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

“Nobody Died At Sandy Hook”
Chapter Twelve
By: Sterling Harwood

“Carver said one can control the situation better by using instead photographs of the dead to identify the victims, depending on the photographer. Snopes.com said that what Carver meant was that one can use a photograph of the face to identify the victim without showing wounds to the body of a child. This, however, hardly depends on the photographer; this depends instead on the shooter and where he shot the child. If the shooter shot the child in the face or even shot the identifying features of the child’s face off, then the photographer wouldn’t matter one little bit.” pg. 188

Much of this is totally irrelevant, as there’s no indication that Adam Lanza shot anyone’s “identifying features” off. Not that it would matter much anyway, as there are, of course, other ways to identify a body. As explained in CFS 1200704597, 00118939.pdf:

The victims were first identified by assigning them a numeric number 3 thru 26. ([Redacted] and number 27 was assigned to the shooter). Then an assigned “OCME number” was written on a tag with their previously assigned numeric and was placed on each victim. Photographic and written scene documentation was completed capturing clothing worn, location of victim, and assigned “OCME number” with identifying photographs of the victim. (NOTE: Prior to processing, the victims were observed to have “triage tags” previously laid upon their bodies by EMS personnel denoting their deceased status).

Once documentation was complete, the victims were placed into a body bag with their associated OCME case number written on the bag while their OCME tag was left on the ground in the place the victim was found. Each victim was carried out of the school and into a large military-style portable tent location within the north parking lot of the school in close proximity to the front lobby. Each victim was then processed by the OCME in an effort to make a positive identification of each victim, using school photographs and clothing descriptions provided by the parents of the children yet to be accounted for.“

“Suspiciously convenient, if not implausible, is Dr. Carver’s role in changing the law about a year before the Sandy Hook massacre to allow keeping the names of murdered minors secret. The names of the murdered minors did come out within about a day or two anyway, but why have such a law except to give the authorities unneeded time to get their story straight?” pg. 188

First, let’s address the glaring inconsistency in Harwood’s claim. The entire premise of this book is that the events of December 14, 2012, were part of a “drill” planned over at least four years. So why would the authorities suddenly need an extra 24 hours to “get their story straight”? Are we supposed to believe that in four years, they somehow failed to come up with a simple list of twenty names? And he wants to talk about implausibility?

As for the actual timeline, the victims’ names were released by the Connecticut State Police—who were in charge of the case—on Saturday, the day after the shooting, not “two days later.” The delay occurred because the victims needed to be positively identified, and their families notified. This is standard procedure, understood by anyone who has ever followed a criminal case or even read about a fatal car accident. From The Huffington Post:

Police knew the names of the victims Friday, but officials said they were pending positive identification by the state medical examiner’s office.

Regarding Harwood’s vague mention of a supposed law change in 2011, he’s likely referring to statutes that prevent the names of minor victims from appearing in public records, such as final reports. These include:

• CGS § 1‐210(b)(3)(B): Identity of minor witnesses
• CGS § 1‐210(b)(11): Names/addresses of students enrolled in public school
• CGS § 1‐210(b)(2): Personnel/medical/similar files, invasion of personal privacy
• US/CT Constitutions: Right to privacy (US Const. Amend. 14) and/or Victim Rights (CT Const. Art. 1 Sec 8b)

The first three statutes are FOIA exemptions, but information on their exact enactment dates is scarce. However, Article 1, Sec. 8b of the Connecticut Constitution—pertaining to victim rights—was adopted on November 27, 1996.

So, no, there’s nothing “suspicious” here—just more of Harwood’s desperation to spin mundane facts into sinister conspiracies.

“Dr. Carver is worth additional investigation if only due to his cryptic remark that he hopes future disclosures don’t come crashing down on the heads of the people of Newtown (search YouTube.com with the key words of Carver’s name and “crashing down on the heads of the people of Newtown”). Over what disclosure could there possibly be negative consequences crashing down on the heads of the people of Newtown? No investigation or piece of journalism has yet pinned Dr. Carver down on that.” pg. 189

Except that’s not what Dr. Carver said. Here’s a partial transcript with some much-needed context (gasp!) provided:

Question: “Sir, obviously by the nature of your job, you deal with horrible things at times. Is this one over the top? Is this one a bit different than the things you’ve dealt with before, sir?”

Carver: “Did everybody hear the question?”

Unidentified Man: “No.”

Carver: “It was given what I deal with all the time, is this one over the top. I’ve been at this for a third of a century. And it’s my sensibilities may not be the average man. But this probably is the worst I have seen or the worst that I know of any of my colleagues having seen. And that all the more makes me proud and grateful to our staff who to a man have just behaved most professionally and strongly and I hope they and I hope the people of Newtown don’t have it crash on their head later.“

It’s clear Dr. Carver—likely exhausted and conducting his first press conference ever—is expressing hope that everyone involved continues to handle the tragedy with professionalism and strength for the sake of the victims, their families, and the community.

And if the idea that Dr. Carver is publicly warning the people of Newtown about their supposed “hoax” being exposed wasn’t absurd enough, why would he do so mere seconds after describing the scene as “the worst I have seen” in his 30+ years? If this were all a hoax, with no one killed, what exactly was “the worst” about it?

Lastly, why instruct readers to “search YouTube” rather than provide an actual transcript or a link to a reputable source? That’s lazy at best and downright deceptive at worst, since searching for something he never said will inevitably return conspiracy videos as results. Sadly, this kind of manipulation is par for the course in this sham of a book.

“Snopes.com does a great job of plausible denial by diversion to a related issue. The main issue is why Rosen and a bus driver would babysit six children traumatized by seeing their teacher shot dead in front of them without calling the police to take custody of the children immediately.” “Again, would you sit idle for half an hour if six children and a bus driver wandered into your yard and told you a tale of a murder going on, or would you immediately dial 911?” pg. 189

The claim that Gene Rosen sat “idle” for half an hour is not only absurd but flat-out false. This accusation follows the same ugly pattern of blatant lies and libel aimed at a good Samaritan who has endured years of harassment from unhinged conspiracy theorists.

According to the bus driver’s statement (CFS 1200704559, 00003250.pdf):

All of the children wanted to contact their parents or have [redacted] drive them home, and that along with the man’s [Rosen’s] help, they asked the children for their phone numbers.

Gene Rosen elaborated further in his own statement (CFS 1200704559, 00257146.pdf):

Rosen stated he and [redacted] tried to call a few of the telephone numbers that some of the children verbally gave them to contact their parents, but that he believed many were home telephone numbers and he wasn’t able to reach anyone. Rosen stated that [redacted] called her supervisor at the bus company and gave the supervisor the names of the children present, and stated that the supervisor was able to contact at least some of the parents, some of whom began arriving at Rosen’s house within 10 to 15 minutes later to collect their children.

So no, Rosen wasn’t “idle” for half an hour. Parents began arriving at his house within 10–15 minutes, and the remaining children were taken to the nearby fire station and turned over to State Troopers already on the scene.

As for the assertion that Rosen didn’t personally call 911—so what? How does that remotely suggest a drill? Plenty of people did call 911, and those calls are publicly available for download. You can find them here.

This desperate attempt to villainize someone who helped traumatized children is as shameful as it is predictable.

“Now consider the case of what snopes.com admits is an unidentified man seen with a gun in the woods near the school on the day of the massacre, as reported in the Newtown Bee newspaper. Snopes.com reassures us that a reliable local law enforcement source says that the armed man at or near the scene of the crime was only an off-duty tactical squad police officer from another town. But this so-called (implicitly anyway) innocent explanation raises about 100 more questions than it answers. What was his name? Why can’t we know his name? Why was he armed? Why was he armed when he was off-duty? Why did he decide to spend his off-duty hours prowling the woods where a massacre was to occur or had just occurred?” pg. 189

Why do I get the distinct feeling that even if those 100 questions were answered truthfully, we’d just end up with 1,000 more?

The identity and actions of this “man in the woods” are explained on page 17 of the Report of the State’s Attorney for the Judicial District of Danbury on the Shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School and 36 Yogananda Street, Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14, 2012:

A man from New York who was working in a nearby town and went to SHES after an application on his cell telephone alerted him to the situation at the school. He drove to the firehouse and went up to the school on foot. He was taken from the scene of the school in handcuffs and later to the Newtown Police Department. It was later determined that he did not have a connection to the shooting and had gone to SHES to see what was going on.

The report doesn’t mention a firearm, but the Newtown Bee does:

A man with a gun who was spotted in the woods near the school on the day of the incident was an off-duty tactical squad police officer from another town, according to the source.

If he was armed, it’s likely because he was an off-duty police officer. That’s not unusual; most off-duty officers I know—and I know quite a few—carry a firearm. What is strange is the authors questioning why an off-duty police officer, of all people, would be armed, especially in a book claiming the shooting was faked to disarm Americans.

Regardless, police detained, questioned, and ultimately cleared the man of any wrongdoing. That’s the end of it as far as the public is concerned. It may not satisfy Fetzer, Harwood, or their ilk—nothing ever does—but the man is an innocent party and has a right to privacy.

Assisting officers from Connecticut’s Department of Energy & Environmental Protection also detained two reporters “in the woods around SHES.” Do we need their life stories, too? Or does this obsessive nitpicking only apply to conveniently unnamed figures that fit conspiracy theorists’ narratives?

“Now consider the case of another unidentified man. This time the man was detained, handcuffed, and pinned to the ground. He might have been armed but snopes.com evidently thinks that is so unimportant that it fails to say one way or the other. But don’t worry, snopes.com reassures us that police determined he was just an innocent passerby. Snopes.com gives no citation to any source it has for that reassurance. Snopes.com fails even to rely on the prestigious Newtown Bee here, as it relied on before in trying to reassure us about the mysterious, armed tactical squad officer. Further, snopes.com fails to identify which police officer or officers made that determination that the handcuffed man was just an innocent passerby. Snopes.com also fails to give the handcuffed man’s name or physical description at all.” pg. 190

Snopes does provide its source for this information—it’s right there at the bottom of the article (you know, where sources are traditionally found):

The cited article from The Atlantic can be found here. Here’s the relevant section:

We admit it took a bit of digging to discover that others had figured out that the man in question was most likely Chris Manfredonia, the father of a Sandy Hook student, who attempted to sneak into the school after the shooting started. Police can be heard relaying his name over their radios, but few outlets managed to follow up with that detail.

Now, what’s truly funny is anyone involved in this dumpster fire of a book accusing Snopes of being light on citations. Just one page ago, in a chapter completely devoid of footnotes, expert researcher Sterling Harwood was instructing readers to search YouTube for his “evidence.” And let’s not forget: he doesn’t even cite the Snopes article he spends this entire chapter whining about.

Glass houses, folks.

“Police do make mistakes, you know. The man’s name should be recorded in a police report anyway if the police were engaged in due diligence and so his name should come out eventually anyway unless the police reports themselves are being sealed because there was some sort of intelligence operation going on at Sandy Hook around the time of the massacre. Fortunately, The Los Angeles Times on December 14, 2012 reported the man’s name as Chris Manfredonia.” pg. 190

Although redacted, Chris Manfredonia’s name was recorded in the official report, specifically in Captain Jose Rios’s interview. From Book 6, 00043911.pdf:

He arrived with Chief Kehoe’s vehicle and responded to the left side (when looking at the front of the school) of the building where he heard that Officer McGowan and Sgt. Kullgren were out with a male “suspect”, later identified as a parent, [redacted]. Rios took custody of [redacted] and turned him over to an Oxford Constable Ramirez.

The entire Chris Manfredonia incident is well-documented throughout Book 4, 00184096.pdf:

09:39:34 Officer McGowan encounters [redacted] running along the east side of SHES. (Newtown radio)
Officer McGowan: “Yea we got him… they’re coming at me down Crestwood.”
09:40:46 First indication that Officer McGowan has [redacted] in custody on the east side of the school near the playground. (Newtown radio)
Officer McGowan: “67 to S6, do you know if this guy I got here is involved?”
09:41:24: Officer McGowan has [redacted] prone out on the playground of SHES. First time that information is relayed that there is possibly a second shooter (Newtown radio)
09:41:24 Officer McGowan: “I need a unit up here, on the playground side, to secure this party.”
09:41:30 Newtown Sgt Kullgren: “Do you have that person yes, no?”
09:41:34 Officer McGowan: “I don’t know, I’ve got a party on the side, I have him prone out now.”
09:41:39 Newtown Sgt Kullgren: “Roger that, units be aware that we could have a secondary unit.”
Officer McGowan’s transmission draws the attention of the Newtown officers on scene. Officers Chapman and Smith respond from the south side (rear) of the school. Newtown Sgt Kullgren responds from the north side (front) of the school. Newtown Chief Kehoe and Newtown Captain Rios respond from Crestwood Drive. Officer Seabrook responds to the east side of the school upon arrival. (Dash videos and Statements of the officers)
09:44:33 Officer Chapman and Officer Smith complete a check of the perimeter (west and south side) of the school. Officer Smith stated that he and Officer Chapman made eye contact with Officer McGowan at the rear of the school, where Officer McGowan had [redacted] prone out on the ground. Upon realizing that [redacted] was not a threat, they both returned back to the front door (Statements of Officers Chapman and Smith)
09:44:33 Officer Chapman: “Myself and 92 (Officer Smith) checked the perimeter of the school. That party in custody 4901 (Newtown police radio code for unfounded)… we will continue checking.” (Newtown radio)
At this time, Officer McGowan has turned over custody of [redacted] to Newtown Captain Rios. (Newtown radio)
09:48:40 Newtown Captain Rios with (parent) in custody walking from the playground area. (Officer Seabrook’s video) [see below]
09:49:01 Newtown Captain Rios approaches the rear driver’s side of TFC McGeever’s vehicle with (parent) in handcuffs. Newtown Captain Rios walks back to the front of TFC McGeever’s vehicle. (Lt Davis’ video)
09:50:20 Newtown Captain Rios turns custody of [redacted] over to Oxford Constable Ramirez. (Officer Seabrook’s video)
09:51:35 Oxford Constable Ramirez is seen taking handcuffs off [redacted] (TFC McGeever’s video)
09:51:51 Oxford Constable Ramirez escorts [redacted] toward the Sandy Hook firehouse. (Lt Davis’ video)

And while his name is redacted in some places, Manfredonia is referenced in multiple other documents, including:

• Book 6, 00044171.pdf
• Book 6, 00167449.pdf
• Book 6, 00260187.pdf

Finally, his own statement to police can be found in Book 5, 00014498.pdf.

So much for the claim that the incident wasn’t documented properly. This was no “intelligence operation” or cover-up—just a parent desperately trying to reach his child during an unthinkable tragedy.

“There are, however, two more suspicious facts: 1) Manfredonia was wearing camouflaged clothes when spotted in the woods behind the school; and 2) Manfredonia’s home address is ‘directly behind’ the other murder scene, the home of Adam Lanza.” pg. 191

Almost none of this is true. Potentially none of it. Christopher Manfredonia was never in the woods, nor was he wearing camouflage. He was wearing khakis. This is corroborated by multiple eyewitnesses and confirmed by Officer Seabrook’s dashcam video:

As for Manfredonia’s home address, while some sources list him at an address near the Lanza residence, these sites aren’t exactly bastions of accuracy. But even if the claim were true, what does it matter? Adam Lanza and at least one of Christopher Manfredonia’s children attended the same elementary school. Naturally, they’d live near each other because—wait for it—they’re in the same school district. Shocking, I know.

The assertion that Manfredonia’s alleged address is “directly behind” 36 Yogananda is also a stretch. As the map below illustrates, the properties are close but hardly “directly behind”:

And what exactly is this supposed to prove? Even if Manfredonia lived in Adam Lanza’s attic and walked through the woods every morning in a ghillie suit, there’s no explanation as to how this relates to the claim that Sandy Hook was just a “drill.

“Further, it isn’t just Mr. Parker’s laugh: he also takes a deep breath and seems to right himself the way actors do before starting a scene.” pg. 191

Sterling Harwood: full-time attorney, part-time acting coach.

It’s almost as if taking a deep breath is also a completely normal way to calm yourself down.

“It is incredibly weak of snopes.com merely to say that no crisis actor has yet been identified. I would expect snopes.com also at least to say that it has picked up the damn phone and obtained denials from all of the crisis actor firms that any of their actors were working in Newtown on the day of the massacre.” pg. 191

Because surely James Fetzer and Sterling Harwood would have graciously accepted those denials.

Seriously, can you believe this guy is (or was) a practicing lawyer? So much for the burden of proof. “Sure, there’s absolutely zero evidence that these people are crisis actors, and it’s a ludicrous idea, but they definitely are crisis actors, so prove they’re not.” Maybe this is why Harwood was disbarred in 2017:

SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 19, 2016 – A San Jose attorney is facing disbarment for harming clients from the local Southeast Asian community who spoke limited English. Two of his former clients lost their cases – for wrongful death and slip and fall injury – as a result of the professional misconduct.

Sterling Voss Harwood, 58, (bar #194746) has been ineligible to practice law since Aug. 27, after a State Bar Court judge approved his disbarment. The disbarment will go into effect once approved by the California Supreme Court.

Or why his Avvo rating is a dismal 1 out of 10.

By the way, since his disbarment, Sterling Harwood has been earning a living by dancing for nickels in YMCA locker rooms. Now it’s up to him to call every YMCA in the country to obtain denials. Fair is fair, right?

“Finally on this point, snopes.com suggests that maybe the two parents of Sandy Hook victims laughing so soon on video after the respective murders might just be having a crazy reaction. That’s possible, but given how these two parents, Mr. Parker and Ms. Lynn McDonnell, were in the rest of their statements to the media, it surely is implausible. They simply don’t appear crazy yet they laugh, smile broadly, and shed no tears.” pg. 191

Yup, nothing but laughter and smiles from Lynn McDonnell:

“Now I want to turn to puzzling issues that the 15-page entry on snopes.com for Sandy Hook fails to answer at all as far as I can see. Another liquid missing from the scene, besides the tears of any parent, is blood.” pg. 191

Obviously, the bloodiest photos have been redacted. This shouldn’t shock anyone, especially considering:

• Such photos almost certainly depict at least one homicide victim, making them exempt from FOIA disclosure under CGS §1‐210(b)(27).
• They’re presumably horrific and serve no public interest beyond satisfying the morbid curiosity of conspiracy theorists—and nobody cares what they think anyway.

That said, blood from inside the school is still visible in Walkley’s scene photos on pages 71, 73, 365, 386, 392, 393, 428, 457, 473, 622–624, 626, 627, 636, 643, 663, and 665. I may have even missed a few.

You’d think 18 photos would be enough to kill this zombie myth, but apparently not.

“Plenty of blood from, for example, the Manson murders, the OJ murders, Columbine and other murder scenes seems to come out but none at all come out from Sandy Hook.” pg. 192

Some perspective: There are graphic, bloody photos from the Boston Marathon bombing (Google them if you’ve got a strong stomach), but that didn’t stop James Fetzer from penning another garbage book insisting the event was—you guessed it—an elaborate fake. Let’s also remember that when these same ghouls were confronted with blood on Nancy Lanza’s bedding, they called it fake too. So, let’s not pretend that any amount of blood would ever appease them.

For the record, I could locate precisely three bloody photos from Columbine (compared to eighteen in Walkley’s Sandy Hook crime scene photos):

• Blood on the sidewalk as paramedics assist victims.
• Patrick Ireland being pulled from the library window.
• The infamous photo of the attackers’ suicide in the library (illegally leaked and never officially released).

Other Columbine photos show no blood or can’t be verified. So, by these “standards,” where’s the outrage over Columbine being “fake”?

“Snopes.com also has no answer I have seen so far for the fact that there are gaps in the Internet and email usage at the school that suggest the school was not in use regularly but was used only for a drill.” pg. 192

The “Internet usage” claim is a classic that shows two things:

• Old people don’t understand the Internet. Web presence (which is what Sterling is fumbling to reference) is not the same as “Internet usage.”
• It’s already been thoroughly debunked and remains one of the dumbest claims in circulation.

As for the supposed “gap in email usage,” that’s a new addition to this chapter’s nonsense. Unsurprisingly, it’s unsupported by a single source. Big shock—it’s also total bullshit. The Sandy Hook Tragedy: Focus on Facts Facebook page has an overwhelming number of documents, including emails, that shred this point to absolute confetti.

“Speaking of Internet usage, another implausible fact, if the Sandy Hook massacre is totally un-staged rather than any sort of psychological operation or drill, isn’t it implausible for there to have been Internet donation pages set up for some of the victims so soon after the murders of the particular victims were confirmed?” pg. 192

Another ancient claim, also debunked. Also stupid.

“Ask yourself if you would set up such a page asking for money in honor of your dead child in the wake of the violent murder of your child or whether that would be an implausible use of your time so soon after learning of your child’s violent murder at the hands of a madman?” pg. 192

Ask yourself this: who are these parents? Once again, Harwood doesn’t provide a single source or example. While the claim about oddly timed donation pages is as tired as the rest of this book, the examples previously dragged out (at least in these pages) don’t involve any of the victims’ parents.

“Snopes.com also has no answer yet for a young boy interviewed by Dr. Oz on the Dr. Oz show (see the fascinating YouTube.com clip from Dr. Oz’s show) who says that the Sandy Hook emergency was only a drill. Dr. Oz changes the subject immediately instead of doing the more plausible and straightforward thing and asking the boy why he thought it was only a drill or who told him that it was only a drill. I find Dr. Oz’s changing of the subject so fast downright suspicious but maybe Dr. Oz just lacks an enquiring mind or was just obeying a producer’s shout into Dr. Oz’s earpiece to move along to another subject. Maybe a producer shouted into Dr. Oz’s earpiece: Don’t pay any attention to the man behind the curtain or the Sandy Hook victim who said it was a drill, Dr. Oz.” pg. 193

Yikes. A Wizard of Oz joke? Jesus Christ, Sterling, how long were you sitting on that one?

Let’s start with some basics: Dr. Oz’s show isn’t aired live. It’s taped well in advance, and even shows that are “live” often run on a tape delay. So the idea that someone on the show could “slip up,” say something they weren’t supposed to, and have it make it to air is absolutely absurd. Moreover, how incriminating can this supposedly damning clip really be if it’s still available on Dr. Oz’s website?

The interview in question features Sandy Hook third-grader Louis, his mother Lindsay, and his grandmother Cathy. At Louis’s request, Dr. Oz asks him what he remembers about that day. Clearly struggling to recount his experience, Louis replies:

I remember that a lot, a lot of policemen were in the um school. Um. [Big exhale] Well, a lot. I was like [big exhale] like (I’m under/I remember) when it, when we were having a drill, we were hiding under like…

At this point, Louis exhales again—something Sterling Harwood probably considers another sign of “acting.” Louis then pauses. Noticing that Louis is struggling (because he’s a child recounting a traumatic event), Dr. Oz reassures him and asks a simpler question: “What would you like to say to your teachers about Friday?” Even here, Louis continues to struggle and is partially guided through his response by his mother and Dr. Oz.

So what does Louis mean by saying, “when we were having a drill”? There are several plausible explanations:

• He’s recalling an actual drill. Like many schools, Sandy Hook regularly practiced lockdown drills. Louis could be conflating the memory of a drill with what happened on the day of the shooting.
• His teacher reassured the class by saying it was a drill. This is exactly what library clerk Mary Anne Jacobs told the children she hid in a storage closet to keep them calm. From a Washington Post article:

They were children in a place built for children, and the teachers didn’t know how to answer them. They told them to close their eyes and to keep quiet. They helped move an old bookshelf in front of the door to act as a makeshift barricade. They wondered: How do you explain unimaginable horror to the most innocent?

“It’s a drill,” said a library clerk named Mary Anne Jacobs.

Drills they knew. Drills they understood.

• He misunderstood the situation. Other teachers used similar strategies to calm their students. Some read to them (Book 5, 00002236.pdf; Book 5, 00039513.pdf; Book 5, 00256442.pdf; Book 5, 00258279.pdf), while others played games (Book 5, 00006236.pdf; Book 5, 00260314.pdf). It’s entirely possible Louis thought the lockdown was part of a drill.

Ultimately, Louis’s difficulty recalling events and his phrasing aren’t evidence of anything sinister—they’re the behavior of a traumatized child. But hey, let’s not expect Harwood to consider context when it’s easier to spin a bizarre conspiracy theory out of a distressed child’s words.

Next: Epilogue: “The Nexus Of Tyranny: Tuscon, Aurora And Sandy Hook” by Dennis Cimino