THE MEDICAL EXAMINER’S POSTMORTEM:
I also did a brief synopsis of the postmortem report with the Medical Examiner Wayne H. Carver (not the chief medical examiner) from December 15. His personality is probably naturally awkward however his discernment and attention to detail as a medical examiner is shallow and unprofessional. He fully seems like someone who would go along with what the authorities/cops wanted him to say. As a medical examiner (pathologist), I would expect from his 30+ years of experience in his profession that he would be a lot more proficient and knowledgeable of the explicit details of such an important incident.
After 30+ years of experience, he could not describe where the bullet entry injuries were or the positions of the bodies. Even more extreme, he did not know how many boys and girls were killed and he was the director of the medical examination team! He did not know how many bullet shells were recovered or presumably what weapons were used or how. For a medical examiner he seemed dull on his intel and appeared as if he never examined the bodies. He needed to defer to the state police for most of his information.
By the way, there is also a photo of Carver from December 14 wearing a firefighter uniform and directing vehicle traffic. Drill of this size and secrecy would require casting to play multiple parts because not enough people would be able to fill them, actors could be used for playing different parts in different scenes. And when was the last time you saw a medical examiner give a press conference in his lab coat?
I have placed count marks for Carver’s peculiar and Freudian statements at the December 15 post mortem conference:
3:24-4:16 mark = “I’ve been at this for a third of a century, and my sensibilities may not be the average man’s but this probably is the worst I have seen….And I hope they and I hope the people of Newtown don’t have it crash on their head later.” It is odd that Carver needs to justify his information by his experience. We would already have expected him to be the best of the best. What does Carver mean by having all of this “crash on their head later”? Would the truth come out later that the official story was a hoax? Also interesting is that Carver says one third of a century which is exactly 33.3 years and 33 is a master number for masons.
4:30 mark = Carver could not answer the question about which caliber was used in the incident. If he had 30+ years of experience and after looking at the bodies for 24 hours, he should have answered it. He says strangely, “It’s a good thing there’s not be a prosecution ‘cause then I couldn’t answer that.”
4:50 mark = Carver refuses to answer the question on the caliber used, “And I know I probably know more about firearms than most pathologists but if I say it in court, they yell at me and make me answer. So I’ll let the police deal with that for you.”
5:02 mark = The heads of the state troopers to the left of the pathologist suddenly looked straight down at the question about the AR-15 rifle. When people know when something is not the truth, they cannot give a straight face. It is easier to hide a smile and the truth this way, hiding their eyes and faces. Then, the state troopers look up to see if the pathologist gives the correct information and they smirk. This is very odd. They know they fed the pathologist false information and they wanted it to get to the journalists in an unquestionable manner.
-State troopers look at each other at 5:28 mark.
5:28 – 5:40 mark = Instead of the medical examiner answering the question if the long rifle was used in the incident, the Lt. Paul Vance interrupts to answer the question because it was a discrepancy from what the police initially reported. Why couldn’t the medical examiner answer it? Why did he not have such important information especially after looking at the bodies?
-The reporter catches the discrepancy in the official story, asking, “But was not the long rifle found in the trunk of the vehicle?” Vance answers, “That’s not correct, sir.” However, the day before Lt. Paul Vance and law enforcement stated that the AR-15 was left in the trunk of the vehicle and Lanza only used handguns in the shooting.
5:40 mark = The medical examiner does not know how many bullet casings were found at the crime scene, which would give evidence to how many bullets were used in the shooting. Carver does not know what to say. He seems very speechless, looking to get through the question any way he can. The medical examiner’s answer does not make sense as he looks around aimlessly, “I’m looking—I can tell you how many I found. I don’t know…there were lots of them, okay”. Hmm, not okay. You just said you could say how many and then you said you did not know…
–At this, the state troopers look down again. The trooper on the right nods his head and then puts his head down again immediately as if to say, “Good job getting through that question…”
6:17 mark = At the question about if the children died quickly, the state trooper nods his head and smirks. Carver could not answer the questions about the children.
7:00 mark = A reporter asks how the families identified the bodies. Carver replies, “We took pictures of them of their facial features” but how could this be reasonable if many of the children were shot in the face multiple times and no facial features would remain. Besides, in some cases, parents still want to see their son/daughter a last time. He ends saying, “We felt it would be best to do it this way, and you can sort of—you can control the situation, depending on the photographer and I have very good photographers.” What did Carver mean by controlling the situation with photography, everybody knows you can change a story by change the camera’s perspective. This would be true with the media in this event.
7:30 mark = The state troopers thought the medical examiner’s photography statement was funny and almost laughed (changing your photography perspective and what to show of an event has an impact on the story you wish to tell, the police understood this as any photographer would).
7:50 mark = Carver acts weird to answer a question on the time of deaths of the children and Lanza’s mother.
8:10 mark = Did Carver cover his tracks? He said that Lanza did not kill himself with the long rifle and then he said “I don’t know”.
At this point, Carver seems like he is answering the questions to get them over with.
9:00 mark = A reporter asks if the gunfire was aimed or spread randomly. Carver oddly sighs and smirks, “Both. It’s a very difficult question to answer. It’s really…You’d think after the thousands of people I’ve seen shot I could answer that question but I – if I attempted to answer it in court, there’d be an objection and they’d win.” Why could not Carver answer the question and why does he keep saying that he would lose in court if this investigation went to trial?
9:45 mark = Carver says that the children were wearing “cute kid’s stuff. It’s the kind of stuff you’d send your kids…your grandkids out the door in.” Why could not Carver be more descriptive?
10:12 mark = Carver could not answer where the wounds were on the children. “All over. All over.”
10:25 mark and 11:00 mark = Carver could not answer if the children were running away or sitting at their desks when they were killed, which he should be able to recognize if he examined the bodies. It is as if he never went inside the school! He again defaults to the police to answer about the medical examinations, “I’ll let the guys – the scene guys address that issue. Obviously, I was at the scene. Obviously, I’m very experienced in that. But there are people who are the number one professionals in that. I’ll let them go over…”
11:30 mark = Carver skipped an easy question he should have been about to answer immediately after the incident much less 24 hours later, “How many boys and how many girls [were shot]?” Carver with strange smirk: “I don’t know”.
12:30 mark = Carver says this is only his second press conference he has ever given in 31 years in the field. Why did not the Chief Medical Examiner give the presser especially for such an important case?
12:45 mark = Carver oddly talks about how his father and how he was named in an upmost tragic event where 26 people were killed. This is quite weird.
13:00 – 13:30 mark = “It wasn’t a tent, it was a magnificent thing…” Why does Carver give a better and happier explanation about the field tent in the parking lot than about the children killed in the school?
14:15 mark = Carver says he tries to make the examiner’s transport vans as “nondescript and unmarked as possible” and smirks, “To foil you guys.”
14:35-14:45 mark = Carver could not answer another scene question and looks at Vance for approval saying he will let the police handle that question.
15:00 – 15:28 mark = Carver says, “It was just my weekend [to examine the bodies]” and then smirks. He acts weird when answering that he could not determine how Lanza shot himself. He says he won’t “favor the obvious” and “in terms to my fishery responsibilities, I have not executed them yet.”
Why was Carver going to wait to view Nancy’s and Adam’s bodies? Why would he save the most important bodies until the morning and then the police move the bodies on the night of December 14?
A reporter asks, “Were [the students] sitting at their desks or were they running away when this happened?” Carver responds, “I’ll let the guys who—the scene guys talk—address that issue. I, uh, obviously I was at the scene. Obviously I’m very experienced in that. But there are people who are, uh, the number one professionals in that. I’ll let them—let that [voice trails off].” Shortly thereafter another reporter asks, “How many boys and how many girls [were killed]?” Carver shakes his head slowly, “I don’t know.”
And if you do not get the pun by now, his last name is CARVER and he is a medical examiner and cuts up dead bodies!
In September 2011, seven months after sending his letter to the State of Connecticut in reference to Bill 1054, Carver threatened to resign from his position. After the State of Connecticut passed his bill through the state legislature, Carver withdrew his resignation. Bill 1054 would prevent the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner “from unilaterally disclosing autopsy reports on pediatric homicides to the general public”, essentially allowing Carver to falsify or refuse to disclose any pediatric homicide cases. Pediatric cases would include the Sandy Hook incident and he does not need to provide any evidence that any autopsies were performed.
Nodisinfo.com has given a colossal amount of observation to Carver in Coroner Carver Discovered Faking as Fireman.