“Nobody Died At Sandy Hook”
Appendix D
By: John Lott

I apologize for the bait and switch, but the truth is that I will not be fact checking this chapter appendix. At least not in the way you would expect. Let me explain:

When I started this project back in late December of 2015, my original goal was to expose serial huckster James Fetzer’s latest (at the time – he’s still at it with a new book about the Boston Marathon bombing, of course) money-making scheme – a truly stupid and despicable book about the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting – as nothing more than smoke and mirrors… which is really just a colorful way of saying that it’s ~426 pages of pure, uncut horeshit. It’s a process that has simultaneously been easier as well as more difficult than I had anticipated, which is something I’ll be sure to expound upon once I’m finally finished.

While I may have strayed a bit here and there in order to tackle other goofy “false flag” conspiracy theories as well as claims regarding Sandy Hook that did not make it into Fetzer’s book, I mostly stayed true to my original “vision”. And while the boogeyman known as “gun control” factors prominently into Fetzer’s delusion (it’s all right there in the book’s full, clumsy title), it’s well beyond the scope of this book. It’s of course a highly contentious subject – one that many people are extremely passionate about – and it would really do no good whatsoever for me to discuss it here.

If you haven’t read the book, you’re probably wondering what the hell any of this has to do with anything. As it turns out, these final three and a half pages are simply a reprint of John Lott’s pro-gun “Murder And Homicide Rates Before And After Gun Bans” (although “homicide” is somehow misspelled here), originally published on Lott’s own website: the (arguably misleading) Crime Prevention Research Center. But its inclusion is a bit odd as there is absolutely no mention of Adam Lanza or Sandy Hook anywhere, despite the fact that it was published a full year after the shooting.

Though controversial in his own right (and that’s putting it mildly), John Lott is still a highly visible, very well-known gun rights advocate, and it surprised me that he would not only align himself with James Fetzer and the Sandy Hook denialist cult, but that he would lend his name to such a shoddy, disgraceful product. I scanned the Crime Prevention Research Center website for any mention of Sandy Hook, but I was unable to locate any language that would indicate to me Lott ever believed it to be anything other a legitimate event. His multiple media appearances in the days following the attack certainly seem to back this up. So how did he get mixed up with a dunce like Fetzer? And does he subscribe to the absurd ideas posited by this book, which now carries his name? I decided to drop him a line and find out:

I noticed that you are credited as being a contributor to the book “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook” by conspiracy theorist James Fetzer. Your contribution seems to be nothing more than one of your blog entries, copied verbatim. Was this something you explicitly agreed to, knowing the subject matter of the book?


No more than fifteen minutes later, he replied:

So there you go: in addition to a number of stolen, copyrighted images used without permission or even attribution (I counted four such instances throughout the book), James Fetzer is also stealing other people’s written work for a book that he is selling for $20 ($30 with an autograph!) through his own publishing house.


11 Thoughts on “Fact Checking “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook”, Appendix D

  1. Steve on April 27, 2016 at 4:26 am said:

    Hoaxers like to say Amazon pulled the book because the government pressured it to pull it or something like that.
    This, the copyright violations, is the real reason. Amazon would have been liable had it continued to sell the book.

    • Shill Murray on April 28, 2016 at 12:59 am said:

      Amazon does have content guidelines and Fetzer’s book is so rancid that there are multiple reasons it could have been removed. He claimed there were no copyright issues whatsoever, but that’s obviously bullshit. Beyond this entire “appendix” that he stole from John Lott, there are a number of photographs that he 100% never purchased a license for. He admitted as much when I e-mailed him about it, hilariously claiming “fair use”.

  2. Dear Murray,

    Again thank you for your work. You’ve achieved something quite profound here. It’s no wonder you feel sick of it – having persevered stoically through a complete travesty of shit and at times I’ve felt unclean just reading it.

    Today my country remembers the 35 people murdered 20 years ago at Port Arthur by a skinny little fucker with Aspergers and an automatic weapon. I first heard the conspiracy theories about this event perhaps 10 years ago. At the time, they were mostly reported as being put up by persons closely associated with the NRA, an organisation that seems to do a lot of hand-wringing about laws enacted so many thousands of miles away in Australia. I still believe there’s merit to the original hypothesis about the NRA and its connections to hoaxes.

    In the lead up to Port Arthur, mass shootings in Australia seemed to becoming common place. Strathfield, Hoddle St, Queen St, Surry Hills and Milperra took the lives of more than 70 people in approximately 10 years – just a mere fraction of what happens each year in the US, but frightening to me, nonetheless. Port Arthur also happened only six weeks following the horrific killing of 16 children and their teacher at Dunblane, Scotland. All of these events were perpetrated by idiots who should never have had access to deadly
    weapons. Dunblane and Port Arthur are now also part of the sickening ‘hoaxer’ repertoire.

    Anyway, the gun laws here aren’t really what the NRA make them out to be. Plenty of people have firearms, both licensed and unlicensed. The fact is that you cannot apply for a firearms license unless you have good reason (and those are fairly broad eg collecting), nor can you get a license as a convicted criminal or someone with a documented history of mental illness. Despite this, there are still plenty of shoot-outs between the ‘good guys’ and the bad. The police have a particular propensity for shooting allegedly crazy people wielding knives. (Mostly) men still kill their families and suicide by gunshot is not uncommon.

    Much of my personal interest I think stems from when I was 14 and my best friend’s dad shot her mum ‘five times in the head and neck’ before killing himself with a 22 shotgun meant for rabbit hunting. Her separation from the life she knew and her siblings was something horrible. Her mother was a beautiful lady (and he was a fucken prick who yelled at me for not drying the cutlery properly).

    At 50 now I feel safer. I’ve sent my kids to school, go to work and eat in cafes without worrying too much about random shooters, which was not possible 20 years ago.

    Finally, it should be noted that while the Port Arthur shooter did not have the courage to take his own life on that day, nobody’s learned anything from him. Apparently he’s now obese, still takes pleasure about what he did, in the prison TV room and acts violently toward staff (according to an anonymous source), see: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/real-horror-behind-the-port-arthur-conspiracy/news-story/e679be04cc84b1977dce216b526986b8

    There’s been no revelation about motive. Nothing to give the families closure or peace. Senseless. Many of them must wish him dead.

    I really hope America can find its way through this gun crisis, but looking at recent political developments, I’m not holding my breath (it is amusing tho).

    But as I look daily through the Network’s posts and publications, my heart goes out to the victims of Sandy Hook and my thoughts are always with their families.

    Best regards to you and the Network Murray.

  3. Schminkles on May 1, 2016 at 7:15 pm said:

    I have a theory that he deliberately inserted copyrighted material. He knew it would be found, and that Amazon would pull it. That’s what he wanted, so he could stamp his feet and spit our his dummy over “OMGZ CENSORSHIPS!”

  4. Shill Murray, you are amazing! I really appreciate your wonderful work! About a month ago I wrote about the copyright violations in Fetzer’s book. I just edited that article to include the information that you have provided about Appendix D. The article is at https://screeningsandyhook.net/2016/04/05/censorship-or-copyright-violations/

    • Shill Murray on May 4, 2016 at 1:58 pm said:

      Thanks, Deanna. Same to you. The Sandy Hook research you’ve done on your site is excellent and your takedown of Sofia Smallstorm’s videos in particular really helped to inspire me when I was initially on the fence about starting this project.

  5. Luce Anders on May 4, 2016 at 4:35 pm said:

    Maybe you have something here, but your language is pretty Alinsky-esque: “serial huckster”, “money-making scheme”, “stupid”, “despicable”, “pure, uncut horseshit”. There’s nothing like ridiculing somebody to take them down.

    • Shill Murray on May 4, 2016 at 5:11 pm said:

      Man’s most potent weapon.

      I’m not sure if your comment was meant as a criticism or what, but I’m okay with it either way. There are a lot of other sources out there who have chosen a much more clinical approach and avoid such uh, “colorful” language, but that’s obviously not my style. If someone wants to attack my vocabulary rather than the actual content of the site, I think it says more about them than it does me.

      Also, dreaming up phrases like “waterlogged buttplug” makes me laugh, and you need all the laughs you can get when you’re dealing with material like this.

  6. I have thought a lot about the blatant copyright violations and the probability that it was deliberate so that Fetzer could play the victim card. This is the exact same thing that James Tracy and Wolfgang Halbig have done. Actually, James Tracy seems to be Fetzer’s understudy while Halbig is a long-time con man ready to exploit any situation. This shift of focus (operatives claiming victimhood), serves to take the attention off of the real victims. Given the number of books that Mike Palecek and James Fetzer have each published, I find it extremely hard to believe that they were unaware of the obligations and responsibilities regarding copyright issues. I think the very clever collaboration between Anderson Cooper (CIA/CNN) and his promotion of James Tracy very interesting. That obvious publicity/marketing scheme breached the gap between the so-called truth movement and mainstream broadcasting. Thus more naive people who would never have conceived the idea that Sandy Hook was a hoax were introduced to that ridiculous concept, despite substantial evidence, and then believed the lunatic ideas of Fetzer and his cronies. Many people fail to critically evaluate data and merely accept what others tell them, especially if it is conspiratorial. The real question is – why has there not been any lawsuits against Fetzer that we know of? What entity is protecting him? The average citizen could never/would never pull off a stunt like Fetzer did and get away with it. Consider all of air time and publicity that he has received during which he has played the victim and yelled censorship. That actually gives him street credibility. What entity benefited by this huge shift of focus?

    • Shill Murray on June 6, 2016 at 6:32 pm said:

      I actually e-mailed James and asked him for proof that he had purchased licenses for the many copyrighted images in his book. He ignored my first e-mail but replied to my second, laughably claiming “fair use”. Fair use of copyrighted images in a commercial product? This guy’s ignorance and arrogance truly knows no bounds.

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