Brian is 100% innocent. That is this site’s position, based on the evidence set out below. The footage, the family’s identification, and the phone records are the basis of our argument for his freedom.
The case for BrianWho is on the camera?
The redacted criminal complaint filed December 4, 2025, says one person placed both devices and was on video in the southeast neighborhood from about 7:34 p.m. to 8:18 p.m. It says the device at the Democratic National Committee was placed at about 7:54 p.m., and the device at the Republican National Committee at about 8:16 p.m. [7]
On October 18, 2026, reporter Steve Baker published Capitol CCTV that he says shows Brian walking the Capitol grounds at the same time. His headline places Brian on the northwest side while the suspect was distributing devices on the southeast side. The video work is credited to Armitas. Former FBI agent Kyle Seraphin joins the longer breakdown. [8]
If the man on the northwest side is Brian, and the times hold, he was across the Capitol while the devices were placed. His grandmother’s coat makes that a claim someone can check: she says she bought it.
The case in a minute
- Footage: northwest camera scenes overlap the government’s southeast timeline.
- Identity: his family and Baker identify the northwest figure as Brian; the images alone do not settle it.
- Phone: the filings give tower-sector connections, not exact handset locations.
- Next step: test identity, clock alignment, and the underlying phone data together.
The same minutes, different streets.
The research now includes recovered camera exports, not just the edited presentation. Their location labels place the comparison route northwest of the Capitol. Timing is indexed by each filename’s start time plus elapsed playback; independent camera-clock calibration remains open. [20]
| Clock | Gray-hoodie suspect, per the complaint | Person in the October 18 video |
|---|---|---|
| 7:54 p.m. | Device placed at the DNC, on the southeast side. | — |
| 7:57:04 p.m. | Published comparison uses camera 0794, New Jersey–D Street SE. | Camera 3192, 3rd–Pennsylvania NW. The two cameras can be set side by side. The shared clock is still provisional. |
| 7:59:33–38 p.m. | The complaint reports a phone transaction at :36 and a suspect sighting at New Jersey/E Street SE at :38. | Camera 3188, Peace Circle NW, has a published anchor at :33. A phone record, a hoodie sighting, and the northwest camera, a few minutes apart. It still depends on the clocks, and on who is in the frame. |
| 8:01:16 p.m. | — | Camera 3187. A person in a light-colored jacket crosses a street. Baker identifies that person as Brian. |
| 8:16 p.m. | Device placed at the RNC. Last video of the device-placer is about 8:18 p.m., walking east on Rumsey Court. | — |
The northwest sequence continues through cameras 0600, 0601, 0602, and 0940, with published anchors from 8:01:33 to 8:05:23 p.m. The alibi holds only if it is the same person from camera to camera, and the clocks are right.
Check the source footage
The recovered export labels resolve the earlier northwest/northeast ambiguity for these cameras: the comparison sequence is northwest. Open the interactive camera-and-cell map or read the source analysis, including clock limits and coverage gaps.
Two clocks. A jacket. A crosswalk.
A coat his grandmother bought him.
Loretta Cole told Baker she recognized the jacket as the Christmas gift she bought Brian about two weeks before January 5. Baker reported a retail tag still hanging from it and a purchase on her Kohl’s credit card. A receipt and a comparison with the garment could help test that identification. [10]
Delicia Cole told Baker she sewed the family’s masks in Washington Football Team burgundy and gold because Brian disliked plain white N95 masks. Baker says she cried when shown a screenshot. That account supplies another identifying detail to examine against the footage. [8]
Brian described walking, sitting, and looking around near a protest. That is where the search started. His family says they see him in the footage. The full camera run still has to bear that out.
The clothing does not match the accusation.
The complaint describes the device-placer as wearing a grey hooded sweatshirt, dark pants, dark gloves, Nike Air Max Speed Turf shoes, a face mask, eyeglasses at times, and a backpack. The October 18 video’s 8:01 p.m. subject is marked as wearing a light-colored jacket. Baker says the shoes are the New Balance pair he photographed, width D, style ML574EVB, which he identifies as Brian’s size 12-D, and that the subject walks on his heels. [7] [8]
Earlier in 2026, Baker and Joseph Hanneman argued from build, posture, and gait that Brian does not match the hoodie-clad suspect. That article is a separate piece of their reporting. It is not the October 18 video. [12]
Height does not do this work. The complaint says a 2021 analysis put the device-placer, including headwear, at about 5 feet 7 inches, plus or minus 1.1 inches, and that Brian is 5 feet 6 inches. Those figures are close. The conflict is place, clothing, and shoes.
A tower ping is not a street address.
The affidavit lists seven data-session transactions at six distinct times. These can include background app traffic; they are not necessarily calls or texts Brian initiated. A connection identifies a serving sector, not a precise place where the phone was held. [20]
One sector was listed at 345° in the February 2021 provider list and 90° in the April list—a 105° difference, more than a quarter turn of the compass. The government says the earlier listing was an error and cites January and February drive tests. Those measurements are needed to evaluate its explanation.
The research has recovered the filed map and the government’s account, but not the full carrier records or drive-test data. Being outside a drawn sector wedge alone does not prove the phone could not connect there: the affidavit acknowledges that actual coverage varies.
The point: the phone evidence must be tested against the footage. A tower map cannot, by itself, identify the person in a hoodie.
Read the filings and seven transactions →Watch the route. Read the claims beside it.
MMH (@MMHowell87) posted this compilation on October 20. It opens with a television clip of Dan Bongino discussing the investigation, then presents Capitol surveillance excerpts, maps, and comparisons involving shoes, clothing, and phone use. The identification of the person as Brian and the comparison graphics are the presentation’s claims. [15]
View the 31-frame contact sheet, sampled every 15 seconds with a closing frame at 07:28. The stills preserve the source video’s framing and annotations.
A briefing, a phone lead, and unanswered questions.
The text accompanying MMH’s video points back to Steve Baker’s September 1, 2026 report about a briefing in Rep. Barry Loudermilk’s office on October 16, 2025. Baker lists Marshall Yates, Loudermilk, Rob Adkerson, former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, a retired deputy chief, and John Solomon as attendees. Baker says a whistleblower who attended described Yates discussing a redacted FirstNet phone number located within three meters of both device-placement sites. Baker attributes the words “We knew then it was a law enforcement person” to Yates through that source. [16]
Baker quotes November 5, 2025 texts he attributes to Loudermilk: “It is circumstantial, but it points to USCP involvement” and “If you have this right, I don’t believe the individual acted alone.” Those qualifications describe a circumstantial lead and a conditional conclusion.
The account and the underlying records
The post documents Baker making these allegations. The underlying location records, authenticated messages, and meeting minutes were not available in the sources reviewed here. A phone-location lead does not by itself establish that the person in the hoodie carried that phone, or establish who planted the devices. Joe Hoft’s September 3 article repeats Baker’s account; it is not independent confirmation. Read the reporting.
Bongino’s earlier words
CNN’s March 1, 2025 review links to Bongino’s podcast episodes and quotes him saying, “Folks, this guy was an insider. This was an inside job.” In another passage, he predicts authorities would call the devices a training exercise, then rejects that explanation: “No, this was not a training. This was an effort to frame MAGA people.” That is what he said then. It is not proof of an inside job. The specific “unimpeachable intelligence sources” wording in MMH’s caption was not verified in the reporting reviewed here. [17]
Separately, Steven Richards and Solomon reported on September 30, 2025 that Loudermilk was exploring a training-exercise or police-diversion theory. Their article discusses AT&T/FirstNet data-preservation problems and links to documents; it predates the alleged October 16 briefing. [18]
Solomon’s later government role is documented by WABC’s July 9, 2026 interview, which identifies him as an unpaid White House special government employee leading a transparency task force. Yates’s profile, reviewed October 20, describes his FBI congressional-affairs role as former. Neither fact independently verifies the briefing account. [19]
Does the hoodie conceal tactical equipment?
A possible handgun outline. A possible chest-mounted radio microphone. Shapes that may indicate body armor. The October 22 material raises a further question about what the hooded person appears to be wearing.
Steve Baker posted again on October 22, with a long video and five stills. Kyle Seraphin posted a short follow-up the same day. The post pages were not available when these files were saved, so this section follows the media and the note that came with the download. [25]
Three details to examine
- Waist — possible handgun printing. The supplied summary attributes to Baker and Seraphin an interpretation of an outline beneath the clothing as a handgun. “Printing” means an object’s outline showing through clothing; the short follow-up below is the source material for examining that claim.
- Chest — possible radio microphone. The red-circled still below draws attention to a light-colored detail at the chest. The presenters’ interpretation, as recorded in the capture note, is a chest-mounted radio microphone.
- Torso — possible body armor. The same summary describes hard-edged shapes that the presenters interpret as body armor beneath the hoodie. The low-resolution imagery does not resolve the material or construction of those shapes.
Why it matters: if confirmed, equipment details could help test the identification of the hooded suspect alongside the clothing and route comparisons. These visual interpretations do not establish the person’s identity or a law-enforcement affiliation. Source and capture limits [25]
The December 4, 2025 complaint charges 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(d) and 844(i). None of the filings reviewed on this site includes a § 924(c) count. The absence of that count does not establish whether the person carried a firearm. [7]
Read this equipment analysis alongside the clothing and shoe comparison and the northwest/southeast timeline. Each addresses a different part of the identification question. Higher-quality source footage and independent examination would be needed to confirm the apparent equipment.
Not in this capture
The archive lists a Massie post from the same day as a letter about the CCTV, and an Armitas reaction. Those pages were not retrieved, and the reaction image was not in the download. This site does not describe a letter it has not read. The other three stills are in the research folder with the two shown here.
The published comparison is a Capitol Police officer.
Height near 5 feet 7 inches. A walk Blaze News scored against former Capitol Police officer Shauni Kerkhoff. Shapes under the sweatshirt that Baker and Seraphin read as a radio, armor, and a handgun. The FBI later opened a person-of-interest file on her, polygraphed her, and sent her walk to a podiatrist.
The gait clips were not released. The government’s August 28, 2026 filing says the podiatrist reached no conclusion, that the investigation found no evidence connecting her to the devices, and that a home video places her voice in Falls Church at 7:37 p.m. Her lawsuit says she does not limp. The comparison page sets each trait beside the record that limits it. [27] [31]
Read the trait-by-trait comparison →Test the strongest case on both sides.
The government relies on purchase records, cell-site evidence, a vehicle sighting, and statements it treats as admissions. The recovered affidavit and January 23 filing report a license-plate-reader observation around 7:10 p.m. at the South Capitol exit from I-395 South. That is not itself a sighting at either device location. [20]
The filed interview includes incriminating statements. The defense challenges how they were elicited. Evaluating that dispute requires the full interview and independent corroboration, not selected answers alone. [21]
The footage is an alibi only if the man on the northwest cameras is Brian and the clocks are right. The source files make the comparison possible. They do not yet prove either point.
Why this is a civil-rights issue
Evidence that undermines identification matters to guilt and to the justification for detention. The defense must be able to obtain and test material favorable evidence. Read our call for disclosure, a fair hearing, and detention review.