A list of already debunked theories, re: Sandy hook

Originally posted by starviego

Originally posted by frazzle
You'd have to show me a crime scene where injured people were denied IMMEDIATE medical care and died because of it.

At Columbine, math teacher Dave Sanders was denied medical care for hours until he bled out and died in the school. His family did launch a lawsuit which was eventually settled out of court.

That's what I meant, although I didn't word it at all well. Yes, it happens and it usually ends up being the City and Associates after the lawyers get their chunk of the action. Even the victims (families) end up paying their "fair" share of the bill. But depriving injured people of medical care at the scene of a crime is a crime in and of itself and the person(s) responsible should be prosecuted, not promoted.

reply to post by MidnightTide


But that information isn't being posted with the accusations and the deformation of character as has been seen on numerous threads across ATS.

reply to post by starviego


See, that is an interesting question. I'm guessing we'll find out when the police release their final report.

I know it's terrible to think about, but when we consider that the victims had between 3-11 gunshot wounds EACH, it's a fair bet that most of them were dead within seconds. As far as I know, there were only two individuals who died later at hospital.

From all of the news accounts I have read, it seems that all of the child victims were in the two classrooms nearest to the front door of the school. Once the shooter(s) gained access to these rooms... anyone not hiding was dead.

I've heard mention of "victims in a closet" and "closet in the kitchen" a few times -- but only in posts here on ATS. I haven't seen or read anything about that in news articles, and I think it's probably a mistake.

LOL- My source is the SWAT calling "Clear" on the radio... And four hours latyer uniforms arrive on scene and are "surprised" to find a closet full of people. Not going to dig up the scanner feed , time to hear "Building is clear" or the report of the people found hidden in a closet- But it is here.

The "conspiracy" would in fact be the "cover up" as they would be "conspiring" to cover something up-
Lets just take 1 point I mentioned - Swat calling clear and 4 hours later a group is found in a closet by uniforms... This is inexcusable. Totally.

While we are on this- These SWAT members endangered a ton of lives of both Police and citizens alike.

Lets take another point- Covering entry/egress points in a(n) (possible) ongoing crime such as this is pretty much job #1 everywhere- The entry points into (in this case) the school must be immediately cleared and remain so to keep citizens (like Parents) from rushing in and to keep a clear route for EMS to get to and from the scene since you will more than likely be facing injuries. This is basic stuff man, no major training required.

-Buddy, I could hit all these points but I am wasting my breath- You can excuse these as "mistakes" and "ill training" (which I actually agree with- But that isnt the point...At all.

This entire thing looked like a cluster# from second #1.

And still no Subpoena as of Friday to get cellphone records to find which of the First Responders was leaking to the press with half truths(which is a CRIME)

But again- A coverup would be a conspiracy and that is my theory. Your theory is "Yes, they made mistakes, didnt follow SOP ...But...Clearly they will tell us about all the mistakes we made that we do not know about once the Official report is out."

I call BS. This bad of a response and I can almost guarantee there is a lot more we have no clue about... And they will (IMO) do their best to keep this information from the public thus conspiring to cover something up...

I will be making a thread sometime detailing my theory and we can discuss it there...Here is talking about what constiturtes proper discussion , what is allowed, etc. (although not the purpose of the thread it was derailed via a PM sent to me and everyone else linking us here)

Originally posted by LarryLove
reply to post by MidnightTide

 

But that information isn't being posted with the accusations and the deformation of character as has been seen on numerous threads across ATS.

C'mon now... that's not the issue here. The issue is that posting personal information is against the rules on ATS, and a newspaper can do whatever the help they want.

The defamatory statements are a related issue, but let's not confuse things by tying them up into a big bow. What if the newspaper included a statement at the end of their list saying: "All gun owners are potential criminals."?

Would it be the same thing then?

No. Because the issue is the posting of personal information on ATS -- a wesbite that disallows such things, the issue is NOT the defamation at all.

Take 5 minutes and look for some posts defaming public figures. You should have no trouble finding them. Defamation is business as usual on a conspiracy website... as I've insisted on reminding everyone since this hubbub started!

reply to post by starviego


Dr Wayne Carver is one of the medical examiners that examined the bodies.

reply to post by RedBird

the victims had between 3-11 gunshot wounds EACH,

The EMTs didn't even have access to the victims so the 3-11 bullets each is only if you take Dr. H. Wayne Carver at his word. Sorry but after that perfomance on camera I'm having a difficult time getting there .....

reply to post by frazzle


Ah another expert on psychology.

How should someone act in this situation?

Is there a textbook answer and if someone strays from that, does it mean they're lying?

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by RedBird

 

The EMTs didn't even have access to the victims so the 3-11 bullets each is only if you take Dr. H. Wayne Carver at his word. Sorry but after that perfomance on camera I'm having a difficult time getting there .....

Really? I didn't find Dr. Carver's press statements suspicious at all! He struck me as flustered, overwhelmed, nervous, and perhaps in a little bit of shock. He had, after all, just finished performing medical examinations on seven young children with horrific gunshot wounds.

Gosh, considering how little evidence we have to work with, I'm glad we got anything out of the good doctor!

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by frazzle

 

Ah another expert on psychology.

How should someone act in this situation?

Is there a textbook answer and if someone strays from that, it means they're lying?

edit on 25/12/12 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)

No. But the guy acted really, really weird which even the MSM picked up on and said it was disrespectful.[url=http://]http://www.mediaite.com/online/piers-morgan-slams-connecticut-m-e-extremely-disrespectful-totally-inappropriate-laughing/[/ url] and coming from Piers morgan...

Guy was freaking weird. No denying that. His insane cackle during such a somber press conference.

Not saying it "means" anything- But the guy is certainly a few sandwiches short of a picnic when it comes to proper social skills.

But interestingly calling the people actors on a website seems to garner more outrage than the Press Conference with the ME where he was cackling and cracking little jokes- No. he is a weird dude.
EDIT: I would also garner that many MEs are pretty weird. it would take a special "type" to deal with that job and you would either have to be a bit nuts or would probably become a bit nuts.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by frazzle

 

Ah another expert on psychology.

How should someone act in this situation?

Is there a textbook answer and if someone strays from that, it means they're lying?

edit on 25/12/12 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)

What does psychology have to do with it? Watching him give that interview was bad enough ~ reading the transcript was downright ... well, I don't have a good enough adjective right now to express my level of disbelief. But it requires a textbook and a degree to disbelieve someone these days? What a Brave New World you live in.

reply to post by DarKPenguiN


Imagine that...a coroner who just did autopsies on FIRST graders who were slaughtered didn't have what most would consider normal social skills.

If you watch the conference, it is quote clear he is not comfortable speaking, and has a hard time dealing with questions from over zealous media members squeezing him for any info they can.

Those things combined pretty much justify odd behavior, wouldn't you think?

reply to post by captaintyinknots


this in a nutshell

Since when does it matter what Piers Morgan thinks of someone's behavior? That's not evidence, that's COMMENTARY for # sake.

reply to post by DarKPenguiN


Wait a minute do you or do you not have a copy of their SOP? I think most of your conjecture depends on that one important detail.

I thought you had this figured out. Your sources. A radio call really doesn’t cut the mustard. We are not even sure if they didn’t follow SOP or not until you answer that question.

We need to deny ignorance here wouldn’t you agree it is the motto. I do not have any swat experience but my years in the military where I have breached many buildings is some experience who is telling you they did it wrong and I disagree that isn’t a common sense thing we trained hard for it as I am sure they did. SOP your sources?

So far you haven’t provided anything that could be considered as more than conjecture. Common you made some statements can you at least answer my basic questions. I took some time to be thorough.

If there is a conspiracy here as you say give me more than conjecture or spidey sense. I will jump on board but there is a certain burden of proof that needs to be provided. I am sure all here would be interested. This has been a long running thread desperately lacking substance.

So can you tell me where you got a copy of their SOP? I know each department will have customized SOPs with basic guidelines. What did they not follow in theirs exactly?

Can you tell me how often that department trains for those situations? Have they ever trained for such an incident that happened?

Do you know if the SOP is used as guideline or do they allow for workarounds most forces will adapt to the situation in my experience?

Who told you they didn’t follow procedure is that source reliable have they worked in that field had a similar experience or is it your expertise and what is your background if so?

Entry/egress control not followed

Please expand on that can you be exact? What did they do wrong?

Swat claimed the "school was clear" and four hours late uniformed officers found a closet full of people...

What is your source is it reliable? How is it they missed the room is the room easy or hard to miss? Did the teacher pick the room because it was mostly hidden? What kind of sweep did the police do thorough or quick?
Do you know if that will be in the official report? Sources stating that?

There just answer those question to the best of your ability.

Originally posted by RedBird

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by RedBird

 

The EMTs didn't even have access to the victims so the 3-11 bullets each is only if you take Dr. H. Wayne Carver at his word. Sorry but after that perfomance on camera I'm having a difficult time getting there .....

Really? I didn't find Dr. Carver's press statements suspicious at all! He struck me as flustered, overwhelmed, nervous, and perhaps in a little bit of shock. He had, after all, just finished performing medical examinations on seven young children with horrific gunshot wounds.

Gosh, considering how little evidence we have to work with, I'm glad we got anything out of the good doctor!

Like I said, we have ONE source of information. Everyone can watch and read it and conclude whatever they want. Luckily, I can do that TOO.

Incidentally, I've worked with MEs and pathologists and never once saw any of them flustered or overwhelmed or nervous or shocked. Carver is the CHIEF medical officer, not some wet behind the ears intern.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by DarKPenguiN

 

Imagine that...a coroner who just did autopsies on FIRST graders who were slaughtered didn't have what most would consider normal social skills.

If you watch the conference, it is quote clear he is not comfortable speaking, and has a hard time dealing with questions from over zealous media members squeezing him for any info they can.

Those things combined pretty much justify odd behavior, wouldn't you think?

I do- But that was not professional at all.

I could (not going to) try to find other ME press conferences from major tragedies and see how they were handled- The guy has also done some pretty grusome cases (google him) that were major news in CT and has been doing that type of work all his life.

He showed zero tact.

If he were a young man or a new to the field is one thing- Guy wanted to retire this year.

So the "shock value" of what he saw was not the same as would be to you or I who would be bothered as hell to even see one dead body (I would-) and would be very shook up.

Nope- Guy was weird and not professional and there really is no excuse- But we agree that it means "nothing" in the scope of things other than the fact that the ME (IMO) is a very strange man.

reply to post by frazzle


Psychology has everything to do with it.

It seems that if such and such doesn't react in a preconceived way, they're actors or liars.

I might be sounding like a broken record here but basing a theory around how someone act or reacts is the most stupid and absurd thing I've ever heard!

"He's an actor because he didn't act like I would if I just had my child murdered...I've never been in such a horrific situation but I know coz I'm not a sheeple"

To deny ignorance truly would be not allowing you to post.

What part of "we can discuss it when I post my theory" did you not understand? I will answer all those questions and more when I make my thread and would be more than willing to discuss this all with you and anyone else.

reply to post by Grimpachi


That's an awful lot of questions to expect answers for, Grimpachi. Maybe start with one or two, and see if he's up to answering those, and then follow up with the others. Just dropping all of those hard questions on him is a little bit... I don't know, not disrespectful per se... but certainly combative.

Not that I disagree with you, I don't. Just saying that if you really want answers, you might consider going about the questioning a little bit differently.