What medical records or official injury reports have prosecutors cited regarding Jonathan Ross's condition?

1. What prosecutors have actually cited in court filings: cuts, abrasions and stitches

The concrete injuries prosecutors point to in public court documents and filings are external trauma from a June dragging incident: prosecutors’ summaries state Ross “suffered multiple large cuts, and abrasions to his knee, elbow, and face,” and that he required stitches after being dragged when his arm became caught in a vehicle window during an attempted arrest ^{[1] [5] [3]}.

2. Numbers differ across reporting — stitches and totals cited by prosecutors and outlets

Different outlets and public records note different stitch counts: some court-related reporting records Ross as receiving “33 stitches” (a figure Ross himself has used in testimony) while other reporting derived from prosecutor summaries or local press references says he received “more than 50 stitches” or “dozens” of stitches before being treated at a hospital ^{[4] [6] [2] [1]}. Those variations reflect either shorthand in reporting or different sources (Ross’s testimony, court summaries, or news accounts), not a single released medical record.

3. The “internal bleeding” claim: sourced to unnamed officials, not prosecutor-filed medical records

Several national outlets published accounts that Ross had “internal bleeding to the torso,” attributing that assertion to unnamed U.S. officials who briefed reporters; those pieces do not cite hospital records or entries placed into the court file, and newsroom internal critique later noted the thin sourcing behind the claim ^{[4] [7] [8]}. In short, the internal-bleeding claim appears to come from officials speaking off the record to reporters, not from the prosecutor’s publicly filed medical narrative ^[8].

4. What defenders of the internal-bleeding reporting and fact-checkers say about documentary proof

News organizations that reported internal bleeding defended their editorial processes, but independent fact-checks and social-media corrections emphasized that no verified or publicly released medical documentation confirming internal bleeding has been made available — medical records remain private unless entered into the public court record or released by authorities — and the record prosecutors cite in filings is focused on external injuries and stitches ^{[8] [9]}.

5. Where prosecutors’ cited evidence comes from — court records and testimony, not hospital charts

Prosecutors’ accounts rely on previously filed federal court records and testimony from the earlier case in which Ross was the injured officer; those filings and testimony document external wounds, stitches, and abrasions and were used to describe Ross’s prior injuries in the public record ^{[1] [6] [3]}. There is no indication in the publicly available prosecutor-filed materials that they appended or relied on sealed hospital records showing internal bleeding.

6. Why the distinction matters for accountability and narrative control

Whether Ross’s injuries included internal bleeding is consequential: internal injuries can be cited to justify use-of-force decisions and shape public and prosecutorial narratives, while externally documented cuts and stitches are concrete, court-admitted facts; the gap between unnamed-official claims and court-filed records has already produced newsroom debate and fact-check scrutiny, underscoring how unverified medical assertions can amplify a political and legal story before documentary proof is introduced into the court record ^{[8] [9]}.

7. Bottom line

Prosecutors have cited court records and testimony documenting external injuries — “multiple large cuts,” abrasions, and stitches — from the June dragging incident ^{[1] [3] [6]}; claims that Ross suffered internal bleeding appear in some news articles sourced to unnamed officials but have not been corroborated by publicly available medical records or court filings that prosecutors have produced ^{[4] [8] [9]}.