Local Police Reportedly Told Not to Investigate (Claims)
:::caution Attributed claims only Coordinating witness contact through a single lead agency is standard and lawful practice in any multi-agency major case. Nothing below is a finding that any officer or agent acted improperly. Sergeant Jennifer Faumuina is a living person; no wrongdoing on her part is alleged or implied. :::
Claim snapshot
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| The claim | The FBI reportedly told local law enforcement not to talk to witnesses, and more broadly "that they can't investigate"; forensic testing on recovered items was reportedly stopped |
| Raised by | The investigation file's compiler; Candace Owens characterizing Sgt. Jennifer Faumuina's preliminary-hearing testimony |
| First surfaced | Undated in source; the testimony element dates to the preliminary hearing |
| Rests on | On-record testimony (as characterized by a third party) plus an unsourced list entry |
| Evidence rating | EMERGING |
What is alleged
The investigation file's "Strange events" list opens with a bare assertion: the FBI reportedly told local law enforcement not to talk to witnesses. A separate section, "FBI Blocking Investigations by other law enforcement," puts it more broadly still — "they told local law enforcement that they can't investigate." Neither entry carries a source, a date, an agency, or a named officer. Taken alone, they are assertions, not evidence.
What gives the item weight is a second, more concrete strand. Per Candace Owens' account of the Tyler Robinson preliminary hearing, Sergeant Jennifer Faumuina of UVU Public Safety reportedly testified that officers recovered a backpack, a jacket, gloves, and other abandoned items along the route the alleged shooter took after jumping from the Losee Center. Those items were reportedly found near the Fulton Library — the same area where, per the account, multiple 911 callers reported an armed man in a black shirt, black mask, and long rifle. Per that account, the items were initially sent to the FBI for DNA and analysis, and then a decision was made to stop testing them. Asked who made that call and why, the sergeant reportedly could not recall.
Investigators add a third strand. They note that the only person who reportedly both saw and filmed the figure on the roof — describing him as wearing full black tactical gear, a face mask, and possibly a helmet — has reportedly never been called by the prosecution, and that this witness told police on the scene they had the wrong man in custody. His description, per the account, matched early scanner traffic rather than the account that came later.
The argument stitched from these three strands is that witness contact was centralized, physical evidence from the alleged escape route was collected and then set aside untested, and the one eyewitness who contradicted the emerging account was left uncalled. Whether that pattern reflects an investigative judgment or something else is exactly what is unresolved.
The ordinary explanation
Centralizing witness contact under the lead agency is textbook practice in a multi-agency major case, and the reason is not secrecy — it is evidentiary survival. Uncoordinated interviews contaminate memory, produce conflicting written reports, and generate impeachment material that defense counsel will use to dismantle a prosecution. A directive that local officers route witnesses through the FBI is what a competent lead agency issues on day one, and it is not the same thing as telling anyone they "can't investigate."
Stopping forensic testing on recovered items is likewise routine once investigators determine those items are not connected to the crime. A campus library sits near thousands of students; abandoned backpacks, jackets, and gloves accumulate there in ordinary life. Running DNA on every bag near the Fulton Library would consume scarce lab capacity that a capital case needs elsewhere, and the decision to stop is a resourcing call made after triage, not a suppression. A sergeant being unable to recall, months later, which supervisor made a particular resourcing decision is ordinary human memory, not evasion — and it would be unfair to read it as anything more.
Finally, prosecutors do not call every witness. They call the witnesses needed to prove the elements of the charge. A witness whose account conflicts with the State's theory is a witness the defense is free to call, and the file gives no indication the defense has been prevented from doing so.
What would settle it
- Obtain the preliminary-hearing transcript and read Sgt. Faumuina's testimony in full rather than through a third-party characterization.
- Request the evidence log for the backpack, jacket, and gloves: date received, tests requested, tests completed, and the written basis for any test cancellation.
- Identify by name and date any FBI directive to local agencies regarding witness contact, and read what it actually said.
- Ask the defense on the record whether the roof-footage witness has been interviewed and whether they intend to call him.
Sources
- Candace Owens' characterization of Sgt. Jennifer Faumuina's preliminary-hearing testimony, reproduced in the investigation file. No direct URL is cited in the investigation file for this item.
- The "FBI told local law enforcement" entries are unsourced list items in the investigation file.