What ballistic and forensic evidence has been publicly released about the July 13 rally shooting and how do they link shots to specific individuals?
Executive summary
Publicly released material about the July 13 Butler rally shooting centers on recovered ballistic items, witness and video feeds, agency statements tying a single suspect to shots that struck the former president and bystanders, and internal agency reports documenting evidence collection—yet full forensic reports and NIBIN correlation details remain largely withheld from public release [1] [2] [3]. Independent and partisan accounts advance conflicting readings—some media and advocacy writeups claim multiple weapons or overlapping shot streams—while federal statements maintain a single identified shooter whose rounds matched the injuries and scene evidence gathered [4] [5] [1].
1. What law enforcement has said publicly about evidence recovered
The FBI’s public updates state the shooting is being investigated as an assassination attempt and domestic terrorism and indicate the bureau and partners recovered physical evidence from the scene that supported identifying a suspect, later named by the FBI, and charging him for shots that struck the former president and others; the FBI page reiterates an ongoing criminal and forensic inquiry rather than releasing full lab reports [1]. Congressional and agency after‑action documents confirm agencies collected “physical evidence … in the possession of the FBI” related to shots and impacted equipment, and that Secret Service and CBP tactical elements were involved in post‑event accounting of weapon use and weapon placement at the site [3] [6].
2. Ballistics basics used in public explanations and investigation tools
Public reporting and forensic guidance make clear investigators rely on cartridge cases, projectiles, and tool‑mark comparisons to connect fired rounds to a particular firearm; agencies commonly use NIBIN and microscopic signature comparisons to match recovered casings or bullets to a test‑fired weapon and to other incidents, though those NIBIN query results have not been released to the public in detail for this case [7] [8]. Analysts also use trajectory reconstruction and terminal wound analysis to place shooter location relative to victims and to corroborate video and witness statements, techniques repeatedly referenced in news summaries of the Butler scene [9] [4].
3. Scene items reported and how they were used to assign responsibility
Media and agency summaries say investigators recovered bullets, casings, surveillance and cell‑phone video, and other scene evidence that were used together to determine shot origins and impacts; digital‑forensics outlines published by private firms show how phones, metadata, and geolocation commonly supplement ballistic matches—though the specifics of Crooks’ phone or lab comparisons have not been publicly released in evidentiary detail [2] [1]. Congressional material and local investigative reporting reference shots that struck equipment and people and note that some fragments and impact patterns were catalogued by responding teams and later transferred to federal custody for analysis [3] [6].
4. How investigators publicly linked shots to the named suspect
Public sources indicate the FBI and Secret Service identified Thomas Matthew Crooks as the primary suspect and stated his shots struck the former president and three others, with press accounts saying the rifle used had been legally acquired by his family and later possessed by him—reporting that links recovered firearm evidence, trajectory, and scene impacts to an identified individual while not publishing the fingerprint, gun‑match, or NIBIN printouts themselves [10] [2] [1]. Private forensic explainers describe the standard path investigators take—test firing a recovered weapon, comparing unique striations or firing pin marks to recovered bullets/casings, and using NIBIN for corroboration—but the public record for this event stops short of releasing those lab comparison files [7] [8].
5. Conflicting claims, scientific limits and what remains undisclosed
Several independent and advocacy sources have asserted multiple weapons or more than the officially acknowledged shot count—claims echoed online that at least 13 shots were fired or that projectiles came from different directions—yet those assertions rely on selective readings of acoustic or fragmentary evidence and are not substantiated by public lab reports from the FBI or ATF in this case [5] [4]. Experts caution that traditional firearm‑tool‑mark identification has known limitations and that the uniqueness of microscopic marks has not been proven to the degree some courtroom testimony assumes, underscoring why full release of raw ballistic data, NIBIN hits, and lab protocols is necessary for independent vetting [11]. Publicly available documents therefore establish that physical evidence was collected and was central to naming a suspect, but they do not provide the granular forensic outputs needed for outside verification [3] [1].
Conclusion
The publicly released record shows law enforcement collected and used classic forensic streams—bullets, casings, videos, and digital evidence—and that federal agencies concluded those streams pointed to a single identified suspect; however, the crucial forensic artifacts (detailed ballistic comparison reports, NIBIN correlations, and lab worksheets) have not been made public, leaving independent assessment of how uniquely those shots were tied to specific firearms and individuals incomplete and contested [1] [7] [11].