Investigate Earth Conspiracy Podcast - Tyler Robinson Pretrial Hearing | Charlie Kirk Murder Case Sparks Conspiracy Questions

Episode Date: July 8, 2026

The Tyler Robinson preliminary hearing in the Charlie Kirk murder case is giving the public its first real look at the evidence, and it is already raising serious questions. Prosecutors say they have video, DNA, a rooftop timeline, and a possible motive, but the defense is challenging key parts of the case, including edited video concerns, rooftop access, DNA issues, other weapons being discussed, and witness testimony.In this episode, we break down the latest from the Tyler Robinson hearing, the evidence prosecutors are using, the questions the defense is raising, and why the Charlie Kirk murder case is already fueling conspiracy theories and skepticism online.Check out our merch store

Investigator's podcast. I'm your host shout alongside my beautiful wife, Sherry. On tonight's episode, we're diving back into the Tyler Robinson Charlie Kirk assassination case. And after the first two days of this preliminary hearing, I'll just say it. This case may not be as clean and simple as prosecutors want it to look. Yes, the state has video, DNA, a timeline, and a theory. But we've also got edited video issues, rooftop access questions, other weapons and rounds being discussed, DNA that may not be as straightforward as people think. And a key witness that. that defense says that hasn't been able to properly cross-examine in person. None of that proves some massive conspiracy, but it absolutely raises the question.

Are we watching a clean-cut murder case? Or are we watching prosecutors try to stitch together a story before all the pieces actually fit? So now we're breaking out what happened in court, what the state is claiming, what the defense is poking holes in, and why this case already feels like there may be a lot more going on beneath the surface. Guys, welcome to the show. it is July the 7th, 20206. The name of the song is The Chase by Zorro.

And we are back. We have taken a bit of a break. Obviously, it has been the Independence Day weekend we just come off of. Happy 250 years to America. We are very happy and fortunate to live in a country like America, which is one of the main reasons why we have a podcast like this, because when you have a country that is free that you do love, You have to hold it accountable and you don't ever want to lose your freedoms.

You don't ever want to lose the things that we were built upon. And I think that's what some people get confused sometimes. It's like we're not here to shit on America. We're here to try to make America better and hold the people that come into power accountable, especially the snakes that want to destroy everything that are founding fathers and all of the soldiers we have lost up into this point have died and built for. So guys, welcome to the show. I hope you all have had an amazing 4th of July, at least our United States listeners.

It was kind of funny on telegram the other day. I was talking to Mack, Mac, if you're listening. And I was like, Mack, what did you do for your 4th of July? And she's like, yeah, anyway, she lives in New Zealand. And I thought that was kind of funny. But yeah, so we're back talking about the Tyler Robinson, Charlie Kirk assassination for the past two days. prosecutors and the defense have been in court in Utah, where they are trying to prove, at least the prosecution is beyond a reasonable doubt, that Tyler Robinson is the guy

that committed the assassination or the murder of Charlie Kirk. They want everyone to believe that it is a clear-cut case. It is Tyler Robinson, nobody else. There's no one else involved. But as you start going through to evidence, it just doesn't seem necessarily that it's going to be as clean cut as the prosecution wants you to believe. And obviously, if you've listened to our shows, we've always been kind of just on the fence of everything. We've given you guys all of the possibilities, some of the thoughts that everybody was talking about, whether it was Candace Owens.

We've even pledged you what TPUSA has said, Andrew Colvin, multiple others. And obviously, there has been a huge divide in the Republican Party, especially after the Charlie Kirk assassination. And it's not just the Charlie Kirk assassination that caused the divide. Obviously, Israel has been a huge topic in the Republican Party. But I think when Charlie Kirk died and then Candace Owens came out and started to expose some stuff, it just made situation worse than it probably needed to be or did it. I mean, maybe it needed to be as bad as it is so we can fix whatever it is. And I just want to remind everyone that this is a preliminary hearing. And this hearing is going towards the judge.

And it doesn't have to be beyond a reasonable doubt. It just has to put reasonable doubt in his mind. Yeah, for sure. Yeah. So when I said beyond reasonable doubt, they're not, they don't have. have to prove beyond reasonable doubt necessarily in this case. The judge just has to look at the evidence their prosecution is presenting. He has to say, I believe there's enough evidence in this pretrial or in these pretrial hearings

and all the motions that I believe Tyler Robinson is potentially the right person to be held accountable or at least to be put in front of a jury. We got to remember this case is the death penalty case. So, you know, I'm sure you've heard of a lot of murder cases where you're like, I don't understand why they didn't at least try the death penalty in these cases. You have to understand that as prosecution, you have varying degrees of how well you think you're going to prosecute a case. And if you don't necessarily think that you have everything in the bag, you may not necessarily go with a death penalty case because you have people that are going to be on a jury.

Obviously, yes, they're going to question all these jury members and they're going to discard anybody probably that doesn't believe in the death penalty, obviously, because then that will overturn the potential guilty verdict, right? And that will be something, obviously, the prosecution and defense will both agree on. But it is harder to prosecute a death penalty case, because even if people say, yes, I believe in a death penalty, but for you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person sitting right there is the one that should be put to death for this crime, it's just going to weigh on people a lot heavier. It's going to be something that all of these jury members, whoever they may be, are going to have to live with the rest of their life.

And just say, for example, one day that Tyler Robinson gets put to death and very similarly to the JFK assassination where there's so much speculation about what actually happened and who was responsible, you'd probably be looking back and saying shit and I put that guy to death. And now there's new evidence coming out that maybe it wasn't him or maybe there was more people involved or maybe he was MK. Ultrad by the government or somebody. there's a lot to think about. So as a prosecution, you have to think about all those things. And I've watched so many trials where you can actually see the jurors.

Usually they don't not, they don't show the jurors, but I have seen like after the fact on crime shows where they show them. And when they did find the person guilty and were putting them to death, I mean, they were just shedding tears. Because you can't imagine the weight it puts on your shoulders. Yeah, that's a huge responsibility. I mean, even sending someone to prison for life. Yeah. I mean, that's something that you. really have to weigh. And so death penalty cases are tough. And, you know, I think the prosecution

wanted to go with a death penalty case. And listen, there's a lot of people out there. It says, well, the reason why they want with a death penalty case, because this is a kangaroo court. You know, this is a kangaroo court. They're going to present all the needed evidence to convict him and to put him to death. They want to do this as, as painless as possible. They want, this is a show trial. There's 100 percent that side of it. You have people like Candace Owens and you have others out there on the internet that are saying this is all a show trial, kangaroo court, everything presented is all BS. And then you have the other side that is like, nope, Tyler Robinson is 100% the person

that killed Tyler, Charlie Kirk. And we don't want to even question anything else. And that's usually turning point USA. Yeah. And all the people that are out there, they're like, he confessed. He told his parents. His parents turned him in. What other evidence do you need?

The man confessed. Yeah. And that's what a lot of people are saying. but have we ever heard the confession? Yeah, exactly. And then when he went in to do a plea, he did no plea, which means he's not guilty or not are guilty. Yeah, for sure. Well, this hearing, as we already said, this hearing is not the trial.

That is the important part, right? The judge is not deciding guilt or innocence, right? The purpose of this hearing is for the prosecutors to show there was enough probable cause for the case to move forward to trial. But the standard is much lower than the beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the, standard prosecutors would have to meet at an actual trial. Once Tyler Robinson actually goes a trial, they have to meet beyond a reasonable doubt. Right now, they just have to present probable cause. Very similar to, like, if you got pulled over or law enforcement wanted to investigate something and they could detain you, well, they got to have probable cause for this,

right? So Robinson is 23 years old. He is charged with aggravated murder and prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. Obviously, we've been talking about that. And he has yet to enter a plea. and that regardless whether it's guilty or innocent. And so Monday was the first major presentation of evidence prosecutors say they have against Tyler Robinson. Now, the hearing began under extremely tight security at the 4th District Courthouse in Provo, Utah. Charlie Kirk's widow, Erica Kirk, his parents, Robert and Catherine Kirk, and other family members were in the courtroom.

Donald Trump Jr. was also reportedly present. He accompanied Erica Kirk into the courtroom. Erica Kirk, keep in mind, was not with Charlie Kirk's family. So a lot of people was pointing that out. It's like she had all the security and Donald Trump Jr. And everybody and Charlie Kirk's parents were kind of left out to dry and were, you know, they had to go into this whole thing without security, without all everything, Erica Kirk was coming into the courtroom. So a lot of people are like, that's kind of weird.

I mean, at the very least, people were saying like Erica Kirk should have 100% brought in Charlie Kirk's family with her, with all the security, everything they had, but they did not. And Tyler's parents were sitting three rows behind Erica Kirk. could you imagine? That would be so hard. So before the hearing began, Kirk's family released a statement calling every court proceeding a painful reminder of Charlie's death and asking for privacy as the case moves on. The first witness called by the state was former Utah Valley University Police Officer Christopher

Bagley. Now, Bagley was working security the day Charlie Kirk was shot. His assignment was near the Hall of Flags and the amphitheater area where Kirk was speaking to a large crowd. And Bagley testified that he heard a shot and described the scene immediately. afterwards as chaotic, with people screaming and running in different directions. And one of the big points from Bagley's testimony was that the police initially thought they may have had a shooter in custody almost immediately.

Bagley said that within about 30 seconds, someone was taken into custody, and he remembered thinking that that was surprisingly fast. But then as he started preserving the scene, he found an empty handgun holster and realized what he heard sounded like a rifle shot, not a handgun. And that changed the direction of the investigation. So I want to stop here just for a second, right? There's a couple of things here because Bagley did not just talk about that law enforcement had someone within 30 seconds in custody during this time.

He also mentioned that I think it was about two to three minutes after law enforcement had this random guy that was yelling in the crowd that he shot Charlie Kirk, which he didn't. It was a distraction. It was that older guy that was in other scenes. Yeah, like 9-11. He's been involved in a lot of weird. stuff, but about three minutes after this, and this is something we had never heard until the actual pretrial hearing.

He said that about three minutes later, there was a big incident in the crowd again, and it wasn't someone necessarily screaming that they killed Charlie Kirk. It was some kid convulsing. I think it was a 17 or 18 year old kid supposedly, and I say supposedly, supposedly convulsing. And so it made a big scene. He said then law enforcement ran to this direction next. And then they found this guy was just convulsing. or he was having a seizure, whatever the case was.

Now, he later, I guess, was transported by ambulance with this, then took about another six or seven minutes for law enforcement to figure out what the deal was with that. Now, something we have not heard yet with the pretrial hearing is the fact that on the day of the Charlie Kirk's stationation, there were reports that it wasn't just one person that was screaming, I killed Charlie Kirk. There was another person in the crowd that was also screaming the same thing. And then obviously, as Bagley reported, near in the general area or direction of where this guy that was screaming, I killed Charlie Kirk was, they found an empty handgun holster. Now, that's important. But it is not necessarily 100% irrational or uncommon, I guess, you would be able to see that on this campus because it is an open carry state in Utah. And, you know, I think it was the prosecution or defense. I don't remember which one it was.

They said, do you typically have students that carry guns on campus? And he said, well, it's legal. You know, and he never really said, like, what is the occurrence of that? Like how many students carry guns on campus? We didn't know. But he said it is legal to do so. It is an open carry state. But, you know, I will say this.

Like in South Carolina, we are an open carry. We're a concealed carry. You don't have to have a license for any of it. We're a constitutional carry state. but I guarantee you you're not going to see very many kids that are carrying guns on campus. It just does not happen, regardless of whether you're an open carry state or not. But I just found it interesting. I think it actually was the prosecution that asked him that question because what they were trying to make sure of in that line of question with Bagley was just because you found an empty handgun holster.

It doesn't mean it's necessarily uncommon, right? Because, you know, it's an open carry state and kids carry guns at school all the time. And that's really just not the reality. Kids usually do not carry guns to school on a regular basis. Can they legally in Utah, apparently, at this university? I guess they can. Well, and they never recovered the empty holster. That's what's crazy.

He never recovered it. He said he saw it, but they never recovered it. But you also have to remember, it's crazy because they only had six university cops on scene during this whole thing in the beginning. Yeah. Six cops for thousands of kids showing up for the Charlie Kirk talk. Yeah, for sure. I mean, obviously security was very lax for whatever reason. There had been multiple reports that said that this particular event was more lax than usual.

The fact that they didn't even have the stairs going to the rooftops covered, although, according to Charlie Kirk's security team, what they said was when they talked to Utah Valley University's security or police force, and they made sure, like, hey, this is covered. All this stuff's done. They're like, absolutely, we're going to cover this. of course we're not going to let anybody in the roof, all of that stuff. And then apparently they let anyone and everyone on the roof that wanted to get on the roof. So that's a big discrepancy. And like, was that on purpose? Was it not?

We don't know. Baggley then looked towards the, so this was after all that, Bagley then looked towards the lossy center building, which had a direct line of sight to where Charlie Kirk had been sitting when he was shot. He later reviewed surveillance video that prosecutors say showed a man getting onto the roof, moving across the roof, crouching down. and then leaving after the shot. When Bagley went to the roof, he said he found a red and black screwdriver and gravel that appeared to be disturbed like someone had been lying down there.

His words in the courtroom said, to me, it looks like a sniper pad. And he said, including about two or three sentences after that statement, he said you could almost see where someone's elbows were indented into where the gravel had been moved on this rooftop. But the interesting thing was that they have zero pictures of. that whatsoever. They were just describing what they said that they thought they saw this sniper pad prone position.

But they actually don't have any pictures of that anywhere. Nor do they have body cam because his body cam supposedly stopped working 27 minutes after he started his shift. Yeah. So this was another event. Yeah, his body cam supposedly had stopped working. He said it was very rare that happens, but it just so happened that day that it did. there were a bunch of other very weird coincidence that happened that day as well,

which are just, I guess, convenient at the very least. And I just want to mention when I grew up in Colorado, we had a flat roof with gravel, just like you see on those buildings. And I used to get on my roof. This is crazy. I used to get on the roof to go sunbath because I thought the closer to the sun, the more tan I would get. But with that gravel, when I would lay on it, I would put my beach blankets down.

I'd put my drinks, my, you know, tanning lotion, everything down on this gravel. and I never saw where any of the gravel was moved. Yeah. So I just think that's interesting that he could see elbow prints in the gravel. Because if you've ever been on top of a gravel building, it just doesn't work that way. No. I mean, and look, you have to understand that, like, there was one particular time yesterday when they had, I believe, it was Bagley on the stand. The prosecution was asking them these questions.

And the interesting thing was, is before Bagley said anything, the prosecution said, okay, and then you had said that, He had jumped off the roof. You saw him jumping off the roof in this manner and this is exactly how he moved or whatever. And then the guy was like, I didn't say that yet. He's, oh, my bad. Sorry, go ahead. Go ahead and say what you're going to say because we already know.

We know everything you're about to say. You have to understand that, yes, this is a preliminary hearing and the, you know, law, enforcement. You have federal authorities. You have the judge. You have all these people and prosecutors. and it's, you know, if you just follow trials at all, law enforcement is always going to usually obviously be on the side of the prosecution.

And so like when they are meeting to talk about the preliminary hearing, they're going to be going over all of these things. Hey, this is how you need to probably say this. This is what you need to say. I mean, it almost sounds like cheating, obviously considering these are the investigatory bodies that are being put on the stand and supposed to answer. answer 100% truthfully, but I can tell you that it guaranteed there was some coaxing and some coaching involved in this, obviously, because even when this prosecutor said what the guy was

supposed to say next before he even said it, obviously it was pretty apparent. They had went over this pretty extensively. So the defense also started laying out some of its challenges on Monday. Lead defense attorney, Kathy Nester, questioned Bagley about security at the event. and Bagley acknowledged he did not attend a formal security briefing before the event, and that only six UVU officers were assigned to work the event along with Kirk's private security team. Other reporting noted that there were no drones or metal detectors used for security despite thousands of people being present. And another major issue Monday was the defense objecting to evidence on foundation and hearsay grounds.

In plain English, the defense basically was saying that if the state wants to use photos, videos, autopsy information or witness statements, the defense wants the people who created or personally know that evidence to be there in court, not just someone coming and say, all right, well, this is what this person said, this is what this person said. And that's literally what they've been doing the entire time. Most of the time, the judge has overruled every single one of those objections from the defense when it comes to that, which I think is kind of strange, you know. but this is a preliminary hearing. And I guess in the judge's mind, well, I, you know, I don't necessarily have to have them

on the stand right now because we're not in front of a jury. I think it suffices to me that we have someone here saying that they have contacted and talk to all these people. And this is what they have said. And so for the judge, that suffices to him. I really hope they don't do it that way when the actual jury is sitting. So the defense specifically objected to video recorded testimony from Robinson's former roommate and romantic partner Lance Twigs because the defense says it cannot cross-examine this person

or him in person. And they also said Judge Tomey Graff had already denied a defense request to force twigs to appear in person for the hearing. So they wanted Twigs to appear. They denied that request. There was also a fight over videos. Prosecutors introduced graphic videos of Kirk being shot and Kirk's family left the courtroom before or during some of the evidence.

the judge allowed some videos to come in, even though the people who recorded them were not in the courtroom to testify. But the judge did not block at least one compilation video because it included clips from multiple sources and had been altered with things like zoom in, circles around people. Judge Graff said that even the minor issues matter in that case is a problem, especially with this compilation video. We'll get into that in just a bit. So the headline for Monday is basically this.

Prosecutors began building this foundation of their case with officer testimony, crime scene testimony rooftop evidence graphic video the sniper pad testimony but the defense was already pushing back pretty hard on how evidence was being introduced especially videos hearsay and anything that may have been edited or presented without the original person there to authenticate it so that was the big pushback from the defense and then we lead into today now i let's see it is right now as we're recording this is 635 i believe the pretrial hearing is still going on but today picked up a former Utah State Bureau of Investigation Agent David Hull continuing his testimony. Now, Hull was one of the lead investigators and prosecutors used his testimony to walk the

court through the surveillance footage from the day Charlie Kirk was killed. And according to Hull, investigators believe Robinson entered and left the Utah Valley University campus multiple times on September 10th. And they used campus surveillance footage to track these movements. Now, the timeline prosecutors presented Tuesday is important. Surveillance footage, according to Hull's testimony, first showed a vehicle investigators believe belonged to Robinson arriving on campus around 8.30 a.m. Robinson was allegedly wearing a red t-shirt and gray shorts. He was later seen returning to a parking structure around 10 a.m. carrying a blue backpack.

Prosecutors say he went to Chick-fil-A in the Sorenson Center, walked through campus and then moved towards a wooded area. When he returned, according to Hull, he was no longer carrying the backpack. He also testified that Robinson later returned to campus wearing different clothes and appearing to walk with a limp. Video clips reportedly showed him near the lossy building, then going toward the area where he could access the roof. Prosecutors then showed the video that Holes said showed an individual climbing onto the roof, running across it, lying prone near the corner of the roof, then getting up after the shot and leaving the area while carrying something in his hand. And Ruters reported that Hull identified the person seen in a rooftop video as Robinson. and whole testify the footage showed the individual in what he described as a sniper position on the roof at the time the shot was fired and then moving across the building afterwards so and my problem with kind of a lot of this is like i've sat here and watched all of these videos and i was watching as they were presenting in court

and on one hand you have tyler robinson over here that you know you can see his face you see what he looks like and then you have the videos does he look similar maybe to tyler robinson yes but unfortunately a lot of the videos are extremely blurry and there are to some degree a couple of close up shots as he is walking up certain stairwells and to me yeah he probably looks like Tyler Robinson but not guaranteed I couldn't tell you beyond reasonable doubt that he was Tyler Robinson that was walking up I don't know but the very least much of the footage they present is 100% blurry footage. We've all seen it. And they even enhanced the footage to try to show him better.

Yeah, they've circled him. They've zoomed in on footage. They did all kinds of crazy stuff. And the interesting thing about this is, and I'll mention this now, and we're going to play a clip in just a bit that kind of further describes this. But there was another video that was going viral probably two days after Charlie Kirk was assassinated. And it wasn't from the building where Tyler Robinson was.

allegedly at and where he allegedly shot Charlie Kirk. It was actually a video. If you're looking from Charlie Kirk's angle on the stage area down there in the little, I guess you can say amphitheater. If you look from Charlie Kirk's exact position, if you look directly at about your 11 or 10 o'clock is where Tyler Robinson would have been. And just to kind of give you a visual of where Tyler Robinson was shooting from.

And then if you look at about your 9 o'clock or almost 845, so you're looking more left, there's a higher building in that direction. And there is video that came out two days after the Charlie Kirk assassination that shows, as they're painting, it shows someone on that 845 building about your 845, not where Tyler Robinson was. This was a building further left and it was a little higher building. it shows a figure of something in white or something moving from the left side to the right side. And this was before the shot on Charlie Kirk.

So this is before Tyler Robinson allegedly pulled the trigger and killed Charlie Kirk. So none of that video evidence has come forth yet. I don't know if the defense will try to present that evidence obviously, especially if I'm the defense. And you have the prosecution saying for sure Tyler Robinson's laid here in the pro position. all of our evidence is saying that this is where he shot Charlie Kirk from, if I'm the defense 100%, I'm going to go and get that video, and I'm going to present that as other evidence to at least put on the record in this trial, because that could be 100% something that gets Tyler Robinson,

your client off of a death row murder case. Right. And I also found it interesting during David Holt's testimony that when Tyler Robinson and first arrived the first time on campus, he went and spoke to Turning Point USA Associates. Yeah. Why is he talking to the associates? Yeah, you're right. And we're going to get in that in just a moment because that is very interesting.

Another major issue Tuesday was whether the surveillance compilation video could be shown publicly. On Monday, the judge had refused to admit a version of the video because it included edits like zoom ins and circles. And on Tuesday, prosecutors resubmitted the video after removing those edits as we've talked. about. And the defense subjected to the footage being released publicly, arguing it could taint the jury pool and hurt Robinson's right to a fair trial. An attorney for media organizations argued that public had a right to see non-graphic evidence being considered in open court. And Judge Graff ruled the non-graphic compilation video could be shown publicly while treating it differently from the graphic videos of the actual shooting. And then the defense also cross-examined whole

about potential problems or loose ends in the investigation. Nestor asked about an unfired bullet found on another building. Now, I don't know exactly where the other building was, but I want to know. Nestor asked about the unfired bullet found another building. Holt said investigators believe that round came from a law enforcement officer's weapon, but he did not know all the details about when it was found, what type it was, or where it was at the time of questioning. Prosecutors later had whole clarify that the round was accounted for and came from an officer

clearing a weapon. Okay. So we got to talk about that, obviously. This is a huge piece of this puzzle. It is a huge piece in this case. And the interesting thing about this, this round that they found, this unspent shell casing is that

where was it found, number one? They didn't want to get into that. They said, well, we don't know exactly where it was found, all this stuff. But regardless, let's move on, because we did, we did, determined that it was an officer just clearing his weapon. That's all it was, guys, nothing to see here.

And we don't have to know anything else about it. Why would they be clearing their weapon? Well, okay, so let's, for people out there to don't even know what clearing a weapon means, that means you're just taken around out of a chamber. So if you're law enforcement, for example, you pull over someone and you are going to make their firearms safe. Say that you pull them out of the car, you find a firearm on them, and you don't want the firearm to be live and ready to go while you're working with these people.

Whatever the case, even if they have a legal firearm, in some cases, law enforcement will take that weapon. They will move it away from whoever you're actually dealing with. You will literally rack the chamber or you'll rack the slide, discharging the round that is in the actual chamber. And that makes the weapon clear as long as you have the magazine out, right? So that would be what they're trying to say. some police officer for whatever reason did before,

apparently before Charlie Kirk was assassinated. And here's the other weird thing, right? I can see it if you are a civilian that maybe you're just one of those civilians that don't like carrying your gun loaded. There are literal people that do not like carrying one in the chamber because they feel like, hey, if this shit goes off or whatever, there's just people that feel unsafe about that. Right. Even though I'm always a proponent, like if you're going to carry a weapon, have one in the chamber.

Because by the time it takes you, well, yeah, you're talking about a safety. But either way, I mean, there's a lot of guns now have like the palm safety or the whatever. So it's easier to go off in Glock's. They can go off just pretty easily as well. But what I'm saying is that I can understand some civilians feel in that way. But law enforcement, 100% will not be walking around with not one in the chamber. That would be like the dumbest training aspect of any firearms course you could ever possibly think of. Like that's just not, that's never in the equation that law enforcement walk around with their weapons, their service weapons without one in a chamber. So then why would someone be clearing their weapon? Why would a law enforcement officer be clearing their weapon that day? It just doesn't make sense.

There's no reason whatsoever to do that. And so that entire idea that this, unspent round, which I don't even know that they actually said what round it was, like what caliber it was, any of that. I don't even think they said that. And so like, and it was, it was weird, like how they kind of move through this because they're like, well, you know, we're not going to say where it was, when we found it, any of that stuff.

But we did find one because someone reported it somehow. And then they tried to downplay the hell out of that, even up into the pretrial where they're like, well, it was accounted for by law enforcement and the, all that matters. So someone went to somebody and said, we're accounting for this. You know, let's move on because this could really help the defense's case. What I'm curious about is, was that round, whatever it was found on that building at 845 from Charlie Kirk's angle, right? The same building where I was talking about, there is a figure moving before Charlie Kirk was assassinated. And I also believe they picked up some movement on that building after

Charlie Kirk was assassinated. So was that round found on this? building because we already know that security was shit here. We know that they didn't even clear the rooftops. We also know that there was no security. There was no law enforcement presence on the rooftops. We know that for sure because they literally dropped the ball in all ways in security in this particular situation. So they can't.

And also they can't come out and be like, well, we had law enforcement on this roof. They did it. So they can't say that either. And they haven't said that. But yet somehow they're saying that they found an. spent casing somewhere and we don't know where it is. Yeah, it's just crazy. Yeah, and they didn't have law enforcement on the roof, but they had them in the same

building underneath the roof where it was air conditioned. Yeah, it's crazy. There was also testimony about a vehicle linked to Robinson, right? Whole testified that a Spanish forked police officer had an interaction with the vehicle early on September 11th the day after the shooting. And according to a whole, the officer later looked up the partial plate and the plate showed Robinson was the one registered owners, one of the registered owners. The officer said the driver was a male he believed to be Robinson.

Another key section Tuesday involved motive and the victim targeted enhancement. Now, prosecutors moved to admit a statement from Turning Point USA board member David Englehart. The state argued that the statement helped explain Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk's role, his events, and his political and religious views, included views on gender ideology. The defense argued that the statement was irrelevant. that it did not show Robinson's state of mind and that some of it sounded more like opinion than evidence. Judge Graff ruled that the statement was relevant to the victim targeting enhancement and proficiently admitted it, but said that he would decide later if whether it would be fully admitted, probably in front of a jury.

Okay, so here's the other thing. DNA and physical evidence also came up Tuesday. Utah Department of Public Safety Sergeant Jennifer Famina testified about the rifle, screwdriver, and tau found at or near the scene and how these items were packaged. and sent to federal labs. AP reported that a bold action rifle wrapped in a dark colored towel was found in a wooded area near campus. We've all heard about that

and then a screwdriver was collected from the rooftop of the Lossie building. Famina also testified that the DNA found on the towel matched two people, one of them being Robinson's roommate, which we'll get in that in second because that's very interesting. DNA analyst Amanda Baker

also took the stand, according to KUTV's live report and she testified that her lab first received DNA evidence, us on September 11th and that although DNA testing usually takes 180 to 200 days, this case was given priority status and lab staff worked around the clock. She also testified about DNA degradation, saying that there was some degradation or degradation on DNA recovered from the screwdriver and less degradation on the towel. One emotional moment from Tuesday came from a woman who had waited outside the courthouse

around midnight to get one of the few public seats. She said she teared up during the hearing and Erica Kirk reached. over and offered her a tissue because she is an endless dispenser of tissues. I'm sorry, but she is. I'm sorry. That was wrong. I might edit of that, but I'm probably not. I'm sorry.

I really am. So the woman said Erica did not know whether she was a supporter or a stranger, but still showed her compassion. Okay. And by the way, guys, I'm not talking shit about Erica Kirk. I'm not going to delete that. But my point to this is that there's been a lot of weird stuff that Erica Kirk is done after this.

and a lot of weird stuff. And at the very least, you know, I never knew who Erica Kirk was until the Charlie Kirk thing. But, you know, a lot of people have learned kind of a lot of her personality and how she is after the Charlie Kirk thing. And I'm just saying that there's just a lot of weird stuff. That's all I'm saying. And she 100% always has tissues. And that was the only other part I was trying to say. There's nothing else I'm saying.

So the headline from Tuesday so far is, you know, look, there was a lot of stuff that came out. The biggest takeaway, though, from both days is that the hearing is kind of functioned almost like a preview of the trial, what they're going to try to issue on either side. And I think some of the weirdest, I guess some of the stuff is like the compilation video, right? This is going to be a big struggle or battle, especially when court comes into session when there is a jury because the compilation video, although they have changed it out, I will assume the prosecution is going to try to mention that. and then, you know, as they submitted this cleaner footage, it just, it's just strange because, number one, they didn't have anyone there that actually was to account for any of this stuff. They just had one person that was saying, yeah, this is this and this, and we compilated everything. It's like a highlight reel. And I understand it can be a highlight reel.

That's fine. But it's just also kind of strange. Now, I want to also talk about this, the DNA evidence. Now, prosecutors say the DNA evidence connects Robinson to key items including rifle and tau, but, and also AP reported that FBI DNA analyst Amanda Baker testified about DNA on the rifle tau and that defense questioned the limitations of the DNA, which we talked about. Now, this matters because the DNA sounds bulletproof to the public, but in the court is often much more complicated.

Was it direct DNA, touch DNA, mixed DNA, degradated DNA? And the interesting thing is that the prosecutors have said they, plan to introduce evidence involving Robinson's roommate and romantic partner in Lance Twigs, including statements and alleged messages. But the interesting part of that whole deal is just simply this. FBI DNA Examiner says DNA on the screwdriver and tau were almost entirely Lance Twigs. Only 5% Tyler Robinson on one of the two Twigs items, which was a screwdriver and the towel.

So twigs, 95% and the other was 11% Tyler Robinson and 89% Lance Twigs on the screwdriver. So you got towel 95% screwdriver 89%. And, you know, is that weird? Well, it is weird. I think it's weird because Tyler is the one that was ownership of the screwdriver at the time. So you would think you would have more DNA. Yeah, he was in possession of it.

And if they're trying to tell you that he's taking apart this rifle and doing all these things with it. It was, you know, likely, decently warm. It was decently warm that day. I don't know if he wore gloves or not. Who knows?

Probably not. But if he did, you know, you're still going to have DNA, especially using it, getting in, yeah, like taking the screwdriver,

using the screwdriver, whatever. It's just, it's weird that there is such a DNA mismatch to where there's so much Lance Twigs and very little Tyler Robinson. And I'm not trying.

trying to say anything about, like, bad about furries, but I imagine most furries don't use screwdrivers. I don't know. I don't know. And he had most of the DNA on it. Yeah. It is very strange. Ian, which is at Iwind stir on X, the Tyler Robinson hearing is actually wild, how stupid they think

we all are. I do want to play this clip because I want you guys to hear what some of the people are saying on X and all that. Because I think it's important. Here is Ian and here's what he had thought about some of the things that were said in this was the first day, pre-trial hearing. Listen. Bet you didn't see this. Just watch.

TPSA had a videographer, a visual impulse, who was taking coverage of the event. And they provided video to us that they had captured on September 10th of 2025. And do you know who or how that video was collected from visual impulse? Yeah, Mr. Farnsworth originally provided, I believe, a flash drive to Lieutenant O'Brien with one of the local agencies. And a short time after that on September 10th, he provided downloadable versions, electronic versions, to Agent Mortensen. And an 1102 was collected from him on May 6th of 26.

And before Ian talks here, what they're saying right here is very important because of what has been said previously and chain of custody. I mean, there is a lot to what he just said. And I'll let Ian kind of further explain this, but listen. So 1102 was prepared by someone with visual impulse. Yes, Terrell Farnsworth was the individual that prepared it. And in preparation for this, I spoke to him personally regarding that statement. And you know what his association is with visual impulse? I believe he's the owner operator.

So remember when we were told by Andrew Colvitt and all of the cronies at TPUSA, all of Charlie's best friends, that that footage that was taken off the camera behind him was immediately turned into the FBI. And then it wasn't, it didn't go anywhere. And then he didn't run off with it or whatever. Remember that? Well, in case you don't remember, watch this. You know, there's a, by the way, just one other conspiracy theory.

I just want to snuff out here. One of our dear friends that literally from the very beginning started with us and loved Charlie like a brother, he grabbed the SD cards out of the camera afterwards. And there's all these conspiracy videos about it. Why did he grab the SD cards? Well, first of all, they're in the possession of the FBI. Okay. It's not like he took them and like ran off with them. Second of all, I asked him personally.

I said, why did you do that? and he looked at me and this was his answer he said because i know people can be evil and i i want to stop for a second because very important because he was like no i had to grab him and give him the fbi like i didn't want anything to happen but apparently they went through all kinds of people before it got to the fbi right that's the interesting thing let's listen he did not want that footage being grabbed by somebody there was videos of people after the incident going and stealing hats off the table. I mean, so I'm so grateful he did that. So, yep, that was another big lie because according to this testimony, this footage from

the camera behind Charlie was given to the FBI in a flash drive. Now, I'm no expert, but I do know the difference between a flash drive and an SD card. And an SD card is what's inside those cameras. And in order to get the footage from an SD card onto a flash drive, you have to put it in a computer first, which means that he absolutely did not turn that thing in directly to the FBI right away. He had it in his possession for who knows how long. I guess however long it took him to give the flash drive in. I'm not sure what the timestamp is. You'd have to look that up. But regardless, that absolutely violates the chain of custody. There's not even a question. Like that right there violates chain of custody. And then you're telling me that he doesn't turn in digital copies for

eight months? Don't worry, guys, everything's totally fine. They definitely didn't change anything or delete anything or omit anything. It's totally normal. They really think that we are this stupid. But I'll tell you what, Sam Parker put this perfectly in a tweet. So he goes, as you watch the Tyler Robinson show trial unfold, just remember that there's literally no publicly available evidence that. And by the way, all of this is completely verifiable, is absolutely true. Over the last several months, Many creators online have put all of these things together. Puts Tyler walking up to the roof of the Losey Center. puts Tyler on the roof of the Losey Center.

Puts Tyler's gun on the roof of the Losey Center. Puts the gun with Tyler on the roof of the Losey Center. Putses the gun with Tyler anywhere on campus. Proves Tyler's gun was fired by Tyler. Proves Tyler's gun was fired from the roof of the Losey Center by anyone. Proves Tyler's gun was even fired at all. Proves any gun was fired at all from the alleged perch in the Losey Center roof. Proves the metal fragments found in Charlie came from a 30.

got six round fired from Tyler's gun. Proves the metal fragments match the other unfired rounds found with Tyler's gun. Tyler wrote the alleged confession note that Lance Twigs allegedly found. The note allegedly found by Twigs even exists outside of a photograph. There is, however, voluminous publicly available evidence that Tyler was in custody well before the alleged Discord confession message was sent, was in custody long before press conference the evening of September 11th where law enforcement said the suspect was still at large, was in custody hours before the alleged 33 hours announced by Cash Patel,

Dan Bonjina, Utah governor Spencer Cox, and Washington County Sheriff Nate Brooksby. Sure seems like all this is an absolute sham and they're definitely, definitely not telling us the truth about it. But you stop that because if you believe that, you're just a conspiracy theorist. There you go. And listen, so there's accounts like that from Ian and that, you know, talk about this to where it's like, this is all a show trial. they don't have any proof of anything and listen they did present a compilation video that has been

through various chains of custody didn't even get digital copies of this until eight months later what the hell does that even really mean is the bigger question but the the other question to this is like as i said as they play the videos that you have all already seen by now you can't just tell that's tyler robinson i mean you can't and and also i want to make something also extremely clear i'm not saying that tyler Robinson wasn't on campus. I'm not even saying that. I'm not trying to convince you guys that Tyler Robinson was never on UVU campus.

You know, Sherry and I were talking before the show. It reminds me a lot of the JFK assassination. If this thing is a conspiracy, if it is some type of bigger operation that we just don't quite see the whole picture of yet, if you guys go back and listen to our episodes on the JFK assassination, and it was specifically the one about the men on the sixth floor. There's a book that I encourage you all to read the men on the six floor. I think you can get it on like Audible and also Amazon Kindle Unlimited or whatever.

These reporters that had worked at this, this JFK assassination since the day it happened. And for years and years and years, that's literally what they devoted in their entire life to and talked to one of the shooters. I mean, before he died, he was a large part in this book. he talked about Jack Ruby. He talked about meeting with him during the and leading up to the JFK assassination. Obviously, Jack Ruby is the one that was the nightclub owner, which is which by the way, his name was Jack Rubenstein, actual name. But he was the nightclub owner.

He was the one that assassinated Lee Harvey Oswald because supposedly he loved JFK so much. You also had the other actors that were like LBJ's hit squad. This was also during the time that there was so much shit going on with LBJ. He was involved in all kinds of shit, which is likely why Robert Kennedy was assassinated because he was the, at the time, the, what is it called? The U.S. attorney or whatever, or the attorney general. Anyways, he was the attorney general at the time. And he was getting ready to prosecute LBJ and bring up all of these charges on him,

but because of his deep corruption to these crime cartels, they were literally committing murders, they were doing all kinds of shit. On the behest of someone, we don't exactly know who that someone was, but either way, you can kind of look into everything that LBJ accomplished once he became president

and everything that JFK was against. And then it starts making a lot of sense. But at the very least, according to the book, there were probably at least six people at the depository building, which is where Lee Harvey Arswald was, and potentially even three guns out the window of those, or not out the window,

they were actually recessed because that's why you couldn't see others, according to the other shooter. And so there's a lot to this, right? This is not necessarily just one of those cut and dry cases where you're like, well, they have Tyler Robinson, so that's it. Yeah, that's all they see here.

And even if that is him on video, it still does not prove the fact that that's, what killed Charlie. Yeah. But at this time, I guess it really doesn't have to prove it. It just has to give you a reasonable doubt to prove it. Yeah. And then also, Candice Owens posted, and I've talked to heavy duty country.

He has a YouTube channel called Heavy Duty Country. You can also find him on X. But Candice Owens, I literally just reposted this video on our X account. If you go to our X account right now, Investigator with the podcast, you will find the video I reposted of Candice Owens posting heavy duty country's video. And Heavy Duty Country does videos on YouTube all the time. He's done a lot of stuff about the Charlie Kirk assassination, but he's like a big, I guess you would call him a guntuber. He loves guns.

He is, and I would consider an expert shooter. He's probably going to be on the podcast at one point in time. Man, they took these and these hamhawks. They put cow bones in them, the cow neck with the full, you know, thick-ass neck structure, bone structure. And then they took two of them. They shot at the exact same distance with a 30-alt sinks, and they put a cinder block behind the two giant porks,

the pork peeps. I don't even know what you would call it, like the pork. They're like four different sections of a pig. So it's not just the butt or whatever. It's the whole, basically the whole mid-sections, everything. With the bone, everything. And then they put inside of that, they also put the cow neck with the bone.

And then they put a cinder block behind it. And they shot it at the exact same distance. as the Tyler Robinson shot to Charlie Kirk. And every single time that 30-all-6 round went through everything, fracturing completely the neck of the cow and all the way through the center block, including destroying it. And I want to ask you a question before we play this because I was thinking about this. I'm not playing this video because, yeah, yeah, I'm not going to play.

I'm just describing it. Well, I was just thinking about it when we were watching this video. You know, he had his gun on a tripod and it was a newer gun with a. same type of bullets that Tyler supposedly used. And I was thinking to myself, okay, Tyler has his grandpa's old gun that's probably not even calibrated, right? And he doesn't shoot right because he probably never even shoots. I mean, I don't know if he's a shooter or not.

No, he wasn't. How easy would it be to shoot one bullet and strike him in the neck? Like if you had an older gun, I guess what my question is. And with iron sights, too, I believe. I don't remember if there was a scope on that gun. not. I can't remember for some reason. And I guess what my question is, when you have an older gun, because I know we have some older guns and sometimes they don't shoot properly towards the target because they get off or whatever. Yeah, yeah. Wouldn't that be the case if you had a very old shot? Oh,

absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, and that's why you go and, you know, you side in your weapon, right? That's, that's why you go do it on a range. You know, you want to side it in because it gets off. even if you, even if you do nothing with the gun, it will get off of siding. And so you got to go side it in. And this happens if the weapon is moved in certain ways or whatever the case is. That's just, I mean, unless they were shooting this gun regularly, which it doesn't sound like he was, but who knows? Yeah, the siding in of a weapon is very important, especially at that distance and

especially a one shot, one kill, perfect kill shot. Yeah, I just don't see. Tyler doing that. Yeah, that's just kind of usually unheard of is all I'm saying. So I also want to put into the equation here. Let me find this clip. I want to play the Megan Kelly piece, right? And Megan Kelly came out basically and said, you know,

we are going to cover this case in its entirety and we're going to be as transparent and as neutral as possible. And of course you have people out there like Ashton Forbes and everybody. It's like, oh, you don't dare go back now. You were on Candace's side and everybody else's side. Now you're going to try to say you're neutral or whatever. But at the very least, I want you to hear this, I guess you can call this quote unquote expert analysis of the rounds, of how they were fired, of all of that. But in particular, let's play this now.

Here you go. Going back to the bullet, this is one of those things that's been driving me crazy, Megan, this whole time. The defense filed a brief where they. basically suggested to the world that the bullet didn't match. Okay. And I've got the quote written down, but they write that. That's something the defense can do, whatever. And the prosecution came out and they got in trouble because they not only said it was inconclusive,

but they went on TMZ with Mark's buddy, Harvey Levin, who got him in trouble. And he said, we are very confident in the rest of our evidence. And the judge said that that violated the, you know, the bounds of the court order. and he kind of slapped him on the wrist, and he said, but we're not going to dump the death penalty on that. The best way, I think, to think about this bullet, this was a large bullet that fragmented upon entry. Okay, and I don't know if this was a frangible round.

They haven't made that public yet, but there are certain bullets that are designed to disintegrate. Some are used for hunting. They call them varmint rounds. I've never heard of a 30-out-6 barma round, but they must exist. And that's never been made public. The best way to think of it, Megan, is like,

if you have a murder scene and you have the killer who picked up like a wine glass, for example, and you know that there's a fingerprint on the wine glass and then the wine glass shatters into a million pieces, you're going to get an inconclusive result for that too. And a bullet is similar. The way they do, the ballistic comparisons, that's kind of how that works. You can't get a fingerprint off shattered glass. I'm going to pause for a second because he's talking about varmint rounds and all this shit with a 30 out six. Okay.

The reason why I'm going to completely call bullshit with this is because, number one, if Tyler had any clue whatsoever of firearms, which he said, supposedly his grandfather is the one that gifted him this gun. But I just don't even see the reality in existence. And you guys out there can correct me if I'm wrong for a 30-06 round to be a varmint round. 30 all six rounds are extremely powerful. And the way you have to look at this is, is that the Marine Corps uses a 308,

which is essentially a smaller version of the 30-0-6. And that's what their Marine... And I'm saying Marine Corps snipers use the smaller version of the 30-0-6. I'm not saying that the Marine Corps uses a better version. I'm saying they use a lesser version of the 30-0-6. And this is what Marine Corps snipers use to kill people from long distances. They, they, they, it's one of the most proven rounds in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in,

sniper schools and military sniper operations. It is a highly, uh, uh, uh, I guess you can say a damaging round. And it's a very high penetrable round when, and that's the three way. Then you think about the 30 all six. If you stack those next to each other, the 30. 08 is about, I don't know, seven to eight centimeters shorter than the 30. out six round that 30 out six round is coming with a lot harder punch it is going to go clear pretty much damn near everything as heavy d or not heavy d but heavy duty country presented on his video

where it went through the entire pork two of them actually they they at one point the first one they had the entire pork section plus the cow neck bone plus the center block and it penetrated the center block went through all that then they put two of the same pork sections together plus the cowbone plus the cinder block and it went all the way through both those through the cowbone and completely disintegrated the cinder block yeah now the other things the other thing too is that like the likelihood of 30 out six like you would have rounds for varmints or fragmented rounds is very unlikely and especially if you're going to go and try to kill someone that's just not what you would do and I I don't

I don't know enough about the 30 alt-six rounds to tell you whether or not that's a very common thing. I don't think it is because that gun is designed to kill. It is designed to go through shit and blow shit out. It is one of the most popular hunting guns there is because you make no mistake. If you want to kill something and put it down and it don't, you know, one of the things in hunting is that when you shoot a deer, oftentimes they run and you have to track them. You have to watch for their blood stains, all this stuff. One of the good things why people like to use 30L6 is because when they hit deer, they don't run very far, if at all, in some cases, because it blows shit up.

It blows out the back of their neck or their chest section. It's not, it's a very damaging round. And so I just wanted to make that all very clear as this guy is trying to present that, oh, this just, this was a miracle bullet, apparently. Now, we've had discussions years ago about different types of bullets. and we were talking about, you said, you know, there are bullets that have pointy edges or whatever. And there are also bullets that will like disperse. Dispers.

Yeah. Yeah. Is that what he's talking about like hydro shock rounds and stuff like that? Explosive rounds. It dispersed and just one fragment hit his neck. Is that what he's trying to say kind of? Well, I think what he's kind of trying to say is, yes, there are definitely rounds that when it hits, it explodes more, right?

But that still doesn't, even if that's the case. Like, and what is. he's kind of specifically talking about is hydro shock rounds. That's like one of the popular versions of a round that would do that, right? Upon impact, it starts to disperse. But it's got to impact something first, right? What has to impact. But even as it disperses, it's going to come out the backside.

Usually the way he's trying to describe this is rounds like this, as they hit, they're going to fragment. And oftentimes the reason why they make rounds like that is to cause the maximum amount of damage. But they don't fragment in the way that he's trying to explain it like it hits the neck and then fragments all the way through his lower body. What it would do is whatever the angle is is going to hit his neck and then it's going to fragment through the neck. Inside the body. Through the neck, but out the back. I mean, all of that energy is still coming out.

And the amount of fragmentation from that, think about how big a neck is. It's not very big. The amount of fragmentation from that slight, I mean, and I say slight, it is skin, it is flesh. So it's not a huge, it's not like you're hitting concrete wall. But when it hits that, it will start to disperse, but it's going to come out in the back. And rounds like Hydroshock and all that stuff, oftentimes you'll see a lot more damage to the body. And usually it's on the back, the exit wound. Because as it's coming out, it's blowing a bigger hole in the back of you.

Like it would damn, it could damn near blow your freaking head off. And I think that's such damning evidence that there is no exit wound in this case. Yeah, there isn't. Let's listen to some more because he's going to try to explain this more. Nobody's really been talking about is that there are more than one way, there's more than one way to ballistically match a firearm. And one of them is with expended shell casings. And he cycled, he cycled the casing. The casing found at the scene matched the rifle. Okay.

So there's, it's not just the bullet. And that rifle has his DNA on the trigger. So there's plenty of forensic. evidence. And Megan, you're exactly right. One of these experts is going to say exactly that. I examined it. And that wasn't the bullet. And it couldn't have been fired from that gun. We're going to see something like that, either at this phase or in the actual trial. The defense is going to come right back. And they're going to say, of course, his DNA is on that gun. He used that gun before. That was a gun from his house. And of course, there are casings that match it because he wasn't the one who planted the casing. somebody else through the casings there. If you've got George Zinn, who's over there confessing and at the front, just coincidentally, you think it's a long stretch to have somebody throw some

casings. I mean, none of that. I get the fact that the inconclusive bullet is something that people have run with, but I promise you that the prosecution, and you know this, Matt, that's why he went on to TMZ. He was worried. He is worried that the public has taken that and run with it. And that's a significant, significant doubt if you get. By the way, as you know, if you've got a battle of the experts, what did jurors do with that? I can't tell you how many times they tell me, how we discounted the experts and

we didn't come to that conclusion. Yeah, it's exactly right. I mean, it'd be a lot more helpful for the defense if they didn't have the alleged confessions, you know, the text messages to Lance Twigs, the Discord messages, and whatever he may or may not have said to police, be a lot more helpful if they just had a bullet that couldn't be conclusively matched, but they have more than that. I will show you this soundbite from Rob O'Neill, who I adore. and he is, of course, a former Navy SEAL sniper who not only shot Osama bin Laden in the face,

but has been on some of our most daring and dangerous missions as part of SEAL Team 6 for the past 20 plus years prior to his retirement. And here's what he said. This is not, he has no dog in this hunt. And this is what he said about this wound on Charlie and this gun. Just for me, I mean, it was off it right from the beginning for me. From, do we not guard rooftops anymore? There's been assassinations, assassination attempts all over the world. Why aren't me looking at rooftops?

And then when I was sent the video at the same message where they said Charlie Kirk was just shot. When I watched that horrific video, he was obviously dead before he hit the ground. But the questions immediately started to come to me. That was not an entry ruin that we saw. We saw an exit wound. So where'd that bullet come from? You don't bleed light. And I've shot, guys.

closer than the camera was. An entry wound doesn't look like that. An exit wound doesn't. I could play you 20 videos like that from gun experts. Yeah, I love that guy too, Megan. And by the way, I will already say this before he says it, but that doesn't necessarily look like an exit wound. It actually doesn't look like an excellent one to me.

It looks like he hit an artery, which is why all that blood came out. But anyways, I can tell you right now he's wrong. I watch that video. That's an arterial bleed from an entry wound. They recovered the entire bullet on the inside. It's heavily fragmented and damaged. So love him. I think he's an American hero.

He's dead wrong on that one. And he's never tried or presented this type of evidence in front of a jury or slog through expert testimony. I'm glad to hear you disagree. That's what we're here for. But what about Matt, you've heard, you know, many people believe that a 30-odd-6 and that gun and that level bullet, would never have not had an entry, an exit wound. That the fact that, you know, there was this alleged surgeon who said, oh, Charlie's got like a Superman-like spine, you know, he was so strong that his bone stopped it.

That's why there wasn't an exit wound. And many people just said immediately, that's utter bullshit. That we don't believe that. Mark Gargos, my friend, has seen probably more autopsies than I have after seven 17 years in homicide. Bullets do weird things. And this thing fragmented. They recovered the whole thing. And when you hit bones, bullets break apart. And I don't care, it's a 30 out six. And that's the thing. They'd never released what kind of ammunition it was. But this was an antique rifle. If this was antique ammo to boot, you know, who knows? But there is no mystery here other than speculation and kind of

nonsense. I mean, you see this all the time in homicide cases, Megan, where sometimes, you're as the bullets go right through, and it looks like they're pristine. Sometimes they will hit a bone and shadow and stay inside, sometimes little rounds, spin around, bank all over the place inside a human body. You know, we part of our used to go watch the autopsies on our homicides. And it's, it is, you'd be amazed the things that different bullets will do. And there we go. That's a, that's a Mouser, I believe it's a Mouser 98. That is a, a rifle that was designed. well over 100 years ago. It's still that, and that's a really old one, but they still make those because it's,

it's a simple design and it works. But ammunition, depending on the ammunition, they design certain rounds to break apart, to shoot coyotes. It's literally called varmin ammunition. And there's no, you know, it's not like they got in there and didn't, you know, couldn't account for the weight or the grains. Apparently it's all inside his body. It hit his spine.

Viva's right. He was dead instantly or very close to it. it, thank God. But yeah, this is the kind of stuff that the conspiracy theories and these are a bunch of people who haven't witnessed autopsies, haven't seen him. Bullets pulled out of human bodies before. And the only person who might have seen more of them than me is probably my friend Mark Garragher goes right there at the bottom.

Do you agree with him, Mark? Yeah, the, Matt's, as usual, spot on. the issue of what a bullet will do. In fact, I have cross-examined. I can't tell you how many ballistics experts. And when they talk about, you know, they shoot bullets into water. They shoot bullets. You should see how they testify as to how they test guns and how they test casings and things of that nature. And I have used exactly what Matt has said as a, as fodder for cross-examination, saying, by the way, lay the foundation, have you ever been to an autopsy? Have you seen what bullets do? For you to say that you can try to recreate it by shooting it into a long trough of water or something

else is just complete nut or nonsense. Because they, it's almost as if I've actually had ballistics experts, admit to me that bullets have a mind of their own. I mean, they, they, they, I've actually had that statement, um, uh, repeated back to me on cross-examination. That doesn't mean, however, that the defense is going to not run with that. The defense has an obligation to run with that. The defense has an absolute duty, zealous advocacy to kind of plumb the depths of that, because God only knows what is going on here. I mean, this has not been, I think Matt would probably admit if this were, he wouldn't admit that he's ever had this situation down in Orange County, but he probably, if I was out with him at CrimeCon in Vegas, would admit that he has chastised

investigators for doing stuff like this before, because this is not, you're not. What do you mean? Doing stuff like what? This is not a primer on a really good investigation number one. And I don't want to be the armchair quarterback second guessing, but this once again has all the earmarks of some people in over their head, at least initially. There's a lot of things that were done here that I think are going to come out during this preliminary hearing and the defense is going to bring out as to what investigators did or didn't do.

I want to hear more on that, but Fiva, I want you to weigh in. Well, when I hear people say this, you know, a 30.06 would always leave an exit wound. It's impossible, inconceivable that it wouldn't. And then I say Martin Luther King, Jr. And then people, then be like, well, I don't believe that report either because you're believing Fed Slop if you believe that that bullet actually killed Martin Luther King. So you're having an argument with people who basically push unfalsifiable theories where if you say it always leaves an exit wound,

there's probably a few soldiers from World War II that can testify that a 30-od-6 doesn't always leave an exit wound. Then you say Martin Luther King got shot in the face. And if they believe it, they say, oh, well, that hit his jawbone. Okay, so a jawbone can stop it, but not a spine, or a spine, well, not the spinal cord, but not the spine bones. And then you say, well, I don't believe that Martin Luther King got shot in the face with the 30-od-6 either. So therefore, I stand by my, it could never have been a 30-0-6. Anybody's saying that, and I'm not a gun expert, I'm not an ammunition's expert, by any means. I was. a lawyer for 13 years. My question, it has always been, do you know the condition of the

ammo? If you don't know the condition of the ammo, you are not in a position to definitively say how the ideal ammo would perform and what it would do to a human body. All right. So that was what Megan Kelly had on her show recently, which obviously, it sounds like everybody that comes on, she's been starting to try to bring on our show now is trying to say the opposite of what she's kind of been trying to say. But I want to make something clear, too. I also saw another video and this was yesterday, I believe. I'll post that on our X channel as well. There was someone that used old 30 all six ammo and it behaved exactly the same way as their brand new 30 all six ammo.

So this was, I think, like 20 something year ammo or something 15 year. My point to this is, is I'm not, okay, well, let's break it down. Am I saying that a 30-a-6 round could not from that distance, which, by the way, it's not that far of a distance. I mean, it's far. I mean, I think it was 150 yards or so. So that's, you're talking about a football filled in a half. That's a decent amount of yardage,

but still extremely fast velocity of that bullet. I mean, that bullet is still going to be at a fast velocity at six and 700 yards. so you got to think about that number two is am i saying that like you know that it could not have somehow miraculously did some kind of thing that we've never almost seen before and and he's trying to bring in MLK that that's a whole different situation we can cover down another episode but but the point to this is is that at 150 yards or so a 30 all six into the neck where it hit charlie kirk is it seems it seems like you would mostly be going through soft tissue and the cartilage or bone that is in the neck is nowhere even close to the structure of a cow neck or thick,

very thick pork meat, all this stuff. This is, this is a neck. This is not something that's extremely penetrable. And as I've also said, could this all actually be exactly how they are explained? it which is Tyler Robinson got up on the roof he shot Charlie Kirk and that was the end of it maybe but there's just so many there's so many there's so many variables in this that doesn't make sense that they they just need to explain why all this shit doesn't make sense if even if they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that what they're saying about the round and how it entered

and how it didn't exit and and and fragmented and everything even if they can prove that to where you know for a fact that's true. Then what the hell was everything else? Like what was the old guy that was in the crowd? I shot him. What was the other diversion tactics? What was the people on the roof? What was the what was the clearing of a law enforcement's gun?

What was the deal with the SD card? What was there? There's just so many things that it just doesn't make sense. And why wasn't the property secured? Why didn't they have a briefing? Why was there somebody in regular clothing with a gun? talking to them. Yeah, which is also what I think it was the first officer that testified yesterday.

Also, why did they cover up the crime scene and completely concreted in? Including there was a like a manhole cover area, a couple of them actually in this courtyard or in this amphitheater, I guess you would call it. And I watched a YouTube video of the guy that was contracted to cover it all up. And he said he met with a couple of people. it was an emergency. Like literally this guy, Provo, Utah, concrete company. And he said it was like 11 o'clock at night or whatever time it was.

And I think if I'm not mistaken, it was like the same night that this happened. And so he said he had got the call at like 11 o'clock at night. And he says, look, I got great guys. I got guys that worked their ass off and all this stuff. And he said it was 11 o'clock at night. He got a call from somebody. He didn't 100% know. who they were, but like federal somebody.

And they were basically saying that, hey, we got a concrete job that is an emergency. And we need it done like tonight or tomorrow. And then by the way, this podcast episode, this guy went on was not a conspiracy podcast at all. It was literally a, I think it was like a construction podcast or some shit like that. And this guy came on, this guy's shit. And I just happened to find it one day on YouTube. And I watched the entire thing.

And I was just listening because this guy was like, you know, big Trump supporter. He was 100% not on the side of conspiracy, although even during the interview, he was like, yeah, it was kind of weird, I guess. Like it was 11 o'clock at night. And then I said, look, man, I don't know if I can get all my guys together.

There's no way we're going to be able to do it tonight. They're just not, it's just not possible. He said, but I'll see. He said he called all of his guys, couldn't get hold of a lot of them. They had to bring other guys in. Long story short, they weren't able to do it for like, I don't know, 24 to 48 hours or whatever it was. And so, yeah, they were contracted to cover everything up.

It makes you wonder why they were covering it up and what's under it. And is the defense allowed to see what's underneath there? I mean, could they literally have crews come and remove that concrete to see if there's anything under there? No, of course they can. But that's the whole point to this. It's like, you know, first of all, it's not like that whatever happened, they are damaged the area that Charlie Kirk was in. Okay.

You know, that, that, yeah, there was blood there, even though you saw the blood come out. But regardless of that, it's not like that could be cleaned in, you know, 24 hours or whatever the case is. But to just go through the lengths of emergency calls to concrete companies and pressure in them. I mean, he said, he said, I felt really pressured. I mean, it was just like, no, we got to do it. We can't really find anybody else.

You have to do this. And he was there next morning. or actually sorry, I think it was like 2 o'clock in the morning, meeting with people, all this shit about what they needed done and all this stuff. That just doesn't make sense. That sounds crazy to me. And especially when you have a case, you have a suspect or I don't know if they did exactly at night, but either way, the court case and all this shit.

Like, you know, think about a lot of murder cases. In some cases, in a lot of cases, actually, especially if it's something that is relevant to the jury. they will have a jury day to where they go to the crime scene and they look at exactly how everything was and they present hey this is where charlie was sitting this is exactly the layout all the ship but they've changed a complete layout of everything that was there that day everything is completely covered up all the concrete is is is like thick i mean he said he said they requested to be i think it was like two or three inches thick would you not think that the defense will

bring that up i don't i don't know but but also you have to understand that Where did Tyler get his defense team, too? And this is a question. Well, it's the same team that was on Corey, whatever her name was. I forgot her name. But it's the same lawyers. Corey, who? I don't even know who that is.

It was the lady that killed her husband and wrote a book. I think it's the same lady. I'm not sure because I didn't follow her case. Well, either way. But yeah, she's been on some high profile cases. But I don't even know if she's a public defender. No, I don't know. Let me look that up.

Okay. So the answer to that question is he has a. court appointed defense, which is not good. It is not good. And a freaking death penalty case, you can't find money. But here's the other thing is like with how high profile this case is, like, how the hell was there not some high profile attorney coming into this saying pro bono 100%? We'll do this because you know your name is going to be everywhere.

And it's going to do wonders for your public appearance. And like I was talking, Nestor is his attorney. And she's a woman. A lot of people, I'm just saying they call her Miss Piggy for some reason. They're really mean about her. But they watched her in all these other court cases. And from what I gather, she was not that great. Yeah.

Well, she didn't seem that great either. And the problem with court-appointed attorneys, obviously, is they're part of the system, too. Regardless of however you want to look at it, they are very similar to prosecution because they are appointed by the state. or the court and just like prosecutors are. I mean, that's the same kind of thing. And, you know, if you wanted a cover-up or whatever, you would absolutely want to make sure that you had a court-appointed attorney that was a part of the system.

You would never allow a high-profile attorney to come in, you know, like the guy that was, who's the girl, Susan? Shit, the. Susan Smith? No, not Susan Smith. Oh. The guy that ran over her cop boyfriend. What the hell was?

Oh, Karen Reed. Karen Reed, yeah. Like, you wouldn't want someone like him, Jack, um, Jackson. Jackson. Yeah, Alan Jackson. Yeah, you wouldn't want Alan Jackson to come up there and defend Tyler Robinson because that would be a very bad situation. Yeah, but I'm surprised nobody like that took his case.

Maybe they weren't able to. Maybe they were denied. I don't know. That's a good question. I don't know. But either way, it is a court-appointed defense for one of the biggest freaking cases in history anyways Candice Owens and Andrew Colvert have been fighting relentlessly throughout this whole thing

and especially the past two days now Candice Owens is on a two week vacation again for whatever reason and so she's been fighting on X with Andrew Colvert turning point USA all these others and so that's pretty much been heating up as well and so with that being said the past couple of days since this pretraw heron has come about you start having these accounts that pop up and it's very interesting how these accounts that are popping up with these videos are getting huge numbers and they're all saying very similar things they are all there to support and support turning point USA and demonize kandis owens like this video i want to play this because this is all important it's all important for the big picture here but uh this is from a guy

named gentry gvers and it says keep your friends close and your enemies closer Listen to what he says. You have it. This is the death blow. This is what everyone was thinking, but no one really wanted to say it. Charlie was holding Candice in line by becoming friends with her so that she wouldn't attack turning points. She wouldn't go after Trump.

She wouldn't go after any of what Charlie was building. And then as soon as Charlie died, there was nobody to have a relationship with. And Andrew and everybody that Charlie worked with, like, knew the kind of person that Candace was. We all saw what happened when Candice left the Daily Wire. She went scorched earth. So why would, like, why would Charlie want that to happen to turning point? His baby.

Like, the thing that he built, the thing that we're all kind of a part of. And Candace pushed and push and push and push after he died. And has accused Turning Point, accused Andrew, accused everybody. everybody, Erica, of really nothing but of everything of killing Charlie. And this is the death blow. And what he's saying is the death blow here. And by the way, Candace has, regardless of whether you hate or love, Candace, she says shit and then provides receipts.

And she's been doing that again for the past two days nonstop. And what this guy is trying to allude to is the exact same thing that Turning Point USA and Andrew Colvitt and everybody else is trying to been alluding to the past two days, which is that Charlie Kirk was just playing Candace Owens. He never was friends with her, really. He was always just trying to keep his enemies closer so that she didn't turn on Daily Wire. Like he really cared so much about Daily Wire or Trump or any of these people. That's just not true whatsoever.

Andrew Colvin, what he's saying is the kind of the death blow is Andrew Colvin says, Candace, he was finding things he could connect with you on to placate you. when it came to the harder conversations like for instance when you tried to bait Fuentes into a debate by publicly claiming lying that Charlie had agreed to debate him after without asking Charlie's permission to do that he made you look like a fool which is not true right and obviously Candace Owens has been going off about all these things and what she's been doing over the past couple of days is she has been releasing all kinds of text messages between her and Charlie Kirk where he has been it look it's obvious Charlie was not placated

her. No, they text all the time. Yeah, he was not, he was not trying to act like that, oh, she's my enemy, so I got to keep her close. No, they text all the time. They literally started Turning Point USA essentially together. I don't think people understand that. They were extremely close. In the beginning of Turning Point USA, Candace was all the time on tour with Charlie Kirk. She has a contract with them still. And yeah, and it wasn't really until the Daily Wire got rid of Candace Owens because Candice Owen says Christ is king. And Daily Wire was pissed about that because that's when the whole thing that says, oh, she's anti-Semitic because she says Jesus is king.

That's how that whole thing started. And so what I'm saying is that that's when they tried to demonize Candice Owens. And that's when they tried to separate Charlie Kirk from Candace Owens. And even after Israel, I mean, basically Israel and APEC and all of the rest, when they started to try to separate Candace Owens from Charlie Kirk. after the break off with Daily Wire, because she said Christ is King, they said it's anti-Semitic.

Charlie Kirk came to her defense and text, multiple texts all over the place, and insisted on still having her at his events, even though Turning Point USA and all of their handlers, we're saying, you better not dare have Candaceauans. You better not dare have Tucker Carlson. And look at all of the people that are demonized right now in media.

It's Tucker Carlson, Kansasowans. Anyone that goes against Israel, that's the people they're demonizing. And yet the same damn people are trying to, to say that Candace Owens is the demon and she's the one that, you know, Charlie Kirk was just placating Candace Owens. They was never her friend. It's all effing lies.

And that's why Turning Point USA and Erica Kirk and all of them, they are absolutely complacent in something. And I'm not 100% sure what it is, but at the very least, they're liars in a large part. And you would think they would want to dig to the real truth. And as a matter of fact, Candice did come out and say, she's like, you know, I didn't talk to him on the phone a lot. but now I am so grateful I didn't because I do have the receipts. I have all the text messages.

And the last time that Candace was actually in his presence was two weeks before he died. They were together. So if he were friends with them, why were they together two weeks before he died? Yeah. And it's just like it's also like two weeks before he or two or three weeks before he died when he went to the Hamptons or wherever it was. And all these Israel people got around Charlie and basically was like, you're going to do this or you're or else basically. and Candace broke that story. There were other people that also said that was true.

But then the media came and everybody else, the big storm of media came and said, oh, that's bullshit. Never happened. They got all these bullshit people to come and say that never happened. But we'll actually never know the truth. All we do know is that for sure, Charlie Kirk was absolutely turning his opinion on Israel, and he had to get away from Israel. He said it multiple times.

He had in text messages. He said on multiple podcasts. And am I saying this Israel? No. I'm just saying that all this shit matters is all I'm saying. It does. And I just want to point out that I think that if Candace was doing something that was crossing the line or something that she could not prove, I think turning point USA and Erica would have already gone after her. They would have already put a lawsuit on her.

Yeah. Had they tried to sue her? No. No. Why not? I think someone is. I can't remember who it is. Well, the French mail lady.

I know. I know that. You're talking about Bridget McCrone. but um but i i don't know it's look guys i i hate to say this like i'm one of those people and and i'm just going to tell you guys personally right now man like it's we've done this we've done this show for a while and there are there have been times that where we're burn out and i'm like i'm sick of talking about shit like this i am absolutely sick of it i'm sick of depressing stuff um and now it's like i i only want to do episodes really that are

extremely important that I think something is wrong. And I'm 100% never going to come on here and try to placate, and I'm using that word, placate you into believe in some bullshit that I'm just making up. Or I don't think there's, at the very least, credibility into the opposite thing that they're trying to say. And I think in this particular case, there is 100% discrepancies and tons of shit that is wrong with this case. And all of these people keep in mind that are telling you now that you have to believe this

narrative are the same people like Cash Patel, like Dan Bongino, like Andrew Cole, like all of them that said that went along with Trump and said, nope, the Epstein files are hoax. Yes, he did kill himself. We approve 100%. Dan Bongino came out after he left the FBI, complete liar. He's a piece of shit. No one likes him except for people that are just sheep and just don't get it. But I'm just telling you there's something up with this case.

There is. And we started this podcast to call out corruption. And when we see corruption, we're going to call it out. And in this case, we see a lot of corruption. And I think it is way deeper than one 23-year-old boy getting on a building and shooting a guy in a neck. I just think it has government conspiracy all over it. Yeah, absolutely. I want to go to Chris Martinson on Redacted.

He's an expert in ballistics and kind of talking about all this. and I want to play this before we go because this is very important. This is potentially extremely important. Not saying like I said, not saying that Charlie Kirk was not on campus. We've always said that. We've literally, I think we've said it almost in every single circumstance.

You know, at the very least, we're not saying that Charlie was not on campus that day. Just like Lee Harvey Oswald was likely at the book depository when JFK was assassinated. Exactly. But does that mean that Patsy? Yeah, yeah, exactly.

And there's a lot of evidence. also coming out about number one if you go to the men on the sixth floor, Lee Harvey Oswald thought he was a part of a CIA operation that he was being put into. And I wonder if that's what's happening with Tyler in some kind of way. I don't know if somebody got to him like that. Yeah. And we know there has been a million, it seems like a million cases of MK Ultra to where CIA will come along.

They will convince you or they will do some kind of weird shit to your brain. however that may be to convince you of whatever it is and you're going to go along with at least part of it. That doesn't mean even Tyler Robinson pulled the trigger. It just means that he may have been there for various reasons for whatever. Well, and the same thing with Thomas Crooks, you know, with an assassination attempt on Trump. Yeah, he was literally, he was at the frigging, uh, Department of Homeland Security firing range for months leading up to that.

And yes, apparently the public can go there, but it's also very strange. And then how his house was cleaned and how he had. millions of dollars offshore bank accounts and how Trump basically doesn't even want to investigate it. Yeah, who would not want to investigate somebody further that tried to kill you? I know. I just, it just, it does not make sense to me. All right. Listen to this last clip we have for you about the 30-0-6 through 30 roast, but yet somehow

a stop by the neck. Listen, with the 30-od-6. So, I mean, upon all of this, if you had to say, what do you think happened, you hear the exploding microphone theory, you hear all of these other theories now, what do you think is the most likely outcome? Well, if this is the shot from straight up front, this just hits muscle all the way through. So if this is the human neck, the bullet would have struck right about here and it would have gone straight through and it would have missed bone entirely anyway if it was the shot stated shot

up there. So what I hypothesized on day three of the investigation, even before we'd conducted these tests, was that he must have been shot if he was shot here, but he must have been shot from a steeper angle and so that that end from a steeper, two steeper angles, one off axis and one down. So if that bullet struck here, it would then go down into his body. And it would, it's very normal for bullets to be retained if they're going long axis into a body like that. So that was the hypothesis. And I just sat on that and I didn't have any data, but I said right away, there's all these buildings at the UVU complex. The low sea building was straight in front. But over to his side was this, is this

building called the Robinson, no, not the Sorenson building. And I said, ah, if I was the investigators, I'd be looking real careful at this roofline. Nothing happened. And then two, three months later, really sharp-eyed lady, Kelly Rabon said, oh my gosh, she found this one set of frames in one of the videos where you can see a white-clad figure, get up from that exact spot I'd finger, and run off the building. It means really blurry and it's far away, but it's clearly a moving object getting off of there. So my best hypothesis is he was shot. He was shot with a high-powered rifle. It probably was in the 30-caliber range, but we don't have anything definitive because

he said, you know, the bullet was too mangled to tell much. I do believe that he was shot, however, from over here, not here. Hmm. Yeah, I think, I agree with you. I think the evidence shows that. By who. And why? That's a great question.

I mean, Candace Owens the other day just said on, I think, Sean Ryan's show that she didn't even think Tyler Robinson was even there that day. So that's a whole other side of it. Yeah, fascinating. And that video was fascinating, too, seeing that figure hop up and run from that location. Who was that individual? And by the way, we don't have the video of Tyler Robinson actually laying prone and firing. Release that footage. That could put that piece of that, you know, information to rest.

All we have is him running halfway through or we have a person running. We don't even know if it's Tyler running across the middle of that rooftop. Yeah, I have a rule when it comes. to legal things, which is when the law enforcement doesn't release video, it doesn't support their case. And when they do release the video, it was a good shoot. It supports their case, right? Because we know they have the video of him get whoever, that black clad figure getting onto the Losey building. So it would be child's play, I presume, to just release the video of the shot being taken. Yeah. That's a great point. Because, you know, they've explained also how these cameras

work on UVU campus. They can see every angle of this. campus at all times in high definition by the way and like this guy says and he's right and i believe this as well and there's been a lot of cc tv camera experts that have weighed in on this that says you know in on typical college campuses especially uv you because they've they've we've actually when we did the podcast we looked into what type of camera systems uvu campus has i don't know exactly i don't remember right now they are high grade high quality high definition and they are the 360 camera or 360 as you can get if they're if they're on it'll be 180 if it's on a surface but if they're on the top of a rooftop it can be 360 without the bottom but 360

around so they would be able to release footage of the rooftop uh from various camera angles everything else they have not done so and as this guy says and i believe he's right they didn't release this probably because it hurts their case not because it helps them you got to remember the prosecution is trying to prosecute Tyler Robinson. It is up to them to get the evidence, the files or the camera angles, whatever, the footage, and present to the court. Now, could the defense potentially argue that we must see all of the footage from all the cameras? I don't know if they have or have it. That would be a good question.

They have not got a lot of the evidence that they have not provided a lot of it is what I've heard. Well, they haven't. And that's also another problem. And usually when they do that, when the prosecution does that, it's a slow roll. They want to try to give you the least amount of time to repair for what they're going to present in court. And but if I was obviously Tyler Robinson's attorneys, I would be getting every single piece of footage from that and from that campus, everything. Literally every piece of footage from that day. And if I couldn't get that footage, I'm going to use that in my, in my defense as well.

because not getting the footage. Say they say, well, we don't have this or we or somehow this wasn't looking at this area. I mean, there's all kinds of things they can say. But when we research the camera systems, these camera systems could see everything on that entire campus almost in its entirety. And so I don't believe that. But the question is, have we heard this? Like have they, well, I know we haven't heard it so far in the pretrial. But if I'm their attorneys, I'm going to be saying, look, we tried to get the footage or we

didn't and if we did well let's look here that you could also i guess say that then if if they did have the footage um and then they saw something that would hurt their case they wouldn't release it but the defense wouldn't do that because the prosecution would absolutely be presenting that to help their case so there's something up with with all of that right and to his point too i want to make something else uh another point he's saying exactly what we were saying earlier as far as that white figure that is seen leaving the building at your 945 from charlie kirk's position looking out of the crowd number one that is a further distance than where tyler robinson would have been firing from tyler robinson they say 150 whatever yards this other building probably 250

maybe um so a longer shot uh does that mean it changes the impact velocity of the round yes does it change enough to where it wouldn't go through flesh no um Do I even believe what his account is as far as if it did enter the neck from that such a downward angle that it could be stopped potentially? And that's the thing. Like that would be the one particular case to where if it was shot from a much higher angle, it entered the neck from up high, went through his chest cavity, was going like through his abdomen to where it maybe would have been trying to come out his kidney area or hip or something. that is very possible that maybe a 30-all-sixth round would have would have fragmented through all the different bones that's going through and then dispersed. And don't you think that we would see this in an autopsy if it does go to trial, which I'm sure it's going to go to trial? Yeah, well, it'll definitely get a trial unless he dies before that happens, right?

But don't you think that would come out where it, you know, messed up his body and his organs and other things? Yeah, I would think so, yeah, the medical examiner will come through. They're going to have to show they better damn. damn well show graphic photos of the autopsy and how it did i mean because that's what they should do but it's just it's interesting how even in the pretrial hearings the way they talk about like the evidence is like oh well we can't show this video because it's disturbing to the family oh well you better not do that shit in the in the right in the actual trial they'll make a shit how disturbing something is i mean we all saw it live basically yeah and that that's what's so interesting is like well we're

not going to show this than this i i really hope they don't try to pull that shit in the actual case to where it's like, well, we're not going to see the medical examiner, actually the autopsy. I don't know. They're going to have to show something. And if they don't, that's going to be bombshell type stuff. If they are not able to produce autopsy photos, showing how the bullet entered, how it dispersed through the body, all of the shit, there's something wrong.

And, and guys, I say this again. I say that that is if he survives. until court because it's very possible that he might just be killed by some maga lunatic in prison. That's a joke, by the way. Oh, like a Jack Ruby? No. But, I mean, I'm just saying it's very possible that he might just be murdered in prison before this ever goes to trial, depending on how this thing may go. If they all come to the agreement, if this is a big conspiracy and they say, we're not going to win this case.

Or at the very least, this is going to look very bad for us. So between now and then, we're going to have to kill this dude. That's possible. What do you think? I'm trying to think of the word to even ask you this. What do you think about them putting Candace Owens on the stand or like somebody like that? Would they ever like do that? No, hell no.

She's not a credible witness in any way, shape, or form. I mean, you could say. Do you think they're using her information to help them? Because you think about if she's a public defender, she's probably got. other cases. She's probably overloaded with cases. I just remember being a teacher. I was overloaded with just, you know, kids in school.

I didn't have time to really dive deep into anything. Do you think they're listening to, like, social media and trying to, like, find other theories and things like that? I don't know. I mean, you would think so. But there's so many rules in court that were, like, hearsay, all that shit. You can't present it, right? The same way that the defense is arguing against.

against the prosecution about hearsay elements of this case. And so there's no way that they can present any of the things leading up to that because they have zero proof. But what about other theories? They could. But what about other theories? They could. But no, they can't, though, really.

I mean, you have to factually back up as much as you possibly can, whatever it is. And so even like Charlie Kirk text messages about Israel and all this. I mean, unless you have proof that any of these people did it, but you got to remember that let's just say that it was Israel. I mean, I think guys on like two or three episodes ago that we had played a clip where Mossad was on 60 minutes, basically saying that like the world is our playground. And if we do something or commit a murder or genocide or anything, like you're never even going to know it's us. You will never know it's us. And that's like CIA.

Yeah, it's exactly like CIA, just like when Jason Hanson came on when we were talking about the Idaho murders. And I said, how would CIA guy, how would a CIA officer would have done this? differently. Like how would you have done it differently? He said, well, we would have been a ghost. You would have never known we were there. And that's essentially what Mossad says. Like we, the world is our playground. We have we have front companies. We have everything. You'll never ever be able to trace it back to us unless we acknowledge that it was us, which they did. They bragged about the pager blowing up shit, you know, because they wanted that that kind of like authority that that badass mentality as far as, hey, we blew up all these Hamas people and we

intercepted pagers and all this shit. Right. And then they even bragged about how they did it. They had all these front LLCs and these offshore companies and it was never connected to any of them. And so it very easily could be that. I'm not even saying as Israel. It could be anybody. Yeah, but I'm just saying that you're saying that you can't really offer alternate theories unless you have proof, right? Is that what you're kind of saying? Yes, but exactly. I mean, And the problem is that when you have things like this, that if this was a coordinated conspiracy to kill Charlie Kirk for whatever reason, you're going to have all the proof of, I mean, you're obviously going to set up everything as the proof to someone else as the

Patsy and you're going to leave the absolute least amount of proof for anything else. Okay. Well, for example, you know, the microphone theory. We have pictures of where Charlie was in the car. and right below him was the shattered glass of the microphone. It could have been. It might have been. Said they would have to prove that, I guess, to even put it in to the trial.

Yeah, I mean, I don't know. Yeah, I mean, Candice Owens presented those images. It does look similar to the type of glass that the Rogue GoPro would have, but we don't have proof of that because that car was sold and cleaned and just like the crime scene was. You know, that car was sold and clean and everything else. They, you know, first of all, I don't even know why they would clean or sell anything. until a case happens. I definitely don't know why they would tamper with a crime scene.

And I would call that tampering with a crime scene until a actual court case comes about. It just doesn't make sense unless you're trying to hide something. And so there's all of these, all of these things, guys. I want you to let us know what you think. Send us a message on social media, Facebook X. We're still here, guys.

We took a little bit of a break for Fourth of July. But yeah, we're going to keep covering this. we'll see. I think it's going to go through the rest of the week. If there's anything important with this case further, we will let you know. But we also have a lot of very interesting things to talk about over the next week that we're getting ready for you guys. So stick or star stick.

So I was going to say stick tune. Stay tuned. Stay tuned. And we got some good stuff. And if something else comes up with this, we will absolutely let you guys know. We've missed you all, man. We love you. Stay safe.

Until next time, peace out. Peace out.