Which independent forensic experts have analyzed the publicly released videos and what are their conclusions about timing and line‑of‑fire?
Executive summary
Independent forensic reviewers who examined the publicly released videos include former FBI senior forensic examiners (named in reporting as Eldridge and Passmore) and two independent video-forensics consultants who spoke with WIRED; their findings diverge: Eldridge and Passmore reported no evidence of tampering and offered technical explanations for timing discrepancies but emphasized limits because they lacked original raw files [1], while the WIRED consultants concluded the published FBI clip was assembled from multiple sources and that roughly three minutes of footage had been cut [2].
1. Who the independent experts were and what they examined
The two strands of independent analysis reported so far are clearly identified in contemporary coverage: Forbes described a review by former FBI Senior Forensic Examiners Eldridge and Passmore, who analyzed the publicly released processed video files rather than original surveillance masters and framed their work as expert forensic review [1], and WIRED reported it had “reviewed its findings with two independent video forensics experts” with long experience in video production and Premiere, who confirmed technical signs the file had been assembled from multiple clips and saved repeatedly before being posted [2].
2. What they concluded about timing discrepancies
Eldridge and Passmore concluded that there was no evidence of deliberate tampering in the copies they examined and that all timing anomalies could be plausibly explained by routine technical processes—file assembly, multiple saves, exports and format conversions—but they were explicit that definitive proof would require access to the original raw surveillance files held by the FBI [1]. WIRED’s consultants, by contrast, used embedded metadata analysis to report that the published file was assembled from at least two source clips, saved multiple times and exported—findings that imply the published clip’s timeline does not represent an unedited continuous master [2].
3. What they said about line‑of‑fire and who fired when
Reporting from the New York Times’ Visual Investigations—drawing on frame‑by‑frame video assessment, audio, autopsies and witness interviews—concluded that multiple soldiers fired over the course of six minutes at unarmed emergency workers, a conclusion built from cross‑referencing many videos and not limited to a single “official” clip [3]. WIRED and the video experts it consulted focused less on attributing individual shots and more on structural edits and missing minutes that complicate any single‑clip narrative about who fired when [2]. Eldridge and Passmore’s work did not assert on‑camera shooter identities; instead they constrained their conclusions to the integrity and timing metadata of the files they reviewed and cautioned analysts to avoid drawing final conclusions without original footage [1].
4. Methodological caveats, standards and why experts disagree
Independent analysts and forensic authorities caution that conclusions drawn from processed, recompressed or exported video are inherently limited: forensic video practice prioritizes original masters because conversion and repeated saving change timestamps, compression artifacts and container metadata—factors noted in guidance from Axon and echoed by the forensic examiners quoted in reporting [4] [1]. WIRED’s identification of cuts and assembly stems from metadata indications and editing artifacts visible in the published file [2], while Eldridge and Passmore’s absence-of-tampering finding rests on the same public files but emphasizes plausible benign explanations; both positions acknowledge that access to raw surveillance captures would be required to move from “highly probable” to certain [1] [2].
5. The political and institutional subtext readers should note
The public disagreement between analysts—and the prominent caveat that original files remain under government control—creates an information asymmetry that shapes competing narratives: one set of independent reviewers emphasizes no clear evidence of deliberate manipulation in what was available to them [1], while investigative outlets and other forensic consultants flag cuts and assembly of the posted clip that undercut claims the DOJ published an unedited master [2]. Industry primers and institutional labs (Axon, ATF fire labs, professional forensic firms) repeatedly warn that missing originals, compression and export histories materially affect timing and interpretation, a technical reality that also produces fodder for political actors who benefit when uncertainty persists [4] [5].
Bottom line
Two cohorts of independent analysts reached different emphases from the same public material: Eldridge and Passmore found no signs of tampering in processed files but insisted originals are necessary for certainty [1], while WIRED’s consulted experts found metadata and editing artifacts showing the posted video was assembled and that about three minutes were absent from the released clip [2]; separate, broader visual investigations used many videos to allege extended firing over minutes but rely on cross‑referenced footage beyond the single DOJ‑posted file [3]. Access to original surveillance masters remains the decisive missing piece for resolving timing and line‑of‑fire disputes [1] [2] [4].