Thirteen Reasons Why I Reject the Official Sandy Hook Story

by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB

In 2014, a so-called terrorist event occurred in Australia. I happened to get involved in investigating it and found that it was a set-up by government. The terrorist -- a Muslim, natch -- went through his paces that day, holding a dozen or more people hostage, in a cafe right smack dab in Sydney's business district. At the end, he (Man Haron Monis) reportedly shot a hostage dead, and then was killed by police. A young-mother hostage died from ricochet of police bullets. Eventually I sent to the New South Wales coroner, Judge Michael Barnes, a list of 99 problems that I had in accepting the evidence. No reply.

Last year, 2021, I got involved in investigating the December 14, 2012 Sandy Hook massacre of 20 first graders and six teachers in Connecticut. I definitely haven't come up with 99 reasons to disbelieve the official story. But I can present you with thirteen reasons for concluding that such a massacre never took place -- three that are insurmountable, and ten that I hope you'll find persuasive.

The Big Three

Each of these three items claims to be evidence of the massacre, yet each is very faulty:

1. There is a famous photo of several children in a school parking lot, crying and walking in single file, under the direction of policewoman. It is alleged to have been taken on December 14, 2012. How can I be sure this isn't genuine? Because another person took a picture of the same scene, but far enough back to capture additional people in the picture -- adults who are themselves calmly watching the policewoman guide the children. These adults could not have been standing so casually if they had heard that a shooter had just killed children (the purported reason for a policewoman being there). The authorities never respond to complaints that the picture is a deception. In other matters, they come up with some sort of brush off, but they know this one is unanswerable. Note: the photo was probably taken earlier that year when there was a drill going on.

2. That same policewoman, Rachael van Ness, signed a report, under oath, that she had helped the kids being evacuated from the school. She made absurd statements about walking behind the line of kids instead of leading the line. She also said "To keep any of the parents from pulling their children from the line, this detective [i.e., herself, Officer van Ness] ran back across the lot and received the next group of children." Surely when a tragedy has taken place, all parents would desperately grab their kid -- there would be no point in asking them to forego that. Note: I think van Ness wrote that report as part of a drill. Even so, it appears to me to be perjury.

3. The jury decision to charge Alex Jones with almost a billion dollars supposedly proves that the conspiracy theory has been laid to rest. (Trust me, it hasn't.) That amount of damages -- $965million, for Pete's sake -- is ridiculous and the judge could have stopped it. Not only did she not stop it, she, Judge Barbara Bellis, had eliminated the fact-finding part of this defamation trial, by making a default judgment against Jones. Had there been a real massacre, here was Jones' chance to present his conspiracy theory and let the other side subpoena witnesses to prove him wrong. Whenever I see a judge acting abnormally (as in the Boston Marathon case, in which I was an amicus curiae), I know he or she has been instructed to ignore the rules. One must ask why?

Note that in each of those Big Three, I use the state's material against the state.

The Lesser Ten

Next is my list of ten things that look laughably "off" about the Sandy Hook case. Since I have just used the word "laughably," you may be worried that it is a sin to laugh at bereaved people. Of course it is a sin, it's cruel. I'm not laughing at bereaved people, as I believe that they are not bereaved. If they are bereaved, they should want the state of Connecticut to clear up the Big Three, or at least admit that the 'iconic' photo, in Number One above, is not a picture of children escaping from a school building where a massacre had just taken place. Real bereaved parents could easily understand how citizens deserve an explanation of that -- and would indeed be eager to resolve it so that folks wouldn't look at them suspiciously.

Here are the ten, written by me in my capacity as ordinary citizen, Nosey Parker, and lover of the law:

1. The medical examiner gave a press conference in which he described the autopsies in a rather unprofessional way. He, Wayne Carver MD, also said “I hope they [the medical staff] and the people of Newtown don’t have it crash on their heads later.” Carver died at age 68 which is slightly suspicious in that he can no longer be forced to explain what he meant. I think the plain meaning of the words is what conspiracy theorists think it is: Carver did not like being lured into play-acting that day (December 15, 2012), and was embarrassed.

2. There are audios of the supposed emergency calls made from the school, to the local 911. The callers' voices don't sound panicked and we can't here any background sounds of panic. Also, a Bushmaster gun is extremely loud and there is no audio of it, and no video surveillance whatsoever of the shooting. Not even a picture of the dead gunman on the floor.

3. Robert Steele, who died at age 68, was a former CIA man who ran an independent agency called International Tribunal for Natural Justice. I respected him for work in Australia to expose child sex trafficking. He wrote a book about Sandy Hook in which he said:
“I managed a false flag event for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in my capacity as a Clandestine Operations Officer stationed overseas. I have personal experience with ‘legalized lying’ whereby ostensible orders ‘from the highest authorities’ mandate lying to the Court and lying to the media and the public, in support of national security objectives. Individuals ordered to lie are offered both full immunity and severe penalties if they fail to lie as ordered.” Dear God!

4. The official story is that the bodies of the kids were kept overnight in the school building and parents were never allowed to see their deceased children. I do realize it would be a huge trauma to see a child's face or body blown up, but a mother has such a tight physical relationship to her child that I am sure she would insist on touching him or her. Anyway, 6 of the victims were adult staff members. I lost my husband 22 years ago. There is no doubt in my mind I needed to be with him to the max, even at the end. (You may recall that they tried to keep Jacqueline Kennedy out of the room at Parkland Hospital in 1963 but she wasn't having it.)

5. James Fetzer is having to pay $450,000 to Leonard Pozner for defaming him by saying that the death certificate he submitted for his son Noah, age 6, was fake. Well, that's easy enough for a judge or jury to sort out. They would look at the sworn affidavits of the two forensic experts that the defendant hired for examining the documents, and then they would ask plaintiff Pozner to pooh-pooh those reports as best he could. Or officials from the state's vital records department could weigh in on the authenticity of the certificate. Did not happen. The judge made a summary judgement. Fetzer tried to bring the case to the US Supreme Court, but it did not get the approval-for-consideration by the required number of judges (four). End of story. Isn't that awful? Do you imagine you will have better luck than Fetzer in court?

6. A person in Florida named Lucy Richards was sent to jail for having harassed the family of Leonard Pozner. She is old and mentally ill. Would she really do that? I don't think an old lady has that kind of energy, even towards a man who had, say, stolen from her. But Pozner had not done anything to her. Did she plead guilty? Yes, but that was part of a plea bargain, where you don't get to tell your story. Did the judge ask for the assistance of a guardian? I am only guessing that such a mental patient had a guardian. Bottom line: I think the Lucy story is as fictional as the massacre. I hope she really did not go to jail. Probably she didn't.

7. I have to mention Australia again. In 2015, I put on a play in Adelaide that was mostly about American issues such as 9-11. (Name of the play "Puppetry of the Watermelons.") Being self-conscious about my Seppo-ism (Yankiness), I thought I should add a skit about a controversial massacre that had occurred locally in 1996 at Port Arthur. The "gunman," an obvious patsy, is still in prison, namely Martin Bryant. Having to write the dialogue, I was forced to learn the facts. A photo of Martin had appeared immediately in the newspaper in 1996 and had been doctored to show his eyes popping out. Similarly, the Sandy Hook "killer," Adam Lanza, had popped eyes. What reason could the drunk-with-power media have for doing that, other than to help "guide our thoughts" to see this fellow as guilty and as a nutjob?

8. Speaking of nutjobs, why would the heretofore never violent, and never Mom-hating, Adam Lanza shoot his mother dead? I believe this part of the story was inserted in order to avoid having a mother get interviewed later about her son. (I don't mean they killed her; I assume all aspects of the Sandy Hook story are false.) The state Attorney, Stephen Sedensky, provided a very costly Final Report in 2013. How did he get out of the problem of describing what was on Adam's computer? He said that Adam appears to have broken the hard drive, after killing Mom. How did Sedensky get out of reporting all the calls Adam had made in December 2012? He said Adam was known as a non-maker of calls. It's that simple to investigate a non-case! But don't worry, incriminating things were found in the lad's room. I quote: "A Christmas check from the mother to the shooter to purchase a CZ 83 firearm," "photocopied newspaper articles from 1891 [amazing!] pertaining to the shooting of school children," and "images of the shooter holding a handgun to his head." (I thought they were unable to open his computer. Or did they find this selfie in his non-used cell phone?)

9. This one is hard for me to take as a Catholic. Monsignor Weiss is the priest for a nearby parochial school, St Rose of Lima. The news report quoted him as saying he rushed to the scene when he heard of the shootings. I believe it was his duty to attend the 26 deceased people, of which he said 9 were known to him as parishioners. For the adults he would have performed the sacrament known as the Last Rites, if they were wounded and not yet dead. At least one teacher and one child are said to have been shot and survived. (The teacher, Natalie Hammond, was a plaintiff in one of the lucrative lawsuits but interestingly she dropped out.) Monsignor Weiss said he broke the news to the parents that their child has passed. I quote the media: "These were not anonymous people. They were part of our life here," Weiss said. "This took a toll on me…really took a toll on me." I ask: Do priests lie, nowadays?

10. This last item is not a specific claim to the falseness of Sandy Hook. (I think the Big Three above suffice for that). Rather it is about context. I think by now every American should be at the ready to doubt every mass shooting and every so-called terrorist incident. Surely, surely, these are put in place for the purpose of scaring us, and thus making us lose our ability to stand up to tyranny. The Marine Hymn says "First to fight for right and freedom, and to keep our honor clean..." Hello? Is our honor clean? Do we even have any honor left? Is any Marine or anyone else fighting for it? I think we've given up the ghost of our American dream. People are accepting the loss of the rule of law as if it were a done deal. Well, OK, but you're not going to like it when they come for you. Or when they starve us all out, any day now.

When I recently wrote an article about Sandy Hook for RumorMillnews.com, I got many letters of thanks -- for the first time in my almost 40-year writing career. This makes me think folks are catching on. Do me a favor? Gather two pals around and read my above article out loud and ask them if they suppose there's a good comeback to it, somewhere. Make them think. Don't let them evade with the "Those poor suffering parents" routine. Try singing this:

-- Mary Maxwell is author of "Keep the Republic, Kill the Takeover," available at Lulu.com and Amazon for $15. She can be reached at MaxwellMaryLLB@gmail.com. She is grateful to Rayelan Allan for establishing RumorMillNews, and knows that Rayelan has taken the heat for being a truther, all these years.