Has any official forensic speed reconstruction been released for Renee Good’s SUV movement?

1. What “official forensic speed reconstruction” would mean and why it matters

An “official” reconstruction normally refers to a systematic, documented analysis produced by a law-enforcement forensic unit, an independent coroner’s office, or an authorized technical contractor that uses calibrated video, scene measurements, timestamps, vehicle damage and expert modelling to estimate speed; that sort of formal report is what would settle disputes about how fast Good’s SUV moved and whether it contacted the agent when the shots were fired, but no such formal report has been made public in this case (reporting shows independent, preliminary work rather than a finalized official product) ^{[2] [1] [3]}.

2. What independent investigators and journalists have released so far

Independent teams and individual analysts have produced preliminary reconstructions and frame-by-frame forensic video work: the investigative NGO Index published a preliminary 3D visual analysis that modeled trajectories and concluded the agent was not in the SUV’s path as shots were fired (explicitly labeled preliminary and not a finalized expert report), and independent video-forensic writers have aligned frames and timestamps to produce draft reconstructions and observations about vehicle movement and impact (both Index and the Sellers posts describe their work as preliminary and based on available footage rather than a sealed official investigation) ^{[1] [5] [2]}.

3. What mainstream news outlets and authorities have reported

Mainstream outlets have reported on the same limited record: PBS and the Associated Press have said available forensic evidence examined by news organizations left open whether the car made contact with the agent, and media coverage cites multiple attempts to reconcile different camera angles and officer video with bystander footage—again reflecting ongoing analysis rather than a completed official speed reconstruction ^{[4] [6]}.

4. What prosecutors and investigators are doing publicly

A Minnesota prosecutor explicitly called on the public to submit recordings and evidence to investigators, signaling that authorities were still gathering primary materials needed for definitive reconstructions and that the investigative work was incomplete; this public call reinforces that no final official technical reconstruction—particularly a speed analysis—had been released at that time ^[3].

5. Limits of the public record and the caution urged by analysts

Forensic video analysts who have published early work stress limitations: low-quality frames, missing vantage points, and the need for calibrated scene measurements make precise speed estimates difficult without full access to all videos, vehicle telemetry, and scene surveys; both Index and independent analysts have framed their outputs as preliminary and urged that they not be treated as definitive legal or forensic findings ^{[1] [2]}.

6. Conflicting narratives, agendas and why “official” matters

Advocacy groups and independent investigators have used preliminary reconstructions to challenge federal claims about agent safety, while officials and some media outlets underline uncertainty—these competing narratives reflect differing implicit agendas (accountability versus cautious evidentiary standards); an officially sanctioned, peer-reviewed forensic reconstruction would carry procedural weight in court or oversight reviews in ways independent, preliminary analyses cannot ^{[1] [4] [2]}.

7. Bottom line

As of the available reporting, there has been no publicly released, formal forensic speed reconstruction of Renee Good’s SUV movement from an official agency or coroner; the record consists of preliminary 3D and video-forensic work by independent organizations and journalists and ongoing evidence collection by prosecutors—none of which amounts to a finalized official speed analysis ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.