What evidence have independent video analyses and forensic reviews produced about the sequence of events in the Renée Good shooting?
Executive summary
Independent video analysts and forensic reviewers—ranging from nonprofit investigators and journalists to private forensic commentators—have produced a converging account that the fatal shots were fired as Renee Good’s SUV moved past ICE agent Jonathan Ross, that multiple rounds struck her, and that at least some analysts conclude Ross was not in immediate danger when he fired; however, image quality, restricted access to evidence, and conflicting interpretations mean key questions about contact, exact trajectories and legal culpability remain contested [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. Forensic reconstructions place the shots as the vehicle moved past the agent
Frame‑by‑frame examinations and preliminary 3D reconstructions produced by independent teams show the sequence as: the vehicle begins to turn and move away while the agent fires multiple times, with at least one analyst timing the first shot at 7:19 and noting the car’s tires turning right as it passed the shooter [3] [4] [8]. These reconstructions informed broader media and NGO accounts that the fatal shots occurred as the SUV veered past the officer rather than after the vehicle ran over or crushed the agent, a claim that forensic reviews by outlets such as The New York Times and Bellingcat have explicitly disputed [9] [8].
2. Multiple shots and lethal targeting are documented by autopsy and independent NGO review
A private autopsy commissioned by Good’s family found she was shot at least three times, a fact cited by the family’s lawyers and reported in The New York Times [2]. Independent forensic NGOs, such as Index, concluded the shooter fired at lethal parts of Good’s body and argued those shots were taken from a position where the officer was not in immediate danger, framing the shooting as “targeting” rather than purely defensive [1].
3. Analysts differ on the precise mechanics — contact, angle and trajectory remain disputed
Several analysts and outlets emphasize limits in the publicly available imagery: some forensic commentators say the photo and video quality are insufficient to establish precise bullet trajectories from glass beveling or to prove physical contact between vehicle and officer [3] [5]. The Associated Press and other news organizations concluded it was unclear whether Good’s car actually made contact with the agent, underscoring an evidentiary gap that independent video work has not yet closed [6].
4. Independent commentators reconstruct officer movement and perception in the seconds before firing
Multiple independent reviewers conducting geometric, kinematic and human factors analyses argue the officer moved out of the vehicle’s direct path as it began to roll and that shots were fired as the SUV passed—interpretations that support the view that the officer perceived but may not have been actually endangered by the vehicle [4] [5]. Some former law‑enforcement and use‑of‑force commentators propose that a sequence of rapid decisions could explain multiple shots being fired before stopping was feasible, a prosecutorial counterpoint likely to appear in defense expert testimony [4].
5. Investigative control and access limitations shape what independent analyses can conclude
Federal authorities moved the probe to FBI control, limiting state access to forensic materials and witness interviews and prompting legal and political concerns that independent or state investigators cannot review all evidence; that restriction constrains the ability of outside analysts to definitively resolve trajectory or contact questions [10] [11]. The Justice Department’s public conclusion that it was “not investigating” a federal civil‑rights case at this time, and political context cited by reporting, further shapes how forensic findings may or may not lead to charges [9] [11].
6. What the independent evidence establishes — and what it does not
Independent video and forensic reviews have collectively established that video shows the shooting, that Good was struck multiple times, and that several analyses place the shots as the vehicle moved past the agent rather than after the car ran him over [7] [2] [3] [1]. They have not, however, produced unanimity on whether the vehicle physically contacted the agent, the exact bullet trajectories from definitive ballistic‑forensic scene work, or the legal conclusion of criminal culpability; those determinations depend on evidence still controlled by federal investigators and on competing expert interpretations [6] [10] [11].