NPD unit 67 apprehended Mr. Manfredonia outside Sandy Hook School on Crestwood at 9:40 a.m. on 12/14/12

well wait for the shills lol


He was part of a drill...

[link to s7.directupload.net]

[link to postimg.org]

[link to s14.directupload.net]
+
[link to img842.imageshack.us]
+
[link to img685.imageshack.us]
+
[link to s14.directupload.net]

Here's the evidence:

12/14/12 Newtown Fire & Police

9:39:22 Dispatch (Nute): "Alright, they s[till hear] shooting."
9:39:31 67: "Yeah, we got 'em!"
9:39:32 67: "They're comin' at me, down Crestwood!"
9:39:41 67, excited: "Come up the driveway to the left side!"
9:39:52 Male: "S6, this is it."
9:39:58 Male: "[…the license of] the vehicle."
9:40:00 Male, breathless: "…place…[that they're actually] coming from?"
9:40:29 Male, breathless or emotional or running: "[Start an] ambulance—have 'em stage..."
9:40:45 Male: "…he's involved…"
9:40:49 Male, woman yelling in background: "[?]"
9:41:04 Male: "Responding units, uh, last known gunshots were in the front of the building."
9:41:29 67: "[I'm also,] I've got a party on the [scene]...I've got him proned out."
9:41:36 Male: "[For Riverside?] units, be aware that we could have a second [unit]."
9:41:43 Male, sirens: "[95 roger, received.] Any description?"
9:42:25 Male: "[Units responding] […end] uh, his last known shots were in the front of the [school] building.[Maybe the roof.]"
----
12:33:57 67: "67 to S1: That's the one you and I secured. Last name Manfredonia,first name Christopher.
12:34:21 67: “Negative, that they gave us. We're securing him up [out].”


What does "securing him up" mean? Or "securing him up (out)?" Does this mean they're going back to re-apprehend him? Or has he been in custody on scene all this time, and now they're taking him to the PD? "Securing him [anything]" doesn't really sound like someone who's being released from custody, much less released from consideration.

All well and good; so then we need to figure out how he fits into the drill.

And I'm quite aware of the Calm PlasMan/Irate Korean/"SHILL!!!" German triumvirate, thank you very much. Kind of like good cop/bad cop/screamy cop.

Oh, Brazil. Your consistency betrays you.

So think about this exchange for a minute.

The one you and I secured? And he has to repeat the guy's name?

That is NOT what would happen if two cops cuffed Manfredonia, looked at his ID, questioned him for 10 minutes, and then released him.

That's what two cops would say who cuffed a guy, transferred him to a car or the PD, and went back to clearing the school.

Secondly, "that's the one." Obviously, one of several. Just a little extra proof that additional individuals were secured.

Zephyr Ive challenged your badly flawed logic that takes your personal misunderstandings and turns them into what you treat as proven fact .... and now you are lashing out.

A recording of scanner traffic from multiple agencies that was placed on youtube is not evidence.

News stories are not evidence.

You take false deductions that cannot truly be made, and then turn them into what you consider evidence. That is comical at best.



'YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH!'

My recordings are not from YouTube.

And how exactly is a recording of NPD unit 67 saying he apprehended Manfredonia a "false deduction" on my part?

It's not even a deduction. It's just plain old hearing.

Heres the problem - that you wont admit to because you constantly have flawed logic and you never admit when its proven wrong.

How many people did 67 detain that day?

Since youve got it all figured out from a scanner recording...

Just answer that one question for me....

How many people did 67 detain that day?

You're free to come up with reasons why 67 would say he caught Manfredonia, and yet it actually wasn't true.

But saying I'm making "false deductions from YouTube recordings" is a false deduction itself.

67 said he caught Manfredonia. He said he caught him on Crestwood. He said in plain English he had him proned out at 9:41:29.

If you make a convincing argument to the effect that 67 is lying, or that some guy had Manfredonia's ID, or any other explanation at all as to how a police officer misidentified the suspect, I'm all ears. I've already proven to you that I am willing to accept being wrong.

How many people did 67 detain running down Crestwood at the exact time Chris Manfredonia himself said he was running and got cuffed?

He didnt apprehend anyone... thats what is done to a suspect.... He detained him... and I never said he didnt detain him(more false deduction on your part!). He did. just not when and where you claim he did.



What you are not continuing to understand, is that you make up thing after thing in your head.

I never said 67 didnt detain Manfrednonia. Thats something you made up in your head, like all the other things you make up in your head. (Can you admit that?)

Its a simple question:

How many people did 67 detain that day?

Terrorist playing word games again. . . Detained arrested apprehend ,you are dancing

Chris said he had 1) just arrived, 2) shots were fired, so 3) he ran around the school, and 4) was detained.

The envelop is pretty narrow here. The very first individual 67 detained was at 9:40 a.m. You're going to get in trouble with your timeline if you propose that, while Chris was running around and around the building, 67 detained a completely different guy in the exact are Chris said he was at that time, Chris kept running, more shots were fired, and then 67 (without saying anything about it on the radio) caught Chris in the exact same spot as the other guy.

Takes a lot more imagination that simply saying 67 cuffed Chris at the time and place Chris himself said he was cuffed.

Unless you want to say Chris was the second guy; however, 67 refers to Chris as "the one you and I secured." And 67 secured the first guy--not the second guy.

Aside from all that, why are they still talking about Manfredonia at 12:34? Why are they securing him up or securing him out--what does that mean?

Further action is being taken with Manfredonia. This was not a simple 10 minutes Q&A that ended there and then. They're securing him somehow three hours later.

I'm not saying he's guilty (though considering they're securing him, they obviously haven't finished satisfying their belief he's innocent); I'm saying maybe they're interviewing him as a witness. Maybe they think he knows the guy they found in the woods, since he was running with or ahead of or behind him at 9:39 a.m. in the same location.

Why secure an eyewitness?

It's very clear they have questions for him, did not simply talk with him for 10 minutes and release him.

Again--the suspicious thing here is not that he's necessarily guilty. The suspicious thing is you yahoos bending over backwards to keep discussion away from this guy.

What kind of police was detaining him? From where?

is this guy manfredonia?

Thread: Sandy Hook - very informative reporter tweets includes apparent picture picture of "SWAT guy"caught in the woods

I agree with PlasMan about Crestwood being generally "behind" the school:

[link to www.metabunk.org]

So what did 67 mean when he said "They're coming at me, down Crestwood!"

Crestwood is pretty far from the school for someone running "down" it to be considering running "around" the school. Any direction you take down Crestwood is really away from the school.

Maybe that's the sensitive thing--running away.

The second of those shots shows a man sitting in the front passenger seat of a squad car. Most feel this is the man Roy Low is referring to as having been brought out of the woods in cuffs, and placed in front of a squad:

[link to pbs.twimg.com (secure)]

But there are guys in black jackets/shirts, two of them, standing there talking to police, too, so it's confusing. Certainly, though, someone just hanging out in the front passenger seat of a cop car is not likely a cop; the black jackets may be cops.

Or feds.

So, 67 was told to access the school via Crestwood. This should mean that he took Washington to Crestwood, and staked out the latter:

[link to www.metabunk.org]

He's obviously there to help catch anyone who is trying to run /drive away via Crestwood. So it doesn't make much sense to think 67 goes all the way to the dead end of Crestwood; this makes no tactical sense.

67's car must be on Crestwood, blocking it, and blocking access to Washington.

So when 67 says, "They're coming at me, down Crestwood!!" this most likely means the two men are running away from the school towards Washington--not away from the school towards the dead end. Because 67 wouldn't be staking out the dead end, and leaving access to Washington open.

This really supports the idea that the two men were trying to run away from the school.

They may well be innocent men just trying to dodge some bullets. But "running down Crestwood" is not really "running around the school to try to get to a classroom." It's just plain old running away.

And I'm not suggesting for a minute that I wouldn't consider running away under the circumstances; just pointing out that "down Crestwood" means one direction: away from the school, toward Washington.

It needs to be asked, too, whether when the teacher saw two shadows running past the gym, that referred to people running inside or outside the building.

Well this guy IS Chris Manfredonia:
[link to www.fairfieldcitizenonline.com]

But I didnt identify him on any Image at all.

Whose cuffs did he use on Manfredonia, then?

well certainly there was much going on in these woods...

Here is another thing.

The kids who ran to Gene Rosens house must have been run across the guys in the woods.
Nothing else would make sense location and timeline wise.