top of page

Finding Adam's Sunglasses

One thing that never gets old about the Sandy Hook case, is being able to debunk the official story with their own official documents. It’s even better when we can debunk it with their own official photos. 

One such example would be Adam’s sunglasses. Was Adam wearing sunglasses that day? I know I know. This seems like such a small and futile question. And normally I might agree. But in this case it just adds to the looooooooooooooooooong list of lies, contradictions and anomalies. When you take a step back and see it all as a whole, it starts to become obvious that nothing adds up. From the time Nancy is shot in her bed to the Final Report, the whole thing reads as if this case was meant to have multiple alternate endings. Which is why I believe we should demand for an investigation into the investigation itself. After all, there can only be one truth. In order for me to demonstrate this argument and attempt to persuade you (the reader) beyond a reasonable doubt that we should demand such an investigation, everything must be accounted for no matter how small. It is our job as researchers to then narrow all of that down. Some anomalies are to be expected. Such as the main office staff seeing boots when he was really wearing sneakers or teachers and students believing that they heard Adam yelling in the hallway when it was really Police yelling at the Janitor after being sighted in the hallway with something in his hands (which turned out to be his cellphone). 


So, was he? According to the Final Report, he most certainly was. 

sunglasses final report.png


So who would question it right? It was written up by an official, Connecticut’s State’s Attorney no less. It was done so at the conclusion of the investigation and is to be considered as the final word or rather the synopsis of the case as a whole. After every lead had been traced, all evidence had been analyzed and properly documented… and when the case was considered solved. So when the Final Report states that he was wearing sunglasses, that means Adam Lanza was wearing sunglasses! But there is 0 evidence to back that up. 

(It should be noted that on page 22 there is a description of Adam but sunglasses are not mentioned). 


Unfortunately (or thankfully, depending on how you want to look at it) we don’t have many eyewitnesses that saw Adam. There are only 3 sources: 

 1. The main office (secretary) 

2. Natalie Hammond that came out from rm 9

3. The student survivors from room 10 and (one) from room 8. 


Barbara Halstead (the school secretary) stated in her interview that around 9:35 she heard what sounded like breaking glass. When she stood up she looked out the main office window and saw a man that “appeared white and was wearing a soft rim type hat, sunglasses (dark), and he was holding a rifle type gun with a long barrel.” You can find that report in CFS 1200704559 00007937 on page 2

Natalie Hammond’s description definitely does not include sunglasses. According to her, he was wearing a mask. 

CFS 1200704559 Book 5 00256315 p.2 “She described the gunman as a male, 5′ 8” to 5′ 11”  tall, wearing a dark hat and mask.”

But maybe we can give Hammond a little leeway. After all, she saw him from a distance. Add that to fear, possible bad lighting and shadow caused from his hat, it’s plausible his face wasn’t totally visible to her and the shadow darkened his face, causing her to believe he was wearing a mask. 

While Adam was in room 10, 9 students were able to escape. 5 were picked up by a passer-by and brought to the police station, and the remaining 4 was brought to a nearby home by a bus driver. As expected, many of the juvenile eyewitness reports have been redacted. But there are a couple that still show a description of the suspect. 

One of the survivors that ended up at a nearby home described the suspect as a:

CFS 1200704559  Book 5 00258277 “white guy with a heavy winter-like brown jacket and a green shirt underneath the jacket. [redacted] stated that he believe the man was wearing army green kind of pants”

CFS 1200704559 Book 6 00177428 is pretty interesting. This report is in regards to the group of children that was brought to the police station. “The bad guy looked like an Army guy wearing what sounded like green fatigues.”……. “All of the children had a similar account of a single shooter and his clothing.” 

Problem is, Adam was wearing all black!  

clothes 1.png

Walkley - shooter's clothing #24

clothes 2.png

Walkley - shooter's clothing #30

clothes 3.png

Walkley - shooter's clothing #51

clothes 4.png

Walkley - shooter's clothing #67

There is only one juvenile eyewitness report that states he was wearing sunglasses which contradicts the above report due to the fact that it came from an eyewitness that was brought to the police station. 

CFS 1200704559 Book 5 00256448 “He was wearing a brown or camo shirt, brown pants, a hat that was like a sombrero but smaller that was also brown. He goes on to state that the man had a bazooka that was black, brown or camo. He was also wearing sunglasses.” 

(So I guess not all the kids had the same description after all…)

How the hell does an all brown outfit resemble green fatigues? But, brown is certainly a lot closer to black than green though.

But to be fair, there is one variable that could explain the green confusion. His vest. While early reports and even police reports state that he was wearing a tactical / bulletproof vest (I will cover the vest in another post) the final narrative is that he was wearing a pale green pocket vest (Final report page 22). 

Either way I think it’s fair to consider the fact that eyewitness reports aren’t always accurate due to the trauma, shadow, distance and several other factors. Since these were first graders in a highly traumatic situation, inaccurate descriptions are to be expected and excusable. 

But critiquing law enforcement is a different story. They are trained to accurately identify a suspect. Unfortunately, that does not exist in this case. 

CFS 1200704559 Book 6 00251204 p.2 “The white male had brown hair, black boots and green pants.”

CFS 1200704559 Book 6 00007591 p.2 “I observed a white male, brown hair, yellow ear plugs, black boots, green BDU type pants.”

CFS 1200704559 Book 6 --1 p.4 “he was wearing a black t-shirt, beige vest with multiple pockets on it, black BDU style pants and a camouflage colored holster.”

CFS 1200704559 Book 6 00011399 p.2 “I observed this male to be wearing green BDU style pants, I believe a white t-shirt with a vest over it.”

CFS 1200704559 Book 6 00025074 p.2 “appeared to be camo-type clothing.”

But, some of them kind of got it right....

CFS 1200704559 Book 6 00002060 p.4 “the male was wearing a t-shirt and green tactical vest. I believe he had green or black pants on.”

CFS 1200704559 Book 6 00019631 p.2 “a male dressed in dark colored clothing which included a load bearing vest.”

Like I said before, I will be covering the vest in another post. 

But there is at least two reports that got it right:

CFS 1200704559 Book 6 00027906 p.2 “He was dressed in black.”

CFS 1200704559 Book 6 00030931 p.1 “He was wearing black bdu/cargo style pants, an olive drab green vest and dark sneakers.”

Point is, even though these descriptions seem to conflict with one another, there is one thing they all have in common… not a single one mentions seeing sunglasses.  And to date, I have not found a single report stating they found sunglasses anywhere else on the premises. Not the foyer, main entrance, lobby, main office, northeast hallway, rooms 10 or 8. 

In the report describing photographs taken of Adam’s clothing, Sunglasses are not listed anywhere. (CFS 1200704597 00187030).

This is the description of his clothes from the scene processing report (CFS 1200704597 00118939). Again, no sunglasses.

clothes report 1.png

p. 32

clothes report 2.png

p. 34

The sunglasses are not mentioned at all in the descriptions of any section given in or out of the school either. 

However, it should be noted that on page 34 in the scene processing report it does state “There was a pair of small wire framed glasses on the floor north of Exhibit #19 (Glock 10 mm). These glasses had a blood-like stains on them and appeared to be small and consistent with child size glasses. There was no deceased child in close proximity to the shooter’s body.” I am not aware if any of the students in room 10 wore glasses, nor am I aware if Adam did. But I do not believe that despite Adam being so skinny (112 lbs) that a child size pair of glasses could fit him. Nor would his mother be ok with that. She would’ve certainly got him an adult pair of glasses. I would assume that these glasses belonged to one of the 9 students that had ran out of the classroom. 


I have circled the wire framed glasses in the photo below.

glasses on floor.png

Walkey – scene photos #96 (zoomed in)

This is from the report of evidence seized from the school. There is no sunglasses listed for Adam’s clothing. 

seized Adam's clothes.png

CFS 1200704597 00101811 p. 11

And for the sake of being thorough, his clothing is listed again on page 26. 

Unfortunately there are very few unredacted photos of room 10 and we can only surmise that we are seeing Adam. Below is a photo that's supposed to show Adam. The black thing near the piece of paper, just left of the doorway is supposed to be his knee.  

Adam's knee 1.png
Adam's knee zoom.png

Walkey -scene photos #96

Adam's knee 3.png
Adam's knee 4.png

Walkley – Scene photos #161

The black thing under the stool would be his hat. 

Adam's hat.png

Tranquillo – Back-up scene photos 1 #353

This is a screenshot I took from the outdoor processing video. This mark is at 7:59. This is of Room 10, in the back (filming  from outside). You can see the Bushmaster on the floor and the bathroom with it’s light on in the background. 

screenshot of bushmaster.png

There appears to be 0 evidence that Adam was wearing sunglasses that day. So why would the final report say otherwise? Maybe it was just quoting what the secretary had stated she saw and not stating it as fact?? I don’t think so. First, it doesn’t specify that it is quoting an eyewitness. Second, there is no notation for correction anywhere. (But because the description on page 22 in the Final Report does not state he was wearing sunglasses, it is still a possibility that it was just quoting the secretary and Sedensky just failed to proof read the Final Report before publishing it). 

Obviously, given the title of this post it is suggested that the sunglasses have been found… somewhere. Indeed it has. HIS CAR!

sunglasses in car.png

Meehan – vehicle processing #15

How the hell did that get there? Did Adam shoot out the front window, walk in, shoot 4 faculty members in the hallway, turned around, walked into the main office then exited, then left the building, put his sunglasses in the car then went back in to finish the job? The timeline given in the Final Report from the first 911 call (which came from the main office after Adam had left the main office) to the first officers on scene is a very small window of time. 

timeline of events.png


A whopping 3 minutes and 34 seconds. Then we have to add 3 eyewitnesses that were outside before police got there (but after Adam had already shot out the front window). 

According to the 911 transcripts (CFS 1200704559 Book 4 00184096), parent #1 arrived at 9:35:00. Parents #2 and #3 arrived just after 9:36:00.  If we were to base the timeline on this alone it would be impossible for him to have done that without being witnessed. And no, no one witnessed him leaving the school. 

So what could explain this anomaly? Maybe police moved it? Since there is no report stating this happened I’d say no. Plus, for what reason would they do that exactly? What’s most damaging is that it was never considered as evidence. It was never considered as something Adam had worn that day. The only ones stating that, is one student, one main office employee and the Final Report.  All actual evidence though, says no. And if he really meant that he was just quoting the secretary, I guess this is a fine example of why proof reading is so important. Many sources (such as Wikipedia) have quoted this paragraph as fact, effectively misinforming the general public and giving just another conflicting narrative which is at the heart and soul of every doubt that any of us that question the official narrative has. The more they conflict, the more we ask. 

bottom of page