Sandy Hook: What gunman took Kaitlin Roig's cellphone?

I feel bad for these guys, actually.

[link to fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net (secure)]

No one looks too happy.

It's entirely possible (though I still suspect that NPD had a great deal to do with the delay in ambulance action) that however horrific the mistakes they would have been open about what happened, after the fact, but that Sedensky gagged them.

We need to figure out who ______ Vest is--ex-Sandy Hook School custodian, and ex-Roig-boyfriend.

While a little hard to research because of its other commercial meanings, "Vest" is not a particularly common surname.

There are Vests in CT:

[link to www.findagrave.com]

Allegedly, Roig's cellphone was never found.

In coordinating obtaining cell phones from the providers of cell phones lost in the incident by teachers XXXXX and Kaitlyn [sic] Roig. I was able to determine XXXXX's carrier was Verizon XXXXXXXXXX and Mrs. Roig's carrier was Sprint for XXXXXXXXX. Both had been deactivated. I contacted Apple Security and was able to reach a representative to document Apple case number XXXXXXX. I was able to speak with XXXXXXX and assure him of the efforts by Apple to provide her with a new phone. I was unable to get in touch with Mrs. Roig after leaving a message at her home.

Book 2, 00014533

"Cops carried bleeding children out to cargo holds of SUVs" --- Which children, when/where/at what time? I must have missed the photographic or video evidence of this. Please point me in the right direction.

You are right to see a red flag - children, plural.

State's Atty Sedensky's "conclusion" after coopting the official Sandy Hook report was that only one CHILD was carried to an SUV.

In fact, at least two children were - as described clearly in at least one document, backed up by the Danbury Hospital security director's 911 call, and hinted at by multiple police officers.

This theory is also supported by such people as Ana Marquez-Green's grandfather, who stated clearly that his granddaughter died in hospital.

It is also supported by several officers who made a point in their own reports to draw attention to such oddities as Room 10 only having TWO children (one officer said only a single child) remaining. Yet there were 5 child victims in Room 10 - where did they go, and who removed them?

They sure do know how to screw up a script! Don't they lolol!

There's a script alright - it was drawn up by town, state, and individual lawyers in haste 12/14/12 upon the discovery that police executed at least 1-2 children and let the remaining victims bleed out during the coverup of the first crime.

And "execute" needs explanation; doubtful police executed JL. However, they likely hit him with friendly fire, and it's possible they shot him again post-mortem with the shooter's AR.

Sick stuff but several officers in their report are trying very hard to paint that picture.

And what gunman took Kaitlin Roig's cellphone?

Not that, but this:

Why would Kaitlin Roig say a gunman took her phone?

That is the million-dollar question.

Another way of phrasing it is:

1. Why was her cellphone missing, and
2. Why would she suggest a gunman took it

Some possibilities:

1. She forgot her phone in the building and REALLY wanted it back (who wouldn't) and was smart enough to know that suggesting the gunman took it would get it searched for pronto

2. Maybe there was something on her phone she didn't want police to find in the coming days, when she wasn't around to basically seize it back before they looked at it. She needed to get it back right away to maintain control (recall her engaged status, yet the fact she had called an ex-boyfriend during the shooting)

3. Maybe she called the ex instead of 911 and wanted to regain control of phone to keep that out of the press

4. Maybe she gave it to a kid and told the kid to run, therefore knew it was out there somewhere, and really just wanted it back

5. Maybe a gunman did take it

6. ?

So weird how Nancy Lanza resembles Annie Haddad to start with. And even stranger how Annie's address is at the same bar in NY that Kaitlin Roig hung out at?!
1 Mill Street, Port Chester, New York

What are the odds?

Thread: The Most Censored Video On the Internet? SH truth! "Nancy Lanza" EXPOSED!
"So, looking into one of "Annie Haddad's" listed residences- 1 Mill Street, Port Chester, New York, we find that that is in fact a bar - Sam's Bar and Restaurant - When looking further into this bar we find none other thank Kaitlin Roig inside, and she appears to be very much a regular to the point of being called one of "Sam's Girls" - she is even listed on the Facebook page for those skeptics who don't think this is in fact her.."

Not even remotely close in resemblance.

Interesting to see the doppelgangerbots coming out from the swamp, tho.

What an odd thread.

You guys are carrying on and on about an event that never happened.

Is this an AI bot chat? Are you guys bots?

What are you saying??! Have we been Mandela effected?!

So why are Annie and Kaitlin tipping back beers together I wonder?! In a little hole in the wall in New York of all places????

I think that's a strong possibility.

I also think she didn't even begin to fit all the kids in that bathroom as she claimed, OR kids from Soto's room ran into 12 via the connecting door, and were in obvious need of help, being unsheltered in Room 12 by themselves.

That whole bit about her carefully packing everyone in the bathroom and only just managing to squeeze the door shut with everyone carefully balanced; but then walking out during a lull to get her phone--TMI.

Something happened with that phone during the "lull."

I lean a little more toward her giving the phone to one of the Room 10 escapees (or possibly even one of her own children who she couldn't fit into the bathroom along with herself) and telling them to "run" with the phone.

Remember the kid saying, "We were told to run?"

Who told them to run? The other two teachers followed procedure and tried to hide their kids; I think Roig felt bad for the kids who wouldn't fit into her bathroom, gave them a phone and told them to run.

Saying the perp took her phone would have provided at least a temporary explanation for why her phone was nowhere near the building.

I always found this anomaly an interesting one. If I recall, and it's going back a bit without refreshing my memory, they "pinged" her cell phone and it lead them to Apex Glass, opposite the SH parking lot near Riverside Dr. No further data to lead them any further.

So, I wonder:

-Why would a/the shooter take her cell phone to begin with?
-If the shooter was killed in the school then how did her cell phone end up with a last known location of Apex Glass.
-How accurate in geolocation was the "ping" on her phone? What's the margin of error with regard to location...5 meters...50 meters...200 meters?
-Has she ever been asked directly about the inconsistencies in her story?
-How has her phone NEVER been found? I find it hard to believe that, with an extensive search of the area, they didn't come up with it.

The simple fact that her phone was not found in the school, not found on/near the grounds of it's last known location is suspect. I don't know that it necessarily means anything, it's just odd.

Yeah, pinged just means that it last hit a cell tower from that area. It was pinged twice: 1155 a.m. and about 1:30 or so. It remained in the same general area (the woods leading toward a couple of buildings including Apex Glass).

The interesting thing is that one officer's report (not at my files right now) says the phone was "pinging in the woods" so they decided to "ping it." I think it's possibly a typo for "ringing in the woods."

Ringing in the woods is problematic; it means the phone was actually in the woods, and they can't write it off as being "lost in the school somewhere."

It means that phone actually made it out of the school building and into the woods.

Who carried it there? Either a shooter, or a child, judging by Roig's story.

But why is it in the woods, you know?

Doesn't seem like a kid would drop it; makes more sense that a perp would.

Right...so it hit a cell tower in the same area twice within several hours. But as far as the released documents are concerned it wasn't found inside the school nor was it found anywhere near its last known location before it was no longer discoverable (turned off, battery dead, cellular disabled). In fact, as far as we know, it's never been found.

I think it's clear that that phone made it outside of the school and my guess is that a child carried it out. I have nothing to back that up but it made it out of the school somehow.

Both stories would be scandalous, in different ways.

Roig telling a child to "Run!" with a phone would be a problem (btw, remember the boy found walking alone on Church Hill Rd which is in fact where someone could end up if they ran straight out of the school and into the woods and then past Apex?)

It would be a problem because that boy was probably either one of Roig's students who wouldn't fit into the bathroom (while she herself did), or one of Soto's who wouldn't fit into the bathroom (while Roig herself did).

A gunman taking it would be problematic because as far as we know there are not supposed to have been many gunmen on the loose.

I could see a gunman ditching it; not sure why a kid would.

Whoever you are, btw, you have no idea how much I appreciate having another serious person on this case.

Agreed on all points. Though I can see a kid accidentally dropping it, not ditching it.

Thanks...I'm just another interested person who doesn't believe the story we've been fed. I've followed this since the very first moments of it happening. There are way too many anomalies in the story to NOT consider that what we've been told isn't really the way it went down. And I'm glad to see some folks resurrecting older threads containing thought provoking information. Sometimes revisiting a past thread with a fresh perspective leads to new angles of inquiry.

Man. I'm sorry but...sigh. I guess that when a case is this important, it's basically our duty to pursue what we truly believe are falsehoods being perpetuated by some of the witnesses.

Can I know for sure? Absolutely not; but once again, a red flag has popped up in KR's story. Again, TMI:

"Our only chance of survival was hiding so that's what we attempted to do - and for whatever reason we were able to but when I look back to how small that space was, there was absolutely no reason to think we would fit in it.'

'I couldn't wrap my mind around it, I thought we were in heaven and that we had passed as it wasn't a reasonable thought to have... I went to counselling for quite some time because I needed just that one question answered.'"

[link to www.dailymail.co.uk]

Come on, man, just come on. That's too much.

People who have distorted the truth have an abiding over-focus on the details of the lie they have told, I believe. The smart thing to do would be to have just let this issue go, not commented on it. But when someone feels nervous about a particular lie, they are inclined to keep adding TMI. I don't think it could be any clearer that that is what is happening here.

This came in while I was typing - yes, I absolutely agree with you. Going back to things now, after a break, is proving eye-opening.

Think Thread: Sandy Hook: Boy yelling "You don't have to ___ me" just before NPD says "suspect down."

Agonizing and not good :(

That child's pleas were caught on the 911 call. No wonder Sedensky continues to risk federal prison to suppress the graphic truth.