by Keith Johnson
A call to Flexfit Vice President Brian Yang confirms what many of us knew all along: that Sandy Hook Hoax member “Bridget Norris” [AKA Bridgette C. Ostler] deliberately altered an email she received from the company in an attempt to create the false illusion that a Flexfit hat worn by mass murderer Adam Lanza was not produced until the year after the massacre took place.
This deception began in mid-August when a web correspondence surfaced that was allegedly written by a Flexfit executive known as Leslie (last name withheld). The email in question (page 2) was proffered by Norris as a reply to an inquiry she made asking for assistance in identifying certain features of the Flexfit hat worn by Adam Lanza.
It was this crucial portion of the email that caused the greatest stir among Hoaxers: “We updated the sweatband inside in 2013…but we continued to sell through the previous sweat band until stock levels depleted…However the new sweat band is pictured in this photo you have sent me. This is odd given the information that you have given me.”
If this assertion were found to be true, it would mean that Adam Lanza could not have possibly worn the hat introduced as evidence by police because it had not yet been produced.
This portion of the email, however, has now been proven to be a fake.
Wade reached out to Flexfit Vice President Brian Yang and asked if he could verify which part of the email, if any, was authentic.
On August 27, Mr. Yang replied to Wade by email.
“After internal investigation, one of our employees responded to a lady claimed to be ‘Bridget Norris,’” Mr. Yang wrote. “[A]ccording to my employee, Bridget called, emailed and asked our other employees regarding the cap with the pictures. I have gone through all the evidence.”
Mr. Yang continued: “I also found out that our employees original email was modified and manipulated before it was put on the website you provided me. Thus, it was not 100% accurate information at all.”
At the bottom of the email, Mr. Yang attached two “before” and “after” photographs of Flexfit hats.
“For your reference, the below are the two different versions of same bucket hats that we are selling,” he wrote. “We have made the inner sweatband changes which took place in 2014. Therefore, the sweatband with ‘Flexfit’ legible ones were produced between 2005, when we launched the product line[,]until 2014 when we made the running change.”
Although Mr. Yang’s email proves that a crucial portion of the email was altered to convey an idea that is completely contray to the facts, requests for a copy of the authentic and unaltered email from Leslie were made as a means of securing physical evidence of the fraud.
On September 2, this writer attempted to reach Mr. Yang by phone at the Flexfit office in Orange County, California. The call went to voice mail and I left my name and number. Mr. Yang phoned shortly thereafter but I missed his call. He did, however, leave a New York state phone number where he could be reached.
Later that day, at approximately 3:00PM, I made contact with Mr. Yang. After introducing myself and explaining the purpose of my call, Mr. Yang confirmed that he was fully aware of the email exchange between Leslie and Bridget.
“What Bridget Norris put on the website is not in accordance with the actual email that was sent out,” Mr. Yang told me. “She manipulated and changed the whole thing.”
When asked to differentiate between what was authentic and untrue, Mr. Yang replied: “[One of] the two things that I could come with is the date that the hat was purchased. I mean, we made the running change in 2014 not 2012, which is incorrect. And second thing is, uh, Leslie. She said she’s been working here 20 years according to the website but she has been working here for only 9 years.”
When asked if he was familiar with the photographs sent by Bridget for verification and if he could identify the date that particular hat was manufactured, Mr. Yang replied: “I sent an email to Mr. Wade and I can forward the email to you. That particular hat was made between 2005 until we made a running change in 2014.”
As we neared the conclusion of the interview, I asked Mr. Yang if he would forward a copy of the authentic and unaltered email exchange between Leslie and Bridget. He agreed he would attach in reply to an email I sent to him.
Later that day, Mr. Yang replied to my email request.
“Keith, You could obtain my copy of email sent to Mr. Wade last week,” he wrote. “The attached is what was exchanged between Bridget and Leslie. We do not want to get involved with any more bad publicity for this non sense conspiracy. Thank you”
The “attached” that Mr. Yang refers to can be found at this link.
Using both Bridget’s fake email and the authentic email provided by Mr. Yang, Sandy Hook researcher Marie Jones made a post that allows the reader to easily distinguish the difference between the two documents.
In the interests of full transparency, an audio of my conversation with Mr. Yang (Flexfit.mp3) is attached at the bottom of this page and was recorded in accordance with Tennessee (where I live) and New York “one-party consent” laws.