Connecticut Elementary School Massacre

[solace]

"a specific triggering event or series of events"

Behind closed doors as they say. My money is on the destroyed hard drive. It's the one concrete thing we know; the rest is guesstimation based on what we might think of his relationships with mom et al. Something was there on that drive he wanted to hide; or, the "real," handlers wanted to hide if one takes that POV.

"Obviously, this kid had major issues and was going to explode from them one day." I have known lots of people who could be described that way who never did "explode." Also some who did but not of course to this level. The fact he had access to guns and evidently enjoyed violent video games (if true as claimed) might have made it more likely for him to come to this. But that is the trouble with human behavior isn't it? It's a crap shoot in the long run.

[barracuda]

I do wonder why you have no doubt that a series of triggering events will be found, though. Is it just because 'they' always manage to piece together some bullshit 'triggering' series of events?

Everyone's looking for some sort of an explanation. It's a natural thing to do. I mean, it seems as if a great part of the rationale behind positing a deep state hit here is due to the fact that only two kinds of mass murders are known to us historically: those committed by the insane and those committed by the state. I can't really come up with a third common option.

I feel a triggering event will surface in the course of the investigations because of the extreme passion of the shooting of the mother. You might shoot you mother once as she lay sleeping and kill her for any number of reasons. You might even shoot her twice, just to make sure she's dead. But the third and then fourth time you pull the trigger and fire a bullet into the head of the dead woman you've spent your entire life with, there's an element of retribution about it, or making a statement, or catharsis. Something happened, and this is the response. It has meaning beyond just taking a life. There's overkill in every aspect of these shootings, starting with the very first.

[Project Willow]

I expect the motive to eventually have to do with jealousy, myself, given the extreme passion of the first killing. Nancy Lanza was a very attractive, very rich woman with a twenty-year-old son. She had just returned from a two day trip here:

...during which she left her troubled son to his own devices. I'd be very surprised if she didn't attract the attentions of men.

Woah, a creepy nod to Oedipus, but I'm sure you didn't mean that.

I mean, it seems as if a great part of the rationale behind positing a deep state hit here is due to the fact that only two kinds of mass murders are known to us historically: those committed by the insane and those committed by the state. I can't really come up with a third common option.

I posted up thread that quite commonly mass murderers are not insane or psychotic by any measure, nor do they snap in an instant as it were, but come to a point where perceived injustice(s) require a violent response, according to their assessments which are influenced by several factors including culture and trauma history. Then they carry out their plans methodically.

I feel a triggering event will surface in the course of the investigations because of the extreme passion of the shooting of the mother. You might shoot you mother once as she lay sleeping and kill her for any number of reasons. You might even shoot her twice, just to make sure she's dead. But the third and then fourth time you pull the trigger and fire a bullet into the head of the dead woman you've spent your entire life with, there's an element of retribution about it, or making a statement, or catharsis. Something happened, and this is the response. It has meaning beyond just taking a life. There's overkill in every aspect of these shootings, starting with the very first.

Agree with that, violence is a form of communication.

[conniption]

globalresearch

Newtown Tragedy: PBS Defies Basic Journalistic Standards to Push the Sandy Hook Official Narrative
By James F. Tracy
Global Research, February 24, 2013

This past week the Public Broadcasting Service presented its viewership with a flurry of reportage and commentary on the Newtown tragedy, taking special care to closely associate the incident with the issues of gun control, mental health, and school safety. Specific programs have included Washington Week, PBS NewsHour, NOVA, and FRONTLINE. This degree of coverage from an outlet with significant credibility among the educated professional class is especially unusual.

Yet even more bizarre is the dubious assumption by PBS’s programming directors that the event has taken place as described by their often untrustworthy and sensationalistic commercial peers at CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. Instead of providing a genuine news alternative by acting as a corrective to such slipshod reporting PBS has wholeheartedly run with the “official story” of the event—that Adam Lanza was the sole perpetrator. With this the publicly-funded network has moved beyond a much-needed interrogation of the incident to evaluating what social control measures should be introduced or the extent to which existing ones should be ratcheted up.

The FRONTLINE special, “Raising Adam Lanza,” which aired on Tuesday, February 19, is a case in point. Profiling an investigation into Adam and Nancy Lanza by veteran Hartford Courant reporters Alaine Griffin and Josh Kovner, the news magazine proceeds to “lead the witness-viewer” in the court of public opinion by driving home the narrative already well-established in the public mind by corporate media.

Not only are the Hartford Courant and PBS asking the wrong questions and far afield from what might help in better understanding the tragic event, they appear to be knowingly misinforming their readers and viewership because the investigation—like almost all of the corporate coverage—proceeds in the absence of proof that Lanza committed the crime. Indeed, Mr. Kovner acknowledged such in a brief email exchange.



On Feb 23, 2013, at 10:23 AM, “James Tracy” wrote:
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: James Tracy
To: Alaine Griffin, Josh Kovner
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:04 PM
Subject: “Raising Adam Lanza” Query on Prior Evidence

Greetings.

As you may know I have taken a special interest in researching the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting and am thus most interested in your work. I recently viewed the PBS Frontline special profiling your work aired on February 19.

I am curious to know if you have heretofore accessed and examined forensically viable postmortem, video, and/or photographic evidence of the Sandy Hook shooting itself (e.g. autopsies of the suspect and victims, and documentation of the crime scenes) that can confirm specifics of the incident and its genuine occurrence. It would appear to me that such information would be appropriate for journalists such as yourselves to interrogate prior to an in-depth biographical investigation of the suspect Adam Lanza.

The courtesy of a response would be most appreciated.

Thank you for your time

Sincerely,

James Tracy, Ph.D.

Mr. Kovner responded with the following:

From: “Kovner, Josh”
To: James Tracy
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: “Raising Adam Lanza” Query on Prior Evidence

The forensic evidence, including autopsy/toxicology reports and crime-scene photos, has not been available to us.

The Public Broadcasting Act passed by the US Congress in 1967 mandates PBS and its parent corporation, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, to carry out a public service where the commercial sector has failed. In the Act Congress declared that

it furthers the general welfare to encourage public telecommunications services which will be responsive to the interests of people both in particular localities and throughout the United States, which will constitute an expression of diversity and excellence, and which will constitute a source of alternative telecommunications services for all the citizens of the Nation

The Hartford Courant and PBS particularly should provide a reasonable explanation as to why they have chosen to place basic journalistic standards attending to evidence and truth in abeyance and instead serve as an outlet for furthering the Obama Administration’s open agenda of heightened gun control, psychiatric surveillance, and school safety protocols. Without such they offer virtually no worthwhile alternative in terms of news and perspective aside from providing taxpayer and foundation-subsidized publicity to an audience that considers itself too sophisticated to be fooled by cable news claptrap.

*

PBS Frontline: Raising Adam Lanza (Transcript)

*

insanemedia

PBS Frontline: Raising Adam Lanza (Review pt. 1)

In this article we will review the recently aired episode of PBS’ Frontline, titled Raising Adam Lanza. This review will be split into 2 separate articles.

On February 19th PBS’ Frontline aired an investigative program co-created with The Hartford Courant. The program was intended to provide deeper insight into the mind of Adam Lanza, the life he led with his mother, Nancy and what may have led him to the commit the crimes of which he is accused.

While I had not expected them to delve too deeply into the discrepancies in the “official” story, I had expected them to at least provide some sense of the confusion and contradiction that surrounds it. I could not have been more wrong.

In the wake of the mass killings at Sandy Hook, FRONTLINE looks for answers to the elusive question: who was Adam Lanza?

I can’t say exactly how hard they looked for those answers but I can say that they came up far short of providing them.

Early in the broadcast, Courant reporter, Alaine Griffin, shares with us their concern that there are to be “many obstacles in the reporting of this story.” One of these expected obstacles was the fact that, “the cops aren’t saying much, they’re still sort of holding back.”

We’ll discuss this in more detail later in this review but for now I’ll say, I don’t understand how the Courant reporters could draw that conclusion when, according to the most visible member of law enforcement associated with this case, Connecticut State Police Lt. J. Paul Vance, he wasn’t even contacted by the Courant or Frontline in the lead up to this broadcast.

That glaring oddity aside, there is truth in what Griffin says. The warrants for this investigation remain sealed until late March, the police have been less than forthcoming with information and family members of Nancy and Adam Lanza appear unwilling to speak.

Looking back, though, I now wonder if that comment wasn’t akin to the athlete mentioning the “pain in his side” prior to the big game as a means of providing an excuse for failure.

In their effort to better understand the mind of Adam Lanza did they speak to his friends? Did they speak to his teachers? Did they speak to the kids with whom Adam was in a high school tech-club? Did they speak to any school counselors?

The astonishing answer to every one of those questions is an inexplicable, no. As a matter of fact, in the entire 1 hour program they spoke to exactly one person that had any direct contact with Adam beyond the age of 6. ONE.

PBS Frontline: Raising Adam Lanza (Review pt. 1)
continued here

[barracuda]

Gee, it's so surprising to see James Tracy writing PBS asking a question to which he already knows the answer. The forensic evidence is under seal, and everyone is aware of that.

In their effort to better understand the mind of Adam Lanza did they speak to his friends? Did they speak to his teachers? Did they speak to the kids with whom Adam was in a high school tech-club? Did they speak to any school counselors?

The astonishing answer to every one of those questions is an inexplicable, no. As a matter of fact, in the entire 1 hour program they spoke to exactly one person that had any direct contact with Adam beyond the age of 6. ONE.

Er, no, that's inaccurate. Frontline spoke to Lanza family members (plural), Richard Novia, and John Bergquist, all of whom had direct contact with Adam and Nancy well into Adam's teen years. The show was called "Raising Adam Lanza," and was aimed at dissecting Nancy's relationship with Adam, not "understanding the mind of Adam Lanza".

[IanEye]

Yet even more bizarre is the dubious assumption by PBS’s programming directors that the event has taken place as described by their often untrustworthy and sensationalistic commercial peers at CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. Instead of providing a genuine news alternative by acting as a corrective to such slipshod reporting PBS has wholeheartedly run with the “official story” of the event—that Adam Lanza was the sole perpetrator. With this the publicly-funded network has moved beyond a much-needed interrogation of the incident to evaluating what social control measures should be introduced or the extent to which existing ones should be ratcheted up.

It is almost as if Mr. Tracy has never viewed the PBS NewsHour. Any regular reader of Global Research who also viewed the NewsHour during the runup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq would not be surprised that PBS in no way provides a "news alternative" for the events in Newtown.

This is nothing new.

I am curious to know if you have heretofore accessed and examined forensically viable postmortem, video, and/or photographic evidence of the Sandy Hook shooting itself (e.g. autopsies of the suspect and victims, and documentation of the crime scenes) that can confirm specifics of the incident and its genuine occurrence. It would appear to me that such information would be appropriate for journalists such as yourselves to interrogate prior to an in-depth biographical investigation of the suspect Adam Lanza.

Here Tracy seems to be conflating what are two separate Frontline episodes, "Raising Adam Lanza" & "Newtown Divided".

"Raising Adam Lanza" deals with just what the title describes, how Nancy Lanza went about raising her son. The episode ends right as Adam is heading to the Sandy Hook school.
"Newtown Divided" deals with the divisions in the town over issues of gun ownership in the aftermath of the shootings. Issues which had been a source of tension among residents before the Sandy Hook shootings.

It should seem fairly obvious to Mr. Tracy that Frontline went out of their way to leave the shootings as a giant void between these two episodes. I think it is perfectly acceptable to question why Frontline chose this approach, but that does not appear to be what Tracy is doing. Instead, Tracy acts as if Frontline promised to reveal over the course of these two episodes all of the existing forensic evidence surrounding the events in Newtown, and then pulled a bait & switch.

It leaves the impression that James Tracy is a dim bulb.

George Lucas may very well be a CIA asset, but observing that the film "American Graffiti" is not a documentary about graffiti in America does nothing to prove Lucas' culpability.

.

[conniption]

It's a good thing to have sincere evaluations on the articles and ideas that arise. Thank you for your time and trouble.

So far, I continue to remain in the something-is-terribly-wrong-with-this-story camp.

[IanEye]

it might be useful for some to compare and contrast the actions of Kip Kinkel and the alleged actions of Adam Lanza, as well as the way in which Frontline chose to cover both school shootings.

Kinkel's spree killings occurred in May, 1998.
"The Killer At Thurston High" first aired in January 2000.

[Iamwhomiam]

I agree completely with Willow,
"I posted up thread that quite commonly mass murderers are not insane or psychotic by any measure, nor do they snap in an instant as it were, but come to a point where perceived injustice(s) require a violent response, according to their assessments which are influenced by several factors including culture and trauma history. Then they carry out their plans methodically."

And I'll add another, that also may or may not be part & parcel to the above, pure evil, as in total possession.

I also believe the man who killed my son would fit Willow's description. I often wonder if he was possessed.

What I find frustrating about 'searching for the truth' in the Sandy Hook case by some convinced a conspiracy must be afoot, is that the very 'proof' they produce would most probably be manufactured to strengthen the focus on the pawn's non-existent motives and guilt. What's real and what's manufactured is most difficult to discern, especially our being so far removed as we are from the locale, trusting online sources. And that's plain nuts!

I was absolutely astounded by the conflicting early reportage myself, and that's what everyone seems locked-on to justify a conspiracy.

[Canadian_watcher]

Gee, it's so surprising to see James Tracy writing PBS asking a question to which he already knows the answer. The forensic evidence is under seal, and everyone is aware of that.

yep. that's how they do it courts of law to introduce evidence in cases that decide the fates of human beings, too. Your "Gee, it's so surprising.." is misplaced. Watch, "Gee, it's so surprising to watch Clarence Darrow ask a question of that witness to which he already knows the answer." Or "Gee, it's so surprising to watch that interrogating officer ask the suspect if he was in the school that day when he already knows the answer."

that's how it works in the grown up and often bullshit world of law enforcement, justice and evidence gathering.

[barracuda]

Let's just not pretend it's some kind of revelation that the forensic evidence isn't available to PBS or anyone else. And let's not pretend James Tracy is some kind of "evidence gatherer" or detective. The best I can say about him is he's exercising his right of free speech. The worst I can say is that he's contributing to the pain and suffering of the victims of the shooting.

Sorry, I can't take James Tracy seriously at all. The title of the article posted by conniption is "PBS Defies Basic Journalistic Standards to Push Sandy Hook Official Narrative". But their show wasn't about "whodunnit", as much as James Tracy would have liked it to be. Fortunately, in the real world, not everyone is a Hooker, and not everyone is required to be focused upon the same issues as James Tracy.

[barracuda]

I mean, it seems as if a great part of the rationale behind positing a deep state hit here is due to the fact that only two kinds of mass murders are known to us historically: those committed by the insane and those committed by the state. I can't really come up with a third common option.

I posted up thread that quite commonly mass murderers are not insane or psychotic by any measure, nor do they snap in an instant as it were, but come to a point where perceived injustice(s) require a violent response, according to their assessments which are influenced by several factors including culture and trauma history. Then they carry out their plans methodically.

I think it's an unanswered question that has good points on either side. I would tend to be of the opinion that almost any mass murder on the scale of Adam Lanza, or even those with significantly fewer victims, would have an excellent chance with an insanity defense. However, very few mass killers on that level are ever caught alive. IanEye has pointed us to an example of one who was:

it might be useful for some to compare and contrast the actions of Kip Kinkel and the alleged actions of Adam Lanza, as well as the way in which Frontline chose to cover both school shootings.

Kinkel's spree killings occurred in May, 1998.
"The Killer At Thurston High" first aired in January 2000.

Thanks for that link, Ian, although the show was fucking harrowing to watch. I have little doubt that Kinkel would've been found not guilty by reason of insanity had he chosen to pursue such a defense in his original trial. Hopefully someone will produce a documentary which approaches the Newtown killings after the investigation is unsealed and the victims go public in such a way that we can get a better understanding of what happened.

I realize the knee-jerk response that such killers are insane is unsatisfying. I think the reality is extremely complex and has to be evaluated case-by-case, but in the end I would still be of the opinion that madness is almost always in evidence, whatever "madness" turns out to entail. Some sort of mind-sickness beyond the control of the killers leads them to these actions.

I have a very hard time viewing Adam Lanza as "evil".

[Iamwhomiam]

Canadian_watcher, "I realize the knee-jerk response that such killers are insane is unsatisfying. I think the reality is extremely complex and has to be evaluated case-by-case, but in the end I would still be of the opinion that madness is almost always in evidence, whatever "madness" turns out to entail. Some sort of mind-sickness beyond the control of the killers leads them to these actions."

I would imagine most people would believe one need be mad to commit murder, but that would be far from true. The act is insane, whether by an individual acting out on their own motive or committed by soldiers on the battlefield or conspirators.

The murderer in the Seattle massacre had no history of mental illness whatsoever.

Anger solves nothing and is unuseful, unless, of course, anger is the point of such a conspiracy with the purpose of moving forward a political agenda, rather than its motivation for one or more acting out so violently.

[Project Willow]

I think it's an unanswered question that has good points on either side. I would tend to be of the opinion that almost any mass murder on the scale of Adam Lanza, or even those with significantly fewer victims, would have an excellent chance with an insanity defense.

I think it's comforting to view mass murderers as psychotic, or whatever form of "other" is suitable, rather than having to place their acts within a spectrum of "normal" human violence, including war and genocide, that can and does occur in certain scenarios, and which are carried out by people who are no more or less psychotic than anyone else.

The beginning of this article provided good review of your unanswered question, among other things:









Read the rest here: http://www.academia.edu/1199492/Hegemonic_Masculinity_and_Mass_Murderers_in_the_United_States

[lupercal]

^ you actually posted a link to a criminology journal put out by a state normal college in southwest freaking texas?

Sul Ross State University (SRSU) is a public university in Alpine, Texas, United States. Named for former Texas governor, Civil War general Lawrence Sullivan Ross, it was founded in 1917 as Sul Ross Normal College. . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sul_Ross_State_University

Not to sully the state of Texas or annoy our many fine RI members from it but if you have to stoop to quoting criminologists, who are basically in the business of manufacturing cases, you probably never had one to start with. JMHO.

p.s. here's a hint: http://www.swacj.org/swjcj/Masthead.htm