Those who have been researching the death of Seth Rich on July 10th, 2016, know that it is not easy to come by new information. As far as I’m aware, every FOIA request, and every FOIA appeal regarding every aspect of the case has been declined by the DC Metropolitan Police Department and the Office of Mayor Bowser. This has left the research community hungry for new information and answers.
Like many, I’ve been following the investigative efforts and daily video reports of George Webb. In this report, I will examine the conclusions he’s arrived at in two days of his investigation — Day 218 and Day 219.
Day 218:
On May 29th, 2017, in video report 218.2, Webb claims from “a very reliable law enforcement source” that an “FBI bullet” was pulled from the third lobe of Seth Rich’s liver. This was a startling revelation in its specificity, and it seemed like the kind of concrete new detail that could help propel the case forward.
Since July 2016, the DC Metropolitan Police Department has withheld any ballistic information about the caliber of the murder weapon, only detailing a “Handgun” as the weapon involved in the original public incident packet (CCN #16113797).
Webb’s claim was particularly exciting since it was consistent with another unusual event that occurred the evening of the murder of Seth Rich: the burglary of a Glock 22 handgun in .40 S&W, and a LAR-15 rifle in 5.56x45 NATO from the lock box of an FBI vehicle. This burglary was only 2 miles away, and 2 hours before Seth Rich’s murder. Below is the report of the burglary on the FBI website:
But just as quickly as Webb reveals the “FBI bullet,” he precludes any conclusions the viewers might draw about the burglary, saying:
“Everyone wants me to comment on the burglary that supposedly happened down at W and Flagler — that is a cover to explain the FBI bullet that got pulled out of Seth Rich…the FBI bullet, the reason why it’s in Seth Rich, is because the FBI shot Seth Rich.”
Webb believes the true purpose of the FBI burglary was:
“…for the radio, to get the secure radio to the — the perpetrators…because the reason why you need the radio is you need to know about pursuit, you need to know about law enforcement that isn’t in on the operation.”
This was a lot to digest, and raised more questions than it answered.
- Even if we accepted the radical premise that the FBI killed Seth Rich, why would the FBI choose to use ammunition traceable to the FBI to link themselves to the murder? Why not use civilian-available ammunition?
- How would the FBI stealing its own weapons, or falsifying the record of the burglary, help provide cover for the FBI being involved in the murder?
- What is it about the “FBI bullet” that indicates it is an FBI bullet? Is it made out of a special alloy? Does it have some kind of special imprint on the bullet jacket?
Very little about Webb’s bullet theory adds up here. The only ostensible reason provided for the robbery that I was unable to refute was Webb’s claim about the Motorola APX-7000 radio.
Later that day, in report 218.8, Webb speculates about the caliber of the bullet and the features of the murder weapon:
“It’s gonna have some kind of silencer, or some kind of — you’re gonna want a silencer…you’re gonna want some kind of ability to incapacitate the person, but it’s gotta be quiet…if you use a very low-caliber gun and a good silencer — which the FBI has — it almost makes no noise at all.”
In this report, it is clear that Webb does not know with any certainty what caliber the bullet was, but at the end of his speculation claims “all the medical evidence indicates it’s a .22.”
More questions arise:
- Looking back at the last report, how did Webb or his source know that the bullet was an “FBI bullet” without first knowing its caliber?
- Why would the FBI use low-caliber ammunition like .22LR, which has very limited law enforcement application? Does the FBI even issue .22LR handguns to its officers?
- The stolen LAR-15 rifle uses ammunition (.223 Remington/5.56x45 NATO) that is nearly identical in diameter to a .22LR. How does Webb know that the bullet pulled out of Seth Rich’s liver is a .22LR, and not a fragment of a larger .223/5.56x45 bullet with the same diameter?
- Since Webb cannot rule out the possibility of a .223/5.56x45 bullet being used on Seth Rich, how can he rule out the possibility that the FBI’s stolen weapons were involved in the murder?
- How does Webb know a silencer (i.e. suppressor) was involved?
Webb appears to be narrowing down the possibilities of the bullet caliber and the features of the murder weapon based on two assumptions:
- The murder weapon was using a silencer to mask the sound of the gunshot, and would need to be using a sufficiently low-caliber bullet to not register on the Shotspotter system.
- The Shotspotter gunshot detector records in the police report did not pick up the sound of the gunshots, and were faked.
Let’s examine his assumptions about Shotspotter. It is not entirely clear how Webb arrives at the premise of Shotspotter records being faked, but it is partly based on the discrepancies in the initial reporting of the shooting. The Washington Post, for example, reported on July 11th that “ShotSpotter sensors drew officers to Flagler Place and W Street.” Meanwhile, CNN’s initial report on July 11th stated that officers had “responded to the sound of shots fired.”
Until Webb’s new suggested premise, I had attributed the mixed reporting to the fact that six officers had reported on scene. Some could have heard the gunshots, and some could have been alerted to the gunshots through Shotspotter. Unfortunately, since the Metropolitan Police Department has refused to release the statements and reports of the five other reporting officers, I wasn’t in a position to completely explain this discrepancy, or to completely refute Webb’s premise.
Webb’s premise also challenges the information provided in the Metropolitan Police Department’s initial public incident packet (CCN #16113797), which details “R-1 CIC SHOTSPOTTER” as the reporting person.
At the same time, there are many indications that all is not well at the Metropolitan Police Department, evidenced by contradictions in police accounts of the homicide. Although it is widely believed the police have attributed Seth Rich’s death to a failed robbery, the public incident report details “Unknown Circumstances” as the factor in the homicide.
MPD Chief Cathy Lanier, in a press conference on July 12th, 2016 stated “We do not know if this homicide was in any way associated with robberies." She continued to discourage the robbery theory of Seth Rich’s death until she announced her early retirement in August. Eleven months after Seth Rich’s death, MPD has been unable to produce evidence of a robbery, or a suspect.
In short, I wasn’t entirely sure what to trust from the Metropolitan Police Department either. When I expressed my dilemma on Twitter,
the CEO of Shotspotter, Ralph A. Clark, responded simply:
I’m inclined to agree with the CEO of Shotspotter, but unfortunately, the Shotspotter data from the night of July 10th, 2016 has also been denied in FOIA requests.
If we can assume, however, that Mr. Clark is correct, and the Shotspotter system was working, that means every conclusion Webb arrived at based on the premise of fake Shotspotter records deterioriates. This would also throw into question any of Webb’s sources that suggested the Shotspotter records were faked.
Day 219:
Unfortunately, instead of addressing these potential holes in his theory, George Webb declares the Seth Rich homicide solved the very next morning, on May 30th 2017:
“I’m gonna call it this morning, breaking news. It’s gonna be Alpha Jalloh. How do I know? Well I go back to publicly available information: SVR…the Russian intelligence agency was worried about Alpha Jalloh, that’s why they were following him, that’s why they were tracking his communications and that’s how they got it in the communication with Seth Rich. Seth Rich had the database. Seth Rich was working with Kim Dotcom, who I believe is also an FBI informant…”
This conclusion was gutting in its incoherence. It didn’t logically follow from any of the speculation, research or conclusions that Webb had drawn in previous days. Did Webb connect a murder weapon to Alpha Jalloh to arrive at this conclusion? Did Webb somehow link Alpha Jalloh to the theft of the FBI vehicle? Did Webb somehow determine Alpha Jalloh was working for the FBI? Why does Webb think Kim Dotcom is an FBI informant? There aren’t any good explanations provided for these questions.
His conclusion appears based on one extremely dubious source, Sorcha Faal, from http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2071.htm. Webb presents this source as “Russian intelligence,” when there is no actual way of verifying it as authentic. Researchers have also known about this lead since July 2016, so how did any of Webb’s research over the last 218 days connect to this conclusion? Webb only has loose speculation to provide:
“I’m just gonna say that that’s the connection from Alpha Jalloh to Kim Dotcom to Seth Rich.
The mega upload (not to make fun of Kim Dotcom) from DNC headquarters, which is where [Alpha Jalloh] would give people cars up to pierpont in Brooklyn, that mega-upload (NGP-Van voter data from DNC to CF) is what triggered the Russian diplomat, I can’t remember his name, but triggered the Russian diplomat to send 2 diplomats over to the FBI, to the State Department, to warn them that a murder was about to happen. So now we have the Russians again, much like the Tsarnaev case, warning the US government through the State Department that this man [Jalloh] was about ready to hire people and kill Seth Rich.”
What is most disturbing about Webb’s conclusion — like so many of his uncertain premises — is that I’m not in a position to completely disprove it. There still is a very remote possibility that Webb might be correct about Alpha Jalloh. His conclusion is just not one I’m remotely willing to accept based on what he’s presented.
Don’t get me wrong — I’m grateful that George Webb has brought more attention to the death of Seth Rich, which deserves more investigation and transparency. My concern is that this attention could damage the efforts of the research community if his unsubstantiated conclusions are taken seriously.
After following Webb’s reports for several weeks, and familiarizing myself with his previous reports, I can only conclude that at best, he is drawing premature conclusions. The other possibility is that Webb is actively misleading the research community, taking advantage of its hunger for new information, while misdirecting skepticism and attention on key areas of the case.
In Part Two, I will examine the aftermath of the George Webb investigation, and the Defango NGP-VAN Debacle. Until then, I urge everyone watching Webb to take his research and conclusions with a heavy dose of skepticism.
