What a misleading headline. The match was inconclusive which doesn't at all mean the bullet wasn't fired from the gun.
It means there wasn't enough detail on the fragment to say one way or the other.
this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2026
26 points (93.3% liked)
United States | News & Politics
4015 readers
295 users here now
Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
No memes/pics of text
Post news related to the United States.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
taking a presumption of innocence into account, this would basicaly mean it doesn't match.
Wait, so they're saying Robinson was at the event shooting his gun, but someone else shot Kirk because forensics can't positively id the bullet?
Or are they saying the round doesn't match the gun and the gun wasn't there?
When asked about the defense's characterization of the ATF report, Christopher D. Ballard, a spokesperson for the Utah County Attorney's Office, told USA TODAY ethical rules prohibit him from speaking publicly about forensic testing and test results.
"But I can say generally that when the results of a bullet fragment analysis come back as inconclusive, that means only that the fragment did not contain enough detail for the examiner to determine whether the characteristics on the fragment were consistent with having been fired by a particular firearm," Ballard said.
Per USA Today article on the same topic
People kill bears with 30-06 yet Charlie Kirk's neck stopped the bullet. That never made sense.
From what I had read, the bullet missed a direct hit and only a fragment of the round hit Kirk.