Chapter 12 by Sterling Harwood, from Nobody Died at Sandy Hook

Sterling Harwood, J.D., Ph.D. 



1. A Brief Introduction to a Brief Critique of a Brief snopes.com 
Essay 

I have to admire the folks at snopes.com for at least seeming at first to 
have a plausible answer to every question they address about Sandy Hook in 
the snopes.com 15-page entry on the subject. Since, however, plausibility is a 
matter of degree, let me raise some brief questions about how the answers at 
snopes.com could be more plausible or less implausible when going beyond 
initial appearances, and let me point out a few puzzles of the official story 
which snopes.com has yet to answer at all as far as 1 know. 

2. Slicing & Dicing Dr. Carver: What Could Come Crashing 
Down on the Heads of the People of Newtown? 

Let’s start with slicing and dicing Dr. Carver. H. Wayne Carver refused 
to let parents of the 20 dead children at Sandy Hook identify the victims by 
direct viewing of the bodies. Snopes.com diverts attention away from this 
startling fact by explaining away a closely related fact. Carver said one 
can control the situation better by using instead photographs of the dead to 
identify the victims, depending on the photographer. Snopes.com said that 
what Carver meant was that one can use a photograph of the face to identify 
the victim without showing wounds to the body of a child. This, however, 
hardly depends on the photographer; this depends instead on the shooter 
and where he shot the child. If the shooter shot the child in the face or even 
shot the identifying features of the child’s face off, then the photographer 
wouldn’t matter one little bit. 

What is snopes.com implying here? Are they implicitly saying that 
some photographers will be insubordinate to Dr. Carver and photograph only 
blood and guts and refuse to take a photo of an un-bloodied face if there is 
one? That’s just implausible. It’s also pretty implausible that all 20 sets of 
parents would accept a mere photograph for identifying their child as dead. 
1 have serious trouble imagining how even one parent much less 20 sets of 
parents could be talked out of being with their child right after the tragedy. 
Ask yourself: Would you allow some stranger to keep you from your dead 
child just by showing you a bloodless photo of your child? It strikes me as 
most implausible. 

Suspiciously convenient, if not implausible, is Dr. Carver’s role in 
changing the law about a year before the Sandy Hook massacre to allow 
keeping the names of murdered minors secret. The names of the murdered 
minors did come out within about a day or two anyway, but why have such 
a law except to give the authorities unneeded time to get their story straight? 
I can think of no other plausible reason to change the law in Connecticut 



188 




Anologies with the London 7/7 Subway Bombings 



that had stood for hundreds of years allowing the public to know the names 
of murdered minors. Dr. Carver is worth additional investigation if only due 
to his cryptic remark that he hopes future disclosures don’t come crashing 
down on the heads of the people of Newtown (search YouTube.com with 
the key words of Carver’s name and “crashing down on the heads of the 
people of Newtown”). Over what disclosure could there possibly be negative 
consequences crashing down on the heads of the people of Newtown? No 
investigation or piece of journalism has yet pinned Dr. Carver down on that. 

3. 1 Never Promised You a Rosen Garden: Enter a Gene Rosen 
or Two, Slow-responding Humanitarian or Fast-talking Phony? 

Next up for your consideration is one Gene Rosen, or actually two Gene 
Rosens. Again snopes.com does a great job of plausible denial by diversion 
to a related issue. The main issue is why Rosen and a bus driver would 
babysit six children traumatized by seeing their teacher shot dead in front of 
them without calling the police to take custody of the children immediately. 
Instead, snopes.com focuses on explaining that Gene Rosen was mistaken for 
another Gene Rosen who is a member of the Screen Actors Guild. Snopes. 
com knows this because an Internet search snopes.com did shows that the 
acting Rosen is only 62 years old and has lived outside Connecticut (and not 
inside Connecticut) but that the non-acting Rosen is found on another Internet 
search by snopes.com to be 69 years old and to have resided only inside 
Connecticut. Whether Rosen, however, was an actor or not is secondary to 
the main issue of whether his story is phony. Again, would you sit idle for 
half an hour if six children and a bus driver wandered into your yard and 
told you a tale of a murder going on, or would you immediately dial 911 ? 
Rosen’s tale is implausible and snopes. corn’s answer to skepticism about it 
is a marvelous feat of distraction to a related but secondary issue of Screen 
Actors Guild membership. 

4. There Are Unidentified, Armed Men in the Woods Behind the 
Massacre: So Rest Reassured? 

Now consider the case of what snopes. com admits is an unidentified man 
seen with a gun in the woods near the school on the day of the massacre, 
as reported in the Newtown Bee newspaper. Snopes.com reassures us that a 
reliable local law enforcement source says that the armed man at or near the 
scene of the crime was only an off-duty tactical squad police officer from 
another town. But this so-called (implicitly anyway) innocent explanation 
raises about 100 more questions than it answers. What was his name? Why 
can’t we know his name? Why was he armed? Why was he armed when he 
was off-duty? Why did he decide to spend his off-duty hours prowling the 
woods where a massacre was to occur or had just occurred? What did he see, 



189 




Sterling Harwood, J.D., Ph.D. 



if anything, from the vantage point of the woods or wherever else he traveled 
in the area that day? To whom did he report, if anyone? With what weapon 
or weapons was he armed? Did those weapons match those of the accused 
killer by any chance? Did the man fire his gun? If he fired his gun, did he 
hit his intended target? What was his rank? What was his level of training? 
What was the name of the other town he was from? Was he called in from 
out of town by any law enforcement officials in Newtown? 

And of course we could go on. This so-called innocent explanation of 
an armed tactical squad officer from out of town just happening to be there 
strikes me more than a bit as being as alarming an explanation as the following 
hypothetical one: Oh, don ’t worry’ about that armed, unidentified man we saw 
in the woods behind the massacre; he was just a highly trained off-duty CIA 
sniper who was just visiting from Hong Kong. What?! At least if he were 
from the CIA I’d know why his name was hidden, but tactical squad officers 
are not undercover officers, so there’s no reason at all to hide his name. You 
can listen to a police scanner and go to wherever the SWAT team is called 
and take photographs with a telephoto lens of all the tactical squad officers. 
So avoid confusing tactical squad officers with undercover officers and CIA 
agents whose names must be kept secret. 

Now consider the case of another unidentified man. This time the man 
was detained, handcuffed, and pinned to the ground. He might have been 
armed but snopes.com evidently thinks that is so unimportant that it fails to 
say one way or the other. But don’t worry, snopes.com reassures us that police 
determined he was just an innocent passerby. Snopes.com gives no citation 
to any source it has for that reassurance. Snopes.com fails even to rely on 
the prestigious Newtown Bee here, as it relied on before in trying to reassure 
us about the mysterious, armed tactical squad officer. Further, snopes.com 
fails to identify which police officer or officers made that determination that 
the handcuffed man was just an innocent passerby. Snopes.com also fails to 
give the handcuffed man’s name or physical description at all. Furthermore, 
if the guy is so innocent, then why refuse or fail to release his name so the 
free press of this mighty country can double-check to see if the police might 
have made a mistake in making their determination of his alleged innocence. 

Police do make mistakes, you know. The man’s name should be recorded 
in a police report anyway if the police were engaged in due diligence and so his 
name should come out eventually anyway unless the police reports themselves 
are being sealed because there was some sort of intelligence operation going 
on at Sandy Hook around the time of the massacre. Fortunately, The Los 
Angeles Times on December 14, 2012 reported the man’s name as Chris 
Manfredonia. The story is that police released him because he said he was a 
parent who had come to the school that day to help his six-year-old daughter 



190 




Anologies with the London 7/7 Subway Bombings 



and other students make gingerbread houses. There are, however, two more 
suspicious facts: 1) Manfredonia was wearing camouflaged clothes when 
spotted in the woods behind the school; and 2) Manfredonia’s home address 
is “directly behind” the other murder scene, the home of Adam Lanza. (See, 
Sophia Smallstorm, “Unravelling Sandy Hook,” youtube.com, starting at 
about 24:44 into the video, last retrieved 9/24/15.) 

5. Robbie Parker & What He Was Robbed of in the Massacre: 
Not His Sense of Humor 

Now consider Robbie Parker (see the YouTube.com clip of his CNN 
press conference), the laughing father of a freshly murdered child. Snopes. 
com assures us that not all grieving parents grieve the same and, besides, 
we don’t really know what makes people laugh anyway. But we do know 
what makes it implausible that you would laugh: learning that your child was 
murdered suddenly and violently by a madman at school. The odds that you 
would laugh the way Parker does when going up to the microphone are just 
extremely low. How many other laughing fathers of murdered children have 
you seen on video or otherwise? Further, it isn’t just Mr. Parker’s laugh: he 
also takes a deep breath and seems to right himself the way actors do before 
starting a scene. Snopes.com reassures us that no one from any crisis actor 
firm has yet been identified as being an actor at Sandy Hook. 

But is that because there were no crisis actors at all or only because the 
secret that crisis actors were used is being so well kept, perhaps because 
the actors are under contract to keep their identities secret? It is incredibly 
weak of snopes.com merely to say that no crisis actor has yet been identified. 
I would expect snopes.com also at least to say that it has picked up the damn 
phone and obtained denials from all of the crisis actor firms that any of their 
actors were working in N ewtown on the day of the massacre. How many crisis 
acting firms could there be to call, anyway? Finally on this point, snopes. 
com suggests that maybe the two parents of Sandy Hook victims laughing 
so soon on video after the respective murders might just be having a crazy 
reaction. That’s possible, but given how these two parents, Mr. Parker and 
Ms. Lynn McDonnell, were in the rest of their statements to the media, it 
surely is implausible. They simply don’t appear crazy yet they laugh, smile 
broadly, and shed no tears. 

6. Logical Puzzles in the Official Story Unaddressed by Snopes. 
com 

Now I want to turn to puzzling issues that the 15-page entry on snopes. 
com for Sandy Hook fails to answer at all as far as I can see. Another liquid 
missing from the scene, besides the tears of any parent, is blood. (See, for 



191 




Sterling Harwood, J.D., Ph.D. 



example, Sofia Smallstorm, “Unravelling Sandy Hook,” youtube.com, last 
retrieved 9/23/2015, and Peter Klein, “Banned Documentaries, Episode 
2, What Really Happened at Sandy Hook?,” youtube.com, last retrieved 
9/23/2015.) Snopes.com has no answer I have seen yet for the lack of any 
photographs or video of blood from the murder scene or from any of the 
scenes where others were, according to the official story at least, non-fatally 
injured. Plenty of blood from, for example, the Manson murders, the OJ 
murders, Columbine and other murder scenes seems to come out but none 
at all come out from Sandy Hook. 

In the aftermath ofthe Oklahoma City bombing, one color photograph ofa 
fireman holding a bloody, mortally wounded child even won some prestigious 
awards for photojournalism, and it is a haunting photograph indeed with deep 
symbolism on several levels. We even see photos of, for example, the dead 
face of Marilyn Monroe, the dead face of Elvis Presley or the dead face John 
Lennon leak out but yet we see no leaked scenes of blood or dead faces from 
the Sandy Hook massacre of 26 plus the shooter’s shooting of himself to 
death. In fact, we don’t even see blood on any non-fatally wounded people, 
though there were some, according to the official story at least. Further, we 
see no blood on any emergency medical technician, law enforcement officials 
or health care personnel. And this is in the age of cell phone photography, 
video-cameras, and helicopters with cameras that can zoom in for close-ups. 
Isn ’t the lack of blood implausible, especially given how many people were 
filmed milling around the parking lot of the school soon after the massacre? 

Snopes.com also has no answer I have seen so far for the fact that there are 
gaps in the Internet and email usage at the school that suggest the school was 
not in use regularly but was used only for a drill. Speaking of Internet usage, 
another implausible fact, if the Sandy Hook massacre is totally un-staged 
rather than any sort of psychological operation or drill, isn’t it implausible 
for there to have been Internet donation pages set up for some of the victims 
so soon after the murders of the particular victims were confirmed? Indeed, 
one chapter in this book documents how some donation sites were launched 
some days before the massacre. (See also, Sofia Smallstorm, in the YouTube, 
com video “Banned Documentaries, Episode 2: What Really Happened at 
Sandy Hook?” at about 59:25; last retrieved 9/9/15). 

How is such a launch possible, much less plausible? Ask yourself if 
you would set up such a page asking for money in honor of your dead child 
in the wake of the violent murder of your child or whether that would be an 
implausible use of your time so soon after learning of your child’s violent 
murder at the hands of a madman? Is this a case of advance knowledge of 
some kind of risk or operation, as appears to be the case of San Francisco 
Mayor Willie Brown getting at least 8-hours of advance warning to stay off 



192 




Anologies with the London 7/7 Subway Bombings 



commercial airlines just before 9/11? (See, Phillip Matier & Andrew Ross, 
“Willie Brown got low-key early warning about air travel,” SFGATE ( San 
Francisco Chronicle Online), published 4:00am, Wednesday, September 
12,2001.) 

Snopes.com also has no answer yet for a young boy interviewed by Dr. 
Oz on the Dr. Oz show (see the fascinating YouTube.com clip from Dr. Oz’s 
show) who says that the Sandy Hook emergency was only a drill. Dr. Oz 
changes the subject immediately instead of doing the more plausible and 
straightforward thing and asking the boy why he thought it was only a drill or 
who told him that it was only a drill. I find Dr. Oz’s changing of the subject 
so fast downright suspicious but maybe Dr. Oz just lacks an enquiring mind 
or was just obeying a producer’s shout into Dr. Oz’s earpiece to move along 
to another subject. Maybe a producer shouted into Dr. Oz’s earpiece: Don’t 
pay any attention to the man behind the curtain or the Sandy Hook victim 
who said it was a drill, Dr. Oz. 

7. Conclusion: Too Much Implausibility & Too Many 
Unanswered Puzzles in an Official Story of a Massacre Years 
Old Now 

Maybe, just maybe, snopes.com will eventually conjure up plausible 
explanations to every logical puzzle posed by the official story of Sandy 
Hook, but snopes.com has failed to do so yet and it has been years since the 
Sandy Hook massacre. Snopes.com does an admirable job of summarizing 
the official story but the official story itself is far from admirable. The official 
story is an implausible mess with unanswered puzzles sprinkled over the 
top. Re-in vestigate! 



193 




Sterling Harwood, J.D., Ph.D. 



194 




The Nexus of Tyranny: Tucson, Aurora and Sandy Hook 



EPILOGUE 



The Nexus of Tyranny: 
Tucson, Aurora & 
Sandy Hook 

By Dennis Cintino 



In the immediate 
aftermath of the 
Newtown staged hoax 
in Connecticut, many 
of us began to finally 
take harder looks at 
the hoaxes staged in 
Tucson, Arizona, and 
in Aurora, Colorado, 
to see if we could 
find links connecting 
them. 

They appear to have been carried out by Attorney General Eric Holder 
and POTUS (aka Barry Soetoro) as a calculated and nation-wide smattering 
of “terrorist attacks” of an OPERATION GLADIO variety, plotted and carried 
out to strike fear into the American public and create an hysterical response 
against the 2nd amendment. Their secondary purpose seems to have been 
to further demonize 9/11 Truth, as was evident in the closure of facebook 
accounts of most of the prominent 9/1 1 Truth figures who were involved in 
publicizing Israel’s role in the mass murders of 9/11, which occurred in the 
immediate aftermath of the Newtown hoax. 




195