>>No, but Lt. Vance was there, and he says:
“It was a fishing type vest, a jacket with a lot of pockets; it was not a bullet-proof vest,” Vance said.”<<
1. We don’t know that Vance was there.
2. Vance is a state police “spokesman”.
Just like Susan Rice was a spokesman for Benghazi. Vance is just saying what someone higer up is telling him to say... almost 2 week later.
In the Aurora shooting the chief of police identified Holmes as wearing a tactical vest that same day. You see... the chief of police. That day. Not a spokesman. Not weeks after.
If they say Lanza was wearing a bulletproof vest early on, then he was wearing a bulletproof vest.
Really. The same source also said that Mrs Lanza was the kindergarten teacher there. Should we go with that too???
“1. We don’t know that Vance was there.”
Yes we do.
“As Connecticut State Police continue to search for answers into last week’s deadly mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Lt. Paul Vance spoke out about what he witnessed last Friday.”
http://www.wfsb.com/story/20380533/lt-vance-speaks-about-his-experiences-at-sandy-hook
“2. Vance is a state police “spokesman”.”
He’s a firsthand witness, as demonstrated above. He may be a spokesman as well, but that doesn’t diminish his credibility as a firsthand witness.
“If they say Lanza was wearing a bulletproof vest early on, then he was wearing a bulletproof vest.”
No, if Lanza was wearing a bulletproof vest, then he was, and if he wasn’t, then he wasn’t. It doesn’t matter what the media says, they cannot change the facts of the case depending on how they report it. That is simply magical thinking.