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

“Nobody Died At Sandy Hook”
Chapter Five
By: “Vivian Lee, PhD”

This chapter was a real slog to get through. At thirty-three pages (Illuminati alert!), it’s the longest yet—and it’s packed with, well, filler. This section actually began as an article on the rancid Veterans Today site, which was already two years old by the time it was reprinted here. Lee insists the content is “still as valid as ever.” Let’s see if that holds up.

“Gene Rosen Fox News live interview of December 18, 2012, now known to have been filmed in front of a green screen, with the ‘everyone must check in’ sign inserted in the background.” pg. 57

Known by whom? And how? Lee’s only source is a YouTube video. Believe it or not, at one point they charged $20 for this book but didn’t bother explaining what’s supposedly shown in that video. If they can’t even clarify it, why should I?

But I do have one question: why would anyone need to fake this? Gene Rosen lives literally next door to the firehouse where the sign was placed. If they wanted it in his shot, he could just step outside. So why go to the effort of a green screen, only to digitally insert something visible from his window? It makes no sense. And if the sign were supposed to “prove” a drill, wouldn’t they make a point to keep it out of sight?

Besides, we know the sign didn’t appear until the 15th, so how would it be relevant to a drill allegedly happening the day before? Here’s a photo from my Chapter Four fact check, taken the morning after the shooting (after Fetzer’s attempted bait-and-switch). Notice the absence of any “check in” sign:

Conspiracy theorists love to say that the Sandy Hook case is “full of inconsistencies,” but nonsense like this only insults everyone’s intelligence. I hate to give Fetzer and Lee editorial advice here, but if these signs are supposedly required at mass casualty drills, then why haven’t they included a single photo in this entire book to show that?

“The final report does not even include the names, ages, or sex of the alleged shooting victims. There was no actual identification of any of the dead.” pg. 58

This applies only to minor victims, for what should be obvious reasons. Adult victims, however, were identified. If proof is needed, just download CFS_1200704597.zip from the final report and open 00030920.pdf. The sections on minors are redacted, but details about the adult victims are clear on pages 14, 16, 17, 39, 40, 42, 71, 72, 75, 108, 110, 112, 113, 115, 117, 118, 119, and 133. That’s eighteen pages of material that Lee claims doesn’t exist— and that’s just one document:

If you’re ever wondering why something in the final report is redacted, simply consult the numbers on the redacted page and refer to the report’s redaction index online. There are numerous valid reasons for these redactions, including compliance with state and federal laws, like the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 8b of the Connecticut Constitution.

Moreover, the Connecticut State Police released a complete, unredacted list of all child and adult victims, including their dates of birth and gender, to the public the very next day:

“This pattern of deceit extended to the Newtown Clerk’s secret arrangements with the state legislature to avoid releasing death certificates to the public, attempts to withhold the 911 calls, and gag orders that were imposed on those responsible for tearing down the school building itself.” pg. 59

One man’s “deceit” is another man’s right to privacy, I suppose. But let’s be real—this is mostly nonsense. Death certificates are accessible to anyone with $20 and a stamp, including people like “Vivian Lee” and James Fetzer. For anyone genuinely interested, you can find the necessary instructions on Newtown’s website.

The 911 calls are also public; they’re available as Exhibit 439 in the final report and all over YouTube. Though, for the most accurate representation, it’s best to get them straight from the official source, avoiding any Fetzer-like distortions. Here again, we have Lee falsely insisting that this information isn’t available.

And yes, the contractors who demolished Sandy Hook signed NDAs. This was to prevent anyone from sneaking out photos or even chunks of the building. There’s a disturbingly high demand for macabre “souvenirs” from tragedies, and without NDAs, any unscrupulous worker could cash in. Given the disgraceful behavior of Sandy Hook deniers, this precaution was, if anything, wise:

Sandy Hook ‘truther’ caught in Virginia with signs stolen from playgrounds built for Newtown victims

Florida professor taunts Sandy Hook parents and accuses them of faking kids’ massacre for money

Man accused of harassing Sandy Hook staff over shooting ‘fabrication’ faces judge

Brooklyn man yelled that Newtown massacre never happened to family of slain Sandy Hook Elementary School teacher Victoria Soto

Besides, if this supposed “conspiracy” really managed to pay off an entire town to keep silent, as this book claims, then why not simply extend that to the contractors? You could pay them to say whatever you want. They could tell the press it was the most tragic, haunting scene imaginable, for instance.

“No photographic evidence or video footage was released to confirm the official story that these 28 persons actually died.” pg. 60

This material absolutely exists—and for good reason, it remains securely with the authorities. Under Connecticut state law, certain types of evidence related to violent crimes are restricted from public access, particularly material that could compromise privacy and dignity:

“Any record created by a law enforcement agency or other federal, state, or municipal governmental agency consisting of a photograph, film, video or digital or other visual image depicting the victim of a homicide, to the extent that such record could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of the victim or the victim’s surviving family members.”

Lee is quick to claim a lack of evidence but overlook how state policies and basic human decency shape access to it. By insisting on this material, Lee is either disregarding the law entirely or just exploiting its absence for sensationalism.

“No video surveillance footage shows anything—not even Adam shooting out the front plate-glass window or walking through the halls like Rambo, even though the school had supposedly updated its security system at the start of the 2012–2013 academic year.” pg. 60

Lee’s claim that the security system was installed in 2012 is blatantly inaccurate—it was actually installed six years earlier, in 2006, as documented in Newtown’s Building & Site Improvements section of the Superintendent of Schools Annual Report for fiscal year 2007. On page 10, the report details the installation of “front entry security” at three schools, including Sandy Hook:

If Lee had done even minimal research, she’d have found this. Superintendent Dr. Evan Pitkoff even discusses this new system in an October 2006 Newtown Bee article, explaining it was a response to prior school shootings:

“As of today [October 3], all of our elementary schools have a buzzer system to gain entry into the building,” Dr Pitkoff added.

Instead, Lee cherry-picks a Hartford Courant article from December 14, 2012, which doesn’t mention an installation date at all. This kind of oversight shows either a complete lack of diligence or an intentional disregard for the facts.

The security system at Sandy Hook functioned exactly as designed, forcing Adam Lanza to shoot out a front window to gain entry. Contrary to conspiracy theories, the system didn’t include video recording capability—Newtown evidently didn’t see this as necessary for their elementary schools. Just as previous school shootings prompted Newtown to add a front entry security system to Sandy Hook after 56 years without one, this tragedy likely influenced many schools to install comprehensive video monitoring and recording systems.

“The best the authorities could come up with was a heavily redacted ‘final report’ (December 2013) that includes numerous photos of the inside of the school, with a few dings identified as bullet holes, several bullets and casings on the floor” pg. 60

From my Chapter One fact check, here are the pages from Walkley’s scene photos (available as part of the final report) that show the following:

Bullets and bullet casings: 103-110, 113-117, 119-125, 433-443, 447, 465-466, 469-471, 473, 481-482, 484-485, 488-489, 495, 499, 502-504, 644, 680, 713, 721, 735-737, 739-743
Bullet holes and bullet damage: 54-61, 404-431, 448-454, 513, 622-624, 626-630

It’s clear that the damage goes far beyond “a few dings” and “several bullets.” And that’s only one set of photos—Meehan’s shots of the parking lot (pages 51, 62, 81, 100, 118, etc.) reveal even more bullets, casings, and what we might call “dings” (or, more accurately, holes).

And if this scene were staged, scattering some extra bullets and casings around would have been almost trivial. Police departments certainly have no shortage of access to those, right?

“Compounding the situation, the parents were not allowed to view their children’s bodies to identify them. Instead, they were reportedly shown photographs of the deceased.” pg. 61

This is largely true, so congratulations all around. The information comes straight from the medical examiner (who, despite being dismissed as untrustworthy and even accused of impersonation earlier, is now suddenly reliable). Because of the horrific injuries, parents were indeed shown photos to identify their children at first—a standard procedure in cases of severe trauma. From an article on Everplans titled How Identifying A Body In Real Life Is Nothing Like TV Or Movies:

FACT: Most identification is done via photograph in a comfortable sitting room.

No dramatic reveals here. In fact, the photograph is often presented to the witnesses face down, and the chief medical examiner or morgue attendant calmly explains what they’re going to see to minimize shock.

Considering the circumstances—many children were shot multiple times, including head wounds—this approach makes sense to anyone with a reasonable understanding of reality. Families could still view their children’s bodies afterward.

And as evidence of a “drill”? If this had all been staged, with parents supposedly “in on it,” why not just say they identified the bodies in person? A coordinated charade like this would hardly have skipped such a simple detail.

“Remarkably, the state has done its best to avoid releasing the death certificates and even recordings of the 911 calls. Death certificates were eventually ‘released’ but not to the public or those who might want to investigate the case further” pg. 61

And we’re right back to the nonsense.

This claim is unequivocally false. Anyone with $20 and an address can order any death certificate they want from the town of Newtown, including Adam Lanza’s and those of his victims. “Investigators” like Vivian Lee could have ordered these at any point, but there’s no evidence they bothered. Some “researchers,” indeed.

Their claim also ignores that the 911 calls were released and are readily accessible in the official report (exhibit 439). It’s as if they skipped the most basic steps in their “investigation” because that would mean dealing with the inconvenient reality that the documentation exists.

“One Sandy Hook researcher decided to call Lt. Paul Vance to ask who cleaned up the blood, which would have been considered a bio-hazard, and got the reply, ‘What blood?'” pg. 63

Ah, yes, the infamous “What blood?” phone call—conveniently unrecorded and unverifiable. Top-tier sourcing here.

Meanwhile, the actual final report lists exactly who handled the cleanup: Clean Harbors, Inc. This is clearly documented in Book 2, file 198991.pdf:

School Clean Up

On 12/28/2012 at approximately 0800 hours, I was contacted by dispatch and informed that the CSP were at the Sandy Hook School and that they needed the gate opened. I took the key from the Sgt. office and went there. I was met by Det. Ray Insalaco and members of the moving company which had been there during the week. Det. Insalaco indicated that the CSP were finished with the school and wanted to turn the school over to the Newtown Police. We walked through the school, which
had not yet been cleaned. I spoke with Gino and Dr. Roberts from the Board of Education. We discussed the effected area and decided that all items in the hallway were to be destroyed. Clean Harbors was the vendor that the FBI had assigned for the clean up of the scene. I contacted Thomas Wilson of Clean Harbors and scheduled them to begin the clean up of the scene on 12/31/212. I notified the Chief and Captain of this as well. At 1300 hours, Det. Insalaco gave me the keys to the school. By 1500 hours, everyone was out of the school and I checked the interior. I found several unsecured doors and a leak in the roof. I secured the doorways and notified Gino of the leak. I then secured the exterior and gate, and brought the keys to Chief Kehoe.

On 12/31/2012 I met Wilson of Clean Harbors at the school. All members of his team were instructed not to bring phones, camera, or other electronic devices into the school. They all stated that they understood and complied. The workers included Jake Lori, Bill Wass, Matt Jones, William Wendal, Tom Wilson, and James Pikul. The truck drivers were Christopher Drugoins and Kevin Tingley. I monitored the work, and they left the school at 1530 hours.

If that’s not enough, Sandy Hook Facts even has a partial copy of the invoice available, just for the doubters:

“Outside Sandy Hook Elementary, tarps were laid out, but not even the black tarps for the dead were used, much less the red ones for those who needed immediate treatment” pg. 64

But there’s a red tarp right there:

Even more baffling, the very photo Lee offers as an example doesn’t even meet her own supposed standards for what a “real” triage scene should look like:

So where are the black tarps, Vivian?

Let’s take a closer look. The photo Lee shows here (which, like nearly everything else in this book, goes uncredited) captures the aftermath of the 2008 Chatsworth train disaster, where a commuter train and a freight train collided head-on, killing 25 people and injuring 135—a far cry from the four initial survivors at Sandy Hook. Given this scale, it’s no wonder the scene looks a bit different. At Sandy Hook, three critically injured victims (two children and one adult) were rushed to Danbury Hospital, where the children were later pronounced dead, while the remaining deceased were declared by EMS inside the school and moved to a covered mortuary tent in the parking lot.

Now, about those red tarps. There were, in fact, several red tarps in use, despite Lee’s selective claim. She cherry-picks a photo showing just one triage area (and, ironically, that one does include a red tarp). What she conveniently omits, though, is that a secondary triage area was also set up at the firehouse, as is standard protocol. And why skip that one? Likely because it clearly shows kindergarten teacher Deborah Pisani—the only adult survivor not rushed to the hospital—on one of these supposedly “missing” red tarps, her injured leg wrapped and elevated on a white folding chair:

Here’s a closer view, captured from a video posted by the Wall Street Journal:

And, in case it wasn’t clear enough already, the same white folding chairs and a green or grey SUV—parked in exactly the same position—appear in both photos. These details establish continuity between the scenes and verify the presence of an actual triage setup, complete with the red tarp.

Ms. Pisani’s injury is also confirmed at timestamp 10:17:07 in the radio call log:

10:17:07 “Gunshot wound to the left foot, need transport, but she’s conscious and alert.”

As well as in her own statement to police (see Book 5, 00258013.pdf):

My left foot was injured, and my shoe was removed. I think it was at the entrance to the parking lot. It is a Sketchers, size women’s 10, and from my left foot. My foot was the only part of me injured.

Additionally, dash cam footage from Officer Liam Seabrook captures a Newtown police officer helping Deborah to the triage area:

This is further corroborated by EMT and Newtown Ambulance volunteer Chelsea Fowler, as documented in her statement (Book 6, 00002134.pdf):

“The only person who was wounded was a teacher who was shot in the foot. I was talking her down to the treatment area when a group of students came running out of the school. One of the students yelled out to her to ask if she was ok, and she responded ‘I’m just fine, I only sprained my ankle!'”

It’s remarkable how these verifiable details were overlooked—especially by authors claiming to conduct a thorough investigation.

“There were no first-hand accounts that proved anyone was killed or injured.” pg. 64

It’s beyond laughable—it’s outright absurd. The final report includes a wealth of firsthand accounts from paramedics, police officers, teachers, parents, and other individuals directly involved in the immediate aftermath. This collection of detailed, documented testimonies confirms injuries and deaths without question.

For Fetzer and his contributors to suggest otherwise is, quite simply, an exercise in pure denial. This isn’t investigative work; it’s deliberate ignorance of a mountain of evidence. I’d call it twaddle, but that might even be generous.

“No emergency vehicles were present at the school or even lined up in the fire lane for a rescue attempt—the parking lot was filled with parked cars, police cars and possibly media vehicles.” pg. 65

Lee’s claim falls apart under even the slightest scrutiny. By the time many of these widely circulated photos were taken, the most critically wounded had already been transported to Danbury Hospital. The remaining ambulances, which weren’t required for additional transport due to the devastating number of fatalities, were stationed at the firehouse, not the school.

In fact, there’s photographic evidence showing at least eight ambulances parked outside the firehouse, alongside Deborah Pisani in the secondary triage area. This critical context, naturally omitted by Lee, shows a coordinated emergency response where resources were positioned appropriately. The scene she describes is a selective misrepresentation, dismissing the actual emergency logistics in favor of creating doubt:

Some can be seen driving past the firehouse later in the same footage:

“This protocol appears to have been followed at Sandy Hook, where many participants wore ID/identification badges on lanyards…” pg. 66

This is a clear case of conspiracy theorists grasping at straws. The “badges” on the nuns are just identification from the nearby St. Rose of Lima School, where they work. The most common example passed around in conspiracy circles shows two nuns wearing badges on lanyards:

The nun on the right is Sr. Thaddeus Rajca, the religious coordinator at St. Rose of Lima School. She’s even featured on the “Leadership” and “Achievements & Accreditation” sections of the school’s website. Here she is, posing with students and wearing the same badge and lanyard (photo):

For additional verification, here’s a close-up of her badge taken from that photo:

Sr. Rajca was also photographed comforting the McDonnells on December 14, 2012, at 2:22 PM, as confirmed by the image’s Exif data:

This larger, high-resolution image offers a clear view of her badge, which we can compare to the St. Rose of Lima School crest:

For yet more verification, here she is at Newtown’s “The Ice Cream Shop,” wearing the same yellow St. Rose of Lima badge and lanyard, with the St. Rose crest clearly visible:

“Water is available in quantity at the Firehouse” pg. 66

Oh no—water, and in quantity? Truly suspicious. In reality, with so many people at the scene, water was brought in to keep everyone hydrated, just as in any major emergency response. Here’s someone, reportedly from the Ladies Auxiliary of Sandy Hook, captured on police dash cam footage arriving with water around 12:21 PM—a little late for a “drill” that supposedly began hours earlier, wouldn’t you say?

In fact, bottled water was also delivered to emergency responders at Columbine, which, as it happens, James Fetzer does not claim was a drill:

1:11 – 1:29 p.m. Command requests that the American Red Cross respond to the scene to assist both with victim’s families and with the food and rehydration needs of the emergency responders. Command receives bottled water from local retail stores for emergency responders.

Source: http://ispub.com/IJRDM/5/1/12573

Red Cross representatives are en route to scene. LFD acquires bottled water from local stores to hydrate on-scene personnel.

Source: https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-128.pdf

Maybe all of these things that Lee and Fetzer allege to be “standard” for drills—water, emergency services, and triage—are actually just… standard for any real emergency.

“An emergency preparedness drill took place on December 14, 2012 (9:00 am – 4:00 pm ET), in Bridgeport, CT, which is a 20 minute drive from Sandy Hook. The course, ‘Planning for the Needs of Children in Disasters,’ was run by the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection/Emergency Management and Homeland Security.” pg. 67

Well, Google says it’s a 28-minute drive, but who’s counting? Certainly not anyone contributing to this book! Hopefully, Vivian Lee, PhD, isn’t suggesting we break the speed limit!

As for the rest, it’s partially true, which is quite an achievement here. FEMA’s course IS-366 (now IS-366.A) is indeed a real course—but it’s just that: a course, not a drill. And for anyone wondering, it runs every 2-3 weeks and does not involve crisis actors. It’s actually more like this:

Pretty mundane, right? And in case the course title isn’t clear enough, “Planning for the Needs of Children in Disasters” focuses solely on natural disasters, not shootings, bombings, or anything similar. You can read the course overview for yourself or even take it online, if that’s your thing.

“And a FEMA Mass Casualty Drill, ‘Emergency Response for Mass Casualties Involving Children,’ was scheduled to take place on December 13 or 14, 2012 (location unspecified). The exercise was to target the following capabilities: Mass Prophylaxis, Mass Death of Children at a School by Firearms, Suicide or Apprehension of Unknown Shooter, Use of Media for Evaluation, and Use of Media for Information Distribution.31 This may have been the script for the Sandy Hook ‘shooting.” pg. 67

This part, however, is pure, unfiltered bullshit. There is no drill or course by that name in FEMA’s training catalog—likely why the book’s source is another conspiracy blog rather than FEMA’s website, which lists all official courses and events. Lee and Fetzer are convinced they’ve stumbled upon the “manual” for this fictional drill, but they’re either being swindled or are in on the deceit themselves.

More on this fantastical “FEMA manual” can be found here and here.

“In addition, tweets about the shooting began before it occurred, a tribute was apparently uploaded one month before the event, and web pages honoring the victims, including a Facebook page R.I.P. Victoria Soto, were established before they had ‘officially’ died” pg. 67

It’s clear James Fetzer isn’t the only one here who doesn’t understand the Internet.

“Tweets” and a single Facebook page are about as specific as these claims get here, so let’s address them:

When you create a Facebook page, you can change the name or subject as often as you’d like, while the original “created” or “joined” date remains the same. In the case of the R.I.P. Victoria Soto page, it was simply an existing Facebook page renamed as a tribute, leaving the creation date unchanged by design. I even set up a blank Facebook page back in 2013 (now the Crisis Actors Guild Facebook page) just to show how this works. The timeline will take you back to years before the page’s current purpose, which is exactly what happened here.

Lee provides no specific examples of these supposed “anomalies,” but Google’s time-stamping is well-known to be inconsistent. If you don’t believe me, Google it—just don’t trust the time stamps.

For Twitter, timestamps often show up in Pacific Time, as the company is based in San Francisco. So it’s no surprise that any “prophetic” tweets consistently show up exactly three hours early. For example, here’s a screenshot I took last night at 10:54 PM Eastern, showing a 26-second-old Hartford Courant tweet as having been posted at 7:54 PM Pacific:

Lee seems to half-understand this but cowardly buries it in a footnote:

It is still unclear whether the time stamps on these early tweets reflect Eastern or Pacific Standard Time.

So it’s “unclear” to them, but they still printed it as fact.

These claims always emerge after the event, but somehow no one ever seems to notice these tweets “hours” before the events unfold. If it were true, wouldn’t you expect replies like, “It’s 6 AM—what are you talking about?” Instead, the replies are normal because the claim is pure nonsense, born of technological ignorance.

As a bonus, actor Alec Baldwin ran into this “Central Time bug” issue after accusations surfaced about Mrs. Baldwin tweeting during James Gandolfini’s funeral. A Network World reporter empathized with him after falling victim to the same bug, years after it was supposedly “fixed.”

“An evidence collection team and a policeman are shown finding the shotgun in the trunk of Lanza’s Honda Civic— the policeman handles the gun without gloves and ejects the ammunition on the spot, destroying evidence in the process.” pg. 69

Total bullshit. Lee chooses a single grainy still from a poor-quality video, taken at a time in which the lighting makes it appear almost as if the officer may not be wearing gloves. But there are other moments in the video where it’s clear that he is:

“It should of course be noted that Adam Lanza was initially listed in the Social Security Death Index as having died on December 13, 2012, one day before the alleged shooting.” pg. 70.

The conspiracy theorist who “discovered” this claims to have found it through Genealogy Bank, which pulls its records from the Social Security Death Master File. Here’s a disclaimer from the SSDMF website’s “Mandatory Requirements” section:

To all subscribers purchasing the Social Security Administration’s (SSA’s) Limited Access Death Master File (DMF):

As a result of a court case under the Freedom of Information Act, SSA is required to release its death information to the public. You, as a subscriber/purchaser of SSA’s Death Master File (DMF) are advised at the time of initial purchase that the DMF does have inaccuracies and SSA does not guarantee the accuracy of the DMF. SSA does not have a death record for all deceased persons. Therefore, the absence of a particular person on this file is not proof that the individual is alive. In addition, there is the possibility that incorrect records of death may have been entered on the DMF.

Errors: If an individual claims that SSA has incorrectly listed someone as deceased (or has incorrect dates/data) on the Limited Access Death Master File (DMF), the individual should contact his/her local social security office (with proof) to have the error corrected.

In other words, even the Social Security Administration acknowledges that information in the Death Master File can be inaccurate—which it was in this case. The date has since been corrected.

“Lanza was reportedly found dead wearing a bulletproof vest and military-style clothing.” pg. 70

Adam Lanza was not wearing a bulletproof vest. That’s 100% incorrect. Lt. J. Paul Vance clarified this himself, describing the item in question as “a fishing type vest, a jacket with a lot of pockets.” The final report confirms it was an olive-green Eddie Bauer vest which, last I checked, is not exactly bulletproof:

As for the rest of Lanza’s attire, here’s what he was actually wearing: a black Old Navy polo layered over a black Hanes ComfortFit t-shirt, black Propper cargo pants (with both a belt and suspenders), black Nunn Bush oxfords, black Toesox fingerless exercise gloves (not quite standard issue), and a black Flexfit fisherman’s hat. And yes, conspiracy theorists even claimed that this hat didn’t exist in 2012—until Flexfit’s CEO personally debunked that nonsense. So while Lanza’s clothes were black, calling them “military-style” is quite a stretch.

“As Mike Powers, a professional military investigator and ballistics expert, has observed, this young man of slight build could not have carried all these heavy, bulky weapons and ammunition on his person. Furthermore, since first responders were supposedly inside the school within seven minutes, there was not enough time for Lanza to have carried out the shooting as reported. In an interview with Joyce Riley, Powers states that Lanza could not have fired so many times continuously without destabilizing himself from the intense noise from the Bushmaster. As a novice, he could not have shot an AR–15 with such speed and accuracy, supposedly changing magazines 4–5 times without a stoppage. For a real person shooting an AR–15 and what it entails, see Redsilverj’s ‘Sandy Hook Hoax Ultimate Case Closed'” pg. 70

All those heavy, bulky weapons? You mean that one seven-pound rifle and two pistols weighing less than 2.5 pounds each? Super heavy, right?

The truth is Adam was carrying 10.87 pounds of weapons and 19.62 pounds of ammunition, totaling 30.47 pounds. And though he only needed to carry it for less than 10 minutes, sure, that might sound like a lot for someone who weighed 112 pounds. But let’s remember, he was known to play “Dance Dance Revolution” for hours—4 to 10 at a time, actually. Plus, the load was well-distributed.

According to the final report, Adam carried four rifle magazines and six pistol magazines in his vest pockets (around 8.75 pounds). His pants, supported by a belt and suspenders, held four rifle and four pistol magazines (7.27 pounds) and his 2.15-pound Sig Sauer. His 1.72-pound Glock was holstered. In total, it’s hard to argue this would have been too much for him to handle during the brief assault, given the limited physical ground he needed to cover.

As for “destabilizing himself” from the noise? Not sure what that even means, honestly, but Lanza—who spent hours on end playing “Dance Dance Revolution”—was wearing earplugs during the attack.

“As a novice, he could not have shot an AR–15 with such speed and accuracy, supposedly changing magazines 4–5 times without a stoppage.” pg. 70

Based on what? And a “novice” by what metric? Adam’s mother, Nancy, was an experienced shooter who shared her hobby with her troubled son. The two of them “shot frequently” and visited at least three local ranges, where Adam had hands-on experience. In fact, they even attended basic firearm safety classes at one range as early as four years before the Sandy Hook shooting. The final report includes details from an eyewitness who, at Nancy’s request, had given Adam some “pointers and tips” on shooting her AR-15:

Yes, Adam reloaded frequently, but he sometimes only fired 15 rounds out of a 30-round magazine.

“According to Lt. Vance on the night of the shooting, one victim survived. So in less than seven minutes—or less than five minutes according to the media—Lanza killed 26 people and then himself, producing only one injured victim.” pg. 71

I can’t confirm what Lt. Vance said here because there’s no source for the quote, but this claim is wrong regardless—there were actually two injured survivors: teachers Deborah Pisani and Natalie Hammond. Pisani was injured by a ricocheting bullet, which absolutely makes her an injured survivor by any reasonable standard. Hammond, meanwhile, sustained multiple, more serious injuries. Additionally, two severely wounded children were rushed to Danbury Hospital but were tragically pronounced dead there.

Armed with a semi-automatic assault rifle, Adam shot his victims—most of them five- and six-year-old children—multiple times. This grim reality sadly explains why most were killed instantly. In a particularly tragic scene, the children from Lauren Rousseau’s class, accounting for 15 of the 20 child victims, were found huddled together in a small bathroom where they had tried desperately to hide.

“Mike Powers thinks the whole scenario is a physical impossibility. He is not even convinced that Adam Lanza was a real person.” pg. 71

“Oddly, considering the horrifying details of the alleged massacre, as well as Adam’s own suicide by shooting himself in the head with the Glock handgun, the 2013 final report photos show no obvious traces of blood or gore on Adam’s clothes, hat, gloves, or shoes” pg. 71

Once again, Lee’s selective use of photos only paints a partial and misleading picture:

In her attempt to make the absence of visible blood a “mystery,” she ignores a large number of images from the official “Walkley – shooter’s clothing.pdf” where blood on Adam’s clothing is entirely visible.

For example, let’s compare Lee’s chosen images of Adam’s shoes with this close-up:

And for his gloves, here’s one with blood spatter plainly evident:

Instead of these, Lee opted for distant, low-resolution photos of both gloves, making it virtually impossible for any reader to discern blood or other details.

Moving to Adam’s pants, we can see blood spatter clearly marked in this photo:

Lee’s version, on the other hand, avoids this clear evidence, preferring more ambiguous images that help bolster her bogus narrative.

Regarding Adam’s shirt, consider the condition of his body. He was found lying on his right side with a large pool of blood on his right, as noted in the final report:

In one classroom I noticed a young male laying on his right side in a fetal position. His body was about three feet in from the door to the left. Someone yelled out that he was the suspected shooter. It appeared that he had his hands cuffed behind his back. I noticed a large pool of blood spreading from the right side of the suspect’s head.

This positioning explains the blood patterns on his clothing. Here’s a close-up of his black Hanes undershirt—another photo Lee did not include—where blood can clearly be seen on the right side:

The blood evidence on Adam’s clothing isn’t just visible—it’s documented in detail in the final report. According to Supplemental Report: Exhibit #83: Shooter’s Clothing Processed, on page 5, it describes:

This t-shirt was worn under polo-style shirt. There was an unknown physiological-type fluid on the right shoulder area of the shirt. A swabbing of the unknown physiological-type fluid on the right shoulder was tested using Phenolphthalein (Kastle-Meyer) blood presumptive test which yielded positive results.

This description aligns with the images of Adam’s black Hanes t-shirt, where blood is clearly present on the right side, consistent with him lying on his right.

As for the black Old Navy polo, the blood may not be as pronounced due to the darker fabric, but it’s still clearly visible upon closer inspection:

And though his FlexFit hat was likely blown off in the act, a closer look reveals blood, hair, and even traces of brain matter both on the outside and inside:

While redacted images prevented us from seeing Adam’s vest, the existing photos thoroughly undermine Lee’s selective and deceptive presentation of the evidence.

“Lanza had reportedly compiled a spreadsheet 7 feet long and 4 feet wide in 9-point type detailing 500 victims of other mass murders. We are supposed to believe this, and, at the same time, that Adam Lanza was a shy, quiet kid who didn’t like noise and chaos.” pg. 72

Let’s clear this up: Adam Lanza’s infamous spreadsheet was not “7 feet long and 4 feet wide.” This was a digital document found on one of his hard drives. But hey, I guess “7 by 4” sounds scarier, right?

And why would a quiet, noise-averse person be unable to make a spreadsheet? Actually, creating spreadsheets is an isolated, quiet activity—pretty much the opposite of “chaos.” Adam also loved “Dance Dance Revolution,” which he played for hours on end, and he was intensely fixated on mass murders, especially school shootings.

This type of repetitive behavior is a key symptom of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). As Autism Speaks notes:

Repetitive behaviors can take the form of intense preoccupations, or obsessions. These extreme interests can prove all the more unusual for their content (e.g. fans, vacuum cleaners or toilets) or depth of knowledge (e.g. knowing and repeating astonishingly detailed information about Thomas the Tank Engine or astronomy). Older children and adults with autism may develop tremendous interest in numbers, symbols, dates or science topics.

“Anderson Cooper is the interviewer in two notable instances: his conversation with the McDonnells mentioned above, and an interview with Veronique Pozner, remarkable for its green-screen effects such as Anderson’s disappearing nose.” pg. 73

This claim isn’t just wrong—it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how green screen technology actually works. Anderson Cooper’s nose wouldn’t just “disappear” because he was in front of a green screen. The technology is designed to key out specific colors, typically green or blue, and unless his nose is the same shade, there’s no reason it would vanish.

What’s actually happening here is compression artifacting, a common effect in low-resolution, compressed online videos (like those found on YouTube). When detail is lost in compression, you might see flickering or bits of “disappearing” edges, especially around areas like noses, glasses, or hairlines.

But even setting that aside—why would CNN or Anderson Cooper need to use a green screen for an interview in Newtown? Anderson could easily have conducted these interviews in person, as he regularly does. This isn’t just my take, either. Forensic video analyst and expert witness Grant Fredericks weighed in on this claim, stating that “no credible video professional, editor, or web-content specialist would conclude” this interview was filmed in front of a green screen.

“The nurse said that the gunman was the son of the kindergarten teacher, who was known to her and ‘an absolutely loving person.'” pg. 73

This claim is flat-out deceptive, and it relies on misrepresenting both the context and wording of Sarah Cox’s statements. Cox, the school nurse at Sandy Hook, never claimed that the gunman was the son of a kindergarten teacher. This was actually an early rumor repeated by reporter Andrea McCarren, who spoke to Cox not long after the shooting. Understandably, details were scarce and conflicting in the immediate aftermath, and McCarren simply repeated hearsay when she asked Cox if people at the school knew of Lanza and if he “had any problems.”

At that time, it wasn’t clear that the rumor about Lanza being the son of a kindergarten teacher was false. If McCarren was talking to Cox—which seems likely—it’s plausible that Cox herself hadn’t yet pieced together the full picture, given the chaos and trauma she had just witnessed.

For years, conspiracy theorists have harassed Cox with unfounded accusations. At one point, they even alleged she wasn’t a licensed nurse in Connecticut, only to realize they had been looking up the wrong name.

“In an embarrassing fiction, The Newtown Bee reported on December 14, 2012, that Dawn Hochsprung, the Sandy Hook school principal, told the paper that a masked man had entered the school with a rifle and started shooting multiple shots—more than she could count—that went ‘on and on.’ Of course, Dawn Hochsprung was allegedly killed by Adam Lanza and so could not easily have provided this statement.” pg. 74

The Newtown Bee fucked up. They fixed it. It happens.

“In fact, Dawn was said to have acted heroically, dying while lunging at the gunman—although one wonders who witnessed and reported this act of heroism.” pg. 74

The truth is that Natalie Hammond, a survivor who was right beside Dawn Hochsprung, witnessed and reported what happened. It’s not a mystery, nor is it something shrouded in ambiguity. Hammond confirmed that Hochsprung charged at the shooter in a heroic attempt to protect her students and colleagues. From the Wikipedia entry on the shooting:

Principal Dawn Hochsprung and school psychologist Mary Sherlach were meeting with other faculty members when they heard, but did not recognize, gunshots. Hochsprung, Sherlach, and lead teacher Natalie Hammond went into the hall to determine the source of the sounds and encountered Lanza. A faculty member who was at the meeting said that the three women called out “Shooter! Stay put!” which alerted their colleagues to the danger and saved their lives. A teacher hiding in the math lab heard school janitor Rick Thorne yell “Put the gun down!” An aide heard gunshots. Thorne survived. Lanza killed both Hochsprung and Sherlach. Hammond was hit first in the leg, and then sustained another gunshot wound. She lay still in the hallway and then, not hearing any more noise, crawled back to the conference room and pressed her body against the door to keep it closed. She was later treated at Danbury Hospital.

Hammond shared her first-hand account with officers Peters and Mudry in an interview:

Hammond stated that when leaving the room to enter the hallway, it was Dawn first, Mary second, and she was 10 ft behind Mary, with Dawn and Mary running together… Mary and Dawn were already on the ground and she knew that she knew they were gone. The shooter was standing about a foot or two away from them, practically on top of them.

Source: Investigation Report 1200704559-00040126 (Book 5, 00040126.pdf)

So, not only is this “who witnessed it?” question absurd, it’s also well-answered by reliable sources.

Honestly, you have to wonder if Lee is genuinely clueless about such basic facts or if she’s banking on her readers not fact-checking her claims. Or maybe it’s a bit of both?

“Gene supposedly harbored six children who ran away from the school, rode to his house on a school bus, sat down on his lawn and proceeded to cry and tell him that their teacher, Miss Soto, was dead. Strangely, Rosen took the children inside and gave them some toys to play with, instead of calling 911 like any normal person.” pg. 74

This version of events is almost entirely fiction.

Here’s what really happened: an off-duty bus driver, who wasn’t in a bus at all but in her own car, saw the four children who had escaped from Victoria Soto’s classroom on Riverside Road and stopped to help them. Gene Rosen, who lives next to the firehouse on Riverside, saw the situation and came out to assist as well.

Rosen, a retired psychologist, didn’t just sit around playing with toys. He got phone numbers from the children, reached out to their parents, and ensured they were all reunited. It’s baffling that Lee omits these key details, making it sound as though Rosen was just aimlessly entertaining children rather than ensuring their safety and contacting their families.

“The Gene Rosen videos are important for the official narrative, in that they corroborate many of its details… These incriminating videos are some of the best evidence that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax.” pg. 75

So, Gene’s interviews are supposedly proof of a hoax because they… corroborate the official story?

When there are inconsistencies, it’s proof of a hoax. And now, when there aren’t any inconsistencies, it’s also proof of a hoax. With logic like this, you really can’t win with these people.

“The only photo we have seen of any children being evacuated from the school was apparently taken earlier in the fall during a drill—no coats, smiling faces, leaves remaining on a few trees.” pg. 75

The children weren’t wearing coats because they had taken them off upon arriving at school—just as any kid does. They’d already stored them away before being forced to flee from a gunman. In an emergency like this, you’re not exactly running back to grab your coat. Didn’t a self-proclaimed “school safety expert” consult on this scam of a book? Seriously.

You can actually see some of the kids’ coats (along with their backpacks) hanging in Walkley’s scene photos:

Officer Rachel Van Ness also notes how cold (as well as terrified) the kids were in her report (Book 6, 00001113.pdf):

This Detective was then directed by someone to approach the building and begin escorting the children out and through the parking lot as they were released by Officers from within the building. This Detective ran to the sidewalk by TFC Gregg and observed the first group of children being led out of the building along with several staff members and teachers. The children were holding onto each other’s shoulders from behind and walking in a single file line as directed. This Detective observed that many of the children were crying and frightened, in addition to being cold…

As far as smiling goes… take a look at the girl in the blue top and tell me if that looks like a “smile” to you. And how about the girl behind her, in the dark blue? Does she look like she’s having fun?

And these are the “leaves” that Lee speaks of:

Yeah, that’s it: that tiny bit of green above the armed officer by the dumpster.

Now, I’m certainly no botanist, but I’m relatively certain those are conifers, and Sandy Hook is surrounded by them. In fact, here’s what the other side of the school looks like:

A number of them can even be seen in the photo Lee misattributed to December 14 (the one that was actually taken on the 15th):

And you can also see a handful of them in this snowy photograph taken exactly one year after the shooting:

Jeez, if only there were some kind of tree that kept its green needles all winter long. Imagine how popular a tree like that would be around Christmastime! People might even decorate it with lights and ornaments!

“No one’s breath has condensed into visible vapor (although the recorded temperature was 28 degrees F and frost appears on the ground in other photos).” pg. 76

This is 100% pure nonsense. The temperature wasn’t 28°F when this photo was taken, but, predictably, “Vivian Lee” provides no source for her claim about the weather. Unlike her, I actually care about the truth, so here it is:

The weather for Sandy Hook/Newtown, Connecticut on Friday, December 14, 2012:

It had already risen above 28°F before 4 a.m. By 10 a.m.—when the school was evacuated—it was around 36°F.

“Indeed, another photo appeared (Figure 29), showing what appears to be a preliminary staging for the famous ‘iconic’ photo released worldwide. Here also is the line of students but in a somewhat different order.” pg. 76

No, they’re just different students.

This claim hinges on the idea that two children appear in both evacuation photographs, as though the school would “re-use” two of the kids and swap out the rest. Why would anyone do this? Who knows—but this is what James Fetzer, “Vivian Lee,” and a discouraging number of conspiracy theorists seem to believe.

Lee makes the bizarre claim that these two children:

Are the same as these two children:

Other than some superficial similarities in clothing, it’s clear these are different students. Let’s break it down:

Set #1 – The children in the black shirts:

• Clothing: The boy on the left wears a long-sleeved black shirt or sweatshirt with a large design on the front—an unknown character with a red skateboard, no visible text. The other boy’s shirt has a logo or design with “South” visible at the top, followed by something like “Fat” or “Fal.”
• Hair: The boy on the left has bangs sitting evenly across his forehead, while the boy on the right has his hair swept up and off his forehead.
• Shoes and items: The boy on the left wears light blue running shoes with a tapered sole, similar to New Balance shoes, and has nothing in either hand. The boy on the right wears dark grey sneakers with a uniform sole, holds papers in his right hand, and wears noticeably darker jeans.

Set #2 – The children in grey shirts:

• Clothing: Both boys wear long-sleeved grey shirts or sweatshirts, with the boy on the right appearing to have a collar.
• Hair and facial features: The boy on the left has light brown hair, while the other has much darker hair, though both have similar cuts. Their facial features are significantly different.
• Pants and shoes: The boy on the left wears black or dark blue athletic pants with a bright blue stripe down the leg, paired with light grey sneakers with thick white soles. The other boy wears dark blue athletic pants with silver stripes just below the knees (on his left leg, at least) and black sneakers with a thin sole.

You’d have to be certifiably nuts to believe these are the same kids.

“But how did he get past the furniture, with all his weaponry, without moving anything out of position?” pg. 77

In this chapter alone, Lee claims that Adam is both too small to carry three weapons and somehow too large to fit between a table and chair.

When he entered the school, Adam actually did move things—a flower stand (circled in yellow below) was toppled, and a magazine rack was shifted, as visible in the crime scene photos:

Beyond that, he had plenty of space to maneuver between the furniture. As has been explained, he carried the Bushmaster while his pistols and ammunition were secured in his vest and pockets, so they wouldn’t have hindered his movement:

“Most of the individual images of the children released to the media are peculiar—numerous images have a curiously similar background of green foliage” pg. 78

Yes, it’s almost like they all went to the same school and a photographer came in on a scheduled day and took photos using the same backdrop. Like every other school in existence has done since the beginning of time. Here—this was one of the first Google results for “school yearbook page”:

What a “curiously similar” background.

School picture day, Vivian. Look into it.

“Emilie’s red-and-black dress appears in both: once worn by Emilie in a Photoshopped family photo and then supposedly worn by her younger sister Madeline for the photo-op with Barack Obama.” pg. 78

As expected, Lee provides zero evidence that this photo has been “Photoshopped” or edited in any way.

Other Parker family photos have been edited in the sense that they are composites, pieced together from multiple shots taken during the same session to achieve the best result. Emilie’s mother, Alissa, has even discussed this on her blog and provided all the unedited photos from a different family session. This is incredibly common, especially with young children in family photos.

Both of Emilie’s younger sisters—the then-four-year-old Madeline and the then-three-year-old Samantha—met and were photographed with President Obama during his visit to Newtown shortly after the shooting. But what exactly is Lee implying here? That Madeline is actually Emilie? Or that a younger sibling couldn’t possibly wear the same dress as her older sister?

The family photo of Emilie in the red dress was taken in 2010, two years before she was killed, which means she would have been four at the time—the same age Madeline was when she met Obama. So what’s more likely here? That Emilie was still alive two years later and somehow able to fit into the same dress, or that her younger sister, now the same age Emilie was when she wore that dress, simply wore Emilie’s hand-me-downs?

In case there’s still any doubt, here’s a photo of a six-year-old Emilie Parker in 2012:

And here’s a photo of Madeline, age four, meeting President Obama in 2012:

“Photos of Victoria Soto have emerged as Photoshopped creations. Images of Soto were inserted into photographs in which she did not originally appear, and several shots of her face were created from a single photo.” pg. 78

As usual, there’s zero proof to back up this claim that any images of Victoria Soto were manipulated, digitally or otherwise. The only source cited for this supposed revelation? A YouTube video.

There are, in fact, multiple real photos of Ms. Soto, including several taken inside the school:

“The well-known photograph of Soto’s class of first grade students is an elaborate composite, released in a small format, low quality image. Soto is wearing the exact same outfit seen in another photo with green foliage background, although there she faces the other direction; that image was merely flipped and inserted into the class picture.” pgs. 78-79

Boy, these folks sure have a lot of nerve accusing anyone else of releasing “small format, low quality” photos, considering how common it is for conspiracy theorists to rely on blurry, compressed images to make their “discoveries.”

As for their claim that this is a “composite”—a composite of which images, exactly? Unless they can actually produce the photos supposedly used to create this “elaborate” forgery, the accusation is baseless.

Now, about Vicki wearing the same outfit in both photos: yes, she is, but that’s hardly proof of anything beyond her liking it. Reader “Heather” offers another reasonable explanation:

I also wanted to comment on Victoria wearing the same clothes in the class photo as she is in the foliage photo. There’s actually a more compelling reason for it other than she just liked that outfit. Teachers sit for their individual photo on picture day and then they pose with their students for the class pic which is given out with the student’s purchased photo package. That explains why she’s wearing the same outfit in both. If we saw the foliage photos for each of those kids in the class photo, I guarantee they’d be wearing the same clothes in both photos.

And the claim that her image was “flipped” for the class photo? Absolutely laughable.

Let’s start by looking at the class photo:

And here’s the “green foliage” photo:

Now let’s flip the foliage photo and compare it to the class photo:

Not much of a match, is it? Not even close. Vicki consistently parts her hair to the left, as seen in every single photo of her. Flipping the foliage photo changes her part to the right, but nothing else aligns—the angle, shadows, necklace, hair, smile, eyebrows, and so on. Just another easily debunked conspiracy theory.

“In doing so the creators had to reconstruct her right hand and did so poorly, cutting off her thumb with a vertical line. Ann Marie Murphy was also inserted, and her hand too is problematic.” pg. 79

What exactly is “problematic” about Vicki’s hand here? The fact that you can’t see her thumb because she’s standing nearly sideways? Were all of these teachers “Photoshop hacks” too?

Vicki’s hands aren’t even visible in the “foliage” photo, so why would there be any need to “reconstruct” them? And from what, exactly, would they be “reconstructed”? The foliage photo cuts off above her elbows, so there’s no mysterious body part to clone or manipulate into the class photo. If anything, it would mean they already had a full image to begin with.

And what about Ann Marie? There’s no “foliage” photo of her, so what exactly makes her hand so “problematic”? Are we supposed to ignore the natural shadows on the stage in the class photo too?

“The hands of the children are blurry, their eyes are fuzzy, and square and rectangular defects appear on their faces—all unnoticeable in a small image but readily seen when enlarged.” pg. 79

Does Vivian Lee, PhD seriously not understand how image compression works? Just a page ago, she was complaining that this exact photo was “released in a small format, low quality image,” and now she can’t seem to figure out why the small hands—and even smaller eyes—of the children look blurry when you enlarge it.

Maybe this will help, “Dr.”

“In a likely sloppy slip-up, a photo of a real child, Lily Gaubert, who is apparently alive and well, was promoted in the media as an image of Allison Wyatt, an alleged victim. Lily’s mother supposedly discovered the error and made it public via Flickr.” pg. 80

Yes, it was a slip-up, just not the type Lee’s implying.

This mix-up seems to have occurred solely on the website of WJLA 7, ABC’s Washington, D.C. affiliate. So while technically “promoted in the media” is accurate, it’s a stretch to imply it was widely propagated.

The original page no longer exists, but we can still view it through the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine to see the site as it appeared on December 31, 2012, the oldest available snapshot:

https://web.archive.org/web/20121231055035/http://www.wjla.com/pictures/2012/12/connecticut-shooting-victims-portraits/allison-wyatt-6–28622-1952.html

And that’s clearly Allison Wyatt. Interestingly, WJLA credited “musegal2, YouTube” as the source for Allison’s photo, whereas the other victims’ images are credited to their families or the Associated Press. While the video no longer exists, a YouTube user “musegal2” did create a tribute to the Sandy Hook victims soon after the tragedy. They mistakenly used a photo of Lily Gaubert instead of Allison Wyatt, and WJLA, unable to find a verified photo of Allison, seems to have simply lifted it from that video.

“The ridiculously fraudulent photographs of Adam Lanza clearly do not depict a real person” pg. 80

They “do not depict a real person”? What on earth does that even mean? Are they suggesting he’s computer-generated, or maybe a mannequin? There’s no explanation, no evidence—just a wild claim thrown out with the expectation that their audience will swallow it without question.

“As with Ground Zero after 9/11, Sandy Hook Elementary and all the evidence have been completely obliterated” pg. 81

That’s not how it works. All evidence was thoroughly collected and removed before Sandy Hook Elementary was demolished.

Lee would have you believe that tearing down a 56-year-old building—where twenty-seven people, most of them young children, were murdered—is somehow suspicious. But this decision was made by the residents of Newtown. And, historically, it’s consistent with how similar sites have been handled:

• The Nickel Mines, PA schoolhouse where five Amish students were killed
• The San Ysidro McDonald’s where James Huberty shot and killed twenty-one people
• The Dunblane school gym where Thomas Hamilton shot and killed sixteen students
• John Wayne Gacy’s house
• Jeffrey Dahmer’s apartment building
• The Petit family home in Cheshire, Connecticut
• BTK’s home in Park City, Kansas
• The library at Columbine High School, which is where Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed ten of their twelve victims
• The off-campus residence in Moscow, Idaho where four University of Idaho students were murdered in November of 2022
• The Soham, Cambridgeshire home where two schoolgirls were murdered in August of 2002

Let’s not overlook Fetzer’s own contradictions. He’s publicly claimed that Columbine was a legitimate event, yet if his logic holds, that school’s demolition would have to mean there was something to hide, right?

“This would never have been tolerated if an actual crime had been committed—at least one that was meant to be investigated.” pg. 81

Except the investigation was already completed. That’s why they were able to release a final report.

“Employees who worked on the project were required to sign nondisclosure agreements. They were not only prohibited from removing anything from the site, but they were forbidden from discussing publicly anything they may have observed or not observed during the demolition, such as an absence of bullet marks on the walls or blood on the floor of the classrooms.” pg. 81

The obvious reasons for an NDA were already covered.

Crime scene photos show both bullet marks and blood. In the Walkley scene photos alone, blood is clearly visible on pages 73, 365, 428, 473, 475, 636, 663, and 665. Blood likely appears on pages 71, 495, 622-624, 626-627, and 643. For example, pages 622-624 and 626-627 show the ceiling of room 10, where Lanza killed himself, suggesting the blood there may be his. Pages 636 and 665 also show blood—possibly brain matter—above the whiteboard in the same room. Adam’s body is partially visible on page 161, and the carpet nearby may contain his blood. Between Lanza’s body and the stool, there’s also something pretty gory.

Fetzer claims these bullet marks were made with a drill, but to a construction worker, bullet and drill holes would look the same.

“This is underscored by an article in the Newtown Bee, clear acknowledgment that Sandy Hook Elementary was old, unsafe, and not up to code at the time of the alleged shooting.” pg. 82

The Newtown Bee never, at any point, suggested that Sandy Hook was unsafe for occupancy. You can read the article for yourself. What it actually reported was that levels of hazardous materials in construction debris were higher than anticipated, which is entirely different from a building being uninhabitable. After all, the kids didn’t show up every day ready to learn in a pile of construction rubble.

“Research has resulted in a ‘Sandy Hoax Surprise,’ a convincing youtube video by QKultra identifying eight alleged Sandy Hook victims and six brothers of victims singing in the Newtown children’s choir at the 2013 Super Bowl, February 3, 2013.” pg. 82

This might just take the prize as one of the dumbest claims of all time—across nearly every conspiracy theory I’ve ever come across. But what do you expect when the source is an anonymous YouTube user named “QKultra”?

The most cited example here, shown in a YouTube still, is of Dawn Engel. Or rather, two girls Lee insists are Dawn Engel:

Apparently, Lee thinks her readers are too clueless or too unobservant to notice that these girls look nothing alike. But if the low quality of the example photo isn’t clear enough, here are higher-quality images of Olivia Engel and the girl who actually sang with the Sandy Hook Elementary School choir:

“The newly recognized victims are all older than they appear in the photos released at the time of the ‘shooting,’ giving credence to the theory that the victims’ photos we were shown were outdated images.” pg. 84

Or—and bear with me here—it could be because they’re not the same kids.

You can read more on this ludicrous claim here and here.

“The children in the Newtown choir, whoever they are, seem quite happy to be singing at the Super Bowl, smiling and running across the field after the event—giving no sign of the trauma they had suffered less than two months prior.” pg. 84

Lee’s claim here essentially boils down to, “We don’t know who these kids are, but we’re pretty sure they shouldn’t be happy singing at the Super Bowl.” This kind of baseless, subjective nonsense—built entirely on their personal expectations of how children should act—unfortunately forms a large portion of their argument.

“‘The “shooter’ Adam Lanza had no apparent motive, as even the 2013 final report acknowledged” pg. 84

The claim that the report “acknowledged” Adam Lanza had no motive is simply not true. The term “motive” only appears twice in the State’s Attorney’s report, and neither instance suggests that Lanza’s actions were without any basis. The report states that while no clear indication exists as to why he targeted Sandy Hook, it does not dismiss the possibility of a motive, saying:

The obvious question that remains is: “Why did the shooter murder twenty-seven people, including twenty children?” Unfortunately, that question may never be answered conclusively, despite the collection of extensive background information on the shooter through a multitude of interviews and other sources. The evidence clearly shows that the shooter planned his actions, including the taking of his own life, but there is no clear indication why he did so, or why he targeted Sandy Hook Elementary School.

That’s a critical distinction. It indicates a gap in our understanding, not an absence of reason. Given what’s known about Lanza’s severe mental health issues, preoccupation with mass shootings, and access to firearms, there’s certainly enough context to suggest motive. Not every murderer has a clear-cut rationale, and many have motives that remain obscure or deeply personal. Consider cases like Israel Keyes or Brenda Ann Spencer, where no straightforward “why” has ever fully emerged. The article “Homicide without an apparent motive,” published in Wiley’s Online Library, identifies cases from just such a category—homicides where motive isn’t discernible, but evidence of planning and premeditation is.

“$50 million in Connecticut state funds allocated for the destruction of Sandy Hook School and rebuilding of a new school on the premises.” pg. 85

Actually, it was $49,250,000, but who’s counting?

We’ve already addressed this in Chapter Two. It turns out that demolishing an aging school building and constructing a new one—especially in a way that respects the sensitivities surrounding a tragedy—comes with a significant price tag. There’s nothing shocking here; it’s just the reality of major public works projects.

“And the Support Fund/United Way posted its condolences on December 11, 2013, which was three days before the actual event.” pg. 85

So here’s the choice: either Google occasionally has inconsistent timestamping—which is something a Google engineer has openly acknowledged (see below)—or a non-profit charity somehow gained advanced knowledge of a realistic “drill” in Newtown, CT, decided it was real (or passed it off as such), and inexplicably posted about it beforehand.

We can quickly demonstrate Google’s timestamp quirks. Simply search for “Sandy Hook conspiracy theory” with results limited to 2011. You’ll see multiple conspiracy sites pop up, some referencing events that happened well after the shooting—like James Tracy’s firing from FAU or James Fetzer’s involvement—yet inexplicably timestamped before December 14, 2012. I doubt “Vivian Lee” thinks these sites had foreknowledge of the tragedy (or of James Tracy’s firing).

Also, as usual, these timestamp “anomalies” never seem to surface before an event occurs, which would indeed be something remarkable.

“The families have also raised additional funds through private organizations with their own websites—some of which were apparently advertised on the web in advance of the shooting.” pg. 85

See above.

“A 2014 Connecticut report on charitable donations lists organizations such as The Animal Center, Inc., Newtown Forest Association, Inc., Sandy Hook Arts Center for Kids, and Angels of Sandy Hook Bracelets, all raising funds for Sandy Hook Elementary.” pg. 87

Charities raising money for children who were tragically murdered? Suspicious indeed!

If the mere existence of charities proves a conspiracy, then I guess cancer is a hoax, and no one in the world is starving.

“The continuing media blitz has created an impression that the Sandy Hook hoax was all about gun control. Meanwhile, however, the gun industry has benefited immensely.” pg. 87

True, gun sales surged after Sandy Hook—just as they do after every mass shooting. So maybe, just maybe, this was all orchestrated by the firearms industry? Now that would actually make some sense, wouldn’t it? But clearly, it’s far too logical for the conspiracy crowd to consider.

“Beyond all these agendas, the Sandy Hook ‘massacre’ was an exercise in trauma-based mind control” pg. 90

And there it is: the grand finale of delusion. According to this theory, the whole Sandy Hook “massacre” was really just a “trauma-based mind control” exercise. Because, of course, that’s the most plausible explanation for the deaths of twenty-six people, including twenty children.

Next: Chapter Six: “Even Obama Officials Confirmed That It Was A Drill” by James Fetzer