“Nobody Died At Sandy Hook”
Chapter Ten
By: “Dr. Eowyn” (aka Maria Hsia Chang) and James Fetzer

Chapter Ten is an interesting one; not because it finally, miraculously offers up even a sliver of compelling information (it doesn’t, not that there was ever such a possibility), but because its content was very thoroughly debunked long, long ago (by Metabunk, by Snopes, by USA Today, etc). And while the same could be said for nearly every other chapter in this completely asinine book, this time the authors openly acknowledge it. And they do so within the very first paragraph! But somehow the chapter doesn’t abruptly end there. Instead, James Fetzer and Maria Chang awkwardly fumble their way through a counterargument that basically boils down to “nuh-uh”.

With the exception of an incredibly bizarre claim regarding Nancy Lanza’s alleged true identity, the authors spend most of this very short chapter (six whole pages… that’s three pages per author!) attempting to once again breathe life into the absurd notion that the FBI, defying all logic, openly admits no one died in the Sandy Hook massacre that took place on December 14th, 2012. This goofball theory is based on the fact that on the FBI’s website, if you view Connecticut’s UCR (Unified Crime Reporting) data for 2012, it lists zero murders reported by the Newtown Police Department. But we know that at least twenty-seven people were murdered in Newtown in 2012 (twenty-six at the school plus Nancy Lanza at the family home on Yogananda Street), so what gives? There’s actually a very simple, reasonable explanation: the information on the FBI’s site comes directly from the UCR data provided by the state of Connecticut (the entirety of which can be viewed here for the year in question). This data is organized by reporting agency, and since the shooting was handled by Connecticut state police rather than Newtown PD, the former submitted the information to the FBI. Therefore, the data appears under state totals. This is not a mistake; it is by design. From the FBI’s UCR handbook:

  1. Federal agencies should report offenses within their investigative jurisdictions if they are not being reported by a local/state law enforcement agency.
  2. When two or more local, state, tribal, or federal agencies are involved in the investigation of the same offense and there is a written or oral agreement defining the roles of the investigating agencies, the agreement must designate which agency will report the offense.
  3. When two or more federal agencies are involved in the investigation of the same offense and there is no written or oral agreement defining their roles, the federal agency having lead or primary investigative jurisdiction should report the data. If there is uncertainty as to which is the lead or primary agency, the agencies must agree on which agency will report the offense.

This flies in the face of the ridiculous claim made on page 172: “After all, murders are reported in the communities or jurisdictions in which they have occurred, not on the basis of the agency or organization that investigates them.” While murders and other crimes are usually investigated and therefore reported by local law enforcement agencies, it is not required and not always the case. And it was not the case with Sandy Hook, a fact which was also further confirmed to me personally (via e-mail) by both the FBI’s Crime Stats staff as well as Connecticut’s DESPP Crime Analysis Unit.

Still, in a sad attempt to bolster their totally bogus claim, the authors ask you to skip directly to page twenty-six of the UCR report listed above. But in doing so, you’d skip over the enormous, full page dedication to the victims of Sandy Hook right on page four:

You’d also miss two more obvious references to the twenty-seven victims of the attack, which appear on pages twelve:

As well as page twenty-five:

Again, that’s before we even get to page twenty-six. In total, throughout the entire document, the shooting is mentioned fourteen times.

Still, the authors stubbornly insist that it is on page twenty-six (and page twenty-six only) that you will find the truth. They make the claim that:

At the intersection of ‘Murder’ with ‘<10’ (below 10 years of age) for 2012, you will find the number ‘0’!

Which is technically true! The problem is that if you actually read the header for that table (which is not cropped out of their screenshot), you’ll notice that it says “Arrest Statistics” for year 2012:

What this actually means is that no one in Connecticut under the age of ten was arrested for murder in 2012; not that no one under the age of ten was murdered. Remember that two (allegedly) highly-educated “researchers” wrote all six pages of this chapter together, so they really have no excuse for bungling this one as badly as they have. Unless, of course, they are intentionally misrepresenting data. Which leads me to my next point…

Over and over again, the authors insist that this data is actually supposed to represent the number of people who have died in a particular area (“The Connecticut State Police submit information to the FBI that asserts 27 people died in Connecticut, but at the same time denies that they died anywhere in Connecticut.” pg 175), but this is simply not the case. Again, this data (when you look in the right location) represent the number of offenses reported by law enforcement agencies. If they represented the number of people who have “died”, then where are the fatal automobile accidents? Where are the drownings? Etc.

Virginia’s UCR data for 2007 as published on the FBI’s website is similarly missing some very notable information: there are zero murders listed for the city of Blacksburg.

Blacksburg is of course the location of the Virginia Tech shooting – the deadliest mass shooting in United States history – which took place on April 16th, 2007. This is notable because James Fetzer, as revealed in his disastrous Reddit AMA, believes the Virginia Tech shooting to be entirely legitimate. Following his own logic, since this crime actually happened, shouldn’t the murders be listed under Blacksburg’s totals rather than State Police totals?

Finally, Fetzer and Chang also make the claim that “It is a federal crime to report false statistics to the FBI, so the CTSP tacked on a new category of ‘State Police Misc.’ as though that solved the problem” (page 173) but there’s absolutely nothing “tacked on” about the State Police Misc. totals: you can find them in every UCR document available on Connecticut’s DPS website, going back to 1992. I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before Fetzer sees this and makes the claim that this is proof they’ve been planning Sandy Hook for twenty-four years.

4 Thoughts on “Fact Checking “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook”, Chapter Ten

  1. Steve on March 17, 2016 at 6:53 am said:

    Just logically speaking one other thing doesn’t make sense about this claim that they make.

    If it’s a hoax, the FBI would have to participate in it or at least know about it. Why would the FBI give the whole thing away by saying there were no murders in Newtown?
    Participating some massive hoax to gin up support for anti-gun legislation is one thing, but lying on an official report is a line the FBI won’t cross, I guess. 😉

    There’s also the matter of why the hoaxers would trust an official government source.

    • Shill Murray on March 17, 2016 at 3:08 pm said:

      They trust government sources when it suits them. Otherwise they can’t be trusted. Of course.

      Like you said, the idea that the FBI could actively participate in this alleged hoax (by sending agents to Newtown, discussing the shooting elsewhere on their site, etc.) but refuse to fudge the numbers on one spreadsheet is pretty ridiculous. And that’s ignoring the fact that the spreadsheet in question is based off of a report that mentions the shooting fourteen separate times.

      Deiners have built their entire narrative on top of alleged anomalies in the official story, but their theories are so full of holes and leaps that it would be absurd to give them a second thought. Logically speaking, it’s just a total mess.

  2. Joseph Price on March 22, 2019 at 3:04 am said:

    Look up the state statistics also. Newtown is in Fairfield County, correct? Why wasn’t the correct number of murders listed in that chart? Middlesex County in Connecticut has the highest amount of murders for 2012. explain that.

    • Shill Murray on March 22, 2019 at 2:45 pm said:

      Middlesex County in Connecticut has the highest amount of murders for 2012. explain that.

      First of all, this is incorrect. In news which could not possibly come as a shock to anyone who has been there, New Haven County leads the way with 33 murders to Middlesex’s 29. So you’re off to a bad start. Secondly, did you not look at the actual UCR data for Middlesex before commenting? Page 33, top of the page.

      Murder3 29
      3 Does include 27 victims of Newtown mass shooting (see State Police Misc.)

      It’s that high because it includes the Newtown victims. Without them, there would only be two.

      Look, it’s not totally unreasonable for a layperson unfamiliar with UCR to just assume that these charts list the number of murders or crimes that occurred in a particular county. I absolutely get that because that was me before I looked into it. So I 100% understand how most people can look at the summary shown on the FBI’s website and be confused. But that’s not the reality, and refusing to educate yourself and remaining defiant in light of the actual facts surrounding the full data, which I’ve provided here for you, is inexcusable. As stated in the article, the UCR reports list the number of crimes reported by each county. It does not report on the number of crimes that occurred in each county (though those numbers are of course often the same). And because this crime was ultimately handled by the state and not Fairfield County, they are the agency responsible for reporting the murders to the FBI, which is why they’re included in the state totals. Those are the facts. The idea that this report makes numerous mentions of the shooting, includes the victims in the totals for the state as well as Middlesex County, yet somehow “admits” that the shooting “didn’t happen” is just insane.

      But don’t take my word for it. There’s an e-mail address listed on page eleven of the report: ctnibrs@ct.gov. It says questions regarding the UCR should be directed there, and it sounds like you have questions. So e-mail away.

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