Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What evidence linked Shauna Rey to the pipe bomb case?
Executive summary
Reporting in November 2025 tied former U.S. Capitol Police officer Shauni( or Shauna/Shauni Rae) Kerkhoff to the Jan. 5–6, 2021 pipe‑bomb case largely through a privately produced gait‑analysis match and related open‑source sleuthing; The Blaze and allied outlets claimed a high‑percent “match” while mainstream outlets and fact‑checking sites note the FBI and DOJ have not confirmed any such identification and the official investigation remains open [1] [2] [3].
1. What the new claims say: a gait‑analysis “match” and investigative reporting
Several right‑of‑center outlets and blogs published a narrative in early November 2025 saying Blaze News reporters or affiliated investigators had identified Shauni Rae Kerkhoff as the pipe‑bomb suspect, citing a software gait‑analysis that produced a 90%+ match and other circumstantial observations; the Blaze story and reposts framed that as forensic evidence pointing to a former Capitol Police officer who later worked for the CIA [1] [4] [5].
2. The core piece of “evidence”: gait analysis and its limits
The prominent thread in the reporting is a biomechanical or software algorithm that analyzes walking parameters — stride, cadence, knee flexion and hip extension — and that purportedly returned a high match score for Kerkhoff versus the masked suspect in FBI video. Outlets promoting the finding cited a 94% (or similar) match figure and described the technique as compelling corroboration [4] [5]. However, the pieces in my source set that repeat the claim largely come from partisan or less‑established outlets; mainstream pages in the set (and the FBI’s own material) stress that identity has not been confirmed and that gait analysis alone is not definitive [4] [6] [3].
3. What official agencies say (or don’t say)
The FBI continues to offer a reward and has released enhanced footage as part of an ongoing, unsolved investigation; official releases and coverage emphasize thousands of videos reviewed and hundreds of tips but do not identify Kerkhoff or attribute the crime to any named individual in the sources provided [6] [7] [3]. Snopes specifically reports that the DOJ, FBI and other agencies had not identified Kerkhoff as a suspect as of its November post [2].
4. Skepticism and fact‑checking: why many journalists and analysts are cautious
Fact‑checking and skeptical outlets in the collected sources flagged problems: the claims rely heavily on a single investigative team and algorithmic gait matching, some reporting notes the Blaze contributors’ confirmed partisan ties or past Jan. 6 involvement, and commentators argue that selective presentation of snippets or “breadcrumbs” is not the same as law‑enforcement corroboration. The skeptical pieces also stress the unresolved nature of the case and urge documented, multi‑disciplinary corroboration before treating the claim as settled [2] [8] [5].
5. How partisan amplification shaped public perception
After the Blaze report and allied posts, right‑wing social media and fringe sites amplified the Kerkhoff identification; other outlets and public officials have long complained about opacity in the pipe‑bomb probe and that vacuum can make algorithmic or partisan investigations go viral quickly. The sources show a pattern: a provocative claim from a partisan outlet, rapid echoing among sympathetic sites, and contemporaneous pushback from mainstream reporters and fact‑checkers [1] [8] [9].
6. What’s missing from current reporting and why that matters
Available sources do not mention that law‑enforcement has publicly released corroborating forensic traces (DNA, fingerprints, device records) linking Kerkhoff to the bombs; nor do they show an official charge, arrest, or formal naming of Kerkhoff by DOJ/FBI at the time of these reports. The lack of such independent, court‑grade evidence is why mainstream outlets and the FBI treat the case as unsolved and why fact‑checkers caution against treating the Blaze claim as conclusive [2] [3] [6].
7. How readers should weigh the competing claims
Give weight to the procedural reality: the FBI’s statements and congressional reviews in the record emphasize an active but unresolved probe and do not confirm Kerkhoff’s identification [6] [10] [3]. At the same time, the gait‑analysis claim is a verifiable assertion about one investigative technique that journalists can and should scrutinize — algorithmic matches can inform leads but are not the same as multi‑factor forensic proof in court [4] [5] [2].
8. Bottom line for now
The claim linking Shauni/Shauna/Shauni Rae Kerkhoff to the Jan. 5 pipe bombs rests primarily on a privately produced gait‑analysis match and partisan investigative reporting; the FBI, DOJ and mainstream outlets in the provided sources have not confirmed that identification and the official investigation remains open [4] [1] [2] [3].