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

“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 named Paul Preston from May 2014. That’s it—just a transcript. It’s hard to imagine a lazier way to pad a book, but it’s certainly indicative of the regard Fetzer has for his readers. This interview isn’t even premium content; it’s already freely available.

So who is Paul Preston? Like Wolfgang Halbig, he’s repeatedly described as a “school security expert,” though any concrete credentials to support that claim are elusive.

What might help to know is that Preston, much like other self-appointed “experts” in this circle, is a dedicated conspiracy theorist himself. Back in April 2012—eight months before Sandy Hook—he started an internet radio show called “Agenda 21 Radio,” covering everything from Agenda 21 conspiracies to Obama’s birth certificate (spoiler: fake) and ISIS (also fake, apparently). He’s big on guns, anti-Obama, and unsurprisingly, a big Sandy Hook denier.

Looking for more about his actual background, I found a poorly formatted bio on another conspiracy website, “Patriots Around The Lake.” It claims he was an administrator or assistant principal at El Dorado High School in California back in 1988. But in an LA Times article from that period, he’s quoted extensively as the school’s “director of activities.” Here’s a yearbook page from that year confirming it, and another from 1989 showing the same title—years after supposedly teaching environmental and biological sciences. Also worth noting is his inexplicable hatred of surfing. What gives, Paul?

Preston has also been promoting “staged event” theories for decades. In one laughable claim, he insists the 1994 Orange County bankruptcy was part of a “Cloward and Piven Strategy” orchestrated by the Clinton administration.

According to his questionable bio, Paul claims he “has for years worked with law enforcement in implementing successful anti-drug and anti-gang awareness” and “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.” His only mention of “safety,” however, appears to come from time allegedly spent as a county School Attendance and Review Board Chairman (though I could find no evidence of this) and as a member of “Governor Schwarzenegger’s ‘Cyber Safety’ committee representing the Association of California School Administrators through the Department of Consumer Affairs”. However, the committee’s own materials list him only as a workshop moderator; his name missing from any official membership list. Even if he were listed, it’s hard to see how being a member of an internet safety committee would qualify him as an expert on the mass murder of elementary school children.

There’s also a hint about his involvement in a charter school scandal, but details are scarce. His bio claims he founded “two charter schools and one private school,” though he doesn’t name them—odd for someone so supposedly proud of his work. After some digging, I found a 2011 report on a sham institution Preston founded, the “California College, Career and Technical Education Center.” Multiple sources have exposed this “school” for mismanagement, with detailed accounts available on sites like “Charter School Scandals” and “White Chalk Crime.” Here’s more, including a list of charges brought against Preston and his phony school by the state of California. Despite his claims, I couldn’t find any record of a second charter or private school he supposedly founded.

I emailed Paul, asking him about his credentials. Unsurprisingly, he didn’t respond. However, a former colleague of his that I also reached out to recalled his ability to “identify students who were using drugs.” So, if nothing else, he’s a drug-detection superhero.

In short, his credentials are dubious, and his motivations are transparently conspiratorial.

Now, on to the interview!

Paul starts off 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! Hold up! Paul was involved with the Columbine “situation”? That sounds huge! But… how exactly does a school activities director from California get tangled up with Columbine? Let’s find out!

“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, no actual involvement with Columbine whatsoever. Well, that clears up a lot—especially his bizarre ideas about the so-called “Trenchcoat Mafia.” According to the Jefferson County Sheriff’s office, the Trenchcoat Mafia was a “loose, social affiliation” of students, with “no formal organizational structure, leadership or purpose,” and no evidence of affiliated groups across the nation. Yet, somehow, Paul decided they were a “neo-Nazi group” plotting to blow up his California school. And where might a school activities director pick up on such outlandish theories? Well, apparently from “neo-Nazi websites,” as 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. Makes perfect sense.

“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 couldn’t be more wrong.

The media has a well-documented history of getting early reports wrong, and it’s not just the 24-hour news cycle to blame. This goes back as far as the Titanic’s sinking, the JFK assassination—you name it. Politico even ran an article titled “Are breaking news mistakes even worth covering anymore?” with the line, “Getting it wrong seems to have become the industry standard.” And here’s one from the Tampa Bay Times on the same topic, centered around Sandy Hook. So, seriously—don’t take advice from Paul Preston on this.

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

First, a minor quibble—you can absolutely panic without rushing around, just as you can rush around without panicking. But if you watch the full Channel 12 helicopter footage Preston refers to (filmed around 10:54 AM), you’ll see plenty of people doing one or both.

By this point, though, there wasn’t much reason to rush; the school was already cleared, children had been evacuated, and most were likely reunited with their parents. Aside from Deborah Pisani, still on the triage tarp, the few survivors had already been taken to Danbury Hospital. The people remaining at the firehouse were waiting anxiously for news about students and teachers 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 you’re under arrest. One might expect a self-described “school security expert” to know that.

Despite being clarified years ago, conspiracy theorists love to latch onto the “man in the woods.” Because, hey, it sounds creepy, right? The woods! So who was it? Actually, three people were found in the woods that day, and only one was briefly detained:

• An off-duty NY tactical officer, working nearby, who went to Sandy Hook after an alert. He walked up to the school, was briefly handcuffed, questioned, and released. He had zero connection to the shooting.
• Two reporters who were held briefly at gunpoint until they could be identified.

Then there’s Chris Manfredonia, father of a Sandy Hook student, who wasn’t found “in the woods” but rather on school grounds. According to his police interview (Book 5, document #00014498), he arrived about ten minutes early for an activity and, upon seeing children running from the building and hearing gunshots, instinctively searched for his child’s classroom. It was during this attempt that officers ordered him to the ground and briefly detained him.

His account is corroborated by Newtown Patrol 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

They had already been evacuated, reunited with their parents at the firehouse, and sent home. Why would they stick around? Preston is basing this on helicopter footage from around 10:30-11:00 a.m., after the school had been thoroughly cleared.

“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

So, Paul Preston has “staged a number of them”? Is he really implying that he has experience staging school shootings? I’d love to see the proof behind this statement—or behind any of his other claims, for that matter. Somehow, I’m not holding my breath.

“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 wouldn’t have seen any evacuation plan unfolding at almost 11AM because the children had already been evacuated long before then. According to several of the students who later spoke to police, they followed their evacuation plan, leaving through the front door and forming a single-file line. Chris Manfredonia, a parent who arrived on-site, corroborated this in his police interview, stating: “He parked his car, and when he exited, 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

Already addressed this back in Chapter Five. Nearly everyone was dead, and those who needed immediate care were triaged inside the school. The three injured victims—an adult and two children—were rushed straight to the hospital, where the two children were later pronounced dead. Deborah Pisani was briefly treated (and photographed) on a tarp before being transferred to the hospital for surgery. So…who else did he expect to see?

“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. Sure, Paul. You’ve got “a lot of sources.” Maybe they go to another school?

So now, on top of the entire population of Newtown (about 27,560 people), apparently the entire Obama administration was also complicit in this so-called “false flag.” And members of the Obama administration—presumably very high-level people with a lot to lose—freely handed this info over to Paul Preston, a conspiracy podcast host and operator of a fraudulent charter school, trusting him to keep quiet on names? And he’s just casually relaying this revelation as if it’s the daily weather report. 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 they weren’t. This was already covered in Chapter Five. And let’s get this straight: Paul is now suggesting that he had advanced knowledge of these “charity sites” but conveniently chose to stay silent? If he knew about them “before they went live,” why didn’t he sound the alarm 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

Based on…what, exactly? What makes them look “staged”? And who, pray tell, is “Sarah Parker”? Does he mean Sarah Jessica Parker? I’m pretty sure she wasn’t involved (unless there’s some new conspiracy twist). Perhaps he meant Emilie Parker, one of the actual victims. But here we go again: another “expert researcher” who can’t even get the names right. It’s almost like they’re not paying attention to the facts at all.

“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

Right, so something was “funny” about it. Care to elaborate on what exactly that was? Any specifics? Anything at all? Or are we just supposed to accept this vague “intel” from unnamed sources as hard evidence?

“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 not a “good question”—it’s an offensive, asinine question, the kind only an insensitive numbskull would think to ask of grieving parents. If you’re so convinced they’re actors, then produce some actual proof. Put up or shut up.

“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? Really? What in the world is this even supposed to mean? How exactly is someone supposed to judge the compatibility of grieving parents based on a TV interview about their murdered child? The sheer absurdity of it is breathtaking.

“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

Once again, Paul can’t even get the basic facts straight—and this nonsense actually made it into a book that people paid money for. He means Emilie Parker, and the child in the picture with Barack Obama is her younger sister, Madeline. Only a complete lunatic would think they’re the same person, and only a dunce would believe the photo was taken in the White House. (Unless the White House recently relocated to Newtown.)

For anyone who wants the details, the photo of Madeline and Obama is discussed in greater depth 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

Is it really “not normal” to ask for privacy after a tragedy, let alone one as horrific as Sandy Hook? Has Paul ever read a death announcement for a celebrity or public figure? Practically every single one requests privacy. Google a few if you don’t believe me. Or maybe we’re supposed to believe that all those announcements are suspicious, too.

“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

Before WDMC and the OCME processed the bodies, EMS personnel made a presumption of death, as they are legally allowed to do, and placed black triage tags on the bodies to indicate deceased status (CFS 1200704597, 00118939.pdf). Michael Cassavechia, Danbury Hospital’s Director of Emergency Services, explained that “four separate patient assessments were made to guarantee no one was resuscitatable” (Book 6, 00002113.pdf). This follows the SMART triage system that conspiracy theorist James Fetzer wrongly claims wasn’t followed, and is standard under 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

Response: This is a strange (and incorrect—Carver never explicitly stated that it was an AR-15) interpretation of Wayne Carver’s press conference. What exactly is the issue here? The press was confused, as is well documented, and Wayne Carver, the medical examiner, understandably had more information. That’s pretty standard protocol.

Here’s the transcript of the relevant exchange 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.

CARVER: Yes.

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?

CARVER: Yes.

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 Dr. Carver said here was 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 around 10:45 AM—well after the children had exited the building and reunited with their parents. By that time, any footage of “hundreds of kids exiting the school” would have already happened, and they were safely away from the scene.

“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 something I’ve already debunked about as hard as it’s possible to debunk anything. There’s no “mysterious car swap” happening here, just typical conspiracy theorist cherry-picking at its finest. Aerial views show no inconsistencies in the cars or parking lot, and this “analysis” is just as empty as the rest.

“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?? What a monster! If you’re this suspicious of kindness, you might need to take a long, hard look in the mirror. But sure, let’s rehash the “Gene Rosen conspiracy” again, even though it’s already been thoroughly covered in Chapter Five.

So here’s the rundown: Gene Rosen found a group of children on his lawn, visibly shaken and in tears. He took them in, gave them juice and cookies, and stayed with them until they could be reunited with their parents. That’s it. That’s the whole story—simple, human decency. Anyone seeing something sinister in that is telling us more about themselves than about Gene.

“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 actual story goes like this: the bus driver—who was not driving a bus, but her own personal vehicle—spotted a small group of children who had escaped the school and were running along Riverside Road, which intersects with Dickinson at the firehouse. Realizing something was seriously wrong, she pulled over to help. Gene Rosen, who lives right next to the firehouse, saw what was happening and came out to assist. Both Gene Rosen and the bus driver gave the same account (the bus driver’s police interview is in Book 5, 00003250.pdf), which is also corroborated by an unnamed parent (Book 5, 00002296.pdf). So once again, this bizarre version Preston is pushing has no connection to the real events.

“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 exactly is suspicious about children fleeing from danger? These are five- and six-year-olds who had just witnessed their classmates and teacher being murdered. Has Paul Preston heard of the fight-or-flight response? One of the children even told police that once they left the classroom, they knew where to go and what to do because of past fire drills.

And if someone were staging a “false flag” shooting to push for gun legislation, why would they even leave survivors? Wouldn’t a higher casualty count theoretically bolster their supposed “cause”?

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

Through the door. They got out 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, it was “that one guy” being chased into the woods; now it’s guys (plural). Pick a story already. Regardless, none of this is true. The questions about the people found near the school were answered years ago. Scroll up, take notes this time, and maybe—just maybe—you’ll finally stop asking the same nonsense.

“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 even taken on December 14th? This is the same chapter where he (falsely) claims the earliest information is the most accurate, and yet here he is, questioning the authenticity of footage from that very morning.

As for the clothing, this was already covered in an earlier chapter. To recap: it was probably around 38°F when the footage was taken. Plenty of people were dressed appropriately. Some wore more layers than others—because, believe it or not, people have varying tolerances for cold. And maybe, just maybe, some were in too much of a rush to grab their warmest coats while fleeing a horrifying scene.

“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 grab their coats or not? “Vivian Lee” insists yes in Chapter Five, and now Paul Preston says no. Here’s the actual answer: no, you don’t stop to get your coat when someone is actively shooting up the school. The priority is to get out—period. 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 reportedly hid in a supply closet until about 1:15 PM. Cox told 60 Minutes that she briefly emerged around 11:15 AM and saw “what looked like maybe SWAT people” in the courtyard. This account aligns with Book 2, 00250882.pdf, which documents the school’s courtyard being cleared around that time.

Fearing there might be additional shooters, Cox returned to the safety of the supply closet and remained there until she heard police radio chatter. Her timeline matches statements from the school secretary, police, and other first responders. Both Major Fusaro (Book 8, 00230019.pdf) and TFCs Voket and Rief (Book 6, 00122995.pdf) stated they didn’t encounter Cox and the secretary until after two thorough searches of the school had been completed and “tactical operations” were underway at the Lanza home on Yogananda Street, which began at approximately 12:18 PM (00003262.pdf). Here’s Fusaro’s account:

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.

This completely explains the reported timeline, without any need for batshit conspiratorial twists.

“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.” Stellar logic.

According to Kaitlyn 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—her littlest, mind you—only sat on the dispenser for “a moment” 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 how it’s referred to as a “dispenser” rather than a “roll holder” in the final report. That distinction matters, because it’s far easier to imagine a small child sitting on a large, sturdy dispenser—like the kind commonly found in schools and public buildings—than on one of those flimsy roll holders you might have anchored into your drywall at home.

While there are no unredacted photos from inside the classroom bathrooms, video footage from the school’s other bathrooms shows large, commercial-style dispensers that could easily hold the temporary weight of a six-year-old:

And for the record, even the children standing on the toilet weren’t there the entire time:

“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”

All of this information is directly from Kaitlyn Roig’s police interview (Book 5, 00091247.pdf). So once again, what exactly doesn’t make sense?

“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 trained to do such a thing—and forgive me, I’m not an alleged school safety expert, but that sounds absolutely absurd—what makes you think they had enough time to grab a book and hurl it at their assailant? Their assailant, I’ll remind you, was armed with an AR-15 and managed to fire 154 rounds in roughly 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—stick with me here—he was crazy, as evidenced by the fact that he murdered 27 people, including 20 small children and his own mother. Or, with the limited number of photos available (since Adam notoriously hated having his picture taken), the media simply chose the one that looked the most unsettling. Either way, both explanations are infinitely more plausible than this ridiculous speculation.

And while we’re at it, have you noticed that the photos typically used for the 9/11 hijackers or the Tsarnaev brothers—both events Preston and Fetzer also insist were “false flags”—show them looking entirely normal? So much for the “crazed” photo theory.

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

There’s an entire publicly-available report on his history. How much more do you need to know about a total stranger? Ever heard of HIPAA? You can’t just go snooping into someone’s medical records because you’re “not real clear,” even if they’re a mass murderer.

“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. That claim is based on early misinformation and isn’t supported by any official documentation. In fact, Ryan’s license was in his possession when police took him into 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 is most definitely a photo, and it is absolutely not a mug shot. Adam was never arrested for his actions at Sandy Hook—because he was dead—so he wouldn’t have one. That’s 0-2 for this claim.

Next: Chapter Seven: “Fixing A Prop: Furnishing The Lanza Home” by Allan William Powell (with Kelley Watt)