Forty-five days after the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has released a wealth of investigative information.
However, there are notable deficiencies in the information provided, particularly in relation to crucial physical evidence.
During a media call, Special Agent Kevin Rojek, who heads the FBI Pittsburgh Field Office, made statements that only served to raise further questions.
For instance, Rojek mentioned that the FBI now possesses the subject’s autopsy and toxicology reports from the coroner’s office.
While this is significant, there remains ambiguity around when exactly the FBI obtained these reports and which specific coroner’s office they were obtained from—Butler County Coroner or Allegheny County Medical Examiner.
Clarity on this matter is essential for a proper understanding of the case.
Rojek also says that the “autopsy report indicated the subject was pronounced deceased at 6:25 p.m. on July 13, 2024, as a result of a single gunshot wound to the head.”
This reads just like the Butler County Coroner’s death certificate, not the ME’s autopsy.
If this is from the coroner and not the ME, then there are serious problems. The coroner’s report reads, “an inquisition taken at 615 Whitestown Road on the 13th day of July…” Nope.
The coroner was initially turned away when he arrived at the crime scene at midnight on the 13th and instructed to come back later.
He complied and returned at 6 a.m. on the 14th to carry out the death investigation.
If it was the FBI who turned him away, then there may be inaccuracies in the death investigation report that need to be addressed, and Agent Rojek should provide an explanation for why the coroner was dismissed at midnight.
Next. Agent Rojek explains that “all reviewable evidence collected from the AGR roof and from the Subject’s body are consistent with the round fired by the Secret Service Sniper.” It is interesting that the FBI would use the word “consistent.”
The public needs to be informed about whether a projectile was found in the subject’s body and if there was a match between the projectile and the barrel of a sniper’s weapon.
Releasing the ballistics report and examining the autopsy would provide crucial information on the trajectory of the projectile removed from the subject.
Additionally, it is important to clarify what evidence was gathered by the FBI before the coroner arrived on scene to determine time and cause of death, and whether any evidence was handled or removed prior to their arrival.
Again, knowing why the FBI turned away the coroner at midnight would be helpful. Agent Rojek further explains that “the coroner removed the body from the scene and conducted a death investigation.”
The removal of the body by the coroner before conducting an investigation seems unusual. Wouldn’t the body serve as a crucial piece of evidence for writing crime scene notes and taking photographs?
Additionally, Agent Rojek’s report of negative toxicology results for alcohol and drugs of abuse raises questions about whether tests were conducted for other drugs, such as prescribed psychiatric medication.
It’s important to consider whether the ME performed toxicology tests to determine if the subject had been on any prescribed drugs, as these tests are often overlooked.
A case in point is the Nashville mass shooter, Audrey Hale, where the ME’s report did not reveal any significant toxicological findings in Hale’s blood.
However, it later emerged that Hale had been using multiple prescribed psychiatric drugs at the time of the shooting. A comprehensive toxicology report is essential.
Agent Rojek stated that the FBI followed appropriate evidence-gathering procedures and completed the final release of the crime scene seven days after the attack, which included cleaning biological material from the AGR roof.
This action has sparked debate among law enforcement experts who argue that it is not standard procedure for the investigating body to clean a crime scene.
While it’s beneficial to have some information finally released by the FBI about its investigation, much of it only raises further questions.
There is a notable absence of complete autopsy and ballistics reports being released for public review, and no mention has been made of fingerprint and DNA tests conducted by the FBI on the alleged shooter.
It is of interest, too, that there is no mention of the “white van.” Yes, that white van that police found by use of the police K9 unit.
According to The Daily Mail reports about the white van, “officers searched the battered white vehicle from which they removed explosives after they were led across fields to its location by their K9 unit.”
Fox News reported that law enforcement combed through a white van believed to have been used by Thomas Matthew Crooks after he nearly assassinated former President Trump.”
Fox further reported that “officers found explosives, including an improvised explosive device, inside the van… emphasized that more than one was found.” The tag on the white van was reportedly from Arizona.
Why hasn’t the FBI mentioned the white van that contained multiple explosive devices and was seen being searched by police in a video?
Even if it’s just to confirm that the van was not linked to the criminals, the absence of any mention is concerning. The fact that dogs detected the scent of the criminals near the van adds to the confusion.
The presence of another vehicle with explosives suggests that there may be more individuals involved or more vehicles at play.
Additionally, the lack of autopsy, complete toxicology, fingerprint or DNA analysis, and ballistics report only adds to the uncertainty.
The FBI’s “updated” information raises more questions rather than providing answers, which should have already been addressed.
It’s important for these unanswered questions to be resolved.
ICYMI: Hunter’s Laptop Strikes Again: Reveals Possible Harris Campaign Finance Chicanery
