“Nobody Died At Sandy Hook”
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 get something out of the way: this photo, like nearly every photo (with the exception of one) through page 142 of this chapter, is from Detective Peter Farr’s scene photos, which were absolutely taken on December 17th, 2012. This is corroborated by CFS 1200704597, 00118710.pdf:
Now the only trees that are not completely barren in the lone photo on this page are a few conifers, which surrounded the school. The large one on the left, behind the moving truck, is probably an eastern white pine or something extremely similar. I don’t know, I’m not an arborist, although I feel like I probably know a little more about trees in the northeastern United States than some Aussie crank. It’s definitely an evergreen, which keep their needles year-round. I don’t see any oak trees, with leaves, anywhere in this photograph. That’s not to say they don’t exist on school grounds, but if they did, they would certainly be more colorful in late October or even in November as they turn orange (not green, as seen here) before dropping their leaves.
Here’s a photo demonstrating what Newtown, CT looks like in early November (taken on the 2nd), which is the absolute latest Allan Powell believes that these photos were taken. And here’s a video flyover of Newtown that shows just how vibrant it can be that time of year:
“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 school furniture was never in storage. These moving trucks were used to transport Sandy Hook’s furnishings to the former Chalk Hill Middle School in Monroe, which was actually closed in 2010 (as opposed to Sandy Hook Elementary, which was never closed) due to declining enrollment. This was done in an attempt to make the students feel as comfortable as possible and is corroborated by multiple news stories:
“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.”
The move was not a particularly clandestine operation. Large crowds watched the trucks, escorted by police cruisers, make the roughly six mile trip through town, in broad daylight. The whole thing was documented in numerous news 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 the following photo, not only is there a large crowd of onlookers and press that has gathered at the entrance to the school, but you can even make out the “Everyone Must Check In” sign sitting in the fire department’s parking lot, which we’ve confirmed did not appear until sometime on December 15th. As such, it’s impossible for it to have been there in “late October or early November”, as Powell has claimed:
Amanda Raus – an anchor for Connecticut’s Fox affiliate – even tweeted about the move as it happened:
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 seen in the three photos above. Look at the asphalt. This is corroborated by Weather Underground’s historical weather data for that day:
As for the temperature, the low for the day was 35 °F, so it wouldn’t appear to be freezing because it wasn’t freezing. At any point. Even if they had started their work at 6AM, it still would have been 36 °F.
“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 doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. If the contents of these cartons had already been emptied inside of the school, then why stack and then store them outside? And they would have had to have been stacked outside as they wouldn’t fit through the doors otherwise. In Powell’s imaginary scenario, wouldn’t it make infinitely more sense to return the crates directly to the trailers, which are only a few feet away from their current location and – according to Powell – totally empty?
Furthermore, why does one man appear to be pushing three full cartons, stacked on top of one another, towards the trucks? Maybe Allan Powell will attempt to convince us that he’s actually walking backwards.
“The sign “Meyer” on the back of the removal truck shows clearly the United agent was William B Meyer.” pg. 140
Congratulations, you successfully read the back of a truck! It’s too bad you “missed” the Christmas wreath attached to the grill of the white pickup that takes up the majority 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 that isn’t 99% barren and it appears to be a younger tree, which can keep its leaves well into the winter. I don’t know what kind of tree it is as it’s a bit too far to make out, but the green trees are evergreens, which (again) keep their foliage year-round. Look to the left a bit and you’ll see nothing but completely barren trees. This scene would look a lot different in the fall. For example, let’s look at a picture taken at the intersection of Riverside and Dickinson (which is the entrance to the school, though the sign has been removed), taken by Google’s Street View cameras in October of 2014:
Compare the fullness and colors of the trees and shrubs to this photo of the same exact area, taken on December 15th, 2012:
There’s obviously a very marked difference here.
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:
Powell again makes no mention of the Christmas wreath on the grill of the white pickup. If this were indeed “late October or early November”, the driver of this truck would be awfully premature. A Christmas wreath before Halloween? Certainly not impossible, but highly unlikely.
“Three semitrailers in the background, one in the foreground.” pg. 140
Great, you can count!
“There’s a white unmarked FEMA trailer by the portable toilet.” pg. 140
So it’s admittedly unmarked, but it’s definitely a FEMA trailer? What is this based on?
“Also visible is the portable mortuary referred to by Wayne Carver, Medical Examiner” pg. 140
Interestingly enough, you know what’s not visible in this photo? The crime scene tape and white flowers attached to the stop sign, which were 100% intentionally cropped out.
Here’s how it looks on page 140 of “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook:
Here is the (much higher quality) original, which is page 133 of “Farr – scene photos.pdf”:
And here they are side-by-side, with the portion that was deliberately removed by Fetzer and Powell highlighted and brightened up a bit:
But this kind of gross deception is just par for the course at this point, isn’t it?
On top of this blatant disinformation, this page is where Powell’s crackpot theory really collapses upon itself, in truly spectacular fashion.
In this original photo, the back of the mortuary tent is almost entirely visible, 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”, which places them at least five weeks before the shooting. Notice that the parking lot is maybe half (or less) full, and many of the vehicles are work trucks or cruisers (the silver Ford Crown Victorias, the black or dark blue Chevrolet Impalas, and the Dodge Charger are all police vehicles). We can see them much more clearly in this photo, which I’ve stitched together using pages 120 and 121 of Detective Farr’s scene photos:
In the front row we have a couple of work trucks (there’s another one in the fire lane), five police cruisers, and the portable mortuary tent. In the second row we see the blue Toyota Camry that was struck by bullets exiting classroom #10. Notice that there are no cars parked to the Camry’s left, and we can even see on page 126 of Farr’s scene photos that nothing is parked to the car’s right either. In the row behind the Camry are another police cruiser and a maroon Volvo station wagon. There are a few more cars parked in this row, but they’re a bit further down, in the direction of the mortuary tent.
What this all means is: according to Allan Powell, the mortuary tent must have appeared either before or while the inside of the school was being “staged”, which again Powell claims took place in “late October or early November”. Otherwise it would not be visible in these photos. However, with the exception of a handful of cars that were not released until after December 17th (corroborated by CFS 1200704559, Book 4, 00182444.pdf), the lot is full of nothing but construction and police vehicles. This presents a serious problem when you look at the following photo, which was taken before the Porta Potties arrived at ~1:30PM on December 14th:
The cars in the lot – which Fetzer and crew (of course) claim were staged – are entirely consistent with what we’ve seen in Shannon Hicks’ evacuation photos, footage taken from two different helicopters, and the crime scene photos. The above photo was taken early enough in the day that there is no triage area, no crime squad van, no blue tent, and most importantly, no portable mortuary tent. The tent that was there while the school was allegedly being staged is now gone. 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 remains exactly the same. This makes Allan Powell’s already outlandish scenario even more so as it would mean the moving trucks were on site to drop off the school’s furnishings at the same time as the mortuary tent, but not at the same time as the lot full of cars. But the cars were also on site without the mortuary tent and then again with the mortuary tent.
The only way that any of this makes any sense whatsoever is if things unfolded the way they’re described in the final report: the moving trucks arrived on December 17th, three days after the shooting and one day after almost every car had been claimed. The blue Toyota Camry is an obvious exception, but CFS 1200704559, Book 4, 00182444.pdf shows that this car was not released until December 18th, or one day after the moving trucks arrived:
And as we’re about to find out, this isn’t the only major issue with Powell’s claims.
“This image shows the work done, the empty United trucks from Bridgeport Connecticut.” pg. 141
If the work is done, then why are these trucks just sitting there with their overhead doors rolled up and their ramps down? And if these trucks were just emptied (and all at once rather than one at a time, I guess), then why do multiple classrooms already appear to be fully furnished? We can see clear evidence of this on 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”, which is where Powell’s photo is from. In fact, on pages 97 through 117, we can plainly see that the main crime scenes – classrooms #8 and #10 as well as the lobby – are already jam packed with books, bins, decorations, etc. This means that workers would have had to have unpacked their contents from the trucks, emptied the containers into the classrooms, and then fully staged them down to the last bit of clutter on the windowsill as well as the up-to-date magazines in the lobby. All before the trucks even had a chance to close up and leave. It’s 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 likely don’t have the time or patience to deal with insane dipshits. They have a business to run after all.
“Unmarked FEMA vehicles arranged deliveries at the back door.” pg. 141
By unmarked do you actually mean marked? Because the same circular logo is visible on both vehicles:
They’re unfortunately a bit too small to read clearly, but it’s likely they’re just the Newtown township seal:
But why would they even bother with unmarked vehicles when they’re rolling in and out of there with a bunch of enormous, branded tractor trailers, which drove straight through the center of town?
Clearly there’s no attempt at maintaining any level of secrecy here. And what would they even be delivering that wouldn’t be on one of these massive trucks?
“Weed growing and wires hanging loose indicate the fact the school was disused.” pg. 141
This is the “weed growing” at the back of the school that Allan Powell believes proves the school is “disused”:
Seriously! That’s it! By this metric, my house is also abandoned.
Not surprisingly, Powell does not mention the landscaped lawn and shrubbery that surrounds the school. Remember that this is a school that has allegedly been abandoned for five years, yet the bushes are trimmed, the grass is cut, and the 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. Almost unbelievable seeing as how scene photographer Detective Walkley would have had to have missed the sticker while taking the photograph, missed the sticker again while compiling the photos into one document (“Walkley – scene photos.pdf”), intentionally placed the photo at the end of the document in an attempt to make it look as if it was captured 5-6 days later than it was, and then included a description of the photo in his photograph report (CFS 1200704597, 00187025.pdf):
As mentioned in earlier chapters, Detective Walkley’s crime scene photos are presented in chronological order. The photo with the sticker is page 738 of 760, which places it somewhere around December 19th or 20th. The photo Powell alleges was taken “next” is actually page 89 of the same document, likely taken on the 14th. And while it wouldn’t be impossible to remove every trace of residue left over after peeling off such a sizable sticker, the fact that none exists only serves to strengthen the official story.
“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
Think of how many rambling e-mails from Allan Powell the poor people at W.B. Meyers have to delete on a daily basis. Hopefully they’ve already set up an inbox rule.
“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
It actually identified which items are to be moved to Chalk Hill, which is 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 is definitely one of the dumber claims made in this book. So even with at least five years to plan, not only were they unable to avoid a number of serious, obvious mistakes in their “production”, but they couldn’t even decide on the “scope” of the thing?
“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 see so much as a single word about it. So I have zero idea what this is all about. I also searched the entirety of “Sec_4_Primary_Scene.pdf” (taken on December 14th and into the early morning hours of the 15th, which would require this car to be in two places at once) for any trace of a light green Honda Civic and came up empty-handed.
“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 bullshit. 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. And minor quibble, but the bullet did not travel forty 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.”
The report continues. Keep in mind that Powell suggests it’s bullet strike 5 that took an impossible path:
“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 bullet strike information as it relates to the cars in the parking lot in the scene report (CFS 1200704597, 00118939.pdf):
“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.”
“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, etc. They are seen in the same exact locations in every available photo, every single time. And while Fetzer and his crew continue to make claims that these cars have been here, there, and everywhere else, they’ve never provided a shred of evidence. The tape was simply blown underneath the car and caught by the wheel.
“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 other than this exact parking spot. In fact, you can see that in every available photo, this car is consistently closer to the right dividing line.
“This is the Lauren Rousseau car which also was staged as being in the Lanza house driveway.” pg. 144
As discussed a bit earlier, and 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 doesn’t actually provide any photographic evidence, but we can see everything that was parked in the driveway at the Lanza home on page 433 of “Sec_4_Primary_Scene.pdf”:
I’ve cropped the Connecticut state police van out of the picture as it’s obviously not Lauren’s car. What we’re left with is one Dodge Charger, three Chevrolet Impalas, and one almost entirely obscured car. The very tail end of it is visible on page 435 of the same document, and I’m almost certain that it’s another Impala. It’s definitely not light green and the rear looks nothing like a Civic. So where is this 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? As stated above, the bullet struck the Camry 36.5″ upward from the ground. The bullet strike report does not include incredibly detailed information, but if the bullet did not travel through the space in between these two vehicles – and there were at least a few feet – then it would have easily sailed over the Civic’s hood. Again, using far more sophisticated methods than Allan Powell, crime scene investigators determined that this bullet came 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
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 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”), I think most reasonable people would understand the importance of something like 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
“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 does not reference any discharge of the Bushmaster in the parking lot because there was no discharge of the Bushmaster in the parking lot. So that’s (still) totally accurate. This is blood from one of the injured victims who was carried or otherwise transported through the parking lot to the triage station at the fire house. 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 it appears as if he also has trouble with his 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, and that’s entirely fair, so I’ve changed to be more accurate). You can confirm this yourself by looking at the location (12 Dickenson Drive, Newtown, CT) on Google Earth. With that in mind, take a look at these two pictures (which I’ve stitched together using pages 154 and 161 of “Farr – nighttime exterior photos.pdf”, which is also where Powell’s photo comes from) and it’s clear that the sun is in the process of setting. I’ve circled the blood shown in 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? The fact that the bullet eventually came to a stop? Its location? If so, wouldn’t it be far more “convenient” for it to have stopped in a more visible, accessible area of the trunk? Somewhere that wouldn’t have required investigators to tear up the trunk?
The bullet strike report (CFS 1200704597, 00050860.pdf) explicitly mentions all entry points, but it never states that 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 is corroborated by Detective Peter Farr’s secondary digital photography report:
Fetzer has been accused of intentionally blurring photographs in the past, and it would be difficult to find better evidence of such a claim than this “exhibit”. But if you look at the original, you can clearly see the shattered glass littering the sidewalk:
But if the front window isn’t yet broken, then where did all of this glass come from? Are we supposed to believe “stagers” foolishly planted these pieces before shattering the window at a later time?
The hole itself is admittedly a bit more difficult to make out than the glass on the sidewalk, as one would expect when peering into a well-lit room at night. But if you know what to look for, there’s really no question. Luckily, a very similar photograph exists on page 106 of “Farr – scene photos.pdf”. Since it was taken during the day, it’s much easier to see that the window has indeed been blown out, so much so that not even Allan Powell or James Fetzer could possibly disagree, which is probably why they’ve avoided discussing it (thus far). Let’s compare:
Photo #1 is the photograph Powell claims shows the window fully intact. Again, it’s page 13 of “Farr – nighttime exterior photos.pdf”. Photo #2 is page 106 of “Farr – scene photos.pdf”, which plainly shows the large hole Adam created when he shot his way into the school, bypassing the locked door. Photo #3 shows page 13 of “Farr – nighttime exterior photos.pdf” again, only with a yellow circle highlighting one of the areas in which the break is especially obvious; simply look at the middle of the investigator’s back, which appears to be split into two halves. You can also see the spiderweb effect created by breaking safety glass all around the circle, especially above and to the left of it.
“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? Kind of like the crime scene investigators seen here in the lobby?
“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 recording has been seen by the public in the years since the attack.
Why would authorities even bother to record such a video? If it were to be used to strengthen the idea that this was a real event, like the evacuation and crime scene photos, then why hasn’t it been released? Why aren’t these cameras seen in any of the aerial photos, such as the one seen below? If they’re there to document a drill, they’re missing out on a whole hell of a lot.
“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 about as blatant as they come.
The Exif data for the below image shows that it was taken on December 14th. If the portable toilets arrived “prior to the day”, then why are they nowhere to be seen here?
Or in the Channel 12 helicopter footage?
And why does an officer’s dashcam show them being delivered at 1:28PM on December 14th, 2012?
“The suppliers of the toilets will not answer emails for details on the supply contract for the potties.” pg. 148
Weird that they don’t just give out client information to random fruit loops.
“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 to me. It shows that they’re not totally prepared to utilize the tent, which was provided by the Department of Public Health, and not the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (which is an independent State agency in Connecticut). If this were planned, one would expect both to show up at the same time. Dr. Carver doesn’t drive around with it in the trunk of his car.
“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 are looking in a northerly direction. The sun is setting here. 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 outwards does in fact make it difficult to distinguish the larger hole from this distance, the cracks surrounding the smaller hole make it faintly visible when viewing the full-sized image:
However, this 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 only real difference between the two being the physical height at which they were taken, with Meehan’s being taken from a bit higher off the ground. Here’s a slightly-cropped version, blown up to around 125%:
Full disclosure: I’m not a photographer or a graphic artist, etc., but I do understand that if we take this photo and adjust the input histogram levels, it will wash out the image a bit, increasing the contrast between the light and dark colors in the process. And here’s the result of dropping the input histogram level of the above photo to around 60 (which I did with Paint.net, in case you want to duplicate these steps on your own, which I encourage):
Now if we isolate the window and zoom in a bit, the two holes in the window become very obvious:
“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 are still backwards. Now 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, which is when this photo was taken. The mortuary tent has not been set up yet.
“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 (according to the Forensic Science Laboratory report, which I’ve quoted below). It’s perfectly fine to shoot corroded ammunition and all this means is that the Lanzas weren’t perfectly good about cleaning 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 man who doesn’t understand reflective surfaces? Or weather? Or angles? Or shadows? Or seasons? Or trees? Or cardinal directions? Firearms examiner Doug Fox and forensic science examiner James Stephenson 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
Again, it’s the word of Aussie knucklehead Allan Powell – who, according to this book’s biography, does not have a shred of experience in any relevant field – against that of James Stephenson and Doug Fox, expert firearms examiners with over sixty combined years worth 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.
The 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.
Here is 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 thing that’s improbable about this story is the idea that Adam Lanza would have looked her in the eyes and not shot her, but after watching three television interviews with Sally, I cannot find a single instance of her making such a claim. This one appears to be another denier fever dream, which is probably why Allan Powell does not 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” “crisis actor” who also happens to A) be a real-life registered nurse in the state of Connecticut since 1974 and B) consistently tell the same story.
“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 miserable photographs, taken from the school’s main office (and not the nurse’s office itself) as proof. Neither of these photos come close to showing what it actually looks like inside of Sally Cox’s office. But the video taken inside of the school does, and it proves that she would have had no problem seeing someone walk through the door from her computer desk, which can be seen below, sitting just to the right of her “normal” desk (you can see the split in between the phone and printer). In interviews, Sally consistently mentions hiding behind her computer desk, which has a hole in the back to route cables through.
“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. From her 60 Minutes interview:
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 corroborated by her statement to police, which can be 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 not difficult to imagine how someone could confuse a pair of Adam’s black Nunn Bush oxfords, worn with cargo pants, as “boots”.
“The large tent mortuary doesn’t appear in other released photos purportedly taken on the day of the shooting.” pg. 151
Because it didn’t show up until the afternoon of the 14th. The photo Powell chose for this “exhibit” was taken on the 17th, so yes, 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 an “oak tree”, this image also shows a Christmas wreath.
As shown in Chapter 8, this area would be a lot more colorful in late October. As for the tree, maybe it’s an oak and maybe it’s not; I’m not entirely sure. But I live in the northeast United States, not too far from Connecticut, and here’s a photograph of a white oak with leaves that I took on February 18th (click to enlarge in a new tab). You can check the Exif data, if you don’t believe 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 released with so many embarrassing, substantial mistakes.
These are obviously two different cars, parked in two different spots. The Beetle is parked just out of frame in Powell’s second photo, which is page three of “Meehan – parking lot photos.pdf”. In order to see it – and in the same frame as the dark gray Mazda 3 Powell believes is a purple Beetle – you would only need to look at page two of the same document.
Here’s a smaller, slightly cropped version of it with a yellow arrow pointing to the Beetle (sandwiched in between two small SUVs) and a red arrow pointing to the “backwards” Mazda 3:
And here’s the Mazda 3. Notice that the surrounding cars are all facing the other way:
By the way, that’s page 212 of “Farr – nighttime exterior photos.pdf”, which is where Powell found the first photo on this page (“exhibit 36”). So the fact that he made such an enormous and embarrassing mistake is pretty incredible… unless, of course, his intention was to be 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” (otherwise known as 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 obviously couldn’t bother to read, contain a number of 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.
And 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.
Both photos of the window were taken on the same day, which was December 17th. The second in the series – “exhibit 39” on page 153 – is 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 showed up and reflects how officers would have left the scene. The first photo – “exhibit 38” on page 152 – is page 21 of “Farr – scene photos.pdf” was taken later in the day and shows what it looked like after the break had been cleaned up, likely so that the movers could use these doors without injuring themselves. Page 20 of “Farr – scene photos.pdf” reveals that the glass shards have also been 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”? This is according to who? Allan Powell, expert in absolutely nothing whatsoever?
“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?
As it turns out, it’s not all that impossible. In fact, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, an estimated 2,250 people injure themselves in such a “physically impossible” way every year. That’s pretty impressive!
“Notice that there is no reflection in the window of the mortuary tent.” pg. 154
Because it wasn’t there yet.
Powell has again included an aggressively cropped version of the photo found on page 139 of “Farr – nighttime exterior photos.pdf”. And if you look at the pages preceding and immediately following it in that file, you’ll see that the mortuary tent is nowhere to be found. Here’s the photo from page 150, for example:
As you can see, the mortuary tent is nowhere to be found. This is entirely expected as it did not show up until later that evening. When it did arrive, it was located directly next to the vehicle with the yellow tape draped across the windshield, which is the same vehicle seen in Powell’s 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 that investigators are simultaneously smart enough to fill the rack in the lobby with up-to-date magazines while also being so stupid that they drilled into the window frames from the wrong side. As for the claim itself, CW Wade over at SandyHookFacts.com has already covered this one in a 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 full version of this photograph, which is page 18 of “Meehan – parking lot photos.pdf”, shows that Adam Lanza’s Civic is parked in the fire lane, crime scene tape is up, and the crime squad van is already on location. Page 10 of the same document (and remember that the pages are presented in chronological order) shows that a portable toilet has also been delivered, meaning that it’s at least 1:28PM on the 14th. That would mean that, if Powell is to believed (and he isn’t, because he’s an idiot and a liar), the holes in classroom #10’s window frame were not drilled by investigators until at least 1:30PM that day. That’s awfully late for them to start fabricating something so important, isn’t it?
And while blowing the photo up to somewhere in the neighborhood of 500% isn’t exactly easy on the eyes, it does provide us with a closer look at the two investigators in front of classroom #10. The (drill-less) right hand of the investigator in the dark jacket is too far above the frame for him to be creating holes there. And why isn’t he using his left hand to assist him in the job? Probably because he’s not drilling any fucking holes.
“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 seen a car that looks quite like this:
Obviously these poles aren’t affixed to anything, let alone cars. You can see them move around quite a bit in between pages 195 and 204 of “Farr – nighttime exterior photos.pdf”. In fact, they’re never seen in the same place twice. Because people are carrying them around, as is obvious from the above photos.
“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 that they would show up at the site of a mass school shooting though, right? Because that’s what this is.
Other photos from this document (“Meehan – parking lot photos.pdf”) show that the mortuary tent hasn’t arrived yet, so this is fairly early in the afternoon. Photographs taken a bit later in the day show that this vehicle – whatever it is – is already gone. It certainly looks nothing like the SWAT vehicles parked by the firehouse, which arrived sometime between 9:45AM and 10:15AM (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 fucking report before contributing two whole chapters to a book on the subject.
No one stuck a chair anywhere; it was used to transport Natalie Hammond, who had a “seriously damaged” leg, from 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.
Viewing Powell’s source in full resolution (page 2 of “Walkley – scene photos.pdf”) makes it very clear that the window has been broken (notice the spiderweb effect) and that there’s glass all over 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…
I believe nearly every classroom in Sandy Hook Elementary contained a SMART Board system, and this one happens to be powered on, although nothing was being displayed at the time these photos (and video) were taken. We can tell that this is a blank SMART Board screen as it looks identical to the one seen in the library during the videotaped school walk-through:
Now if this were an “audio-visual presentation”, not only could we expect to actually see something projected on the screen, but we could also reasonably expect to see people attending them as well.
But why was it on, if not for some mystery presentation? Well, according to one student’s statement (Book 5, 00180063.pdf), the children started their days by reading “morning messages” from the SMART Boards, as seen in this 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.
And seeing as how we can also see a powered-on SMART Board screen in room eight (that’s in addition to room twelve as well as the library) during that same videotaped school walk-through…
…that certainly makes much more sense than Allan Powell’s dimwitted theory. It also provides further evidence that the school was open and operational at the time of the shooting. Otherwise why would these boards be 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 and waiting for the mortuary tent to arrive because – again – it did not show up until well into the evening of the 14th.
“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.
Anyway, sure, when you choose an image of such dubious quality that it looks like a child’s first attempt at watercolor, it may look like there are two cars in the fire lane when there should only be one: Adam’s Honda Civic. But if we look at a higher-quality version of the photo (taken on December 15th), which can be found accompanying this Daily Beast article, it’s clear that this is not the case:
The Civic is the only car in the fire lane, surrounded by crime scene tape. The other car is absolutely not parked in the cordoned area. Other cars can be seen in this spot as well as the surrounding area throughout the investigation:
What’s particularly funny about the image taken from the woods is that it actually deals a pretty devastating blow to Powell’s ridiculous assertion that these photos were taken in late October or early November. It’s extremely likely that this view would be nearly impossible during that time, due to the foliage.
“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 is broken. It’s certainly not either of the cars referred to by Powell. Rosen’s car appears to be a 2003-2005 Honda Accord while Adam Lanza drove a 2010 Honda Civic. Here is a comparison of the two cars, highlighting some major differences (besides the state of the front driver’s side window):
Different windows, different window trim, different tail lights, different branding, different trunk trim, etc. These are very clearly not the same cars.
Here’s a black 2003 Honda Accord (albeit with tinted windows and upgraded wheels) for comparison’s sake:
The side windows (including silver trim) and tail lights are identical to those seen on Rosen’s car. The car in his driveway is absolutely not a Civic.
Next: Chapter Nine
I’m pretty sure I told you not to waste your time on this nonsense chapter or one on Allan Powell but damn this was entertaining. Well written as always. Point by point with sources and wit. Well done.
Thank you, but you know that if I skipped a chapter – even after dealing with the rest of them – I’d have a bunch of schmucks telling me it was because I was too much of a chickenshit.
Sorry to interject here… nice work … and a lot of work… HOWEVER… I’d like to point out.. that there ‘s three aerial photos in the middle of the article. There’s a phrase between the second and third… “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. And here’s one final shot, taken shortly after the previous photo:” The final shot with the mortuary tent could NOT have been taken shortly afterwards… like on the same day. Anyone can see that the shadow cast from the building crosses into the second line of cars … and then we’re to believe that it comes back toward the school again — on the same day??
While I do appreciate your exhaustive work … and I just got through reading the scrap-book entry article— which is really swaying me back your direction, please update the before-mentioned photos– that last one was definitely not ‘taken shortly after’.
By the way – The moving vans stuff before that is also very good!
I’ve only scratched the surface of reading your awesome blog. I’m hoping that you have something that addresses the wildly weird photos of the Lanza residence… though that may be out of reach for you as it has nothing to do with the school or it’s activities, etc… also would be interested in any security images or video of the shooter (no bloody gore needed… just maybe the entry or something – or even the outside approach of the shooter… anything at all).
I’ll continue to read your work. thanks again for the time in addressing things (instead of just dismissing everyone who has an ounce of questioning).
I DO agree that a whole lot of what Fetzer spews is not factually sound and he tends to glom onto things that aren’t foundational and pre-maturely leap on things before even playing devil’s advocate in his mind. That in and of itself is dangerous. For Example Page 13 of his book (the she one) he states that the picture in front of the school was taken in the morning… but again– clearly the school’s front is facing North Easterly and the shadows are long and heading North Easterly (long in front of the school)… which puts it almost before sundown.
I have a whole lot of questions-but they’re not pointing toward ‘It’s all a fake’ — but rather just questions of why doesn’t this particular photo make sense? Things like that. You gotta know that when so much is not revealed and is redacted — stuff that has nothing do to with revealing identities or privacy… it fuels the hoaxers.
I look forward to the rest of your work. : )
SC, you’re absolutely correct. Good catch, and an unfortunate oversight on my part. I admittedly do make mistakes, but when it’s clear that I’m wrong, I will absolutely make corrections.
Anyway, I was able to trace the source of the photograph, which was taken by Andrees Latif of Reuters, and the description on Reuters site says that it was taken on December 15th, 2012. So it was taken after the photo just above it, but certainly not “shortly” after. I will adjust this entry accordingly.
Thanks for bringing this one to my attention, and sorry it took me so long to address it.
Hey Shill Murry! I don’t think it was a hoax, but I think this video with Gene Rosen right here is extremely suspicion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFyexz_IuHE Did you find out who this “MATT” person is and the source this video came from? I can’t find a debunk for this video anywhere. Thanks!
Hi Dave. I’ve seen this video multiple times, and I still fail to see what’s so suspicious about it. I know plenty of people say that it is an “audition tape”, but I’ve never seen anything to back that up. I also have to wonder A) why Gene Rosen would create an audition tape, B) he would film his audition tape on the day of the shooting (and you can reasonable infer that it’s the day of the shooting due to what he’s wearing – seen in a number of other interviews filmed that day – as well as the fact that you can hear the helicopters hovering overhead), and C) how such an “audition tape”, in its unedited form, would become public and then stay public, seeing as how it’s (allegedly) such bombshell evidence.
Now let me ask you: what do you find so suspicious about it?
As for the source, it was originally posted here:
“Matt” is Matt Coyne, a staff writer for The Hour. He wrote the above article and interviewed Gene. That’s who Gene is speaking to when he says “Matt”.
nice try… my sister lives 10 miles away, the Sandy Hook school was closed… on that lie alone it’s obvious this whole sloppy debunking is just that… we still got our guns a-holes… you’ll never get our guns… ever…
Pack it in, everyone! Forget all of the photos, articles, government documents, witness statements, etc, that I’ve posted here; some Internet rando’s “sister” allegedly lives in the general vicinity of the school! Nevermind the fact that “Sal Paradise” has failed to explain how his sister’s proximity to the school proves anything, just the fact that she lives nearby is all anyone should need. Case closed! False flag confirmed!
How is it possible that Adam Lanza was killed in 6 different ways? https://sandyhooked.wordpress.com/adams-6-deaths/
It isn’t. And he wasn’t.
The evidence given for these alleged “six different deaths” – almost all of which actually describe only a single death: a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head – relies almost exclusively on confabulation. The author has clearly pored through the available material specifically looking for mistakes or outlying, distorted memories from maybe just one or two otherwise well-intentioned people who remember things a little bit differently, and posits that they should be treated with equal if not greater reverence than everything else, no matter how cohesive and unanimous it may be. It’s nonsense. It’s like if you asked a hundred people what the moon is of and when one of them tells you “cheese”, you then throw up your hands and say, “well, now we’ll never know!”
“Death #1”: Early rumblings that Adam may have been killed by police are nothing new, and the point of CAD (computer-aided dispatch) is to simply record information as it comes in so that responders can be dispatched accordingly, not to provide a comprehensive history of every incident. That same CAD readout also implies that Ryan was the gunman and that he had only shot one faculty member, singular. And we know neither of those things ended up being true. So whoever it was in Connecticut law enforcement that provided that information to Hoboken PD was undoubtedly mistaken, or maybe Feliciano Santos was mistaken when he relayed the information. Neither scenario should come as much of a shock as there was still a lot of misinformation being passed around at this point, even in Newtown.
But if you scroll down to Patrolman Nicholas Burke’s account, starting on page eleven of the very same document, you’ll see that while dispatch was mistakenly told that the gunman was killed by police, multiple members of Hoboken PD were correctly informed that the gunman (still believed to be Ryan at this point) killed himself:
Officer Edward Lepre was told the same thing. From page sixteen:
Why only share the information from the first call to come into Hoboken PD when that information was corrected later in the very same document?
“Death #2”: Most likely scenario? Vance is simply mistaken. Or he misspoke. Least likely scenario? Vance, department spokesman, cannot remember which story he’s supposed to tell the press.
I’m not sure exactly what time the first video was filmed, but it was before sundown on the 14th. So sometime before 4:24PM. If Lt. Vance had in fact been in the school (and while that’s what he claims in the second video, there is no mention of it anywhere in the final report and he gives no indication in any of his press conferences) there’s no way to tell when that would’ve taken place. It could’ve been after he spoke to that reporter, so he may not have had first-hand knowledge at that point. That’s assuming he did in fact enter the school. I’m not so sure he did, to be honest. It’s wholly possible he embellished his story for the benefit of his audience at the Dart Center. I don’t know. Regardless, if Vance didn’t know where they found Lanza’s body on December 14th, he did on January 15th when he was part of an informal meeting where they shared that information with “families and friends of the deceased victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting”. That’s according to CFS 1200704559, Book 1, 00019607.
As for the same error being made in the complaint of Lewis et al. vs. Newtown et al., this thing was written by a single lawyer who clearly just copied and pasted their initial mistake. So the fact that it’s in there six times doesn’t mean much. It likely remained untouched throughout subsequent revisions (I haven’t checked them all) because it’s totally irrelevant to the case, which is about whether or not the district did enough to protect students. If you think there are no such thing as errors in court filings, I’d recommend you peruse Sidney Powell’s “Kraken” lawsuits following the results of the 2020 US Presidential election.
“Death #3”: The first account is from Officer Michael Perry of Southbury and I agree that he likely entered room eight first, based on how he describes moving through the school. But he never mentions entering room ten, almost making it sound like he went straight to the lobby next, which sounds odd. So my guess is that he is conflating the two rooms. What is the alternative? Are we expected to believe that, like Lt. Vance, Officer Perry was unsure of which story to give in his report? Or maybe that no one is mistaken and there were actually multiple Adams? Or perhaps one Adam that was moved from area to area? This site offers no reasonable explanation for these conflicting narratives; the sole purpose seems to be simply to cast doubt on the official story for the sake of conspiracy-mongering. On the other hand, the fallibility of eyewitness reports is nothing new or controversial.
The scene described in CFS 1200705354, Section 16 is nonspecific enough to be either room 8 or 10. This one could easily be chalked up to confusing the room numbers.
CFS 1200704559, Book 6, 00002060 is the account of Trooper Combes. If the implication is that he is unaware of the fact that Adam is actually in room 10, it’s very obvious that is not the case as he describes encountering Adam’s body in a different room in great detail in the preceding paragraphs. I also don’t believe that he misjudges the number of adult victims in room 8; his wording is just a bit confusing. First of all, when he says “near the entrance to the room”, I’m pretty sure the “room” he’s referring to is the bathroom, not the classroom itself. The reason I say this is, as he describes walking into the classroom, he says “at first glance it did not appear that there were any casualties”. If there were two adult bodies near the entrance of the room he had just walked into, how in the world could he miss them? He also later says “The teachers appeared to have been shepherding the children into the room and were then probably going to shut the door”. Even though he again says “the room”, he is unmistakenly referring to the bathroom here. So I’m fairly certain that he is first mentioning the number of adult victims in the room (two) and then describing their positions (one several feet from the entrance of the bathroom and another lying across the bodies inside of the bathroom) rather than describing four (not three – strange that the author would miss the chance to inflate this number further) individual adults. The idea that some other mystery victim, which the author bizarrely suggests could have been Nancy Lanza for whatever reason, may have been in the room and subsequently “covered up” makes no sense whatsoever. But again, the author’s intent does not seem to be to form a cohesive narrative.
Moving on, Meehan simply confused the room numbers as the his descriptions make it clear which room he was actually in. For example, when he says “he saw the victims to the left and said ‘holy shit'”, he’s of course referring to the pile of bodies by the bathroom. And if you cross reference his report with that of John Reed, who he was with, you’ll see that they absolutely went to room 8 first and then room 10, which is just how Meehan describes it. This is further corroborated by Sgt Cario in CFS 1200704559, Book 6, 00026724:
Did the author not think to check the accounts of the other folks that Meehan was with?
“Death #4”: Even in Cario’s re-telling of his encounter with Chapman and Smith, neither man explicitly tells him that they saw Adam Lanza with their own eyes. The author is assuming, based on the officers knowledge that Lanza had been in the hallway (which, of course he had) and their use of the word “ducked”, that they did. The problem is the evidence doesn’t support that theory.
Like the author says, neither Chapman nor Smith makes mention of such an encounter in their reports. In fact, both men recall hearing the final five shots fired by Lanza while still in the parking lot. Kullgren, who met up with Chapman and Smith outside of the school, corroborates their stories in his report:
Additionally, none of the witnesses from room 9, including Natalie Hammond, mention hearing police inside of the building until after the final shots. I’m not sure why the author chose the witness account they did in an attempt to make their point as it seems obvious that they (the witness) are referring to the Glock/suicide shot when they say that there was “one more gunshot which sounded completely different than the others”. Other witnesses have also referred to the final shot sounding “different”, which makes sense as it was fired from a different gun. It is a bit confusing when that same witness first says the last shot “sounded like it came from the lobby”, but then goes on to say “the other shot” – singular – came “from the right side of the door”. The latter would make sense as room 10 would be just to their right, while the lobby would be to the left.
Cario did meet up with Smith and Chapman inside of the school, at least according to the “summary of events” formed from 911 transcripts, Newtown PD radio transmissions, etc., included in the State Attorney’s report:
That took place at approximately 9:50, or eleven minutes after Chapman arrived on the scene. And based on Chapman’s full report, he had already discovered Lanza’s body in room 10 during a sweep of the northeast hallway with Smith before leaving the building, re-entering, and then “assembling a team”, which is almost certainly the group described above. Chapman also mentions seeing Kullgren “at the Southern corner on the other side of the school” at this time, which lines up with Kullgren’s account of splitting with Smith and Chapman before making his way around the building. So I think the much more likely, reasonable explanation is that by the time Cario, Smith, and Chapman (allegedly) had this conversation, whoever it was Cario spoke to simply took what they had seen firsthand during their sweep – bodies and casings in the hallway, Lanza’s body in room ten – and pieced together what had happened. The author appears to be basing his claim that Chapman and Smith physically encountered a living Adam Lanza inside of the school based on nothing more than Cario’s use of the word “duck”, though there is absolutely nothing about that word that guarantees visual confirmation when describing movement. For instance, if you went to a party with a friend and they disappeared while you were taking a piss, it would be perfectly acceptable to say they must’ve “ducked out” while you were in the bathroom even though you did not physically see them leave. So for the author to say that the word “ducked” absolutely could not be used unless there was a witness is rubbish. Even if it were strongly implied (and I don’t believe it is), guess what: people use words incorrectly all of the time. It’s still much more reasonable to believe that someone misspoke than it is to believe police actually entered the building while Adam Lanza was still alive and then decided to cover it up for some unknown reason.
“Death #5” & “Death #6”: According to 00156981 (CFS 1200704559, Book 8), “The Medical Examiners certified the cause of death to be ‘Gunshot wound of head’ and the manner ‘Suicide’.” And 00187734 (also CFS 1200704559, Book 8), which are the actual (heavily redacted) autopsy results, states “Dr. Carver concluded that the cause of death for the shooter was a gunshot wound of the head and the manner of death was suicide”. The only document that mentions an “intraoral” shot is Greenstein’s review of the final medical examiner reports. Seeing as how the majority of the other “findings” are listed as “multiple gunshot wounds” and one is listed as “not listed”, this does not seem like the most meticulous document to me. Interestingly, a similar report created by Greenstein three months earlier (00063183) lists Adam’s cause of death as “Gunshot wound of head”. Of course the mouth is part of the head, but Greenstein’s report specifically mentioning an “intraoral” gunshot is the outlier here and is therefore likely to be incorrect. Again, it happens. Hell, the first page of the autopsy results refers to a misspelled name on the report of investigation ME-1 02.
So we have two choices here: accept that some people made mistakes or suggest that no-one did. Either some of these people are wrong or none of them are. The latter is obviously ludicrous, no matter who these people are and how long they’ve been doing their job. Show me a single event this chaotic, involving this many people, where every single one of them can agree on every detail, and I’ll show you fiction. So if you were to claim that everyone here is correct, and therefore the official story is incorrect, not only would that make it very difficult to take you seriously, but you’re also proposing that numerous, often conflicting accounts are all 100% true. That is absurd, if not flat-out impossible. See my earlier note about multiple Adams, or even moving Adams. If no one here is wrong, then both of those things are true. Like are we expected to believe that’s what actually happened? And if this was some sort of coverup, why didn’t everyone stick to some sort of script? Why didn’t they alter the reports to line up with the official story rather than release such a confusing mess of documents? Etc. What the author is proposing here – and again I’m still not sure what that is other than the official story being bogus – just doesn’t make any sense.
Where in the report is this photo? I Can’t find it.
Page fifty-one of “Tranquillo – Back-up scene photos 2.pdf”, included in the “22_Assorted_Files” archive.
You ignorant piece of garbage I work for the company who moved the classroom furniture out. My coworkers managed the job. We use the stickers to label things and keep them in order. Things like books need to be kept in call number oder. Get a friggin job dude. Children died. You’re sick.
I’m not sure if you meant to reply to someone if you’re speaking to me, but please understand that I do not believe the school was used as storage or that no children died; I am reporting on claims being made by other people and debunking them. Please re-read the entry.