Bail denied to U.S. suspect charged in connection with Tumbler Ridge school shooting

The U.S. suspect charged in connection with the deadly shooting in Tumbler Ridge earlier this year will remain behind bars.

James Cody Bryant appeared in a Seattle courtroom wearing an olive green button-up shirt, black-rimmed glasses and long waist-length hair parted to the side.

Bryant appeared to be sniffling and crying at the beginning of the hearing.

Approximately eight people sat on the defendant’s side of the courtroom, while about a dozen sat on the opposing side.

Bryant had begun transitioning to a female before the shootings, according to authorities.

Bryant is accused of helping the shooter in Tumbler Ridge, 18-year-old Jesse Van Rootselaar, start their car after they had already killed their mother and step-brother, so that Van Rootselaar could drive to Tumbler Ridge School and carry out the mass shooting.

Bryant is charged with conspiracy to murder people in a foreign country.

In court filings, it states that Bryant gave Van Rootselaar “tactical advice” on how to carry out the shooting, offering suggestions for target locations and what type of guns Van Rootselaar should use.

On Feb. 10, Van Rootselaar opened fire at Tumbler Ridge Secondary School, killing five students and an educational assistant before taking their own life. At a nearby residence, Van Rootselaar’s mother and half-brother were found dead.

On Tuesday, the prosecution argued that Bryant should remain in custody because of the seriousness of the offence, the strength of the evidence and the potential danger to the community.

“It really doesn’t get much more serious, or much more dangerous for the community,” Assistant United States attorney Todd Greenberg said.

He emphasized that Bryant had been in daily communication for months with someone planning a mass murder in British Columbia and understood the potential scale of the killings.

“The defendant was for months in daily communication with someone who was planning a mass murder event in British Columbia,” Greenberg said.

Bryant had a “full understanding of how high the death toll could get.”

The prosecution then outlined several actions it said demonstrated Bryant’s involvement in the planning and preparation of the killings:

• Livestream arrangements: Bryant agreed to record and broadcast a livestream of the murders and helped test the feed multiple times.
• Commitment to attend: The prosecutor cited a message in which Van Rootselaar indicated, “If I don’t have someone I know for sure is going to be there, I don’t want to do it.” Bryant had assured Van Rootselaar they would be available day or night and would adjust their sleep schedule accordingly.
• Following through: The prosecutor argued that Bryant ultimately followed through on their promise to assist with the livestream, which went down because of a technical glitch rather than any failure on Bryant’s part.
• Financial assistance: The prosecutor highlighted a financial exchange involving a lighter visible in a picture. Although it was an inexpensive item, Bryant sent the money promptly through PayPal, though the transaction was later reversed.
• Strategic discussions: Bryant allegedly discussed strategy, the building’s layout and how to instruct Van Rootselaar to start the car.

Greenberg also referenced Discord conversations, arguing that there was little factual dispute about what had occurred.

He argued that Bryant’s conduct over several months demonstrated a willingness to assist in planning a mass killing and an opportunity to intervene before it happened.
“But most importantly… is Bryant’s own character,” Greenberg said.

“This is someone who helped plan a mass murder over the course of months… and most importantly, somebody who could’ve put a stop to all of this before it happened.”

Bryant kept their eyes fixed downward as the prosecutor read messages concerning not informing on Van Rootselaar.

According to Bryant’s roommates, there were at least five computers in their apartment and upwards of 10 additional internet-connected devices, including laptops and desktop computers.

The prosecution also raised concerns about Bryant’s mental health. Although Bryant denied suicidal ideation during a pretrial interview, they had previously told Van Rootselaar that they were suicidal, with one such statement reportedly dating to Jan. 12.

However, Greenberg did note that Bryant has no criminal history, has ties to western Washington and was employed, although it was unclear whether the job remained available.

Bryant’s defence counsel, assistant federal public defenders Gregory Murphy and Dennis Carroll, acknowledged the horror of the killings while arguing that the court must apply the usual legal standard for bail rather than be swayed by the emotional weight of the case.

The defence also questioned the government’s handling of the investigation and the timing of Bryant’s arrest, saying it is telling that the government made no effort to arrest her for a full seven months after her interview with the FBI in March.

Counsel noted that Bryant had sobbed during the FBI interview following the killings and during a subsequent interview in March. Although a warrant was obtained on Oct. 2, Bryant was not arrested until four days later, after a press conference had been organized and held. Counsel described the arrest as having been arranged by appointment.

The defence said Bryant and Van Rootselaar had become friends approximately three years earlier and that Van Rootselaar had experienced serious mental health issues, including repeated hospitalizations.

Counsel argued that:

• There was no evidence of grooming.
• There was no evidence Bryant knew the specific details of Van Rootselaar’s plan for the day of the killings.
• Bryant was not involved in a group that condoned violence.
• Bryant had no criminal history or prior record of violence.
• Bryant had cooperated voluntarily with law enforcement, meeting with investigators three times.
• A review of Bryant’s communications had not revealed evidence of contact with other individuals in connection with the alleged conduct.

They said there was no evidence that Bryant knew the specifics of Van Rootselar’s plan that day.

Defence counsel emphasized that Bryant had community support, with people attending the hearing on their behalf.

The defence maintained that Bryant’s lack of a criminal record, community ties, cooperation with investigators and potential release conditions supported release pending further proceedings.

When considering the case, the judge framed the central issue as whether Bryant could be released under conditions that would adequately address the risks of failing to appear in court and posing a danger to the community.

The judge emphasized that the decision was not simply about which side had presented the stronger argument. The court had to determine whether reasonable and enforceable conditions could sufficiently mitigate the identified risks.

The judge also stressed the importance of considering the facts and circumstances of the alleged offence. Written statements submitted both for and against Bryant’s release were filed and read by the judge.

The judge noted that pretrial services had identified serious, deeply rooted mental health concerns involving Bryant, including substance abuse.

The judge also emphasized that the case involved internet communications, making any release conditions particularly difficult to design and enforce. Internet monitoring would be extremely important if Bryant were released, but the judge expressed concern about the ability to keep pace with technological developments.

The court would have needed to consider whether conditions involving mental health treatment, monitoring and ongoing evaluation could realistically succeed in mitigating the risks.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the risks could not reasonably be addressed through release conditions.

Bryant was denied bail and ordered detained until further court order.