Posted on 08/03/2024 8:44:02 PM PDT by WeaslesRippedMyFlesh
A few minutes ago, a friend of mine pointed out something that no one seems to be talking about: an apparent gunshot wound on the leg of Thomas Crooks.
I saw this on bodycam footage released by local police, seen here. There are two marks, one below and to the side of Crooks’ right knee. The other is above his right knee. The marks were odd enough to draw my attention, but not enough to make me look at them more carefully, or question how they got there.
At first, they might look like a digital artifact, and that was my initial thought. A smudge on the lens perhaps. However, the marks remain in place no matter which direction the camera is pointing. That means they are not a digital artifact.
The marks also look like they might be either a couple of smudges, such as what might happen crawling around in shorts on a roof, or a combination of a smudge and a shadow. This is what I assumed they were when I first looked at the footage.
After the call with my friend, I took a closer look. I no longer believe they are smudges or shadows. If you look at the subtle color changes around the spots, you can see that the shape of the leg is deformed. The “smudge” may be a hole in the leg. The “shadow”, which is larger, looks like another hole. An entry and an exit wound, respectively.
Here are some closer shots from the bodycam footage, followed by an illustration designed to enhance (exaggerate) what might be going on.
If Crooks was shot while in the prone position used to shoot Trump and other rally goers, then this wound indicates he was shot from behind. And, interestingly enough, there is a window at exactly the right angle behind him to make this shot, provided Crooks’ leg was bent for stability, a common practice for snipers.
Whatever happened, it looks to me as if Crooks’ kneecap was blown off. I’ve seen the head wound which was apparently fired by a sniper team behind Trump, making it a frontal shot, but this kneecap shot bothers me. Exit wounds are larger than entry wounds, making this a rear entry, unless he got up and turned around after being shot in the head.
Maybe it’s just a trick of the light, but it is interesting. The beauty of having a number of government officials who don’t answer questions is that it leaves fertile ground for speculation.
UPDATE: A reader just sent me an image that provides more information. It seems to show the marks are dirt, not entry and exit wounds. However, If I’m reading this photo correctly, it shows the wrong knee. The wounded knee is hidden by one of the ridges in the roof.
Update 2 (thanks to GaveMartin): Apparently, a leg wound from behind is highly plausible, according to this article: https://headlineusa.com/report-local-cop-not-secret-service-stopped-the-trump-shooter/">
Update 3: Bullet injuries to the ear alone are rare in the experience of a plastic surgeon who says he has only treated such wounds in combination with wounds to other parts of the head. This is because ears are so close to the head that it is very difficult to hit the ear at the precise angle needed to avoid all other parts of the head.
Update 4: Thanks to the comments section, I made a visual analysis of the photo sent by NC4Twitter. Now it does look like the right leg is visible. I’m not satisfied that the obvious dirt marks in that photo are the same as the marks in the other photo lifted from the bodycam video.
Two other problems exist: I was unable to reconcile what looked to be the direction of the upper portion of the left leg with the orientation of what appears to be the left shoe. To do it required just about breaking the left leg at the knee. Second, the bodycam footage shoes a thick white band around the bottom of the shoe (the side of the sole). It is not easy to see this in the photo posted by NC, and I’m not satisfied I was able to find its boundary.
Looking at these photos made it clear that Crooks’ body shifted position after he was killed. The video shows one of the officers lifting Crooks’ arm, so that isn’t surprising. In the bodycam footage, he is chest down. In the still image, he is twisted so that his legs are facing up (backs of legs on roof), his chest is lying with its left side on the roof, and his face is down.
Although the marks visible in the still photo look to be dirt (and that’s what I think they are), they are the medial side of the leg. The lateral side of the leg is where we see what looks like wounds, as pointed out by R27. Therefore, the image may show the same leg in question, but not the same side of that leg.
Update 6 (8/1/2024): After some back and forth, I am not convinced the marks are entry and exit wounds from a bullet. I am convinced they aren’t the dirt marks from NC’s photo because they are on the wrong side of the leg (medial instead of lateral) and the shapes don’t match. I am also convinced they aren’t an artifact attached to the camera sensor because the marks are mapped to the leg (they don’t move when the camera moves.) They could be dirt as I originally thought, but if so, they are much darker than the dirt in NC’s shot, and not just because the image is darker overall.
It bothers me that there is no visible blood spatter or drips in the leg area. This could be due to the body being moved or if they aren’t bullet wounds. I wish the image of the head wasn’t blurred out, to better evaluate the blood color on Crooks’ face. Compared to the blood streaks on the roof (in shadow) the marks are the right value (darkness) but the color cannot be determined easily from the image. I evaluated it in Photoshop, but it is so low saturation that it is difficult to say that the color is right or wrong for blood.
The discoloration on the leg is not a shadow, because the entire leg is in shadow but most of it is much lighter than the area in question. Therefore, the discoloration is real and local to the right knee region. It looks too dark to be dirt, but could be a different substance, such as grease. If it is the product of a bullet entry and exit, an explanation is needed for the lack of visible blood drips or spatter on the leg.
For now, I’m done speculating on this and will go back to regular programming.
If he was already dead, there wouldn't be blood spurting or flowing out, oozing maybe.
Hmmm... very interesting. The leg wound certainly seems clear in the photo. (Thanks for taking the time to post the pix, they are helpful.)
But are you sure it wasn’t just the same piece of shrapnel that went through President Trump’s ear, bouncing off walls and stuff and then piercing Crook’s leg?
/fbi-investigator
Depends on the size of the wound and how much blood there was at the time of the wound. If his wound was slightly above the knee cap, than that blood would be whatever was in his upper leg.
I saw a video clip that had one of the police officers stoop down and look at the leg - I’ll see if I can find it
The window showing where shots may have been fired is particularly troubling for me. Why wasn’t someone watching the roof from that position? If it was too hot to have someone guarding the roof, surly that window would have been a good vantage point.
I saw the window in a video. I also learned that the one watching out from that window had to go downstairs and let someone in who lacked the code to unlock the entry door to the building. Was there communications about that door? If that happened, why wasn’t someone at that window while he was gone? Also, why isn’t anyone talking about that window? It did look out onto the roof that Crooks did his shooting.
More likely, he just got grimy climbing up there.
The audio analysis here makes a convincing case that after Crooks initial 3 spaced shots and the next burst of five, the 9th shot came from a Beaver County SWAT member. All he says is it “distracted” Crooks but maybe it was a hit - to the leg? Agree the evidence is sketchy but the 9th shot sounds different than the 10th, which is the SS Hercules headshot that killed him, and while it’s possible that a skilled sniper missed at this range, it seems more logical that he would have hit Crooks, even if not fatally.
Sorry forgot the link to the video:
https://youtu.be/FjAR03hS_H0
Did he smuggle the rifle in in his pants?
Now from 40 to 55 seconds, look at the blood trail that runs between the corrugated ribs in the roof, and how it runs up to Crook's body. That is a long blood trail. Looks like to me he was shot at the end of the trail, at the edge of the roof, and slid back down it after getting shot. Head shots bleed a lot. The blood on his leg could have come from another wound that bled into the channel between the ribs on the roof.
And I am getting really suspicious of all these videos the police should not allow out, all having text all over the screen expect for a few blurry frames where the "gotcha evidence" is. Evidence from supposed experts with no credentials or qualifications to back up their claims.
(Please note: I posted this same comment on your first thread at #63.
Since you've posted two threads and have discussions in two places, I think it appropriate to post the same comment on both thread in this case.
I mean no offense by a double post and want to keep the conversation civil.)
Thanks for looking into all of this, I want these bastards exposed so bad. These are enemies of the USA occupying agencies in our government and they have to be exposed and routed. For Gods sake they tried to assassinate the 45th President of the USA and the DemoMarxists are trying to get people to ignore it.
Another thing that is ignored:
They claim Crooks bought the ladder and hid it by the building before the rally started. He also hid his rifle on the roof.
Well how did he know that of all the buildings in that area, the one he chose would be unmanned?? It’s impossible unless he had help.
“Crooks’ leg was bent for stability, a common practice for snipers.”
Or, those trained in positional shooting, which apparently this millennial was not.
If so, where was he trained?
You must remember, he was crawling all over that roof on bare knees. I’ve heard it estimated that the metal roof was cooking at some 120 degrees that day.
> Did he smuggle the rifle in his pants? <
I can’t find it now, but one article stated that a law enforcement guy did see Crooks carrying a rifle, but did not intervene because Pennsylvania is an open-carry state.
That scores a perfect 10 on the nonsense scale, and might have been put out by the Feds just to muddy the water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRGiw0kzz3o
about the 17 min mark
I recall seeing the body cam footage without the blur originally. Be nice to see that again. The leg wound was crystal clear.
I’m not a wanna be Buckhead, just a guy who sees a leg wound that on its face, looks EXACTLY like a bullet wound from behind and is not being addressed anywhere.
Talk amongst yourselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.