A stonewalling of information about the ongoing investigation of the Sandy Hook incident of December 14, 2012 was suggested in the December 28, 2012 Ersjdamoo’s Blog entry. A stone wall surrounding the public’s right to know is confirmed by the Connecticut Post in a report dated December 27, 2012.
In “Sandy Hook affidavits remain sealed”, reporter John Pirro informs readers about how a Judge John Blawie has extended a seal on affidavits and on an inventory of any potential evidence seized for another 90 days. If not for the extension of the seal, the information would have been available for public inspection on Friday, December 28, 2012.
The Hearst Connecticut Newspapers are considering whether to challenge the order of Judge Blawie, Pirro reports.
The building of the stone wall now surrounding new information about the Sandy Hook incident began only a few days after December 14th. If you “harass” witnesses “of these horrific crimes,” declared Tom Carson, a spokesperson for the Connecticut U.S. Attorney’s office, you “will be referred for state and or federal prosecution to the fullest extent permitted by law.” This means that if you would like to interview any witnesses – beware! You can be arrested for exercising First Amendment rights (now labeled “harassment”) in regard to the Sandy Hook incident.
Then, on December 21st, Katie Zezima of Associated Press filed her report, “A week after school massacre, new details emerge.” At this point we have an AP reporter having to rely on a “person” who speaks “on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the case publicly.” The stone wall was at chin level by that time.
The National Enquirer, a weekly tabloid newspaper, also found itself having to rely on confidential informants for an article on the Sandy Hook incident published in its December 31, 2012 issue. Guards now patrolled the perimeter of the stone wall surrounding the ongoing investigation. Information had become tightly controlled. But what is the big secret? Why has a stone wall been erected around this investigation?
And what about Christopher Rodia? Where does he fit in? You can do a YouTube search on “Christopher Rodia,” or you can try this link. A police scanner recording of a check on license plate 872-YEO reveals that name. Specifically, what I hear is “Christopher H. Rodia.” This would be a different person than “Christopher A. Rodia.” Some overly eager web sites have gone chasing information on “Christopher A. Rodia” who seems to me to be the wrong Christopher Rodia!
Of course, whoever this “Christopher Rodia” turns out to be, he is presumed innocent and may have a perfectly reasonable explanation for why his name has turned up.