Which medical examiner or coroner conducted the autopsy for Charlie Kirk and where is the report filed?

1. What the public record says now: an autopsy was done but the full report isn’t public

Multiple outlets report an autopsy was performed after Kirk’s death (noting Utah requires autopsies in homicides) and contemporaneous coverage emphasizes that detailed autopsy findings have not been released to the public beyond that he died of a neck gunshot and that the manner was ruled a homicide ^{[1] [3]}. Some commentary and unofficial summaries have circulated, but the official coroner’s (medical examiner’s) report has not been published in the items you provided ^[4].

2. Who performs autopsies in Utah: a state Office of the Medical Examiner

Utah does not employ county coroners; instead a state Office of the Medical Examiner within the Department of Health and Human Services conducts required autopsies and issues reports. That office reportedly has eight board‑certified forensic pathologists on staff who perform examinations in cases including homicides ^[2].

3. Which specific medical examiner or pathologist did Kirk’s autopsy? Sources do not name an individual

Available reporting does not identify a named medical examiner or forensic pathologist who performed Charlie Kirk’s autopsy. The Utah Office of the Medical Examiner confirms autopsies are done by one of its staff pathologists, but the provided sources do not state which of the eight pathologists handled this case ^[2]. News stories referenced an autopsy generally but did not name the examiner ^{[1] [3]}.

4. Where the report is filed and whether it’s public

Because Utah’s Office of the Medical Examiner is the entity that performs and issues autopsy reports statewide, the official autopsy report for Kirk—if completed—would be filed with that office ^[2]. Utah law cited in reporting governs release and indicates limitation on making such reports public; the sources state the official report has not been released ^{[2] [4]}.

5. Conflicting claims and unofficial detail: what to treat cautiously

Unofficial summaries and commentary have offered more granular or sensational claims (for example, assertions about exit wounds, caliber or distance) but the reporting you provided warns that only limited official detail—“neck gunshot” and “homicide”—has been published and that full medical specifics have not been confirmed publicly ^{[3] [4]}. Treat claims beyond the narrow published descriptions as unverified in current reporting ^[3].

6. Why the office might withhold details: law and practice

The sources note a recent Utah statute (26B‑8‑217) and the structural fact that autopsies are centralized in a state medical examiner’s office; those legal and institutional arrangements are cited when outlets explain why autopsy reports may not be released to the public ^[2]. The reporting you provided frames non‑release as consistent with state practice and statute rather than an unexplained administrative choice ^[2].

7. What journalists and readers should watch next

Follow direct statements or releases from the Utah Office of the Medical Examiner for any named examiner, the official autopsy report, or clarifying comments about public access ^[2]. Until an official report is published, rely on the narrow, cited findings in current reporting (autopsy performed; neck gunshot; manner homicide) and treat more detailed accounts from unofficial sources as unconfirmed ^{[1] [3] [4]}.

Limitations: these conclusions rely only on the documents you supplied; none of those sources names the individual pathologist who performed the exam, and they state the full autopsy report has not been released ^{[1] [3] [2]}.