Sandy Hook Truth Forensic DNA Expert Has Now Validated Claims

 Sandy Hook makes no sense and yet Connecticut State Police Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Report says Adam was "Eliminated as a Contributor." 99% of the time for a few items, with only mixed results at best and with a solid criminal database hit. The report has redacted DNA Results. Why is that? 

Data Below is complied from Connecticut State Police Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Report

Adam Lanza eliminated DNA Chart

Start Q&A for Sandy Hook: Weird Stuff 'Splain'd by Forensic DNA Expert video 

Dan Plesse

18m ago

Better answer
 Alan’s said I was right with the first email and I followed up with two more emails because he’s not responding. They did not test for eliminations if the DNA was insufficient and no page on any CT police report says otherwise. The report first tests for valid DNA and then continues or ends at that point. The continued results are all “Adam Lanza’s DNA was eliminated as a contributor “ or mixed results with a pool of others. with the only murder weapons .22 cal long gun and the Bushmaster AR-15. End of story. The handguns were not used.

The video can’t be used at all because he’s responding to INCORRECT information. The opposite was found in the report. So you can’t use opposite information. End of story

Keith and the Dr. were talking on the phone and did not see screenshots and the Dr. did not read the reports.

“ When I asked about your out of the blue “phone” comment” When you asked who? how did you ask? What did they say?

Keith did see the screenshots but they were false and he did not correct the mistakes which leads the reasons WHY the video should not be used.

“Whether the Dr. “saw” them it’s not clear, “ your answer
Better answer He did not see anything, they were on the phone.

“ Since Kieth used your copyrighted screenshots and annotations as “evidence” to be debunked by the Dr. (I thought he was your source??)” Your answer

Better answer I used Kieth’s screenshots which was taken from yet another party video and so on. Opposite is true.

“If Dr Friedman never responded to you except through false concepts” your answer

better answer: The email asks What does "Eliminated as a Contributor" mean?

Re: New message via your website, from

Alan Friedman

Wed, Sep 26, 8:10 AM (10 days ago)

to me

Dan,

"Eliminated as a Contributor" means that a known individual’s DNA profile was not a component of a mixture profile.

Sincerely,

Alan L Friedman, PhD

Why did you use him as your source? your answer

Better answer
He validated my claim.

Reply

Just now Sandy Hook: Weird Stuff 'Splain'd by Forensic DNA Expert reply

“He explained that the lack of DNA” because he was TOLD incorrectly over the phone that there was lack of DNA.. Given that false narrative therefore he then explained the “lack of DNA” story.

“How in the world can DNA of people other than AL be found on the weapon? “ Your answer

Better answer.
What about INSIDE THE WEAPON? “sealed” Ammo inside the gun and also ammo inside the clip. Two redacted positive DNA results. 

“, the specific screenshots were debunked and explained by real documentation from real experts…. “ your answer

Better Answer
He never was told and did not see any screenshots. He was talking on the phone and responding to false information which I debunked and you agreed with.

“This means that you took real data, mis-interpreted said data, then took testimony that was out of context to bolster your conclusion. “ Your answer

Better answer “no data was misinterpreted, no testimony was taken. and his email to me still is valid.

Reply

Just now Sandy Hook: Weird Stuff 'Splain'd by Forensic DNA Expert reply

“But dude… your own source (Dr. Friedman) disputes every contention you’ve brought up.”

Better answer: Dr. Friedman was responding to FALSE information which I clearly point out. FALSE by Keith Johnson andFALSE information via YT channel YouTuber Weird Stuff Needs Spanin” which you can’t seem to figure out. #2-1S2 has been on the list of “Adam Lanza was Eliminated as a Contributor” So you are not correct, again!

the screenshots (below) are responses to issues.

Better Answer:

“Adam Lanza was Eliminated as a Contributor” was covered by my email to Dr Freidman.

“Dan,

"eliminated as a contributor" means that a known
 individual’s DNA profile was not a component of a
mixture profile.

Sincerely,

Alan L Friedman,”

“You’re also saying that your own source is not reliable.”

I don’t have an “own source”. and people make mistakes. So what? Do you agree with the correction or not? Why avoid?

“Dr Freidman, was responding to false information. I guess that one point for Mr. Plesse.”

Better answer. This is regarding the trigger of the main murder weapon and correcting multiple sources including Ian Perry. So make that three people who can’t get their facts right.

“Dr. Friedman also explains (in the video) in detail about why there might not be sufficient DNA from Lanza” Your answer

Better Answer
Dr. Friedman was told incorrectly that insufficient DNA from Lanza which we both agree is not true. As I told you and your agreed to this already that they are talking about the insufficient trigger result which the facts are the trigger HAS sufficient DNA..

End Q&A

Alan Friedman

to me

Dan,

"eliminated as a contributor" means that a known
 individual’s DNA profile was not a component of a
mixture profile.

Sincerely,

Alan L Friedman,

“Insufficient amplification” is not an issue. It does not eliminate Adam Lanza and “Contamination”
does not eliminate Adam Lanza! “

Sandy Hook: Weird Stuff 'Splain'd by Forensic DNA Expert
Sandy Hook Truth Forensic DNA Expert  validated claims that "Eliminated as a Contributor." does mean Adam Lanza was not part the DNA profile. 

In summary  Keith Johnson just confuses “Adam Lanza was Eliminated as a Contributor.“ with missing or insufficient DNA samples which are  invalid ideas and if that is all you got then you should really take another look at Sandy Hook.

  3:41 If the DNA was ruled sufficient you can't use that argument of insufficient. So was #70-351, #72-5S1 ruled sufficient or not?
























4:29 Adam Lanza was Eliminated as a Contributor.

4:34 should say "Adam Lanza was Eliminated as a Contributor" from Feed Area, Magazine, Pistol Grip, Shoulder stock and trigger. .22 cal trigger was insufficient

5:16 Mixed results were found #2-1S1 and the one bullet I don't know.

6:34 you don't need blood evidence and therefore NOT the reason why Adam was Eliminated from the Bushmaster.

























At 9:01 He does NOT ask the right questions.

9:01 We don't here the question. You didn't not ask if "Adam was Eliminated" with sufficient DNA means.

Alan Friedman	Wed, Sep 26, 8:10 AM (18 hours ago)
to me

Dan,

"Eliminated as a Contributor" means that a known
 individual’s DNA profile was not a component of a
mixture profile.

Sincerely,

Alan L Friedman, PhD

Helix Consulting

11:42 Adam Lanza was Eliminated as a Contributor for the #2-1S2 bushmaster trigger.

11:56 It was found. Bushmaster Trigger #2-1S2 "Eliminated as a Contributor" with sufficient DNA.

What does "Eliminated as a Contributor" with sufficient DNA mean?

Lauren Rousseau

Bushmaster Rifle Ammo DNA has hits for Lauren Rousseau and Rachel Davino inside possibility sealed ammo clip. Can DNA Contaminate sealed areas?  Why are some DNA results reacted? 

Rachel Davino

Dan Plesse

Just now

“If DNA was discovered AND found in a database it would be listed. It would also be “redacted” “ Your answer

Better answer: DNA database hit was found and was NOT “redacted” So you are not correct!

“Oh, he also addresses that “trigger DNA thing”” Your Answer

Better answer: Dr. Friedman was responding to FALSE information which I clearly point out. FALSE by Keith Johnson via FALSE information via YT channel YouTuber Weird Stuff Needs Spanin” which you can’t seem to figure out. #2-1S2 has been on the list of “Adam Lanza was Eliminated as a Contributor” So you are not correct, again!

the page Sandy Hook Truth Forensic DNA Expert Has Now Validated Claims

“so you might want to send him an email.”
Better Answer I did.

What do you think this is “Dan,

"eliminated as a contributor" means that a known
 individual’s DNA profile was not a component of a
mixture profile.

Sincerely,

Alan L Friedman,

You are not correct, again!

Better answers are corrections to your mistakes.

Reply

  

Dan Plesse

3m ago

“If DNA cannot be amplified and confirmed(matched) it is eliminated.” your answer

Better answer

If DNA cannot be amplified it is labeled as “Insufficient amplification” and no other label is applied. “"Eliminated as a Contributor."” is reserved for only

Dan,

"eliminated as a contributor" means that a known
 individual’s DNA profile was not a component of a
mixture profile.

Sincerely,

Alan L Friedman,

“screenshots and banter on a conspiracy site” Its my private site.

“Adam Lanza was “eliminated”from results in certain swabs on certain parts of the firearm, but not all. “ Your answer

Better answer
The gun trigger is the big one! “"Eliminated as a Contributor." was the results for the shooter. !!” When has that happened before!  Others are unknown for each negative result for Adam i.e “Eliminated as a Contributor”. 
“eliminated” All but one area. The same area. With most likely the same mixture of other people at the same location each time. Not 100% sure if the same group of people keep showing up at the same location. Can you confirm this?

“Clips” are not sealed. “They often will have DNA from sellers, manufactures, the person loading and in cases of chaotic crime scenes, victims and bystanders” your answer

Better answer
Ammo inside the loaded clips is close to being sealed!! DNA from sellers, manufactures would be named and apart of the report. No sellers or manufactures are included.

“. It’s a privacy thing not a conspiracy thing. Find some other forensic reports to confirm this.” It could be someone they don’t want you to see. The criminal database hit is still not known who that person was.

Why don’t ask someone about all these issues above..

Reply

Ian Perry

2h ago

Please Dan,

Don’t let other people think for you. If you read the report and connect the dots (with a little help from science and logic) you’ll come to similar conclusions. If you are going to copy paste from other reports at least go to the articles referred to in those “articles”.

Also, look up the term “DNA amplification”

If you look at other forensics reports instead of just obsessing over this one, you’ll find that the appearance of other DNA (Victims, Collectors etc) is not unheard of. In the notes of this report they explain some of that but somethings are assumed to be interpreted by experts familiar with the process. Since you are not an expert, I would not read too much into that.

I know the screenshots are from the report. I never stated otherwise. It appears you’re not getting this directly from the report. The person(s) who are getting these from the reports are making uneducated assumptions or aiming to confirm conclusions by “cherry-picking” specific facts. Here in Iowa we have a phrase for that, but since it’s of a scientific nature I will spare you the details.

Shalom.

Reply

· Upvote

· Downvote

· Report

Dan Plesse

4m ago

No other people are thinking for me and I don’t need to connect the dots if the DNA says otherwise. You can’t cherry-pick” specific facts i.e I assume you mean “Adam Lanza was eliminated” from DNA pool with criminal database hits and redacted positive identifications i.e is that even allowed? Does your other reports have redacted DNA results? Who does that? You say “Adam Lanza was eliminated” was just cherry-picking really undercuts your argument. Can you at least say “Adam Lanza was eliminated” one time to make sure you getting the point?

The screenshot are directly from the report. “DNA (Victims, Collectors etc) is not unheard of” but in this case some of evidence might have been collected in sealed gun clips and chambered rounds. You have find the same set of “ not unheard of” situations to compare apples to apples. You are still just generalizing, Appealing to authority are not valid arguments and you assume the rest 1. “cherry-picking” 2. other people ideas. 3. other cases etc.

Reply