top of page


As any Sandy Hook researcher knows... it's way too easy to use official documents to debunk the official story.


And nothing puts a hole in the official story like a gunshot that shouldn't exist. 

According to the official narrative, Adam killed himself at 9:40:03 (as you can see in the timeline given in the State Attorney's Final Report). 


Page 11 -12 

But... what if I told you, that this was a lie? That there was a gunshot nearly 7 minutes AFTER Adam had killed himself ? That, not only is there documented evidence of this, but auditory evidence as well? Despite their incompetent attempt to strike it from the story.  

Let's start at the beginning. 

On June 26, 2013, TFC Alison A. Peters from the Connecticut State Police, submitted a CD of 2 911 calls that were made at the school to the Forensics Lab to have Lucinda Lopes-Phelen to do a gunshot analysis (CFS 1200704559 Book 4 00160731). 

There's 2 things that needs to be noted here.

1. She states that she "can hear continuous rapid gunfire from 0:15 to 0:22 (seconds)" in the first call, which was 24 seconds long (from a caller who's name is redacted)

2. That the "radio transmissions and background noise from Newtown PD are obstructing the sound of gunfire" in Rick Thorne's call (who's name isn't redacted) 

I promise, the importance of these things will become apparent soon. 

submitting to lab.png

CFS 1200704559 Book 4 00160731 p. 4

On June 28th, TFC Peters received a call phone Lopes-Phalen who told her that the forensics lab was unable to complete the analysis and suggested that she should hire a private expert. I am assuming that this was due to limited equipment/tech. 

On July 15th, Paul Ginsberg (Professional Audio Laboratories) was hired (CFS 1200704559 Book 4 00154319), and on July 19th, TFC Peters received the results (CFS 1200704559 Book 4 00175096). 

There was 5 CD's that contained a total of 6 911 calls. 

1. Beth Hegarty, who was a mother in a PPT meeting in room 9

2. Deborah Pisani, a para-educator in room 1 that was shot in the foot

3. Barbara Halstead, the secretary that was under a desk within the nurse's office with the nurse Sally Cox

4 & 5. Both are from Rick Thorne. When he called 911 it was picked up by State Police (#4) and then transferred to Newtown (#5) making it 2 separate calls (this can be confirmed in his 911 call transcript which is in (CFS 1200704559 Book 4 00155346). (It should be noted, that on the gunshot analysis documents I will be discussing, it shows 2 audio tracks for Thorne. One is a CD file that is 6:29 long and a WAV file that is 14:43 minutes long, which is the one being discussed. I honestly have no idea what the 6:29 file is all about, so if anyone out there does, could you please tell me and provide sources. It will be greatly appreciated). 

6. Was the audio enhancement from the dash cam of Newtown Police Officer William Chapman

call info final.png

page 7 - 8

As you can see, all the names, but Chapman and Thorne's are redacted. I've been able to obtain the names of the other callers via multiple news sources, along with lawsuit documents and documents released by the State Police. All of which I will cite at the bottom of this article. 

(Note: I am not posting their names with malicious intent. As a researcher, I believe that to completely understand and analyze that which we are researching, we should be as informed as we can be, which includes knowing names. If the individuals in the list would like me to take down their names, along with the sources where I got their names from, please contact me and I will be happy to oblige). 

A "plot" was created for each file, and labeled as Plots 1 - 5. Within each plot is a list of gunshots heard in the audio, along with an equalizer/chart showing the gunshots and then a separate chart showing the gunshots expanded (to show more detail). 

Unfortunately, the plot #'s were not provided on the page cited above, which contains the location of each call, which was NOT included on the charts or lists. Since 3 of the names are redacted, I used the start time of each call to figure out their plot #'s. But even that proved to be annoying. 

Here is the list of gunshots for Plot #1.

Plot 1 list.png

page 10

Clearly, that is a typo. Unless he is suggesting that this 911 call began at 2:36 pm! But if we change the 14 to a 9, it becomes 9:36, which would make it room 9. 

Here's Plot #2's list.

Plot 2 list.png

page 10

There's all kinds of problems with this one. Just like #1, unless he is stating that the call was place after 2 pm, that 14 should be a 9. However, none of the files given have a time for 9:37:18. There was however a 9:38:00. Which was room 1. The 9:38 time can be confirmed in the call's transcript in CFS 1200704559 Book 4 00152887

And here's the list for Plot #3. 

Plot 3 list.png

page 10

This would be from the nurse's office, despite page 7 stating that their call was placed at 0:35:39. The correct time would be 9:35:39 and can be confirmed in the call's transcript which is in CFS 1200704559 Book 4 00154399

As  you can see below, Plot #4 belongs to Thorne and Plot #5 belongs to Chapman (both are on page 11). So clearly, #2 is from room 1 even though there are 2 different times being quoted. 

Plot 4 list.png
Plot 5 list.png

As you may have noticed, despite TFC Peters stating that she heard "continuous rapid gunfire" in Halstead's call (Plot #3) , it was determined that those weren't gunshots at all. This was noted by Ginsberg on page 9

Ginsberg not gunshots.png

Even though the name is redacted, we can confirm that it's Halstead's call due to the fact that he still included it within the analysis for comparison purposes. Plot #3 is the only one labeled as "noise", while the other 4 are all labeled as gunshots. 

Plot 3 not gunshots.png

page 17

Plot 3 expanded.png

page 18

Below is her 911 call (you can also listen to it here). 

You can absolutely hear a continuous "bang bang bang bang" within the 15 - 22 second window that TFC Peters stated she heard gunshots. It's most noticeable between 17 - 21 seconds. But if it's not gunshots, then what the hell is it? If you compare the chart to the other calls, it's painfully obvious that they do not reflect the same sound heard on other people's calls. Guess I'm on the fence with this one.

And here comes the big reveal. You ready for this? Let's take another look at the list of gunshots heard in Rick Thorne's call. 

946 shot.png

What's highlighted, is a gunshot that occurred at 9:46:54! A total of 6 minutes and 51 seconds AFTER we are told was the last gunshot, and when the one and only suspect died. 

Here's the math.

Call begins at 9:36:13

Add 10 minutes = 9:46:13

Add 41 seconds = 9:46:54

Think this could be a possible typo? A mistake? Think again. On the chart, it clearly shows a gunshot after the 10 minute mark. 

946 graph.png

page 19

I have zoomed in so that the time frame can be seen clearer. It is between 9:41 and 11:23, which I circled in red. 

946 graph zoom.png

And here is the gunshot expanded chart.

946 expanded.png

page 20

I have zoomed in on the gunshot

946 expanded zoom.png

Not only is it placed more than 10 minutes into the call, but it certainly resembles a gunshot to me. Let's do a side by side with this and the "noise" from Plot #3 (the expanded charts). 

noise expanded zoom.png
946 expanded zoom.png

For the sake of being thorough, in case anyone would like to argue that this isn't a fair comparison due to the fact that it was a single sound being compared to a repetitious sound... here's a zoom in on the multiple gunshots heard earlier in his call (from the expanded chart)

Thorne beginning expanded zoom.png

Just in case, here is a zoom in from the expanded gunshot chart from Plot #1. 

Plot 1 expanded zoom.png

page 14

The reason why they seem a bit thicker is due to the fact that he was looking at a much smaller window of time in this call than Thornes so he was able to zoom in more. This can be confirmed by comparing it to other calls and their charts.

If all of this still isn't enough for you, you can hear the gunshot for yourself. It's at the 2:59 mark (from the same source as Halstead's call that I cited above). 

That is clearly a gunshot. And it occurred almost 7 minutes after Adam had already died!


Can I validate the time? Why yes.... yes I can. 

First, let's acknowledge that Thorne is conversing with officers inside the school. If you scroll up to the top of this article to the photo of the timeline given by the State Attorney, police didn't breach the school until 9:44:47. 4 minutes and 44 seconds after Adam died.

Second, if we compare Thorne's 911 call transcript to what they are saying in the audio before the gunshot happens, we can place it between the times of 9:46:13 and 9:47:31.

Thorne time frame.png

CFS 1200704559 Book 4 00155346 p. 12

And lastly, we can compare the State Police and Newtown's radio transmission transcripts with what we can hear in the background. This will greatly narrow the time frame. 

6 seconds after the gunshot (which would be 9:47:00 - at the 3:05 mark in the audio) you can hear Sgt. Bahamonde say "we can't have anybody.. uh.. ambulances coming in."According to the Newtown radio transmission transcript, he stated this at 9:46:57. 

Bahamonde not secure.png

CFS 1200704559 Book 4 00179629 p. 4

So... this would be a 3 second discrepancy from the times being quoted in the 911 call. Regardless, I'm not going to make a big deal over 3 seconds right now. 

Almost simultaneously, you can hear dispatcher Barocsi state "the building's not secure, the building's not secure." But according to the State Police radio transmission transcript, she stated this at 9:46:54.

Barocsi not secure not secure.png

CFS 1200704559 Book 4 00156882 p. 7

Clearly, she didn't state that at the exact moment the gunshot happened. So either the times quoted in the audio are wrong, or the times quoted in the transcripts are wrong... or maybe all of the above. 

Regardless, it still places the gunshot just seconds before 9:47 am. At a time we're told... it shouldn't exist at. And according to the second gunshot analysis, it doesn't... anymore. 

On page 1 of the analysis I've been citing, TFC Peters vaguely states that it was determined that another analysis be done. 

need to do another one.png

CFS 1200704559 Book 4 00175096 p. 1

Apparently, it was for the purpose of reanalyzing the audio from Chapman's dash cam. 

re examine chapmans audio.png

CFS 1200704559 Book 4 00175007 p. 1

On August 2nd, TFC Peters received the revised analysis (CFS 1200704559 Book 4 00182028).  There was a total of 3 files that were changed.

1. Plot #2 (Deborah Pisani - Room 1) - Added 1 gunshot (02:41.5861) 

Plot 2 list not highlighted.png

CFS 1200704559 Book 4 00175096 p. 10

Plot 2 revised list.png

CFS 1200704559 Book 4 00182028 p. 9

2. Plot #4 (Rick Thorne - West hallway) - Removed 1 gunshot (10:41.3576 - the 9:46:54 gunshot)

Plot 4 not highlighted.png

CFS 1200704559 Book 4 00175096 p. 11

Plot 4 list revised.png

CFS 1200704559 Book 4 00182028 p. 10

3. Plot #5 (Officer Chapman - dash cam) - Added 8 gunshots (01:50.9352, 01:52.0367, 01:54.2292; 01:56.6314, 02:00.1877, 2:01.5199). 

Plot 5 list no highlight.png

CFS 1200704559 Book 4 00175096 p. 11

plot 5 list revised.png

CFS 1200704559 Book 4 00182028 p. 10

Unfortunately, Ginsberg never included any notes or details regarding the revisions. The closest we get is this. 

Ginsberg no explanation 2.png

CFS 1200704559 Book 4 00182028 p. 4

Note: that everything else in this document is identical to the first one. The only differences are.. this letter, the added gunshots to the lists and charts and the deletion of the one shot from the list and charts. 

There is however, something that TFC Peters stated that's interesting. 

peters not gunshots.png

CFS 1200704559 Book 4 00182028 p. 1

Now, I know that anyone desperate enough to keep the official story intact would grab onto this like a junkie to a needle and try to claim that what she is talking about is the missing gunshot from Thorne's call, since she originally mentioned radio transmission and background noise from Newtown PD obstructing the sounds of gunfire in Thorne's call when she first put in a request for the forensics lab to do the analysis (that I cited at the beginning of this article),  so it'd seem to fit right? But I call bullshit. 

1. When the gunshot is heard, it was pretty quiet. Almost silent even. However, there was chatter 6 seconds after the gunshot, a phone ringing one second later and then a looooot of chatter, phones ringing and a lot of beeping sounds from dispatch 11 seconds later. Exactly what I would expect to hear if it had been quiet for almost 7 minutes and then a gunshot is heard. 

2. Notice how she states gunshots, not gunshot. This implies more than one. There was only one gunshot removed from Thorne's list. So it's possible that this is in regards to Halstead's call (even though I too have a hard time accepting the notion that the bangs were radio interference). 

3. The name is redacted. Thorne's wasn't redacted anywhere else within either of the 2 analyses. Why would it be redacted now? Wouldn't it seem not only strange, but suspicious, that the one and only time his name is redacted is when discussing deleting the 9:46 shot from the record for a bogus reason? 

4. It definitely looked liked a straight line to me on the chart. It resembled that of a gunshot, not anything else. 

5. Like Halstead's call, I'd expect Ginsberg to make some kind of notation as to why he determined why it wasn't a gunshot, especially because he initially called it a gunshot on the first analysis. But the only thing mentioned, is Halstead's call. I'd also expect him to show it on a chart and a brief notation regarding it's shape, as he did with Halsteads, when he stated to look at the width. But there's absolutely nothing. It just simply doesn't exist anymore (as you can see below). 

Plot 4 no more.png

CFS 1200704559 Book 4 00182028 p. 18

And here is the new expanded chart. See how it now resembles the expanded shot from Plot #1? That's because he's now able to zoom in on a smaller time frame. 

Plot 4 expanded revised.png

page 19

To me, it is irrefutable that there was a gunshot at 9:46:54. When it happens, it is immediately established that the building is not secure and it is ordered that no one is admitted inside. At the 3:00 mark, there is a thud. Is it possible that what we are hearing is a person dropping to the floor? It's a pretty loud thud. So... maybe.. the person had something in their hands as well? At the 3:03 mark, there's a loud gasp. As if the person is gasping for air after being shot. If true, this means that the person shot was in close proximity to Thorne. 

After discovering this revelation, it took some time for me to process it. I trolled the internet looking for any possible explanations, any counterarguments. Of course, 99% of the time, I either got no response, people who ignored it's existence by stating things like "there's no such sound in his call" or "the gunshot analysis doesn't state that". I even got a reply that stated "the gunshot analysis was a loose interpretation and nothing definite. It was just someone's opinion", or I got nothing but insults like "you're such a dumbass" "how fucking retarded are you?" "yeah right, go fuck yourself and your made up facts you fucking nut job." (pardon my language).


Thankfully, there was at least 1% that actually attempted to address it. And they came up with a pretty great question. If that really was a gunshot, and that close to Thorne, then why didn't he say anything to dispatch? Why didn't he get freaked out at all? Honestly, I don't have an answer for that. That is a question that can only be answered by Thorne himself. Now, please don't misconstrue what I am saying here. I do not think of Thorne as a suspect, but a victim. I am not trying to question his character or trying to defame it or him in any way. 

I'm also not trying to defame Paul Ginsberg either. However, I would like to know who deleted that gunshot from the record. If it was Ginsberg, I'd like to see that data which determined that it wasn't a gunshot (unless he did so under orders).

But what if it wasn't him that deleted it? Which begs the question, did TFC Alison Peters? Her name is literally on all the auditory evidence. She is the common denominator in this entire story. But did she do this because it really was determined to not be a gunshot? Did she do this under orders or under her own free will?  

We should be demanding answers for this. We should have Peters and Ginsberg both address this topic with verifiable data. The implications are too huge for this one to get swept under the rug. (The implications and theories will be discussed in another article). A gunshot, almost 7 minutes after the lone wolf killed himself. In an event we are told police never fired one single round that day.  Did the police shoot someone? Who? Was it a victim? Was it Adam? A person we are completely unaware of? Did someone else fire that shot? Who? A student? I know that seems like a far reach, but that's my point. There's a gunshot being covered up, and without knowing the facts of the case overall, there is way too much room for speculation. It seems that this case is made up of 20% fact, leaving 80% for speculation. And they wonder why there's so many blogs, videos, sites etc regarding this case and the many many theories... psh. 

If we are to ever know the truth, if the speculations are ever to stop, it can only be done with full disclosure. Just another fine example, that we should be demanding an investigation into their investigations.  



  • We know that it was a mother because of these witness statements, from people that were with her in room 9.                     

CFS 1200704559 Book 5 00005524 "[redacted] a parent attending the meeting, called the police via telephone"  

CFS 1200704559 Book 5 00006254 "the parent in the room, who she identified as [redacted], called 911 using her cellular telephone."

CFS 1200704559 Book 5 00039326 "As this was going on, a parent in the room was on the phone with 911."

  •  It can be further confirmed in TFC Peters's first request for an analysis. CFS 1200704559 Book 4 00160731 p. 4 "telephone call, mother in the conference room #9"                 

  • These are the mother's witness statements, but because they are written in the third person and many names are redacted (including hers) it's hard to determine if it's stating that it was her or someone else that made the call.  CFS 1200704559 Book 5 00089715, CFS 1200704559 Book 5 00006299 

  • 911 call transcript states at the top "Parent in conference room #9) 911 call to the state police" Also, in the call she states "I'm just a mom... these people work here at these schools." (page 8)

  • This article provides the name of the parent that was in the conference room that the princpal and psychologist were in, which was room 9. "One of those people was Beth Hegarty, a Sandy Hook mother who was in the school on the day of the attack along with her three daughters – all of whom survived. She hid under a conference table during the shooting while the principal and psychologist she was meeting with at the time were both killed."


To further prove it:

  • We can confirm beyond reasonable doubt that the second wounded was within room 1 from her 911 call and her call transcript (CFS 1200704559 Book 4 00152887)

  • (page 7) "At the time of the incident, Cunningham was filling in as a substitute teacher for a kindergarten class in Classroom #1. Cunningham Aff., ¶9. Also with her in the classroom was Deborah Pisani, a paraprofessional, and Kim Weiss, a behavioral therapist. Cunningham Aff., ¶10. Cunningham was provided a planbook, which consisted of teaching plans for the day, as well as the subfolder and a key. Cunningham Aff., ¶11. According to Cunningham, around 9:30 the children were supposed to transition to their tables to begin working when she heard noises, specifically banging sounds like someone kicking a door. Cunningham Aff., ¶12. Pisani went to check on the sound, and immediately while in the hallway was shot in the foot."


  •  "Someone has cast a spell on Barbara Halstead. His name is Adam Lanza."I think there's somebody shooting in here, Sandy Hook School," Halstead, hiding beneath a desk in the school's infirmary, tells an unidentified emergency dispatcher by phone on the morning of Dec. 14, 2012. "What makes you think that?" the voice on the other end of phone replies matter-of-factly."Because somebody's got a gun. I got a glimpse of somebody and they're running down the hallway. They're still running. They're still shooting. Sandy Hook School, please. Oh...."And with the 24-second eyewitness account from Halstead, a school secretary who cheats death, the floodgates open for a deluge of 911 calls reporting the worst grade-school shooting in U.S. history."

  • "The first call came from the secretary in the central office. In the 24-second call, secretary Barbara Halstead says “I think there’s somebody shooting in here in Sandy Hook School.”The dispatcher replies “Why do you think that?”“Somebody’s got a gun I saw a glimpse of somebody running down the hallway, they’re still around me there’s still shooting. Sandy Hook please,” Halstead said."

bottom of page