What would cause the (possible) blood pattern we see in front of Sandy Hook School?

Is it even plausible this *blood spatter* was *added* after the fact? Since this is the first we have all seen of this photo and I believe we have seen all aspects of the breezeway/front entrance. From all of the pictures we have perused, there has never been a blood spatter until after the documents have been released.

We agree my friend and you absolutely hit it out of the park. If one walks through Sibley's account and tries to match it with just these photos you can't help but....well spit your pop out in pure laughter...at the absurdity of her supposed actions. In fact her interview with Couric you would think she would say something like " ah sh** when I walked up to the school there was glass all over the place and another mom was freaking out ....". Nope just " isn't that odd". Puh- lease.

No offense Zeph but when you try and rationalize this crap all I can think is there is some nervous tick that you must find some rationality in this insane story.

Some thoughts:

I think I would rule out Pisani because, IIRC, she was taken out the side door, not the front.

Possibly Hammond. She was supposedly wheeled out or carried out the door on a chair, then put into a cruiser.

Possibly the girl carried by Chapman, but then why would the blood pattern stop? Also, are we to assume the blood found out in the parking lot beside the white car with NY plates is from this girl too?

Possibly the boy who was laid down on the ground for a moment by Cario, then put into the back of a black Ford Explorer. I think this might be most likely.

One other thought I had about the shot-out glass window. Wouldn't it make sense for the first cops entering that window to use their butts of their guns to clear out all of the glass so to make it easier to get through? That would seem like common sense in that scenario to me.

One last thing:

Since we had a ton of first responders and kids going in and out of that door, wouldn't that blood pattern be smudged or smeared? Did most people involved avoid walking in that blood? Did it dry before others were able to walk there?

Yes, definitely possible.

Sure.

Last Edited by Dudeashaneo on 01/09/2014 02:32 AM

I sure do. When did everyone see this photo? It's the first time I have seen it. Then again, I've only gone by what MSM has shown, and all they showed was a closeup of the door. There's nothing MSM likes more than glorifying the gore. Why wasn't this one of their 'chilling photos'? Or has it been, and I missed it?

No need for apologies, you made good points! :)

Or it could be that the whole thing never happened, which it didn't.

CFS1200704559
Book 6
00002134

EMS Chelsea Fowler:

" I got to the scene at about 10:00. When I got up to the scene I was stopped by the State Police and was told the scene wasn't safe. I then proceeded up to the primary triage, located at front of the school. The only person who was wounded was a teacher who was shot in the foot. I was walking her down tot the treatment area when a group of student came running out of the school....."

Still not really sure why there is such an unusual effort directed at Sibley (in either direction). Regardless, there wasn't (allegedly) any blood at the front door when she was there, or when she said she was there. No bleeding people, or bloody people, would be brought through that door until 10 a.m. or so.

I don't know about ticks; just pointing out that it doesn't make sense to use the blood as a reason Sibley's story is wrong. The dumpsters are by the woods; even if she hung out there for an hour, she couldn't have seen the breezeway blood from there.

The police audio shows roughly the time she (or whoever she's standing in for) was moved by officer Hull from the dumpsters to the fire engine.

Whether Sibley is recounting what she herself saw (or was supposed to see), or what Manfredonia or another woman was supposed to see and not see, the account is useful in how it attempts to shore up the official narrative.

I.e. whether she was there, saw two gunmen and was threatened into leaving the gunmen out, or whether she was not there, or whether she's a stand-in for someone who was there, the story is still revealing.

But it doesn't help our case to say that "not seeing blood" exposes her as fraud if she says she was standing there at 9:36 when there wouldn't have been any blood yet.

I'm no blood spatter expert but that looks really odd to me. Very small droplets evenly spaced apart in a straight line?

CFS1200704559
Book 6
00002358

John Reed paramedic supervisor was interviewed. A few interesting tidbits from interview.

Reed stated they assessed all the victims that DID NOT HAVE APPARENT FATAL INJURIES. He said bathroom on the left was bad.

He went to the other room with the victims and the shooter.

Reed said there were several victims including and adult and a child.

If this was Soto's room it appears he only noticed a shooter, an adult and a child?

I definitely think anything is possible. I was more than surprised to see it yesterday on the SHH site in one of the photos series they uploaded from the report. Until then the only blood I'd seen was the small number of drops in the parking lot.

Point taken. Still the amount of glass that appears to be all over and the window blown out certainly would garner a little more reaction than " oh my I just noticed how odd this looks". Then in the police cruiser dash cam we never see Sibley at the dumpster. I don't think she needed to be redacted did she?

Many theorists start with the assumption that everyone in the Sandy Hook story is--for lack of a more graceful term--a lying cheating bastard. I don't. I think that any incident, whether planned or unplanned, involves mostly good people or at least a large number of good people. So yes--I'm trying to think of reasons someone would lie or bend the truth as to which children were carried out.

I have never thought the girl in the Chapman picture looks like anyone in Soto's room. In fact, the skin tone is such that I think it's possible it's a mannequin. I've found a few crisis mannequins online (actually, one used in a court room--don't know if it would be the same company) that kind of match the skin tone. So I think that's possible.

But if it's not a mannequin, and we add in the appearance of the child's hair as well, it should be then asked whether somehow it's a child from Rousseau's room.

So again, why would cops lie (if they did) about who it was? Coming from the assumption that most of these cops are good guys who have a bit of a savior complex, or just can't bring themselves to tell the parents certain things, I think it's quite easy to think that one set of parents mistakenly got information that it was their child taken to the hospital, and that after the fact, cops didn't have the heart to correct anyone. I think that kind of thing makes way more sense than some evil plan concocted on the spot to lie to the parents for absolutely no reason.

I also think police were mortified (if any of the shooting is real) as to the death count, knew damn well some of those kids could have been saved, and felt compelled to create a picture showing that it was such a slaughter that almost no one could be saved--there was never any hope. And therefore, never any responsibility on the cops to save anyone.

18 deceased children is sadly easier to deal with than 18 children in various stages of death and dying. In the exact same way that a neatly-executed shooter is easier to deal with. Death has a finality to it that makes people go, "Well, nothing could have been done." If on the other hand you have 18 severely wounded children, every, single child's story becomes its own complicated, lawsuit-ridden issue. How was each child's extraction handled? Who should really have been transported? What on earth were the medical specifics for each patient (something which has never been addressed)?

So yes, there was a lot of incentive, after it became obvious the children were all but mortally wounded, to oversimplify and say "18 bodies lie in the school." In reality, it looks at least as if only 17 bodies lay in the school. For whatever reason, the transport/non-transport of the third, wounded child is a very sensitive issue.

I'm currently looking into whether Sibley was the mom who picked up the running kids; the voice is a little similar, but I might be suffering from They-All-Sound-Like-Easterners-To-Me complex.

I still believe the glass may not have been broken when Sibley arrived (if she did). I think that might be one reason she sounds squirrely delivering her account. I definitely thought Sibley's 911 call was the "broken glass" call until I heard Rick's call describing the glass.

Before I ever had any doubts about SH something that struck me was the town's rush to insist that the shooter was not let into the school and that doors locked automatically etc. Smacked of ass-covering. I still think there's a very high possibility the glass was shot out from the inside; that blood spatter may be from a cop or someone standing there who was shot through the glass from the inside of the school and then ran toward the parking lot.

Very good point. Over and over again, that scene just does not display characteristics of a mass slaughter. It seems much more (both visually and in lots of the police audio) to be a scene with several deceased.

Agree - a good next step would be to collect as many hi-res photos as possible showing that area and compare.

I was wondering about that to; further back in the thread, though, there's a photo of blood from a shooting in a parking lot that looks very similar, though the line of droplets is not as straight. Maybe the straightness really is indicative of someone being pushed in a wheeled object--maybe the office chair? I still don't understand the big splotch, though, that looks so much like what happens at the exact place someone is shot.

And with that much blood in the initial spot, shouldn't there be blood from the door itself, up to that spot? And wouldn't there have been blood in the hallway leading from Room 9? I know there's blood at the doorway of Room 9 and just outside, but what about the hall from 9 to the front door?

Holy cow.
Back when I smelled a rat in Sibley's story and did time analysis of Sibley's account and argued with you that she could not have seen what she said she saw and her story could not stand the light of scrutiny with the official account. The other mom standing there story was just so unbelievable.
You insisted that she was the call to 911 because it fit your police audio analysis and you needed it to fit because it gave your theory credibility. You rationalized everything Sibley said so it would work.

Suddenly we get 911 calls that have Rick Thorne as the supposed source ( yes I still have proof they are edited but that is for another rant later lol ) and you assign Sibley as the mother who picked up the kids and totally exempt her fabricated story from any other scrutiny. I find that odd ( to quote Sibley ).

The point I am making here is that there is plenty of lying going on and much of the information we get is always after we find the contradiction.

I will submit to you that I think Rick Thornes performance was altered to make him the broken glass witness because there was no way they could get the Sibley story to work. It would be to easy to tear apart. So we get 911 calls that move it to the invisible janitor who sat in a hallway that only witness broken glass ( although he NEVER states that HE ACTUALLY SAW THE BROKEN GLASS ) and knew that " somthins happenin" and he kept hearing popping. Another bland non-witness.

I hope when you realize this was just a drill and nobody died that you will be okay.

Very, very important document. Thank you for this.

Holy cow.
Back when I smelled a rat in Sibley's story and did time analysis of Sibley's account and argued with you that she could not have seen what she said she saw and her story could not stand the light of scrutiny with the official account. The other mom standing there story was just so unbelievable.
You insisted that she was the call to 911 because it fit your police audio analysis and you needed it to fit because it gave your theory credibility. You rationalized everything Sibley said so it would work.

Suddenly we get 911 calls that have Rick Thorne as the supposed source ( yes I still have proof they are edited but that is for another rant later lol ) and you assign Sibley as the mother who picked up the kids and totally exempt her fabricated story from any other scrutiny. I find that odd ( to quote Sibley ).

The point I am making here is that there is plenty of lying going on and much of the information we get is always after we find the contradiction.

I will submit to you that I think Rick Thornes performance was altered to make him the broken glass witness because there was no way they could get the Sibley story to work. It would be to easy to tear apart. So we get 911 calls that move it to the invisible janitor who sat in a hallway that only witness broken glass ( although he NEVER states that HE ACTUALLY SAW THE BROKEN GLASS ) and knew that " somthins happenin" and he kept hearing popping. Another bland non-witness.

I hope when you realize this was just a drill and nobody died that you will be okay.


I'm more than happy to be wrong. The 911 call said "they're unsure why" among other things, so it was a logical theory. I am completely willing to overturn it for better theories, as I've said many times.

However, it was also insisted that no one called 911 from the dumpster, and I pointed out that this is illogical, given that the women were said to have a working cellphone which they used to call their moms or whatever. And as it turns out, someone did call 911 from outside the building.

Theories have a place; the alternative is to just not think about anything, I suppose. The whole point of theories is to run them as far as you can until you can 1) find out they're likely wrong, as in Sibley being the Broken Glass Caller, or 2) likely right, as in the case of someone calling from the dumpster.

It is interesting to think of whether Sedensky actually has his people monitor this and other forums and changes documents accordingly.

I don't think the 911 calls are faked though, personally.

Sorry about that badly-done quote.

If Sedensky does monitor this forum and makes changes based on our discussions, I think that's a very good thing. Forcing people to release even a tiny bit more of the truth, or even a tiny bit less of a lie, is at least progress. And truth has a way of snowballing even more so than lies. It's like putting in a small piece of the puzzle which suddenly makes other pieces more apparent.

CFS1200704559
Book 6
00003242

At approximately 9:45 someone (LE) was made aware that there was an active shooter...he/she was left with a dad looking for his son, he/she accompanied dad to firehouse and son was located.....

Now interesting part, Roig GRABBED this persons arm, was upset and feared her cell phone was taken by the gunman....WTF.
She was afraid all her personal information would be known by the person who took her phone......hummmmmm

The phone was pinged and was deemed to be within 32 meters of the school or most likely in the school. They were concerned at the time that there were multiple shooters.....

Now I ask you, this teacher, minutes after this massacre, had such a clear state of mind to wonder where her effing phone was?

Someone laying on gurney blood running down arm puddle is where they were stopped line is movement toward road

Dudeashaneo, why do you even bother? This individual's repeated feigned misunderstanding and manipulative misstatements of others' positions mark him/her as either insane or deliberately deceptive. If you need to feel yourself in a posture of contravention, why not try spitting into the wind? The wind has no agenda that compels it toward dissimulation, and you stand a much better chance of maintaining an honest discourse with it.

When you investigate you always find out why things happen. I am starting to understand Zeph's investigative tendencies and ranting a little helps me clarify if someone is purposely turning a blind eye or actually looking for the truth. I don't mind the run around since it seems Zeph is open to anything as long as it's Zeph's original thought. No offense intended.