They have not been released or even, somehow, leaked.

quote:

Originally posted by tleddy:
<snip>
Has anyone seen the autopsy report and/or photographs? The answer should be in that document.

Are such documents generally made public?

quote:

Originally posted by tleddy:
Has anyone seen the autopsy report and/or photographs? The answer should be in that document.

Yours is a critical question to know what the actual fatal and other damage was and details such as what the entrance wound looked like. The autopsy report of the man who tried to kill the President in 2024 is available and it describes in some detail the damage to the internal structures caused by the Secret Service agent’s bullet. That is the sort of thing an autopsy report should describe. The report I saw, though, did not include any released photos, perhaps due to some rules about what should be releasable. I do not recall that the size/shape of the entrance wound was described in the report either. And it is also possible that the family might request that the Kirk photos not be released to the public, and that could be granted. The request was made about the JFK autopsy photos, and was granted—to this day, if I am correct.

As you point out, the entrance wound would vary significantly whether the bullet was intact upon penetration or the wound was obviously made by the recovered fragment. Without that information my opinion is presently based on what I do know, which is a fair understanding of terminal and wound ballistics. If the photo showed only a small round entrance wound hole, then I would have to completely change my opinion not only about this case but about what I know about those subjects in general.

One thing to anticipate, though, is that unless the victim was obviously dead on arrival at the hospital, and perhaps even then, medical treatment attempts such as surgery could have altered the appearance of the entrance wound. As I recall, that was something that was an issue about the neck wound in the JFK murder.

I searched online for information about the Kirk autopsy (AI Trigger Alert!), and the response was that it hadn’t yet been released. As I understand it, trial court records are normally releasable, but I believe the judge can order that certain things be withheld. And despite the claim that everything is available on the Internet, when it comes to things like that, it ain’t necessarily so—at least not to mortals like me.

quote:

Based upon the facts in evidence, is there any doubt in your mind that this Robinson guy shot Charlie Kirk?

The facts are not yet in evidence. That is the purpose of the trial.

The purpose of the pre-trial hearing is to determine whether the State has enough evidence to make the defendant stand trial.
I believe that there was enough evidence presented at the pre-trial hearing that the judge will announce in September that Tyler Robinson should stand trial.

quote:

The facts are not yet in evidence. That is the purpose of the trial.

Jesus. The perp left a confession note. And MUCH other SOLID evidence of guilt that leaves ZERO doubt in my mind.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I searched online for information about the Kirk autopsy (AI Trigger Alert!), and the response was that it hadn’t yet been released. As I understand it, trial court records are normally releasable, but I believe the judge can order that certain things be withheld. And despite the claim that everything is available on the Internet, when it comes to things like that, it ain’t necessarily so—at least not to mortals like me.

HIPAA still applies even after the person is dead. Autopsy records, as I understand it, fall under HIPAA. It would be nice to know the particulars, but I wouldn't expect the records to be released unless the judge so orders...but why would he?

Another AI trigger warning.

According to AI Gemini in response to “are autopsy reports subject HIPPA?”:

“The short answer is no, autopsy reports are generally not subject to HIPAA.”
…
“Medical Examiners and Coroners Aren't ‘Covered Entities’
“HIPAA only applies to ‘covered entities’—specifically healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses that conduct business electronically.”

The “covered entities” thing is what’s most understood about HIPPA. If a law enforcement officer, for example, observes a medical condition about someone, he is not prohibited from disclosing it by HIPPA rules. He may be subject to other privacy rules and policies, but not that.

It depends on where the post was done. If done in the hospital then it is covered. If done in the basement of the funeral home? Not so much.

Now, unlike earlier, we actually are getting into some weeds, but I will leave the autopsy report topic in response to this follow-up question:

“Would it matter if the medical examiner or coroner performed the autopsy in a hospital or other medical facility?”

“No, it does not matter where the physical autopsy takes place.
“What determines if HIPAA applies is who has legal jurisdiction over the body and who is writing the report, not the physical building or geography.
“Here is why the location doesn't change the legal status:
“The Legal Authority Rule
“If a county medical examiner or coroner has legal jurisdiction over a death (e.g., it was sudden, suspicious, violent, or an unattended death), they are acting as a government law enforcement or public health official, not a healthcare provider.
“Even if the county morgue is under renovation and the medical examiner uses a table in a local hospital's pathology lab to perform the procedure, they are doing so under their statutory government authority.
“The resulting report is a government investigative record, not a hospital clinical record.”

That certainly is getting into some weeds, and I don't claim to be an expert on the topic, but what I posted has been my understanding of the issue.

IMO, any and all medical records are sacrosanct, and an autopsy report is a medical record.

If a judge orders it released or the family chooses to release it? That's another story.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
The facts are not yet in evidence. That is the purpose of the trial.

You would have us believe that you're this obtuse? The standards of legal procedure within the courts is not in question here. You would have us believe that you cannot comprehend my question, and you would have us believe that you expect everyone to adhere rigidly to due process as defined by American law, thereby ignoring their own senses and their ability to assess the evidence before them.

I don't know what you think you're accomplishing with this posturing, chellim, but whatever it is, it's not going to work. Every single person in this forum is an adult, with all that that entails, and for you to think we're all just blank slates, waiting for the facts to be presented in the formality of a court trial, when those facts are already known, is flat-out ridiculous, and frankly, insulting.

And let me add- y'know, I tell people from time to time, that I bite my tongue every day in this forum. Every day. I realize- based upon the forward stance I take most of the time- that many or most of you might have a hard time believing this. Well, it's the truth, and I say all this to illustrate the point at this moment in this thread, because despite what anyone may believe, I have restrained myself in my response to you. Yes, I have.

I can’t read through 60 pages of thread to figure out why some are speculating on the evidence we’ve been allowed to have. Forgive me, but that’s like scrutinizing mitochondria from the other end zone. Are we thinking Tyler didn’t shoot Charlie? The bullet can’t be examined for characteristics consistent with the rifle he had on campus, so Tyler didn’t do it?

If that’s the case being made then no one can trust a puzzle image right in front of him if it’s missing a piece or two. If that’s not what some are asserting, what’s the point of speculation from the opposite end zone?



I

I got lost at "the exploding microphone".

Too many theories that directly contradict the facts.

Beyond reasonable doubt, the kid did it.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
That certainly is getting into some weeds, and I don't claim to be an expert on the topic, but what I posted has been my understanding of the issue.

IMO, any and all medical records are sacrosanct, and an autopsy report is a medical record.

If a judge orders it released or the family chooses to release it? That's another story.

Not to be an ass, but your understanding is wrong. Sidfreund’s last post spells it out clearly. Think of it this way, HIPPA applies to medical records of treatment by medical providers.

Autopsy such as this is isn’t medical treatment. It is part of a death investigation.

He did it!

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:
Not to be an ass, but your understanding is wrong.

That's entirely possible and I'm happy to eat some crow for dinner, but everything I can find confirms that autopsy reports (generally) contain protected health information on the patient. As such, that information is confidential for 50 years after the time of death.

I also found information that states these laws vary from state to state...although I'm not sure how that could be with it being a federal law.

Good article on the topic from the AMA Journal Of Ethics

The issue is certainly not cut and dried.