Sandy Hook Forensic Evidence

originally posted by: Zephyranth
Since the original reports for the most part are completely redacted (typed summaries are viewable, but not the officers' actual report), even the reports are conjecture.

I completely agree! If the reports have inaccuracies then it is impossible to prove conspiracy. The phantom DNA can be a mistake in lab analysis or mishandling the initial evidence. When I showed up as a reporter at crime scenes in small towns, police officers sometimes picked up evidence and handed it to me, no gloves for either of us!

The missing or contradictory elements in a report may be the bungling of a law enforcement officer who does not want to risk their job by admitting mishandling evidence. In my experience law enforcement officials regularly make mistakes and never admit it and the public goes on for years suspecting conspiracy when it all comes down to basic incompetence and human pride.

Contrast with Columbine's 30,000 pages of material, including 7500 pages of juvenile witness testimony with names unredacted--all this largely made publicly available, online, by the tireless efforts of the families themselves.

The contrast may very well be due to the difference in level of experience and competence between the two sets of investigators, including the FBI which has regional offices with different teams. The difference between the FBI teams investigating the Columbine case and the Sandy Hook case may be as if from two different planets.

The first thing that would clue me to incompetence is the extreme amount of redaction in reports. What is being covered up? I would bet on culpability for administrative incompetence. There has probably been internal reviews that resulted in forced resignations and the public will never know because it is not a public matter. If I was still a reporter I would check a department's hire/fire records that occurred quietly during the investigation, especially when contradictory information was exposed.

originally posted by: audenine
..... bungled attempts of small town law enforcement to CYA regarding incompetent handling of crime scenes and evidence.
.

Ahhhhh! The appearance of the "me so incompetent" red herring. Every good conspiracy theory has one, when the authorities can no longer explain away the anomalies and they blame it on official incompetence.

--------------------------------

"We had NO idea than an open window on a high rise overlooking the President's open-topped limo could pose any danger."

"We had NO inkling that a passenger plane could be hijacked and used as a weapon."

"We got lost." --The response of the Secret Service when asked why President Reagan was the last to arrive at the hospital, after the three other wounded, even though his vehicle was the first to leave the shooting scene.


Ahhhhhhhhh!

Here is something that makes me wonder.
I found it on Infowars, but this link is to the FBI Crime Statistics for 2012
It shows ZERO murders for Newtown, Connecticut in 2012.
I guess we can't trust something. Is it their numbers for crime statistics that we can't trust, or what?

originally posted by: butcherguy
Here is something that makes me wonder.
I found it on Infowars, but this link is to the FBI Crime Statistics for 2012
It shows ZERO murders for Newtown, Connecticut in 2012.
I guess we can't trust something. Is it their numbers for crime statistics that we can't trust, or what?

Don't wanna rock the boat, but your reply caught my attention. Please check this for clarification...

Note: The point of this question is not to castigate responders or agencies, but to understand the flowchart of causality and make very, very sure that flowchart looks different next time.

Why did it take 15 minutes for Newtown police officers inside the school to transmit that many additional ambulances were needed?

NPD entered the school at 9:45; it would not be until 10:00 that D5 breathlessly requested that regional ambulances be sent "...ASAP--call Danbury if you have to."

NPD reported the two adults in the hall immediately; when did officers first see the multiple victims in the classrooms? Surely it was before 10:00 a.m.; officially, it was at 9:51:31 when one team found (?) the deceased shooter in a room full of victims. 8.5 minutes is a long time to wait to tell dispatch there are 10x more victims than first reported. Beyond that, there is reason to believe officers saw inside Rooms 10 and 8 before 9:51 a.m.

Unfortunately, as far as we can tell Newtown ECC (Newtown Emergency Communications Center) neither acknowledged nor responded to D5's 10:00 request; instead, it would be a verbal request from CSP relayed by Netwown EMT Dahlmeyer at 10:03 that then prompted a response. Only then did the "medical emergencies" dispatch go out to Sandy Hook Fire & Rescue and Newtown Hook & Ladder, respectively.

There were other opportunities missed: At 9:53 a paramedic in transit relayed that CMED needed to know the address of the call; Newtown ECC refused to give it. It would be ten more minutes before the CSP/Dahlmeyer request finally drove home the point that multiple additional ambulances were needed. Ten minutes is an eternity for an emergency medical response, and it is not going too far to suggest that, had they been aware of the address, understanding it to be a school, and looking at a map, CMED might have immediately dispatched or at least alerted additional ambulances and Life Star.

It seems to have taken Newtown ECC a significant length of time to realize the seriousness of the situation, and certainly that had a great deal to do with the fact that it took NPD officers inside the school 15 minutes to indicate that many, many more than two people were down. It could be they were lead to believe CSP was handling it, but given the clear compartmentalization of these two agencies it seems inconceivable that NPD would fail to communicate the sharp increase in wounded to Newtown's own dispatch, particularly in light of the fact that ambulances were clearly not responding to the scene.

We know that at the very, very latest by 9:51 a.m., police were looking at 27 gunshot wound victims. But not one NPD man calls for ambulances for over eight minutes? He then received no response; surely he or someone should have called again until his transmission was acknowledged?

I believe it's the compounding of problems that makes this so catastrophic. I think it's clear NPD was busy with something for the first 10-15 minutes inside--too busy to do the one thing that would normally be foremost on someone's mind--alerting dispatch that the patient count had risen from 2 to 27, most of them children. There are enough indications of gunshots around the 9:51 mark to think that the delay had partly to do with a shooter still firing, and still on the move. This, indeed, would not only explain but 100% justify police attention remaining focused on containing the threat (though dispatch should still have been immediately informed this was now an MCI, just as it was immediately informed at 9:45 of the two bodies in the hall). But without an admission by law enforcement that at least one shooter was still active until 9:51, police today have no explanation for 1) taking six minutes to find a guy who was either lying dead in a hall full of other bodies and gunsmoke or had just "ducked into a room," and then 2) waiting 8.5 additional minutes to alert dispatch to the extreme jump in patient numbers.

I believe it's becoming clearer and clearer that one or more shooters were shooting 7-11 minutes beyond the "final shot." This would account for much of the officers' behavior, not to mention for the gunshots on the 911 calls and the officers' descriptions of running, ducking shooters. Unless someone was shooting BEYOND 9:51:31 a.m., though, it is very difficult to explain waiting 8.5 minutes to tell your dispatcher you just found out this was a mass shooting.

Sad but necessary topic. I welcome people's insight.

originally posted by: audenine
That's all you can count on as factual. All else is conjecture.

Are you saying NONE of the ACTUAL radio recordings are fact?
I wonder what your professional opinion would be about the radio transmission that sounds just like "END THE LIFE OF ADAM".

www.prisonplanet.com...

The link is a follow up to the comment above regarding the FBI crime statistic stating no murders in Sandy Hook. The article is an interview with an investigator. Pretty interesting.

originally posted by: audenine
The OP claims to be stating "just the facts" but in line with a true critical analysis, there are no facts here, just reports. The only facts are that many are dead and many different reports were made.

I'm not understanding. Facts? This is one of the more if not the most "fact based" thread on this website
Unless you are approaching this from a completely solipsist philosophical perspective but why would you do that as it renders any conversation with other people moot?

Not to put words in the OP's mouth while they are not around to speak for themselves, but is it possible they did not want to clutter up the thread with a long preamble asserting their a priori assumptions?
for ex.

• There is a such thing known as external reality
  
• That reality can be reasonably ascertained by communicating with others and finding out what commonalities we share in our observations about that reality.
  
• That reality can be known better and in more detail if one has more facts
  
• That soon after any event, the initial news stories will be inconclusive and possibly contradictory.
  
• That a more reliable barometer of truth is contained within the 10k pg Official Police Investigation Report as opposed to on CNN or Facebook.
  

Yea I really dunno but it doesn't sound like you've looked into this topic much at all.
I doubt you even realize that your 2 "facts" are also just "reports" as well.

originally posted by: audenine

originally posted by: Zephyranth
Since the original reports for the most part are completely redacted (typed summaries are viewable, but not the officers' actual report), even the reports are conjecture.

I completely agree! If the reports have inaccuracies then it is impossible to prove conspiracy. The phantom DNA can be a mistake in lab analysis or mishandling the initial evidence. When I showed up as a reporter at crime scenes in small towns, police officers sometimes picked up evidence and handed it to me, no gloves for either of us!

A mistake in lab analysis?
Do you even know what DNA is? CODIS? Unless you mean that someone convicted in NY state later became a forensic crime scene technician in CT, and its their "phantom DNA"?

Umm

a reply to: Soldato231547

There are NO facts when it comes to Sandy Hook. There are only theories and conjecture on both sides of the fence. The evidence to say that SH was a real attack is sketchy to say the least!

Nobody in this forum can say that SH was a real event because they have no proof. But equally nobody can say it is a Hoax.

Speculative information is what we have to go on here. Not Facts!

There was also this odd reference; was the shooter talking to the kids, or one of the teachers before he shot them to death?

BOOK FIVE
pg50 of 117 (02922)
(Redacted Witness): "(Redacted) stated that she could hear the shooter talking in the next room and that was when she realized that the shooter was male. (Redacted) stated that the shooter was cursing "shut the f*** up", "look at me", "You're an asshole", "come over here", and "look at them".

originally posted by: Hilux1996
a reply to: Soldato231547

Nobody in this forum can say that SH was a real event because they have no proof. But equally nobody can say it is a Hoax.

It was a real event. There are facts. There are dead children and graves. There are witnesses. (facepalms, walks away).

The question (for me, at least) isn't whether or not children died. It's whether all of them had to.

There was a critical ambulance shortage, followed by swift and catastrophic blockage of the ambulance route. There is also something incredibly wrong with the shooting timeline--multiple shots fired long after the "final" shot.

My main question, at the moment, is why NPD waited 10 minutes to inform dispatch the scene had changed from "two down" to "27 down."

My main question is why do the few eyewitness reports that made it through all the redacting describe someone who didn't match the official version of a shooter wearing "..... a pale green pocket vest over a black colored polo-style short sleeve shirt over a black t-shirt. ...He was wearing black cargo pocket pants, black socks, black sneakers, a black canvas belt and black fingerless gloves on each hand."
(BOOK NINE FINAL REPORT pg147 of 482)

To wit:

BOOK FIVE

pg85 of 117 (03082)
(Redacted child Witness): "(Redacted) explained that the bad guy shot her teacher and classmates. She further explained that the bad guy looked like an Army guy wearing what sounded like green fatigues."

pg86 of 117
(Redacted child Witness): "He(the witness) seemed calm and quiet, but responded politely and articulately when asked questions. ... ...a man with a gun came into the classroom. (Redacted) described the man as tall and skinny with light skin and a light brown beard that was short. He stated that he was wearing a green army style hat with straps, a green shirt and camouflage pants."

pg87 of 117 (03072)
(Redacted child Witness): "(Redacted) said the shooter was dressed in "army clothes" and was firing a "bazooka". He thought the shooter had dark skin and a beard."

pg88 of 117 (03075)
(Redacted child Witness): "...he saw a white man with all green clothing a green hat, with black boots, walk into the classroom carrying a gun. ... He described the man as "being the age of dad" when asked how old the shooter looked.

pg101 of 117 (03121)
(Redacted child Witness): "...a man walked in. He was wearing a brown or camo shirt, brown pants, a hat that was like a sombrero but smaller that was also brown. He goes on to state that the man had a bazooka that was black, brown or camo. He was also wearing sunglasses. ...

pg111 of 117 (03121)
(Redacted child Witness): "..described the shooter as a white guy with a heavy winter-like brown jacket, and a green shirt underneath the jacket. (Redacted) stated that he believed the man was wearing army green kind of pants, and described him as having dark hair, longer on the top than on the bottom, with no beard or mustache."


BOOK SIX

pg4 of 86 (03195)
Newtown PD LT Vanghele: "In one classroom I noticed a young male laying on his right side in a fetal position. ... Someone yelled out that he was the suspected shooter. ...The suspect had long, blondish, wispy hair and a very straight and pronounced jaw line.

pg14 of 86 (03241)
Newtown PD Officer Mudry: "We then entered room #10, where I observed a white male, brown hair... black boots, green BDU type pants, ..lying on his right side within a large pool of blood."

originally posted by: Zephyranth
The question (for me, at least) isn't whether or not children died. It's whether all of them had to.

There was a critical ambulance shortage, followed by swift and catastrophic blockage of the ambulance route. There is also something incredibly wrong with the shooting timeline--multiple shots fired long after the "final" shot.

My main question, at the moment, is why NPD waited 10 minutes to inform dispatch the scene had changed from "two down" to "27 down."

The simple answer to that question is that the majority were huddled in one room. Thus, until that room was cleared, the dead would not be known about.

a reply to: starviego

so what we get from this is that kids are not very reliable eyewitnesses...no two of them described the same person, and NONE of their varied descriptions matches the final description of the person we are told carried out this attack, all by his oncey....

even the descriptions we see here by police officers who testified to being on the scene, and laid eyes on the shooter, don't match the final description...

at the risk of being censored; what's up with that?

a reply to: starviego
I always wondered about the witness descriptions but never went to read them. Sounds like a very real possibility of a second or different shooter. Why didn't the MSM jump all over this?