It seems like you are following this closely. This post is great and it's going to get buried. Please start a blog or something and copy this post to it and as you follow up make new posts like this. This is amazing and vital info.

I tried watching the proceedings myself but couldn't hack the legalese. Please keep up the good work. This breakdown is so informative and important that it needs its own home.

Agreed

"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear."

More, utterly meaningless bluster over trivialities from the Hoaxers, when not flat out delusional.

It is my belief that case law history will also reveal that Police Officers, while acting in their course of duty cannot be considered as “witnesses”

Must be some radically new definition of witnesses, of which I was previously unaware.

Hey, HONRWATCH, are you ever going to explain your recent, apparently entirely fictitious claim that "the school was declared too toxic to be reopened"?

"the school was declared too toxic to be reopened"

Oh, man. I just discovered where HONRWATCH got that from. Google the above phrase and you will see their entire post comes, word-for-word from a Facebook post by Diane Jakopovic of Elkhorn, Nebraska.

Presented by HONRWATCH entirely without any attribution, does this mean we need to add unabashed plagiarism to the list of their talents?

burningempires, are you aware that Dr. Lenworth Jacobs, one of the Connecticut surgeons who conducted the Sandy Hook autopsies [EDIT: I agree with others that Jacobs may have only "assisted in the autopsies" that day," and that I'm unclear on exactly what that entailed] has implied publicly that many children could have survived, and his colleague Dr. Wayne Billups flat out stated that MOST could have survived if they had received proper treatment and transport?

Dr. Lenworth Jacobs, one of the Connecticut surgeons who conducted the Sandy Hook autopsies

Zephyranthos, are you aware that you're 1000% wrong?

I recommend you consult DPS-302-C, which is available in the official report as 00063183.pdf. It lists the four doctors that performed the autopsies. Guess which two name are not included in that list? You can see where I'm going with this, right?

Do your research. Or just let me do it for you, I guess.

I agree now that it's possible he didn't participate, though the following passage is a little murky: "But no patients arrived from Sandy Hook Elementary School that morning. Instead, Dr. Jacobs received a call from the medical examiner’s office, requesting his assistance in the autopsies of the 26 bodies of schoolchildren and their teachers."

Based on the document I cited, he was not there. Four medical examiners performed the autopsies and they were joined by six officers from (I believe) Newtown PD. No offense intended, but I would refer to that document before sources with admittedly "murky" verbiage (and I absolutely agree, it is a bit confusing).

In an attempt to figure out what role, if any, Dr. Jacobs played in the autopsies, I first searched on the above quote and there were only two results, one of which lead to nothing. The other was a PDF which didn't shine a whole lot of light on the situation. It also didn't say anything about the children possibly surviving the attack. In fact, it seemed to imply the opposite. From the article:

"Sandy Hook was an exception to this pattern: The first-grade students and their teachers who were shot died almost immediately"

Anyway, I expanded my search a bit and found the following:

"According to Dr. Lenworth M. Jacobs, trauma director and chief academic officer for Hartford (Conn.) Hospital, the committee grew out of the 'profound effect' he experienced in reviewing the autopsies of the 26 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims in Newtown. The number of dead was over three times greater than the number of injured victims in that attack and the medical examiner on the case asked Dr. Jacobs to help determine why the survival rate was so low."

I think that should clear up Dr. Jacobs' participation.

Question for you, though: let's say that Dr. Jacobs did in fact attend the autopsies (despite all evidence to the contrary) and say that he believed the children could have been saved (again, despite all evidence to the contrary). What is the relevance? How is that evidence of a hoax? Isn't the popular opinion among conspiracy types that nobody died? How would Dr. Jacobs' contribution strengthen that idea?

No hoax. This coverup is pure old state of Connecticut CYA. Spreading the hoax meme was, however, an effective way of shutting down genuine conversation and research into the genuine problems with the Sandy Hook story.

CSP detectives Lukienchuk & Combes, in a sworn statement, declare that NPD Lt. Vanghele signed his one and only narrative statement entered into the Sandy Hook final report. Lt. Vanghele is on record declaring he never signed any such thing.

Ex-Chief ME Carver is on record stating all 26 deceased had immediately lethal wounds. Paramedic Reed is on record saying they did not.

Chapman is on record stating he entered Room 9 first. Cario is on record stating Chapman did not.

Sedensky is on record stating the school's main doors were locked. Cario is on record stating they were not.

Sedensky is on record stating children were reunited with their families in an orderly fashion. Dozens of troopers and witnesses are on record stating they were not.

Chapman is on record stating he entered room 8 before removing Olivia from room 10. He is also on record stating he did not enter room 8 before doing so.

And so forth.

I would also argue that a child who still has a pulse, and is still breathing, 30 minutes after being shot did not die "almost immediately." In emergency services terms, whether someone lives or dies is often a matter of seconds; 30 minutes, in medical terms, is an eternity. It is fallacy that the children died almost immediately. It was the "pattern of wounds" in the Sandy Hook deceased which so concerned Jacobs that he immediately launched a nationwide campaign to address the issue of GSW victims dying unnecessarily. It was the same pattern of wounds which led paramedic John Reed to detail, in his report, that "...there were a substantial amount of casualties and they spent a significant amount of time assessing the victims...Reed stated they assessed all the victims that did not have apparent fatal injuries...Reed stated that Cassavechia had spoken to the Emergency Medical Control Physician D. Pat Broderick and they decided that all victims with obvious non-life sustainable head wounds would be checked with the cardiac machine. Reed stated they re-assessed the victims in the rooms utilizing the cardiac machine." (00002358)

Per Reed, they assessed all victims that did not have apparent fatal injuries. Per Reed, this took a long time; his point being that there were a significant number of such victims to assess. Even more remarkably, they then re-assessed these same victims using the cardio. Why? Because when victims have wounds that are so clearly NOT immediately lethal, you have to work very, very diligently to cover yourself, legally, when declaring death. Carver, or whoever is putting words in his mouth, is lying, pure and simple. Read even Carver's most straightforward-sounding statements, however, and you will see evidence of legal dodging. For example, "An analysis of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in Newtown, CT, in December 2012, by two of this article’s authors—Dr. Carver, Connecticut’s Chief Medical Examiner, and Dr. Jacobs, the Chair of the State of Connecticut Committee on Trauma, who was deputized to participate in the review—revealed injuries in 26 victims that were immediately lethal." (http://bulletin.facs.org/2013/06/management-of-mass-casualty/)

Note the wording: "revealed injuries in 26 victims that were immediately lethal." Legally, that phrase would not hold up as stating ALL 26 victims had wounds that were immediately lethal. And it couldn't, possibly, because two of those children survived at least long enough to be placed, alive, in ambulances 30 minutes after sustaining their wounds.

So then what are they covering up? I don't think the state of Connecticut cares about the kind of "research" Internet conspiracy theorists do, to be perfectly honest.

You don't believe many if not all of those anomalies can be attributed to human error? That's rhetorical, I guess. I know you don't. But for instance:

Sedensky is on record stating children were reunited with their families in an orderly fashion. Dozens of troopers and witnesses are on record stating they were not.

I think it's pretty clear that they were not, so maybe Sedensky is simply remembering this chaotic situation incorrectly. Or maybe you've made a mistake. I assume this is in Sedensky's interview, so maybe I'll confirm later.

Ex-Chief ME Carver is on record stating all 26 deceased had immediately lethal wounds. Paramedic Reed is on record saying they did not.

Can you provide a source for this?

Also, I take it you're just going to forget the autopsy conversation happened.

Not forgetting autopsy conversation - already admitted it could be read both ways, and in fact the bulk of reportage on it seems to indicate exactly what you suggested - that Jacobs reviewed the autopsies but was not present. The anomalies of the Sandy Hook report can definitely be attributed to human error. Errors such as NPD officers failing to tell dispatch there were not two down, but over two dozen down. By the time Nute heard this was an MCI, 30 minutes had passed and he hadn't summoned a single additional ambulance--because he had no clue they were needed (it could be argued that under the circumstances he should have called for mutual aid by that point regardless). Errors such as LEO vehicles blocking the ambulance route. There's enough error to go around, for sure - much of it understandable, however lethal. What is less forgivable is lying about it afterward--to include removing the section describing road blockage from the CT Police Chiefs report before releasing it to the public.

already admitted it could be read both ways, and in fact the bulk of reportage on it seems to indicate exactly what you suggested

So why not just admit you were wrong? Saying "it could be read both ways" seems like a cop out. You were wrong about the door and you were wrong about the autopsies.

The door? I already said I agreed with your reading of the autopsy issue. The passage I read stated Jacobs was "invited to assist in the autopsies," which led me to believe he had done that. It's not weird of me to think that meant he actually assisted in the autopsies; but I agree with you that since the bulk of the reporting contains the somewhat odder phrase "examine the autopsies," and because his name isn't in the report as part of the autopsy team, that it's more likely he somehow examined the bodies post-autopsy. Your insistence that I 'admit I was wrong' is pretty odd considering that I've graciously agreed multiple times now that your reading is probably closer than mine. What's the door issue?

Yes, the front door. You had initially stated "Sedensky is on record stating the school's main doors were locked. Cario is on record stating they were not." But there's absolutely no evidence to support that. Cario never says that they're locked. You were wrong.

You also seem to be dancing around saying that you were wrong about the autopsies by saying things like "your reading is probably closer than mine", etc. I think it's pretty clear at this point that he was not there physically. There's no evidence of it other than your interpretation of the words "assist" and "examine".

Look, you've obviously put a lot of thought into this whole theory of yours. I think it's total bunko but credit where credit is due: you apparently don't subscribe to the preposterous "hoax" angle and we've gone back and forth probably a dozen or so times without you calling me a "shill". But I don't think we're ever going to get anywhere here. For everything that's shown to be incorrect (the door, the autopsies), you're just going to toss out four or five more claims. It'll never end.

Sedensky is on record stating the school's main doors were locked. Cario is on record stating they were not.

I picked one of the Sedensky claims out at random because that document is searchable (whereas the statements are not). I don't see any reference to the doors being locked when police arrived. He refers to the front doors being locked when Adam arrived (page 9), and he also says (of the doors) "The entrance to the lobby consisted of two sets of locked full glass doors that opened outwardly using a pull handle. They were separated by a small vestibule. The doors were secured with an electronic locking mechanism. The doors could be opened from the inside with a horizontal push bar across the middle of the door" when describing the school in the "scene investigation" portion of the report (page 17). If I'm missing the relevant reference, please give me a page number.

Cario says, in his interview (Book 6, 00026724.pdf): "I remember considering that the front doors might be locked, and I did not want to stop moving until I was somewhere with cover I know that I considered going through the window, As we approached the door I remember seeing Lt. Hofbauer's hand grab the door handle, and that I was off to his right. I do not remember how I entered the school, but it may have been through the window".

Where are you copying and pasting this information from? Halbig?

Here's another one...

Chapman is on record stating he entered Room 9 first. Cario is on record stating Chapman did not.

Chapman, who was with Ofc. Smith, stated "We then crossed back to the interior side of the hallway and entered a room and observed some adults and some children crouched down at various locations in the room. I observed an adult female laying down with obvious injuries to what I believe but do not specifically recall to have been her leg and hand. She was conscious and responsive. I advised everyone in the room to stay where they were, and that the police would keep them safe. I exited the room and saw a Msgt. from CSP standing in the lobby as well as possibly two or three other troopers." One of those troopers is clearly Cario. Smith's interview corroborates this. He says "Officer Chapman and I began checking and clearing each door that we came to. I remember checking a room on the right side of the hallway that appeared to be a closet with computer equipment and that room was empty. I remember checking a second room on the right side of the hallway. That room was a small classroom with several female adults. I recognized one adult as Natalie Hammond."

Meanwhile, Cario mentions that Chapman was already in the building when he arrived. "As I entered the school, the first thing that caught my attention was two Newtown officers who were to my left. I moved behind them..." "I recall the tall one to have the long gun and, based on subsequent interaction, believe him to have been Newtown Police Officer Chapman." Cario leaves the building and returns a short time later (less than a minute, he says). When he returns, he joins Chapman and Msgt. Davis who tells them to "form up". Cario states he is "the back of an active shooter formation." He also says "I do not recall specifically who searched the first room on the left, Room #12, but I remember believing that it was unoccupied and did not perceive it as a threat. I suspect that the two Newtown officers left the formation to check that room as I left some confusion as our point man had left." So it certainly sounds like Chapman and Smith hit those rooms before Cario and Davis even showed up, and I don't see him specify that he was the first anywhere in his interview.

Again, I'm really curious as to where you're getting these talking points as they don't appear to be particularly well-researched.

Beth Hegarty is on the phone with 911 before officers arrive; she and a colleague remain on that phone up to the very moment officers first enter their room (room 9). Cario has made it clear, by noting the timestamp on the 911 call at the moment he entered the room, that it was in fact him entering the room first--not Chapman. No other officer had entered room 9 up to that point. I'll get you the links when I get to work - Beth's 911 call is in the final report (exhibit 349), and you can hear the moment Cario enters the room, and that no other officer has entered nor interacted with the victims in that room up to that point, despite Chapman's claim to have done so.

To put it bluntly, Chapman's claim to enter room 9 is imo an attempt at establishing an alibi which places him NOT in room 10. Cario is contesting that alibi; in fact, Cario's timestampathon as a whole contests several key claims of the official story, and begins to look awfully deliberate. You will notice a baffling flurry of effort, on several NPD officers' parts, to establish that they were not in room 12 or 10 or 8, or that they don't remember if they were, but that each remembers having his weapon on safety before entering room 10. Officer Penna stated before 800 school resource officers in Florida that he heard a shot at 9:51:31 a.m. and assumed one of his guys had shot the suspect. This is over 11 minutes after "final suicide shot" was to have been fired; in his official report, Penna changes his recollection to saying that he heard no shots inside the school. My studied opinion is that C shot the suspect in the head, twice; problem being that the suspect had been in cuffs since S nailed him in the right clavicle at 9:46:54 a.m. with a department-issued handgun, cuffed him, and dragged him into room 10. Chapman had continued on to room 8, seen the carnage, run back to room 10 in an understandable rage, and shot the cuffed youth. I know this is a lot to process; I do have quite a bit to support this theory, but it's enough for now to set aside any final conclusions and simply focus on the fact that the officers' stories to not jive. State police agreed that NPD's accounts were problematic, interviewing Chapman no fewer than 4 times--the most of any responding officer, during which process he changed his story significantly.

I'll help you out; the call is located in "StartTime 2012-12-14 14-36-0 Logger 45170321 Channel 3 RadioREDACTED.wav". At around 10:08 (of that file, not the official timestamp), you can hear someone say something about room 9, though it's a bit muffled. Then you can hear the door of room 9 either open or close. Or both, quickly. The dispatcher asks "what's going on?" and Beth says "She just opened the door and said we have somebody hurt here." But they ask Beth who it was and she says that she doesn't know. This is obviously a bit ambiguous but I don't think they would have opened the door independently, unless they knew for a fact that it was the police or paramedics. And clearly it wasn't Adam Lanza.

So while Beth doesn't engage with whoever it is at the door, I think it's obvious that this is Chapman and Smith. Do you agree that's at least possible? Don't forget that Smith corroborates Chapman's story. If you don't believe that this is Chapman and Smith, what do you think is going on here? Do you think that both officers are lying? Do you deny that they were on the scene before Cario?

It's somewhere around 11:30 of that same file that the dispatcher instructs officers to head to room 9. At 14:02, Beth says "a police officer just came in", which is corroborated by Cario's interview. He states "The woman across the room appeared to be on a cell phone or portable phone. She ended her conversation saying something like 'police just came in'".

Beth's door experiment began at 9:48:48 and lasted 3 seconds. Yet both Chapman & Smith describe entering Room 9 and speaking at some length with the occupants while both officers were inside Rm 9. No such conversation occurs in the 911 call between 9:48:48 and 9:48:51.

Smith: "I remember checking a second room on the right side of the hallway. That room was a small classroom with several female adults. I recognized one adult as Natalie Hammond. Natalie Hammond indicated that she had been shot in the leg and arm. I did not observe a large amount of blood and the wounds did not appear life threatening at that time. All other adults stated that they were uninjured. Natalie Hammond stated that she saw the shooter but was unable to provide a very accurate description. She indicated at the time that she had only seen one shooter. No other adults inside the room had observed any suspects. At that time, I left Hammond in the care of the other adults in that classroom. Officer Chapman and I continued to check the building as we did not know the status of the shooter at that time. I do not remember how many rooms we checked on the left side of the hallway. I remember checking one classroom on the left side of the hallway. As I approached the doorway I observed a black handgun in the lock-back position. Officer Chapman immediately indicated verbally that there was a gun to alert those behind us in the hallway."

Point of including long version is to show Smith claims he entered Room 9 and had this detailed conversation before he and C had entered Room 10.

Chapman: "We then crossed back to the interior side of the hallway and entered a room and observed some adults and some children crouched down at various locations in the room. I observed an adult female laying down with obvious injuries to what I believe but do not specifically recall to have been her leg and hand. She was conscious and responsive. I advised everyone in the room to stay where they were, and that the police would keep them safe. I exited the room and saw a Msgt from CSP standing in the lobby..." (Msgt is Davis)

Hegarty's/Day's 911 is recording the entire time; there is no such conversation with her and any other person; there is no vocal from Natalie nor others in the room "stating they were uninjured" nor attempting to give descriptions of the shooter. Aside from this, the Room 9 occupants are still on the phone begging the dispatcher to tell them whether any police are in the school yet. Clearly no officers have entered the room.

I have no doubt that the conversations with Hammond and other occupants may have taken place later - but they did not take place before Cario entered Room 9 at 9:49:58, as the first officer to do so, and as he points out, without the company of C & S.

Oddly, Chapman claims there were children in Room 9. Technically, he's not wrong - there is a big "9" above Room 8 where indeed children were in the room. The old designation for Room 8 was Room 9. Personally I think his alleged recollection of "children in Room 9" was a Freudian for what he saw where he truly was around that time - in Room 8, which he either inadvertently or purposefully refers to as Room 9, accidentally including aspects (seeing children) from that room. But CSP didn't fall for it - they grilled him so hard about when he entered Room 8 that he finally changed his story once and for all to say he didn't enter Room 8 until after running a Room 10 patient all the way up Dickenson and returning to the school. This despite earlier swearing that he entered Room 8--describing it in horrifying detail in his initial report--before triaging anyone in Room 10.

Such extensive effort on the part of some, to this day, to claim Chapman didn't go to Room 10 after seeing Room 8 - despite his original testimony that he did just that. There's little question left in my mind as to who fired those shots at 9:51:31, and into whom they were fired. There's technically one alternate explanation for the latter, but I don't even want to consider it yet.

Come on, man... there's no real indication that this was a "lengthy" conversation other than you saying so. No one described it that way in their interview. They still hadn't located Adam's body at this point, so why would they stop to have a long chat? Smith's version of the conversation could have taken place over a handful of seconds. Chapman's version is even shorter. You're editorializing.

You're also toying with semantics. No, Beth did not have a conversation with Chapman and Smith, but neither said that they spoke to her specifically, so that doesn't mean anything. Smith only mentions interacting with Hammond.

Now while you haven't come out and said it, I'm assuming you don't believe the statements of either Smith or Chapman. For whatever reason. But Cario's statement does not specifically mention entering room 9 first either, so that leaves us with the 911 call as your only evidence that Cario entered first (even though he never makes that claim). But again, what do you believe is happening at around 10:15 of that file? What do you think Beth is talking about when she has the following exchange with the 911 dispatcher:

Dispatcher: "What's going on?" "I don't... she just opened the door and said we have somebody hurt, can you help us?" "Wait... wait... wait... she went outside?" "No, she just opened the door." "Who's there? Who did she talk to?" "I don't know"

I get it; you think it's too short to contain Smith's version of events, but that doesn't answer the question.

I still fail to see the significance of any of this. So what if Cario actually did enter the room before Smith and Chapman? What do you believe that means?

You nailed it - they still hadn't allegedly located the shooter yet, so they would NOT have stopped to have a chat, and in fact they didn't. The 911 call is contiguous from the time it was initiated, to the time Cario entered the room. The audio shows that no officer entered the room and spoke with the ladies at the time Chapman and Smith claim to have done so. The question is not whether Chapman and Smith were in Room 9 before 9:49 - they weren't. The question is why they lied about being in Room 9 at that time and where they really were at that time. There is evidence Smith fired his handgun down the north hall at 9:46:54, striking the perp in the right clavicle - what they were actually involved in is cuffing him and discovering Rooms 10 and 8. The perp had resumed firing at 9:45, likely from Room 2, firing out across the playscape in the direction of the arriving Salmeri and Wagnblas. This is likely why Rios and Manfro were still pinned down and not moving. The second Smith hit the perp, someone alerted Rios (I think it was Cario) by running out to "see what was happening on the playscape." In short order, Rios and Manfredonia, who had been immobile on that side of the building since the time Manfro was cuffed (about 9:41 IIRC), suddenly were free to move safely to the parking lot and did so (per dashcam timestamps). You can hear the shooting resume in the 911 calls toward the end of the 9:45 minute; this includes the sounds either of one guy firing two weapons in rapid succession, or else fire and return fire.

You're avoiding the question. What do you think the commotion is at 10:15 of that file? Why do you think the door is opened and who do you think it is she talked to?

Beth went to the door, cracked it open and yelled that they had someone injured and then slammed the door. She was panicking, and she didn't speak to anyone - she yelled out a door and slammed it shut in under 3 seconds. Do you really think she would have slammed the door in the face of the (nonexistent) rescuing officers? The 911 caller then continues to beg the dispatcher to tell her whether any police have arrived yet.

Don't be too eager to put Chapman and Smith at Room 9 at 9:48...in the end their best defense will be to get that timepoint moved later and later, not earlier. Beth has been listening to the guy shoot directly across the hall from her since 9:35 a.m. Chapman and Smith are going to have to explain why it took them until 9:51:31 to "find" the shooter. They've been inside that building a relatively long time now, and have to explain why, with a 30 round clip sitting right outside the fricking classroom door, they can't presume Room 10 is an important room; why, after allegedly talking to Beth at 9:48 it takes them 3 minutes to about face and enter Room 10 - Room 10 which has an open door, and an allegedly deceased shooter lying right in the doorway with a Glock clearly visible. By the way, who was covering Chapman and Smith when they were interviewing Beth, Hammond, Day, the "children", and other occupants of Room 9? They turned their backs to an open door? And BOTH officers stood there talking to the Room 9 people, all the while their backs were to the open door of the only room that had a shooter and 3-4 weapons in it--again, with a mag lying on that side of the hall near that door? No way.

Let's say Chapman and Smith really did violate protocol and both turn their backs to the hall and other doors, instead of one of them covering while the other interviewed. Aside from the fact that it's a violation of protocol to attend to the wounded before finding a shooter--who was covering them? Who, then, REALLY entered Room 10 first?

Cario is adamant it wasn't himself, and no other officer is on record claiming to have entered Room 10 before Chapman and Smith. The question isn't whether Chapman and Smith entered Room 10 before any other officers - the question is what time they entered it. Cario is adamant that it was before 9:48.

Beth didn't go to the door. Beth never said she went to the door. That's clear in her exchange with the operator (which I've already posted) in which Beth says "she" opened the door. Why would Beth refer to herself as "she"? This makes absolutely no sense. The operator asks who "she" spoke to and Beth says "I don't know". Why would anyone just open a door to say "hey there's injured people in here" when they're unsure of the shooter's status? This is ridiculous.

Do you really think she would have slammed the door in the face of the (nonexistent) rescuing officers?

Come on, dude. If Chapman and Smith showed up, said "stay here, police will keep you safe" (which is what Chapman states he said), no one is "slamming the door" in anyone's face. Don't be a goof.

Let's say Chapman and Smith really did violate protocol and both turn their backs to the hall and other doors, instead of one of them covering while the other interviewed. Aside from the fact that it's a violation of protocol to attend to the wounded before finding a shooter--who was covering them? Who, then, REALLY entered Room 10 first?

How do you know they both turned their backs? Where does it say that? Why couldn't one of them open the door while the other provides cover? Bahamonde and Vanghele provided cover for Chapman earlier, since they were already there. Chapman says in his statement. "Since there were officers available to provide cover fire I took a moment to check for signs of life".

Beth went to the door. That's Day on the phone at that point.

Beth was freaking out--she had three children in the school. You can hear Day (start to) say that, and you can hear Day correct the dispatcher when the dispatcher still think's it's Beth on the phone. Beth handed the phone to Day before going to the door and doing the yelling-into-the-hallway thing.

You're correct about the phone being handed off. See, it's not so difficult to just say you made a mistake. But the idea that anyone would have gone to the door, opened it, and announced their location (as well as the fact that there were injured inside) to a gunman or gunmen is just absurd. Obviously we'll never agree as to why the door was opened (though it seems as if you're finally admitting the door was opened prior to Cario's arrival), but Chapman and Smith's statements at least offer up an explanation while there doesn't appear to be a single witness statement that supports the idea that she opened the door on her own and called out to no one in particular while not even knowing the status of the shooter.

I didn't realize I was going back-and-forth with a "Hall of Shamer".

https://riversong.wordpress.com/sandy-hook-the-real-story/

Still holding on to that Dr. Jacobs claim, huh?

What must be understood here is that the state's defense rests on proving ALL injured were shot as early as possible; this supports the (false) assertion that there was "nothing that could have been done" to save them, given that they were bleeding for such a long time. It is very unlikely the perp was still hitting victims when he resumed firing at 9:45, but that apparently would have been so hard to prove that Sedensky finally insisted all gunfire stopped at "9:40:03," which is ridiculous. While Sedensky and his team have chopped out the audio portion of some 911 calls (he did so at the same timepoints across multiple calls, to remove the most damning gunshot sounds), he didn't chop out those points in all calls--meaning that while the shots are muffled or inaudible in many calls, the callers' reactions can still be heard. Things like callers saying "Shh!! He's still sh----!" and children suddenly crying that they're scared, etc. It's damning enough that Sedensky removed the calls--even more so when you can hear that directly after a removed bit, someone in a different call reacts to a gunshot. Sedensky apparently didn't count on citizens with audio editors lining up all the calls and figuring out what he'd done.

children suddenly crying that they're scared

I think this is pretty flimsy evidence that someone is still shooting.

It might be flimsy if the same moment hadn't been cut out of multiple calls, with people in some cases suddenly whispering, "He's still sh---!!!" Regardless of what was in the removed moments, Sedensky falsified documents--inadvertently including both the falsified versions, and sworn references to the genuine versions, in the same final report.

Dr. Lenworth Jacobs, one of the Connecticut surgeons who conducted the Sandy Hook autopsies,

Actually, he didn't. He was called in to examine the autopsies, he did not carry them out. That was Chief State Medical Examiner Dr. H. Wayne Carver III

Beyond that, not sure about the point you're making. This was a basically unprecedented event: While sad to think lives could perhaps have been saved, I've got absolutely no problem with the subsequent response being evaluated, to see how it could have been improved. There's always room for that, and it certainly isn't evidence in the slightest for a hoax.

I agree that there's room for interpretation with the following: "But no patients arrived from Sandy Hook Elementary School that morning. Instead, Dr. Jacobs received a call from the medical examiner’s office, requesting his assistance in the autopsies of the 26 bodies of schoolchildren and their teachers."http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8oQbTFpKK6wJ:www.generalsurgerynews.com/viewarticle.aspx%3Fd%3Din%252Bthe%252Bnews%26d_id%3D69%26i%3Djanuary%2B2014%26i_id%3D1032%26a_id%3D24808+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=opera#sthash.LbaiOkCz.dpuf

"A lot of these children's injuries were not immediately lethal," Dr. William A. Billups, a surgeon at Anderson and Rush said. "The reason they died is because they bled out." (Joel Counce, The Meridian Star, Dec 5, 2014)

Please leave our safe space. You are literally stalking our account.

Good stuff. Vanghele is one of the officers whose statements to State Police call into question the official story--he's one of the good guys in my book. The question for me is how Lukienchuk witnessed a signing that didn't happen - not whether Vanghele is lying when he said he didn't sign. Lukienchuk et al have motive to claim Vanghele signed; Vanghele has very little motive to claim he didn't. Something important to keep in mind: the statements collected by CSP were redacted in their entirety, and only a SUMMARY of each statement made available in the final report. The "typed statement" from Vanghele, in other words, is not visible--it's 100% redacted. Only a summary--itself typed by some CSP staffer--is visible. So which "statement" are we even referring to--Vanghele's original typed statement, or the CSP's re-typing (and no doubt shrinking) of that statement?

Also note that the CSP investigators claim to have visited Vanghele at Newtown PD HQ, and spoke with Vanghele for over 3 hours in order to acquire this "typed statement."

Sorry - just saw that the 3-hour bit was already noted.

Bingo.

Once again - Halbig sticks out to me as colluding with the state. Why? Because his entire FOIA presentation has resulted in one conclusion: NPD Lt. Vanghele's report was not signed, and therefore is not valid.

Why does this matter? Because Vanghele's report is one of the most damning. It contradicts the state's official story on many of the most sensitive points. It raises damning questions about Chapman. It raises damning questions about police allowing the road to be blocked. It raises damning questions about the absence of ambulances, even while police on scene were screaming for ambulances--though the official story would later claim none were needed.

It raises damning questions as to how bleeding children were transported from the scene.

As a whole, Vanghele's report is one, big damn.

But wait - Halbig has made sure everyone now knows this specific report is total junk. Shaking my damn head, once again.

I could write Halbig off as just bumbling into another mistake - but this is one too many. Yes, it appears at first glance to be a problem for the state that they claimed Vanghele signed, whereas he says he didn't. It even seems fairly scandalous. But keep in mind that V's original statement, attached to the state's "summary," is 100% redacted. It will be hard to impossible to FOIA, and if necessary they could up with some excuse that it was digitally signed, or something to that effect.

Except - they won't. My guess is that they'll write this off as a PTSD-influenced mistake, that in the heat of the moment worn-out state investigators accidentally included the pat phrase "X signed, X witnessed, yada yada" on V's report, when--oops--he didn't really sign. Or that an understandably-PTSD-influenced Vanghele simply forgot to sign and they didn't want to bother him further.

That's the end of "only four victims in room 10," the "male child was still alive," "cars were blocking the ambulance route," "Sgt. Cario wanted ambulances right to the school," and every other major problem Vanghele's original, brave reporting presented for the state.

You're good Sedensky, I'll give you that. But check out the story of Dovey J. Roundtree as an example of why you won't win, in the end.

And if I were worth one speck of dust on Dovey's boots, Sedensky would already be behind bars - all I mean is that she's an inspiration to not give up, and sometimes justice simply depends on a few people not giving up.

One of the more damning (using that word a lot for this case) moves on Sedensky's part was to artificially divide individual 911 calls into multiple pieces, renaming them as separate "calls." What he has done at each cut point is remove time from the call. Most damning of all is that in some cases he has removed the same apparently-problematic noises across multiple calls. Here's what the 911 calls look like, reconstructed. Each line is a single file, though clearly it has been cut up into pieces. Note particularly the spots where gaps exist in the same place across multiple calls--a noise that shouldn't be there has been removed.

http://i.imgur.com/Ea4MhDe.jpg

Also missing is the final 3 minutes of Rick Thorne's call--that's a lot to chop off. We know that file used to be 3 minutes longer, because the audio expert hired to analyze the gunshots, Paul Ginsberg, gave the original length in his report--Sedensky missed it. This raises the question as to whether Sedensky lied to Judge Prescott before giving Prescott the files, or whether he gave Prescott the original files and then lied in the report that those were the same files included in the public document.

Though he has likely broken the law by claiming both that the SH victims could--and could not have--survived, Dr. Lenworth Jacobs has made remarkable, life-saving strides by initiating the Hartford Consensus to ensure that in future Sandy Hooks, children with survivable wounds don't bleed out unnecessarily.

Unfortunately, that's not enough.

It's not enough to say "GSW victims need more rapid hemorrhage control," without fully acknowledging exactly how it is that with the shooter down at 9:40 a.m., no child received hemorrhage control for the next 15 minutes.

It's not enough to improve point-of-injury hemorrhage control without fully acknowledging exactly how some Sandy Hook patients were finally evacuated to a parking lot that had zero ambulances present or available.

It's not enough to say "Stop the bleeding," without fully explaining why the first officers to discover the staggering increase in wounded never told Newtown dispatch there were not two, but 29 wounded.

Not one, single school district in our nation is aware of the fact that many Sandy Hook children could have been saved, nor that it was police error--not EMT error--that led to their bleeding to death.