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

“Nobody Died At Sandy Hook”
Chapter Eleven
By: James Fetzer and Kelley Watt

When I saw the title of this chapter, “Are Sandy Hook skeptics delusional with ‘twisted minds’?”, I thought, “Perfect! Easiest chapter yet. I’ll just write ‘yes’—or ‘yes, of course,’ if I’m feeling loquacious—publish, and move on to Chapter Twelve.”

But, as it turns out, there are actual claims being made here. Most are the same tired nonsense recycled from earlier chapters, but there are a couple of new ones thrown in for good measure.

Ol’ Jimmy kicks things off by quoting himself, which is a bold move.

Page 178

Fetzer and Watt revisit the tired claim that none of the bullet fragments could be matched to the Bushmaster, which I already addressed in Chapter Eight. As a reminder: while the bullet jackets were damaged and corroded due to poor firearm maintenance, all recovered shell casings were conclusively linked to the Bushmaster. From the official report:

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.

And let’s entertain their fantasy for a moment: if the event were staged (it wasn’t) and the official report falsified (it isn’t), authorities would have had full control over the narrative. So why, in that scenario, would they include verbiage capable of raising these kinds of questions? Why not just claim the bullet fragments were a perfect match and call it a day? The idea makes zero sense.

Then there’s this gem:

Under these circumstances, it would have been impossible for the alleged shooter, Adam Lanza, to have been convicted in a properly conducted court of law for his alleged offense.

Sure, guys. Let’s ignore the fact that the shell casings were forensically matched to the Bushmaster. Let’s also ignore the blood spatter from Adam’s victims found on his clothing and weapons:

Document 00122048.pdf from the supplemental reports (CHS 1200704597) meticulously catalogues the numerous bloodstains on each item of his clothing.

And because no chapter is complete without recycling nonsense, they dust off the claim about Shannon Hicks’ evacuation photographs—yet again. This might be the third time they’ve trotted out this tired argument, complete with comparison photos of such poor quality you’d swear they were taken with a flip phone from 2005:

The images are so tiny and blurry (possibly by design) that Fetzer and Watt could probably convince their readers these photos depict Bigfoot. In reality, the children look nothing alike and are wearing entirely different clothing. If you want the full breakdown, I covered this in detail back in Chapter Five.

Page 179

Fetzer and Watt argue that a real evacuation would have undoubtedly resulted in numerous photographs showing hundreds of students in the parking lot. There are several issues with this claim:

• The children were evacuated in groups—not all at once—and through multiple exit points. The scenario they propose, where hundreds of students pour out the front door at the same time, never happened. No one, other than deniers, has ever suggested otherwise.
• ideo evidence of the evacuations has been redacted because it involves a large number of minors. Releasing such footage would violate the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 8b of the Connecticut Constitution.

Also:

Adam Lanzan, huh? Please, James, tell me more about these “highly educated researchers” who supposedly wrote and edited this book!

“Search for any parent displaying real grief. It’s not there.” pg. 181

Yeah, no “real” grief here, scumbag:

On page 181, we get a front-row seat to a classic denier tactic in action. After claiming the lack of publicly available death certificates is evidence of a cover-up, James Fetzer is presented with a copy of Noah Pozner’s official death certificate. But, predictably, he declares it a “fake.” That’s a bold accusation to level at Lenny Pozner—who released the certificate to the public—or, depending on the implication, the entire state of Connecticut.

In case it isn’t obvious, Lenny Pozner is Noah’s father. Fetzer and Watt bizarrely place Lenny’s name in quotation marks at times, as if suggesting it isn’t his real name, but curiously never extend that same nonsense to his son. Mr. Pozner has been such a frequent target of denier lies and harassment that he engages with pieces of garbage like Fetzer more than any other Sandy Hook parent.

When it comes to explaining why he believes the death certificate is a forgery, Fetzer passes the buck to a couple of clowns named Dennis Cimino and Bob Sims. Sims writes:

“I am rather surprised, according to the copy you posted, that any branch of government was still using typewriters at all, when computers can do it so much better.” pg. 182

Why would this surprise anyone? From the book The Typewriter Revolution, published in 2015:

Why do typewriters still get made at all?

Because there are some niches in business and government where they still get used. Typewriters fill out forms and envelopes in a variety of situations. Police may type up paperwork such as reports, property receipts, and warrants. The NYPD and seventeen other New York City agencies use over a thousand typewriters today, to the amazement and scorn of many. (“They still have a function and your belief that typewriters have gone away is just erroneous,” said pugnacious Mayor Michael Bloomberg in 2012. “It’s like books. Some people, believe it or not, still read books in paper.”) Prison inmates, forbidden to use computers, use typewriters with transparent shells that can’t hide contraband. Libraries type labels. Funeral homes type official death certificates. You may find typewriters lurking at hospitals, banks, law officers, or dentist’s offices. Even spies and diplomats use typewriters for sensitive documents, to avoid electronic theft and snooping.

Even the Wall Street Journal ran an article in 2013 titled “Death Keeps Typewriters Alive, Clacking,” highlighting their use by funeral homes. The CDC also mentions typewriters in the most recent revision of their Funeral Directors’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting:

Make the entry legible. Use a computer printer with high resolution, typewriter with good black ribbon and clean keys, or print legibly using permanent black ink.

And Richard Polt—the author of The Typewriter Revolution—wasn’t exaggerating about typewriters still being widespread in government offices. Here’s an article from the New York Post about their use in New York state.

“For starters, can you see any reason for the government typist to change the ball back and forth on the IBM machine I must assume was being used” pg. 182

This is an asinine assumption. A far more reasonable explanation is that the certificate was completed on multiple typewriters. Since death certificates can be filled out over several sittings (as not all information is immediately available) and by multiple people—including medical personnel, funeral directors, medical certifiers, and registrars—this should not just be unsurprising but expected.

The process is outlined in the CDC’s Funeral Directors’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting, which explains how different sections of a death certificate are assigned to different parties. The medical certifier provides details like the time and date of death, cause and manner of death, and autopsy information. Meanwhile, the funeral director enters personal information like the decedent’s name, date of birth, residence, and place of death. The medical examiner then adds any additional medical details before the certificate is filed with the state registrar. Nowhere does it stipulate that everyone involved must use the same typewriter—or even a typewriter at all.

Examining Noah’s death certificate—especially when compared to Adam Lanza’s—you’ll see that the variation in typefaces makes perfect sense. For instance, all personal information appears in one typeface, suggesting it was entered by the funeral director. Meanwhile, details regarding the cause and manner of death appear in a different typeface, as they would have been entered by the medical certifier. This is logical, expected, and fully consistent with how death certificates are processed.

“For example, look at the very top in Box 3, where the date is posted. Why is that type clearly smaller than the rest of the page?” pg. 182

Yes, the type in Box 3 is smaller than some of the other type because it was done on a different typewriter. However, the size of the type in Box 3 is entirely consistent with other instances of this typeface (presumably entered by the medical certifier), as seen in Boxes 37, 38, and 49. Most of the entries using this typeface are letters rather than numbers, so there isn’t much numeric data for comparison:

“Now look at the capital ‘A’ in Box 12 for Residence (Alpine). It is identical to the capital ‘A’ in Box 22 for Mailing Address (Alpine). It is also identical to the capital ‘A’ in Box 33 for Funeral Home.” pg. 182

Yes, that’s correct. All of those items were entered with the same typewriter. Once again, these items logically group together and would have been entered by the funeral director.

“Note that the capital ‘A’ in question above in three different boxes has a small flag at its pinnacle. Compare that to the capital ‘A’, without the small flag in Box 4, Time of Death, Box 26, City or Town, Box 27, County of Death, and Box 39, Time Pronounced, and in Box 46, Time of Injury.” pg. 182

Yes, this type is different from the entries made by the funeral director. However, these five “A”s all match one another and correspond to items that would have been entered by the medical certifier.

“Compare Box 1, ‘Noah,’ with Box 7, ‘November,’ and you will clearly see that the spacing between the ‘N’ and the ‘o’ is quite different.” pg. 182

Yes, the kerning in Box 1 is different from that in other items, and it’s also crooked while the rest are not. So what? Maybe they typed his name and then, realizing it was a bit wonky, fixed it. There’s no explanation offered as to why this is supposed to indicate a hoax. If the document were forged, wouldn’t it make infinitely more sense for them to have typed it up in one go, using a single typewriter or computer?

“Compare Box 1, the ‘N’ in ‘Noah,’ with Box 26, the ‘N’ in ‘SANDY.’ They are clearly different.” pg. 182

Yes, they’re completely different type, produced by two completely different typewriters. Box 1 would have been entered by the funeral director, while Box 26 would have been entered by the medical certifier.

“Compare Box 1, ‘Samuel,’ with Box 11, ‘Sandy,’ and again, the spacing between the ‘S’ and the “a” is clearly not the same.” pg. 182

Second verse, same as the first.

“Compare the name “Pozner” in Box 1 with “Pozner” in Box 20, clearly not the same.“ pg. 183

Same exact type, same exact size, different kerning. Again, so what? There’s nothing suspicious about slight kerning variations, especially on documents created with typewriters.

“Moreover, Noah Pozner’s ‘death certificate’ states that ‘No autopsy was performed’, while the ‘official report’ states, ‘All the victims were given autopsies’. We know they cannot both be true. It would be tempting to presume that one of them is accurate and the other a mistake. But insofar as they are both predicated on the presupposition Noah Pozner and 19 other children actually died at Sandy Hook, they both appear to be false.” pg. 183

The death certificate does state that no autopsy was performed, and that’s accurate—Noah’s family chose not to have one for religious reasons. Meanwhile, Alison Peters mentions in the official report (Book 9, 00274772.pdf) that “I received the autopsy reports for the twenty-six (26) victims of the Sandy Hook School Shooting.” Master researchers Fetzer and Watt stop there, satisfied with their narrative, instead of investigating further. Actually resolving discrepancies isn’t profitable for their scam.

Unlike Fetzer, Lenny Pozner sought clarity. He emailed Dr. James Gill, Connecticut’s Chief Medical Examiner, who provided an explanation:

Dear Mr. Pozner,

We define “autopsy” as an external and internal postmortem examination. When the internal examination is not done, we call this an external examination or external postmortem examination. Unfortunately, in my cover letter to the State Police, I incorrectly used “26 autopsy reports” and this was then later included in the State Police report. I am sorry for the confusion this has caused you and I have contacted Alison Peters of the State Police to let her know.

You can view their correspondence on SandyHookFacts.com.

Fetzer, however, saw his lies come back to haunt him in November 2018, when Lenny Pozner sued him for defamation regarding Noah’s death certificate. Despite Fetzer’s confidence in court, Circuit Judge Frank Remington ruled against him and co-defendant Mike Palecek. They returned to court in October 2019 to learn how much they owed. Representing himself, Fetzer floundered so spectacularly that even he approached self-awareness:

Fetzer later acknowledged that the original reasons he called the death certificate a fake were mistaken but claimed other deficiencies with the document proved it was fabricated.

Pages 183 to 186 shift to a submission from “Kelly.” Whether this is “Kelley Watt,” the chapter’s supposed co-contributor, is unclear—the spellings don’t even match. Fetzer outsourcing yet another chunk of his book, though? That tracks.

“Kelly” claims to have spoken with Lenny Pozner for five weeks, demanding intensely personal items to “prove” Noah existed. When Lenny provided them, she dismissed it all as fake. Fetzer speculates that this “Lenny” could have been an actor, somehow with access to private family photos, because sure, that’s logical.

Here’s what’s truly bizarre—at least to rational people: “Kelly” expects sympathy. She recounts how, after admitting she donated to Lenny’s charity solely to join a future lawsuit against it, Lenny finally had enough and cut ties. Clearly, in Fetzer-world, Lenny is the bad guy for not indulging someone acting in bad faith.

As expected, this story includes a couple of patently false claims:

“The following Monday he sent me an email telling me to check my inbox and sure enough, much to my surprise, he had posted all the things I asked for on his lenpoz.com website. However, the photo was not of his wife in the hospital, nonetheless, he did post a photo of Veronique with the two newborns in her arms. The death certificate I believe stated he was ‘never married’ which I thought odd.“ pg. 184

Why is that odd? Death certificates are standardized forms used for everyone, whether they’re six or sixty. There’s a box on the form for the deceased’s marital status at the time of death. What exactly was the medical examiner supposed to do in this case? Leave it blank? By that logic, should they also skip the box asking about military service?

It’s clear that Kelly, like Fetzer, is desperate to invent a scandal out of thin air.

“Speaking of his wife I asked him about Veronique working for the State Department in some capacity to disarm the country of Switzerland and he told me she never worked for the State Department but was a nurse, to which I asked for her nursing certificate (which he sent). Since Veronique’s mother worked for the UN, I decided to call the office in the US Embassy and disguised myself as a foreigner to ask for Mrs. Veronique Haller. I was told that ‘she had left her post in 2013’ (after she had been discovered working there for gun control in Switzerland).“ pg. 184

SandyHookFacts.com has this one covered. Needless to say, it’s complete nonsense.

“Meanwhile, Noah’s mother has claimed that she has released a photograph of his body. But no one I know can find it. So where is it?” pg. 186

More nonsense; Veronique Pozner has never made such a claim. SandyHookFacts.com covered this one, too. If you don’t feel like scrolling to the bottom of the linked article, here’s the short version: “Kelly” appears to be confusing a comment made by the mother of Emmett Till with Veronique Pozner—a pretty stunningly stupid mistake to make.

Next: Chapter Twelve: “Every Grain Of Sandy Hook: Snopes.com & Plausible Deniability” by Sterling Harwood