by Jim Fetzer
This afternoon, I received a request from Alison Hall with INSIDE EDITION (ABC daily, early evening in most cities). She said they were doing a story about NURTURING AND HEALING (2014) by Scarlett Lewis, one of the purported parents of a child, Jesse Lewis, whom the “official reports” allege to have been killed by Adam Lanza. Apparently, they noticed that amazon.com advertises NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK (2015) on the same page as Scarlett’s book, which led them to contact me to discuss what we had found.
That sounded fine to me, since it meant that we are beginning to break through the curtain of silence that has been imposed by the media on NOBODY DIED. A media expert, for example, sent a detailed introduction to the book to 1,500 venues across the country, which invited them to contact me for an interview. When he asked me recently, “How many inquiries have you had?”, I had to admit that the number was “Zero!” So this looked like it might be an exception to the rule. I would soon discover how wrong I had been.
Correspondence with Alison
Alison had actually already reached me by phone before I saw her email inquiry. Giving it some thought, I supposed it would be appropriate for me to send her some of the photos we have acquired along the way, in case they might want to use them. The book’s cover was the first that I attached, but I also featured Exhibit 26, which is classic, Shannon Hicks’ “iconic” photograph, the second Shannon Hicks’ photo and a close up of parents in the background, lounging at the massacre, about which I had published my latest blog:
I thought adding the Nancy Lanza bedroom photo was a nice touch, as though I had not already sent enough because, for those who are serious students of Sandy Hook, these are among the strongest proofs we have that it was staged and not real. Because Alison had mentioned the Scarlett Lewis book, I thought that I would send along a photograph of Neil Lewis, Jesse’s father, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I (mistakenly, it turned out) might be of interest to INSIDE EDITION:
That was an astute observation by Sofia Smallstorm, which might have made a different had INSIDE EDITION wanted to learn about our research rather than debunk it. As I was about to discover, they had no interest in what we had discovered except to trivialize and belittle it. How far they go by way of editing what I had to say will only become apparent when they broadcast the show.
The “hit piece” interview
It was not Alison who would interview me, but a fellow who did not even bother to tell me his name. He asked about me, so I told him I was McKnight Professor Emeritus on the Duluth Campus of the University of Minnesota. And, before we began, I added that I am a former Marine Corps officer. Whether any of that will be included, we will have to see. As I recall, the exchange (which ran about 15 minutes) went more-or-less as follows:
Q: So why are you attacking these families who lost their children at Sandy Hook?
A: Nobody died at Sandy Hook. There are contributions from 12 experts on Sandy Hook, including six (current or retired) professors with Ph.D.s. The families made out like bandits, where each of them has received more than $1,000,000 in donations.
Q: Who cares about Ph.D.s. What gives you the right to intrude upon their grief?
A: And the school district received $50,000,000 to rebuild a school, where the average cost of a K-4 school across the country is only $7,000,000. They received 7 times that.
Q: We have been to their homes. We have seen the funerals. They experienced real grief.
A: They were closed-casket and we have no proof that anyone died. We have a mountain of evidence in a 425-page book, which is thorough, detailed and copiously documented.
Q: What about the photograph of the children being evacuated from the school? What is your complaint about that?
A: There is a second photograph, which shows parents were present at the time. And in the second photograph, the kids have been rearranged. In one, the first child is a little girl wearing a pink sweater and a short skirt; in the other, a (much larger) little boy who is wearing a dark shirt and blue jeans. And what are parents doing there?
Q: Couldn’t one of the kids run up and changed their place in line? And wouldn’t the parents, hearing that something was going on at the school, have wanted to rush down to see what was going on?
A: But there would not have been time for them to get there. This was an emergency evacuation during a shooting. There would have been no reason for them to have been there. And in the background, you can see some of the parents lounging at the massacre.
Q: Is that all you’ve got: some kids who have rearranged themselves in a line? Is that it?
A: No, we have the FEMA manual for a two-day event. The sign, “Everyone must check in!”, boxes of bottled water and pizza cartons, many wearing name tags on lanyards, parents bringing children to the scene. We even included it in the book.
Q: Couldn’ the sign have been there for almost any event? Pizza cartons? Is that all you’ve got?
A: On the day they went LIVE, we had no surge of EMTs into the building, no Med-Evac chopper was called, no sting of ambulances to the school, not evacuation of 469 other students.
Q. That’s the best you’ve got?
A: No. We even have photographs from the evening before: the SWAT team is there, the windows of Classroom 10 are undamaged; the flag is at full staff; crime scene tape is up for a crime that has yet to be committed; and Wayne Carver is waiting for the arrival of his portable tent.
Q: What justifies your attacking these families who lost children during the shooting?
A: There is no proof that anyone died. One of the fathers sent a Sandy Hook student a copy of his son’s “death certificate”, but it turned out to be a fabrication. If his son had actually died, he would have had a real one.
Q: We here have visited with some of the families of those who lost children–and their grief is real. They did not “make out like bandits”.
A: We even have a photograph of the Nancy Lanza bedroom. There is something red on the bed, but it looks more like raspberry jam than blood. And there is a moving pad beneath the left leg of the bed, because they were in such a rush to get it furnished.
Q: So that’s what you’ve got: a moving bad beneath the leg of a bed?
A: We have 50 photographs of them furnishing the home to serve as a prop and another 50 of them refurbishing the school to serve as the stage. We have the moving vans and even classroom nameplates with moving stickers still on them.
Q: Well, it doesn’t seem to me that you have much. A 425-page book, where the best you have is children rearranged in a photograph.
A: The media has controlled access to information about Sandy Hook. I thought that you might do better, but I am obviously mistaken.
Q: Why are you doing this?
A: We believe the American people are entitled to the truth about their own history. This was an elaborate hoax that involved teachers, parents, the school board, the state police, the governor, Attorney General Eric Holder and the President of the United States.
Q: And they were doing all of this for what reason?
A: To promote gun control.
Q: And what difference has it made to gun control?
A: Well, on 16 January 2013, just a year and two days after Sandy Hook, Obama signed 26 executive orders to control our access to guns–and that is only one example.
NOTE: I am drawing on my recollections and may have some of these points out of order. But I am clear that I got all of these in–and probably more. He was not happy with me and intermittently seemed to be looking at someone in the background, perhaps to see if he was satisfied that they had enough to edit and do the job on me. We shall see. If you happen to catch the show, record it if you can; but it will be in their TV archives. My take is that the existence of skeptics about Sandy Hook will provoke public interest. And I will be elated if they show the cover of our book.
Please follow and like us: