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.
Shauna rey pipe bomber
Executive Summary
The central claim circulating online—that former Capitol Police officer Shauni (Shauna) Rae Kerkhoff (also referred to as Shauna Rey) is the unidentified Jan. 5, 2021 pipe‑bomber—remains unverified and contested: a Blaze Media piece advanced a forensic gait‑analysis match, but major fact‑checks and federal spokespeople have not confirmed the identification and the Department of Justice has explicitly denied naming her as the suspect [1] [2] [3]. The public record shows two competing narratives: one driven by a single investigative outlet and its unnamed sources asserting a 94–98% gait match, and the other made up of official silence or denials, independent skepticism, and unresolved investigative threads that keep the FBI probe open [1] [2] [4].
1. The Claim that Gripped Right‑Wing Media—and Why It Spread Fast
A Blaze Media investigation published the allegation that a former Capitol Police officer is a forensic match to the Jan. 5 pipe‑bomb suspect, citing an unnamed gait‑analysis that reportedly reached a 94–98% match and unnamed intelligence confirmations; Blaze framed this as potentially “recasting the entire story of Jan. 6” and raised implications about law‑enforcement involvement [1]. This claim was rapidly amplified by partisan commentators and social networks because it would be an explosive development tying a law‑enforcement insider to the pre‑Jan. 6 device placements—an angle that both media and political actors find immediately newsworthy. The Blaze reporting is the primary positive evidence for the identification and therefore carries outsized influence despite being a single investigative source with undisclosed forensic materials [1].
2. Independent Scrutiny: Fact‑Checks, Missing Evidence, and Official Pushback
Independent fact‑checkers have concluded the allegation lacks corroboration: Snopes found no public release of the forensic study, no confirmation from FBI/DOJ/Capitol Police, and described the Blaze claim as unverified [2]. Other independent analyses highlight flaws in the Blaze methodology—or at least the opacity of it—including reliance on a private gait analyst and absence of the underlying video comparison, which prevents external validation [5] [6]. A named DOJ special attorney explicitly stated the DOJ has not identified Kerkhoff as the suspect, which is a concrete institutional denial of the Blaze assertion [3]. These pushbacks make the Blaze claim circumstantial rather than dispositive.
3. What Federal Investigations Have Publicly Shown—and What They Haven’t
The FBI has publicly posted and re‑shared investigative footage of the individual placing devices near the DNC and RNC offices and maintains a reward for information; the agency continues to label the person as unidentified in public materials released as of early January 2025, and its official releases do not name Kerkhoff [4] [7]. This official timeline confirms the devices were placed the day before Jan. 6 and that the investigation remained active, but it also underlines the absence of any formal charge or public identification linking the suspect to a former officer. The open status of the federal inquiry means media allegations can neither be confirmed nor fully debunked by public DOJ materials to date [4] [7].
4. Alternative Explanations, Partisan Stakes, and Analytical Limits
Critics of the Blaze story point to possible partisan motives and methodological limits: the piece relies on a non‑public gait analysis and unnamed intelligence sources, offering no transparent chain of custody or peer review, which raises risks of confirmation bias or errors in visual forensics. The Bulwark and other skeptical outlets emphasize that naming a person publicly without corroborating evidence can be politically consequential and that the allegation’s traction among right‑wing media suggests an agenda‑amplification dynamic [6]. Conversely, supporters of the Blaze line argue that a credible gait match from trained analysts can be highly probative; the dispute therefore hinges on access to the underlying forensic material and independent verification, which are currently missing [1] [6].
5. Bottom Line: What Is Proven, What Is Plausible, and What Still Needs To Be Released
What is proven: pipe bombs were placed near DNC and RNC offices on Jan. 5, 2021, and the FBI continues to investigate and publish footage of the suspect while not naming anyone publicly [4] [7]. What is plausible but unproven: Blaze’s claim that Shauni Rae Kerkhoff is a 94–98% gait match to the suspect—this claim is asserted by one investigative outlet and has not been independently validated [1] [2]. What is unresolved and decisive: the release of the underlying gait‑analysis data, independent expert review, or any formal DOJ/FBI identification or charging decision; absent those items, the allegation remains unsubstantiated despite widespread circulation and political amplification [2] [3] [6].