Case file 04 · Chapter 3 of 5
What the medical examiner recorded
Autopsy report A09-821 records six gunshot wounds of two sizes, knife wounds, and cuts to both hands that the examiner called defensive. It also warns that the numbering of the wounds says nothing about their order.
Move your cursor or finger across the photograph
Photograph: Broad Street, Mooresville, Cdtew, Wikimedia Commons · CC BY-SA 3.0
This chapter summarizes a medicolegal autopsy report without graphic detail. The linked report contains clinical descriptions of injuries.
People in this chapter · P. E. Lantz, M.D.
The autopsy at a glance
- Report
- Medicolegal autopsy A09-821, 11 pages (public copy, clinical)
- Pathologist
- P. E. Lantz, M.D.
- Examination
- June 10, 2009; report dated July 15, 2009
- Gunshot wounds
- Six recorded, described as medium and large caliber
- Sharp-force injuries
- Numerous, including cuts to both hands described as characteristic of defensive injuries
- Blood alcohol
- None detected
- Not in the report
- The order of the wounds, a specific gun, or the number of attackers
Shot and stabbed
The first headlines called Matt’s death a shooting. When the autopsy findings became public in late July 2009, the Statesville Record & Landmark and the Mooresville Tribune reported that he had been stabbed as well as shot. The report documents both kinds of injury. It records cuts on both hands that the examiner described as characteristic of defensive injuries. That fits what investigators told WSOC in 2026, that Matt fought back.
The report also includes a warning that matters for every theory built on it. The gunshot wounds and sharp-force injuries are “numbered and listed for recording purposes only.” Wound number one was not necessarily the first wound inflicted.
Sources: Autopsy report A09-821, p. 4 · Unforgotten press index (July 28–29, 2009 coverage) · WSOC, 2026
Two sizes of gunshot wound
The examiner described some gunshot wounds as medium caliber and others as large caliber. One projectile recovered from Matt’s body measured about 10 millimeters at its base. Another measured about 9 millimeters. Two small, dense white plastic spheres were also recovered from wounds in his back. Unforgotten summarizes the findings as suggesting .40- and .38-caliber bullets. That is the podcast’s reading. The report itself gives wound descriptions and measurements, not cartridge names.
The report classifies one wound as close range, one as intermediate range, and the others as indeterminate. Indeterminate means the examination could not fix a distance. It does not mean “far away.” The examiner also noted that a wound on the left upper arm may have been a re-entry from a bullet that passed through the cheek, depending on how the arm was positioned. That is one reason a count of wounds cannot be turned into a count of shots.
The investigative summary refers to “assailant(s).” That form is a routine way to avoid assuming a number. It does not establish that more than one person was involved. In public statements, police have referred to a single attacker.
A pathologist describes wounds. Matching bullets or casings to a particular gun is a different job for a firearms examiner. No firearms comparison in this case has been made public. In 2026, Assistant Chief Jamie Quinn told WSOC that evidence had been sent to England for testing. He did not say what was tested or what the results were.
How did the attacker get in?
Early print coverage called it an apparent home invasion. On June 11, police told WBTV that nothing appeared to have been taken and that the killing may have been random. The Unforgotten site says there was reportedly no sign of forced entry and no valuables were taken. The public incident form uses a breaking-or-entering offense category. That is an administrative label for unauthorized entry. It does not describe whether a door or window was damaged.
What the report records
Documented findings
- Six gunshot wounds and numerous sharp-force injuries, with cuts to both hands described as characteristic of defensive injuries.
- Medium- and large-caliber wounds; one projectile about 10 mm at its base, another about 9 mm.
- Two small white plastic spheres recovered from back wounds.
- Wounds classified as close, intermediate or indeterminate range.
What it cannot establish
Open questions
- A specific gun, or how many people handled any weapon.
- The order of the injuries. The numbering is “for recording purposes only.”
- How the attacker got in. Accounts differ on signs of forced entry.
- Motive, planning or identity.
What the record supports
The public record supports a clear minimum. Matt died after a violent, close-quarters attack in his own home and fought back. Angela survived a gunshot wound. The attacker left physical evidence that investigators have been testing for years. The questions that would solve the case are still open in the public record: how the attacker got in, why, and who it was.
Sources: WBTV, June 11, 2009 · Unforgotten case page · WSOC, 2026
← Chapter 2The call from Gabriel Estates
Chapter 4 →The sketch, the leads and the investigation
.jpg){kind=link}
About the author
Christopher Adkins
Chris Adkins is a North Carolina attorney, certified mediator and former Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officer. He founded Adkins Law in Huntersville and writes The Lake Norman Brief’s history and true crime collections from court records, archives and primary sources.
This dossier summarizes public records and published reporting. Where sources disagree, the disagreement is shown rather than resolved by guesswork. No private person is accused of anything here. It is history and legal education, not legal advice. Corrections are welcome through the contact page.