Photographs documented seven recovered bullet fragments while the ATF examiner received four, and as of 2026-08-25 no public accounting reconciles the difference.

The seven-versus-four discrepancy is the examiner's own sworn account; no public reconciliation exists as of the review date.

The seven-versus-four discrepancy is the examiner's own sworn account (KRK-E009), and no public reconciliation exists as of the review date; routine explanations remain unexcluded but unpublished.

The seven-versus-four discrepancy is the examiner's own sworn account and no public reconciliation exists as of the review date. Routine explanations remain unexcluded but also unpublished.

The seven-versus-four discrepancy is the examiner's own sworn account; no public reconciliation exists as of the review date, though routine explanations remain unexcluded.

The ATF examiner testified under oath to receiving only four fragments after being informed that seven were originally documented in a photograph. No public accounting currently reconciles this discrepancy. While multi-custodian fragmentation (e.g., retention by the medical examiner) frequently explains such gaps without malice, the gap remains an objective transparency failure.

The ATF examiner herself testified that she had four fragments for examination while photographs showed seven originally recovered, and she only learned about the full count months later via a photo. This directly supports both the numerical discrepancy and the fact that no reconciliation has been published. The main opposing consideration is that routine explanations—retention by the medical examiner, separate packaging, destructive testing—are plausible and have not been ruled out, but their non-publication leaves the custody question genuinely open.

The ATF examiner testified under oath to a specific discrepancy: photographs documented seven recovered fragments and she received four to examine. Inspection of the released public record as of the file's cutoff yields no fragment-by-fragment reconciliation of recovery location, custodian, package, or disposition. That is a genuine chain-of-custody question, not a finding of tampering. Strongest opposing consideration: multi-custodian fragment handling with partial laboratory submission is common in homicide cases, and silence in a pre-trial public record is not evidence that internal records do not exist.

The discrepancy comes from the examiner's own sworn testimony — seven fragments in a photograph, four received for examination — and the absence of any published reconciliation is verifiable by inspection. This is the most concrete auditability defect in the file precisely because it is specific, numeric, and cheap to close. The strongest opposing consideration is that multi-custodian fragment handling with partial laboratory submission is ordinary homicide practice and pre-trial silence is not evidence that records do not exist; I weight that as fully absorbing the anomaly's significance while leaving the descriptive claim intact. A secondary caveat: the testimony reaches us through live-blog transcription that renders the examiner's name inconsistently.