What specific forensic findings did The New York Times and Bellingcat publish about the Renee Good videos?

1. The New York Times: millisecond synchronization and visual timeline

The Times’ visual investigation stitched together multiple videos and synchronized them to produce a millisecond‑by‑millisecond timeline, allowing investigators to follow movements of the ICE agent and Renee Good across different camera angles and moments before, during and after the shooting—this synchronization was central to the Times’ claim that the assembled footage gives a frame‑by‑frame look at how the shooting unfolded ^{[1] [2]}.

2. What the Times’ frame‑by‑frame analysis showed about positioning and motion

Using that synchronized timeline, The New York Times’ analysis demonstrated that the officer moved around the front of Good’s vehicle and that available footage did not place the agent directly in the vehicle’s path at the instant shots were fired, a finding the paper presented as contradicting statements that Good had driven over or toward the officer ^{[2] [1] [5]}.

3. Bellingcat: annotated frames focusing on gun, phone and hand positions

Bellingcat published a frame‑by‑frame annotated video that concentrated on the agent’s hands, documenting how the gun and a phone appeared in his grip over successive frames, and called particular attention to an observable change in how the phone was held—annotations were used to argue that the agent’s phone camera app is visible in footage taken about 45 seconds after the shooting, and to highlight the relative positions of gun and phone immediately before and after the shots ^{[3] [4] [5]}.

4. Convergent conclusions: both teams challenged the “ran over” and self‑defense narratives

Both The New York Times and Bellingcat — echoed by other visual‑forensics teams cited in reporting — concluded that the visual record challenges the narrative that Good “ran over” the agent and that he was struck or directly endangered by her vehicle when he opened fire; outlets reported that these forensic findings contradicted statements from the administration and were widely cited in coverage questioning the officer’s self‑defense claim ^{[5] [6] [3]}.

5. Counterclaims, caveats and limits of the visual record

Reporting also records competing narratives and some pushback: administration officials and allied commentators have asserted different details about the incident, and fact‑checkers flagged misattributed or misleading still images circulating online—moreover, while the Times and Bellingcat analyses reduce key ambiguities by synchronizing footage and annotating frames, they remain limited to the available video record and cannot, by themselves, resolve testimonial or forensic evidence not captured on camera ^{[5] [7] [3]}.

6. Why the forensic findings matter and the implicit agendas at play

The technical findings from two respected visual‑forensics efforts matter because they shape public and prosecutorial perception of whether the use of deadly force was justified; at the same time, the release and framing of synchronized footage carries political stakes—outlets explicitly framed their work as a corrective to official claims, while critics argue that narrative framing can omit contextual details, so readers should note both the forensic specifics reported by The New York Times and Bellingcat and the political context in which those findings were amplified ^{[2] [3] [8] [5]}.