Tags:
  1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Conspiracy theorists content that the FBI has reported zero deaths in Newtown, CT, even though 27 people were murdered in the Newtown mass shooting on Dec 14th 2012. They point to the FBI report "Crime in the United States 2012":
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...by_connecticut_by_city_2012.xls#disablemobile
    [​IMG]

    The FBI report is based on the UCRs (Uniform Crime Reports) created by various state law enforcement and other bodies.
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...s.-2012/resource-pages/about-ucr/aboutucrmain
    The Connecticut 2012 UCR has this on page 4:
    http://www.dpsdata.ct.gov/dps/ucr/data/2012/Crime In Connecticut COMPLETE 2012.pdf
    [​IMG]

    So it's a little hard to see how the FBI might have missed this. Looking in the actual UCR reveals the answer:

    [​IMG]

    The report quite specifically notes the 27 victims (26 at the school, plus Lanza's mother), but excludes them from the statistics for Newton. Instead they are included in "State Police Misc", because the crimes at the school fell under the jurisdiction of the state police, not the local police.

    [​IMG]

    So it seems that as they are not assigned to a specific town, they do not appear in the FBI table. The UCR is primarily a statistical tool and does not have 100% coverage. The 27 deaths are included in the state total of 144 on the FBI web page, just not in the local totals, which only includes 110 for the 92 listed communities.

    [​IMG]

    The CT UCR also explicitly includes the victims in the state totals, (page 11)
    [​IMG]

    And on page 12:
    [​IMG]

    And on pages 14 and 25, in fact the Newtown murders are mentioned 14 times in the Connecticut UCR.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Sep 26, 2014
    • Like Like x 6
    • Informative Informative x 6
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Joe

    Joe Senior Member

    • Like Like x 3
  3. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    I've run into the YT poster before - he's as far down the rabbit hole as you can be and this is a classic example - showing how the FBI says there were killings at Sandy Hook while claiming they do not is classic cognitive dissonance.
     
  4. Mike Fl

    Mike Fl New Member

    http://www.usa.com/newtown-ct-crime-and-crime-rate.htm has the same data as http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...w_enforcement_by_connecticut_by_city_2012.xls.

    So, just like Table 8: "The data used in creating this table were from all city and town law enforcement agencies submitting 12 months of complete offense data for 2012." City and town law enforcement, not state law enforcement (Connecticut State Police). http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...te-layout-view?override-view=data-declaration
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    ok, I know my brain doesn't always work right... but what am I missing here?
    upload_2014-9-25_21-7-23.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    Go and point that out on the video comments...it's fun :)
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. I thought government data sources were never to be trusted by conspiracy theorists?
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
    • Like Like x 2
  8. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    When it suits them... Creationists use science if it supports their claim, but if it does not, those idiots at NASA are in the hands of Satan....
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    Sure...and I have numerous friends who constantly say--for political reasons--that the
    New York Times is not to be trusted...but of course, any time something in the Times
    does support their position, well, then the paper is instantly reputable again. :p Temporarily.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  10. Brainiachick

    Brainiachick Active Member


    I had a similar experience just days ago in court when I cross-examined a so-called 'expert' witness who deliberately submitted a report to the court that was clearly the opposite of what she was told by a victim/witness. Her attempts, under oath and under my cross-examination when confronted with the evidence, to twist the fact was quite pathetic to watch. Suffice to say I reduced her to a quivering wreck when she realised that the poor victim had not only taken notes at the assessment but also took electronic digital record, transcript of which was provided to the court. I was given news the next day at court that this so-called 'expert' has voluntarily resigned! If a court appointed expert upon whose evidence/opinion is heavily relied by judges to decide cases can twist facts, lie and put the lives of vulnerable victims at risk, with such impunity, what can we expect from the likes of this YT poster who aren't in a position of authority or trust?



    I come across this a lot, sadly, in my line of work and it never ceases to amaze and/or amuse! I think lack of integrity drives that kind of attitude, and it clearly reveals where the credibility lies :).
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. E**

    E** Member

    Some conspiracy theorists are still speculating that it seems fishy, etc. The report doesn't list why (I think it's just human error and oversight, I've been looking at some UCR from other states and they are even less comprehensive) but taking a look at the federal UCR for new york in 2001 there is precedent for not including something that would be a statistical outlier:

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2001/01sec5.pdf

    The differences are reflected in the footnotes there too (table 6 and 8)

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2001/01sec2.pdf

    27 would be a big outlier in a place that has had zero murders
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Mike Fl

    Mike Fl New Member

    It's not human error. The data used in the table is from city and town law enforcement agencies. Since Connecticut State Police were heading the investigation, that means it's a state law enforcement agency and not city or town. Snopes has debunked this as well. http://www.snopes.com/info/news/sandyhoax.asp
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  13. E**

    E** Member

    I was just curious as to why the FBI UCR wouldn't note that with a footnote. Maybe I'm speculating too much.
     
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The FBI web site is just a bunch of generated pages made from the raw data. It's just a statistical tool, not really a report.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. CeruleanBlu

    CeruleanBlu Member

    It also might be helpful to note that the FBI did provide this "A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000 and 2013" news release that discussed the Sandy Hook killings. So if the claim is that the FBI says no one was killed it might be helpful to include an actual official FBI statement showing the opposite is true.


    I found that FBI link on NeuroLogica Blog, here.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  16. Svartbjørn

    Svartbjørn Senior Member

    Transparency Joe.. people have been demanding stats on violence in the US for decades.. so the FBI posts the data there for anyone to view if they want it. Its never a "waste of taxpayer money" when the stats can be used by groups to push for the deregulation of gun control, or to "prove" that having a gun prevents crime etc. The other sides use the information as well to show the opposite. The FBI puts it out there because the information is wanted.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    it's not wrong. you just need to know how to read the stats and you need to understand the purpose of the stats.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    Indeed it is not transparent if it is wrong - however this case shows that it can be perfectly correct and still fuel conspiracies!!
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Winner Winner x 2
  19. Svartbjørn

    Svartbjørn Senior Member

    Mike and De said exactly what I was going to say Joe.. Occam's Razor, what's more likely.. that the US Government is going to intentionally publish false stats that ANYONE can see, just so that people can figure out they're lying.. or that people dont know how to read what's out there, or cant see beyond their own preconceived ideas what the numbers mean?

    Personally, Im going with the latter. Not because I automatically take what the Govt says is true, but because IF you believe the ppl that say the Government is using False Flags to remove the right to bear arms, then the fact that the shooting "doesnt show up" COMPLETELY contradicts that agenda. So you tell me which makes more sense to you.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Joe

    Joe Senior Member

    Well I don't believe in False Flags . But I know ""You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. " seems to be popular these days .
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    These days and all days:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

    While you might not agree with Naomi Klein, it's hard to argue to exploiting crises is a new thing.
     
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Although I don't think there's anything going on with these figures along those lines. It all seems quite straightforward. Of course individual politicians will spin events to suit their own preferences.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    the weird part is actually how many towns aren't listed. most of them have resident state troopers, but Redding has a resident state trooper and Redding is listed. most resident trooper towns are not listed on that particular fbi page.

    Southbury, on ct.gov, says its served by resident troopers...I know this is true of the Southbury Training School property- a state owned 'school' for handicapped people.- but Southbury has many cars driving around (that are not the grey state trooper cars) that are black and say "southbury police"...so I don't know why Southbury isn't listed.
     
  24. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's in the CT UCR
    https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/crime-in-connecticut-complete-2012-pdf.9291/
    [​IMG]

    Southbury is a town/region in CT, seen here, one of many:
    [​IMG]

    However it is ALSO the location of a state police troop:
    [​IMG]

    And in this case, the jurisdiction is state police, and the initial state police responders were from the closest troop, in Southbury.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Actually, it seems like Southbury is excluded BECAUSE it is handled just by the State Police. See the table of page 420-421:

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Note the first line is for "state police", and the following list of departments matches the cities listed in the FBI report.
     
  26. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    yea all the little towns are in the CT ucr.
     
  27. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    But it's not listed as having any police officers in the CT UCR, even though it quite clearly does. So either they are still classified as state troopers, or they don't meet some specific definition of a police department.
     
  28. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    ah, ok. didn't event hink to look it up. Southbury can afford their own police force, that's messed up.
    but thanks, that was driving me crazy trying to figure out.

    edit: this is ridiculous, Southbury only pays 70% ...pfft.
    **they have pretty nice new fancy little police cars :mad:
     
  29. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    That's not uncommon in rural areas. Even here in NJ the state police are involved with certain towns and counties. Usually though, there jurisdiction resides to state and county roads. Which in turn helps the local police to be able to govern their communities more closely and share in the cost. However, if the state police arrest someone they will usually hand them off to the local authorities.
     
  30. Gunguy45

    Gunguy45 Active Member

    Deirdre, you want to see confusing, come visit me. We have city police, county sheriffs, state police officers (called DPS), and constables (who basically serve liens, orders of protection, etc, but are trained peace officers) . All have authority in town if they actually observe a crime being committed. Of course the first 2 are the primary LE, but though our city is within the county, only Police respond or patrol inside the limits, unless it's a major event. If it is major such as a bank robbery or HSP, all 3 will respond if available.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  31. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    yea. I don't begrudge rural areas as they have no chance at taxes from industry etc. but Southbury is not rural, right on a main highway, lots of commerce, decent income levels . Maybe has some deal due to the State police barracks in town (?)... who knows.
     
  32. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    Probably, I live in a wealthy area but we share some of the roads with State police, and I found this out because every time there is construction in town, if it's on Route 72 you will see state police monitoring the site as opposed to stafford twp police. Thats how I found out, but it's common practice all across the US. I don't know Southbury as well as you do, but I'm just offering my 2cents..
     
  33. CW Wade

    CW Wade New Member

  34. Brocky

    Brocky New Member

    Well. It seems I missed something and I can't find it. The FBI state table total says 146. The CT UCR says 143. I've been to both sites but can't account for 3. Help appreciated.
     
  35. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    Could you link to the tables that say this?
     
  36. Brocky

    Brocky New Member

    They are above in the first post in this thread
     
  37. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    its a bit off topic, as 3 wouldnt apply to an issue with Sandy Hook reported murders (as that has already been shown to be in the FBI statistics). The Conn UCR also says 34 under State police jurisdiction, but the fbi one says 36...i'm wondering if info was updated ? after Connecticut filed the UCR (august 2013)...or vice versa. Do we know when the fbi statistics were correlated?
     
  38. Brocky

    Brocky New Member

  39. Brocky

    Brocky New Member

  40. Brocky

    Brocky New Member


    Where do you see UCR 34 under state police?