By Prof. Jason Kissner

Adan Salazar at Infowars recently published an article asserting that the FBI says no one was killed at Sandy Hook. The article draws on FBI uniform crime report (UCR) data as evidence. Specifically, Salazar indicates that UCR homicide data contains an entry of “0” for the Newtown, Connecticut row.

While there are very important FBI data issues in play regarding the Sandy Hook event, the issue identified by Salazar is a non-starter. This article (written by a criminologist) first explains why the data entry identified by Salazar in no way whatsoever supports the claim that the FBI says no one was killed at Sandy Hook. Then, we pinpoint a legitimate FBI/Sandy Hook related data issue that adds to the host of important questions about the Sandy Hook event.

Salazar may be unaware that the FBI does not itself gather crime-related data. Rather, the FBI obtains its data from participating states, which in turn collect localized data from within their jurisdictions. The FBI’s 2012 UCR data contains the Newtown “0” data entry simply because Newtown reported that figure. This raises the question as to why that happened.

The answer is that it has to do with the way the state of Connecticut accounted for the Newtown event. Connecticut happens to issue its own Uniform Crime Reports, and you can access the 2012 version by clicking here. If you scroll to page 415, you will note that the state accounted for the 27 Newtown/Sandy Hook murder “victims” by including them under the “Agency or Area” heading “State Police Misc.”, which is obviously not Newtown. In fact, if you go to page 245, you will see that, like the FBI UCR, the Connecticut UCR also lists 0 murders for the “Agency or Area” Newtown.

There could conceivably be real issues as to why the Sandy Hook murders weren’t scored in the Newtown “Agency or Area” even if it is true that the Connecticut State Police managed the “investigation.” But the fact remains that the Newtown event was scored under the “State Police Misc.” heading, and since the FBI received the data from Connecticut, it placed a “0” in the Newtown row just as the state of Connecticut did. Thus, the claim that the FBI says nobody was killed at Newtown is unsupported by the FBI’s UCR Newtown “0” data point.

Nonetheless, there does appear to be a different, and potentially critical, issue concerning the Sandy Hook event and FBI data. In a 9/10 USA Today article, we are told:

“The records are voluntarily submitted by police agencies, and FBI officials say the Connecticut State Police and Aurora police departments initially provided the information on the year’s two largest killing incidents – only to request that it be deleted.

In Aurora, Sgt. Chris Amsler says his department provides data to the Colorado Bureau of Investigations monthly. The FBI database contains information on 18 other homicides in Aurora in 2012.

“We checked our records and found that all data related to the theater shooting was submitted,” he said, adding that investigators were still trying to figure out why the incident was later deleted from FBI records.Connecticut’s homicide count is correct, but the FBI’s detailed supplementary material includes only the shooting of Adam Lanza’s mother at her home in December 2012, just before Lanza went to the elementary school. Lt. Paul Vance says his department submitted a six-page report on the Newtown school victims to the FBI but later identified a mistake. Updated data was provided too late to be reflected in the database, Vance says, but the information should be added soon.”

The missing Aurora data is disturbing, and could conceivably connect to the Sandy Hook event at some point, but we’ll have to bypass that possibility here in order to focus on the issue at hand.

So moving along, it is utterly bizarre—for reasons that will become clear shortly—that, according to FBI officials, the Connecticut State Police “initially provided the information…only to request that it be deleted.” We should couple this information with Lt. Paul Vance’s claim that “his department submitted a six-page report on the Newtown school victims to the FBI but later identified a mistake” and his claims that “[u]pdated data was provided too late to be reflected in the database, Vance says, but the information should be added soon.”

What we have here, ladies and gentlemen, makes no sense at all. Really: it makes no sense at all. To see this, it might help to know (in case you don’t already) that the “supplementary material” referred to in the above quote is actually “Supplementary Homicide Report” (SHR) data. That data is simply a spreadsheet that contains very simple information reported to the FBI by states and their agencies.

Thus, viewing the SHR data allows one to determine, for example, what the race of the offender was, how old the offender was, the number of victims, the ages of the victims, and other data of more or less equal simplicity. SHR data does not involve very complex forensic issues, witness narratives, and so forth. None of these types of things are included in the SHR. In fact, the vast majority of data points included in the SHR are so simple that they can be represented by a just a single letter or number.

Therefore, when the FBI says it deleted Sandy Hook SHR data upon having been requested to do so by the state of Connecticut on the alleged grounds that Vance’s department made a “mistake”, we must ask:

what sort of “mistake” (and please note that the singular was used by Vance, although given the simplicity of SHR data that doesn’t matter terribly much) could possibly have been made that would justify deleting every single, simple, data point other than those pertaining to the Nancy Lanza killing?

Following from (1), why wouldn’t Vance have simply requested that the FBI delete only the data point he thought was inaccurate (remember he says “mistake”, not “mistakes.”) After all, he allowed the FBI to keep the Nancy Lanza related data points. And even if Vance made more than one mistake, again, why not simply tell the FBI to keep the correct data points?

Remember that what we are talking about here is data like the age of victims. So if Vance’s “mistake” was, for example, that someone in his department indicated that a victim was 7 when they were in fact 6, it could have been fixed forthwith without deleting the rest of the victim ages, victim gender, and all of the rest of the very simple data Vance says he gave the FBI in the first place.

Notice also that these observations totally scotch the preposterous “it was too late to make the corrections” assertion, completely aside from the fact that if it was too late before to fix the problem, why isn’t it too late now?

Could Vance be banking on an implicit lie to the effect that SHR data is contextual and sophisticated, so that just one mistake could in principle taint the entirety of the non-Nancy Lanza data if it is not corrected, thereby requiring deletion of all of the data until corrections are made? And what’s taking so long to make what are necessarily very simple—given the very nature of the SHR data—corrections?

Remember too that researchers are analyzing SHR data, and have not been told by the FBI in its SHR material that the non-Nancy Lanza Newtown data are missing—and so the scientific enterprise has been needlessly compromised.

It’s too bad for Vance that the SHR data is not sophisticated; it’s very simple. Therefore, there is no legitimate excuse for his request that the entirety of the data (other than the Nancy Lanza data) be deleted. Since per the FBI’s statements and dataset the data were nonetheless deleted, we have one more truly compelling set of reasons to consider the Sandy Hook event fraudulent.

As for the USA Today “journalist”, I will be charitable and suppose that these issues simply never occurred to her.

Dr. Jason Kissner is Associate Professor of Criminology at California State University. Dr. Kissner’s research on gangs and self-control has appeared in academic journals. His current empirical research interests include active shootings. You can reach him at

Leave a Reply

52 thought on “The Sandy Hook School Massacre and FBI Data Anomalies”
  1. Why would the FBI delete the murders from their FBI database?

    Lt. Vance’ assertion that CT. State Police made a single mistake, and that they blew the deadline is ludicrous. Every bit of the information that the FBI lists on their crime log was known, available, and released 21 months previously – to the entire world.

    This makes no sense is right.


  2. Have long suspected they were so blatantly sloppy on purpose, they want us to know they are in control and as discussed in a previous thread, there is nothing we can do about it.

    After all this time, the SH commission of ‘professionals’ who mildly whined that could not get any medical information on the phantom Adam, has finally come up with a recommendation that home schooled children need more monitoring.

    Supposedly, he attended public school until the 10th grade and then graduated early.

    This is all so ridiculous of course the public will be outraged and the hoax fire pit has been stirred once again.

    The comments on this article reveal most do not believe it and certainly do not like further government control over our lives.

  3. Two years after the most infamous massacre in history we are being asked to believe that the FBI and CT State Police could not accurately report the number of deaths correctly ?

  4. Yes indeed, this is one of the “credibility” problems that arise when someone makes sweeping statements. Just like “civilian shootings by cops”, the data collected is voluntary. That renders the database all but useless.

    While it may be true that a lot of “hanky-panky” went on with various data reporting on this event, one cannot categorically say that it is “proof” of wrongdoing.

    The school, for example, has an internet usage record that strongly suggests that it was closed in 2008. I cannot personally think of another explanation for that, but it isn’t proof of closure. It is anecdotal evidence.

    That is not to say that many criminal cases are not prosecuted with anecdotal evidence, it just isn’t “proof”. In this instance Vance is merely claiming incompetence.

  5. Great Article. I couldn’t believe when “USA Today” were the selected ones to try to cover for the FBI. It seems it just made people dig harder and reveal this is a way bigger mess and even includes Aurora data too.

    Then this from Vance:
    Lt. Paul Vance says his department submitted a six-page report on the Newtown school victims to the FBI but later identified a mistake. Updated data was provided too late to be reflected in the database, Vance says, but the information should be added soon.”

    Decoded: The information will added soon “now that we got caught.”

    Hey Vance, why didn’t you “add the information” 2 years ago?

    1. Lovely! Just a little reminder of where we came in:

      I’m sure you’re aware that there was a “bomb scare” called in last week. We have to keep those donations coming. At this point there is so much evidence of malfeasance out there on SHES that it would be hard to distill it all into a documentary.

      One “proof” that comes from all of this is the certainty that, no matter how much evidence is available, nothing will come of it. As Mr. Holder moves on (reportedly to the Supreme Court!), his replacement will insure that the skeletons remain buried.

      I find it reassuring that some continue to poke at them. Fetzer has riled them up pretty good. What I like about his approach is that he comes right out and accuses them of fraud. It is noteworthy that no lawsuits have arisen as a result.

      These guys are running a giant “back flow preventer”. There is no meaningful information coming out, but the donations flow freely the other direction. I admit that I don’t necessarily believe that those “donations” are from sympathetic drones with logic challenges. What a wonderful vehicle for washing all that blackened loot.

      By the way, Oz, it’s hard to attach one of those devices to a phantom. I suppose if one could accomplish that task it would be indicating the coordinates of someone’s vivid imagination. Would those blips show up in Connecticut or D.C.?

  6. Hey everybody! Haven’t commented here in a while, I’ve been busy solving Sandy Hook (Which I did) in the last few months. It was a fun puzzle, but I’ve finally figured it out..

    Ok, so not sure if you guys saw when I proved Nancy Lanza is just a persona created out of the St. Rose of Lima connected Annie Haddad? If you’re missing that, that’s a big part of the puzzle..

    So, then, I realized St. Rose of Lima was in fact the school that most of the “wrong news” was coming from regarding the shooter.. such as that “Adam” was “dressed as a member of the clergy”.. etc.. and that “his mom was a teacher at the school he had attended”

    Well, that would make more sense at St. Rose of Lima, seeing as how Adam attended St. Rose of Lima, and woman who looks exactly like Nancy Lanza works at St. Rose of Lima…

    So, then I’m thinking that Sandy Hook is just an “echo” of the actual school shooting drill taking place at St. Rose of Lima.. which is admitted by a person who worked at St. Rose of Lima in the video I will link to shortly.

    So, at the exact same time the lockdown at Sandy Hook was happening, the people at St. Rose of Lima were in lockdown, thinking it was their campus being shot up.

    So, that’s how the deception worked- that’s why the bomb scare after the fact, that’s why the police running into St. Rose.. on the day of, that was the primary event taking place of which “Sandy Hook” was echoed.

    So, then I’m thinking.. What if the principle at St. Rose of Lima school was in fact the same woman playing the principle at Sandy Hook.. and what do I find? a woman at St .Rose of Lima who looks exactly like an older Dawn Hochsprung… Mary Maloney.!! Haha! What are the odds?

    Mary Maloney moved to a High-School job shortly after Sandy Hook Happened, and Mary Maloney has very few images of herself online, and none of her younger days.. That’s because her younger days images are being used for the Dawn Hochsprung persona.

    Case Closed people, I have solved Sandy Hook.. if you have any questions, feel free to ask.

      1. That’s where I got the real high-definition of her from 😉

        Notice in the other images, she has that “weird looking wrinkle around her lower eye area?

        That’s just her glasses line being left in after the photoshop touch-up removal of her glasses.

        Maloney just didn’t wear glasses in the new picture, and it wasn’t photoshoped to remove the glasses, and leaving in a freaky looking lower eye on Hochsprung that is totally fake looking.

        So busted.

    1. CACE Annual Meeting 2013- Closing Keynote Address

      Published on Dec 12, 2013
      The Day That Changed the Community and the World: 12/14 with Msgr. Robert Weiss, Pastor at St. Rose of Lima Parish in Newtown, CT, Pam Arenault, Director of Religious Education at St. Rose of Lima Parish in Newtown, CT, and Mary Maloney, Principal of St. Rose of Lima School in Newtown, CT.

      1. Notice in this video, how after Weiss hands off the microphone, he hands it off to “Mary Malone”.. But notice what they give her as a title below: 24:10 – It lists here as Pam Arenault, director of religious education, and it doesn’t look like the same woman, just the same haircut.. then at the end they introduce “the president, Mary Maroney”.. and it’s a blond lady?

        Then, if you look for images of Pam Arenault, Director of Religious Education at St. Rose.. Nothing comes up in image search.. no images of this blonde lady “mixed up” with the lady listed “incorrectly” as Mary Maloney in the video at 24:10

        an “Accident” I’m sure.

      1. And the nose.. and the facial proportions, and the unique wrinkles between her mouth and her chin and her cheek, and her crow’s eyes.. and.. well, we’re looking at the same woman, with a tan, and a different hairdo, and makeup on.

        1. I am not fully convinced that Nancy Lanza may not be real, because there are birth and death certificates, as well as details of her early life available on the web. While these data points could have been manufactured by the spooks, because of them I have reserved judgment on whether she was killed–she could have been, although I’m sure not by “Adam.”

          It would behoove us to focus closely on the elusive Peter Lanza.

          It is possible Nancy changed her name, as I think Ryan/Adam did. Paulstal, did you find a date of birth for Annie Haddad?

          Also, does anyone know where Adam Lanza’s body ended up? Was there a funeral?

    1. Postalservice, thanks for this video. I read all the comments under the video on You Tube. The Jesuit connection was mentioned. In that regard Mary Maloney attended Wheeling Jesuit University in West Virginia. Also her weight gain was discussed. Here is a photo of Ms. Maloney from 2009 where she appears tall and slender:

      The photo from Immaculate High School shows a Ms. Maloney who has aged, gained weight, colored her hair dark with a crazy hairdo and wearing heavy make up for the photo shoot. She is 58 years old.

      I looked at different photos of the supposedly two different women. The tooth next to the right hand front tooth on both the younger and older woman is protruding. The tooth next to the left hand front tooth (incisors) leans a bit backwards on both. The same square jaw, very thin upper lip, high forehead and a fondness for earrings. Identical mouth and smile on both.

      Could she be the principal Newtown Bee spoke to and three days later detracted from the story?

      1. That’s exactly right.. they interviewed a “Sandy Hook High School Principal”… and the person they interviewed looked EXACTLY like Dawn Hochsprung.

        “What are the odds that “twin principals” would run both St. Rose of Lima and Sandy Hook High down the road? Dawn Hochsprung? I mean, it looks just like her.. print it! Hey, did I just see Nancy Lanza walk by, oh, no wait, that’s just Annie Haddad.

        1. Why did I write High school… twice.. Yikes, need to re-read what I write before posting..

    2. Good job Paulstal. Having a lazy eye myself, almost blind, recognize it in the principals photo.

      Father Weiss was my parish priest in the 70s, we loved him, do not recognize him at all. As I recall, he left due to a terrible case of Hepatitis, he was very yellow at the end of his tenure.

      Seems to me there was a bizarre interview with him just after SHH, doesn’t really matter now.

      Here’s an interesting ‘news’ report that states he arrived when all the children were lining up by their grades in the parking lot. Wonder where they lined up and why we never saw that.

    3. So Mary Maloney was born Mary Scampoli, attended WJU and graduated in 1978. This can be found by following the leads from the blurb about her here:

      She married a Kevin Maloney (WJU, ’76) probably in ’77 or ’78 and is still married to him as far as I can tell.

      WJU has yearbook pics!

      Mary Scampoli (business major):
      pg. 62:
      pg. 76:
      pg. 181:

      Husband Kevin Maloney (political science major):
      pg. 62,

      Also, Kevin’s father (?) Could this be the old guy in Dawn’s “wedding” pics?
      pg. 99:

      In any case the young Mary could be a young Dawn, but there’s no way then that the wedding pics make sense since she got married around 20 years of age!

        1. I wouldn’t be so sure about that.. different hairstyle, and her teeth look different than the later “Dawn Hochsprung/Mary Maloney” teeth… We see later, so either “Younger Scampoli” got porcelain veneers.. or? Do you have an explanation for why her teeth look much better 36 years later in the high-resolution image of her we have as the principal @ Immaculate HS?

          The “Dawn” images were Maloney 13 years ago mostly, when she just started working as a principal at St. Rose of Lima. They were slightly ‘shopped as well, to make her looks slightly different.

          Also, nice work finding those yearbooks Random Guy.. I wasn’t able to find a page 181 though, it stops at 160.

          IMO, that girl from 36 years ago looks very much like the later “Hochsprung (Maloney around 9 or 13 years ago) and of course like the Maloney we see today.

      1. Regardless, Mary Maloney knows what happened or did not happen back in December 2012. Same goes for the Newtown Public School Superintendent then, who since has a new position (like most of them) and is collecting handsome speaker fees.

  7. I’ll have to digest that one a bit. Fetzer has a pretty good case using the internet usage for SHES already being in use elsewhere. This would provide cover as most would simply think of the new location.

    I agree that there is a connection to St. Rose. There was a drill held there previously as well. It is obvious that they did not think that anyone would do any serious digging into this.

    Remember the footage of the cops rushing St. Rose? That was from the earlier drill. They probably hoped to just blend it in with the other footage. Add a little drama.

    Weiss is spooky. Remember Veronique’s brother was supposedly representing the Church in some matter? That in itself is pretty unusual. Why would you need a lawyer from Seattle, and a Jewish one at that. The Church is crawling with lawyers.

    This site recently started publishing again. They do a good job. To be honest, I am not good with faces. That doesn’t mean that I don’t believe it, I’m just not equipped to make a judgement.

    As far as “solved”, I’m not sure the location is the critical piece. It would certainly show it to be the hoax that we know it to be. The attached link has a veritable “who’s who” of psychiatry with connections to this. We have discussed this element before.

    Fetzer’s data shows no activity from 2008. That is about the best I’ve seen do date in terms of evidence. Any way you slice it there would still have to be a sizable number of people who at least know that it didn’t happen as described. Again, Fetzer claims that the DoJ issued gag orders. The theory being that between the bribes and the gag orders, they managed to keep the lid on.

    I’m going to consider what you said about St. Rose. My intuition tells me that they were involved somehow. I’m not sure that is the whole thing. I remember reading that they were “compromised”, in the sense that there was a pedophile accusation afloat. That may be where Posner’s brother comes in.

    Everyone remembers the nuns too. It is possible to have nuns in habits there, but it is increasingly unusual. Most nuns, especially in teaching orders, where more or less normal clothes. The ones in habits are usually cloistered. They wouldn’t be standing around at a school. The habit is, of course, identifiable if you need a character for your movie.

    It all reeks of course, and demands exposure.

    1. No, that’s “not it”.. It is a lot more complicated than that, but we have figured out how the illusion was done now. It was via a simultaneous shooting lockdown @ St. Rose of Lima that was just the event mirrored @ Sandy Hook with made-up personas based on real people @ St. Rose of Lima.

      1. “…with made-up personas based on real people @ St. Rose of Lima.”

        This is a more accurate way to put it, I think: the people at St. Rose of Lima were the inspiration for the fake characters.

        I have been suspicious of St. Rose of Lima’s involvement, too, because of the heavy, and nearly unilateral, involvement of Catholics throughout this caper. Remember that the closed-casket funeral was also held at that church.

        I’m not fully persuaded of the two identifications. Lanza/Haddad have different noses. Haddad’s is more bulbous. As for Hochsprung/ Maloney, the noses are very close, but the wide-open look of Dawn Hochsprung’s eyes, and her brows, are quite different from Mary Maloney’s. I became more convinced when I saw the picture Anne found from 2009, though. The nose may be the clincher.

        1. I gotta agree with paulstal about the matches. the old witch has gotten more wrinkles and grown uglier but that seems to be her for sure. even her right eyelid has a weird dimple that is in both pictures.

          as far as annie haddad, I can’t tell which pics are supposed to be who, but she seems a match.

      2. I just want to say a little more about the “Catholic connection.” I have many friends who are Catholic. I never thought anything unusual about Catholicism, and would never have dreamed of making an issue out of people’s religion, until 2010. But in that year I realized, with a shock, that all the judges whose religion I knew about or could guess in Colorado, both state and federal, were Catholic, and they were making crazy rulings which had no basis in law. All the attorneys opposed to me in water cases were also Catholic–and these guys are unethical. I have been the target for many years of a vendetta by a group of them, largely Notre Dame graduates, who are attorneys and judges. These people ended up in Colorado without any prior connection to the state, and very quickly ascended to positions of power. If you cross any of these people, that is the end of you.

        Six of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices are Catholic, and two are closely connected to, or members of, Opus Dei, which is a cult. (Google “Red Mass.”) Law enforcement is also top-heavy with Catholics. Both Louis Freeh and his top deputy, Robert Hanssen, at the FBI were members of Opus Dei. Look at the Whitey Bulger stuff.

        The thing that made me realize this was no coincidence, and might even be the result of a plan, was reading about the Jesuits’ “Extreme Oath of Induction.” Read that: it will scare the pants off you.

      3. Not to cast any aspersion on your humble assertion (er), but “solved” Sandy Hook is misleading (I think). If all of that were true, it doesn’t matter much to me if they used the identities from St. Rose or the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

        You may be right about the identities. I have admitted that I’m not good with faces. We already know it was a hoax. WHO they used, while interesting, still leaves us right where we were. To be honest, while I do believe that actors were used in places, where they came from doesn’t concern me much.

        As far as the school, Fetzer’s information makes more sense. He claims it was another school in a nearby town that absorbed the student body in 2008. Any scenes from SHES are merely “stock footage” to artificially place the action at the old school.

        I think there is a possibility that St. Rose contributed to the planned confusion. Having identifiable clergy there also added a flavor of authenticity. I still think they were assisting with the drill.

        Maybe my problem is that I haven’t regarded this as a mystery to be “solved”. We’ve been kicking around theories of the “how did they do it?” variety. Regarding that element, you may or may not be on to something. Your theory requires a belief in the identity of the persons allegedly posing as Hochsprung and Lanza.

        While there is a similarity between Haddad and Lanza, it’s hard to be certain unless Nancy adopted the layered-homeless look or vice versa. I see less similarity in the Church lady and Hochsprung. I’ve already said that I”m not good with faces.

        If I were staging this, why would I want to use someone who lived in the neighborhood? I suppose I could, but wouldn’t it be “cleaner” to just cast for a suitable actor?

        So, I salute your efforts at “solving” SHES, but where the players came from was never a major source of curiosity for me. Ironclad proof that the school was closed, or that there was no one in those graves would be much more satisfying to me. If Fetzer’s records are true he has some pretty strong anecdotal evidence for closure.

        1. I think the photo’s shown on the teaser page of your video are more convincing. the shite eating grin of this current photo doesn’t match up as well as the short haired, no glasses dawn hochsprung does with mugatu. I’m still convinced it’s the same person but the nose looks different, smile is different and the glasses mask many features. If you did that with the other photo’s it would convince most everybody.

      4. I admit, it is a strong resemblance. Two other things come to mind. If her actual age is closer to Mary Maloney, the husband’s advanced age would be a better fit.

        Second, the earlier picture of Hochsprung has a hairstyle that is more suited to 1970’s vintage than now. As with so many of the photos, they seem from an earlier period.

        That’s an interesting comparison.

  8. Here is an excellent oped on the ridiculous conclusion of the SHH commission targeting home schoolers while the phantom killer spent most of his educational time in the public school system.

    Am very impressed that he acknowledges they had absolutely no medical history on which to base their recommendation.

    “As City Journal notes, the Malloy gang says that Lanza’s educational and medical records support its proposals, which is curious: Its members have no access to those records. But a government commission says that it is so, so it must be so.”

  9. If you want more on the Mary Maloney/Dawn Hochsprung Identity Google Image search “Kathleen T. Maloney” I promise you won’t be disappointed. They scrubbed the web pretty hard but they missed one!

Leave a Reply