I have stayed away from the whole Adam Lanza issue because I know the information I would want to comment intelligently on him is not available to me. You need to know a lot before you can offer an opinion. I think people can comment intelligently on general issues or surrounding issues without knowing much about Adam and his mother, but I have so few folks I trust on this that I don't find it worth the energy.
Really, what would be the point? We pretend we can know enough to pass some law or settle some narrative in our own brains, and that makes us feel better. But these events are so rare that studying them is impossible. We find that an unusual percentage of them have hazel eyes (or whatever), so we start following that rabbit trail. But "hazel" is hard to define and measure, and we start to remember that there are millions of people with hazel eyes who aren't violent. Horrible. Things. Happen. Whole countries go insane for unclear reasons - how do we hope to explain why one individual does?
Still, there are those whose general information is good enough that they can offer you something valuable. Retriever knows a good deal more than I here, and she commented at length over at Dr. X's Free Associations. Notice that even here, however, she does not so much tell us what did happen as correct conclusions that people are jumping to. There is a lot of what-mom-did-wrong being discussed, and Retriever points out that some odd-looking actions may have very reasonable explanations.
I don't think you will know more about Adam Lanza or his mom. But you will get some info about the world they lived in and how that influences behavior. And you'll get a reminder not to jump to conclusions as well.