The complete autopsy documentation needed for independent reconstruction of the fatal mechanism (scaled wound photographs, wound track, fragment map, radiology) is publicly available.

No auditable autopsy package is public; the claim of availability is simply false as of the review date, whatever the (routine) reasons.

No auditable autopsy package — scaled wound photographs, wound track, fragment map, radiology — is public; second-hand relays like KRK-E032 are precisely what such a package would replace.

No auditable autopsy package — scaled photographs, wound track, fragment map, radiology — is public; second-hand relays like KRK-E032 are exactly what such a package would replace. The availability claim is false as of the review date whatever the routine reasons.

No auditable autopsy package — scaled photographs, wound track, fragment map, radiology — is public; the availability claim is false as of the review date whatever the routine reasons.

The complete autopsy package—including scaled wound photographs, internal trajectory mapping, and radiology—has not been released to the public. As a result, independent forensic pathologists cannot yet audit the state's medical findings or conclusively test alternative trajectory/device claims.

The file repeatedly notes that the autopsy report entered the hearing via investigator testimony and that no full package of scaled wound photos, track mapping, fragment inventory, or radiology has been made public. There is no evidence of any such comprehensive release as of the review date, so the claim that this documentation “is publicly available” is directly false. The strongest counterpoint is that some limited summary details have emerged through testimony, but those do not meet the standard implied by “complete autopsy documentation.”

No scaled wound photographs, wound-track measurements, fragment map, or radiology package sufficient for independent reconstruction has been released. The preliminary-hearing record itself shows the report entering through an investigator rather than its author. The claim of public availability is therefore contradicted. Strongest opposing consideration: medical privacy and active-prosecution rules make withholding the complete package normal at this stage, so non-release is not evidence about the report's content.

The claim asserts public availability of the complete autopsy package; no such release has occurred, and the hearing record itself shows the report entering secondhand rather than through its author with exhibits. This is verifiable by absence in the ordinary, legitimate sense — the file would exist as a citable artifact if it had been published. The strongest opposing consideration is that non-release during an active capital prosecution, with medical-privacy constraints, is entirely routine and implies nothing about the report's content; the verdict grades availability only, and should not be read as an inference about what the package would show.