What forensic evidence (ballistics, GSR, autopsy) has been released in the Alex Pretti shooting investigation?
Executive summary
Federal authorities and media organizations have publicly released scene videos and still photographs, and officials say the FBI and DHS are preserving physical evidence, but as of the reporting available there have been no public releases of detailed ballistics reports, gunshot-residue (GSR) testing results, or autopsy findings in the Alex Pretti case [1] [2] [3]. Minnesota prosecutors and news outlets say local investigators have been largely shut out of the evidence and are pressing courts to prevent any alteration or destruction of material that could yield forensics such as GSR and ballistics [4] [5].
1. What has actually been released: video, photos and agency statements
Multiple witness and surveillance videos showing the moments before and during the shooting have been published and analyzed by news organizations; those clips are the principal forensic material that has been made public to date and have been the basis for frame‑by‑frame reconstructions in outlets like The New York Times and The Guardian [6] [1]. Photographs of Pretti and images purported to show his handgun circulated online, but some of those images were altered or misattributed, prompting fact‑checks that caution against treating every image as verified evidence [7]. Official statements from DHS and federal investigators assert collected evidence will be preserved and that the FBI is assisting with physical evidence and forensics, but such statements do not equate to public disclosure of formal forensic reports [2] [8].
2. Ballistics: retained but no public ballistic report released
There is consistent reporting that federal agents took custody of physical items from the scene and that the FBI has a role in preserving and handling physical evidence — which would include the weapon and spent casings for ballistic analysis — but no public ballistic analysis or autopsy‑style forensic ballistics report has been released by authorities as of these articles [2] [5]. State officials argued in court that federal agencies were blocking local access to scene evidence and urged preservation because ballistics linkage (who fired which rounds, trajectories, matching casings to weapons) requires independent review; a federal judge ordered agencies not to destroy or alter evidence while litigation proceeds [5] [3].
3. Gunshot‑residue (GSR): possible testing implied, results absent
News reports note that physical evidence is being preserved and that the FBI is “assisting” with forensics, which implies that GSR swabs and related testing could be performed, but no GSR test results have been publicly released and Minnesota investigators say they have been limited in access to perform their own forensics [8] [4]. The absence of released GSR findings leaves unresolved key factual disputes central to narratives about whether Pretti brandished, drew or was holding his firearm at the time of the shooting — disputes highlighted by video analysts who say Pretti appears to be holding a phone rather than a gun in several clips [1].
4. Autopsy: no autopsy report made public
There is no public autopsy report cited in the reporting assembled here. Coverage references that Pretti suffered multiple gunshot wounds and was pronounced dead at the scene, but formal autopsy findings — trajectories, range, wound-ballistics interpretation, toxicology — have not been released publicly in these sources [4] [6]. Minnesota officials have demanded access to evidence and transparency about investigations into the cause and manner of death, while federal authorities have confined the active investigation to DHS units; reporting indicates both the handling jurisdiction and the lack of a civil‑rights probe have been points of contention [9] [4].
5. Why the forensic record is incomplete and why it matters
The forensic record remains incomplete in public view because federal agencies retained custody of key materials and state prosecutors had to sue to preserve access, prompting a court order that the evidence not be destroyed — an indication that the parties anticipate crucial forensic testing (ballistics matching, GSR, autopsy) but that those analyses have not been publicly shared [3] [5]. Complicating matters, manipulated or miscaptioned images and sharply competing political narratives mean the absence of formal reports has been filled in by inference, video analysis and partisan statements rather than by verified forensic documentation [7] [10].