“Nobody Died At Sandy Hook”
Chapter Eight, Part Two
By: Allan Powell

“A bullet fragment glides conveniently to a halt under a car trunk carpet, but no images of the holes the bullet made in the car trunk carpet exist.” pg. 147

What’s so “convenient” about it? The fact that the bullet eventually came to a stop? Its location? If so, wouldn’t it be far more “convenient” for it to have stopped in a more visible, accessible area of the trunk? Somewhere that wouldn’t have required investigators to tear up the trunk?

The bullet strike report (CFS 1200704597, 00050860.pdf) explicitly mentions all entry points, but it never says states that the carpet was penetrated. Or that the bullet was under anything. It reads:

Upon inspection of bullet strike 3 (BS3), investigators observed the strike fully penetrated the vehicle’s exterior portion of the front passenger side door approximately 33 3/4 inches upward from the ground and approximately 16 3/4 inches inward from the hinged portion of the door. Further inspection revealed the projectile traveled through the front passenger door nearest the interior opening handle, into the front passenger side compartment area, striking and fully penetrating the front passenger seat’s seat back portion nearest the interior region of the vehicle. The projectile appeared to continue into the rear driver’s side passenger compartment area, penetrating the seat’s seat back portion. Investigators followed the path of travel into the trunk area of the vehicle and located a projectile along the driver’s side of the trunk.

“This photo taken early on the morning of 14 December 2012 shows the school door open but no window blown out to gain access.” pg. 147

This photo was actually taken on the evening of the 14th.  It is, after all, page 13 of “Farr – nighttime exterior photos.pdf”. This is corroborated by Detective Peter Farr’s secondary digital photography report:

Fetzer has been accused of intentionally blurring photographs in the past, and it would be difficult to find better evidence of such a claim than this “exhibit”. But if you look at the original, you can clearly see the shattered glass littering the sidewalk:

But if the front window isn’t yet broken, then where did all of this glass come from? Did “stagers” plant these pieces only to shatter the window later? Wouldn’t that be redundant? And since the creation of such a large hole would produce a substantial amount of glass (let’s say that it would be similar to the amount seen on the sidewalk here), where did it all go?

The hole itself is admittedly a bit more difficult to make out than the glass on the sidewalk, as one would expect when peering into a well-lit room at night. But if you know what to look for, there’s really no question. Luckily, a very similar photograph exists on page 106 of “Farr – scene photos.pdf”. Since it was taken during the day, it’s much easier to see that the window has indeed been blown out, so much so that not even Allan Powell or James Fetzer could possibly disagree, which is probably why they’ve avoided discussing it (thus far). Now here are the two photos, side-by-side:

Photo #1 is the photograph Powell claims shows the window fully intact. Again, it’s page 13 of “Farr – nighttime exterior photos.pdf”. Photo #2 is page 106 of “Farr – scene photos.pdf”, which plainly shows the large hole Adam created when he shot his way into the school, bypassing the locked door. Photo #3 shows page 13 of “Farr – nighttime exterior photos.pdf” again, only with a yellow circle highlighting one of the areas in which the break is especially obvious; simply look at the middle of the investigator’s back, which appears to be split into two halves. You can also see the spiderweb effect created by breaking safety glass all around the circle, especially above and to the left of it.

“Another photo shows a pair of stage managers inside the foyer before the event.” pg. 147

“Stage managers” who just so happen to be wearing white gloves and blue coveralls? Kind of like the crime scene investigators seen here in the lobby?

“The shot is taken from one of the elevated cameras placed around the car park to record the drill.” pg. 148

The drill was recorded, according to James Fetzer and now Allan Powell, yet not a single frame of this recording has been seen by the public in the (over) three years since the attack.

Why would authorities even bother to record such a video? If it were to be used to strengthen the idea that this was a real event, like the evacuation and crime scene photos, then why hasn’t it been released? Why aren’t these cameras seen in any of the aerial photos, such as the one seen below? If they’re there to document a drill, they’re missing out on a whole hell of a lot.

“Portable toilets were ordered prior to the day and placed in the car park. They appear in the early morning images.” pg. 148

They do not. The EXIF data for the below image shows that it was taken on December 14th. If they arrived “prior to the day”, then why are they nowhere to be seen?

Or the Channel 12 helicopter footage:

And why does an officer’s dashcam show them being delivered at 1:28PM on December 14th, 2012?

“The suppliers of the toilets will not answer emails for details on the supply contract for the potties.” pg. 148

Weird that they don’t just give out client information to random fruit loops.

“If it’s early morning and Carver is there and the mortuary isn’t, that’s pretty conclusive of planning.” pg. 148

How so? Because it seems like the exact opposite to me. It shows that they’re not totally prepared to utilize the tent, which was provided by the Department of Public Health, and not the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (which is an independent State agency in Connecticut). If this were planned, one would expect both to show up at the same time. Dr. Carver doesn’t drive around with it in the trunk of his car.

“The sun can just be seen rising over the school in reflection on this car rear door. The sunlight has hit the trees on the west side of the car park indicating again that the time of this image capture is early morning and before the incident would begin.” pg. 148

Allan Powell, you poor, stupid schmuck.  This has already been addressed (multiple times at this point), but in this photograph, we are looking in a northerly direction. The sun is setting here. Look at a fucking map sometime. Or even page 19 of the final report. You did read the final report, right?

“Other images show the windows were intact before holes were drilled through the frames to simulate bullet damage.” pg. 149

While the fact that the window is open and tilted outwards makes it difficult to distinguish the larger hole from this distance, the cracks surrounding the smaller hole make it faintly visible when viewing the full-sized image:

However, this picture – page 139 of “Farr – nighttime exterior photos.pdf” – is nearly identical to page 50 of “Meehan – parking lot photos.pdf”. Both photos were taken on December 14th. The only real difference between the two being the psychical height at which they were taken, with Meehan’s photo is from a bit higher off the ground. Here’s a slightly-cropped version, blown up to around 125%:

Full disclosure: I’m not a photographer or a graphic artist, etc, but I understand that if we take this photo and adjust the input histogram levels, it will wash out the image a bit, increasing the contrast between the light and dark colors in the process. Here’s the result of dropping the input histogram level of the above photo to around 60 (which I did with Paint.net, in case you want to duplicate these steps on your own, which I encourage):

Now if we isolate the window and zoom in a bit, the two holes in the window become very obvious:

“The sun has yet to rise on the car park but sunlight can be seen on the tree behind the school. This indicates again that it is early morning.” pg. 149

Still backwards, Allan. You are still backwards. Now we’re facing a southerly direction.

“The mortuary tent is not in place as it would have been every morning after the shooting had it been real.” pg. 149

Except for the morning of the 14th, which is when this photo was taken. The mortuary tent has not been set up yet.

“This image of the 10mm bullet with which Adam Lanza purportedly took his own life shows fragments that appear to be corroded.” pg. 150

If this bullet is indeed corroded — and I honestly don’t know if it is — it would be entirely consistent with the ammunition fired from the Bushmaster (according to the Forensic Science Laboratory report, which I’ve quoted below). It’s perfectly fine to shoot corroded ammunition and all this means is that the Lanzas weren’t perfectly good about cleaning their firearms.

“Other images of .223 bullets recovered indicate they have sufficient land and groove imprints to forensically link them to the Bushmaster” pg. 150

Says who? Allan Powell, the man who doesn’t understand reflective surfaces? Or weather? Or angles? Or shadows? Or seasons? Or trees? Or cardinal directions? Firearms examiner Doug Fox and forensic science examiner James Stephenson disagree.

“The Sedensky Report says none of the 154 fragments that were recovered could be forensically linked to the Bushmaster. That is simply false.” pg. 150

Again, it’s the word of Aussie knucklehead Allan Powell — who, according to this book’s biography, does not have a shred of experience in any relevant field — against that of James Stephenson and Doug Fox, expert firearms examiners with over sixty combined years worth of experience.

Here’s what the report of the State’s Attorney for the Judicial District of Danbury (referred to as “The Sedensky Report” by Powell) actually says about the Bushmaster and its ammunition:

The Bushmaster rifle was found in classroom 10. The Bushmaster was tested and found to be operable without malfunction. All of the 5.56 mm shell casings from SHES that were tested were found to have been fired from this rifle. All of the bullets and fragments, recovered from SHES and the OCME that were tested, with the exception of those mentioned immediately below, are consistent with having been fired from the Bushmaster rifle. They could not have been fired from the Saiga-12, the Glock 20 or the Sig Sauer P226.

The footnote reads:

“No positive identification could be made to any of the bullet evidence submissions noted … … in 5.56 mm caliber. The physical condition of the bullet jacket surfaces were severely damaged and corroded. They all lacked individual striated marks of sufficient agreement for the identification process. The test fires also exhibited a lack  of individual striated marks on the bullet surface for comparison purposes. This condition can be caused by fouling in the barrel of the rifle and the ammunition itself. The Bushmaster rifle cannot be eliminated as having fired the 5.56 caliber bullet evidence examined,” quoting from the 6/19/13 Forensic Science Laboratory report.

Here is the portion of the Forensic Science Laboratory report relevant to the Bushmaster:

“She [school nurse Sally Cox] also claimed in another interview that Lanza opened the door and stared her in the face. She says she then jumped under the desk with another staff member and together they stayed there for three hours only calling the police once. The story is highly improbable.” pg. 150

The only thing that’s improbable about this story is the idea that Adam Lanza would have looked her in the eyes and not shot her, but after watching three television interviews with Sally, I cannot find a single instance of her making such a claim. This one appears to be another lie concocted by deniers, which is probably why Allan Powell does not provide a citation.

“Few public-speaking appearances have been made by Sally Cox. As a crisis actor, she appears to be a loose cannon.” pg. 150

A “loose cannon” “crisis actor” who also happens to A) be a real-life registered nurse in the state of Connecticut since 1974 and B) consistently tell the same story.

“Another image is a view of Nurse Sally Cox’s office, which shows she could not have seen the shooter 20 feet away. There is no desk with a view that would have permitted it. There is also no desk facing the door for her to hide under and watch the shooter, as she claims she did.” pg. 151

Powell provides two nearly identical, equally miserable photographs, taken from the school’s main office as proof. Neither of these photos come close to showing what it actually looks like inside of Sally’s office. But the video taken inside of the school does, and it proves that Sally would have had no problem whatsoever seeing someone walk through the door from her computer desk, which can be seen below sitting just to the right of her “normal” desk (you can see the split in between the phone and printer). In interviews, Sally consistently mentions hiding behind her computer desk, which has a hole in the back to route cables through.
“She also asserted in an interview that she saw his boots through this imaginary hole in the desk. But officially Adam Lanza’s footwear was a pair of black shoes.” pg. 151

The hole is not imaginary. From her 60 Minutes interview:

The popping kept going off. And I just dove underneath my computer desk. The back of the desk has a small opening for, like, wires to come out.

This is corroborated by her statement to police, which can be found in Book 5, 00256630.pdf:

[Redacted] hid underneath the computer desk. Through a hole in the back of the desk, she observed from the knees down a person standing directly in front of her, with feet pointed towards her. This person was approximately 20 feet from where she was hiding.

As for the shoes, it’s not difficult to imagine how someone could confuse a pair of Adam’s black Nunn Bush oxfords, worn with cargo pants, as “boots”.

“The large tent mortuary doesn’t appear in other released photos purportedly taken on the day of the shooting.” pg. 151

Because it didn’t show up until the afternoon of the 14th. The photo Powell chose for this “exhibit” was taken on the 17th, so yes, the tent is there.

“Images of the mortuary tent show an oak tree in the background, which has yet to lose all its leaves: the time of year is late October.” pg. 151

It also shows a Christmas wreath. As shown in Chapter 8, Part One, this area would be a lot more colorful in late October. As for the tree, maybe it’s an oak and maybe it’s not; I’m not entirely sure. But I live in the northeast United States, not far from Connecticut, and here’s a photograph of a white oak with leaves that I took yesterday, February 18th (click to enlarge in a new tab). You can check the EXIF data, if you don’t believe me.

“Notice both of the vehicles, including the blue VW, are facing the school. Now the blue VW faces away from the school.” pg. 152

Holy shit. Is this guy for real? Did anyone bother to even look at this thing before sending it out to the printer?

These are obviously two different cars, parked in two different spots. The Beetle is parked just out of frame in Powell’s second photo, which is page 3 of “Meehan – parking lot photos.pdf”. In order to see it — and in the same frame as the dark gray Mazda 3 Powell believes is a purple Beetle — you would only need to look at page 2 of the same document. Here’s a smaller, slightly cropped version of it with a yellow arrow pointing to the Beetle (sandwiched in between two small SUVs) and a red arrow pointing to the “backwards” Mazda 3:

And here’s the Mazda 3. Notice that the surrounding cars are all facing the other way:

By the way, that’s page 212 of “Farr – nighttime exterior photos.pdf”, which is where Powell found the first photo on this page (“exhibit 36”). So the fact that he made such an enormous and embarrassing mistake is pretty incredible… unless, of course, his intention was to be deceitful.

“The Sedensky Report makes no mention of any doors at the rear of the school being involved in the incident, yet two different images of this broken glass exist.” pg. 152

From the very first page of the “Sedensky Report” (otherwise known as the Report of the State’s Attorney for the Judicial District of Danbury on the Shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School and 36 Yogananda Street, Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, 2012):

It is not the intent of this report to convey every piece of information contained in the voluminous investigation materials developed by the Connecticut State Police and other law enforcement agencies, but to provide information relevant to the purposes of this report.

But those “voluminous investigation materials”, which Allan Powell obviously couldn’t bother to read, contain a number of references to the rear door being breached. From Sergeant David Kullgren’s interview (Book 6, –1.pdf):

I then joined Officer McGowan and Officer Seabrook who breached the door on the southeast side of the building.

From Officer Michael McGowan’s interview (Book 6, 00260187.pdf):

At that time Ofc. Seabrook was running toward me and we went to the nearest door, on the left side of the building. The door was locked and Ofc. Seabook smashed out the glass in the door with his rifle barrel and he unlocked the door from the inside.

And from Officer Liam Seabrook’s interview (Book 6, 00029085.pdf):

The door on the east side of the school was locked. There were large glass windows in the door that had “chicken wire” baked into the glass. I then used the barrel of my  patrol rifle and forced it through the glass window part of the door. I then used the barrel of my patrol rifle to clear some of the broken glass away.

Both photos of the window were taken on the same day, which was December 17th. The second in the series — “exhibit 39” on page 153 — is page 26 of “Gunsalus – exterior photos.pdf”. The photo of the glass shards — “exhibit 40” — is from the same document. These photos were taken before the movers showed up and reflects how officers would have left the scene. The first photo — “exhibit 38” on page 152 — is page 21 of “Farr – scene photos.pdf” was taken later in the day and shows what it looked like after the break had been cleaned up, likely so that the movers could use these doors without injuring themselves. Page 20 of “Farr – scene photos.pdf” reveals that the glass shards have also been removed from the sidewalk.

“The broken glass on the doorstep is a CGI image, which could not possible happen in reality.” pg. 153

Broken glass can only be achieved with “CGI”? This is absolute insanity.

“The pieces show that the wire through the glass has shattered as if it were not wire but glass. This is a physical impossibility.” pg. 153

A physical impossibility, you say?

As it turns out, it’s not all that impossible. In fact, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, an estimated 2,250 people injure themselves in such a “physically impossible” way every year. That’s pretty impressive!

“Notice that there is no reflection in the window of the mortuary tent.” pg. 154

Right. Because it wasn’t there yet.

“The swarf from the drill has erupted into the classroom side of the window as one would expect from using a drill on an aluminium [sic] window frame.” pg. 154

Again, Powell’s theory requires you to believe that investigators are so smart that they stocked the rack in the lobby with recent magazines, but drilled into the window frames from the wrong side. As for the claim itself, CW Wade over at SandyHookFacts.com has already covered this one in a two part series.

“This image actually shows the personnel who are at work setting up the window frame with fake bullet holes.” pg. 154

The full version of this photograph, which is page 18 of “Meehan – parking lot photos.pdf”, shows that Adam Lanza’s Civic is parked in the fire lane, crime scene tape is up, and the crime squad van is already on location. Page 10 of the same document (and remember that the pages are presented in chronological order) shows a portable toilet has also been delivered, meaning that it is at least 1:28PM on the 14th. That would mean that, if Powell is to believed (and he isn’t, because he’s an idiot and a liar), the holes in classroom #10’s window frame were not drilled by investigators until at least 1:30PM that day. That’s awfully late for them to start fabricating something so important, isn’t it?

And while blowing the photo up to somewhere in the neighborhood of 500% isn’t exactly easy on the eyes, it does provide us with a closer look at the two investigators in front of classroom #10. The (drill-less) right hand of the investigator in the dark jacket is too far above the frame for him to be creating holes there. And why isn’t he using his left hand to assist him in the job? Probably because he’s not drilling any fucking holes.

“Other images show the extended cameras fixed on cars to record the drill. They’re the little yellow things on extensions from the cars in the back row.” pg. 155

Can’t say I’ve ever seen a car that looks quite like this:

Or this:

Obviously these poles aren’t affixed to anything. You can see them move around quite a bit in between pages 195 and 204 of “Farr – nighttime exterior photos.pdf”. In fact, they’re never seen in the same place twice. It’s almost like people are carrying them around.

“Note the SWAT wagon in the distance in this image waiting to be put out front of the fire station. There is no other reason a SWAT team would attend a forensics site.” pg. 155

But there’s probably a good reason that they would show up at the site of a mass school shooting though, right? Because that’s what this is.

Other photos from this document (“Meehan – parking lot photos.pdf”) show that the mortuary tent hasn’t arrived yet, so this is fairly early in the afternoon. Photographs taken a bit later in the day show that this vehicle — whatever it is — is already gone. It certainly looks nothing like the SWAT vehicles parked by the firehouse, which arrived sometime between 9:45AM and 10:15AM (according to Book 6, 00122995.pdf):

“One image shows that someone stuck a chair into the crime scene and the window in the background doesn’t appear to have been blown out yet.” pg. 156

If only you had read the fucking report before contributing two chapters to a book on the subject. No one stuck a chair anywhere; it was used to transport Natalie Hammond, who had an “seriously damaged” leg, from the conference room. This is corroborated by Book 6, 00026724.pdf:

As I was bandaging the woman’s hand CSP Detective Patrick Dragon entered and identified himself as an EMT. He asked for gloves and I directed him to the first aid kit. I was finishing with the woman and looking around the room for a light table or chair to carry her in as her leg was seriously damaged and I did not have equipment to splint it. Someone in the room suggested using a wheeled office chair nearby. As Det. Dragon and I placed the woman in the chair, one of the females asked “Should we follow you out?” I said it was not safe, we needed to evacuate the victim, and that they would be safe where they were.

Viewing Powell’s source in full resolution (page 2 of “Walkley – scene photos.pdf”) makes it very clear that the window has been broken (notice the spiderweb effect) and that there’s glass all over the sidewalk.

“If I’m not mistaken there is an audio-visual presentation going on in Classroom 12 on a large screen. Indeed, as the second image shows, I am not mistaken.”
pg. 156

What a clumsy, asinine sentence. Every classroom in Sandy Hook Elementary contains a SMART Board system, and this one happens to be switched on, although nothing is currently being displayed. We can tell that this is a blank SMART Board screen as it looks identical to the one seen in the library during the videotaped school walk-through:

If this were an “audio-visual presentation”, not only would we expect to actually see something on the screen, but we could reasonably expect to see people attending. According to one student’s statement (Book 5, 00180063.pdf), the children read started their day by reading “morning messages” from the SMART Board.

“Here’s an unofficial image of the stage setting taken from the wooded area. There are two vehicles in front of the school entrance and that telltale chair, too. Why were there two vehicles in an area that ought to be cordoned off as a crime scene” pg. 157

An “unofficial” image taken by Robert Nickelsberg of Getty Images, used in Fetzer’s book without a license. But it was removed from Amazon due to “censorship”, right?

Anyway, sure, when you choose an image of such dubious quality that it looks like a child’s first attempt at watercolor, it may look like there are two cars in the fire lane when there should only be one: Adam’s Honda Civic. But if we look at a higher-quality version of the photo (taken on December 15th), which can be found accompanying this Daily Beast article, it’s clear that this is not the case:

The Civic is the only car in the fire lane, surrounded by crime scene tape. The other car is absolutely not parked in cordoned area. Other cars can be seen in this spot as well as the surrounding area throughout the investigation:

What’s particularly funny about the image taken from the woods is that it deals a pretty devastating blow to Powell’s ridiculous assertion that these photos were taken in late October or early November. It’s likely this view would be nearly impossible during that time, due to the foliage.

“It’s possible that two cars were used for the drill and that one of these was the car that found its way to Gene Rosen’s driveway with that broken driver side window for which no alternative explanation has ever been advanced.” pg. 157

Or it’s just Gene Rosen’s car and the window is broken. It’s certainly not either of the cars referred to by Powell. Rosen’s car appears to be a 2003-2005 Honda Accord while Adam Lanza drove a 2010 Honda Civic. Here is a comparison of the two cars, highlighting some major differences (besides the state of the front driver’s side window):

Different windows, different window trim, different tail lights, different branding, different trunk trim, etc. These are very clearly not the same cars. Here’s a 2003 Honda Accord (albeit with tinted windows and upgraded wheels):

Compare the side windows (including silver trim) and tail lights to Rosen’s car.

Please read before commenting.

Comment policy: Comments from previously unapproved guests will remain in moderation until I manually approve them. Honest questions and reasonable comments from all types of folks are encouraged and allowed but will often remain in moderation until I can properly reply to them, which may occasionally take a little while. Contrary to what some of you think, losing your patience during this time and leaving another comment in which you insult me won't do much to speed up that process.

The types of comments that will no longer be approved include the following:

1) Off-topic comments. Articles about The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine are not the place to ask about Hillary's e-mails or pizza shop sex dungeons. Stay on topic.
2) Gish Gallops. Don't know what a Gish Gallop is? Then Google it. And then don't engage in them. They are absolutely infuriating and there is no faster way to have your comment deleted.
3) Yearbook requests. Like I told the fifty other folks asking for them: I don't have them, and even if I did, I wouldn't post them. I'm not about to turn my site into some sort of eBay for weirdos, so stop asking.
4) Requests for photos of dead children. See above. And then seek professional help, because you're fucked up.
5) Asking questions that have already been answered. If you want to have a discussion, don't make it obvious that you haven't read the site by asking a question that I've already spent a significant amount of time answering. I'll allow a little leeway here if you're otherwise well-behaved, but please, read the site. There's a search function and it works pretty well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation