Debunked: FBI Says No one killed at Sandy Hook [Included in CT State total]

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/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/8tabledatadecpdf/table-8-state-cuts/table_8_offenses_known_to_law_enforcement_by_connecticut_by_city_2012.xls#disablemobile


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/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.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


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



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.



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.



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


And on page 12:


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

Attachments

Last edited:

MikeC

Closed Account
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.
 

Mike Fl

New Member
I found this . Guess its for you Mick . Its not something Im into , but thought youd want to respond to .
http://www.usa.com/newtown-ct-crime-and-crime-rate.htm has the same data as http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/8tabledatadecpdf/table-8-state-cuts/table_8_offenses_known_to_law_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/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/8tabledatadecpdf/table-8-state-cuts/table_8_offenses_known_to_law_enforcement_by_connecticut_by_city_2012.xls/@@template-layout-view?override-view=data-declaration
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
I found this . Guess its for you Mick . Its not something Im into , but thought youd want to respond to .
ok, I know my brain doesn't always work right... but what am I missing here?
upload_2014-9-25_21-7-23.png
 

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.
 

Brainiachick

Active 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.

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?


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.

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 :).
 

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
 

Mick West

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

CeruleanBlu

Active 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.
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.
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member
So what the point of having it at all ? waste taxpayer money ?
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.
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member
Its not transparent if its wrong . Makes it a lie and fuels conspiracies .
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.
 

Joe

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.
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 .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I couldnt agree more Mick .
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.
 

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.
 

Mick West

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


Southbury is a town/region in CT, seen here, one of many:


However it is ALSO the location of a state police troop:


And in this case, the jurisdiction is state police, and the initial state police responders were from the closest troop, in Southbury.
 

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:




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

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
yea all the little towns are in the CT ucr.
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.
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
Actually, it seems like Southbury is excluded BECAUSE it is handled just by the State Police.
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:
 

Jason

Senior Member
edit: this is ridiculous, Southbury only pays 70% ...pfft.
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.
 

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.
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff 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.
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.
 

Jason

Senior 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.
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..
 

CW Wade

New Member
To add to this, and I know it's been mentioned - that specific "page" of the FBI report only lists 110 Murders, handled locally. The 36 "State Police" handled murders (for the146 total) are on this page http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/11tabledatadecpdf/table-11-state-cuts/table_11_offenses_known_to_law_enforcement_by_connecticut_by_state_tribal_and_other_agencies_2012.xls That 36, as affirmed by the CT UCR includes those killed in Sandy Hook. If this is a repeat I apologize.
 

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.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff 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.
Could you link to the tables that say this?
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff 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.
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?
 

Brocky

New 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?

Where do you see UCR 34 under state police?
 
Top