I suggest they lied because they had something very valuable to hide. Absent what there was to hide, they could have been seen as transparent, noble public servants, the epitome of someone deserving promotion. Instead, Cheatle actions and answers quickly were made to occasion her resignation. If it becomes disclosed that Director Wray is responsible for similar failures with national security implications, he, too, might well be forced to resign.
But, back to the point you apparently believe you've proved hereabove. One dare not take liars and the people they control at their word, unlike you've apparently done with your comment here. Unless someone's word of honor should rightly be deemed reliable, accurate and authoritative, very little should be considered proven therefrom.
The casing count exercise to which you refer took place about a half hour post-shooting. Surprisingly, it was not the first time that a casing count was undertaken. Was there something deficient in the earlier count? I'd say that's not at all obvious from the continuous video.
The earlier counting was undertaken roughly 20 minutes after the shooting. At that time a SWAT member counted five casings. Immediately thereafter, the SWAT Commander ordered a perimeter be formed on the roof and that no one else be let in.
However, more people inexplicably were let in--and with no objection heard. Among those were a state police sergeant and by appearances, a US Secret Service male in a polo shirt. I think one can infer these latter two were deemed authorized, trustworthy government representatives, an honor Cheatle and Wray also were accorded as they most recently began to testify before the House.
Only after those other people came up onto the roof was a second count taken (about 40 minutes, post shooting). All but the two or three newcomers knew the count from the first iteration of that exercise. Was it being done for the benefit of the newcomers? If so, why?
> By appearances, the second count was done no more or less meticulously than the first. Someone simply counted from where they stood, and an unidentified bystander declared that at least eight casings were counted. Already, some groups have opportunistically exploited the results of the first or second count exclusively, as if the other didn't exist. Each can point to a video recording that seems to support their "case" (-ings).
Except for the two aforementioned newcomers, the people nearby apparently had all been present for the earlier counting, yet not one audibly objected to the obvious count discrepancy! How could that be? IMHO, the 8-count does not prove the 5-count to have been in error. With the all the lying going reflexively by those in government, what may be trusted?
There reportedly has been phone pinging data uncovered that suggests people who had met Crooks at his home and/or place of work also visited a Gallery Place in Washington, where several FBI offices are located. We should all for a moment imagine what percentage of Pennsylvania 20-year olds in the past year have been visited in their homes or places of work by multiple people who've also visited a particular Washington, DC location where the are many FBI offices. Perhaps 1 in million (0.0001%)? And what percentage of 20-year olds have also have made IED-type explosives in their homes? With just those two main qualifiers, we'd have to imaging (or hope) that there aren't three such youngsters in the entire country. And that's not by talent nearly so much as the right contacts. (Did Blackrock give a big boost in all that?)
If there were multiple shooters, it would be trivial for someone in the government who had shot with Crooks to abscond with a half dozen or more of his spent casings at the range, and then be prepared to throw those down once the black hats had a count of how many shots had rung out, aside from the counter-snipers or anyone else whose shots could be accounted for. It's more than curious that there would be a miscounting on the roof when those counts were taken 20 or more minutes apart with different people on the roof.
If one had a second shooter to hide, and say, for example that the first three shots were from a gun not in Crooks's possession, in the 20 minutes between casing counts, someone in possession of spent casings taken at an earlier occasion where such rounds were expend through the Crooks AF-15, could plant whatever number of additional casings would represent the total number of casings spent by other, clandestine shooters. Thus, if an initial shooter fired three rounds, three additional casings fired through Crooks AF-15 could be added to the others on the roof. All that would be needed was a collection of casings previously shot through the Crooks AR-15 and knowledge (from a reliable audio recording) of the number of casings which would be needed to include an additional casing from any other, clandestine shooters.
Acoustic analysis could out a second or even a third shooter on the basis of a different type of gun being employed, a different load, a different location, or even what was eventually hit (or traversed).
In any event, no casing count should reasonably override acoustics that might undeniably (or might not be so definitively) belie two or more shooter responsible for the first ~9 shots. That acoustic evidence seems to exist, irrespective of whether many untrained ears may be unable to discern such differences.
With a novice shooter such as Crooks, one would expect wild shots. With a 18mph crosswind--which is reasonably strong for a beginner shooter to compensate--one could reasonably expect shots would be found to have veered off where such a crosswind would take them.
He had only his AR-15's Red Dot optic sight to help his aim, offsetting his heart-pounding adrenaline and likely unsteady resting spot in lieu of a monopod, bipod or a tripod. With an 18 mph wind to work against, it would have been a miracle if he could have landed an intended shot from 140 yards in the middle of President Trump's head. (Click image below to see video.)
Thanks for the search engine pro tip!
In summary and in short, it's unreasonable at this time to claim that the second 8-casing count rises above all other considerations to be deemed correct and that that proves all the first 8 shots heard came from the Crooks weapon.
Much acoustic evidence is claimed by many to show multiple shooters and that's not disproved by the recorded 8-count.
The fact that there's a cover-up of lies proves they've got something they feel they can't allow to be discovered.
I think we both infer that the last shot was "different" and did not come from Crooks, yes.