Dave, be reasonable and un-conspirationist for once! It might fit into your current worldview of the media being to blame for anything, but no reputable media left or right backs your assertion that the Bushmaster was not used. You're beginning to sound like the guys who believe that the moon landing was a hoax.
If your Sandy Hook assertion were even remotely true, the Bushmaster manufacturer would have long sent out cease and desist orders to people/media claiming the untruth and smearing its innocent product. Nor would the private equity investor behind them - Cerberus - be selling its stake. Double-nor would the NRA just stand there doing nothing while a story about an assault weapon is being fabricated. "The official story" went out while the policemen themselves were still shaken by what had happened. No surviving eye witness has testified that he used hand guns. That at least one hand gun would be close to his body is inevitable given that he shot himself with it (and kept the other one as a spare, he had no intention of going to jail). And I won't even go into why young Lanza should have kept the Bushmaster and its cartridges in the trunk while murdering with the hand guns.
You seem to be the only person not only doubting, but categorically ruling out that the Bushmaster was used while the rest of the world assumes and reports otherwise. Think about it. You have zilch evidence except an initial hurried report while people were still cleaning up the site and it is generally you here who demands scientific proof and frowns at revisionism.
I understand that the police reports are still under a 90 day seal (as the judge ordered in December), let's wait and see.
You live in a sheltered world if you think that I'm the only one categorically rejecting it.
Bushmaster's sales are through the roof. They don't need to do anything.
It's understandable that there are conflicting reports at first when something like this happens. But when apparent inconsistencies are not resolved and an "official" story emerges along with a instant, constant drumbeat by the major media for gun control, you have to start questioning why the inconsistencies disappear down the memory hole. The state police have certain things under seal, but that would not stop the media from raising concerns if they were interested in discovering what really happened rather than pushing an agenda.
For example, a man in camouflage pants was marched out of the woods by police, in front of eyewitnesses. One eyewitness said, on camera, that the man said "I didn't do it." How would he know what had just happened? Who was he and why was he in the woods which were part of school property? The eyewitness said, "he's right over there in the front seat of that police car" yet apparently no camera ever focused on him, and no one explained why he would be in the front seat and not the back. There could be a reasonable explanation for all this, but when the incident is officially disappeared, it makes one suspect that there's more to the story, like possibly more than one shooter.
How did the shooter get in? We heard he was buzzed in, then we heard he shot his way in. The latter is more believable, yet with all the photos and news coverage, we have no photos of the point of entry. And while the 911 calls came in as soon as he started shooting people, no one heard the commotion when he shot is way in. That's more than odd.
What about "Robbie Parker" -- that father who gave the emotional statement about the death of his daughter? No need to link here, but you can find video of him leading up to the statement. He's laughing and joking with the other people on the set, then when they get ready for him, he smiles and says "read the card?" then changes his face and voice into expressions of grief. If your six-year-old daughter had just been shot to pieces, would any of you be yukking it up off camera? Was he really a parent of a victim, or a hired actor?
There's more but I'm about done with the subject. I don't have answers, only questions. Whatever the answers are, they are being suppressed. And the longer they are suppressed, the more likely it is that the official version of events is untrue in a significant way.