“Nobody Died At Sandy Hook”
Chapter Six
By: James Fetzer

Chapter six is nothing more than a transcript of a thirty minute interview with a man by the name of Paul Preston that took place in May of 2014. That’s it. That’s how little effort was put into this book and indicative of how little Fetzer thinks of his readers. The interview isn’t even premium content; it’s available to literally anyone.

So who is Paul Preston? Much like Wolfgang Halbig, he’s continually referred to as a “school security expert”, yet I can’t find anything to back that up.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that while all of these people tout Paul as a “school safety expert”, they neglect to mention that he is first and foremost one of them. As in he’s a very dedicated, very active conspiracy theorist. In April of 2012 (eight months before Sandy Hook), he started an Internet radio show/website dedicated to conspiracy theories called “Agenda 21 Radio” where he covers everything from conspiracy theories surrounding Agenda 21, to Obama’s birth certificate (it’s fake), to ISIS (they’re also fake), etc. He loves guns and hates Barack Obama, so it shouldn’t be much of a surprise that he hopped on the Sandy Hook bandwagon.

In my attempt to learn a bit more about the guy, I found a poorly worded and even more poorly formatted biography on another conspiracy theory website called “Patriots Around The Lake”. I have to assume he’s a contributor there. Anyway, it makes the claim that he was either a school administrator or assistant principal at El Dorado High School in California when Janet Evans went to the Olympics in 1988. But this article from the LA Times quotes Paul extensively and refers to him as the school’s “director of activities”. Here’s a poor OCR scan of a yearbook page from that year which would appear to confirm this, and he was still listed as “activities director” a year later, in 1989. This is after fifteen years of “teaching environmental and biological sciences”, according to his bio. So that’s strange. Also strange? His seemingly random hatred of surfing. C’mon, brah.

It sounds like Paul has been pitching “staged event” conspiracy theories since the 90’s, so long as a Democrat was in office:

“Paul’s research lead him and others to the conclusion that the Orange County Bankruptcy was a staged event known as a Cloward and Piven Strategy designed by the Clinton administration.”

So while this version of his biography states that Paul “has for years worked with law enforcement in implementing successful anti-drug and anti-gang awareness” and he “has been trained by law enforcement in drug, alcohol recognition and has utilized his training to identify several thousand adults and students who were under the influence”, the only mention of “safety” comes from the time he allegedly spent “as a county School Attendance and Review Board (SARB) Chairman and served on Governor Schwarzenegger’s ‘Cyber Safety’ committee representing the Association of California School Administrators through the Department of Consumer Affairs, which partnered with the California Coalition for Children’s Internet Safety to help parents and community leaders protect children from predators in the online world.” I guess that sounds kind of relevant, right? Sort of? But in the committee’s own literature, it only lists him as a moderator for a “Role of Schools in the Online World” workshop. His name is nowhere to be found in the committee list. Even if it were (and again, it’s not), I’m not entirely sure how relevant something like that would be to the mass murder of elementary school children.

Also included in the search results for Paul is a Reddit comment that mentions Paul’s involvement in some Charter School scam, but the article the comment linked to had been taken down. His bio does make the claim that he founded “two charter schools and one private school”, but they’re not named. That struck me as pretty odd as he mentions the high school he worked at by name, but wouldn’t you be more proud of three schools that you started? Anyway, when I searched on “Paul Preston charter school”, I found this news report from 2011 about his “The California College, Career and Technical Education Center”. Copies of the article can be found on sites like “Charter School Scandals” and “White Chalk Crime”. Here’s more, including a list of some of the charges that were brought up against Paul and his phony school by the state of California. You likely get the idea at this point. I couldn’t find anything at all about a 2nd charter or private school.

I did e-mail Paul around a week or so ago to pointedly ask him what his credentials and certifications are, but he never replied. He does make the claim on page 103 that “we watched with a lot of intensity – especially under my own circumstances – and also by watching the videos and replays of the other active shooter situations, I became sort of a specialist in that”. I also e-mailed someone who worked with Paul at the “Yolo Continuation High School” and asked if they could verify any of his claims. He wrote back “I do remember that he talked about being on a local SARB before he came to West Sacramento. He talked about how he could identify the students who were using drugs.” He’s like a superhero! He can tell who is on drugs! And if he can tell who is on drugs, he can undoubtedly sniff out a false flag.

Anyway, I think it’s safe to say that his credentials are pretty suspect and his motivation even more so.

Now onto the interview!

Paul kicks things off by claiming “I’ve been involved in many many situations at schools that have been, you know, emergency type situations and was involved even to some degree with the Columbine situation”. Whoa! Wait a minute! Paul was involved with the Columbine uh, “situation”? That’s a big deal! But how did a school activities director from California get mixed up with the Columbine shooting? I’m on the edge of my seat here! Thankfully, he continues:

“We had an individual who was trying to blow up the school, our school, at the time. In a similar fashion to what was a predicted bomb threat that occurred at Columbine three days before the Columbine shooting, and that’s how we kind of got in touch with the Columbine people. They got in touch with us because it turned out to be a similar neo-Nazi group that was related to the Trenchcoat Mafia, of all people.”

… oh. So, not actually involved with the Columbine “situation” whatsoever. Okay! At least that goes a long way towards explaining his completely absurd claims about “The Trenchcoat Mafia”, which was investigated by the Jefferson County Sheriff’s office and found to be “a loose, social affiliation of former and current Columbine High School students with no formal organizational structure, leadership or purpose such as that typically found in traditional juvenile street gangs”. And with “no evidence of affiliated Trench Coat Mafia groups nationwide”, one may wonder where school activities director Paul Preston may have gotten the idea that they were a “neo-Nazi group” with ties to California and designs on blowing up his school… for some reason. Well, would you believe “neo-Nazi websites”? He explained:

“And so our staff, myself, we all wanted to sit down and figure where this was all going to and we studied a lot of the Nazi websites and so on, and we figured out that yes,  something big was going to happen.”

Right. Okay.

“Now I have always told everybody when you’re seeing these things play out in real time, the best news reporting is what’s happening in real time – that day of, you know, the moments that are around the incident.” pg. 103

Who told him this? Because it literally could not be more wrong.

The media has a long and ugly history of getting it wrong early on, and while certainly a major contributor, the blame cannot be placed solely on the twenty-four hour news cycle. The media screwed it up long before cable news, going as far back as the sinking of the Titanic. Or the assassination of JFK. In an article titled “Are breaking news mistakes even worth covering anymore?”, Politico has gone as far to say, “Getting it wrong seems to have become the industry standard.” And here’s an article from the Tampa Bay Times on errors in breaking news, framed by the Sandy Hook tragedy. So don’t do this. Don’t listen to Paul Preston. Please.

“People weren’t rushing around. People weren’t panicking.” pg. 103

First of all, minor quibble, but you can absolutely panic without rushing around just as you can rush around without being panicked. But if you watch the entirety of the Channel 12 helicopter footage Preston is referring to (which was filmed ~10:54AM), you can see a number of people do either (or both).

For the most part, by this point, there was no real reason for everyone to rush around; the school was clear and the children had all been evacuated and likely reunited with their parents. With the exception of Deborah Pisani (who was still on the triage tarp at the time), the few survivors had already been transported to Danbury hospital. The people who remained at the firehouse were waiting to hear news about the students and teachers who were still unaccounted for.

“They ran that one guy off into the woods and then they arrested him. They took him away and there was no connectedness to that.” pg. 103

Nobody was “run off into the woods” and no one was arrested. Being detained does not mean that you’re being arrested. One would reasonably expect a “school security expert” to know that.

Anyway, despite having been sorted out years ago, conspiracy theorists still lean heavily on the mysterious “man in the woods”. Because it sounds super creepy, right? It’s the woods! So who was it? There were actually three people found “in the woods” that day, one of which were briefly detained:

  • An unnamed off-duty tactical squad police officer from New York who was working in a nearby town and went to Sandy Hook after receiving an alert on his phone. He drove to the firehouse and went up to the school on foot. He was taken from the scene in handcuffs, questioned, and then released. He had no connection to the shooting.
  • Two reporters who were held at gunpoint until their identities could be determined.

While Chris Manfredonia, the father of a Sandy Hook student, was briefly detained, he was not found “in the woods”, but on school grounds. According to his police interview (Book 5, document #00014498), he had arrived about ten minutes early for a scheduled activity. After parking his car, he noticed children running from the school and as he approached the front door, he heard gunshots and saw the glass fragments on the ground. Once he realized what was going on, he called 9-1-1 and “tried some of the doors and looked into the windows” in order to try and locate his child’s class. It was at this point that he was ordered to the ground and briefly handcuffed by responding officers.

Chris’s story is corroborated by Newtown Patrol Police Sergeant David Kullgren’s statement (Book 6, –1.pdf):

“I then heard Officer McGowan radio that he had an adult male attempting to gain access to the school on the back left side. Thinking this may be the shooter attempting escape we made a determination that I would break off from Officer Chapman and Officer Smith and assist Officer McGowan. I ran around the left of the school and observed Officer McGowan who had an adult white male with his hands up. The white male had short brown hair he appeared to be in his early forties wearing a navy blue or black tweed type jacket. He stated he was a parent tying to get his child. I had the male prone out and began handcuffing him when Captain Rios took over.”

There’s your “connectedness”, Paul.

“And I didn’t see any students either and that really bothered me.” pg. 103

Because they had been evacuated, reunited with their parents at the fire house, and then sent home. Why would they stick around beyond that? Again, Preston is basing this off of helicopter footage taken somewhere around 10:30-11AM.

“Well, just within the first 10 or 15 minutes, it just all looked too staged to me, and I know about staging these things since I’ve staged a number of them.” pg. 104

Wait, is Paul Preston saying that he has staged a number of school shootings? Is he capable of providing proof of this? Or any of his other claims, for that matter? I’m not so sure that he can.

“I know it’s a high school, but you know, you saw the kids right away and you saw their plan of evacuation of the school unfolding” pg. 104

You would not have seen an evacuation plan unfolding at nearly 11AM because the children had already been evacuated. According to some of the children who spoke to police, they did follow their evacuation plan by exiting the front door and forming a single-file line. Chris Manfredonia corroborated this in his police interview:

“He stated that he parked his car and when he exited his car, he saw a group of children running in a straight line down the sidewalk in front of the school.”

“Normally if you have the tarps out there…in every active shooter situation you have ever see, there’s somebody on the tarp” pg. 105

This was covered in the Chapter Five debunk.. Almost everyone was already dead and had been triaged inside of the school. Three injured persons – an adult and two children – were rushed directly to the hospital, where the two children were pronounced dead. Deborah Pisani was initially treated on a triage tarp and then transferred to the hospital for surgery. Who else would have even been on it?

“We–a side note to this is that I have a lot of sources in and around and in that area. I have a lot of sources in regards to as to what’s going on with the president and the administration and so on, and every one of my sources said it was a false flag.” pg. 106

Right. Of course you do. Does your informant also go to another school, Paul?

So, in addition to all of Newtown, CT (pop. 27,560 or so), the entirety of the Obama administration is complicit in this thing as well. And members of Obama’s administration have no problem telling Paul Preston, host of a conspiracy theorist podcast as well as sham charter school administrator, all about it? And he’s safe in relaying this information just as long as he doesn’t name names? Give me a break.

“I was already being told about these charity sites that had been developed. By the way, they were put up the day before the shooting.” pg. 107

Except that they weren’t. This has been covered in the Chapter Five debunk. Furthermore, is Paul claiming that he knew about these sites before they went live? If so, why didn’t he say anything then?

“And of course the funerals to me…you go and look at the whole funeral process. It looked like they were all staged, from the Robbie Parker one in Utah, or the Sarah Parker one with the Parker family.” pg. 107

Okay, what is this even based on? Why do they look staged? And who is Sarah Parker? Does he mean Sarah Jessica Parker? She wasn’t involved (OR WAS SHE? She wasn’t). Emilie Parker, on the other hand, is one of the victims. Why is it that so many of these conspiracy theorists – these self-styled researchers and experts – can’t even get the basic facts surrounding the case right?

“And then I started getting information from people that actually had attended that funeral who lived in Utah and said that was something very funny about it.” pg. 107

Okay, what did they say was so funny about it? Why not elaborate?

“And so, it’s a good question. It really is a fair question to ask whether or not they were real families.” pg. 108

No, it’s definitely not. That’s a terrible, stupid question that only an insensitive numbnuts would ask someone who has just lost a child. If you think they’re actors, produce some real proof. Dig up their W-2s. Find something – anything – and present it.

“When you see a couple, if they seem really like an odd couple, then that kind of strikes you as weird. And I saw that. I saw a very odd coupled-ness with lots of these Sandy Hook families. It seemed to me, why would this person marry this person and live with them? They’re so totally different.” pg. 108

Odd coupled-ness? Fucking hell. What is this even based on? And how could someone come to such a conclusion after watching a television interview about their murdered child? This is absolute insanity.

“And I’ve see a lot of the pictures and so on, and some of the pictures don’t match up, especially the one of the Parkers in the White House. And it looks like to me that’s Sarah Parker sitting there that’s, you know, supposed to be a victim.” pg. 108

Again, Paul can’t even get the basic facts right. They put this in a book! And people bought it! Again, he means Emilie and that’s Emilie’s younger sister, Madeline, posing with Barack Obama. You’d have to be a lunatic to think that they’re the same person. You’d also have to be a dunce not to realize that those pictures weren’t taken in the White House. Unless they moved it to Newtown.

The photo of Madeline and Obama is discussed in greater detail in Chapter Five.

“What do you think of this privacy issue that has been bandied about by the authorities, that all the privacy needs to be respected, and you can’t reveal this or that…? P – That to me just adds more fuel to the fire because that’s not what you do in the normal situation of an incident command system.” pg. 110

It’s not “normal” to ask for privacy in the wake of a tragedy? Has Paul never read a death announcement for a celebrity or some other public figure? Nearly every last one of them asks for privacy. Google a few, if you don’t believe me. Unless we’re expected to believe that they’re all suspicious.

“Well there’s many things about him. I just …I …first of all, I didn’t understand why all of a sudden there’s 26 bodies and then there’s no coroner or doctor who’s looked at the bodies and they’re declared dead.” pg. 110

Prior to WDMC and OCME processing the bodies, EMS personnel made a presumption of death (as they are legally permitted to do) and placed black triage tags on their bodies to denote their deceased status (CFS 1200704597, 00118939.pdf). Michael Cassavechia, the Director of Emergency Services for Danbury Hospital, stated that “four separate patient assessments were made to guarantee no one was resuscitatable” (Book 6, 00002113.pdf). This is defined in the SMART triage system that James Fetzer (falsely) claims was not followed and it is Connecticut state law.

“And then all of a sudden the coroner comes out and everybody says that there was an automatic gun or a handgun that was used, and the coroner, on his own, comes out and says ‘oh no, that was an AR15 that was used.’” pg. 110

This is a weird (and incorrect: he never stated that it was an AR15) summary of Wayne Carver’s conversation with the press, and I’m a little confused as to what the implication is. Members of the press were confused (as has been established) and Wayne Carver – being the medical examiner – had more information than them. What’s the problem?

Here’s a transcript of the relevant interaction from that press conference:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: Doctor, on that examination, could you tell which caliber of the handgun compared to the rifle of these shooting victims were?

CARVER: It’s a good thing it’s not a prosecution because then I couldn’t answer you that. But, all of the wounds I know of at this point were caused by the long weapon.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: So the rifle was the primary weapon.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: What caliber were the —

CARVER: The question was what caliber were these bullets. I know, I probably know more about firearms than most pathologists but if I say it in court they yell at me and don’t make me answer. So I’ll let the police deal with that for you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: Doctor, can you tell about the nature of the wounds? Were they at very close range? Were the children shot from across the room?

CARVER: I only did seven of the autopsies. The victims I had ranged from 3 to 11 wound apiece. I only saw two of them with close range shooting. But, you know, that’s a sample. I really don’t have of detailed information on the rest of the injuries.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: But you said it was the long rifle that was used?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: I thought the long rifle was discovered in the car. That’s not correct?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That’s not correct, sir.

Nothing said by Wayne Carver in these exchanges was incorrect or inaccurate.

“A classic example of the blanks comes up when you talk about where are the kids that are evacuating the school. There were helicopters that were circling overhead. They certainly would have been able to show, you know, hundreds of kids exiting the school.” pg. 111

They had already been evacuated! This video is from 10:45AM!

“But you did see a picture out in a parking lot, which by the way if you take a long look at this picture of all these kids being led out, about 15 or 20 kids being led out by teachers and adults from this parking lot, if you take a look at the parking lot from the aerial views, you can see that there are different cars in the parking lot in that area.” pg. 111

Total bullshit, and debunked about as hard as something could be debunked.

“Gene Rosen was the man who was very close to the school and he took the kids in and offered them juice and cookies” pg. 112

Oh no, juice and cookies?? To distraught children?? Again, the Gene Rosen story has already been covered in the Chapter Five debunk. And I’ll cover it again… now:

“I can comment on this because this points to this proves my point that these kids …did they get off a bus? Where did they go? OK, I think that one of the stories was that the kids got off the bus and they made their way to his house, and there was all this panic or whatever was going on. OK, there’s something really wrong with that picture to begin with.” pg. 112

None of this happened! This is 100% wrong. The bus driver – who was driving her own personal vehicle at the time and not a bus – saw a small group of children who had escaped the school running along Riverside Road (which intersects with Dickinson at the fire house). Once she realized something was wrong, she pulled over and attempted to help. Gene Rosen, who lives literally next to the firehouse, came out from his house to assist. That’s the way both Gene Rosen as well as the bus driver (whose police interview can be read in Book 5, 00003250.pdf) tell the story and it is corroborated by an unnamed parent in Book 5, 00002296.pdf.

“S: So what…would the protocol be that the children…the children, according to the story, left the school on their own. P: Well, that to me, that’s very suspicious in and of itself.” pg. 112

What is so suspicious about children running from danger? These are five and six year-olds who just witnessed their classmates as well as their teacher being murdered. Paul Preston’s heard of fight or flight, correct? Maybe? One of the children even told police that once they left the classroom, they knew where to go and what to do due to their participation in past fire drills.

And if you’re designing and executing a fake shooting – a “false flag” – in order to pitch some sort of limp-dicked gun legislation, then why even leave survivors? Wouldn’t nine more murdered children help to strengthen that cause?

“How did the kids get out and just run down the road, you know?” pg. 112

Through the door.

“You know, they had a couple of guys that were chased through the woods. What were they all about? And there were no answers about any of that, about where they came from and even my people couldn’t come up with an answer about that.” pg. 113

First they chased “that one guy” into the woods. Now they’re chasing guys (plural) through the woods. Either way, this is not true in the slightest. The questions regarding the people found around the school have been answered years ago. Scroll up a bit and maybe write it down this time, so you can finally stop asking it.

“And to me the people that were there-–they weren’t dressed for December.” pg. 114

Is Preston now doubting that the helicopter footage was taken on December 14th? Keep in mind, this is the same chapter where he (falsely) suggests that the most accurate information is the stuff you see early on, and yet here we are with helicopter footage from that morning and Preston is doubting its authenticity.

I’ve already discussed the temperature in an earlier chapter debunk. To recap, it was probably ~38 at the time the helicopter footage was taken and plenty of people were dressed appropriately. Some people wore more clothes than others. Some people get colder than others. Some people were in a rush and may not have had the chance to dress as warmly as they would’ve liked.

“If there’s a signal to get them out of the building, and there’s always a signal of some sort to get them out of the building safely, they go directly out. Period. End of subject.” pg. 114

So were they supposed to get their coats or not? “Vivian Lee” says yes in chapter five, and now Paul Preston says no. The answer, of course, is no, you’re not supposed to get your coats. Someone is shooting up the school, for Christ’s sake. Be chilly and alive.

“And there were some people said that they were in closets for up to four hours.” pg. 114

School nurse Sally Cox and the school secretary are reported to have hid in a supply closet until roughly 1:15PM. She told 60 Minutes that she briefly emerged at around 11:15 and saw “what looked like maybe SWAT people” in the courtyard. This is supported by Book 2, 00250882.pdf, which documents the school’s courtyard being cleared at around this time.

Fearing they may be additional shooters, Cox returned to the safety of the supply closet and stayed there until she heard police radio chatter. This lines up with statements given by the school secretary as well as police and other first responders. Both Major Fusaro (Book 8, 00230019.pdf) as well as TFCs Voket and Rief (Book 6, 00122995.pdf) gave statements saying that they did not encounter Cox and the secretary until after two searches of the school had been completed and “tactical operations” commenced at the Lazna home on Yogananda, which did not occur until around 12:18PM (00003262.pdf):

Captain Fusaro advised us that he had received word that people were found alive hiding at the school and that the West team was to report back to the school to research it. The East Team remained on site at the suspect residence and conducted the search efforts. Refer to TFC Riefs supplementary report.

West Team members responded directly back to the Sandy Hook Elementary School and met with Major Meraviglia in the lobby area inside the school, directly in front of the main office. Major Meraviglia stated that he had located two females, [redacted] inside the main office where the command post was located, and demanded that the school be researched.

“And the idea of Kaitlyn Roig and some of these teachers bundling up all their kids into the bathroom and having a few sit on the toilet…I even heard the toilet roll holder, my God, that’s pretty tough to do even for a six year old. But what do you think of that? That doesn’t make sense to me.” pg. 115

Why doesn’t that make sense? “Well, it doesn’t make sense to me, therefore it must not have happened.”

According to Roig, “We all push into the bathroom and when there isn’t a millimeter of space left, I begin lifting students and piling them inside. I place one student, then two, then three on top of the toilet and hoist up my littlest girl and sit her on the toilet paper dispenser.”

But that girl – again, her “littlest” – only sat on the toilet paper dispenser “for a moment” or two while Kaitlyn shuffled the children around:

“Roig stated she put the littlest one on the toilet dispenser for a moment and held her there with one arm as she moved the kids around.”

Notice it’s continually referred to as a “dispenser” rather than a “roll holder” in the final report. This may seem like a minor detail, but it’s important because obviously it’s much more difficult to imagine a small child sitting on the kind of toilet roll holder that you may have anchored into your drywall at home than it is the kind of large toilet paper dispenser traditionally found in schools and other public buildings. And while there are no photos or videos from inside of the class bathrooms, video footage from inside the school’s other bathrooms show that they are outfitted with the much larger dispensers:

Such dispensers could easily temporarily withstand the weight of a six-year-old girl.

As for the children placed on the toilet, they were only there temporarily as well:

“At one point, there were 5-6 kids standing on the toilet, all at once, so she could make room, and only one child remained there the whole time”

This information comes straight from Kaitlyn’s police interview (Book 5, 00091247.pdf).

“If there is a shooter there to take the challenge. We used to do these things where we had these dummy books and we’d bring in an active shooter as the stage person and throw books at them, you know, because that really throws them off. You’re taught those kinds of little techniques to throw the active shooter off.” pg. 115

These were five and six-year-old children, Paul. Even if they were somehow taught to do such a thing (and I’m not an alleged school safety expert, but that sounds absurd), what leads you to believe that they even had enough time to go grab a book from somewhere and throw it at their assailant? Their assailant, who I’ll remind you, was armed with an AR-15 and fired 154 rounds in somewhere around five minutes.

(Regarding Adam Lazna) “And of course if you’re doing a fictionalized event like this, you want to have the most crazed individual that you can have looking at you through the picture there, and that’s exactly what you have. That’s my speculation” pg. 116

Maybe he looked crazy because – and bear with me here – he was crazy, as evidenced by the fact that he murdered a bunch of children. Or maybe, with the limited number of pictures available to them (Adam notably hated having his photo taken), the media chose to run with the craziest looking picture. Whichever one you pick, it’s infinitely more credible.

Besides, if you look at the pictures that they usually run for the 9/11 hijackers, or the Tsarnaev brothers (both “false flag” events, according to Fetzer and Preston), there’s nothing “crazed” about them; they look completely normal.

“And he has a history and what is the history? We’re not real clear on the history.” pg. 116

There’s an entire report on his history. How much do you need to know about a total stranger? Are you familiar with HIPAA?

“You know, first of all, they found out that he’s got his brother’s driver’s license. Then there’s some confusion. And you know it one of these kind of scenarios that just didn’t quite fit. And as a school person that to me was one of the big pieces of evidence. Why does he have his brother’s license?” pg. 116

Adam did not have Ryan’s driver’s license on him. The idea that he did is an early bit of misinformation and is not supported by any official documentation. Ryan’s license was in his possession when he was taken into police custody in Hoboken later that day.

“That’s a very very good point, Paul. Excellent. And we should add that the mug shot that they gave us of Adam Lanza was very painterly. It wasn’t even a photo,” pg. 116

That’s definitely a photo, and it is definitely not a mug shot. Adam was never arrested as a result of his actions at Sandy Hook, because he was dead, so he wouldn’t have one. So they’re 0-2 here.

Next: Chapter Seven

10 Thoughts on “Fact Checking “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook”, Chapter Six

  1. Of course he doesn’t give any names of exactly which Obama officials said it was fake, so there’s no way anyone can prove or disprove that statement.
    If I were a betting man, I’d say Preston made that up out of whole cloth.
    This is a great site. I enjoy your work and appreciate your efforts. Thank you very much and keep up the good work.

  2. On the point of students throwing things like books at a shooter many schools are moving to a new model for dealing with these events. The old model was lock the door and wait for help quietly. Many schools are moving away from that. Some were before Sandy Hook but since then many of the schools in my area are moving to a model that’s called ALICE which is a school safety program. The school I teach at talked about adopting that system but have decided to make our own similar system because the ALICE system comes with a lot of expense for training but the basic principles are simple. In a school shooter scenario school employees need to consider the following options and needs. 1. Alert the rest of the school community 2. Evacuate if possible to do so safely (based on the fact that 98% of mass shootings are a single shooter and that kids who got out of Sand Hook School lived) 3. Lock and barricade your classroom door. Pile anything in front of the door you can from desks to books to keep that person out. 4. Inform the school community of the whereabouts of the shooter if you can over the intercom (some schools are actually adopting a texting system for this) 5. Confront the shooter with anything and everything. That includes throwing whatever you have at the shooters face in the hopes of making the shooter flinch so you can run or tackle the shooter. The ALICE people actually suggest using fire extinguishers and also how children can play a role and confronting a shooter. I only know this because I am on my school’s safety committee but we didn’t start considering these changes until this year after a few of us made it real clear we weren’t going to be ok cowering in a corner when a shooter came in the room to kill us all.

  3. Stephen on May 8, 2016 at 1:47 pm said:

    Paul Preston know one thing for sure and that is, who butters his bread. He know there is money to be make in the world where Conspiratards live…which is why makes up such lies.

  4. Gamaliel Perez on July 28, 2017 at 10:11 pm said:

    This author is a shill. All to discredit a witness who is trying to tell the truth.

    • Shill Murray on August 1, 2017 at 9:44 pm said:

      Surely you’re not talking about me (rather than Fetzer, who demonstrably makes real money off of his absurd conspiracy theories via book sales), because I’ve had a standing offer for almost as long as this site has existed: $400 to anyone who can prove that I am, in fact, a “shill”. Prove that I’ve earned as much as one single cent from this site (or the accompanying Facebook page) and I will happily write you a check for four hundred dollars, American, no questions asked. I’ve mentioned this reward a number of times – practically begging people to put up or shut up – and not only have I never had to pay out, but no one has even made an attempt at it. Probably because they know they’ve got nothin’. So rather than make the same tired, baseless accusations that you know you cannot back up, why don’t you try refuting what I’ve written? Why don’t you do what I’ve done and do the research, provide sources, etc? Or at the very least elaborate on which “witness” I am attempting to discredit?

      • systemspm on January 27, 2018 at 7:45 am said:

        You’re my hero

      • jennifer on February 24, 2021 at 4:35 pm said:

        Please define “shill.”
        Maybe that’s why nobody has taken up on your offer – you (intentionally I assume) did not include relevant details.
        Is a shill:
        1: Someone defending a position for nothing else than personal agenda?
        2: and/or profiting from?
        Maybe if you included all the relevant details, someone would’ve gone after that $400 by now?
        Also assume my comment will be blocked/not posted.
        Let’s see if I’m right. 🙂

        • Shill Murray on February 26, 2021 at 4:31 pm said:

          Also assume my comment will be blocked/not posted.

          Boy, if I had a dollar for every time someone challenged me to approve/post their comment as a way to get around the fact that they posted something totally off-topic and I still approved their comment anyway, I’d have a great side hustle going here.

          Please define “shill.”
          Maybe that’s why nobody has taken up on your offer – you (intentionally I assume) did not include relevant details.
          Is a shill:
          1: Someone defending a position for nothing else than personal agenda?
          2: and/or profiting from?

          The relevant details are outlined in the very comment you’re replying to. “Prove that I’ve earned as much as one single cent from this site (or the accompanying Facebook page) and I will happily write you a check for four hundred dollars, American, no questions asked.” As I explicitly mention earning money, that would seem to indicate the latter, wouldn’t it? That’s certainly what I’m most frequently accused of. I’m not even sure how you could prove that someone is defending a position for nothing more than their own personal “agenda” (and if I have an agenda, it’s getting people to stop believing easily disprovable nonsense about the Sandy Hook shooting) without first proving that they’re not profiting from it.

          Anyway, I’ll explain the challenge again, as I’ve done numerous times before: if you can prove that I am a “shill” – someone who acts as a promoter of something or someone in a paid capacity – I’ll write you a check. I’ll also bump that $400 up to $500 since it’s been a little while. And you know what else? I’ll expand it to include working on behalf of/taking instruction from the government or literally anyone other than myself in an unpaid capacity as well. Prove that I’ve posted anything regarding Sandy Hook for any other reason than my own desire to do so and the money is yours.

  5. Pingback: Did The Children Killed At Sandy Hook Appear At Super Bowl XLVII? – Sandy Hook Research

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 allowed and encouraged but will sometimes 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. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

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

1) Off-topic comments. An entry 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? Educate yourself. And then don't engage in them. They are an infuriating waste of everyone's time 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 just stop asking.
4) Requests for photos of dead children. See above. And then seek professional help, because you're fucked up. These items are unavailable to the public; exempt from FOIA requests; and in violation of Amendment 14 of the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 8b of the Connecticut State Constriction, and Connecticut Public Act # 13-311.
5) Asking questions that have already been answered/making claims that have already been debunked. If you want to have a discussion, don't make it painfully obvious that you haven't bothered to 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 fairly well.

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation