Sandy Hook Conspiracy

January 17, 2013

As what seems to happen with all such events, a number of conspiracy theories have arisen regarding the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, CT. Recently a video promoting a variety of these conspiracy theories has appeared on YouTube and has already been watched over 10 million times. Video is below:

The first 'evidence' offered is regarding a potential second shooter (some think it was even more than that). The video offers the following evidence (1) a video of a boy testifying about seeing a man hand-cuffed at the fire station (2) a 911 call from someone in the school reporting two shadows passing behind the gymnasium (3) a video of police allegedly chasing someone down in the woods behind the school, and (4) a video of a man testifying to have witnessed a man being brought out of the woods in handcuffs.

It isn't in this video, but in another video, police are seen surrounding a house that is located just on the other side of the woods from the school.

The first problem anyone should have with this alleged evidence is that it is completely anonymous and unsourced. I don't have any reason to doubt the evidence, but without sources and names it is impossible to place the evidence into a broader context and it is impossible to follow up on the evidence and independently verify it.

The other larger problem is that evidence should lead to the truth, not the other way around. The effectiveness of conspiracy theories is in taking little nuggets of information, and despite having a multitude of possible explanations, a singular narrative is crafted and presented as if it were the truth. And so a handcuffed guy, shadows, and some guy in the woods all become obvious and clear evidence of a second shooter and the fact that it isn't reported as such becomes a grand conspiracy of the media and government.

Is there an alternative explanation for the guy in the woods? Sure there is. He was out for a walk, heard gunshots and ran for his life. When police caught up to him, they ordered him to the ground, handcuffed him and brought him out of the woods. Or perhaps he lived in the house mentioned above and was running to call police.

In the video, the narrator asks incredulously, "Why would they put a suspect in the front of the police car?" Well, that's a good question, so why does he ask it rhetorically? Probably because he isn't really interested in the answer, he is interested in arousing suspicion, which is evidenced by his follow-up question, "Did this guy have some major credentials, that he gets to sit in the front of the police car, after he's caught, after a mass shooting?" The most likely reason to put a suspect in the front of a police car, is that they aren't in fact a suspect, that they weren't caught after a mass shooting, that they were simply caught walking through the woods and he is now waiting to get a ride back home (or perhaps to the coffee shop to calm him down after being chased and handcuffed by police).

Is the theory that he was a second shooter less true than the theory that he was just walking through the woods? Not really, both are merely speculative, but via Occam's razor (the simpler of two possibilities is more likely to be true), a guy just walking through the woods is more plausible than is a grand conspiracy.

Conspiracy theorists might point to the fact that the non-reporting on it supports their theory. I don't think this argument holds much merit for several reasons. One, the media, in general, did a very poor job on this story. Not asking for reasonable clarifications is not unusual. Second, police tend to report little or nothing during an ongoing investigation. Again, not unusual. And third, if he was just a guy going for a walk, perhaps it seemed so inconsequential, relative to other issues, that it wasn't even worth mentioning. At best this is evidence of an ineffective media.

UPDATE: January 31, 2013: Police have officially confirmed the weapons recovered from the scene. They identified the weapon in the trunk as an "Izhmash Canta-1212 gauge Shotgun." Canta-12 comes from the cyrillic name, Сайга-12, which is Russian for Saiga-12. Izhmash is the name of the manufacturer.
********************************************************************************************************

The video then presents some conflicting accounts of weapons used by the shooter, but once again these conflicting accounts are evidence of nothing but a poor job being done by the media. The supposedly damning evidence is a video of a gun being pulled from the trunk of the car used by Adam Lanza. Of course the conclusion of the author is that the gun being pulled from the trunk is the .223 Bushmaster allegedly used by Lanza to shoot the kids, which he obviously couldn't have done if the weapon was in the car.

However, even if the gun being pulled from the trunk was a .223 rifle, that wouldn't in anyway change the evidence inside the building. A .223 in the trunk doesn't mean he didn't also have one inside. As it stands, the evidence suggests that the gun in the trunk wasn't a .223 at all, but a shotgun. Most likely a Saiga. See photos below and notice the distinctive stock. That style of stock is made for other weapons, but the full video also shows the officer clearing what definitely looks like a shotgun shell from the weapon. Notice that the author cuts off part of the video showing the ejection of the round.

I'm not entirely sure what the author is getting at with this. If you want to ask the sick question, I think the sick answer is that tiny bodies are easier to destroy than are big ones. More flesh and muscle and bone means more mass to defend critical organs from being torn to pieces. Additionally, Virginia Tech and Aurora were both primarily adult targets. Adults move faster and to be honest, I'm not sure that young children do get "frantic" in such situations. I tend to think they would drop to the floor and curl up in a ball or stand there frozen and have absolutely no idea what is going on or what to do.

There is so much wrong with this it is hard to know where to start.

1. "20 year old autistic": What does being 20 have to do with it? Plenty of 20-year-olds are very good shooters. Being autistic also has nothing to do with it unless the author has some sort of evidence linking autism to the ability to operate a firearm.

2. "psyco": Perhaps "psyco" was meant as a portmanteau: as in a psychopath performing a psyop (psychological operation), but I doubt it.

3. "no gun history": Do we know that? He may have been a very skilled shooter. I have seen no definitive evidence as to the shooting skills of Adam Lanza.

4. "hitting each target 3-11 times": Without knowing more details it is really hard to evaluate Lanza'a accuracy. I have heard several reports describing the children huddled in a bunch, so it is entirely possible they were both easy targets and that single bullets could have hit multiple children. 3-11 is also a big spread. That could mean most of them were hit with 3-4 and only some of them hit with more. Additionally it is still unknown how many bullets he fired. 100 vs 200 makes a big difference to his accuracy.

Mathematics aside, what kind of accuracy is good vs. bad? I really have no idea. Even if we did know how accurate he was, we would still need some sort of expert opinion as to whether that made him a good shooter or a bad one. And even if we did have that information and knew that he was in fact a very good shooter, what does that prove? Nothing, except that he was a very good shooter.

"Years" is a pretty imprecise term when we aren't talking about very many. Reports that I have seen say that they last had contact in 2010. That's less than 2 years ago, which isn't very long. Perhaps they have had more frequent contact and Ryan Lanza didn't want to admit it. Plus, I have yet to see any official report which confirms that Ryan Lanza's ID was actually found on Adam's body. Even if it was, there has been no description of the ID. Wondering how he had a "valid ID" is pointless, since no description of the ID has been given. Perhaps it was four years old. Maybe it was an old school ID, or a library card. Maybe it was a fake (not like those exist, right?). I have also seen stories which suggest that the mix-up came from someone simply transposing the wrong name, so there may not have been an ID at all. A main point the author is trying to make is that the media pretty much sucks, so why then do they seem to selectively take some things as truth and others as lies. They media is covering up a second shooter but finding the ID is gospel? Doesn't really make sense. The only thing the author is really showing, again, is the poor job that has so far been done by the media.

UPDATE Jan 30, 2013:
I've gone back and reviewed the report by Andrea McCarren and watched past the point where she talks about her encounter with school nurse, Sarah Cox. In that encounter, Sarah Cox allegedly says that she knew the "suspect's mother" and she was a wonderful kindergarten teacher. However, if you watch to the end of the report, McCarren also alleges that the teacher shot in the first classroom was the mother of the shooter. Clearly, then, Ms. McCarren was misinformed at this point. It is likely that Sarah Cox was in fact simply referring to the teacher shot in the first classroom.
**********************************************************************************************

Early reports suggested that Nancy Lanza was a teacher at Sandy Hook elementary. There were a couple of reports of parents saying she was a substitute. Some even made the assumption that Adam's rampage may have somehow been related to jealousy of the attention children at the school received from his mother. Most evidence now seems to suggest that there was no relationship between the school and Nancy Lanza at all.

The video includes a segment by Andrea McCarren, a reporter with USA Today, in which Andrea describes an encounter with the school nurse who says that she knew "the suspects mother" and described her as a wonderful kindergarten teacher. What does this tell us? Well, not much. Perhaps the school nurse does know Nancy Lanza and Nancy Lanza is (or was) a teacher at some other time or place. Perhaps the poor lady, whom McCarren described as being "fairly traumatized," simply misunderstood the question. We've all seen traumatized people ambushed by reporters, so it isn't hard to imagine.

At any rate, this is once again, not evidence of a conspiracy. It is again probably just an example of poor reporting. In this particular case, there isn't any sort of attempt to hide this information. Anyone with an internet connection can see the reporting by Andrea. If anybody wanted to, they could contact Andrea and ask her about it, or they could, if they wanted to, contact the school nurse, whose name turns out to be Sarah Cox. Did the video author do any of this (which should be considered basic journalism)? Nope.

The video than shows a single screenshot of an attempt to verify the existence of a registered nurse mentioned above. Unfortunately they search using the wrong name (they search using the name Sally Cox) and this 5 second effort is offered as 'proof' of her non-existence.

The nurses actual name is Sarah Cox as identified in this Times piece. Sally is the name her friends call her. A search for Sarah Cox in the same database (the State of Connecticut's eLicensing Website) used by the author to search for Sally Cox reveals the following information:

So far, there really isn't any hard truth (or non-truth), so all we can really assess is the relative probability of different possibilities. So, which is more likely? Some person named Sally Cox was invented to plant a false story about Nancy Lanza being a teacher at the school as part of some grand conspiracy, or that the author spent far too little time investigated to find out that the woman's real name is Sarah Cox and that in a state of trauma and a flurry of chaos either she misunderstood a question or was in turn simply misunderstood by the reporter?

The next part of the video I find disgusting. The author takes exception to a father of a victim who prior to making a statement appears to be laughing and then chokes up before speaking which the author claims is evidence of "getting into character."

The first thing I would like to know is whether the author has ever had their 6 year old child murdered. If they haven't then they probably have no business commenting on his behavior. Secondly, I've seen people deal with grief in lots of different ways, and yes sometimes that includes joking and laughing (in fact I've never seen it NOT include those things). With something that tragic I see nothing unusual about bouncing between very different apparent emotional states very quickly. Now, his opinion is as good as mine, but as long as they are just opinions, whose damn business is it to judge. If the author really wants to make any credible point about Mr. Parker's behavior than he should consult a psychologist or grief therapist (i.e. an actual expert on these things) to find out if in fact there is anything unusual about his actions.

Aside from that, if we were to simply analyze it logically, would it make sense to walk out the door and then get in character? There's always a camera on these days, plus there's a whole crowd of witnesses, even were a camera not on. If this really was a great conspiracy and he was just an actor, then he would have been in character before walking out the door.

The next claim made in the video is that a fund for Emilie Parker, one of the victims, was set up on Facebook the day of the shooting, yet posts were made after its creation which show that the status of Emilie was as of yet unknown.

This is another perfect example of cherry-picking information to suit a specific narrative. According to the conspiracy theory narrative the existence of such a page can only mean it was set up by the father and that it is somehow evidence of a conspiracy.

The page itself says it was created on December 14th, the day of the shooting, so how does the author know it was created in the morning? Well, they don't, not by any evidence shown anyway, but being created in the morning fits their narrative and so that is what they tell you. Here's the author's next comment:

Yes, and that post also clearly says that the fund was set up by "Alan Prothero and I". The I being Brad Schultz. Both Schultz and Prothero are friends of the family. Here is an article talking about them. And here is another describing them being at Emilie's memorial service.

So what? This proves they were poorly informed. So too was just about everyone else. Proof of poor information does not somehow prove grand conspiracy.

Once again, that's a fair question. Unfortunately for the author their own evidence (along with the evidence I have added) clearly shows the page and fund were set up by family friends not the Parker family themselves. And even if the Parker family had set it up, is that really anyone's business to judge. I am unaware of, nor do I really want, any sort of guidelines to exist as to how exactly parents are supposed to behave in the face of such a tragedy. As far as I am concerned they have a free pass to do any damn thing they please.

The original page in question no longer exists. We can only speculate as to why it was taken down. One likely possibility is because it is just too easy to set such pages up and there was too much confusion as to what was the official site. For example a search for Emilie Parker pulls up the following results. Anyone can set these up, so it is really difficult to know which if any are actually tied to the Parker family.

Again, just logically speaking does it really make sense that the grand conspirators could organize and pull off this conspiracy and then be stupid enough to create a fund page before the girl was even known to be dead. You can't both argue that these people are massively competent (to pull it off) and massively incompetent to do such stupid things. It just doesn't make any sense. Especially when there is a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation.

This is just more junior detective work that really isn't worth responding to. I am responding to it because it is important that people understand how shoddy the author's work is.

First problem, again, is absolutely no source. How did they even find a 57 year old Robbie Parker? Second, it is doubtful they found a Robbie Parker in Newtown at all. Very few people are born Robbies. A PeekYou search shows only 108 Robbie Parkers in the USA. A Robert Parker search, on the other hand, shows 7,581 matches, so it wouldn't really be surprising if there is in fact a Robert Parker living in Newtown who is 57 years old. That does not in anyway mean that that 57 year old Parker is the Parker in question. If one spends more than 30 seconds searching for the Robbie Parker we are interested in, they will find a listing which matches reported addresses and relatives which shows him to be in his early 30s. For privacy's sake, I am not going to be any more specific than that.

The next 'irrefutable' piece of evidence compares family photos of the Parkers, with photos the Parkers took with the President after the shooting. In the family photo Emilie is wearing a black and red dress. In the photo with the President, the same black and red dress is being worn by Emilie's sister, Madeline.

Of course the conspiracy theory has a different story. According to the author, the Parkers went out for a photoshoot and then went to take photos with the President. Everyone else of course changed there clothes except for Emilie who is supposed to be dead and therefore wasn't going to be in the picture didn't bother, but then these supposedly great conspiracy masterminds were all evidently strucken by a power word stupid spell and had Emilie trot out in front of White House photographers anyway. Again, I hate to ask, but does that really make any sense to anyone?

So what's the alternative? Well, the family photo was taken in 2010, when Emilie would have been four. Her sister, now also four, wore the black and red dress to meet the President (maybe she wore it because it was her dead sister's favorite dress. Ever think of that?). Do they look alike? YES, of course they do, they are sisters of the exact same age! But if you look at current photos of Emilie, who was 6 when she died, it is pretty clear she is not the girl in the photo with the President.

The next segment of the video attacks a man named Gene Rosen, a dastardly man whose great crime was comforting a group of terrified children. The official story is that Mr. Rosen found these children in his driveway and brought them inside where he tried to comfort them. Let's see how the conspiracy theorists can twist this story around.

Gene's house is in fact past the firehouse as one travels away form the school, but not by much. His property is adjacent to the firehouse. It is the building that can be seen past his head in the still image from the video.

In Conspiracy theory world the only possible explanation, evidently, for the kids being there is so that actor Gene Rosen can take them inside for milk and cookies. Obviously, it couldn't have anything to do with moving the kids away from the chaos, right? Who would ever do such a thing?

Talking about two different people does not somehow prove a person is lying. It only establishes that there were two different people. Unless the video author has some evidence which proves that a yelling man and a bus driver can't simultaneously exist at the same time in the same place, than I have no idea what their point is.

Who says he didn't ask the bus driver about what was happening? Are we really supposed to expect that he is providing a word-for-word account of the event or that we are seeing the total interview. The video author is drawing their own conclusions from evidence that is not present.

Once again the author is drawing a conclusion with evidence not present. No one has said he didn't call the police. Or, perhaps the bus driver had a radio/phone so that he knew the police were already informed and he was simply focused on trying to comfort the children. This article describes how the school bus driver got word to their supervisor to come pick up the children so it is reasonable to assume that the Mr. Rosen knew the bus driver had made appropriate contact.

Furthermore, Mr. Rosen made absolutely no claim that it took 30 minutes to figure out what happened. He simply said it took awhile for the kids to start talking about it. Perhaps the author thinks he should have shaken it out of them. Back in the real world of humanity, we don't beat traumatized kids to satisfy our curiosity of what happened. We simply try to take care of them. Anything else will work itself out.

It was children from Ms. Soto's class who survived. How or when they left the school is entirely unclear. It is possible that the story that some ran and were shot is inaccurate. It is also possible that some ran and escaped or that they left after Lanza had shot himself.

A fact isn't a fact just because you call it one. It is a fact when it is actually a true piece of information.

An Intellius search for Gene Rosen in Newtown, Ct, does in fact turn up a Gene Rosen who is a member of the Actor's Guild. Seen below.

Since the author has already identified Mr. Rosen as living in Sandy Hook, I am unclear why they would even search for Mr. Rosen in Newtown. At any rate, the Mr. Rosen in question is actually Eugene Rosen, 69 years old, who lives in Sandy Hook. Property tax records confirm that a Eugene Rosen lives at the address in question.

What the author would say if they cared at all about accuracy is that "the official list was publicly released 2 days after the interview." Is it somehow impossible that a list existed much earlier than that? No, of course not. In a small town, it seems likely that the list would be pretty well-known by that time.

Once again, the author is drawing conclusions not in evidence. No one has said he had "no idea" what happened. He knew something terrible had happened and most people I suspect (and hope) in that situation would prioritize simply trying to comfort the children rather than trying to figure out the exact details.

Where and who ever said that the kids ran from "out behind the school," were ever "on a bus," or that the bus driver "dump[ed] them on the lawn and [took] off." The author is asking questions for which there is no evidence ever happened. They might as well ask why the children who were rescued by the purple dragon didn't just continue on to Happy Everland

This is now just getting repetitive. There are lots of interviews with Mr. Rosen, so thankfully he don't have to rely upon the authors narrow clip or their twisted and imaginative interpretations.

In one such clip (below) Mr. Rosen mentions how the bus driver told him that there had been an "incident." Was there more discussion about the incident? Who knows, but as I have said, his concern was probably mostly focused on the children. I don't see a conspiracy in that. I see basic human decency. He also clearly states that the school bus driver went into the house with them.

Other stories, such as this one, tell how the parents of all the children Rosen brought in the house were contacted by phone numbers provided by the school bus company.

The only thing the actual evidence points to is that Mr. Rosen is a nice old man who comforted some terrified children who had just witnessed something unimaginably terrible. That's it. The only thing which leads to a conspiracy theory is wild imagination, pure speculation, and very poor research.

The next target the auther attacks is the McDonnell Family, whose daughter Grace was killed at Sandy Hook. His contention, once again, is that "there is no way two parents would be conducting themselves like that, in an interview, just a few days after the murder of their daughter."

Here again we have a problem. Unless an expert on how parents should, or do, behave after such an event is introduced than all we are really talking about is our opinions. Regardless of what the author says, not actually allowing the viewer to hear the interview is a cheap tactic. Please go ahead and watch the actual interview and ask yourselves if it really seems outlandish that two parents talking about and remembering their beautiful and wonderful daughter really seems unusual. To me, it seems right on point.

Next up, the author presents some video of Dr. Wayne Carver, the Medical Examiner on the case, at a press conference. Evidently, the biggest problem with Dr. Carver is he seems to have an odd demeanor. Why that matters, the author never says. After mentioning that the last autopsies he was going to perform were on the assailant and his mother, the author asks the following:

In terms of timing on autopsies there aren't any that are "important" or "pertin[e]nt to the case." The only mysteries surrounding this event are those imagined by conspiracy theorists.

You have confirmed NOTHING. The only thing you have shown is that an object was pulled out of a trunk that appears to be a long gun, most likely a Saiga shotgun. Regardless of what was in the trunk, that has absolutely no bearing on what was, or wasn't, found on Adam Lanza's body.

I'll admit, the Doctor seems a bit odd. So what? Maybe he is nervous talking in front of people. Maybe he, like pretty much every human on the planet, deals with tough situations by laughing. Maybe he did have a couple of drinks. After cutting up 20 six year-olds I think I would too. At best, we can give him poor grades at public speaking. That by itself doesn't discredit his medical expertise, and even if it did, what does this have to do with a conspiracy theory? This is just one more example of attacking the person versus attacking the evidence.

The author shows a minute or so worth of footage which doesn't show any kids or parents or EMS workers and so concludes that the whole show was just a bunch of actors on a movies set. A minute or so of footage says nothing about the total footage or about footage that wasn't captured. There are lots of videos and pictures of kids, parents, EMS workers all over the place. I see now reason to put up a mile long list of them. People can look for themselves on this account.

It isn't really mentioned in this video but I have seen it mentioned elsewhere that the aerial footage from the helicopter is around the time of the shooting. Which is why the lack of activity seems suspicious. However, by analyzing shadows, it is clear the footage is from around noon.

Shadow Direction
One of the clearest examples of a shadow paralleling a line in the parking lot can be seen here:

You can see that the shadows almost line up with the yellow diagonal lines. Below is an image provided by NOAA's Solar Calculator which shows lines of sunrise, sunset, and solar noon. The line for solar noon, which was approximately 11:48 that day, also almost lines up with the yellow diagonals which would place this footage close to noon, a couple of hours after the shooting.

Shadow length
A second way to try to establish a time is by measuring the angle of the sun as determined by shadow length. For my measurements I used a sign next to Adam Lanza's car (seen below).

By my calculations, the zenith angle of the sun (the angle between straight up and the sun) is around 63 degrees. The zenith angle of the sun at solar noon = Latitude - declination angle, which for that day would have been 41.4 - (-23.27) = 64.67. Again this shows that the footage was around the time of solar noon.

Conclusion
is this exact? Heck no. Google maps can be somewhat skewed which adds imprecision to the overlayed sunrise, sunset, solar noon lines provided by NOAA, and measuring shadows can be off because of the skew introduced by the angle of the helicopter, so these measurements are far from perfect. However, taken together, I am confident this footage was much closer to noon than it was to the time of the shooting.

The fact that A FEMA class was being taught nearby on the same day might seem awfully coincidental. Especially with the allegation that FEMA exercises also took place around the time of other tragic events (I am not going to address the other events).

The fact of the matter is that both FEMA and Homeland Security are enormous organizations that have exercises and classes running all the time all over the place. The FEMA class being taught on December 14th, was, for instance, also taught on 11/17, 11/27, 12/3, 12/6, 12/14, and 12/17.

It still seems somewhat coincidental, but if we, again, just look at it logically, does it make any sense that the government would have this class information so publicly available if it had anything to do with some sort of conspiracy theory. It just doesn't make sense.

When the author said he was going to present his smoking gun I was hoping they would actually have something good. Unfortunately, all they had was a series of alleged memorial websites that were allegedly set up before the shooting. One for Victoria Soto was, for example, supposedly set up on December 10th. The video shows pictures of it and other pictures of it can be found around the web.

First major problem with this is that we have to actually take their word that these websites ever existed at all. And so far, their credibility is, to me, next to nothing. The bigger problem, though, is that the existence of the pages themselves don't really prove anything. The pages themselves can be mostly faked, or the page could have been pre-exisitng and someone simply changed the name after the shooting because they wanted to set up a tribute. Changing the name, changes the name and the URL, but the page creation date stays the same.

Here is an example of a page I created today. Originally it was called "I am a Zombie."

Then I simply changed the name to "I am NOT a Zombie" which you can see below. Same page, different name and URL.

I also added a post predicting the outcome of the game between the Seahawks and Falcons a day before the game which shows how simple it is to back-date an entry.

I am not a super computer guy. This is just really simple stuff.

People should be skeptical of everything. I personally am especially skeptical of anyone who claims to have the truth, know the truth, or have a capability to deliver others to the truth. The truth is a difficult thing, almost always somewhat murky and deep and very difficult to get to.

For me, the author beginning this video by saying, "I will prove to you," was immediately a big red flag. In contrast, I hope anyone reading this will note that I have made no such claim. I have simply presented arguments which I believe refute the points made by the author, but I do not expect, or want, anyone to automatically believe me.

As far as the video goes, I think what has been presented is pretty terrible evidence. It contains numerous examples of shoddy, lazy research and consistently tries to fit evidence to a pre-desired narrative rather than allow the evidence to lead to the narrative.

Ultimately, the idea that this was a mass conspiracy seems pretty dumb to me. A conspiracy on this scale, involving so many people, is exceedingly difficult to pull off (impossible in my opinion). Every single person and every single alleged lie creates a point of failure. If this were a conspiracy there are, quite simply, just too many of these failure points for it to succeed.

If the government did want to conduct some sort of conspiracy that would help lead to gun control than all they would need was one guy—the guy to walk into the school and shoot a bunch of kids. They wouldn't need actors. They wouldn't need a media blackout—in fact they wouldn't want one. They wouldn't want to, or try to, hide bodies or hide tears. They would want all of that to be highly visible. From a wanting to shift public opinion standpoint, the more distraught kids and parents, the more tears, the more body-bags, the better. Why in the world would they ever take the risk of the less effective mass conspiracy over the simple, but incredibly effective, horror of a single shooter?

January 19, 2013 Section "No Parents, Teachers, or Students..."
Added information calculating estimated time of helicopter footage based upon shadows.

January 30, 2013 Section "Nancy Lanza teacher at Sandy Hook"
Added link to the Andrea McCarren report and added information contained further into the report that I hadn't previously seen.

January 31, 2013 Section "Weapons used"
Added information from police officially confirming the weapons recovered at the scene.

January 31, 2013
Added photos as reference for a discussion in the comments about allegedly odd parking at Sandy Hook.