Significant Update Defendant Robertson - FBI Lab report- Jan6th Insurrection -IEDs Bomb

The FBI Lab concluded that after an analysis seized pursuant to a Judicially authorized Search warrant of Defendant Robertson home - the components COULD be used as an IED aka Pipebomb

Background -prerequisite reading materials

In the July 7, 2021 article was likely one of the heaviest research lifts I’ve done in a while. Before we dive into the July 22, 2021 Supplemental filing by the USA -I genuinely encourage you to reread the July 7, 2021 article —in which I provided you with the following original sourced documents:

• Previous Case Documents: 

  • January 12, 2021 Robertson and Fracker Complaint

  • January 12, 2021 Robertson and Fracker Statement of Facts

  • January 29, 2021 Robertson and Fracker Indictment

On January 19, 2021 ORDER Setting Conditions of Release as to THOMAS ROBERTSON (1) Personal Recognizance. I uploaded the document to my public drive under Defendant Robertson Folder. 

(k) not possess a firearm, destructive device, or other weapon

The July 7, 2021 article - includes multiple search warrants executed on June 29, 2021 - I dumped all of the court filings into a public folder -and look it’s not my job to force you to read what I write, but you need to have the background (and the previous court filings) to fully understand the July 22, 2021 Supplemental filed by the Government

July 14, 2021 UNITED STATES’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO REVOKE RELEASE ORDER

See DDC-ECF —that noise you hear? Well that’s me banging my head on my desk while whispering “why didn’t you read the June search warrant -I gave you a FREE copy of the warrant after I paid for the filing so you didn’t have to pay for it” why is this so hard to break through the screaming goats..

…Law enforcement continues to review the items seized from the home of Defendant Thomas Robertson on June 29, 2021. This review uncovered the blue, silver and brown items identified by evidence tag 35, depicted below.

Shortly after the Government filed their July 14th Supplemental -Defendant Robertson filed his response (see DDC-ECF) and he’s still sticking to “it’s a prop for training” counter argument

But worse? Defendant Robertson submitted an Affidavit (See DDC-ECF for his son’s affidavit regarding the AR rifle or see Scribd Link for affidavit) from his son - who may have just further implicated his father for violating his conditions of release - he’s not allowed to “not possess a firearm, destructive device, or other weapon” I think ammunition would qualify…but I could be wrong. However the Government has made a “colorable” case that Defendant Robertson has repeatedly violated his Terms of Release - as further discussed in the July 7th article

July 22, 2021 UNITED STATES’ SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO REVOKE RELEASE ORDER

I think Defendant Robertson is completely screwed - late yesterday (July 22, 2021) the Government filed their 2nd Supplemental brief (see DDC-ECF Doc 36 —see DDC-ECF Doc 36-1 FBI Lab Report) supporting their request for Defendant Robertson to be remanded and detained pending trial:

…law enforcement continues to review the items seized from the home of Defendant Thomas Robertson on June 29, 2021. Attached is an FBI laboratory report received by the undersigned this morning concluding that the Defendant possessed components that could be used to readily assemble an improvised explosive device (IED), despite being ordered not to possess a firearm, destructive device, or other dangerous weapon.

FBI LABORATORY REPORT as to item seized

See DDC-ECF for the 6 page FBI laboratory report (or see Scribd Link) -and yes I redacted Defendant Robertson’s home address because doxing is criminal and I don’t ever condone doxing (yes federal court filings are public information but again my red line has always been no doxing, no children, no spouses)

The request is based upon a search warrant that was conducted at a residence, [REDACTED] Otter Drive, Ferrum, Virginia on June 29, 2021 related to the online purchase of firearms. During the search, a pipe with end caps and a fuse affixed to one end was located in subject's garage, Item 1B5. The device was inside of an ammunition can labeled "ALERRT kit, props and booby trap sims."

…could cause property damage, personal injury and/or death…

It is the opinion of this Explosives and Hazardous Devices Examiner that contained in the submitted items of evidence are components that could be used to readily assemble one (1) improvised explosive device (IED).

…it is designed to function the IED by time..

IEDs are also commonly referred to as homemade bombs. The general components of an IED are an explosive main charge, a fuzing system, and sometimes a main charge container and/or a concealment container. Present in this submission are low explosives, a non-electric fuzing system, and a main charge container. Based on the configuration of the fuzing system, it is designed to function the IED by time. The resulting explosion from an IED of this type could cause property damage, personal injury and/or death.

Hobby Fuse length = time to detonate

Present in Item 2-1 is a length of red colored time fuse also known as hobby fuse. The length of the hobby fuse measures approximately 4.5 inches in length and 0.93 inch in diameter… Based on the submitted length of hobby fuse, the safe separation time may have been approximately 5.6 seconds – 9.3 seconds based on an average burn rate of 15 – 25 seconds per foot.

So it is not actually a prop…

…(1) silver colored metal pipe nipple measuring approximately 4.5 inches in length, an outer diameter of approximately 1.25 inches, an inner diameter of approximately 1.062 inches, and with a thread pitch of approximately 11.5 threads per inch (TPI). There are no manufacturer markings present on the pipe nipple.

Also present in Item 2 are two (2) metal endcaps. One is a silver colored metal endcap that bear markings consistent with those from the Smith Cooper International (SCI) brand. The endcap is attached to the pipe nipple. The endcap measures approximately 1.75 inches in outer-diameter and 1.25 inches tall.

Interpretations and Limitations (important)

Meaning that this FBI laboratory report is merely focused on the technical specifications versus addressing the “state of mind” and/or “intent”—still it’s a report that the Court should consider with the weight of facts contained herein;

The two elements that must be met to make an affirmative destructive device determination are that the device or device components constitute an explosive or incendiary device and that the device or device components possess the functional characteristics and/or design elements of a weapon. These two elements are purely technical, not legal, and are not meant to infer the intent of the individual(s) who constructed the device.

Conclusive determinations of the exact design and functioning of a rendered safe or disassembled improvised explosive device may not be effected in every case due to the condition of the components.

DNA and Latent Print Operations Units

One could infer that the FBI “DNA and Latent Print Operations Units“ will help prosectors determine that Defendant Robertson constructed the “prop” IED and its possible it might link other defendants (via DNA and fingerprints) to the device too. But I’m not 100% certain on that -so it’s okay to disagree or be skeptical of my assertion.

Again there’s no reason for you to pay for these Federal Court Documents so I created a Defendant Robertson file and dump numerous court filings there.

What comes next? The Court ruling on the Government’s Motion to revoke Defendant Robertson bond and detain him pending trial. I do think that Defendant Robertson will argue “the could” and he might present a persuasive argument that the Court won’t revoke his bond. But for now it’s better to just wait for the facts versus making a (quasi) educated guess… and with that you should be fully caught up to speed on Defendant Robertson. -Extra Spicy Filey