The Forensic Report is Out, Now We Know What REALLY Happened

Added: 2026-05-12

[00:00:08]Welcome to Firearms Solutions.

[00:00:10]Since the shooting in Charlie Kirk took place, you know, I've said over and over and over again that we need to have all the information before you can make a determination of what happened.

[00:00:18]And that main piece is the forensic Firearms identification final report.

[00:00:24]Uh which has just been made available.

[00:00:26]Now, people were demanding answers into what happened in the Charlie Kirk assassination. However, there's a trial they're they're preparing for so they're not going to release all the information and all the findings prior to the trial.

[00:00:38]And the concern is to have Mr. Robinson tried by the court of law, not by the court of the internet.

[00:00:45]So, they were going to withhold all their evidence up until trial. Well, right now we are in trial.

[00:00:51]And for uh the first time, the actual report was issued of what happened that day first far as the forensic Firearms identification was concerned.

[00:01:01]So, you know, again, uh because of the fact that this information wasn't released and it shouldn't have been released. Again, you're preparing for trial. Again, people's minds go all over the place. Uh you have all the conspiracy theorists, everybody from the complete nihilist uh to the target shooter to the deer hunter who thinks that they know exactly what's going to happen when a bullet hits a hits a body.

[00:01:21]So, you have people who basically were making up uh their own theories with no training and or experience and no uh logic in the field.

[00:01:29]Uh so, many people will claim that by not releasing information the government's instilling conspiracy theories. No, they're not. Not in this case at all. In this case, they are preparing for trial like any other trial. It wouldn't matter if this was Charlie Kirk or this was just your your local drug dealer who's going uh who is who who is murdered and here's a trial for him. They don't release the information prior to the trial.

[00:01:49]So, the report we have is finally here.

[00:01:52]Uh they had uh it already been submitted. It was testified upon uh in the trial. So, now we actually have the report from the ATF.

[00:02:01]Now, this particular report was done by the ATF laboratory. Now, uh due to the fact that uh the the jurisdiction uh where this homicide took place did not really have a municipal crime lab. Most of the times uh wherever the homicide takes place, you have a municipal crime lab. For instance, if you were in, you know, New York City, you have a crime lab in New York City. For instance, if you have a uh a crime in Milwaukee, you have a crime lab in Milwaukee and all that surrounding the surrounding area uh of many, many counties, that lab is responsible for. Well, if you don't have that, then you you would go to either the FBI or the ATF laboratories. They would take the cases for the um locations that did not have jurisdictions.

[00:02:45]Now, looking over this report, um we're going to go over this line by line. I will say that uh looking at the way this report was done, my reports look very, very differently.

[00:02:54]Uh when I do reports, mine were much more clear uh and much more concise. Um uh these the ATF report is uh rep you're you're repeating things and you're using language that I normally wouldn't use uh because I want the layman to be able to understand it. But, we're going to go over this uh piece by piece here.

[00:03:14]Now, again, this this is done by the uh US Department of Justice, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Laboratory uh in Maryland.

[00:03:21]Uh now, this was date was September 17th, 2025. This was very, very close to the actual homicide. So, this information was known well in advance.

[00:03:31]Uh case number 2025-W-000401, which is the uh that lab the laboratory number, the case number that was assigned to it by the ATF.

[00:03:41]>> [snorts] >> Uh again, as it was the homicide of Charlie Kirk. Now, we're going we're going to go over the exhibits.

[00:03:47]Now, uh you have basically your lab number, which is what it's referred to, which is the 20 2025-W-000401.

[00:03:56]And now you're going to get into exhibits.

[00:03:58]The lab exhibits. Exhibit one, one Mauser Model 98.30-06 Springfield rifle bearing serial number 8863 with an optical accessory.

[00:04:08]Item number two, one.30-06 Springfield caliber cartridge case, meaning unfired meaning it was a fired cartridge case.

[00:04:15]Now, we have uh three, four, and five, which are each.30-06 Springfield caliber cartridge, which would be unfired.

[00:04:22]And then item number six is one bullet jacket fragment and four lead fragments designated 6A through 6E.

[00:04:29]Okay, so now we're going to get into the results.

[00:04:32]Okay, now again, I would have done this differently, but exhibit one, the rifle was test fired and found to be in operable condition. The test fires were desig- designated as exhibit 1.11.

[00:04:43]I basically would have said that the exhibit was test fired uh using laboratory ammunition and it was found to be in operable condition. Again, um there's different ways of saying this.

[00:04:52]This is just a little bit more, I think, on the on the confusing side.

[00:04:57]So, exhibit two, the cartridge case was identified as being fired in exhibit one.

[00:05:03]So, basically what they're saying is they test fired the rifle with laboratory ammunition, did a microscopic comparison, and they compared uh the test fired cartridge cases from the the rifle to the fired cartridge case and they were a match.

[00:05:16]Now, again, if I was doing this, uh I would have test fired one of the submitted unfired cartridges. Uh basically what I would want to do is I would want to compare apples to apples. The exact same kind of ammunition that was used uh in the test Now, these guys did not bother using any of these submitted cartridges. They only uh used the uh test laboratory ammunition.

[00:05:40]Exhibits three through five, unfired.30-06 caliber cartridges.

[00:05:45]Now, I would have definitely said unfired. You have to understand, this is this is about findings. This is not about uh how the examiner got there.

[00:05:53]The notes are going to contain a lot of information that you don't see in the report. For example, they report on these as unfired cartridges that were Remington.

[00:06:02]Now, in the uh notes, you would have what type of projectile it was. If it was me writing this report, I would have reported on what kind of a bullet it was.

[00:06:10]Uh I would have reported whether it was a full metal jacket jacket soft point, a hollow point, bonded core. I would have actually said what it was because of the fact that that projectile was uh compared to the fired evidence.

[00:06:22]Uh so, they didn't say they didn't say that at all, which was a little on the confusing side for me. I would have I would have included that. But, there are a lot of things that are in the notes.

[00:06:29]For instance, on the rifle, uh you'll find stuff that are in the notes that aren't in the report. Because again, the purpose of this report and examiner testifying is not to try to turn the jury into a qualified forensic Firearms examiner. Again, you're giving your findings. If they want more details, uh which are in the notes, that can be provided during the testimony.

[00:06:51]So, again, exhibits three through five, very simply, you have three you know, the three unfired cartridges. However, they also found on those cartridges scribing, basically uh tool marks from a what they refer to as a Dremel-type tool.

[00:07:05]Now, uh they also said if a Dremel is found, it could be submitted to the laboratory and it could be tested up against the markings that are on those cartridge cases.

[00:07:14]Now, unusually, uh they talk about the scribing that is on the cartridge cartridges and the cartridge cases, but they don't say what it was. Myself, I would have reported what they actually said.

[00:07:25]Uh however, they did not do that in this report. So, we still don't know what actually was said on there.

[00:07:32]So, now we're going to get into the most important part. Exhibit six consists of a.30-caliber deformed damaged bullet jacket fragment, and then you have uh four lead fragments.

[00:07:42]Now, it was determined that that was a.30-caliber base. Uh the the the base of that that damaged projectile. So, it was identified as being again.30-caliber.

[00:07:53]They identified the general rifling characteristics, which uh which was six lands and groove right-hand twist.

[00:07:58]That was compared to the test fired projectile from the submitted rifle.

[00:08:02]And it matched that GRC. Again, the same number of lands and groove direction of the twist, the width of the lands and grooves, as well as being able to determine that it was.30-caliber.

[00:08:11]Now, again, when the without being able to fully identify it's coming from that gun, you're saying.30-caliber.

[00:08:16].30-caliber could mean.30-06, could mean.308, could mean.30-30, could mean.300 Win Mag. There are any number of cartridges that use.30-caliber projectiles.

[00:08:25]Now, but what was done, they were able to compare it to the submitted rifle.

[00:08:30]Now, the way that they brought the word this is not the way that I would have done it, but they basically would say, "The exhibit 6A bullet jacket fragment could not be identified or excluded as having fired in the submitted exhibit one rifle based on the agreement of all discernible class characteristics and neither sufficient agreement nor sufficient disagreement of individual characteristics. The results of the comparison were inconclusive." I would not have said it that way.

[00:08:55]I would have worded this a lot more simply. Uh I would basically have said that the submitted bullet jacket fragment was compared to the test fired bullet from item one.

[00:09:04]And due to impact and or penetration damage, there was lack of sufficient individual characteristics to determine if it was fired in that firearm.

[00:09:11]And I would have said inconclusive. Um you don't need to get into discernible or class or sufficient agreement. That's a little more complex uh I think for a jury. Basically, all you want to tell them is it was compared, it was the same class. However, there wasn't sufficient individual characteristics to either confirm or deny.

[00:09:28]So, again, inconclusive. So, now we we will talk about the bullet jacket fragments.

[00:09:34]Uh the fragments uh were the lead fragments were not suitable for any kind of microscopic comparison.

[00:09:39]So, overall, what does what do we now know? We now know that uh there was a bullet jacket fragment and there was four lead fragments that were recovered at the autopsy of Charlie Kirk.

[00:09:50]So, we know the projectile struck Charlie Kirk. The bullets came apart.

[00:09:53]Certain components remained in the body and certain went through.

[00:09:57]Now, there's no uh report of where those other bullet jacket fragments uh other parts of that jacket left the left the body where they were at.

[00:10:06]So, what we do know is we can eliminate the possibility of a bomb from a microphone.

[00:10:13]We can eliminate a pistol being used by somebody who was right next to him.

[00:10:17]Again, all these conspiracy theories we can disprove.

[00:10:20]Again, the.30-06 uh very well could have done what it did, in fact.

[00:10:26]More than likely that it did uh just due to the fact of the agreement and general rifling characteristics. You still would have had a.30 caliber rifle regardless of whether it was a that one or not. When you saw the the the gunshot wound on very slow motion, you were able to see the significant amount of energy dumped or energy energy transfer into Charlie Kirk's body.

[00:10:44]So, you saw a lot of that shock being taken up. And again, that bullet did come apart. So, it didn't just blow right through like people would have expected. Again, the deer hunters, all these people who have no idea what happens when bullets hit human body, they make a lot of assumptions uh when those assumptions are wrong.

[00:10:59]Clearly, there is a.30 caliber projectile that was removed from Charlie Kirk's neck, a part of that cartridge that was identified as being.30 caliber, and it remained, and parts did exit.

[00:11:11]Now, what do we not have in here? We don't talk about the body in this report because the body's going to be talked about by the medical examiner when he testifies.

[00:11:20]Basically, what this report covers is the gun, the fired cartridge case, the three unfired cartridges, the bullet jacket fragment, and the three I'm sorry, the the four lead fragments. That's what this is covering.

[00:11:33]The uh the rest of it uh for as far as the body is concerned after the bullets were removed, it's not going to be the responsibility of that medical examiner, and they will testify as to the fact of the wound, the wound track, and when whatever is there.

[00:11:46]So, this report says everything that and I was waiting to hear.

[00:11:51]Again, when we first saw the rifle, was that bullet fired fired out of that rifle? We had no idea cuz we didn't have that microscopic comparison.

[00:11:59]Now, we know that the bullet jacket fragment came from a rifle similar to, if not that one, but again, due to impact and or penetration damage, there was lack of sufficient individual characteristics to positively identify.

[00:12:13]Inconclusive. That is not uncommon, especially with high-power rifles, depending on what it hits.

[00:12:18]Um you know, looking you know, without looking at the notes and and knowing, for instance, uh the condition of the bore, um the fact that they should have test-fired two cartridges, and they should have been able to take a look at both of those bullets on the microscope and see what transfers uh consistently on on both, cuz after after you're looking at the two knowns compared to each other, you'll be able to see what transfers and what doesn't. And then, you'll be able to take that that the evidence, put it on the microscope, and then do that comparison and look for what you saw you knew that was repeatable.

[00:12:51]Now, if that barrel was was completely worn out, that could be uh an issue if it was smooth or smoother. Uh the jacket uh fragment the jacket was really really hard, and it didn't take um to some of the engravings. Any number of reasons how you can get an inconclusive out of that. However, they did get the general rifling characteristics. It was the same, and they mentioned it. It was the same uh number of lands and grooves, direction of twist, and that width.

[00:13:16]However, let's say you did not have the rifle, and you just had that that bullet jacket fragment.

[00:13:22]That general damn rifling characteristics is very very common. You can't really narrow down to it was this manufacturer who did it. There's some There's some There are some barrels that we can tell, you know, a nine left, we know that's coming out of a high point.

[00:13:35]Um you know, we can tell, you know, you can tell for hours what what you know, what rifles would use four lands and grooves instead of six. Sometimes you can narrow that down if it's something that's special. However, this 98K, this particular barrel that was on here, those rifling characteristics are used in many manufacturers and many rifles that fire.30 caliber projectiles. So, there you couldn't really narrow that down, but what you did narrow down was the fact that it had the agreement, the same general rifling characteristics as that submitted rifle.

[00:14:04]So, where does it go from here? Now, the jury is going to have to hear is going to hear this. They're going to hear what what what they are going to hear is we have a gun.

[00:14:12]The gun was identified by the family.

[00:14:14]The gun was uh told where it was by the the suspect where that where it was picked up.

[00:14:19]You have the admitting of the shooting of the uh Charlie Kirk by the suspect. You have fingerprints on the on the on the rifle, and uh they found some on the cartridge cases as well.

[00:14:31]So, that rifle is directly linked to that suspect.

[00:14:34]We know that that cartridge cases have the describing on it. Uh we also do know it was not put into the report, but uh at the suspect's residence, there was other cartridges cases that were found scribed as well in a very similar fashion.

[00:14:47]So, that links those cartridges uh to the suspect as well, and the ones that were in were in the rifle.

[00:14:55]So, we have that, and we have a general general class characteristics on the on the on the projectile. So, the jury's going to have to look at all that information and say, "Okay, now, do we believe there's sufficient amount here to claim that yes, that rifle was him, and he was the one that fired it fired the shot that shot?"

[00:15:11]That's up to the jury. So, that's what the firearms firearms evidence does tell.

[00:15:16]So again, the rest of the this puzzle's going to come from the medical examiner, but this is why you don't jump to conclusions. This is why you don't look at a video like most people did and say, "Oh, that's impossible. There's a government cover-up. There's this, this, and that." Cuz that is not the case. You don't know what you're looking at when you when you see that. You don't know what kind of rifle that it is. You don't know what wound track that it track that it is. You don't know what the fragments were. You don't know anything about it until this report comes out that lists all that evidence and tells you what it was. Again, when you when you read this, you see what the reality is, and you look at all the conspiracy theories and all sorts of the people come up with is absolutely unbelievable. The imagine literally the imagination.

[00:15:57]Of course, we also had the you know, the people saying there was a there was body armor. There was no body armor. That body armor would have been listed in this report, especially when people who claimed that the bullet skipped on the body armor and then hit him in the neck.

[00:16:09]That body armor would have been submitted to the laboratory, and you would have had that in this firearms report that there was use of body armor, and that was in there. So again, there was no body armor. There was no uh microphone that blew up. There was no great, you know, great conspiracy uh of that sort at all.

[00:16:24]Um you know, for as far as uh this incident happening, keep in mind, Charlie Kirk was not the president. He did not have a Secret Service detail who was going to be looking over rooftops.

[00:16:36]Charlie Kirk's uh his security was was perimeter around him. They they they took care of around him. They weren't on the outside. They weren't on buildings.

[00:16:44]That was not the Secret Service.

[00:16:46]So, that's something that you must keep in mind uh when you when you look at this and say there was a government conspiracy on this happening. You did not have the Charlie Kirk was not the president of the United States. He did not have Secret Service. He did not have anywhere near that. He had bodyguards.

[00:16:58]He had typical bodyguards that were for his close proximity.

[00:17:03]So, I hope uh you guys hearing the actual report, so we know actually what happened uh in this homicide uh aside from all the [ __ ] uh this is what we have.

[00:17:14]So, I do hope you guys enjoy this video.

[00:17:15]If you do, please click like. Please subscribe. Even better, share.