Trump: Best Evidence of a Second Shooter, a Deep State Sniper?

by Dan Fournier, published Monday, July 29, 2024, 00:05 EDT on fournier.substack.com

Former President Donald J. Trump on the ground following the assassination attempt on July 13, 2023 in Butler, Pennsylvania. Bottom left: body cam footage showing Thomas Matthew Crooks taken at 18:31:41 (for more information, see below in this post). Note that this screenshot image which appears on the bottom-left from the body cam footage is hereby used under Fair Use laws and practices.

Note: this post is archived here: https://archive.ph/wip/aQJuX

1. Introduction

Two weeks have passed and so much has already been written about the Trump assassination attempt which took place in Butler, Pennsylvania on Saturday July 13, 2024.

The first shots were heard early in the evening at approximately 6:11 pm.

Accounts from different parties have emerged regarding the event.

At this point, the prevailing narrative is that there was a sole shooter, namely Thomas Matthew Crooks.

The abundance of information and speculation surrounding the historic event inevitably adds to the fog of war – if we can borrow that calque.

Fog of war is usually a phrase that is used to describe military operations, but it also serves in the context of information warfare. The following website describes the use of the phrase quite well [with emphasis added]:

“Military operations depend heavily on communications and intelligence to be successful. When one or both of these elements becomes compromised, the result is often called the fog of war. This phrase encompasses all of the confusions and miscalculations that can occur during an actual combat situation. There is also a political version, in which public opinion can be swayed by misinformation or ambiguous reporting of the facts.”

This “political version” which has an objective to sway public opinion by [infusing] misinformation to create “ambiguous reporting of the facts” certainly applies to our examination of the matter at hand.

In addition, one of many purposes of this fog serves to add confusion and to obfuscate.

Moreover, copious amounts of noise is continuously added to the mix which additionally serves to becloud the truth.

Therefore, in this post I have chosen to focus on one key aspect of the assassination attempt, namely that there appears to exist credible evidence which indicates that there was a second shooter.

2. Best Evidence

This evidence will be segmented into the following categories:

1. Visual

2. Eyewitness

3. Acoustic/Audio (gunfire)

4. Acoustic Expert Analysis

5. Law Enforcement BodyCam

2.1 Visual

The following photograph by The New York Times provides a good overview of the layout of the overall site (taken on the morning of July 14, 2024):

Photograph showing the site of the Trump rally on the morning of July 14 (the day after the assassination attempt). Source: The New York Times; Aerial image by Doral Chenoweth/USA TODAY NETWORK, via Reuters.

ABC News also provides a good overview graphic image of the layout:

The host of a YouTube channel called Legally Armed America posted a video on July 19 in which he interviewed an engineer who provided his analysis regarding the positioning of Crooks and what appears to be a second shooter.

The engineer stated that he made calculations based on available data to the best of his abilities.

During the interview, John (the name used to refer to the engineer) provided several key visuals from his presentation which indicate angles and trajectories from two locations:

• where Crooks’ body laid still moments after he was shot to death by a sniper; and

• a window from an adjacent building.

The following two images of these locations taken from skynews helicopter footage are shown in John’s presentation (with emphasis added in red to indicate the location of Crooks’ dead body and the window of the adjacent building):

The engineer calculated an plotted the following trajectories from these two locations to the stage area where former President Trump was speaking:

John explained how the adjacent building had an open window (as squared in red in the two images above) which he remarks is an obvious vulnerability since it was a direct line of sight of Trump speaking at the podium; and, how he produced the trajectory of a possible/plausible shot from that window towards Trump.

The host said to John that local police department mentioned that when the U.S. Secret Service Director, Kimberly Cheatle, had indicated that there were two sniper teams in the building in which Crooks’ body was found she was corrected by local law enforcement as being wrong and that those two sniper teams were in the adjacent building.

John replied by re-stating that the window of that adjacent building was open, and had there been a counter-terrorism sniper unit inside that building, they should have been aware and thus reacted to the presence of Crooks since he had been there for around 20 minutes.

John then provided an image of the area that showed the height measurements of the window relative to Crooks location on the roof, demonstrating that had a sniper team been located at that window, they would have clearly seen Crooks.

Moreover, as a tree is located in the line of sight between the window and the stage area, John finds it quite odd that a sniper unit would pick such a location for surveillance.

Hereunder is another photograph which provides an excellent vantage point along with three red dots in the two stands which flank the one behind President Trump, each representing victims of the shots (apart from Trump):

John later questioned how such an open window with a clear line of sight to President Trump had been left unsecured.

Importantly, the engineer explained how he had assessed the trajectories from the two positions towards Trump’s head as shown from a slide from his presentation hereunder:

Part of another slide shows the same trajectories, but from an overhead perspective:

Both the interviewer and John questioned how some law enforcement had knowledge of Crooks presence on the roof location, yet failed to act on that information.

Near the end of the interview, the host also questioned about how many shell casings ejected from the weapon would be found close to Crooks body on the roof (and possibly on the ground, if some had fallen off the roof) which would indicate the number of shots fired by the young man.

On a side note, apart from the shell casings, there could also exist other forensic evidence with regards to the gunpowder residue from the shell casings which could have been present in the vicinity of Crooks body.

Obviously, this key critical information could help to either prove or disprove the possibility of a second shooter (given the total number of shots heard from the incident).

With regards to the video interview with the engineer John, Debby Potter (@debbypotter4837), offered the following astute comment:

“Why is no one triangulating lines of fire to the 3 victims, besides Trump. It's where these 4 lines of fire intersect that will connect to the exact point of the shooter. If they cannot be reconciled to one point, you have more than one gun.”

FBI Destroying Evidence

What is perhaps odd is the fact that as soon as the very next day on July 14, the FBI (who had taken over the official investigation into the assassination attempt) hosed down the roof of the said area.

Photograph from an ABC News article: An FBI investigator hoses off a rooftop where a gunman had been positioned during the law enforcement investigation into gunfire at a campaign rally of Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, U.S. July 14, 2024. Photo credit: Carlos Osorio/Reuters.

While there may have been Crooks blood to wash off, the action has likely destroyed evidence – particularly if it had not been fully collected – that is inarguably crucial for the ongoing investigation.

Also on July 14, the assistant director of the FBI’s counter terrorism division, Robert Wells noted that while there is still more investigating to do he believed that Crooks acted alone.

2.2 Eyewitness

Greg Smith

One of the first eyewitnesses to be interviewed was Greg Smith – a red-haired /bearded man wearing a Trump 2020 hat by a reporter from the BBC.

Smith stated that he and others were in the field between the AGR buildings and the Trump rally stage area and that they had noticed the young man “bear climbing” on to the roof of the building with a rifle. They alerted local law enforcement who Smith said seemed confused about the situation.

Here is the three minute 36-second BBC interview (courtesy of The New York Post’s YouTube channel):

A longer version (four minutes and 30 seconds) of this video interview can be seen on Warren Sharp’s X account post which currently has 32.9 million views.

Greg Smith was also related to The Gateway Pundit that there were snipers on the second floor of one of the AGR buildings watching the rooftop shooter (Crooks) as the shots rang out and “did nothing.”

Smith added [with original emphasis]:

“I was looking all around to get law enforcement’s attention before the shots, and I could tell it was coming, because as I was standing there for several minutes I kept thinking ‘why is Trump still talking?’ You expect someone to be on the radio or whatever the protocol is, to get Trump off the stage. I knew this isn’t good. I expected the shots to start, and then they did. It was mass chaos. I was looking at the guys on the second story, my eyes were jumping three or four different places, I could see that they saw him and were looking at him and watching what he was doing, but they didn’t do anything.”

While it is difficult to assess whether or not Greg Smith was referring specifically to the adjacent building which had the window open (as described in the previous section of this post), it remains clear that many doubts have arisen as to why those particular law enforcement personnel didn’t act to prevent Crooks from carrying out his mission.

The Gateway Pundit article also noted that Butler County Sheriffs Deputies have said that their body cameras were turned off and there is no footage available from the incident.

The linked article stated that Tom Fitton from Judicial Watch said that their organisation had launched their own investigation with multiple Freedom Of Information Act requests on state, federal and local level.

“Local witnesses say that there was zero police presence on the ground the entire day around the AGR Building north of the Butler Farm Field where the Trump rally was held, and they saw no law enforcement whatsoever,” the article further stated.

“We didn’t see a single law enforcement officer the entire time until they were running around the building looking for the guy. We didn’t see a single bit of law enforcement,” Smith also said.

With regards to the snipers on the second floor, the article also stated the following [with some emphasis added]:

“Witness Smith describes seeing snipers out of the second floor warehouse building as part of the AGR complex. Some online have speculated that these individuals were Butler County Emergency Services snipers or SWAT responders, but so far that has not been made clear and officials are not providing any answers. But the witnesses described seeing the snipers in the windows of the AGR building.

They were watching us. I would look up from time to time, and we would always see them there. I gave this same testimony and descriptions about the snipers in the second floor to the State Police Detectives in my driveway,” said Smith.”

On a related note, Upward News provided video footage of Crooks walking around the compound, adding to the “security failure.”

2.3 Acoustic/Audio (gunfire)

In a citizen-led investigation, Dr. Chris Martenson (who previously published 128 videos that covered the Covid-19 Pandemic) from PeakProsperity.com has made three videos that provide audio analyses about acoustic signatures of the gunshots collected from various recording devices at the Trump rally, including the microphone in which the former President was speaking and another device closer to the AGR buildings:

• Audio Analysis Is 100% Clear Trump& Crowd Were Shot At By Two Separate People (2024-07-18);

• Three Audio Files Align and Agree: There Were Two Shooters (2024-07-22);

• Audio analysis raises troubling questions (2024-07-24)

In his first video on the topic, Martenson unhesitatingly asserts that he has audio proof which suggests that there exists at least two shooters – in contrast to the prevailing mainstream narrative of a lone gunman in Crooks.

At the time he made his video, Martenson cited a CNN news article early in his presentation in which he points out that although the FBI said Crooks acted alone, forensic analysis suggests that at least two weapons were fired at the rally.

He was citing the audio analysis work of Catalin Grigoras, director of the National Center for Media Forensics at the University of Colorado in Denver and Cole Whitecotton from the same institution, in addition to forensics expert Robert Maher (see the next subsection of this post).

Here is a screenshot of Martenson citing the CNN piece:

It is important to notice the parts highlighted in yellow which indicate “weapon A” for the first three shots fired and “weapon B” for the next five shots.

Notably, these mentions are now absent from the updated version of the article which now states that the first eight shots are “consistent with the alleged weapon.”

CNN has added the following note at the end of the article:

“This post was originally published July 15. It was updated July 26 with additional forensic analysis.”

Martenson then goes on with his analysis on the bullet signatures in the audio from Trump’s microphone, providing supporting visuals.

The first three shots sound distinctly different than the following five.

At around the 17:20 mark of his first video, Martenson then provides audio from another video taken near the AGR building, i.e., close to where the shots were fired. The audio from this source shows a clear distinction in sound between the two sets of shots (i.e., the first three versus the next five).

Martenson considers echoes emitted from the gunshots in his analysis. He explains and shows visuals that indicate the first three shots not having echoes like the following five do:

He then offers his hypothesis in which he alleges that the first three shots came from inside the AGR building, and that the next five shots came from atop the building where Crooks was shooting from:

Near the start of Martenson’s second video (2024-07-22), he analyses the first eight shots fired from another video source (“He’s got a Gun” video that is labelled ‘TMX VIA CNN’ and seems to have been provided from ‘Forbes Breaking News’).

After that, he analyses a video from much nearer to the building where that open window is and the building that Crooks was on. That video is labelled ‘Second Location’ in Martenson’s video.

He plays the audio which demonstrates a significant sound difference produced from the first three shots versus the following five.

As this particular video/audio source seems to be the best and closest to where the shots appear to have originated from, Martensen provides further analysis, including echo signatures, in his third video (2024-07-24) on the subject.

Keeping with Martenson’s second video, he introduces another video/audio source that is close to that tree in front of the building with the window open.

And this source also provides the same types of audio signatures, though there is a lot of screaming which somewhat obscures the first three shots.

Then, he looks at yet another video of the shooting (by TMZ which lasts one minute and nine seconds).

Notably, this source has video footage which shows Crooks lying on the roof in shooting position. Here is a partial screenshot from Martenson’s video:

Martenson plays the video and audio segment over and over during which time the first shot is fired and he notes that Crooks shoulder remains totally immobile, albeit the portion of the video that shows Crooks is small and not necessarily conclusive.

Martenson explains that when a shot is taken from such kind of AR-15 style–rifle, there should be a kickback from the weapon which should move the shooter’s shoulder at least slightly backwards. The video seems to shows that this is not the case when the first shot is taken – which, importantly, would suggest that it is coming from another shooter.

Needless to say, further analyses by gun experts would be helpful to more thoroughly analyse this footage.

And if the exact type of assault weapon used by Crooks is confirmed, that would surely be helpful.

Moreover, video experts could blow up the portion of the video with Crooks in it to a larger size and play it back to detect possible movements of his shoulder.

Near the end of his second video, Martenson points out the rapidity in which the second set of shots (the five shots) were fired.

From his audio analysis, these were made within 0.775 seconds which is remarkably fast.

He bases this assertion on a comparison with one of the world’s best and fastest shooters in Jerry Miculek and thus doubts that Crooks could be as efficient and precise.

In his third video (Jul 24, 2024), Martenson goes over five audio sources. Here are the sources and respective locations:

Though it has a lot of background noise, the best audio source in the lot is #4 whose location appears in the image above.

Martenson plays this audio and provides his analysis, including echoes, from around the 20:18 mark of his video.

In short, he concludes that the second set of five shots “don’t sound at all” like the first three.

Here is the Conclusions slide from his third video:

Note that for the purpose of this post and to remain focused on outlining the best evidence of a second shooter, I am not including the parts for shots nine and ten (as seen in the slide above).

To sum up this section, Dr. Chris Martenson has provide a lot of audio analysis and has brought up some key points and questions. It is not clear, though, what types of video files he was working with. If they were mp4 files which use compressed audio that eliminates a lot of data and are not in waveform format, key signature information could be missing. Some of these aspects will be covered in the next sub-section (hereunder) of this post for consideration.

2.4 Acoustic Expert Analysis

A New York Times article titled Videos Show Suspect Lying Motionless on Nearby Rooftop After Shooting with a subtitle that reads “An audio analysis by the The New York Times and an another expert suggested that eight shots had been fired by the gunman” was published on July 13.

Robert C. Maher, a gunfire acoustics expert from Montana State University, was previously consulted with on prior stories for the Times.

The Times article stated the following:

“The audio analysis of the gunshots conducted by The Times and Robert C. Maher, a gunfire acoustics expert at Montana State University in Bozeman, indicates that two bursts of shots were fired. Both the first round of three and the second of five shots were fired approximately 330 to 390 feet from the C-SPAN microphone Mr. Trump was speaking into. That location was consistent with the location of the suspect’s body. There was no significant difference between the sound of the eight shots, which suggests that they likely came from the same firearm, Mr. Maher said.”

The passage cited above states that the shots were fired approximately 330 to 390 feet (from Trump) and that location was “consistent with the location of the suspect’s body.”

By “suspect”, it is clearly implied that it is Thomas Matthew Crooks.

Maher states that “there was no significant difference between the sound of the eight shots, which suggests that they likely came from the same firearm.”

As I had listened to Dr. Christ Martenson’s audio analysis presentations which present clear sound distinctions between the first three shots compared to the next five, I wanted to obtain additional information regarding Maher’s analysis.

I thus sent Prof. Maher a media inquiry asking him from which video/audio source he and the New York Times had based their analysis on as well as whether he still (two weeks later) stands by his assertion that the acoustic sound signatures of the first eight shots came from the same firearm.

He replied that though he doesn’t have the time to go through each point in detail, he could offer a few observations from the recordings.

He also added that “numerous new (sic) organizations have provided videos from many locations around the venue,” though he didn’t specify whether or not he had analysed these.

I will thus simply paste the rest of his reply hereunder along with two graphic images he included [with original hyperlink included].

“Three things to keep in mind at the outset.

First, all of the audio that has been made available to me is from mp4 recordings, which means that the audio is from a perceptual audio coding algorithm, NOT from waveform recording. The perceptual audio coder throws away perhaps as much as 80-90% of the original audio information and only retains what the algorithm determines is necessary for the recording to be judged by a human listener to be nearly identical to the original audio signal. This means that trying to identify tiny details in the audio waveforms is going to be subject to considerable uncertainty. The timing analysis is probably going to be good, but other aspects need to be treated with great caution.

Second, the podium microphone picks up the initial three shots with very good fidelity and consistency. The audio system feeding the recording device (and presumably feeding the PA system) appears to include an automatic gain control/limiter, causing the signal level to drop for 40-50ms after the loud crack of the bullet. And since the microphone is picking up various cracks and pops from the gunshots, those sounds are being sent to the PA loudspeakers in the rally area, and so the subsequent sounds are a mixture of the direct sounds, echoes, and sound from the PA speakers with the speed of sound delay getting back to the microphone.

Third, many of the recordings were made with the person running, turning, waving their phone around, etc. These changes can have a surprisingly significant effect upon the audible recording, as the presence of obstacles, reflections, sounds arriving from the PA system, etc., all change as a result. Moreover, the sound and the arrival of the muzzle blast sound depends upon the trajectory of the bullet with respect to the microphone. In this case, the initial three shots all appear to be very close to the podium, so the time gap between the crack and pop sounds are consistent at about 210ms. Now for subsequent shots, the trajectory appears to be farther away from the podium, so the relative timing of the crack and the pop could be somewhat different, even if the firearm is in the same place. If you are interested, you can read more about this effect in section 6 of a paper from 2022. [R.C. Maher, "Interpretation of audio forensic information from the shooting of journalist Shireen Abu Akleh," Express Paper 22, Proc. 153rd Audio Engineering Society Convention, New York, NY, October, 2022.]

Here is a recording of the first eight audible gunshots from a location in the audience about 85 meters northwest of the podium, and about 135 meters southwest of the perpetrator. I manually labeled each of the shots, which show very consistent waveform and timing of the ballistic crack and muzzle blast pop. This is consistent with a firearm shooting eight successive rounds from the same location with respect to the recording device, and the presence of the crack-pop sequences indicates supersonic bullets traveling past the recording device. Other investigators may be relying upon only a single recording, not examining multiple recordings to find the best observation.”

“Also, here is the observed relative time alignment comparison of the same eight audible shots observed at five different locations around the scene of the incident. The relative timing has been shifted so that the onset of the initial shot “A” is “0.000” and then the onset of the subsequent audible shots in each recording is with respect to shot A. There is some slight variability, but given the fact that many of the recordings were being made with the cameras moving and being waved around, in my experience this is a remarkably consistent set of observations, and is consistent with a single firearm at one location.”

In a follow-up inquiry, I asked Prof. Maher whether he could send me a link to the .mp4 file he used for his analysis (which concluded that the eight shots came from the same firearm) as well as the location from which it was taken.

Prof. Maher replied that the .mp4 file was provided to him by a “legitimate journalist,” and further stated that he was unaware as to whether or not it was made publicly available.

He further re-emphasised that the location of the video camera was “85 meters northwest of the podium, and about 135 meters southwest of the perpetrator.”

Using these distances provided by Maher, I have estimated the approximate location of this recording based on the location of the Butler Farm Show Grounds on which Trump held his rally using Google maps, shown hereunder.

In Google maps, I measured (using the 50m scale as shown in the bottom-right corner) to estimate the approximate location and clicked which produced the location marker (which I point to with the red arrow). I also labelled the stage area where Trump was speaking at the podium with a red “P” as well as the approximate area of Crooks with a red “X.”

As can be seen on the map above, the location of this particular recording that was used by Maher and the New York Times for their analysis is at a much further distance than two of the recordings analysed by Dr. Martenson (see locations #4 and #5 from the respective image above).

That wouldn’t necessarily mean that it is not of a better quality; but, as no further details were given to me by Prof. Maher regarding the device used for this particular recording (or other relevant information), this is all that we have to work with.

Prof. Maher concluded his reply by stating “All indications from approximately 20 videos I have reviewed point to a single location for the initial 8 shots,” though he did not provide details about these other videos.

2.5 Law Enforcement BodyCam

On July 24 and July 26, The Canadian Independent posted the following videos on their Substack which both show body cam footage:

1. 2024-07-24 (time stamped from 19:08:12 to 19:11:19), WATCH: New body-cam footage released of law enforcement on rooftop where shooter was killed after attempted assassination of Donald Trump (3 minutes 6 seconds); and

2. 2024-07-26, (time stamped from 18:26:58 to 19:03:00) WATCH: Full bodycam footage released of law enforcement after attempted assassination of Donald Trump (25 minutes 8 seconds).

Though the posts didn’t identify the officer wearing the body cam, it appears to be one from the Butler County Emergency Services Unit (ESU) / SWAT unit since at the start of the second video we can see this written on the other officer’s uniform (army-like attire) in front of him.

In the first (shorter) video referenced above, what is particularly noteworthy is the mention of a certain sniper named Greg who apparently took photos from the window – the same open window that was mentioned earlier in this post.

Here is a snapshot tasken from the video which clearly shows the open window (which the officer is pointing to) along with subtitles that say “so if you go to that window that’s open call for Greg,”:

Specifically, the officer filming with the body cam stated the following (verbatim – time marked from 19:08:35):

“I believe the sniper that’s seen these and sent the pictures is right inside this building.

Michelle, is Greg in there?

[Michelle replies: “There he is.”]

So if you go to that window that’s open and yell for Greg, that’s the sniper that sent the original pictures and seen him come from the bike and set the book back down and then lost sight of him.”

Michelle (wearing orange gloves) is another ESU/SWAT officer that we see in this video in the background near the black backpack and back edge of the building.

The body cam officer is talking to a man in a suit, white shirt, and dark red tie who seems to be a U.S. Secret Service agent, given what appears to be a pin with a five pointed star emblem in likeness of that of the SS; and later in this video, the agent mentions that he is trying to get “clear information to relay back to D.C.” The name of this agent has yet to be confirmed.

The use of the term sniper indicates that there was indeed one present in that building at that particular window location – at least post-shooting.

Whether that particular sniper was there during the time of the shooting is difficult to say, as there have been conflicting statements about this.

The second video posted by The Canadian Independent is longer, at about 25 minutes, starting earlier in the evening of July 13 (at 18:26:58) than the former.

It begins with the body cam officer and his male and female (Michelle) colleagues. Rich is the name of one of the two males (I’m not certain which of the two it is); they are jogging from the area in which Trump was speaking towards the building on which Crooks is lying dead, seemingly as they’ve been ordered to go there.

Once there, they talk to other officers in a building from the back (facing the water tower) which is identified on the door as “BLDG. 6” with “9” written on the door. And then proceed a bit further whereupon there is a black latter (a few feet to the right of a door labelled “BLDG. 3” and door “8”) that they use to access the roof. Once on the roof, they need to cross a small bridge-like passage to access the area in which Crook’s body and belongings are located.

Crooks’ shot head

At the 18:31:41 (4:45 in the video) mark, ESU/SWAT officer Michelle with her orange gloves appears to be checking Crook’s neck for a pulse.

For a tiny fraction of a second, we can actually see, un-pixelated/uncensored like for the rest of the video, Crooks’ bloody head; this is one of the rare sequences from the body cam footage that shows this part of his body unobscured. Here is what it looks like (zoomed at 200%):

Note that this screenshot image from the body cam footage is hereby used under Fair Use laws and practices.

As can be noticed from the image above, there is a straight line of blood that spans from Crook’s right ear up to his forehead.

This could open up the possibility that Crooks was shot from a sniper positioned at that aforementioned open window in the adjacent building of the AGR complex.

What is also notable is the fact that Crooks head location is very different than the photograph that was released to the mainstream press and posted around social media (shown hereunder).

I am not certain who took the photograph that was released to the public along with the precise time at which it was taken.

Comparing the two images above, we can clearly see that Crooks’ head location and position is significantly different.

On the released photo, his head lies directly on one of the roof’s pillars while in the body cam footage, it rests between two pillars.

Rather remarkably, there is a significant amount of blood on the roof in the released photo around Crooks head whereas there is none around his head in the body cam footage one.

In the released photograph there is also a significant amount of fresh red blood on Crooks neck and shirt area just below his neck. Whereas in the body cam image, we cannot see this, as the image is obscured in this area and of overall inferior quality.

Moreover, it is hard to reconcile the fact that the blood on Crooks face is dried and thus of a darker red colour compared to the blood around him on the surface of the roof which seems newer, as it is redder and fresher (i.e., more liquid).

There could be different explanations for these anomalies. Since Crooks was shot in the head and died, it is unlikely that they would have moved his body. Yet, perhaps the body may have been moved by law enforcement personnel for some reason. For this later scenario, one one think it less likely since usually (as per my limited knowledge and understanding of crime scene investigations) a dead body is usually not moved at least until it is adequately examined and photographed. Maybe those photographs were already taken and a full examination had already taken place; but it is difficult to know. Keep in mind that this footage is from less than an hour from when former President Trump was shot (at 18:11), as per the time stamp on the officer’s body cam footage.

One would hope that blood samples were taken – both of the dried blood and the fresher blood for comparative DNA analysis in order to determine whether both blood samples match that of Crooks.

This could be a key element to look out for should/when the results of the broader investigation surface.

Shell cases & Rifle

At around the 18:31:48 time mark (4:50 in the video), another ESU/SWAT officer warns the officer with the body cam: “Watch out for the shell cases.”

Then the body cam officer who is recording points his right index finger counting out loud what he is looking at:

“2 3 4 5 right there.”

The count is significant, for the officer is counting 5 shell cases, no more, no less.

It is important to note that no other officer present there corrects the officer with the body cam recording with regards to he count of five shell cases.

It is difficult to see all of the five shell cases in the video image, but it is fairly safe to assume that the officer at least has a clear line of vision on them.

At the 11:49:50 (11:58 in the video) we have a good look at the AR rifle that was used by Crooks which is, perhaps oddly, lying several feet away from his back side:

Range finder & Cell phone

”He has a range finder and cell phone as well.” the officer says at the 18:52:10 mark, speaking to a male police sergeant from the County of Allegheny (from Pennsylvania) who has just arrived on the scene.

The body cam officer then proceeds to help the sergeant retrieve black gloves from his person. Shortly after, the sergeant then proceeds to examine and go through pockets from Crooks clothing. In the conversation there’s mention of a “range finder” and later he says to call him if ever Crooks phone (which is also at the scene) starts ringing.

“If that phone starts ringing or some shit, call me in case you’ve got someone working with them,” the sergeant says.

It’s unclear what he means by “in case you’ve got someone working with them,” but he could be referring to the Secret Service, or to any co-conspirators that Crooks may have.

The sergeant then states that he’d like to “secure it,” presumably referring to Crooks cell phone.

“I’ll let them know the Secret Service wants to get it and grab it in a Faraday bag,” the sergeant thereafter adds.

Open window in direct line of sight to Crooks

At the 18:56:20 mark (18:28 in the video) we can clearly see from the body cam footage that the window in the adjacent building is open and clearly in direct line of sight to the area of Crooks body.

Accordingly, it can represent the possibility of Crooks having been shot from that window.

At this point, we don’t know if Crooks received one, two, or more shots to his person.

Currently, there seems to be a consensus that the sniper in the black uniform located on the building behind the stage area where Trump was speaking is the one who delivered the kill shot. But at this early stage of the investigation, one must not readily exclude the possibility of a second shot being delivered to Crooks from another sniper/shooter.

Secret Service agent arrives on rooftop; five shell casings or eight?

Though he could be seen in the footage moments earlier, an agent of African-American appearance wearing brown pants and a black shirt on which it is written ‘SECRET SERVICE’ arrives at the scene at about the 19:01:36 mark (23:44 in the video).

As he approaches the other officers, an ESU/SWAT officer on the right-hand side tells the Secret Service agent information about the scene while pointing down towards the roof top. He points in front of him indicating the location of the rifle, then to his left and says “shells over here on both sides.”

Someone then inquires: “looks like what, at least eight?”

It is unclear whether this is the body cam officer speaking or another officer. It seems like it is the officer with the body cam who is replying. But to be certain, sound amplification and voice print analysis would be required to properly affirm this.

Regardless, the officer with the body cam starts adding/counting out loud while he is looking and pointing on the roof top ground, saying: “One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. At least eight.”

From the video, it is difficult to see/confirm eight shell casings.

There seems to be three identifiable ones (from the quality of the video) located on the left side of the peak, and on the other side there seems to be two identifiable ones, and possible a third one (unconfirmed visually as the quality of the video image is not adequate).

In the following screenshot image, I have circled in red the five shell casings which visually seem obvious, at least to me:

It is possible that there are more that could be outside the range of the body cam (visual capture area) that are not noticeable on video.

Crime scene photographs, if they are ever to be released, would help resolve this uncertainty.

This count of eight is somewhat strange since, as noted above from earlier in this video, the same officer wearing the body cam clearly stated that there were five shell casings, not eight.

Accordingly, it is thus unclear as to why this new shell count now amounts to eight.

Perhaps he just discovered new ones on the right side of the peak. But, as he didn’t orally correct himself from his earlier count, it is difficult to ascertain what is the case.

Oddly, the Secret Service agent did not come forward to that specific area to verify for himself the shell casings.

One would think that this is a very important aspect of the crime scene, and would thus merit more acute attention by the SS agent.

The officer wearing the body cam asks the Secret Service agent “You know who hit him?” seemingly referring to Crooks. Though the audio captured of the Secret Service agent is barely audible, he points towards the stage area where Trump was speaking, likely suggesting that it was the sniper from that area who hit Crooks.

The officer with the body cam then refers the Secret Service agent towards the black backpack several yards away and the video ends there.

To sum up, this section about the two videos published by The Canadian Independent reveal a lot of important information. At the same time, they raise many key questions.

As more information gets released in the future, perhaps some of these unaddressed questions will get answered.

3. Concluding Remarks

I will abstain from making personal remarks so as to not make this post about conjecture.

I would, however, like to know the identity of the said sniper named Greg (mentioned in section near the start of section 2.5 above) who was situated in the room with the open window of the adjacent building, as well as which specific law enforcement agency he is with. It would also be good to know the time frame in which he was located in that place.

Facts matter more than conjecture and speculation.

As such, the better and more accurate information that is published surrounding this monumental event, the closer we can get to the truth of the matter, especially with regards to whether or not a second shooter/sniper delivered shots to Trump.

Time will tell.

4. What are your thoughts?

Please feel free to offer your thoughts, criticisms, or additional information below in the Comments section.

5. Addenda

As more details are likely to emerge in the coming weeks and months, this section is reserved for more data and information which would help corroborate a second shooter. I will add parts as needed and as new pertinent information (related to the focus of this post) becomes available.

5.1 2024-07-30: The Dave Stewart Video

• Excellent video/audio footage has emerged during the time of the assassination attempt.

• It was filmed by Dave Stewart who was positioned right in front of Building 6 (the one Crooks was on).

• The video can be seen on X via the Citizen Free Press account as well as via several Rumble accounts: Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Question Everything, The New Flesh, vidrik, and StantonLives.

• The audio of the gun shots are quite loud and clear, given the location of the filming.

• On 2024-07-29, Dr. Chris Martenson published a video about this footage (Stewart film blows the official narrative out of the water) and analysed the audio of the shots heard therein.

• Near the end of the seven minutes 35 seconds video, we can see the Secret Service agent in a suit with a red tie (who matches the description of the one shown earlier in this post) arriving at the scene through a fence and approaches Dave Stewart.

  • Stewart asks him: “Are you law enforcement?” and then the SS agent asks him for his name.

  • Stewart stopped filming at this point, but apparently resumed later.

  • At the end of the video Dave Stewart added a note to his video where he calls him “Agent Smith.” Stewart also wrote on the note “He [the SS agent] only wanted a picture of my ID and ran toward the building.”

5.2 2024-07-30: Text Messages by Law Enforcement and their interview on ABC’s Good Morning America & more on the Dave Stewart Video

In relation to addendum 5.1 above, jeffostroff on YouTube posted (late on July 29) a video titled NEW Video Cops Engaging Trump Shooter, Spotted 90 MIN Prior.

This video provides three key parts:

1. The existence of text messages between law enforcement that prove they knew the existence of Crooks on the grounds over 90 minutes (at least from 4:26 pm) prior to the shooting. One of the messages (at 5:38pm seen below) alerts the SS Snipers to be on the lookout for him and to “call it into command.” ;

   

2. A reference to an interview on ABC’s Good Morning America (aired July 29) in which some of the local SWAT officers were interviewed, including officer Gregory Nicol who took the photograph of Crooks shown above. Jason Woods, a lead sharpshooter for the Beaver County Swat Team said during the interview: “We were supposed to get a face-to-face briefing with the Secret Service snipers um whenever they arrived and that never happened. So, I think that was probably a pivotal point where I started thinking things were wrong because that never happened and we had no communication with the Secret Service.” He thereafter confirmed that they had no communication at all with the SS that day until after the shooting.

3. Some analysis about the Dave Stewart video (mentioned above in addendum 5.1), including who were the first officers to access the roof post-shooting.

5.3 2024-07-30: ‘Greg in the window’ identified

It appears that the sniper named Greg (from the window) mentioned in this post is Gregory Nicol from the Beaver County SWAT Team (as appears in the Good Morning America video I posted a link to in Addendum 5.2 above). [2024-08-14 Update: Since YouTube is now age-restricting access to the video, you can still view it via ABC’s Good Morning America website directly]

On investigative journalist George Webb’s Substack in his post Are The Suppressed Crooks Locations Gun Clubs?, Webb identifies him as the ‘Greg in the window’.

In Webb’s same post, it should be noted that he also suspects Maxwell Yearick as a potential second shooter who had fired the first three shots at the Trump rally due to “due to Matthew Crooks's hesitancy to do the shooting.”

Obviously, more research needs to be conducted about this theory surrounding Maxwell Yearick, especially given related information provided by Webb on his Substack and on his X account.

5.4 2024-07-30: Footage from inside the 2nd floor window of the AGR building + Confirmation of 2 officers posted there leaving their posts to search for Crooks

At a July 23 Homeland Security Committee hearing on Capitol Hill, Mr. Bishop questioned Col. Christopher Paris from the Pennsylvania State Police regarding specifics of the 2nd floor window of the AGR building (see from the 1:55:04 to 1:58:30 time frame).

Col. Paris confirmed that there were two Butler ESU (Emergency Services Unit) officers posted at that particular window, but did not specify their names.

Col. Paris affirmed that, at a certain point, they left their posts to search for Crooks who had been deemed suspicious.

During the exchange in this hearing, there is actual video footage (shown from the 1:57:10 mark) that is shown from inside that second floor room (of the said window in question); here are two screenshots:

The first photo shows a clear view of the top of Building 6 where Crooks dead body was found. And the second photo shows the vantage point towards the fair ground were Trump was speaking.

5.5 Building 6 Lower window sniper?

John Cullen appeared on podcast with Clay Martin called Multiple Shooters? | John Cullen & Clay Martin (TPC #1,538) in which he posited that there seems to have been three shots fired from a lower window of the AGR building (as per the footage of the Dave Steward video referenced in Addendum 5.1 above) but that is silenced - as per his own audio analysis.

We can see the flash from that window hereunder (circled in red by me):

Cullen also shows with a graph that the location of this window and the one next to it align well with where Trump was speaking with the added benefit of it being in the same trajectory as Crooks position on the roof of that building, as shown hereunder:

Shortly after in the podcast, Cullen offers the following suspect, a Secret Service officer, which he states was outside his designated zone (as per SS preparation maps):

I would caveat, that at this point, that I am not sure of the name of this particular Secret Service agent, nor the time and location where this picture was taken.

[2024-07-31 Update: The picture of the SS agent shown above appears to come from this source (as seen in a July 30 X post by Crowdsource The Truth (@JG_CSTT, post archived here: https://archive.ph/qKIvC).]

More information needs to be collected to verify and cross-reference these assertions by Cullen for additional scrutiny.

5.6 2024-08-14: Two leading Deep State Sniper Suspects + Google/YouTube helping in the Cover-up?

Just a couple of important updates here.

Apart from Crooks (a seemingly patsy who may or may not have fired a single shot), there are two prime candidates that could be the actual shooter who fired shots at Trump and towards the stage area.

Deep State Sniper Suspect #1: Greg (Beaver County SWAT Team) spotted exiting AGR Building just 95 seconds after the shooting

As per an August 9 X post from NWK Photography, dash cam footage from a patrol car shows Beaver County SWAT Team sniper Greg Nichol (see Addendum 5.3 above) coming out of AGR building roughly 95 seconds after the shooting.

The time is quite notable since it was previously reported that Nicol had left his post (from the infamous upper floor window - see above of this post for more on this location) to purportedly go out and look for Crooks (who he had photographed earlier - see Addendum 5.2 above).

Yet, the dash cam footage (labelled M500-010482) shows him coming out of the AGR building at 18:13:29 - roughly a minute and a half AFTER all the shootings had taken place.

Needless to say, this is highly suspicious given that he was supposed to have left his post to look for Crooks.

Nicol certainly needs to be questioned about this. But don’t hold your breath for the FBI (who is leading the investigation) to do so, nor should you expect the same from mainstream media.

And, a comment from Peak Prosperity (archived here) from a thread called ‘The Abandonment Of Posts In The Overwatch Building Is Difficult To Accept’ shows that a previous release of the timeline for which Nicol was purportedly out of his post (from 18:06 to 18:12) to find Crooks doesn’t align with what the dash cam footage (of M500-010482) shows, i.e., Nichol coming of the building AFTER 18:13:29:

From the images above, we can also observe that Greg Nicol’s name was previously redacted.

Addition: YouTuber jeffostroff - who has been doing an excellent job of making videos on the event - posted a video late last night titled Trump Shooting: Officer Greg Nicol Suspicious Timeline? which shows Greg Nicol out and about the AGR building at 18:10 but thereafter is not yet seen until he comes out of the AGR building a few minutes later at about 18:13:24. At the end of his video (starting at the 16:09 mark) he contemplates three possible scenarios for the whereabouts of Greg Nicol.

In short and importantly, the time frame could put sniper Greg Nicol as a serious candidate for being the sniper who shot at Trump given all the data and information presented in the addenda for this post, at least until forthcoming evidence confirms otherwise.

Google/YouTube restricts access to the ABC Good Morning America video showing Nicol

What is also suspicious is Google/YouTube adding an age-restricted access to view the video in which Nicol is interviewed by an ABC reporter on Good Morning America.

There really isn’t much in this interview for Google/YouTube to age-restrict it. There’s only a few images showing blood on Trump’s clothing and some on the stands. There’s nothing showing any of the victims. We can easily view much bloodier videos on the platform.

So, why is Google age-restricting this when they previously didn’t?

Note that in my Addendum 5.3 above (2024-07-30) the YouTube video did not have this restriction.

This is fishy as hell.

Deep State Sniper Suspect #2: Secret Service Agent “Sketchy”

As shown in Addendum 5.5 above, the Secret Service agent (nicknamed agent “Sketchy” seen in building 6 (where the Secret Service said they were NOT located in) remains a prime suspect.

John Cullen has been analysing and reporting on the possibility that there was a sniper position on the bottom level of AGR Building 6 from which shots appear to have been fired.

An August 13 X post from Cullen (archived here) shows side-by-side image and video which appears to confirm that the first shot was fired roughly at 18:11:31-32 (from the same dash cam footage above) and that there was a muzzle flash coming from the front window of Building 6 at that time (see my Addendum ‘5.5 Building 6 Lower window sniper?’ from above).

Here is Cullen’s post so you can view for yourself (click image to access the post):

Though this doesn’t serve as absolute proof that Secret Service agent “Sketchy” (if anyone know his real name, please post it in the comments section) took shots from that window? No. But, it certainly remains a possibility that has yet to be discarded.

Once more, will agent “Sketchy” be brought in to Congressional hearings? Will he be interrogated by the FBI? We’ll probably never know.

Nevertheless, he remains a prime suspect as a Deep State sniper who may have shot at Trump.

Support Independent Journalism

As an independent journalist, I take great care and pride in providing my audience with quality investigatory work and writings.

This is the kind of work that is seldom reported on in as much detail by the mainstream media, for they also tend to avoid the subjects and sometimes controversial topics that I, myself cover.

As an independent, I get paid very little for this work, for the bulk of my revenue comes from Substack subscriptions, and I am mostly surviving and supporting my family by means of personal savings.

You can support my work by considering a paid subscription to my Substack – Dan Fournier’s Inconvenient Truths (for only $5 a month, or $50 a year).

I am still waiting for a Founding Member for my Substack which could be you.

For one-time donations, you can also buy me a coffee.

If you are unable to support my work financially, it is greatly appreciated if you can share it on your social media feeds, for this brings additional exposure (and much needed eyeballs) which can lead to new paid subscribers.

Your comments are most welcome and appreciated and can be given in the Comments section below.

I sincerely thank you for your time and support.

Disclaimer:

See the author’s About page for full disclaimer.

Tweet this article

Share this article on Facebook

Follow me on X, formerly known as Twitter:

I can also be followed on Primal (which is a Nostr decentralised alternative to X that cannot be censored, and where users cannot be de-platformed). If you are tired of X, you can create your own account on Primal.