J6 Pipe Bomber Skepticism: Justified?

Skepticism can be good. But you also have to be skeptical of the skeptics.

This week, Blaze Media published this piece questioning the strength of the Government’s case against (alleged) DC pipe bomber Brian Cole. The concerns of the authors can be probably best summarized from its opening:

“DOJ claims ‘overwhelming evidence’ of Cole’s guilt, but questions remain about Cole’s location, his shoe size, gait, eyesight, and details of his alleged confession.”

Let’s address these concerns. (We have no beef with the authors – we just hope they can do better…)

For starters, it is said: “Cole’s demeanor, mannerisms, and walk look distinctly different from the bomb suspect wearing the hoodie on FBI video.”

They provide this video to show a comparison of the pipe bomber walking versus Brian Cole being captured on a police bodycam walking after a minor car accident. (Due to Blaze Media’s Vimeo privacy settings, you’ll have to click-through or hit the link to watch the video.)

Here’s a screenshot of the comparison.

Based on this footage, the authors allege:

“Cole noticeably leans his head and neck to the left, while the hoodie suspect stood upright with a straight back and squared shoulders.”

Is there a difference in the walk? Of course there is. Aside from the distortion from the officer’s body camera, Cole is “noticeably” leaning his head and neck to the left in the traffic accident footage because he is extending his right arm towards the officer while holding his lanyard (to which his keys appear to be secured) with his left hand. The lean is just a normal movement when extending an arm.

It is further stated:

“As the hoodie suspect walked south down Rumsey Court to place the second pipe bomb at 8:16 p.m. on Jan. 5, video showed a confident stride with a fast cadence. On the bodycam video, Cole looked unsure of himself, withdrawn, avoiding eye contact and appearing to lack the confidence displayed by the original bomb suspect.”

It is a stretch to assume a confident walk from the pipe bomber footage. After all, when you think about it, can you really tell the difference between a nervous walk and a confident walk when the suspect is covered from head to toe?

But for the sake of argument, let’s assume the pipe bomber had a confident walk in that alley footage. Note that the pipe bomber didn’t always walk that way. If we are to base confidence/nervousness/whatever on body language alone (using their standard), then we can say the video below shows the pipe bomber not looking so confident:

Also consider that if Cole seemed “unsure of himself” and lacked “confidence” in the traffic accident footage, perhaps he was nervous. For many people, even minor car accidents induce high levels of stress. Even more so when this is your first interaction with a police officer after setting pipe bombs in DC on the evening of January 5, 2021.

Questions were also raised through the interview of Sunny Sandhu, the owner of a 7-Eleven near Cole’s home in Virginia. Here’s what he had to say:

After Cole’s arrest, Sandhu said he watched the FBI video of the hoodie suspect walking down an alley to place the second pipe bomb near the RNC.

“I go, ‘No way. The kid doesn’t walk like that,’” Sandhu said. “This kid has no confidence in his stride at all.”

Cole has a “goofy walk” that does not resemble the FBI’s bomb suspect, Sandhu said. “There’s no way,” he said.

Part of the issue with Sandhu’s statements is that he didn’t see the full video footage of the pipe bomb suspect – he just saw the suspect “walking down an alley to place the second pipe bomb near the RNC.” This is the footage discussed above where the suspect walks quickly with the bomb in his backpack. Of course he never saw Cole walk like that – he was comparing the casual walk to get pizza and Cokes to the walk of a suspect who was in a serious rush to drop the pipe bomb off at the RNC.

Mental Capacity

It is also alleged, according to an FBI whistleblower who worked in the Washington Field Office, that “Cole was simply mentally incapable of carrying out the placement of pipe bombs while evading a massive law enforcement dragnet for nearly five years.”

According to a summary of the whistleblower’s letter posted on X by Rep. Thomas Massie:

“it is obvious [Cole] has a mental disability, and likely lives in a permanent vulnerable, intellectual, and emotional state. It’s well known that individuals with mental conditions are susceptible to providing inaccurate and unwarranted ‘confessions.’”

The whistleblower lived “in the vicinity of Cole’s home” and observed Cole “hundreds of times, if not more, over the course of nearly a decade.” Based on these observations, he described Cole as “detached and vacant” and “awkward.”

It is unclear whether this FBI whistleblower had any personal encounters with Cole. From the Blaze Media article and from Rep. Massie’s posts, it appears these conclusions about Cole’s “mental disability” and his intellectual/emotional state were only based on observations of Cole walking the neighborhood. If that is the case, then what of the possibility that the whistleblower is misinterpreting Cole’s body language and behavior? Cole may very well seem awkward and seemingly detached and vacant. But as any investigator should know – especially those who have served in the FBI – it’s careless to assume mental disability or his intellect based on those cues alone.

As we know from motions from Cole’s own lawyers, Cole “has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, Level 1 and with obsessive compulsive disorder.” Level 1 is the mildest form of autism, and those affected certainly have a greater likelihood to face difficulties in social settings, seeming aloof or distant. But don’t forget that in many cases there are corresponding strengths such as memory and attention to detail, an intense passion to pursue their interests, and pattern recognition.

Cole’s strengths could have very well assisted him in his pipe bomb endeavor. He planned his steps. He staggered his purchases of materials from various stores over the course of many months. He knew his route. He kept his face hidden from the cameras. He disposed of his shoes. He concealed his materials inside his home. He wiped his phone over 900 times. He never bragged about leaving the pipe bombs.

But he wasn’t a mastermind. Nearly five years passed until his arrest. And it wasn’t because of Cole’s skills but because of FBI incompetence (or something else…). The FBI and other federal authorities had information tying Cole to the bombings for years – likely his purchase records and location information for his vehicle (at a minimum). There weren’t new witnesses or new tips, but instead an exhaustive review of the existing evidence that turned their attention to Cole.

The Phone/Eyesight

Another issue addressed by the authors included a video comparison on how Cole used his phone.

They point to video evidence that the pipe bomb suspect sat down and didn’t have his phone in his face, compared to how Cole used during his traffic stop. Questions of eyesight, etc. Here’s a still from the video.

The problem with that analysis is that it mistakenly assumes the use of a phone is unchanging – that a person who stands and has the phone close to his face will always use the phone in that manner, even when sitting. Or that the use of the phone doesn’t depend on what you might be using it for. If you’re reading an article, you might have it closer than if you’re watching a movie or playing a game. And there are other possibilities – that Cole had the phone close to his face during the traffic stop because he wanted to keep his activity hidden from others, or that he kept it close as part of his overall defensive posture (leaning against the car, arms in against his body, etc.).

The “Ignored Evidence”

Then there is the claim that “the FBI apparently did not ask Cole about stopping at a “bush alongside the Congressional Black Caucus Institute at 7:48 p.m. — a video discovery made by Armitas and published by Blaze News Oct. 29.”

Again, this is a erroneous assumption – that Cole was not asked about this stop because the Government’s filings, thus far, do not mention that stop.

But of course they don’t.

The Government’s primary filing in the case that discussed the confession was the memorandum in support of pretrial detention. (The criminal complaint and affidavit in support were filed before Cole’s arrest.) That motion doesn’t cover everything discussed in the hours long interview of Cole – including the approximately 1.5 hours where Cole “walked the interviewing agents in detail through his construction, transportation, and planting of the pipe bombs.” As it shouldn’t. Instead, it only references those statements by Cole that were material to the argument to detain Cole: how he made the bombs, how he avoided detection, how he discarded the bombmaking materials at a nearby dump, and his motive.

The Location Data.

Finally, much is made of the phone data that places Brian Cole in the general area where the bombs were placed. The authors and their experts point out that the current information “does not provide sufficient precision to determine the handset’s exact location or its position relative to the hoodie-wearing suspect.” It is said that the FBI claims Cole’s phone pinged a DC tower sector though “the hoodie suspect did not appear to be holding or otherwise using a cell phone at the time. We note that use of a phone is not necessary to interact with a tower. It also said “There is no visual evidence linking the individual on video to the handset reflected in the [cell site location information] records.” (But there is other evidence….)

Determining an exact location based on cell phone tower interactions can be an impossibility. But that isn’t the goal of the investigators or the prosecutors. Instead, it is about putting Cole in the area consistent with those interactions. That is why, both in the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint and the Government’s memorandum in support of pretrial detention, you see this language (emphasis added):

• “At approximately 7:44:36 p.m., the COLE CELLPHONE interacted with Sector B of Provider tower 126187. Video surveillance footage shows that at approximately 7:44:36 p.m., the individual who placed the pipe bombs walked east on Ivy Street, Southeast. This location is consistent with the coverage area of Sector B.”

• “At approximately 7:39:27 p.m., about five minutes after the defendant was first captured on surveillance video, his cellphone interacted with two cell towers consistent with him being in the area of the intersection of D Street and South Capitol Street, Southeast.”

Or, this graph is helpful.

Overall, the focus on an alleged differences in “gait”, differences in the use of the phone, impressions of Cole’s state of mind and alleged disabilities by those who saw Cole walk, and the imprecision of phone data ignore the bigger picture, namely: Cole’s thorough confession and his verified purchases of materials (end caps, timers, etc.) found at the scenes.

Take note that we haven’t seen the defense challenge the accuracy of the confession. And that the defense has all but conceded that Cole purchased (or at least possessed) the materials, claiming “it has another theory for why Cole would have these components/materials.” Seems important.

Who knows – maybe we’ll see something come up that’ll throw a wrench in the Government’s case. But so far, it hasn’t happened.