FBI Withholds Physical Evidence in Update on Trump Attempted Assassination Investigation

FBI Withholds Physical Evidence in Update on Trump Attempted Assassination Investigation Republished with permission from AbleChild Special Agent in charge of the FBI Pittsburgh Field Office, Kevin Rojek, provided remarks during a media call that simply raise more questions. For example, Rojek explains that the “FBI is now in possession of the subject’s autopsy and toxicology reports from the coroner’s office.” Great. When did the FBI obtain the autopsy and toxicology reports from the coroner? Is Rojek referring to the Butler County Coroner or the Allegheny County Medical Examiner? People often confuse these two entities. Specificity would be helpful. It matters. 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.” What the public needs to know is whether a projectile was recovered from the subject’s body and was there a rifling match between the projectile and the barrel of a sniper’s weapon? Providing the ballistics report would be helpful. Further, having a look see at the autopsy would also provide important information about which direction the projectile removed from the subject traveled. Specificity. Rojek explained that the FBI rendered “the scene safe and following our established evidence gathering procedures, the FBI contacted the Butler County Coroner’s office.” “Evidence gathering?” What evidence was gathered prior to the coroner determining time and cause of death? What evidence was touched, moved or removed by the FBI prior to the coroner arriving at the scene twelve hours after the shooting? 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 coroner removed the body prior to his investigation? That seems odd. Wouldn’t the body be important in writing crime scene notes? What about photographs of the deceased on the roof? Agent Rojek also reports that the “toxicology revealed negative results for alcohol and drugs of abuse.” Really? What about other drugs, like prescribed psychiatric drugs? Did the ME conduct toxicology tests to determine whether the subject had been on one or more prescribed drugs? 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. “officers searched the battered white vehicle from which they removed explosives after they were led across fields to its location by their K9 unit.” So. Why is there no mention of this white van by the FBI? More than one explosive device was found inside the van and there is a video of police combing through the van. Why is this van not mentioned by the FBI, even if it is just to say the van had nothing to do with Crooks. Of course, that would be a problem. Dogs sniffed out the van based on Crooks scent. Another automobile with explosives? It sure sounds like more than one subject or at least more than one automobile. So, no autopsy, no complete toxicology, no fingerprint or DNA data, and no ballistics report. Oh, and an extra automobile with explosives. Nobody wants to be Johnny Rain Cloud, but the FBI’s “updated” information only raises more questions that need to be addressed…questions that the FBI should have already answered. What’s the problem?