If you follow social-media hashtags involving these words — “Nashville,” “Covenant” and “manifesto” — you know that nothing major has happened that would allow news consumers to read on-the-record facts about the motives of shooter Audrey Hale.
Of course, under current Associated Press style that name would be “Aiden,” since this troubled individual had claimed that identity in social media as part of a gender transition.
The mysteries — in terms of journalism, law and politics — surrounding this mass shooting in a small Christian school have only grown more complex. What kind of mysteries? That was the subject of this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in).
There have been minor developments that I didn’t know about at the time we recorded, such as the New York Post story noting:
Audrey Elizabeth Hale, the 28-year-old trans artist killed by police after opening fire on a private Christian elementary school in Nashville, Tennessee, covered her clothes in handwritten messages before her deadly assault in late March, according to an autopsy report.
The report acknowledges that Hale identified as a trans male but officially lists her as female.
She was carrying a knife inscribed with her chosen name, Aiden, according to the autopsy. … The report included new details about the attack — including the revelation that Hale’s clothes were covered in handwritten notes, drawings and numbers.
The report also noted that Hale wore a plastic anklet inscribed with “508407.”
What do these mysterious message say? What do they mean? Ah, more mysteries that authorities will not discuss.
Also, police have followed up on a death threat aimed at a conservative media figure involved in efforts to release the writings that Hale left behind to explain his-her motives for the attack. A website called Just the News reported:
A Tennessee man has been charged in connection with a threat against conservative journalist and talk radio show host Michael Patrick Leahy over Leahy's lawsuit to obtain the Nashville school shooter manifesto, allegedly telling Leahy, "I'm willing to go to prison to end you."
The emailed threat also said:
“You dirty drug addict eyed Irish fool. You either end your talk show or I'll end your life in real time while you do it. You have no right to the manifesto of Audrey Hale and you just want content by obtaining it.”
However, our primary podcast goal this week was to follow up on questions raised in a previous podcast and post with this title: “Was the attack on a conservative Presbyterian school in Nashville a religion story?”
If you want a quick summary of the Big Questions looming over this story, check out this local Fox17 website report. It contains a remarkable direct quote from the lawsuit filed by The Tennessean and a Republican state senator seeking the release of the shooter’s “manifesto” and other case materials directly linked to this crime:
The suit states "In this particular instance, debate has arisen regarding Hale’s motivations, goals, planning, and acquisition of firearms while under mental health treatment. For example, did Hale attack a Christian school because of its religious affiliation? Or because of the conservative views of the denomination of which The Covenant’s School’s sponsoring church is a participating congregation? Or because Hale hated the school that Hale once attended? Or because Hale had a grudge against some employee or administrator at the school? What do Hale’s autopsy/toxicology tests show, and are they connected to the shootings? What do Hale’s records show that might be of assistance to the Tennessee special legislative session scheduled to take place in August 2023? What do these records reveal which may help to avoid school shootings in the future?"
Those last two sentences refer to efforts by Tennessee lawmakers to draft new safety guidelines for the state’s schools.
That lawsuit quote is a stunning summary of what is at stake in the legal wars over the “manifesto.”
However, Crossroads host Todd Wilken and I spent most of our time discussing a new Associated Press feature with this headline: “Nashville school shooter’s writings reignite debate over releasing material written by mass killers.”
Readers will need to be patient when reading that story, since it doesn’t yield any startling revelations about the shooting. Here is what makes it a must-read: It shows the many paradoxes involved in who wants the shooter’s motivations explored and, well, who does not.
Oh, and about that “manifesto.” That’s a singular word that is being used to describe a massive collection of writings, maps, photographs and other forms of evidence (apparently including Hale’s information-loaded clothing). Note this AP summary:
The person who killed three 9-year-old children and three adults at a private Christian elementary school in Nashville on March 27 left behind at least 20 journals, a suicide note and a memoir, according to court filings. But there is no national standard governing if, or how, such writings are made public.
“At least 20 journals”? A “suicide note”? And a “memoir”? That’s all?
No wonder Hale sent this social-media message to a friend minutes before the attack:
“My family doesn’t know what I’m about to do
“One day this will make more sense. I’ve left more than enough evidence behind
“But something bad is about to happen.”
Once again, the key words from the shooter are, “more than enough evidence.”
Here are two more important passages from this AP feature:
Erin Kinney, mother of one of the slain children, filed a declaration with the court stating she has not seen the shooter’s writings but believes there are no answers to be found in them.
“I do not believe there was any motivation other than a desire for death, and there is nothing that could ever make the horrible act of killing children make sense,” Kinney writes. “The public release of these writings will not prevent the next attack. There is nothing in the journals to satisfy the yearning, overactive minds of the conspiracy theorists.”
Do law officials who HAVE studied these materials agree with those final declarations? Also note this:
The Covenant case is complicated by the fact that the shooter, who police say was “assigned female at birth,” seems to have identified as a transgender man. U.S. Sen Josh Hawley, of Missouri, is among those promoting a theory that the shooting was a hate crime against Christians. The refusal to release the writings has fueled speculation — particularly in conservative circles — regarding what the they might contain and conspiracy theories about why police won’t release them.
Does anyone doubt that some form of anger and even hate was involved in this mass shooting? But here is the unstated journalism, and possibly political, question: What happens when someone in what progressives consider an oppressed minority group (LGBTQ+) strikes out at an institution in a large niche in the culture (white evangelical Protestants) that progressives believe is guilty of oppressing others?
Nevertheless, the legal battles over the “manifesto” library includes some striking paradoxes.
Who wants the materials released?
That’s a strikingly unique coalition of journalists — some on the left and many on the right — as well as Republican legislators.
Who wants the “manifesto” trove kept under wraps? That’s another strikingly unique coalition of LGBTQ+ activists, Democrats and legal officials who appear to be caught in a legal vise in which there is no clear national law that tells them what to do. Oh, and representatives of the conservative church and school at the heart of the drama.
Would anyone have predicted this alignment of forces in a legal battle of this importance? Not me.
If this stalemate drags on, expect additional legal fireworks and, possible, an open-records case that ends up at the U.S. Supreme Court. And what newsrooms will stay active in covering these mysteries?
Enjoy the podcast and, please, pass it along to others.
FIRST IMAGE: Screenshot of a photo of the young Audrey Hale, drawn from a Fox News report on the status of the Covenant School investigation: “Nashville PD to release Covenant School shooter's manifesto: Will it be redacted?”