Breaking: Mom says Sandy Hook teachers "never trained in lockdown protocol"

Anyone really doubt, now, that parents are gearing up for suit?

Since it has been so long . . . Don't you think that has been the time they needed and have been concocting how the "trials" will go since now they have "official evidences" from reports and have gauged how easily persuaded and dumb the majority is ?

All I know is that the parents' (some of the parents') current activity is following classic lawsuit protocol.

Thread: Sandy hook wolfgang halbig new interview talks about secret video with two CT police the evidence he will use to crack the case

There are supposed to be suits -- that is how all the actors will get paid (again).

...has given this thread one star.

This parent's statement is the first allegation we know of that a specific teacher received "no lockdown training." No wonder the story was created/stressed of Roig saving all the children in her room by doing the exact thing Rousseau did. This means the defense will be able to say Rousseau's lack of training wasn't relevant.

Yep, there will be lawsuits, they'll be a settlement from those tens of millions flying around, the "families" will get their money, scoop up the rest of that private donation money plus the lawsiut cash, and be on their merry way out of town and out of sight.

Happily ever after. Nothing to see here, folks, and all the "Where's the lawsuits?" crowd will be quelled.

All part of the perfect non-violent crime. Our country has some honest-to-goodness sociopaths, doesn't it?

Considering the number of people dying who are related to the Sandy Hook case, I don't think it can be called non-violent, any way you look at it.

I always think of that aspect when people say "no one died."

Luckily for Roig and her students, she forgot to remove the little black piece of paper that was covering her classroom door window that was left over from the previous drill. Where was Rousseau during that drill?

I believe room 8 had all kinds of stuff tacked to its window. Little black paper aside, my recollection (and I was surprised when I saw it the other day) is that that little window was for all practical purposes, covered.

The "covered window" thing with Roig may just be a diversion from the way someone actually entered her room, which in all likelihood was via room 10.

Look at how perfectly Roig's story matches Rousseau's, otherwise. The lawsuits will claim Rousseau and students died because she had no key and didn't receive lockdown training. They point at Roig's paper as an example of "lockdown training," even though it was supposedly a complete accident the paper was left in place. But otherwise, Roig did the exact same thing Rousseau did--and 100% of her children allegedly survived. Roig put kids in the bathroom, Rousseau was putting kids in the bathroom. What, then, is any possible evidence that Rousseau's alleged lack of training would have made any difference?

I think the Roig story was created to show that Rousseau's class death rate had nothing to do with that teacher's specific activity or traning--they both did exactly the same thing:

1. Didn't lock their doors
2. Put kids in the bathroom

The only possible difference is this alleged black piece of paper, who's presence wasn't even purposeful, and imo, is completely negated by the fact Rousseau's/D'Amato's room had all kinds of junk covering their own window.

And yet some parents are repeatedly giving a public litany of ways in which the school failed to meet Rousseau's specific needs, and which failure cost all room 8 occupants their lives. Safe Havens has explicitly stated that there is "no known case" of students/staff dying during lockdown if the five lockdown conditions (having a key + various trainings) are met.

How does Roig having a key matter if she didn't use it?

There is also every chance that not all Roig's kids made it into the bathroom (who pushed the bookcase across the door?) Further complicating the story is her statement that sometime during a lull in shooting, she ran out of the bathroom to get her phone.

What really happened during that moment? Did she really pack all the kids painstakingly into the bathroom, balancing them and shushing them and holding them up--only to open the door and run out and then have to try to fit back in again (did the bookcase get repositioned?) I do understand trying to get a phone under the circumstances. But it then also seems clear she called her ex and told him she was hearing gunshots and that a "substitute teacher was fumbling for keys."

How did she know Lauren was fumbling for keys? Was Lauren really in room 8, for that matter? Why are the room 12/10/8/6 teacher's belongings in each others' rooms?

And I'm still wondering about the connecting door thing; is it really true that of all rooms in the north hall, every single pair had a connecting door except 8 and 10? Doesn't that seem like a huge red flag?

Soto's room, too, had a big piece of artwork hanging on the inside of the door window and some kind of paper on the outside.

I realize black paper would have blocked even more of the view, but are we talking a big enough difference to matter? It's not like room 8 and 10 had a clean, unblocked window into the classrooms.

Or maybe I'm wrong--will find those photos. Soto's for sure had artwork on it.

OK - looks like Rousseau's door was uncovered (door to hall). It was Soto's that had art all over it.