What ballistic and forensic evidence has been released in the Alex Pretti investigation?
Executive summary
Publicly released forensic material in the Alex Pretti case so far is limited to multiple bystander and third‑party videos—and reporting about what those videos show—while formal ballistics and forensic reports have not been made public; state officials have sought preservation orders to prevent evidence destruction as federal agencies retain control of primary physical evidence [1] [2] [3]. Accounts from federal spokespeople assert agents fired in self‑defense and refer to scientific avenues of inquiry (fingerprints, DNA, rounds fired), but those promised forensic outputs (firearm examinations, ballistics analyses) have not been released to date [4] [5].
1. What material has been publicly released: video footage and frame‑by‑frame analyses
The concrete forensic material available to the public consists chiefly of multiple bystander videos and news organizations’ frame‑by‑frame analyses of those clips, which show an agent appearing to remove a handgun from Pretti’s waistband and then, within fractions of a second, agents firing multiple times; outlets including CNBC and The Washington Post report footage showing an agent holding Pretti’s gun immediately before shots are fired [1] [2]. Media analyses have counted what appear to be up to about ten shots fired in rapid succession in at least one clip and have highlighted discrepancies between those images and early federal descriptions [2] [6].
2. What has not been released: ballistics, firearm forensics, and autopsy results
No public release of formal ballistics reports, firearm‑forensic examinations, gunshot residue testing, wound ballistics analysis, or a full autopsy report has been reported in the available coverage; reporting notes that the Department of Homeland Security and its components have not turned over or published such scientific reports and that Minnesota sought court intervention to preserve evidence while federal authorities maintain custody [3] [7]. Journalists and local officials repeatedly emphasize the absence of published forensic findings that would establish sequence, distance, or who fired specific rounds [3] [8].
3. Investigative custody and who’s conducting technical forensic work
The Department of Homeland Security placed Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in the lead investigative role, a move that has drawn criticism because HSI is not typically structured to handle comprehensive officer‑involved shooting probes that include ballistics labs, firearm examinations and large‑scale forensic canvassing; critics say that arrangement raises questions about whether the core forensic tasks will be performed independently and transparently [5]. Federal officials have publicly described investigators focusing on “mostly scientific evidence” such as fingerprints, DNA and how many rounds were fired, but those descriptions are promises of inquiry, not disclosures of completed technical results [5].
4. Competing narratives tied to the same physical evidence
Federal spokespeople have defended the shooting as defensive and have cited agent accounts; state officials, witnesses and multiple media outlets counter that publicly available video contradicts those assertions—particularly the claim that Pretti brandished a weapon—pointing to videos that appear to show him disarmed before shots [4] [1] [6]. Those conflicting interpretations hinge on the same visual evidence now in public hands, which is why lawyers and elected officials are pressing for preserved physical evidence and formal forensic disclosure so ballistics and wound analyses can corroborate or refute competing claims [3] [9].
5. Legal steps, preservation orders, and limits of current reporting
Minnesota officials sought and obtained a federal judge’s order directing DHS not to destroy or alter evidence, underscoring concern that physical evidence—body‑worn camera files, agency videos, the firearm, and scene evidence—remains under federal control and has not been shared or analyzed publicly [3] [9]. Reporting indicates state teams have canvassed for and retrieved some evidence, but it does not document release of forensic laboratory reports or chain‑of‑custody inventories that would answer who fired which rounds or the specific ballistic matching results [8] [7]. Where sources do not report specific forensic releases, this analysis does not assert their absence beyond the available documentation.