When The Blaze recently published a story claiming that a former Capitol Police officer was a “forensic match” for the still-unidentified January 6 pipe bomber, the article relied heavily on an intriguing type of evidence—how the suspect walked.
Using gait analysis, the outlet asserted that similarities in the individual’s stride pattern linked them to the bombing suspect caught on FBI surveillance video.
This controversial claim raises an important question: just how accurate is forensic gait analysis, and can it alone justify publicly or officially accusing someone of a crime?
A peer-reviewed study published in May 2025 by researchers at the University of Seville’s Institute of Biomedicine offers a far more cautious answer. Their findings suggest that gait analysis can assist investigators in comparing movement patterns of suspects captured on CCTV video. However, it remains an unreliable basis for identifying a suspect with certainty in the courtroom.
The review, published in Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology, evaluated more than two decades of research on forensic gait analysis, concluding that the science behind using someone’s walk as an identifying biometric remains limited and is easily influenced by variables such as clothing, footwear, and even mood.
“There is not enough conclusive scientific evidence on the reliability of the method of analysis using angular measurements, as there is controversy between authors,” researchers write. “Forensic gait analysis based on angular measurements shows reliability limitations due to intra-individual factors (mood, clothing), requiring further empirical evidence.”
Unlike DNA or fingerprinting, gait analysis attempts to identify a person by their pattern of movement, often from CCTV or surveillance video. The method was first admitted as expert evidence in a U.K. courtroom in 2000 and has since been used in several investigations worldwide.
Yet, as researchers noted, scientific consensus on how reliable those comparisons really are remains unsettled.
“It cannot be definitively stated in a court of law that no other person could have a similar gait pattern based on a specific set of characteristics,” researchers cautioned. “As a result, gait analysis is not considered as strong evidence as fingerprints or DNA, but it can be useful in the absence of conclusive evidence.”
To assess the effectiveness of gait analysis in forensic settings, researchers from the University of Seville conducted a systematic review of nine observational studies published between 1999 and 2024. Each examined how accurately experts could identify individuals based on their walk, either through direct observation or through quantitative measurement of limb and joint angles.
Researchers compared two main techniques. The first, angular measurement analysis, relies on precise mathematical data—such as the angles of the hip or ankle—to quantify movement and identify distinctive patterns.
The second, observational analysis, involves trained specialists visually assessing morphological traits, such as arm swing, step rhythm, and foot rotation, to determine whether a suspect’s overall movement matches that of an individual seen in surveillance footage.
The findings revealed that while angular analysis provides useful data under controlled laboratory conditions, it performs inconsistently in real-world environments, such as crime scenes, where camera resolution, lighting, and perspective vary significantly.
In contrast, observational analysis conducted by trained biomechanical experts yielded much higher accuracy and repeatability.
“The observational method analyzing of unique gait characteristics emerges as the most reliable method, offering high accuracy, validity, and reproducibility when conducted by trained biomechanical experts,” the researchers concluded.
In its article, The Blaze suggested that its conclusions were based on a mix of quantitative and visual techniques. The outlet reported that “a software algorithm that analyzes walking parameters” rated a named former Capitol Police officer as a 94% match to the bombing suspect, while a “veteran analyst” who reviewed the footage claimed that, based on the “visual observations the program can struggle with,” they personally estimated the match to be closer to 98%.
As for the video footage used in its gait analysis, The Blaze stated that it did not rely on material released by the FBI. Instead, the outlet said it obtained “demonstrably clearer” footage from an unnamed source.
Nothing in itself inherently invalidates The Blaze’s analysis. However, the fact that it was conducted by an unnamed “veteran analyst” poses a problem for assessing its credibility.
As the University of Seville study notes, angular or software-based gait measurements can fluctuate significantly depending on factors such as clothing, mood, and camera perspective. Meanwhile, observational gait analysis depends heavily on the analyst’s training, expertise, and ability to interpret movement patterns without bias.
Because those qualifications cannot be independently verified, it is impossible to evaluate the rigor or objectivity of the conclusions.
Moreover, as the researchers note, even under controlled laboratory conditions, gait evidence should be considered supplementary at best—not a basis for confidently identifying, much less publicly accusing, a specific individual.
The appeal of gait evidence is obvious: it can be collected from surveillance video even when a suspect’s face is hidden. However, gait is inherently fluid — influenced by a host of external factors. In their review, researchers emphasized that these intra-individual factors can easily distort results, meaning the same person may not walk the same way twice.
That variability, the authors say, makes it nearly impossible to treat gait as a fixed biometric on par with fingerprints or DNA. While gait analysis can help investigators narrow a pool of suspects, it cannot prove a match with high confidence.
One of the most widely cited methods, the Sheffield Features of Gait Tool developed by U.K. forensic scientist Ivan Birch, achieved repeatability rates of about 79% and reproducibility of 73% when applied by trained experts under controlled conditions.
However, those results were derived from tests using idealized computer-generated avatars rather than real-world surveillance footage—a far cry from the low-angle, poorly lit security videos investigators typically contend with in actual cases.
Researchers caution that, in the absence of standardized international protocols, the results of forensic gait analysis can vary significantly between analysts and jurisdictions. They also note that a small group of researchers has largely shaped the field’s methods and standards and still lack the rigorous validation and oversight applied to more established forensic tools such as DNA or fingerprint analysis.
“The field of forensic gait analysis has been developed by a relatively small group of authors, with many of the articles reviewed originating from the same researchers, which may restrict the diversity of perspectives and innovations in the field,” researchers write. “These limitations underscore the need for further research, including comparative studies, higher-quality evidence, and a broader geographical and authorial scope, to strengthen the field and ensure its broader applicability in forensic science.”
Study authors classified the current body of gait analysis research as Level III evidence on the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care scale, a framework commonly used to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Level III denotes findings drawn from non-experimental or observational studies and data that may be suggestive but cannot establish firm conclusions.
The review found that none of the studies qualified as randomized controlled trials, and most relied on small, methodologically narrow samples, underscoring the field’s continued reliance on limited empirical evidence rather than large-scale, rigorously tested data.
In practical terms, this means gait evidence should be viewed as complementary rather than conclusive — a clue that may support other findings, but not one that can stand alone.
That distinction matters in light of recent viral claims that “forensic gait analysis” had identified a former Capitol Police officer as the January 6 pipe bomber.
Experts say such claims can illustrate the danger of presenting gait comparison as definitive proof. Because movement can change with shoes, fatigue, or emotional state, relying on visual similarities risks confirmation bias — the tendency to see what one expects to find.
Researcher’s findings echo long-standing guidance from the U.K. Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences, which treats gait analysis as supportive evidence only when interpreted by qualified podiatric specialists, not as a stand-alone identifier.
While the Seville review highlights current limits, it also acknowledges progress. Recent advances in automated and AI-assisted gait analysis are helping experts quantify subtle motion patterns that are invisible to the naked eye. The authors note, however, that these systems still require expert oversight and verified data to ensure accuracy and reliability.
For now, the future of forensic gait analysis lies in building standardized, transparent methods rather than rushing to draw conclusions from surveillance clips. The authors urge international cooperation to develop consistent criteria for gait comparison, including training requirements for analysts and guidelines for admissibility in court.
“Although some authors affirm levels of positive correlation in the combination of angular variables in the different planes,” researchers write, “There are authors who state that the change in intra-individual conditions (mood, clothing) make identification impossible by this method.”
So far, neither the FBI nor the Department of Justice has issued any statements directly addressing the claims made by The Blaze. Instead, the FBI has told several media outlets that it continues to investigate the January 6 pipe bomb case and is maintaining a $500,000 reward for information leading to the suspect’s identification and arrest.
Ultimately, science does not outright dismiss the controversial claim that gait analysis provided the identity of the January 6 bombing suspect, nor does it rule out the potential value of it in criminal investigations. The research simply underscores that, like any forensic method, gait comparison must be applied with restraint, transparency, and corroboration.
When considered as part of a broader evidentiary picture, gait analysis can serve as a powerful investigative aid. However, when presented in isolation, without clear methodology or peer review, it risks blurring the line between informed analysis and speculation.
Tim McMillan is a retired law enforcement executive, investigative reporter and co-founder of The Debrief. His writing typically focuses on defense, national security, the Intelligence Community and topics related to psychology. You can follow Tim on Twitter: @LtTimMcMillan. Tim can be reached by email: tim@thedebrief.org or through encrypted email: LtTimMcMillan@protonmail.com