The body of the alleged shooter lay exposed on the roof of the AGR Building for an entire night. This unsettling detail, revealed after the attempted assassination, has ignited a firestorm of questions surrounding the FBI’s handling of the case and the official narrative of a lone gunman.
Despite investigations by multiple agencies – including Congress, the Secret Service, and state police – a crucial question remains unanswered: how was the alleged shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks, identified on the building? The lack of clarity surrounding this initial identification is deeply troubling, especially given the extraordinary circumstances.
The Butler County Coroner, William Young III, was initially denied access to the body at midnight, instructed to return the following morning. This delay, and the identity of those who issued the order, fuels speculation about potential interference with the investigation and raises concerns about what transpired during those hours on the roof.
Even Kash Patel and Danny Bongino, now at the forefront of the FBI’s public statements on the case, would likely find this situation deeply unsettling. Leaving a potential assassin’s body at a crime scene overnight defies standard procedure and invites suspicion.
The “exclusive update” on the case was delivered not to a major investigative journalist, but to a lesser-known podcaster. This choice of outlet, coupled with the lack of concrete evidence presented, has led to accusations of a carefully controlled narrative.
Patel and Bongino claim to have “reviewed this case over and over,” yet crucial details remain obscured. They assure the public the case is in “pending active status,” a shifting explanation from previous statements citing pending court cases as the reason for withholding the full investigation.
Investigators collected every device from the alleged shooter’s home, but key questions linger. Did the alleged shooter’s father’s phone records reveal the frantic call to police about his son’s rifle? Was the shooter’s phone pinged to track his movements throughout the day, corroborating the official timeline?
The FBI confirms the use of a .223 rifle, firing eight rounds. However, a fundamental question remains unanswered: do the recovered projectiles match the alleged weapon? The absence of this critical ballistics information casts a shadow over the “lone gunman” conclusion.
Adding another layer of complexity, an undetonated explosive was found in a vehicle connected to the incident. Even more concerning, a second vehicle – a white van with Arizona plates – was impounded with explosives, yet this crucial detail was omitted from the public statements.
The FBI maintained control of the crime scene from midnight on July 14th until July 18th. This extended control raises the central question: why was the coroner initially denied access, and what purpose did allowing the body to remain on the roof serve?
Patel and Bongino’s assertion that the coroner removed the body “in coordination with State Police” is disputed by the coroner’s own records, which show an independent removal and transfer to the Allegheny County Medical Examiner.
Despite claims of full transparency with Congress, evidence suggests a trove of investigative data – including DNA, fingerprint, and ballistics reports – remains undisclosed. The public deserves access to these reports, not interpretations of them.
The time for withholding information has passed. The FBI has publicly declared its conclusion of a lone gunman, and now must release the full investigation. The public is capable of analyzing the evidence and drawing its own conclusions.
It’s a stark irony that these two officials, once vocal critics of government secrecy, now appear to be perpetuating the very lack of transparency they once condemned. The truth lies within the investigation itself, and it’s time for it to be revealed.
