Sandy Hook, Part 1: Ten Ways To Evaluate Fact versus Fiction

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

Allow me to pretend that I’m teaching a high school class on “How to think.”  The problem before us is the allegation by government and media in 2012 that a school shooting took place in Connecticut, at which 20 children and 4 staff members died. Is there any chance it is a “psy-op” story, meant to scare people? (Or even just meant to check up on people’s gullibility?)

I myself have written at book-length about three false stories — the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, the 2014 Sydney siege, and the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing. I have some suspicion that the Sandy Hook event is a psy-op, but I haven’t researched it. Let’s see if there is a way to arm-chair evaluate its veracity. I want students to know that they do not have to wait till they have proof in hand to form an intelligent opinion.

Point # 1. There’s a barrier to investigating Sandy Hook, since it involves tragedy. Granted, it’s horribly impolite to show disrespect to bereaved parents. But we can counteract that barrier as follows:  (a) We could inquire only about the 4 staff members who died.  (b) As regards all 24 who died, if there was a life insurance policy it is normal business for proof of the death to be presented. (c)  Sandy Hook had a major impact on society, so it’s proper to take a devil’s advocate pose in researching it. Anyone can muse hypothetically “What if there were no deaths?”

Point #2. There is fear of forcible reprisal. Dear Students, pretend you are a journalist, or have a designated role in protecting society, such as that of a clergyperson. Someone comes to you with information that contradicts the official story of Sandy Hook.  What could you do? Many journalists and clergy will not even undertake the simple mission of raising the matter.

I’ll bet they think it’s the sensitive issue of the parents’ tragedy that keeps them silent. But more likely it is fear of force. Two inquiring men have already felt force:  Jim Fetzer, PhD, of Wisconsin was sued for $450,000 (for claiming a child’s death certificate was fake) and the Florida home of Wolfgang Halbig was raided in the middle of the night because he emailed the victims. (Yes, First Amendment allows emailing, but his email was deemed harassment, a misdemeanor.)

Students, it’s wise to ‘red flag’ any attacks made on critics of news stories. Those attacks can be seen as circumstantial evidence of protection of crime, aka, coverup of a crime.  Coverup — along with the destroying of evidence — is a standard Blackstonian crime. And by the way, it is a principle of law that everything can be presumed against the despoiler of evidence! “Omnia praesumuntur, contra spoliatorem.” Ah, the law is gorgeous.

Point #3. Apply common sense.   What else can we look at, to judge the story’s veracity? Just use your life experience to measure the likelihood that Adam Lanza, age 20, shot all those kids. And try to work out the logic of why he would kill his mother, Nancy Lanza, before the killing spree, and shoot himself dead, afterward.

Dwell upon oddities. If Adam knew he was going to end up dead, what was the point of killing Mom (Nancy Lanza)? In Australia’s 1996 Port Arthur massacre, Martin Bryant was said to have shot dead two hoteliers before he went on the rampage. Why? “because of an old grudge.” Logic says you don’t suddenly kill folks who, many years ago, gave you a minor hurt. It doesn’t make sense.

I am guessing that the killing of the hoteliers – by someone other than Martin – was done to render them unavailable as witnesses to his innocence.  Similarly, the death of Nancy Lanza guaranteed that she could not speak in defense of her son.

Point #4.  Try the Cock Robin methodology. I use the nursery rhyme Who killed Cock Robin?  to see who was officially present at the event.  “I, said the spy with my little eye, I saw him die; I, said the fish with my little dish, I caught his blood,” — and so forth. The idea came to me from Chris Bollyn’s investigation of 9-11.  He asks such questions as: “Who created the narrative? Who had custody of the evidence? Who was in charge of Security? Did insurance companies make a fuss? Did judges perform in a normal manner? If it turns out that answers to these questions are guarded secretively, one can (tentatively) smell malfeasance in the air. To repeat: I am clearly ineligible for the title “expert on Sandy Hook.” But I — and you — can do some work from an armchair.

Point #5. Dear Students, one can start with undisputed facts. The following are two undisputed facts of the December 14, 2012 “shooting” that, in and of themselves, raise eyebrows:

Fact One — There was a FEMA drill scheduled, and carried out in Newton CT on the previous day, December 13, and the day itself, December 14, 2012.

Fact Two — Later, the school was razed to the ground. So, too, was Nancy Lanza’s nice suburban house — for no known reason.

Fact 3 — The killed-to-injured ratio was extremely high. Adam Lanza, who was no marksman, is said to have, within minutes, caused 24 people to die from his gun, while only two were hit and not killed. Even in the military, such a ratio of dead-to-wounded is unheard of. Let your eyebrows rise high.

Point #6.  You can be a court watcher. The basis for my book, Inquest, about the December 2014 “Sydney siege,” was my attendance at the coroner’s hearings. The basis for my book, Boston’s Marathon Bombing, was the transcripts of the Tsarnaev trial (a shockingly corrupt trial). Sandy Hook has so far had two judicial cases — Pozner v Fetzer, in the Wisconsin court, and Soto v Remington, in several courts, principally Connecticut. In these two cases, the court’s decisions so far have been vividly unusual. Lenny Pozner sued Prof Jim Fetzer for publishing an accusation that Lenny provided a fake death certificate for his son Noah Pozner. In a defamation case, you get to argue that your allegation is true. Fetzer was not allowed to do so!    (He has at least a ghost of a chance of getting that overturned by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.)

The District Court judge ruled against Fetzer by issuing a summary judgement in Pozner’s favor. (One can picture a metaphorical knife being held to the judge’s throat, can one not?  Or maybe a real one.) The judge than called in a jury, but only to decide on the amount of damages. They awarded $450,000.

The second case was filed by parents led by Donna Soto, against Remington Arms, the manufacturer of Lanza’s alleged gun, the Bushmaster. Normally a gun maker is not liable for what eventuates, but the court ruled, that the Federal statute forbidding suit against gun manufacturers doesn’t hold for military-grade weapon.  So, Remington lost and declared bankruptcy. Its insurance carriers have offered the plaintiffs just shy of $33 million.

Point #7. You can sniff around for a false flag.  It is normal to interpret a false flag event as being done for the purpose of highlighting “the wrong enemy.”  In Australia, it’s well accepted that the “Port Arthur’ was done to scare people and bring about a gun-control law. The new prime minister in 1996, John Howard, had anti-gun legislation in his pocket, ready to spring “when needed.”

You won’t be surprised to hear that the “conspiracy theorists” who started to doubt Martin Bryant’s guilt were the gun owners of Australia, especially farmers, who saw through the hoax. (By hoax I mean the falseness of attributing the gunwork to Bryant.)

In regard to Sandy Hook, it’s a bit strange that the gun clubs have not raised the issue of a hoax. Indeed, in the Soto v Remington case, in 2017, when the NSSF — National Shooting Sports Foundation — submitted an amicus curiae brief to emphasize the gun manufacturer’s legal immunity, they stated: “The shooting claimed the lives of twenty children and six adults.” It would have been better to add the word “allegedly” before the verb “claimed.” Judges rarely open up, sua sponte, a matter that neither side has raised.

Ask: Didn’t NSSF notice that if nobody died at Sandy Hook, there’s no case against the Bushmaster gun?

Point #8. You can calculate the overall direction in which the powerful is moving. I wonder: Are today’s gun lobbies dinki di? Infiltrating them would have been a high priority for One World authoritarians, no? My late friend Trish Fotheringham, a survivor of MK-Ultra mind control, told me that when her co-survivors were sent in to infiltrate Environmental groups, they did not even realize they were being used; it’s quite a system! And George Soros is heavily into putting paid to the Second Amendment….

Back in 2006, when I ran for Congress in New Hampshire, Second Amendment voters hugged me (I mean they smiled at me) when I averred that the right to bear arms includes shoulder-held missiles. (Not to be confused with candidate David Thistle’s claim that he can have an aircraft carrier moored at his pier!) But now that I think of it, in my more recent talks on the hustings, I don’t get bowled over by smiles or hugs.

Dear Students, look around at what various gun lobbies are doing these days. And peruse the last 100 headlines of a major newspaper to see how many are about shootings. Please try to imagine that any reported shooting may not have happened at all.  I mean it may be newspaper fluff “for a purpose.”  Or it may have been actually carried out — for a purpose!

Recall the declassified Northwoods Memo of 1962, signed by Joint Chiefs of Staff leader Jay Lemnitzer. He unabashedly discussed with his Pentagon colleagues a plan to create a make-believe air crash, in order to blame Cubans and start warring against Cuba. He was even planning to organize “fake funerals” for the “fake passengers” on the downed plane. (Oops, I mean the downed “plane.”)

I think it is perfectly reasonable to entertain the possibility that the 2012 headline-grabbing story of tiny tots being gunned down was a scheme to “take away our guns” and thus leave the citizens without protection against a tyrant.  There is undeniably a direction in which the powerful are moving today, viz., total control. Such a thing was always on the minds of the Founding Fathers and they never hesitated to discuss it openly. So don’t be shy!

Point #9. Look on the bright side. If you were to demonstrate that the Sandy Hook deaths did not take place, this would be great news all around.  Probably half the nation was traumatized or saddened by the announcement, just before Christmas 2012, that beautiful five-year-olds were struck down by a nutter. It would be pleasant news for the whole world that those kids, who would now be age 14 or older, are still enjoying life.

By the way, if this is so, they must be coming under some personal pressure about their possible fake identities.  It was never their fault that a false story was circulated.  They should feel free to step forward and ask for our help. We would welcome them.

Point #10.  Look at sleuths who are pursuing hard data. In the Sandy Hook case, Wolfgang Halbig, a citizen whose former occupation was as a School Safety Expert, has been badgering the FOIA — Freedom of information Act — people “mercilessly.” They in turn have been ignoring him mercilessly. Frankly, I have a personal rule (ask me about General Boykin’s case): If FOIA is not forthcoming, tell them “Omnia praesumuntur, contra spoliatorem.”

Think: how can it be OK for FOIA people to turn down requests by such a respectable citizen as Halbig? You’d be well within your rights to assign Information Refused Points — IRPs — as weights against the validity of the official story, when weighing up your judgment as to the validity of the Sandy Hook event.

Please note that any citizen can call for official inquiries by a legislature, or petition the court for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis. Neither the Federal Bankruptcy nor the Connecticut trial judge presiding over the settlement by Remington Arms and the nine Soto plaintiffs is obliged to rubber-stamp the $33 million payout. As for the court in Alabama, I have particular faith in them. My 2017 experience in that state knocked me over with goodwill.

Editor’s Note: The photographs below are a comparison between the big eyes and the actual interview months later. When was the left one taken and why did it have the same blue curtains as the interrogation video months later?