There are a couple of data points which allowed me to inferentially interpolate my hypothesis of his being a LEO. One, I understood that the poster of the “Kind of A Coincidence” meme I saw on this site was claiming the others in the meme’s vignettes, beside the person who apparently was Crooks on vendor row at 16:26 7/13, WERE LEOs that very coincidentally were dressed as Crooks was. I gave that some–perhaps too much–credence.
Though I can’t recall by whom it was posted, and although one of its asserted, example LEOs was discounted as being a second, slightly different image of the same bearded LEO as on the third from left, I therefore clipped out that redundant image. However, I clearly recall a 7/13 video which was likely the “inspiration” for that meme, which was making precisely that claim of several LEO’s having similar attire to the shooter. I remember seeing such a grey T-shirted, white shorts-wearing person LEO sequentially peering into windows of the external, southerly-exposed Building 6. This particular LEO, who I believe to be the same as the one sitting beside the retaining wall as normies outside the fence line were trying to get LEOs’ attention as Crooks(?) was “bear crawling” up toward his unique shooter’s perch. That person peering into the Building 6 windows had been vetted minutes earlier by another law enforcement higher-up, who vociferously demanded all non-law enforcement leave the area. Although it wasn’t clear how much one would eventually be able to hang on such a feeble observation of being like-dressed, I was reminded of the adage, “There are no coincidences in the universe, only convergences of Will, Intent, and Experience.”
There were, as noted in this “other seemingly reasonable” video I saw of LEOs outside (to the south and east) of Building 6, at least two and perhaps 3 or 4 LEOs were similarly attired as was Crooks (?). That was the clear point the narrator of the video was making, as well.
A third, nagging data point was someone’s conjecture about why it took 16 seconds for the last sniper’s shot to take out the (shooter?) on the roof. Immediately discounted was video’s hypothesis of needing to get permission from higher-ups to take a shot. That seemingly left only two other possibilities: 1) the slopey roof and/or a wind-blown tree gave Crooks(?) just too much cover to allow for a good short, 2. someone needed to make sure the person wasn’t being identified as a shooter (sans muzzle flash or smoke) soley on the basis of his attire, because it just might be a similarly-dresssed LEO! The (counter-)snipers might have been advised that there would be plain-clothes police or USSS dressed in light shorts and gray or blue shirts. Those snipers may even have known or hobnobbed with LEOs so attired. Perhaps they did hear the radio chatter of Crooks(?) description and immediately thought there could be confusion with legitimate LEOs onsite. Very likely, it would seems. Someone had built in confusion, vagary and a recipe for a mental fog of war.
NOTE: Crooks(?) on the roof apparently had a SECOND GRAY VEST, perhaps to hold extra magazines, where the Crooks walking down vendor row clearly had only one thin grey T-shirt. Could the reverse of Crooks(?) second T-shirt have implied he was to be spared from being shot? Could his vest even have said something as crazy as “POLICE” which the counter-sniper might have previously seen?
A sniper would, by default, have some trust that the only person who could be allowed to be in position on a rooftop would be another (Counter-)sniper LEO, would he not?
I disagree with your conjecture that the white cap guy beside the retaining wall would not have been able to see Crooks(?). Had he stood on the retaining wall to see what several in the crowd were shouting about, he would have been vertically in line with the video camera whose video frame my image was snipped. That clearly shows our bear crawler. But I think he feigned disinterest either because he had already seen Crooks, or because he didn’t want to play into the crowd’s potentially exposing Crooks(?) presence. I do agree that his actions are very strange and therefore suspicious. No coincidences. Something must account for it. I think his being an at-least-partly-in-the-know LEO is high among the likelihoods.
