What additional video and forensic evidence have investigators collected in the Renee Good case and what do they show?

1. Video corpus: multiple angles of a single deadly encounter

Public and law‑enforcement sources describe a growing collection of video: body‑worn and bystander recordings that capture the final moments of the confrontation and the shooting itself, with a “new video” publicly emerging that shows those final seconds ^{[5] [1]}. News outlets and local reporting note that different camera angles—ICE policy requires activation of body‑worn cameras and footage is expected to be retained in death or serious‑use‑of‑force incidents—have created a composite record that investigators and the public have examined ^{[5] [1]}.

2. Forensic video analysis: key claims tested and some commonly circulated assertions challenged

Forensic examinations by outlets including The New York Times and Bellingcat, cited in reporting, have analyzed the available footage and rejected the narrative that Good “ran over” the ICE agent before he fired, undermining early public statements that portrayed the shooting as immediate self‑defense in response to being run down ^[2]. Defense and administration officials have pointed to video to support a self‑defense claim, but independent reviewers and the Good family’s attorneys say the videos, when examined against policing standards and the totality of circumstances, do not support that justification ^{[2] [3]}.

3. Independent autopsy: three gunshot paths including a fatal head wound

Attorneys for Good’s family released preliminary independent autopsy findings showing at least three distinct gunshot wound paths, including wounds to the head, arm and chest/breast area, which they say are consistent with multiple shots fired at close range and central to the family’s civil case narrative ^{[3] [4] [6]}. The family’s legal team publicly argued that the autopsy, combined with the video record, supplies strong evidence for their civil claims and for contesting the administration’s framing of the event ^{[7] [3]}.

4. Evidence custody, preservation and public sourcing

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has asserted control over physical evidence and materials from the scene, a standard step in federal use‑of‑force inquiries, while the Good family’s lawyers have formally demanded preservation of the vehicle and other materials and asked the public to forward any recordings to state prosecutors to aid local review ^{[1] [4] [5]}. State‑level investigators report they were denied continued access to certain case materials, a dispute that has become central to questions about transparency and which agency will ultimately make charging decisions ^[1].

5. Competing narratives and the current investigatory posture

Federal officials and some administration spokespeople have defended the agent’s conduct as self‑defense and emphasized legal exposure for anyone who impeded the operation, while local officials, protesters and the family’s lawyers contest that characterization and point to the combined video and autopsy evidence as undermining the self‑defense claim ^{[3] [8] [2]}. At the same time, the Justice Department’s public posture—senior officials saying the department is “not investigating” criminally—has been reported alongside the FBI’s evidence custody, leaving a gap between public statements and the existence of collected videos and forensic reports ^{[2] [1]}.

Conclusion

The additional evidence assembled so far consists chiefly of multi‑angle video recordings that show the shooting itself and have been the subject of forensic scrutiny disproving specific early claims, plus an independent autopsy documenting multiple gunshot wounds including a head wound; disputes over evidence access and agency control remain unresolved and will shape whether these materials lead to criminal charges, civil suits or both ^{[5] [2] [3] [1]}.