Over the weekend, conservative media outlet The Blaze, along with journalist Steve Baker, stirred controversy by naming a former Capitol police officer as their prime suspect in the still-unsolved January 6 pipe bomb incident. This incendiary claim spread quickly through right-wing circles, igniting speculation and demands for immediate arrest. The Blaze further alleges the individual is part of a vast government conspiracy, with Baker dramatically proclaiming on X that this might be “the biggest scandal and conspiracy in American history.”
While Mashable isn’t naming the former officer at this time, as The Blaze hasn’t presented conclusive evidence, nor have federal authorities confirmed an investigation into him, their report hinges largely on a forensic tool known as gait analysis.
But what exactly is gait analysis, and how trustworthy is it in identifying individuals?
Gait: Beyond Just Walking Style
The term “gait” refers to a person’s unique way of walking, running, or moving generally. While Aristotle himself observed gait patterns centuries ago, its use as forensic evidence dates back to at least 1839 in the United States, according to the American Bar Association (ABA). Modern technology, particularly software and artificial intelligence, has significantly advanced the field, enabling more precise gait analysis.
The Blaze claims to have commissioned a forensic gait analysis for their report, comparing surveillance footage of the unidentified pipe bomber with video of the alleged suspect at a soccer game in 2017. Notably, they didn’t utilize the widely circulated FBI footage showing a masked individual in a gray hoodie planting the bombs near both the Democratic and Republican National Committee headquarters. Instead, Baker asserts their analysis relied on a different “source” video capturing the same scene.
According to The Blaze, a software algorithm analyzed various gait parameters—flexion (knee bend), hip extension, speed, step length, cadence, and variance—and produced a 94% match rating. However, they didn’t disclose the identity of the individual who conducted the analysis or the specific software used.
A Questionable Tool for Identification?
While gait analysis can offer “corroborating evidence” and contribute to the identification process, the ABA emphasizes that definitively proving an individual’s gait is unique through scientific means remains unestablished. Essentially, gait analysis likely wouldn’t stand alone as sufficient evidence for conviction in a court of law—unlike DNA evidence, for instance.
Adding further doubt to its reliability, a 2019 study published with The Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences found that gait analysis accuracy rates only reached 71%, and the “potential uniqueness of gait” remains unproven. Furthermore, false positives are possible.
The Blaze’s assertion about a bombshell conspiracy hinges on a rather tenuous foundation. While their investigation might have unearthed intriguing leads, relying primarily on a 94% match from gait analysis, particularly without disclosing methodology or independent verification, falls short of the robust evidence required for such explosive claims.
