A WIRED report says a Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension official texted an FBI counterpart on the morning Renee Good was killed, asking for access to crime scene evidence, and got no reply for days. The reported silence raises fresh questions about how federal and state investigators coordinated in the immediate aftermath of the homicide.
What the report says happened
What the report says happened is straightforward: on Wednesday, January 7, at about 9:37 a.m. local time, a Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension official began texting an FBI counterpart about evidence access tied to the killing of Renee Good. The messages, according to the report, were repeated. The FBI did not answer for days.
The story says the request centered on crime scene evidence, but it does not say which items were being sought. It also does not explain why the FBI did not respond, or whether the requested access was eventually granted.
Why the delay matters
Why the delay matters is that evidence access in the first hours of a homicide investigation can shape what investigators are able to collect, review, and preserve. In this case, the reported communications gap may have complicated coordination between the agencies involved.
The report frames the lapse as an accountability issue, not just a missed message. When one agency is waiting on another to open access to evidence, a silence that lasts for days can become an operational problem, especially in an active investigation.
Who was involved
Who was involved includes Minnesota investigators and an FBI counterpart, along with Jonathan Ross, whom the report describes as a federal immigration enforcement and deportation officer and identifies as the shooter. The report says Ross shot and killed Good.
The article does not say what role, if any, Ross’s federal position played in the evidence request or the communication breakdown. It also does not say whether the FBI office involved was local, regional, or tied to a specific task force.
What remains unanswered
What remains unanswered is central to the story. The report does not say why the FBI failed to respond, whether the evidence request was eventually handled, or what specific material Minnesota investigators were trying to obtain.
Those gaps matter because the episode is being read as more than a one-off delay. It points to the fragility of interagency communication when federal and local investigators are working the same case and one side cannot get a timely answer from the other.
For now, the report leaves the key operational questions open. What is clear is that Minnesota investigators were seeking evidence access quickly after the killing, and the FBI did not respond for days.