What did official forensic and ballistics reports conclude about the number of shots and trajectories in the Alex Pretti case?

1. What the video evidence widely cited in reporting shows about shots and timing

Multiple outlets cite bystander and surveillance videos that capture a volley of gunfire during the confrontation and show Pretti being wrestled or pinned to the pavement when shots ring out, with The New York Times’ moment-by-moment analysis concluding fatal shots were fired after he appeared restrained ^[1], and UK and U.S. outlets similarly noting visible rounds and that Pretti fell after several shots ^{[2] [4]}.

2. Conflicting early official statements versus witness accounts

Federal officials quickly characterized the encounter as involving an armed assailant and suggested weapons were brandished, while sworn witness affidavits and bystander videos filed in court dispute that Pretti brandished a gun and describe him attempting to help a person who had been shoved and pepper‑sprayed ^{[5] [6]}. Reporting highlights this gap between the feds’ immediate characterization and accounts from witnesses and journalists who viewed the footage ^{[6] [5]}.

3. Reported counts of shots in early press coverage and fringe reports

Several news items and tabloids described “roughly 10–12 shots” fired within a short burst based on video review, with one outlet explicitly reporting that many rounds came in about five seconds ^[3]. Major outlets focus on timing and context rather than producing a definitive ballistic count; those numerical tallies in reporting appear to be observers’ tallies from video rather than findings from a formal forensic report ^{[3] [1]}.

4. What the sources say (and do not say) about trajectories and who fired which rounds

The New York Times and other reporting note that agents surrounded and restrained Pretti before shots were fired, implying trajectories consistent with close‑range shots directed at a restrained person, but none of the provided material quotes a completed ballistics analysis mapping bullet paths, shooter positions, or entry‑exit angles ^{[1] [2]}. Media accounts also record disputes over which agent fired and when, but again these are observational and legal-witness statements, not the product of released forensic trajectory diagrams or lab reports ^{[3] [5]}.

5. Official forensic work — absent from the public record in these reports

Despite repeated references to DHS and Border Patrol claims about a weapon on Pretti and the circumstances of the shooting, the reviewed sources do not include an official forensic ballistics report, a completed autopsy narrative about bullet trajectories, or a public release of shell‑casing mapping that would settle the number and paths of rounds ^{[7] [6]}. Reporting therefore frames questions that forensic evidence could answer, but does not present those forensic answers.

6. Why the absence of forensic detail matters and how to interpret current public claims

Without a released ballistic or forensic report, numerical shot counts and trajectory inferences drawn from video, witness statements, or immediate law‑enforcement claims remain provisional; they can show sequence and timing but cannot substitute for expert analysis of bullet trajectories, distances, shooter positions, and fired‑weapon forensics that would be documented in official reports ^{[1] [3]}. The divergence between federal officials’ rapid characterizations and independent observers’ sworn statements underscores why investigators, courts, and the public will need the formal forensic record to resolve core questions about how many rounds were fired and from what angles ^{[6] [5]}.