases, is government intelligence.

Comments are closed.