Skip to content

Thoughts on Peter Lanza

March 10, 2014

This is likely to upset some people, but that is not my intention.  I merely want to present a few obvious points about the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, as brought up in the online article regarding the alleged shooter’s father.  Here’s the link: <;.

Firstly, in this article M. Alex Johnson doesn’t keep to the best methodology of journalism in presentation.  The most common and practical way to begin a news article is what is called a nut graph- wherein the main points it means to present all given in the first four sentences, with all the pertinent general information; in this case, the names and dates of events referenced for the article.  One can write an article with a different style, and since the topic of this one involves something too outdated to be news, a human interest piece is fitting.  Even so, the necessary information can be included early in the article.  If discussing matters in relation to the Sandy Hook shooting of December 2012, the author should state the legal name of the alleged shooter and the date of this event- to say nothing of the assumption made this man was the shooter.  There was no trial to prove it, and the only evidence there is comes from the executive enforcement and victims’ families (some of the federal and police authorities displaying a remarkable lack of professionalism, and the victims’ families sometimes behaving very strangely for grieving people).  A biased source should not be trusted at face value, regardless of what it is.  Why I distrust law enforcement in this incident follows.

Johnson neglects to mention the alleged shooter’s name nor the date of the Sandy Hook shooting.  I can only assume it is sloppy polishing on the part of the writer.  Other facets of the article seem to reflect editorializing rather than reporting, as well.

Next, let’s consider what is being said.  The father of the alleged shooter in Sandy Hook, Peter Lanza, vilifies his “evil” son (presumably Adam Lanza, since referring to the dead accused by a single name is easier to detract from him as a person) and the article hints at the possibility he was not afflicted solely with Asperger’s Syndrome.  This is said to be a possible cause for his actions in December of 2012.  At no point was it conclusively proven or mentioned before this time, as far as I have heard, so the effect muddles known facts of the shooting.

Let’s consider this.  Peter Lanza admits to not even seeing his son for two years prior to the shooting, but is still confident his son couldn’t be more evil: his words, evidently.  The father’s opinion is moot, it has no bearing on the shooting no one needs dredged up in the dearth of new information, and Peter Lanza only presents the unverifiable supposition his son could have had a more serious mental ailment than known.  Yet, if this series of interviews is widely accepted, this moot commentary on factors of Sandy Hook shall become a factoid worked into the future myth of the event itself.  Put simply, the word for that is disinformation.

Lastly, the fact is contingent factors of the shooting remain impossible to prove.  We have a suspicious lack of concrete data confirming he was the shooter, what caliber of firearm(s) was or were used by and against him, and because there is no body we can never know the mental capacity of the accused shooter.  Conveniently, the only reliable witness to remark on Adam’s mental state was the first fatal victim.  The father shows up long after the fact to corroborate he was wrong in the head, when he is neither a medical professional nor familiar with Adam at the time he died.

Apart from other things about investigating the shooting being suspect, it is downright wrong for the public to be denied objective evidence in regard to an incident like this.  I am not saying any random citizen should have the right to tromp across Adam Lanza’s grave or take a scalpel to his corpse.  I am saying if this person is accused of such a heinous crime, there should be proof outside the word of an unassailable figure- especially when the body of the accused denies any evidence about the incident due to its legal absence.  One of the oldest criminal evasions of history is to blame the dead and hide the proof the crime was not perpetrated by this defenseless entity.

We have no way to know this is not happening here.  If that is what is happening, we can’t trust any sanctioned statements from authorities, victims’ families, or deductions made from incomplete analysis.  Also, should there be something very different about the nature of Sandy Hook or its accused which changes the truth of the incident, it is- at best- being used to manipulate the common person into a mindset; worst case (you all expected this), it was a fraud.

Say what you want about what did or did not happen in Sandy Hook in 2012.  But no one can effectively deny the investigation was lacking or deficient, and there are serious problems with how it is being treated now.  No one should be reviving the grief for those truly hurt by it when nothing is gained.  It is unforgivable if this is done with the affect of confusing the facts in peoples’ memories, besides.


** And as of May 8, 2014: score another one for the lousy news value of NBC: this is the second article of dubious quality I have referenced that has vanished from its own records.  What a shock.  **

From → commentary

  1. I think you have not investigated the summary report issued last November. It contains the concrete data you suggest we do not have:

    In addition, on Dec 27th thousands of pages of evidence documents, including interviews and testimony from survivors, was released by the police.

    Peter Lanza is trying to come to grips with how the child he fathered could have committed these terrible murders. That’s a difficult process. The media has been asking him for his views ever since the event. He certainly doesn’t doubt it happened.

    • That’s the point. If anyone tied into this event doubted it, they would not be visible. Just ask Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik. He at least was an official in the U. S. government and consulted with presidents. When he announced Osama bin Laden was already dead at the time of that heroic farce Obama used for publicity, the media dropped that without any real inquiry to anyone. Pieczenik was reliable enough for advising the government but not enough to warrant a few pointed questions when it would mean the government lied. No one proved he was lying or insane, either, it was just dropped. Curious, yes?

      We can get into long, atopical discussions on the fraudulence of sanctioned informational sources, in news and officialdom- Barry Jennings and his statements on how Building 7 fell on 9-11, glaring oversights from Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Oklahoma City, the establishment of NORTHCOM and who was appointed to lead it, and the utterly unlawful way the Hutare raid of southern Michigan was handled. (Members of this family are still legally prohibited from seeing each other even after months of legal bollix proved they were guilty of only minor crimes. The media don’t talk about how unjustified that is.) But any of these things distract from my point.

      My contention doesn’t hinge on whether or not this was an authentic tragedy. The point is Peter Lanza has no valid opinion in regards to his son on this matter, yet the opinion risks muddling how we remember it collectively. That means it alters our concept of history, and therefore, how we proceed- legally, socially, and morally. Publishing information with this being a known consequence is irresponsible. That’s all I really need to say.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: