Fact Checking “Nobody Died At Sandy Hook”, Chapter One

Disgraced former professor James Tracy—fired from Florida Atlantic University for using university resources to spread disinformation and then lying about it—spends much of this chapter obsessing over the routine errors and inconsistencies that inevitably appear in breaking news coverage. This is an old, well-documented phenomenon, one only exacerbated by the 24-hour news cycle. These kinds of reporting mistakes are so commonplace that entire books have been written about them, including Howard Rosenberg’s No Time to Think and Craig Silverman’s Regret the Error: How Media Mistakes Pollute the Press and Imperil Free Speech. If this reality still surprises Tracy, he is very much in the minority.

Rather than belabor the obvious—that misinformation flourishes in the chaos of early reporting—I will focus my fact-checking on claims that do not rely exclusively on those initial, error-prone reports. Exceptions will be made when necessary, or when a claim is so egregious that it demands attention regardless.

“Nobody Died At Sandy Hook”
Chapter One
By: James Tracy

“With the exception of an unusual and apparently contrived appearance by Emilie Parker’s alleged father, victims’ family members have been almost wholly absent from public scrutiny. What can be gleaned from this and similar coverage raises many more questions and glaring inconsistencies than answers.” pgs. 19-20

It is telling that Tracy chooses the word scrutiny here, as though the parents and families of murdered children—and adult victims—are somehow obligated to submit themselves for public inspection so a handful of conspiracy theorists can paw through their grief in search of “inconsistencies.” This is not a neutral observation; it is a demand. And it is the exact mentality that led Fetzer and others to publicly dissect and harass Robbie Parker, Emilie Parker’s actual father, after deciding his visible grief did not meet their personal expectations.

The underlying premise is grotesque: that families who do not appear frequently enough on camera must therefore be suspicious. The reality, of course, is that some families chose to grieve privately—while a significant number of others have spoken out repeatedly in the years since the attack. Tracy’s claim collapses the moment one bothers to look.

• Rachel D’Avino’s parents were interviewed by The Republican-American.
• Members of Dawn Hochsprung’s family, especially her husband, have been interviewed by HJN, CNN, Connecticut Post, and others.
• Lauren Rosseau’s father, Gilles Rousseau, has spoken to the press multiple times, particularly in his native Canada, including an interview with the CBC.
• Mary Sherlach’s husband was interviewed on CBS’ “On the Road” with Steve Hartman.
• Victoria Soto’s family has been especially vocal, particularly regarding the harassment they’ve endured from conspiracy theorists, and founded the Vicki Soto Memorial Fund to support scholarships and community events.
• Noah Pozner’s parents, Lenny and Veronique, have publicly and legally confronted conspiracy theorists including James Fetzer and James Tracy himself.
• The parents of Dylan Hockley, Ana Márquez-Greene, Benjamin Wheeler, Daniel Barden, and Jesse Lewis appeared together on 60 Minutes.
• Charlotte Bacon’s parents spoke about kindness with Hartford–New Haven’s local ABC affiliate.
• Josephine Gay’s parents have spoken with The Boston Globe, The News-Times, and others; her mother, Michele, also spoke at the National Fire Protection Association Conference & Expo in 2019.
• Catherine Hubbard’s parents spoke with The Hartford Courant about their daughter’s love of animals; her mother, Jennifer, later wrote Finding Sanctuary and appeared on multiple podcasts.
• Chase Kowalski’s parents spoke with NBC New York and created the Race4Chase programs to support youth fitness and triathlon training in his honor.
• James Mattioli’s father, described as “pro–gun rights”—a detail inconvenient for many conspiracy narratives—spoke with Megyn Kelly on Fox News.
• Grace McDonnell’s parents, Lynn and Chris, have been interviewed by Anderson Cooper and The Vineyard Gazette.
• Jessica Rekos’s parents have been interviewed by ABC News and CT Insider.
• Avielle Richman’s parents have spoken publicly numerous times; her father, Jeremy, founded the Avielle Foundation and delivered lectures and TEDx talks before his tragic death in 2019.
• Anne Marie Murphy’s elderly parents spoke with Newsday.
• Jack Pinto’s father, Dean, wrote an op-ed for The Hartford Courant and has publicly fought to keep crime scene photos private.

As of this writing, it appears that only the families of Olivia Engel, Madeleine Hsu (whose father is ethnically Chinese, which may reflect cultural and language considerations), Caroline Previdi, and Allison Wyatt have remained entirely out of the public eye—which is fully within their rights. That means that, since 2012, all but four of the victims’ families have spoken publicly in some form. When James Tracy claims that family members have been “almost wholly absent” from public view—or, in his preferred framing, public scrutiny—the claim is not merely offensive; it is flatly and demonstrably false.

“The multiple gaffes, discrepancies, and hedges in response to reporters’ astute questions suggest that he [Medical examiner H. Wayne Carver] is either under coercion or an imposter.” pg. 20

An imposter. It is genuinely difficult to believe that a book claiming contributions from six PhDs would seriously advance a claim this unserious.

For comparison, here is Dr. Carver’s appearance in the very first episode of Forensic Files, which aired in 1996:

And here is his appearance at the Sandy Hook press conference referenced above:

This is unmistakably the same individual—simply sixteen years older.

For anyone still tempted to entertain the “imposter” fantasy: Dr. H. Wayne Carver, who passed away in 2019, held an M.D. from Brown University (1977) and was board-certified by the American Board of Pathology, with specialization in anatomic pathology and a subspecialty in forensic pathology. These are verifiable credentials, earned over decades, and they are not remotely consistent with the notion that he was a stand-in or some coerced actor playing dress-up at a press conference.

“Dressed in black, Lanza proceeds completely unnoticed through an oddly vacant parking lot with a military style rifle and shoots his way through double glass doors and a brand new yet apparently poorly engineered security system.” pg. 23

Unless James Tracy has neglected to disclose his own whereabouts on the morning of December 14, 2012, there is no plausible way he could know how full—or “oddly vacant”—Sandy Hook’s parking lot was at the moment Adam Lanza arrived. The earliest photographs and video footage from that day were captured by first responders and local news crews after Lanza had already killed himself. Tracy’s description is therefore nothing more than unsupported speculation, presented as fact.

The phrase “oddly vacant” is also doing a remarkable amount of work here, while meaning absolutely nothing. Vacant compared to what, exactly? A high school at dismissal? A corporate office park at noon? Tracy never says.

Here is an aerial photograph of Sandy Hook Elementary’s parking lot taken not long after the shooting:

Setting aside the dozen or so vehicles belonging to first responders, does this lot look “oddly vacant” to anyone? Sandy Hook was a relatively small elementary school. How many cars is Tracy imagining should be there?

For comparison, here is a satellite image of the same parking lot taken in August 2010:

And another from March 2012:

The number of non-emergency vehicles is remarkably consistent across all three images.

What makes Tracy’s claim even stranger is that Fetzer’s own book undermines it almost immediately. In the prologue on page 12, the book includes a photograph of an almost entirely full parking lot. Fetzer comments on this image by claiming, “The image itself suggests a group of drivers methodically filling up the lot with used or abandoned cars.” So which is it? Was the lot “oddly vacant,” or was it suspiciously too full? The authors can’t even keep their own inventions straight from one chapter to the next—and this is only Chapter One. This sort of self-contradiction is not a bug in the book; it’s a defining feature, and it appears with far more consistency than any imagined anomaly in the school’s parking lot.

As for the claim that the school’s security system was “poorly engineered,” Tracy offers no explanation whatsoever. The system worked exactly as designed: Adam Lanza was unable to enter through the locked front doors. He was forced to fire multiple rounds from a rifle to shatter the large glass window and gain entry. Calling that a failure of engineering is either dishonest or profoundly ignorant.

Finally, it bears stating the obvious: Sandy Hook Elementary was an elementary school in a small, affluent, and historically safe town. It was not a hardened military installation, nor was there any rational reason in 2012 to design it as though it needed to repel a heavily armed attacker. The expectation that it should have been is yet another example of conspiracy theorists judging the past with the benefit of hindsight—and no grasp of reality.

“Breaching the school’s security system in such a way would have likely triggered some automatic alert of school personnel. Further, why would the school’s administrators run toward an armed man who has just noisily blasted his way into the building?” pg. 24

How, exactly, would this system have triggered an alert? Tracy provides no explanation because none exists. There is no evidence that Sandy Hook’s security system ever included break-glass sensors or any other mechanism that would automatically alert school personnel to shattered glass. This was an elementary school with fewer than 500 students in a quiet, low-crime area of Connecticut—not a hardened facility outfitted with bank-grade security infrastructure.

As for the insinuation that school administrators would never “run toward an armed man,” this says far more about Tracy than it does about Dawn Hochsprung and Mary Sherlach. Both women acted instinctively to protect children in their care, displaying a level of courage and self-sacrifice that Tracy clearly cannot comprehend—and, judging by this passage, doesn’t particularly want to.

“Two other staff members attending the meeting with Hochsprung and Scherlach sustained injuries ‘in the hail of bullets’ but returned to the aforementioned meeting room and managed a call to 911. This contrasted with earlier reports where the first 911 call claimed students ‘were trapped in a classroom with the adult shooter who had two guns.’ Recordings of the first police dispatch following the 911 call at 9:35:50 indicate that someone ‘thinks there’s someone shooting in the building.’ There is a clear distinction between potentially hearing shots somewhere in the building and being almost mortally caught in a ‘hail of bullets.'” pg. 24

Tracy’s argument here collapses under even the lightest scrutiny. He begins by parroting his source’s incorrect claim that two staff members were with Dawn Hochsprung and Mary Sherlach when they were killed—despite being unable to spell Sherlach’s name correctly, which is apparently too much to ask of a man accusing others of fraud. In reality, every credible account—including the official report—confirms that only one additional staff member, first-grade teacher Natalie Hammond, was present when Hochsprung and Sherlach confronted Adam Lanza in the hallway.

Hammond was struck at least twice and managed to retreat to the conference room. Tracy’s confusion appears to stem from conflating Hammond with Deborah Pisani, a kindergarten aide who was also injured that day—but under entirely different circumstances. Pisani was not with Hochsprung, Sherlach, and Hammond. She was farther down the hall when a ricocheting bullet struck her foot. Despite her injury, she made it back to Kindergarten Room 1, where she later spoke with a 911 operator at approximately 9:40 a.m., clearly stating her location.

That call—placed after an officer initiated contact on her behalf, which explains why the dispatcher already knew where she was—reads as follows:

CALL 5, 9:40:02 a.m., 5 minutes & 22 seconds
OPERATOR: O.K. Where are, where are you, are you O.K. right now?
CALLER: Yeah.
OPERATOR: O.K. Where, where, where’s Room 1 in the school?
CALLER: Facing the playground.
OPERATOR: Where are you?
CALLER: Facing the playground.
OPERATOR: On the playground?
CALLER: Facing toward — facing toward the playground.
OPERATOR: OK. Are you safe right now?
CALLER: I think so. My classroom door is not locked.
OPERATOR: OK. Is there anybody that can lock the classroom door with out — being safe?
CALLER: No.
OPERATOR: Is it safe to do so? O.K.
CALLER: No.
OPERATOR: All right, just try stay where you are. O.K.
CALLER: Yes. There’s children in this room, too.
OPERATOR: O.K., try to apply pressure, O.K.
CALLER: (Unintelligible)
OPERATOR: We have people coming, O.K.?
CALLER: Uh-huh
OPERATOR: All right.
OPERATOR: Is there any other teacher with you in there or is just students?
CALLER: No, there’s two other adults in the room with me.
OPERATOR: O.K. All right. Are they right next to you? Where are they in the room?
CALLER: No, they’re over on the other side of the bookshelf.
OPERATOR: O.K. All right. Are you O.K. right now?
CALLER: For now, hopefully.
OPERATOR: O.K. All right. Just keep an eye on it; try to keep pressure on it. O.K? We have people heading out there. O.K. Bye-bye.

As the timestamp makes abundantly clear, this was not the first call to 911. It was the fifth. And at no point does Pisani claim to have been “mortally caught in a hail of bullets”—a phrase Tracy simply invents and then argues against as if it were an official statement.

The first recorded 911 call—after several earlier attempts went unanswered—was placed roughly five minutes earlier by school secretary Barbara Halstead. Contrary to Tracy’s claim, Halstead never says students are “trapped in a classroom with the adult shooter who had two guns,” nor would such a statement have been accurate at that time. Here is the complete transcript of her call:

CALL 1, 9:35:39, 24 seconds
OPERATOR: Newtown 911. What’s the location of your emergency?
CALLER: Hi, Sandy Hook School. I think there is somebody shooting in here, in Sandy Hook School.
OPERATOR: O.K. What makes you think that?
CALLER: Because somebody’s got a gun. I caught a glimpse of someone, they’re running down the hallway.
OPERATOR: Okay.
CALLER: They are still running. They’re still shooting. Sandy Hook School, please.

The initial police dispatch reflects this call precisely:

9:35:53AM – Dispatch: “Sandy Hook School, Caller’s indicated she thinks someone is shooting in the building.”

There is no contradiction here—only Tracy’s inability (or unwillingness) to distinguish between uncertainty during an unfolding emergency and the fictional inconsistencies he insists on manufacturing after the fact. The timeline is coherent. The statements are consistent. And once again, the problem isn’t the evidence—it’s Tracy.

“According to the official story Lanza was the sole assassin and armed with only one weapon.” pg. 24

This is simply false. According to the official record, Adam Lanza was armed with multiple weapons, not “only one.” He brought three semi-automatic firearms into the attack: a .223-caliber Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, a 10mm Glock 20SF handgun, and a 9mm SIG Sauer P226 handgun. In addition, an Izhmash Saiga-12 shotgun was found in the trunk of Lanza’s Honda Civic, having been moved there after Officer Pena initially observed it in the back seat.

In other words, this is the official story. Tracy’s claim directly contradicts it, leaving only two possibilities: either he didn’t bother to learn the most basic facts of the case, or he knowingly misrepresented them. Neither reflects well on someone presenting himself as a serious researcher.

“Lanza must have been averaging about one shot per second—extremely skilled use of a single firearm for a young man with absolutely no military training and who was on the verge of being institutionalized.” pg. 24

Tracy doesn’t bother to elaborate here, likely because doing so would immediately expose how misleading this claim is. While Adam Lanza had no formal military training—a standard Tracy invokes as if it were some prerequisite for pulling a trigger—both Adam and his parents were experienced shooters.

Adam had been shooting since around the age of four and was regularly taken to local shooting ranges by his father, Peter, until their relationship ended in 2011. Nancy Lanza, meanwhile, was demonstrably proficient enough to complete an NRA Basic Shooter course:

Source: CFS1200704559, Book 2, 00194623.pdf

The state’s official report confirms that Nancy and Adam visited three different local gun ranges, where multiple witnesses observed Adam shooting a Bushmaster AR-15 and what one witness identified as a Glock Model 19. That same witness stated that, at Nancy’s request, he gave Adam a brief lesson on proper aiming technique. Investigators also recovered a sign-in sheet from Shooters Pistol Range in New Milford, dated February 18, 2011, bearing both Nancy’s and Adam’s signatures:

In short, Tracy’s framing relies on the fantasy that a person needs elite training to fire a semi-automatic rifle at close range. They do not. No extraordinary skill is required to pull a trigger once per second—especially when firing into confined spaces at unarmed victims.

As for the assertion that Adam was “on the verge of being institutionalized,” Tracy once again provides no source because none exists. The 114-page report from the Office of the Child Advocate makes no mention of imminent institutionalization. If anything, the report consistently portrays Nancy Lanza as someone who struggled to fully understand—and adequately respond to—the severity of her son’s condition.

“For example, in an era of ubiquitous video surveillance of public buildings especially no visual evidence of Lanza’s violent entry has emerged.” pg. 24

This statement hinges on an artificially narrow definition of “visual evidence.” Surveillance video is not the only form of visual documentation, and Tracy knows this. Multiple photographs clearly show the shattered glass at the school’s front entrance—the direct result of Lanza firing into the locked doors to gain entry.

These images are unambiguous visual evidence of a violent forced entry. The absence of usable surveillance footage does not negate the existence of physical, photographic documentation. Tracy’s claim only works if “visual evidence” is quietly redefined to mean “video footage that conveniently does not exist,” a rhetorical sleight of hand that substitutes semantics for substance.

“Nor are there any routine eyewitness, photo or video evidence of the crime scene’s aftermath—broken glass, blasted security locks and doors, bullet casings and holes, bloodied walls and floors—all of which are common in such investigations and reportage.” pg. 24

Rather than dumping a hundred images inline, I invite Tracy—and anyone inclined to repeat this claim—to download the state’s own official investigative files. Of particular relevance is “22_Assorted_Files.zip,” which contains more than 1,000 photographs taken by multiple agencies. The most damning refutation of Tracy’s assertion is the PDF titled “Walkley – scene photos.pdf,” which alone includes 740 crime scene photographs, many redacted for obvious legal and ethical reasons. Even with those redactions, a substantial number of the very items Tracy insists do not exist are plainly visible.

Broken glass is visible at the front entrance where Lanza forced entry, as already discussed. Bullets and shell casings appear throughout the document (pp. 103–110, 113–117, 119–125, 433–443, 447, 465–466, 469–471, 473, 481–482, 484–485, 488–489, 495, 499, 502–504, 644, 680, 713, 721, 735–737, 739–743). Bullet holes and ballistic damage are documented extensively (pp. 54–61, 404–431, 448–454, 513, 622–624, 626–630). Blood is clearly visible on numerous pages (pp. 73, 365, 428, 473, 475, 636, 663, 665), and very likely appears on several others where redaction limits certainty.

Pages 622–624 and 626–627 depict the ceiling of Classroom 10, where Adam Lanza killed himself; the blood visible there is almost certainly his. Pages 636 and 665 show blood—and possibly brain matter—above the whiteboard in the same room. Lanza’s body is partially visible on page 161, with blood pooling on the carpet nearby. There is also what appears to be particularly graphic biological material between his body and a stool—details Tracy would no doubt prefer not to acknowledge.

That’s well over 110 photographs directly contradicting Tracy’s claim—and that count comes only from the Walkley set. Additional corroboration appears in “Farr – Nighttime Exterior Photos.pdf,” which documents blood in the parking lot, and “Tranquillo – Back-up Scene Photos 1.pdf,” which includes images of blood just outside the school’s entrance.

In short, the evidence Tracy says does not exist exists in abundance. One does not get to declare a thousand photographs invisible simply because acknowledging them would destroy the argument.

“Medical responders who rushed to Sandy Hook Elementary upon receiving word of the tragedy were denied entry to the school and forced to set up primary and secondary triages off school grounds and wait for the injured to be brought to them.” pg. 25

This framing is misleading by omission and incorrect by implication. It suggests negligence or obstruction, when in reality medical response at Sandy Hook followed standard, nationally accepted active-shooter protocols.

According to Book 6 of the Connecticut State Police Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Reports, two Newtown ambulances—each staffed with a paramedic and two EMTs—were dispatched within ten minutes of the initial “shots fired” call. Those crews included paramedics R. Velleteri and Bradley, and EMTs Burke, Folan, Lerman, and L. Velleteri. These responders provided advanced life support to the two surviving injured children and basic life support to an injured adult, both on scene and during transport to the hospital.

The report further documents that three medically trained Connecticut State Troopers were among the earliest responders inside the school: Sgt. Cario and Trooper Dragon, both EMTs, and William Blumenthal, a registered nurse. This directly contradicts the notion that medical care was somehow absent or deliberately withheld.

In total, four people were transported alive by ambulance. All others were found deceased. Legal presumptions of death were made on scene by Paramedic Matthew Cassevechia and tactical paramedics John Reed and Bernie Meehan, acting under the direction of Dr. Pat Broderick of Danbury Hospital. These determinations were not casual or arbitrary; they were conducted using established SMART (Simple Medical Assessment and Rapid Treatment) protocols, with four separate assessments performed on each victim before a presumption of death was declared.

It is true that ambulances staged at the nearby Sandy Hook Volunteer Fire Department, but this is neither unusual nor improper. In fact, it is precisely what emergency doctrine requires during an active-shooter incident. Ambulances are never permitted to enter a “hot zone”—an unsecured area where a shooter may still be active—because doing so risks creating additional casualties and compromising the response.

As FBI Tactical Paramedic Jim Morrissey explained in a 2011 article for EMS World magazine:

“Active-shooter incidents rarely go from hot zone to cold zone quickly. Law enforcement officers know it is their responsibility to get into the crisis site quickly to distract, engage and hopefully eliminate the threat. EMS, on the other hand, is still waiting for the ‘all clear’ and may be staged for minutes or hours, not willing, able or allowed to get in and start saving lives.”

In short, medical responders were not “denied entry” in any nefarious sense. They were staged, deployed, and integrated into the response exactly as active-shooter training dictates. Tracy’s portrayal relies on the reader’s unfamiliarity with emergency medicine and tactical response—not on evidence.

“Sandy Hook Elementary is attended by 600 students.” pg. 25

Where, exactly, did Tracy get this number? He provides no citation—just a round figure dropped as fact. According to the Report of the State’s Attorney for the Judicial District of Danbury on the Shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School and 36 Yogananda Street, Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, 2012, the school’s enrollment on December 13, 2012, was 489 students.

That means Tracy inflated the number by 111 children—not a trivial discrepancy, and certainly not the kind of error one would expect in a work that purports to be rigorous, evidence-based analysis. It’s yet another example of how basic, easily verifiable facts are casually bent or ignored throughout the book whenever they become inconvenient.

“There is no photographic or video evidence of an evacuation on this scale” pg. 25

With the exception of Newtown Bee photographer Shannon Hicks, news crews did not arrive until after the children had already been evacuated. And since we’ve already established that Sandy Hook had no on-site video surveillance, it’s worth asking a basic question: exactly where does Tracy imagine this footage would have come from?

Any evacuations that were captured on police dash cameras were heavily redacted prior to release—a fact Tracy almost certainly knew when he wrote this. If authorities go to great lengths to omit minors’ names from public records, they are obviously not going to broadcast clear images of traumatized children fleeing a crime scene.

Moreover, the expectation of photographic proof showing all 489 students (assuming full attendance) in a single frame is ridiculous. Evacuations occurred classroom by classroom, not as a choreographed mass exit designed for convenient documentation.

That said, photographic evidence of the evacuation does exist. Sandy Hook Facts has compiled numerous images from that day showing scores of children being escorted from the school and later gathered at the firehouse. Tracy’s claim isn’t just wrong—it relies on an impossible evidentiary standard to manufacture doubt where none exists.

“A highly circulated photo depicts students walking in a single file formation with their hands on each others’ shoulders and eyes shut. Yet this was the image of a drill that took place prior to the event itself.” pg. 25

The photograph Tracy refers to isn’t reproduced in this chapter, and the link provided in the footnotes is now defunct. I’ve included a link to the highest-quality version I could locate here. It’s a large image (2416 × 1655) and will open in a new tab.

While some of the children appear to have their heads lowered—making it harder to see their faces—none appear to have their eyes shut. And even if they did, it’s unclear why that detail would be relevant in the first place.

More importantly, Tracy provides no evidence whatsoever to support his assertion that the photo was taken prior to the shooting. In fact, he quietly walks the claim back in the footnotes—but only there, presumably aware that far fewer readers will ever see it. Despite this admission, the original, unsupported claim remains in the main text, presented as fact.

Below is Tracy’s original claim alongside its citation:

And here is his half-hearted correction, buried in the footnotes (emphasis added):

This pattern—making a definitive claim in the body of the text, then hedging or retracting it elsewhere without acknowledgment—is repeated throughout the book. Assertions are made first, evidence is an afterthought, and corrections, when they exist at all, are hidden where they’re least likely to be noticed.

“Nor are there videos or photos of several hundred students and their parents at the oft-referenced fire station nearby where students were routed for parent pick up.” pgs. 25-26

This complaint hinges on an absurd standard of proof. Demanding a single photograph that captures all 489 students—simultaneously, in one frame—ignores both the documented logistics of the evacuation and basic common sense.

Students were evacuated in stages, room by room, and transported to the nearby firehouse over time. Parents arrived separately, were processed, and reunited with their children individually. The result was an orderly but necessarily chaotic scene unfolding over hours, not a neatly assembled group photo opportunity. The odds of one image containing every child and parent are effectively zero.

That said, Tracy’s claim still fails even on its own terms. Numerous photographs from that day do exist showing groups of evacuated students, parents arriving, and crowds gathered at the firehouse. Sandy Hook Facts has compiled many of these images, including:

Once again, the pattern is familiar: Tracy asserts that evidence “does not exist,” when what he really means is that it does not exist in the singular, theatrical form he demands. Reality, inconveniently, does not conform to his contrived evidentiary standards.

Next: Chapter Two: “Six Signs Sandy Hook Elementary School Was Closed” by “Dr. Eowyn”