The Pipe Bomber Story That Doesn’t Add Up
On November 8, 2025, The Blaze unleashed what it called a bombshell revelation: that the elusive January 6 pipe bomber had finally been identified as Shauni Rae Kerkhoff, a onetime Capitol Police officer now employed by the CIA. The report raced through right-wing media outlets and online forums, igniting a storm of speculation about a supposed deep-state conspiracy. But before long, even The Blaze itself conceded that the claim does not withstand serious examination.
The central thrust of the article relied on a forensic technique known as gait analysis, which studies a person’s walking patterns. The outlet claimed that an algorithm produced a “94%-98% match” between Kerkhoff and the suspect seen in surveillance footage, supported, it said, by “intelligence sources.” Yet the crucial ingredient—official confirmation—was entirely absent. The FBI, Department of Justice, and Capitol Police declined to comment, and Department of Justice special attorney Ed Martin flatly stated that the agency “has not identified Kerkhoff as the suspect.” That statement, coming from the only office empowered to prosecute the case, directly undercuts the premise of The Blaze’s entire investigation.
Without government validation, the story’s credibility collapses. The Blaze framed its findings as if multiple federal sources had confirmed the match, but Martin’s denial contradicts that portrayal completely. If the DOJ, after years of investigation, says it has not identified the suspect, what does that say about the reliability of a news outlet’s “algorithmic match”?
Adding to the uncertainty is the scientific method at the heart of the claim. Gait analysis, while occasionally used as supporting evidence, is far from conclusive. The American Bar Association itself warns that it “can be compelling, corroborating evidence” only when paired with other proof. The Blaze’s story, however, relies entirely on this single form of analysis. The report even suggests that the FBI might have tampered with the footage—reducing frame rates—while simultaneously asserting that the compromised video still produced a near-perfect match. If the footage was manipulated, how can the result be trusted?
Then there’s the matter of anonymity. The Blaze never identified the gait analyst responsible for the alleged match. Readers were offered no credentials, no peer-reviewed study, and no details of how the conclusion was reached. Instead, the publication leaned on unnamed “intelligence sources” who supposedly agreed with the result. No names. No expertise. No accountability.
What happened next followed a familiar pattern. The moment the story appeared, right-wing commentators and influencers broadcast it as established fact. Within hours, social platforms were awash in claims that the “FBI/CIA coup” had finally been exposed. Other outlets in the same ideological sphere echoed the allegation without vetting it, skipping the caveats and skepticism that responsible reporting demands. Even after Ed Martin’s statement directly refuting the premise, the denial barely registered. The narrative had already taken on a life of its own.
There’s an important distinction to make: the pipe bomber case truly remains unsolved. The lack of progress after nearly five years and a $500,000 reward is troubling and deserves accountability. Lawmakers from both parties have criticized the FBI’s slow pace. But legitimate frustration doesn’t justify embracing sensational, unverified claims. The public deserves facts, not stories tailored to confirm political suspicion.
The Blaze’s theory fits too neatly into a pre-written script: that January 6 was a “false flag” engineered by federal agencies to entrap Trump supporters. To those already inclined to see the day that way, the Kerkhoff allegation was irresistible validation. Yet for anyone demanding verifiable evidence, the story raises far more questions than it answers.
Here’s what can be said definitively: the FBI has not identified the suspect. The DOJ has not confirmed any link between Kerkhoff and the bomber. Ed Martin explicitly denied that his office had made such an identification. And the so-called gait analysis that fueled the story has not undergone independent review or verification. Everything else—claims of a cover-up, of CIA involvement, of a grand internal conspiracy—rests on anonymous sourcing and uncorroborated forensics.
Accusing someone by name of a federal crime as serious as the January 6 bombing demands extraordinary proof. Anonymous insiders and speculative video analysis are not enough. Credible journalism requires corroboration, transparency, and confirmation from official channels. None of that exists here. Instead, we have a viral story crafted to fit a familiar political template—one that thrives on outrage more than accuracy.
The unanswered questions about the pipe bomber deserve real answers. The FBI should indeed be more forthcoming about its investigation. But progress won’t come from amplifying shaky evidence or fueling partisan suspicion. It will come from rigorous reporting and verified facts. Until genuine proof emerges, the Kerkhoff theory remains exactly what it appears to be: an unsubstantiated claim, discredited by the very officials who would be responsible for confirming it.
{Matzav.com}
