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

“Nobody Died At Sandy Hook”
Chapter Eight
By: Allan Powell

“The trucks were from United Van’s Connecticut branch. From the state of the leaves on the trees, the last oak leaves are falling so I would say late October or early November.” pg. 139

Let’s clear this up right away: this photo—like nearly every photo through page 142 of this chapter (save one)—comes from Detective Peter Farr’s scene photos, all of which were indisputably taken on December 17th, 2012. This timeline is fully corroborated by CFS 1200704597, 00118710.pdf:

As for Powell’s botanical expertise, the only trees not completely barren in this photo are conifers, like the large one on the left behind the moving truck, likely an eastern white pine—or something very similar. I’m no arborist, but I’d wager I know more about northeastern U.S. trees than some Aussie conspiracy theorist. Conifers, of course, are evergreens, meaning they keep their needles year-round. Meanwhile, there isn’t an oak tree in sight—let alone one with leaves.

Even if there were oaks on school grounds, they wouldn’t match Powell’s fantasy. By late October or November, oak leaves in New England turn a striking orange—not the green seen here—before dropping entirely.

For reference, here’s what Newtown, CT, looks like in early November (photo taken on the 2nd). Notice the vibrant autumn foliage Powell’s timeline would demand, conspicuously absent in this scene. Also, check out this video flyover of Newtown in fall to see just how colorful it can be during that time:

“The trucks unloaded school furniture and props which may have been in storage with William B. Myers since the school was decommissioned and then re-installed at the school to make appear to be a functioning reality.” pg. 139

The claim that the school furniture was ever in storage is outright false. These moving trucks were actually transporting Sandy Hook Elementary’s furnishings to Chalk Hill Middle School in Monroe. Chalk Hill, which was closed in 2010 due to declining enrollment (unlike Sandy Hook, which was never closed), was repurposed to accommodate Sandy Hook’s students following the tragedy. This was a well-documented effort to make the students as comfortable as possible, corroborated by numerous news reports:

“Furniture and supplies from Sandy Hook were moved to Chalk Hill in order to recreate the classrooms just as they were.”

“Teachers photographed their classrooms at Sandy Hook in order to replicate everything about them, from the pictures on the walls to the crayons left on the students’ desks. This is all part of an effort to make the students feel as comfortable as possible.”

“The movers set furniture, desks, computers and supplies in the same places as their old classrooms in Newtown. Volunteers pinned the same posters to new classroom walls.”

“Every class is pretty much meticulously rendered to look exactly like when the kids left it, right down to the water bottles on the desk.”

Far from being a covert operation, the move was a public event. Large crowds gathered to watch the trucks, escorted by police cruisers, as they made the six-mile trip through town in broad daylight. The process was heavily documented in articles and photographs:

Source: Contractor moving furniture from Sandy Hook Elementary School: “I’ve seen things I don’t even really want to talk about”

In one photo, you can see a crowd of onlookers and members of the press at the entrance to the school. Notably, the “Everyone Must Check In” sign is visible in the fire department’s parking lot—further proof that this event occurred after December 15th, when the sign first appeared. This completely invalidates Powell’s baseless claim that the photo was taken in “late October or early November”:

For further proof, Amanda Raus, an anchor for Connecticut’s Fox affiliate, even tweeted about the move in real time:

Two moving vans escorted by police are making their way to Chalk Hill Middle School. Police say furniture from Sandy Hook will be brought in

— Amanda Raus (@amandaraus) December 17, 2012

“A wet but not freezing day, probably late October or early November” pg. 139

It’s wet because it rained that morning, as clearly shown in the three photos above—just look at the asphalt. This aligns perfectly with Weather Underground’s historical data for December 17, 2012, which confirms precipitation that morning:

Regarding the temperature, the day’s low was 35°F, meaning it never reached freezing. Even if the work had started as early as 6 AM, the temperature would have been 36°F—cold, yes, but not freezing.

“Here we see some of the United removal staff standing by the empty stacked yellow plastic cartons after the school has been filled with props.” pg. 140

Logically, this claim doesn’t hold water. If these cartons had already been emptied into the school as alleged, why would anyone bother stacking and storing them outside? For that matter, they couldn’t have been stacked indoors because they wouldn’t fit through the school doors once assembled.

In Powell’s imaginary version of events, wouldn’t it make infinitely more sense to simply return the crates directly to the trucks—mere feet away—rather than leave them stacked outside?

And then there’s the man visibly pushing three stacked cartons toward the trucks. Are we supposed to believe he’s moonwalking?

“The sign “Meyer” on the back of the removal truck shows clearly the United agent was William B Meyer.” pg. 140

Congratulations, Allan, on successfully reading the back of a truck. Great job. Curiously, however, you conveniently “missed” the Christmas wreath attached to the grill of the white pickup truck taking up most of the photo:

How many people do you think are driving around with those in October?

“In the background the leaves are brown but not yet fallen.” pg. 140

Let’s be real: there’s one tree in the background that isn’t 99% barren, and it appears to be a younger tree, which can retain its leaves well into winter. I can’t definitively say what kind of tree it is, as it’s too far away to make out, but the green trees are evergreens, which (again) keep their foliage year-round. Shift your focus a bit to the left, and you’ll see nothing but completely barren trees. This scene would look drastically different in the fall.

For example, here’s a photo taken at the intersection of Riverside and Dickinson (the entrance to the school, though the sign has been removed), captured by Google’s Street View cameras in October of 2014:

Now, compare the fullness and colors of the trees and shrubs to this photo of the exact same area, taken on December 15th, 2012:

The difference is stark.

Now compare Powell’s photos (taken from Detective Peter Farr’s scene photos) to these two photos and ask yourself which one they more closely resemble:

Also, Powell conveniently skips over the Christmas wreath on the grill of the white pickup truck. If this photo were taken in “late October or early November,” the driver of this truck would be awfully premature with their holiday cheer. A Christmas wreath before Halloween? Not impossible, but let’s be serious—highly unlikely.

“Three semitrailers in the background, one in the foreground.” pg. 140

And you can count!

“There’s a white unmarked FEMA trailer by the portable toilet.” pg. 140

So it’s allegedly unmarked, but it’s definitely a FEMA trailer? What’s this claim based on—gut feeling, divine revelation, or just more baseless conjecture?

“Also visible is the portable mortuary referred to by Wayne Carver, Medical Examiner” pg. 140

Interestingly enough, you know what’s not visible in Powell’s conveniently cropped version of this photo? The crime scene tape and white flowers attached to the stop sign, which were deliberately excluded.

Here’s how it appears on page 140 of Nobody Died at Sandy Hook:

Now here’s the (higher-quality) original from page 133 of Farr – scene photos.pdf:

And finally, here they are side-by-side, with the portion Fetzer and Powell cropped out highlighted:

This kind of selective cropping isn’t just sloppy—it’s deliberate, deceitful, and exactly what we’ve come to expect from these folks.

Now let’s address the actual claim. Powell’s scenario collapses spectacularly under scrutiny.

The back of the “portable mortuary tent” is clearly visible in the above uncropped photo, partially blocked by a portable toilet, a white trailer, a black or dark blue Chevrolet Impala, and a fire company truck:

Here’s a closer look (page 130 of Farr – scene photos.pdf):

Keep in mind that Allan Powell insists these photos were taken in “late October or early November,” placing them at least five weeks before the shooting. Yet the parking lot is barely half full, with many vehicles being work trucks or police cruisers. The silver Ford Crown Victorias, black or dark blue Chevrolet Impalas, and Dodge Charger are all clearly identifiable as police vehicles.

We can see this even more clearly in the following stitched-together photo from pages 120 and 121 of Detective Peter Farr’s scene photos:

In the front row, we see two work trucks (another sits in the fire lane), five police cruisers, and the portable mortuary tent. The second row includes the blue Toyota Camry struck by bullets exiting classroom #10. Notably, no vehicles are parked on either side of the Camry, as confirmed by additional scene photos. Further back, we find another police cruiser, a maroon Volvo station wagon, and a few other vehicles further down near the mortuary tent.

This parking arrangement simply does not align with Powell’s narrative. According to his timeline, the mortuary tent would have had to appear during or before the alleged “staging” in late October or early November. But the mix of vehicles—predominantly work and police cars—contradicts any notion of a “fully staged” scene meant to mimic a functioning school.

To make matters worse for Powell, earlier photos from December 14th, before the Porta Potties arrived at around 1:30 PM, show a completely different parking situation:

This photo, taken just hours after the shooting, reveals cars consistent with evacuation photos and aerial footage from that day. Notably, the portable mortuary tent is absent, and the green pop-up canopy tent is nowhere to be found.

Here’s another photo taken a little later that same day:

Notice that the crime squad has arrived, the blue tent has been set up, and the fire truck has left the premises. There is still no portable mortuary tent.

Here’s one final shot, taken the next day, on December 15th:

Finally, we can see that the portable mortuary tent has arrived, while everything else in the scene remains exactly the same. This introduces a glaring inconsistency in Allan Powell’s already far-fetched theory. For his scenario to hold, the moving trucks would need to have been on-site to “deliver props” at the same time as the mortuary tent. Yet somehow, this would not coincide with the lot full of parked cars. But then, according to Powell, those cars were present without the tent—and then again with the tent.

The only plausible way this timeline makes any sense is if events unfolded exactly as described in the final report: the moving trucks arrived on December 17th, three days after the shooting, and one day after nearly all the cars in the lot had been released. The blue Toyota Camry is the one notable exception, but records from CFS 1200704559, Book 4, 00182444.pdf confirm that this car wasn’t released until December 18th—one day after the moving trucks arrived:

And as we’re about to see, this isn’t the only major issue with Powell’s increasingly untenable claims.

“This image shows the work done, the empty United trucks from Bridgeport Connecticut.” pg. 141

And if, as Powell implies, these trucks were just emptied (and apparently all at once, rather than one at a time like normal logistics would dictate), then why do multiple classrooms already appear to be fully furnished? Pages 6, 13, 16, 19, 21, 28, 34, 35, 36, 39, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 75, 76, 98, 101, 103, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 115, and 116 of Farr – scene photos.pdf (where Powell’s photo is sourced from) clearly show this.

In fact, on pages 97 through 117, the main crime scenes—classrooms #8 and #10, as well as the lobby—are already jam-packed with books, bins, decorations, and other personal effects. Are we to believe that workers unpacked the trucks, carried the contents into classrooms, meticulously staged everything down to the clutter on the windowsills, and ensured the lobby had up-to-date magazines—all before the trucks even had a chance to close their doors and leave?

It’s not just unlikely; it’s utterly preposterous.

“Wm B Meyer has failed to answer any questions I have put to them about the presence of their trucks at the school.” pg. 141

They probably don’t have the time or patience to entertain insane dipshits. Running a successful business tends to take priority over humoring conspiracy theorists with zero evidence and a mountain of ridiculous claims.

“Unmarked FEMA vehicles arranged deliveries at the back door.” pg. 141

By “unmarked,” do you actually mean marked? Because the same circular logo is clearly visible on both vehicles:

The logos are unfortunately a bit too small to read clearly, but they’re most likely just the Newtown township seal:

But let’s be real—why would anyone even bother with “unmarked” vehicles when enormous, branded tractor-trailers were rolling straight through the center of town for all to see?

There’s obviously no attempt to maintain secrecy here. And what exactly would these smaller vehicles be delivering that couldn’t fit on one of the massive trucks?

“Weed growing and wires hanging loose indicate the fact the school was disused.” pg. 141

This is the “weed growing” at the very back of the school that Allan Powell believes proves the school is “disused”:

Seriously. That’s it. By this metric, my house must also be abandoned.

Not surprisingly, Powell conveniently fails to mention the landscaped lawn and shrubbery surrounding the school. Remember, this is supposedly a school that’s been abandoned for five years, yet the bushes are neatly trimmed, the grass is cut, and the flower beds aren’t overrun with weeds:

“They took photos with the mover’s tags still attached” pg. 142

Another monumental oversight, according to Allan Powell. Detective Walkley, the scene photographer, must have been remarkably negligent to pull this off. He would have needed to miss the sticker while taking the photograph, miss it again while compiling the photos into the “Walkley – scene photos.pdf” document, deliberately place the photo with the sticker at the very end of the document to create the illusion that it was taken 5-6 days later than it actually was, and then go so far as to include a detailed description of the photo in his photograph report (CFS 1200704597, 00187025.pdf):

As noted in earlier chapters, Detective Walkley’s crime scene photos are organized chronologically. The photo with the sticker appears on page 738 of 760, placing it around December 19th or 20th. Meanwhile, the photo Powell claims was taken “next” is actually on page 89 of the same document, likely captured on December 14th.

And while it’s theoretically possible to remove every trace of residue left behind by such a sizable sticker, the complete lack of any residue or disturbance on the surface only reinforces the official timeline.

“I’ve sent W.B. Meyers an email requesting that they confirm that the stickers belong to them and if they could tell me when they made the delivery of the props to Sandy Hook. They have not replied.” pg. 142

Imagine how many rambling, conspiracy-laden emails from Allan Powell the poor folks at W.B. Meyers must have to sift through—or, more likely, delete—on a daily basis. Hopefully, someone there had the foresight to set up an inbox rule and spare themselves the headache.

“Over the orange stickers, the label of William B. Meyers can clearly be seen. This indicates that both storage and moving were part of the Meyers contract.” pg. 143

No, it doesn’t indicate anything of the sort. The labels identified which items were to be moved to Chalk Hill—because that’s exactly where these items were headed.

“Additional cars were staged as crime scenes as the drill stagers hadn’t fully decided the scope of the production. A drill is more likely to test a given situation in which participants have been instructed, so here the participants knew the FEMA/DHS drill would involve a shooter but they would not be given exact details of what the drill would involve.” pg. 143

This might just be one of the dumbest claims in the entire book. So, after supposedly having at least five years to plan, they couldn’t avoid glaring, obvious mistakes in their “production” and couldn’t even figure out the “scope” of it? What kind of crackpot operation are we imagining here?

“The Lauren Rousseau car referred to in the section on the Lanza home appears in the car park and is shown under a small pavilion as is this vehicle.” pg. 143

No lie, I just searched the entire chapter on the Lanza home for the words “Lauren,” “Rousseau,” “car,” and “auto,” and I didn’t find a single mention of it. Not one. I have zero idea what this claim is even referring to.

I also searched the entirety of Sec_4_Primary_Scene.pdf (photos taken on December 14th and into the early morning of the 15th), looking for any trace of a light green Honda Civic, and—big surprise—came up completely empty-handed. For this to make any sense at all, the car would have had to be in two places at once.

“This vehicle appears to have been struck by a bullet which came through the window of classroom 10, turned left, advanced for forty meters, made a right turn and then a left turn into the rear passenger door.” pg. 143

Total nonsense. According to the official bullet strike report (CFS 1200704597, 00050860.pdf):

Investigators also located three unoccupied vehicles in the school’s parking lot that had sustained suspected bullet strikes. It should be noted that investigators did not locate and were not advised of any obstructions between the exterior north wall of classroom 10 and each of the vehicles that had sustained suspected bullet strikes.

The investigators found no obstructions. The bullets traveled straight from classroom 10. Oh, and minor quibble: the bullet didn’t travel 40 meters; it traveled 38.65 meters (or 126 feet, 8 inches).

From the same report, regarding the blue Camry:

Bullet strike 5 (BS5) was located on the exterior portion of the passenger side rear door of a 2006 Toyota Camry bearing Connecticut registration 913UNY, which was positioned in the parking lot approximately 126 feet 8 inches northeast of classroom 10’s north wall, where the grouping of the previously described suspected bullet strikes were located. Upon inspection of bullet strike 5 (BS5), investigators observed the strike first entered the passenger side rear door approximately 36 1/2 inches upward from the ground and approximately 5 3/4 inches inward from the hinged portion of the door. Further inspection revealed the projectile fully penetrated the door entering the rear passenger compartment area of the vehicle directly beneath the door’s interior opening handle. The projectile partially penetrated the passenger side rear seat’s seat back portion and projectile fragments deflected, coming to rest on the rear driver’s side seat’s sitting surface.

There’s even more corroborating information about these bullet strikes in the scene report (CFS 1200704597, 00118939.pdf), which specifically addresses the parking lot vehicles:

Investigators utilized a laser pointer affixed to the end of a protrusion rod on bullet strikes 1, 3, 4, and 5, in an attempt to determine a more precise originating point. For bullet strikes 1, 3, 4, and 5, the laser pointer targeted in a southwesterly direction to the north wall of room 10 and in the general vicinity of the bullet strikes located on classroom 10’s north wall. Precise trajectory angles/measurements were not obtained due to the confined grouping of bullet strikes on classroom 10’s north wall in relation to the distance between each involved vehicle and the unconfirmed certainty of each projectiles path of travel following its initial contact through the classroom’s north wall. Bullet strike 2’s initial strike to the ‘A’ pillar was too distorted to secure the protrusion rod and no further analysis was performed. However, the location of bullet strike 2 in relation to the other bullet strikes on the involved vehicles appears consistent that it too originated from the vicinity of classroom 10’s north wall.

There’s even more corroborating information about these bullet strikes in the scene report (CFS 1200704597, 00118939.pdf), which specifically addresses the parking lot vehicles:

Trajectory was performed by members of the WDMC Van Squad on two (2) holes of the four (4) holes previously mentioned as being located in the top metal frame portion of the second window pane of the third window from the east wall of classroom #10. The laser was mounted on the trajectory rod and in both cases the laser terminated at a point on a vehicle struck, however, the actual hole on the vehicle was located three to four feet north of the laser area and on the same horizontal plane. That is to say that the point was the same height from the ground as the bullet hole but was three to four feet south of the actual hole. This information is consistent with the projectile having hit an intermediary barrier (metal window frame) at an angle and deflecting to its impact sight thereby not matching the actual straight direction of the laser end point. It should be noted that there was no damage consistent with a bullet hole or strike in the area of the laser end point on the vehicles. No further trajectory was attempted, by the WDMC Van Squad, from the window into the parking lot due to the previously demonstrated fact that the projectiles were deflected, from the intermediary object (the windows), and therefore such trajectory efforts would not glean any fruitful information.

This is what the evidence shows—straight-line trajectories from classroom 10. There’s no reality in which a bullet performed a physics-defying loop-de-loop before landing in the Camry.

“The vehicle has been moved to that location; it has cordon tape trapped under the back wheel.” pg. 143

As I’ve already demonstrated, these cars never moved. Check the evacuation photos, the aerial photos, the helicopter footage, the crime scene photos—you name it. They’re in the exact same locations in every single image, every single time.

Meanwhile, Fetzer and his crew love to claim these cars have been here, there, and everywhere else, but they’ve never provided so much as a shred of evidence to support it. The tape wasn’t “trapped” under the wheel because the car was moved—it was simply blown there and caught by the tire.

“This vehicle has been moved during the forensic session and appears to have driven over the yellow cordon tape, trapping it under the front wheel.” pg. 144

Second verse, same as the first. This minivan is never seen anywhere but in this exact parking spot. Every available photo shows it consistently positioned closer to the right dividing line, and there’s no evidence it ever moved.

“This is the Lauren Rousseau car which also was staged as being in the Lanza house driveway.” pg. 144

As discussed earlier, contrary to Allan’s claims, this car—a light green 2004 Honda Civic belonging to Lauren Rousseau—is never mentioned anywhere in the previous chapter. Shockingly, Powell fails to provide any photographic evidence, but we can clearly see everything parked in the Lanza driveway on page 433 of “Sec_4_Primary_Scene.pdf”:

I’ve cropped out the Connecticut state police van because it’s obviously not Lauren’s car. What remains are one Dodge Charger, three Chevrolet Impalas, and one nearly obscured car. The very tail end of it is visible on page 435 of the same document, and I’m almost certain it’s another Impala. It’s definitely not light green, and the rear shape looks nothing like a Civic.

So where is this supposed mystery vehicle? I doubt even Allan Powell knows.

“The condensation drip of moisture from the exhaust pipe on to the car park surface indicates that the vehicle has only recently been driven to that location, probably within an hour.” pg. 144

Or it’s just an oil stain, which most parking lots are littered with. It couldn’t have possibly come from the Civic as its exhaust pipe is located on the right side of the car:

“The car from Exhibit 13 would have been shielded from any bullet damage to its right side from Classroom 10 by the Rousseau car, yet a bullet hole in the rear right side passenger door was recorded by the forensic’s team.” pg. 144

Angles, how do they work? The bullet that struck the Camry hit 36.5 inches above the ground. The bullet strike report doesn’t provide exhaustive detail, but it’s clear the bullet either passed through the open space between the vehicles—plenty of room—or sailed over the Civic’s hood. Once again, using methods far more reliable than Allan Powell’s wild guesses, crime scene investigators determined that this bullet originated from classroom #10.

“The bullet here appears to have been retrieved from a ballistics testing medium and then placed in the trunk of the Rousseau car.” pg. 144

No.

From the bullet strike report (CFS 1200704597, 00050860.pdf):

Upon inspection of bullet strike 3 (BS3), investigators observed the strike fully penetrated the vehicle’s exterior portion of the front passenger side door approximately 33 3/4 inches upward from the ground and approximately 16 3/4 inches inward from the hinged portion of the door. Further inspection revealed the projectile traveled through the front passenger door nearest the interior opening handle, into the front passenger side compartment area, striking and fully penetrating the front passenger seat’s seat back portion nearest the interior region of the vehicle. The projectile appeared to continue into the rear driver’s side passenger compartment area, penetrating the seat’s seat back portion. Investigators followed the path of travel into the trunk area of the vehicle and located a projectile along the driver’s side of the trunk. The projectile was seized by investigators as evidentiary item 506.

“The Rousseau car was photographed in multiple locations. Here it is under the pavilion.” pg. 145

No, it wasn’t. And there is no “pavilion”; it’s simply a portable pop-up canopy. You know, like the kind you see at other crime scenes:

Since it’s clearly raining in the photograph Powell chose for this “exhibit” (page 76 of “Meehan – parking lot photos.pdf“), most reasonable people would understand the importance of using a portable covering when searching a vehicle for evidence.

“A man is visible in the background at the window through which the bullets were purported to have passed.” pg. 145

In all seriousness, what the fuck is Allan Powell talking about? Here’s the full, unedited photo in question. Where the hell is this man, and what is his alleged presence “in the background at the window through which the bullets were purported to have passed” supposed to mean?

“The stage managers went out of their way to fake their forensic evidence.” pg. 145

Or you’re looking at an actual crime scene.

“These two cars and a faked bloodstain are cordoned off as part of the pretended shooting. No reference is made by The Sedensky Report to any discharge of the Bushmaster in the parking lot other than to breach the window in order to enter the school.” pg. 146

The cars aren’t cordoned off; only the blood evidence is.

The Sedensky Report doesn’t reference any discharge of the Bushmaster in the parking lot because there wasn’t any. So that’s (still) totally accurate. This blood came from one of the injured victims who was carried or otherwise transported through the parking lot to the triage station at the firehouse. It likely belongs to either Deborah Pisani or Olivia Engel. The (very real) blood was swabbed and entered as Exhibit 502.

“Here’s the faked blood between the two cars. The shadow cast from the eastern sunrise shows that this is early morning” pg. 146

Poor, stupid Allan Powell: not only does he not understand mirrors, as we saw in the previous chapter, but he also seems to struggle with cardinal directions. Oh, and shadows.

If you were to face the front entrance of Sandy Hook Elementary School, you’d be looking in a southerly direction. (Note: I had previously said “facing south,” and someone on Facebook noted I was being a bit liberal with that phrasing—totally fair, so I’ve updated for accuracy.) You can confirm this by checking the location (12 Dickenson Drive, Newtown, CT) on Google Earth.

Now, take a look at these two pictures (stitched together from pages 154 and 161 of Farr – nighttime exterior photos.pdf, which is also where Powell’s photo comes from). It’s clear the sun is setting, not rising. I’ve circled the blood from Powell’s photo for reference:

“A bullet fragment glides conveniently to a halt under a car trunk carpet, but no images of the holes the bullet made in the car trunk carpet exist.” pg. 147

What’s so “convenient” about it? That the bullet eventually came to a stop? Its location? If anything, wouldn’t it have been far more “convenient” for it to have stopped in a more visible, accessible part of the trunk? Somewhere that wouldn’t have required investigators to tear it up?

The bullet strike report (CFS 1200704597, 00050860.pdf) explicitly mentions all entry points, but it doesn’t say the carpet was penetrated—or that the bullet was under anything. It reads:

Upon inspection of bullet strike 3 (BS3), investigators observed the strike fully penetrated the vehicle’s exterior portion of the front passenger side door approximately 33 3/4 inches upward from the ground and approximately 16 3/4 inches inward from the hinged portion of the door. Further inspection revealed the projectile traveled through the front passenger door nearest the interior opening handle, into the front passenger side compartment area, striking and fully penetrating the front passenger seat’s seat back portion nearest the interior region of the vehicle. The projectile appeared to continue into the rear driver’s side passenger compartment area, penetrating the seat’s seat back portion. Investigators followed the path of travel into the trunk area of the vehicle and located a projectile along the driver’s side of the trunk.

“This photo taken early on the morning of 14 December 2012 shows the school door open but no window blown out to gain access.” pg. 147

This photo was actually taken on the evening of the 14th. It is, after all, page 13 of “Farr – nighttime exterior photos.pdf.” This timing is corroborated by Detective Peter Farr’s secondary digital photography report:

Fetzer has been accused of intentionally blurring photographs in the past, and this “exhibit” certainly supports such claims. However, if you examine the original, the shattered glass littering the sidewalk is clearly visible:

If the front window hadn’t been broken yet, where did all this glass come from? Are we supposed to believe “stagers” planted shards first, only to smash the window later? Brilliant planning there.

The hole in the glass is a bit harder to see in nighttime photos, as one would expect when peering into a brightly lit interior at night. But with some guidance, it’s unmistakable. A similar photo, taken in daylight, is on page 106 of “Farr – scene photos.pdf.” It unequivocally shows the hole Adam Lanza created when he shot his way into the school, bypassing the locked door.

Let’s compare:

• Photo #1: The image Powell claims shows the window intact, from page 13 of “Farr – nighttime exterior photos.pdf.”
• Photo #2: Page 106 of “Farr – scene photos.pdf,” which plainly shows the large hole in the glass. Even Powell and Fetzer couldn’t deny this, which likely explains their silence on it.
• Photo #3: Page 13 of “Farr – nighttime exterior photos.pdf” again, with a yellow circle highlighting an area where the break is especially obvious. Notice the investigator’s back, appearing split into two halves, and the spiderweb effect of shattered safety glass surrounding the circle, especially above and to the left.

Care to try again, Allan?

“Another photo shows a pair of stage managers inside the foyer before the event.” pg. 147

“Stage managers” who just so happen to be wearing white gloves and blue coveralls? You mean the crime scene investigators who are clearly visible in this lobby photo?

“The shot is taken from one of the elevated cameras placed around the car park to record the drill.” pg. 148

The “drill” was recorded, according to James Fetzer and now Allan Powell, yet not a single frame of this supposed footage has ever surfaced in all the years since the attack.

Why would authorities even record such a video in the first place? If the intent was to bolster the narrative of a real event—like the evacuation and crime scene photos—then why hasn’t it been released alongside all the other evidence? Where are these alleged cameras in the countless aerial photos taken that day, like the one seen below? If these cameras were supposedly positioned to document the “drill,” they sure missed a whole lot of the action.

“Portable toilets were ordered prior to the day and placed in the car park. They appear in the early morning images.” pg. 148

They absolutely do not. This lie is as blatant as they come.

The Exif data for the image below shows it was taken on December 14th, yet no portable toilets are anywhere in sight. If they were “ordered prior to the day” and set up in the parking lot, where are they?

Or why don’t they appear in the Channel 12 helicopter footage?

Even more damning, an officer’s dashcam clearly shows them being delivered at 1:28 PM on December 14, 2012:

“The suppliers of the toilets will not answer emails for details on the supply contract for the potties.” pg. 148

Shocking that a business wouldn’t hand over private contract details to some random conspiracy theorist.

“If it’s early morning and Carver is there and the mortuary isn’t, that’s pretty conclusive of planning.” pg. 148

How so? Because it seems like the exact opposite. It actually shows that they weren’t fully prepared to use the tent, which was provided by the Department of Public Health, not the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (an independent State agency in Connecticut). If this were planned, you’d expect both to arrive at the same time. Dr. Carver doesn’t exactly keep a tent in his car trunk.

“The sun can just be seen rising over the school in reflection on this car rear door. The sunlight has hit the trees on the west side of the car park indicating again that the time of this image capture is early morning and before the incident would begin.” pg. 148

Allan Powell, you poor, stupid schmuck. This has already been addressed (multiple times at this point), but in this photograph, we’re looking in a northerly direction. The sun is setting, not rising. Look at a fucking map sometime—or even page 19 of the final report. You did read the final report, right?

“Other images show the windows were intact before holes were drilled through the frames to simulate bullet damage.” pg. 149

While the fact that the window is open and tilted outward does make it harder to spot the larger hole from this distance, the cracks surrounding the smaller hole make it faintly visible in the full-sized image:

This particular picture—page 139 of “Farr – nighttime exterior photos.pdf”—is nearly identical to page 50 of “Meehan – parking lot photos.pdf”. Both photos were taken on December 14th, the primary difference being the height from which they were taken, with Meehan’s shot slightly higher off the ground. Here’s a cropped version of the latter image, blown up to 125%:

Full disclosure: I’m not a photographer or graphic artist, but I understand that adjusting the input histogram levels washes out the image and increases contrast between light and dark areas. Using free photo editing software, I dropped the input histogram level of the above photo to around 60 (you can try this yourself if you’d like). The result:

If we zoom in and isolate the window, the two bullet holes become undeniably clear:

“The sun has yet to rise on the car park but sunlight can be seen on the tree behind the school. This indicates again that it is early morning.” pg. 149

Still backwards, Allan. You’re still backwards. This time, we’re facing a southerly direction. Is this because you’re Australian? Is everything just backwards for you?

“The mortuary tent is not in place as it would have been every morning after the shooting had it been real.” pg. 149

Except for the morning of the 14th—when this photo was taken. The mortuary tent hadn’t been set up yet because the shooting had just occurred.

“This image of the 10mm bullet with which Adam Lanza purportedly took his own life shows fragments that appear to be corroded.” pg. 150

If this bullet is indeed corroded—and I honestly don’t know if it is—it would be entirely consistent with the ammunition fired from the Bushmaster, as noted in the Forensic Science Laboratory report (quoted below). Corroded ammunition is still functional, and this simply suggests the Lanzas weren’t meticulous about maintaining their firearms.

“Other images of .223 bullets recovered indicate they have sufficient land and groove imprints to forensically link them to the Bushmaster” pg. 150

Says who? Allan Powell—the guy who doesn’t understand reflective surfaces, weather, angles, shadows, seasons, trees, or even cardinal directions? Firearms examiner Doug Fox and forensic science examiner James Stephenson would strongly disagree.

“The Sedensky Report says none of the 154 fragments that were recovered could be forensically linked to the Bushmaster. That is simply false.” pg. 150

Once again, it’s the word of Aussie knucklehead Allan Powell—who, according to this book’s biography, has absolutely no experience in any relevant field—versus James Stephenson and Doug Fox, expert firearms examiners with over sixty combined years of experience.

Here’s what the report of the State’s Attorney for the Judicial District of Danbury (referred to as “The Sedensky Report” by Powell) actually says about the Bushmaster and its ammunition:

The Bushmaster rifle was found in classroom 10. The Bushmaster was tested and found to be operable without malfunction. All of the 5.56 mm shell casings from SHES that were tested were found to have been fired from this rifle. All of the bullets and fragments, recovered from SHES and the OCME that were tested, with the exception of those mentioned immediately below, are consistent with having been fired from the Bushmaster rifle. They could not have been fired from the Saiga-12, the Glock 20 or the Sig Sauer P226.

And the accompanying footnote reads:

“No positive identification could be made to any of the bullet evidence submissions noted … … in 5.56 mm caliber. The physical condition of the bullet jacket surfaces were severely damaged and corroded. They all lacked individual striated marks of sufficient agreement for the identification process. The test fires also exhibited a lack  of individual striated marks on the bullet surface for comparison purposes. This condition can be caused by fouling in the barrel of the rifle and the ammunition itself. The Bushmaster rifle cannot be eliminated as having fired the 5.56 caliber bullet evidence examined,” quoting from the 6/19/13 Forensic Science Laboratory report.

Finally, here’s the portion of the Forensic Science Laboratory report relevant to the Bushmaster:

“She [school nurse Sally Cox] also claimed in another interview that Lanza opened the door and stared her in the face. She says she then jumped under the desk with another staff member and together they stayed there for three hours only calling the police once. The story is highly improbable.” pg. 150

The only improbable aspect of this story is the notion that Adam Lanza would have looked Sally Cox in the eyes and chosen not to shoot her. But after watching three television interviews with Sally, I haven’t found a single instance where she makes this claim. It seems to be yet another denier fever dream—likely why Allan Powell fails to provide a citation.

“Few public-speaking appearances have been made by Sally Cox. As a crisis actor, she appears to be a loose cannon.” pg. 150

A “loose cannon” and a “crisis actor” who also happens to (A) be a real, registered nurse in Connecticut since 1974 and (B) consistently tell the same story. Maybe Sally Cox has made few public-speaking appearances because, unlike Allan Powell, she isn’t a shameless self-promoter desperate for attention and relevance.

“Another image is a view of Nurse Sally Cox’s office, which shows she could not have seen the shooter 20 feet away. There is no desk with a view that would have permitted it. There is also no desk facing the door for her to hide under and watch the shooter, as she claims she did.” pg. 151

Powell provides two nearly identical, equally worthless photographs taken from the school’s main office—not the nurse’s office—as “proof.” Neither of these photos remotely shows what Sally Cox’s office actually looked like.

However, video footage from inside the school does, and it confirms that she could have easily seen someone enter the door from her computer desk. This desk, located just to the right of her main desk, is visible in the photo below (note the split between the phone and printer). In interviews, Sally consistently mentions hiding behind her computer desk, which features a hole in the back for routing cables:

“She also asserted in an interview that she saw his boots through this imaginary hole in the desk. But officially Adam Lanza’s footwear was a pair of black shoes.” pg. 151

The hole is not imaginary. In her 60 Minutes interview, Sally Cox explicitly stated:

The popping kept going off. And I just dove underneath my computer desk. The back of the desk has a small opening for, like, wires to come out.

This is further corroborated by her police statement, found in Book 5, 00256630.pdf:

[Redacted] hid underneath the computer desk. Through a hole in the back of the desk, she observed from the knees down a person standing directly in front of her, with feet pointed towards her. This person was approximately 20 feet from where she was hiding.

As for the shoes, it’s entirely plausible that someone might mistake Adam Lanza’s black Nunn Bush oxfords, paired with cargo pants, for “boots.” Visual details can blur in moments of extreme stress.

“The large tent mortuary doesn’t appear in other released photos purportedly taken on the day of the shooting.” pg. 151

That’s because the tent didn’t arrive until the afternoon of the 14th. The photo Powell uses for this “exhibit” was taken on the 17th, and unsurprisingly, the tent is there.

“Images of the mortuary tent show an oak tree in the background, which has yet to lose all its leaves: the time of year is late October.” pg. 151

In addition to the supposed “oak tree,” this image also shows a Christmas wreath—something you’re unlikely to see in late October.

As demonstrated in Chapter Eight, late October in this area would look far more vibrant. Regarding the tree: maybe it’s an oak, maybe it’s not; I’m not entirely sure. But as someone who lives in the northeast U.S., not far from Connecticut, here’s a photo I took of a white oak still holding onto its leaves on February 18th. Feel free to check the Exif data if you doubt me:

“Notice both of the vehicles, including the blue VW, are facing the school. Now the blue VW faces away from the school.” pg. 152

It’s almost unbelievable that this book was published with so many embarrassing, substantial errors.

These are clearly two different cars, parked in two different locations. The blue Beetle is just out of frame in Powell’s second photo, which comes from page three of “Meehan – parking lot photos.pdf”. To see it in the same frame as the dark gray Mazda 3—which Powell bizarrely believes is the Beetle—you only need to look at page two of the same document.

Here’s a cropped version of that page: the yellow arrow points to the Beetle (parked between two small SUVs), and the red arrow points to the “backwards” Mazda 3:

Now here’s the Mazda 3, parked among other cars that are all facing the same direction:

For reference, this second photo comes from page 212 of “Farr – nighttime exterior photos.pdf”, which is where Powell pulled his first image for this claim (“Exhibit 36”). The fact that Powell made such an obvious and embarrassing error—mistaking two completely different cars—is remarkable… unless, of course, he’s being deliberately deceitful.

“The Sedensky Report makes no mention of any doors at the rear of the school being involved in the incident, yet two different images of this broken glass exist.” pg. 152

From the very first page of the Sedensky Report (officially titled 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):

It is not the intent of this report to convey every piece of information contained in the voluminous investigation materials developed by the Connecticut State Police and other law enforcement agencies, but to provide information relevant to the purposes of this report.

But those “voluminous investigation materials”—which Allan Powell apparently couldn’t be bothered to read—contain several references to the rear door being breached:

• From Sergeant David Kullgren’s interview (Book 6, –1.pdf):

I then joined Officer McGowan and Officer Seabrook who breached the door on the southeast side of the building.

• From Officer Michael McGowan’s interview (Book 6, 00260187.pdf):

At that time Ofc. Seabrook was running toward me and we went to the nearest door, on the left side of the building. The door was locked and Ofc. Seabook smashed out the glass in the door with his rifle barrel and he unlocked the door from the inside.

• From Officer Liam Seabrook’s interview (Book 6, 00029085.pdf):

The door on the east side of the school was locked. There were large glass windows in the door that had “chicken wire” baked into the glass. I then used the barrel of my  patrol rifle and forced it through the glass window part of the door. I then used the barrel of my patrol rifle to clear some of the broken glass away.

As for the photos, both of the broken glass were taken on December 17th. The second in the series—“Exhibit 39” on page 153—comes from page 26 of “Gunsalus – exterior photos.pdf”. The photo of the glass shards—“Exhibit 40”—is from the same document. These photos were taken before the movers arrived and reflect how the officers left the scene.

The first photo—“Exhibit 38” on page 152, from page 21 of “Farr – scene photos.pdf”—was taken later in the day and shows the area after the break was cleaned up, likely so the movers could use the doors safely. For further proof, page 20 of “Farr – scene photos.pdf” reveals that the glass shards were also removed from the sidewalk.

“The broken glass on the doorstep is a CGI image, which could not possible happen in reality.” pg. 153

Broken glass can only be achieved with “CGI”? According to who? Allan Powell, the world’s foremost expert in jack shit?

“The pieces show that the wire through the glass has shattered as if it were not wire but glass. This is a physical impossibility.” pg. 153

A “physical impossibility,” you say?

Funny, because according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, an estimated 2,250 people manage to injure themselves in this “physically impossible” way every year. That’s quite the feat of impossibility!

“Notice that there is no reflection in the window of the mortuary tent.” pg. 154

Because it wasn’t there yet.

Powell has once again included an aggressively cropped version of the photo from page 139 of Farr – nighttime exterior photos.pdf. But if you look at the pages immediately preceding and following it in that file, you’ll see that the mortuary tent is nowhere in sight. Here’s the photo from page 150, for example:

As shown, the mortuary tent is entirely absent—because it didn’t arrive until later that evening. When it did, it was placed directly next to the vehicle with the yellow tape draped across the windshield, the same vehicle visible in Powell’s cropped photo.

“The swarf from the drill has erupted into the classroom side of the window as one would expect from using a drill on an aluminium [sic] window frame.” pg. 154

As always, Powell’s theories require you to believe investigators are somehow brilliant enough to stage details like filling the lobby magazine rack with up-to-date issues, yet so mind-numbingly incompetent that they drilled into the window frames from the wrong side.

As for this claim, CW Wade over at SandyHookFacts.com already dismantled it in a thorough two-part series.

“This image actually shows the personnel who are at work setting up the window frame with fake bullet holes.” pg. 154

The uncropped version of this photograph, found on page 18 of Meehan – parking lot photos.pdf, shows that Adam Lanza’s Civic is parked in the fire lane, crime scene tape is already in place, and the crime squad van is on-site. Additionally, page 10 of the same document (chronologically earlier) reveals that a portable toilet had already been delivered, indicating it’s at least 1:28 PM on December 14th.

So if Powell’s theory is to be believed (spoiler: it isn’t, because he’s both an idiot and a liar), investigators waited until at least 1:30 PM to start “fabricating” crucial evidence. Odd timing, wouldn’t you say?

And when we blow the photo up to roughly 500% (not exactly pleasant viewing, but revealing), we can examine the two investigators in front of classroom #10 more closely. The investigator in the dark jacket has his (drill-less) right hand positioned well above the window frame—far too high for drilling anything. And why isn’t he using his left hand for support? Probably because he’s not drilling any holes, fake or otherwise:

“Other images show the extended cameras fixed on cars to record the drill. They’re the little yellow things on extensions from the cars in the back row.” pg. 155

Can’t say I’ve ever encountered a car that looks like this:

Or this:

Clearly, these poles aren’t “fixed” to anything, let alone cars. If you review pages 195 through 204 of Farr – nighttime exterior photos.pdf, you’ll notice that the poles move around quite a bit, never appearing in the same place twice. That’s because they’re being carried by people, as the above photos make abundantly clear.

“Note the SWAT wagon in the distance in this image waiting to be put out front of the fire station. There is no other reason a SWAT team would attend a forensics site.” pg. 155

But there’s probably a good reason for a SWAT team to show up at the site of a mass school shooting, wouldn’t you think? Because that’s what this is.

Other photos from Meehan – parking lot photos.pdf show that the mortuary tent hadn’t arrived yet, placing this image fairly early in the afternoon. Later photographs reveal that this vehicle—whatever it is—was already gone. It also looks nothing like the SWAT vehicles parked by the firehouse, which arrived sometime between 9:45 AM and 10:15 AM (according to Book 6, 00122995.pdf):

“One image shows that someone stuck a chair into the crime scene and the window in the background doesn’t appear to have been blown out yet.” pg. 156

If only you had read the report before dedicating two entire chapters to this nonsense.

No one “stuck a chair” anywhere; it was used to transport Natalie Hammond, who had a “seriously damaged” leg, out of the conference room. This is corroborated by Book 6, 00026724.pdf:

As I was bandaging the woman’s hand CSP Detective Patrick Dragon entered and identified himself as an EMT. He asked for gloves and I directed him to the first aid kit. I was finishing with the woman and looking around the room for a light table or chair to carry her in as her leg was seriously damaged and I did not have equipment to splint it. Someone in the room suggested using a wheeled office chair nearby. As Det. Dragon and I placed the woman in the chair, one of the females asked “Should we follow you out?” I said it was not safe, we needed to evacuate the victim, and that they would be safe where they were.

As for the window, viewing Powell’s source in full resolution (Walkley – scene photos.pdf, page 2) makes it abundantly clear that the window has already been broken (notice the spiderweb effect) and that there’s glass scattered across the sidewalk:

“If I’m not mistaken there is an audio-visual presentation going on in Classroom 12 on a large screen. Indeed, as the second image shows, I am not mistaken.” pg. 156

What a clumsy, asinine sentence. Nonetheless…

Nearly every classroom in Sandy Hook Elementary had a SMART Board system, including room 12. This particular board is powered on but displaying nothing, as confirmed by the photos and video taken during the scene walkthrough. We can tell this is a blank SMART Board screen because it matches the one seen in the library during the videotaped walkthrough:

If this were an actual “audio-visual presentation,” you’d expect to see something projected on the screen—or at least people attending it. But why was it on, if not for Powell’s mystery presentation?

According to one student’s statement (Book 5, 00180063.pdf), mornings began with “morning messages” displayed on the SMART Boards. This practice is corroborated by a photo from The Newtown Bee:

Sandy Hook School third grade student Aidan Berry helps his class read aloud a morning message on Friday, August 31.

Source: https://photos.newtownbee.com/Journalism/NEW-NEW-NEW-NEW-NEW-Photos/i-CvD2z7F/A

Additionally, powered-on SMART Boards are visible in both room eight and the library during the same videotaped walkthrough:

Powell’s dimwitted theory doesn’t hold up under even basic scrutiny. This also offers yet another piece of evidence that the school was open and operational. Why else would these boards be powered on?

“Here›s Wayne Carver waiting early in the morning for his mortuary tent to turn up. This is early morning before the drill has commenced.” pg. 156

Dr. Carver is not standing around waiting for the mortuary tent to arrive because—once again—it did not show up until well into the evening of the 14th. Powell’s timeline, much like the rest of his theories, is completely fabricated.

“Here’s an unofficial image of the stage setting taken from the wooded area. There are two vehicles in front of the school entrance and that telltale chair, too. Why were there two vehicles in an area that ought to be cordoned off as a crime scene” pg. 157

An “unofficial” image taken by Robert Nickelsberg of Getty Images, used in Fetzer’s book without a license. Classy move.

Anyway, when you deliberately choose a low-quality photo that looks like a preschooler’s watercolor attempt, it might seem like there are two cars in the fire lane where only one—Adam Lanza’s Honda Civic—should be. But a clearer, high-quality version of the same photo (taken on December 15th), featured in a Daily Beast article, shows otherwise:

The Civic is the only car in the fire lane, cordoned off with crime scene tape. The supposed “second vehicle” is simply parked outside of the restricted area. Other cars appear in the same spot throughout the investigation, which is clearly visible in multiple high-resolution images:

What’s particularly hilarious about this supposed “view from the woods” photo is how it unintentionally shreds Powell’s claim that the pictures were taken in late October or early November. With the foliage fully gone, it’s obvious this perspective wouldn’t be possible at that time of year. Oops.

“It’s possible that two cars were used for the drill and that one of these was the car that found its way to Gene Rosen’s driveway with that broken driver side window for which no alternative explanation has ever been advanced.” pg. 157

Or it’s just Gene Rosen’s car, and the window happens to be broken. It’s certainly not either of the cars Powell is referring to. Rosen’s car appears to be a 2003–2005 Honda Accord, while Adam Lanza drove a 2010 Honda Civic. Here’s a side-by-side comparison of the two vehicles, highlighting key differences (aside from the obvious state of the driver’s side window):

Different windows, different window trim, different taillights, different branding, different trunk trim—the list goes on. These are clearly not the same cars.

For further clarity, here’s a photo of a black 2003 Honda Accord (with tinted windows and upgraded wheels) for comparison:

Note how the side windows (complete with silver trim) and taillights match Rosen’s car exactly. The vehicle in his driveway is absolutely not a Civic.

Next: Chapter Nine: “No One Died At Sandy Hook: The Social Security Death Index” by “Dr. Eowyn”