Retain An Independent Forensic Pathologist And Cross The Medical Examiner
:::caution Legal Disclaimer Tyler Robinson is charged, not convicted, and is presumed innocent. Nothing on this page states as fact that any living person committed a crime, destroyed evidence, or acted improperly. Court filings in this case are subject to a gag order and sealing, so the public record is incomplete by design. :::
The One Thing We Would Do Differently
Retain an independent forensic pathologist to examine the autopsy materials for blast versus ballistic injury, and subpoena the medical examiner personally rather than accepting her findings through a police witness.
The wound is the case. Everything else — the roof, the rifle, the phone, the confession — is an inference about the wound. And the wound is precisely where the government's account is weakest according to the independent analysis collected on this site: an injury described in early reporting in terms that did not match a .30-06 rifle round, with damage patterns that the cause-of-death review argues fit a shaped charge detonating at the chest.
Blast injury and ballistic injury are not difficult to tell apart when a pathologist is looking for the difference. They differ in wound track geometry, in the presence or absence of a projectile path, in soft-tissue disruption at a distance from the track, in burns and tattooing, in fragment patterns, and in what the radiographs show.
The distinction is only ever drawn by a pathologist who is asked to draw it. An examiner working a rifle case describes a rifle wound.
What The Defense Team Did Instead
At the preliminary hearing the autopsy came in through foundation testimony by David Hull, the SBI case agent. Chief medical examiner Deirdre Amaro did not take the live stand.
That is procedurally ordinary — at a probable-cause hearing Utah permits a good deal of this — and it is also the single largest missed opportunity in the week. The State's least testable witness was the one whose report carried the most weight, and she was not there to be tested.
The defense did call three forensic experts of its own: Amanda Bakker on DNA, Samantha Karner on the inconclusive toolmark comparison, and Caitlin Oliver on rifle DNA statistics. All three are government examiners called by the defense to expose the weakness of the State's forensics. None of them is a pathologist, and none of them was asked about the mechanism of the wound.
Where This Belongs In The Case
| Stage of the case | When that stage runs | Status of this step |
|---|---|---|
| Autopsy | September 2025 | Performed by the State; report sealed |
| Preliminary hearing cross | July 6-10, 2026 — completed | Examiner not called; autopsy entered through a case agent |
| Defense expert notice | After bind-over, before trial | Still fully open |
| Trial — defense case | No trial date set | Still fully open |
Witness Or Discovery Target
| How it would be done | Target | Took the stand? | Status on the public record |
|---|---|---|---|
| Witness never called | Deirdre Amaro, chief medical examiner | No — report entered through Hull | Not subpoenaed for the preliminary hearing |
| Expert never retained publicly | Independent forensic pathologist | No | None noticed publicly |
| Cross-examination — witness testified, question not asked | David Hull, SBI case agent | Yes — July 6-7, 2026 | Laid autopsy foundation; not asked about blast-versus-ballistic findings |
| Discovery demand never made publicly | Autopsy photographs, radiographs, tissue slides, fragment inventory | n/a | Report is sealed |
The Questions That Were Not Asked
- Agent Hull, did you attend the autopsy, and if not, what is the basis for your description of its findings?
- Does the autopsy report identify a complete wound track consistent with a single projectile?
- Was a projectile or projectile jacket recovered from the body, and was any other foreign material recovered?
- Do the radiographs show a fragment distribution consistent with a single rifle round?
- Was the examiner asked at any point to consider a blast mechanism, and does the report address and exclude one?
- Who was present at the autopsy, and did any federal personnel attend or direct it?
Why A Defense Attorney Would Want This
A defense pathologist is the least exotic thing on this entire list. Retaining one is standard in any contested homicide, let alone a capital case, and no judge blinks at the expense. The question is not whether to have one but what to ask them.
The framing an AI defense attorney would insist on is not do you agree with the examiner. It is: assume nothing about the mechanism and tell me what caused this injury. That instruction, given to a competent independent pathologist with access to the photographs and radiographs, either produces the strongest defense evidence in the case or ends the alternative theory. Both outcomes are worth having before trial rather than after.
The Honest Counterargument
The autopsy report is sealed, and it is entirely possible that the defense already has it, has already had it reviewed by a retained pathologist, and has concluded that it describes an unambiguous rifle wound. Defense expert work is confidential and does not have to be disclosed unless the expert will testify. Silence here is exactly what a defense that had done this work and gotten an unhelpful answer would look like.
There is also a real reason not to call the medical examiner at a preliminary hearing. Doing so would let the State lock her testimony in under oath early, and would show the defense's cross-examination strategy months before trial. Many capital lawyers deliberately do not touch the pathologist until the jury is seated.
Sources On This Site
:::danger Theoretical Exercise Only This page is a theoretical exercise. It is a written simulation of how an idealised defense attorney might approach this case. We make no claim that there is any problem with the current defense attorney, with any member of the defense team, or with any decision they have made.
Real capital defense is conducted under a gag order, with sealed filings, and on the basis of full discovery that the public has never seen. Counsel of record know facts we do not. A step described here as "not on the public record" may already have been taken privately, may have been considered and rejected for good reason, or may not yet be due at this stage of the case. Silence in the public record is not evidence of a failure.
Nothing here is legal advice, a criticism of any licensed attorney, or an allegation of professional misconduct. :::
This website's author is @HolonCitizen on X and YouTube/@HolonCitizen. Follow me there.