The Megyn Kelly Show - Judge Graf Shows ZERO Confidence Despite MOUNTAINS of Evidence in Tyler Robinson Hearing, Lance Twiggs DOWNPLAYS His "Trans" Identity, w/ Aronberg, Frei, Eiglarsh, Murphy & Spilbor | Ep. 1357

Episode Date: July 10, 2026

Megyn Kelly starts the show by discussing "feckless" Judge Tony Graf showing zero confidence from the bench in Tyler Robinson hearing, how he's delaying a probable cause ruling despite extensive evidence presented in court, Lance Twiggs’ statements about the bullet engravings and Robinson’s political views, additional evidence surrounding the events leading up to Kirk's assassination, and more. Then, Megyn is joined by legal experts Dave Aronberg and Viva Frei to discuss Lance Twigg's video testimony in the Tyler Robinson hearing, why he was seemingly downplaying his "trans" identity, his comments about Robinson’s political views, and more. Plus, Megyn is joined by Mark Eiglarsh and Jonna Spilbor, hosts of “Positively Legal,” and Matt Murphy, co-host of "In The Well," to discuss the defense challenging the DNA evidence in the Tyler Robinson case, what the evidence could mean for the prosecution, the alleged surveillance footage of Tyler Robinson, text messages between Robinson and Lance Twiggs, the engraved cartridge casings recovered in the case, what the evidence may reveal about Robinson’s alleged motive, and more.    Subscribe to MK True Crime to find ALL the shows: Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mk-true-crime/id1829831499 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4o80I2RSC2NvY51TIaKkJW YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@MKTrueCrime?sub_confirmation=1 Frei- https://vivabarneslaw.locals.com/  Sundays for Dogs: Upgrade your dog’s food without the hassle—try Sundays for Dogs and get 50% off your first order at https://sundaysfordogs.com/MEGYN or use code MEGYN at checkout. Quo: Make this the season where no opportunity slips away. Try QUO for free PLUS get 20% off your first 6 months when you go to https://www.Quo.com/MK Supersure Insurance: Upgrade your business insurance to a year-round SuperAgency at https://Supersure.com/Megyn DailyLook: https://dailylook.com to take your style quiz and use code MEGYN for 50% off your first order.     Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKelly Twitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShow Instagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShow Facebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, live on SiriusXM Channel 111 every weekday at New East. Hey, everyone, I'm Megan Kelly. Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show. It's day five of the Tyler Robinson hearing. A forensic expert is expected to take the stand for the defense today, the last witness we expect of this hearing. It's supposed to wrap up early this afternoon. Unfortunately, we will not be getting a decision today on the obvious conclusion that there is probable cause to hold Tyler Robinson over to try. in the case of Charlie Kirk's assassination. I mean, honestly, despite the mountain of evidence against him, this is a joke that Judge Tony Graf is even indulging this. I'm sorry, he's Judge Ito. I'm over this guy completely. He has no confidence. He seems feckless up there. He seems like he's terrified to make a decision. This is honestly absurd. Like grow a pair, judge. If you're going to be on the bench in criminal cases, you're going to have to learn how to say, objection overruled. Or I'll take an under advisement, but for now, this is my ruling. Like, everything's got to be briefed. Everything

needs a pause. Everything he needs to consider behind the scenes. I'm sure he's got some law clerk back there who he's like, hey, what should I do? Or he calls a senior judge, and he's like, what should I do about this? I can't believe this guy was a prosecutor, and he has this little confidence to rule from the bench. Grow a pair, Judge Graff. It only gets more difficult from here. This is a preliminary hearing. This is an easy case. It only gets tougher as we go to trial. What we have spent the morning arguing over is whether a two-second airing of Tyler Robinson's note to Lance Twiggs that was under the keyboard in Tyler's room on the night of the murder that he directed him to by that automatic text to Lance Twig's phone saying, look under my keyboard.

We've seen the full text of that in previous court hearings, court filings, I should say. It was no mystery. Literally all that two-second screen grab added was now we've seen Tyler Robinson's handwriting. And the defense is melting down like somehow he was given a colonoscopy in open court yesterday. This is ridiculous. A more seasoned, serious judge would say, I understand, there was a violation. What's your proposed remedy? no or this is what I think we should do.

Like, he's had, he's heard argument. He said he was tossing and turning all last night thinking about the fact that this fucking first of all, we have a right to see the evidence. Evidence is not secret. He works for us. Judge Graff works for us. The public defenders are on our dime. The people of Utah are paying for this entire proceeding.

Evidence is not secret. that we're just treating this like it can't be shown because otherwise Tyler Robinson's constitutional rights are going to be violated. What are you talking to's evidence in a hearing? In a public court case. Okay, so like they've, I would argue, unfairly clipped the media's right to see all of the evidence, arguing that it's somehow unfairly prejudicial to Tyler Robinson

for the public to see the actual proof of this case. which has already been out there in repeated different forms. This is all just a legal subterfuge. This is bullshit. All right, but that's how they spent the morning. Now we have to take a break so that the judge can really rend garments trying to figure out what he's going to do to preserve Tyler Robinson's constitutional right for us, what? Not to see his handwriting. It's what we call harmless error, Judge Grass.

Stay with me. It's called harmless error. Move on. be a grown-up, issue a ruling, use those two words, and get down to the business of hearing actual evidence, which is the defense's forensic expert, which is important, unlike this bullshit. So now, instead of saying at the end of this thing, we're on day five, today, what they had planned on doing was having oral arguments and, like, closing arguments.

And then the judge would say, there's probable cause to hold Tyler Robinson. and over and schedule a trial date. Instead, yesterday, the defense, which only has one goal, they understand that their client's goose is cooked. So they just want to delay everything, because it's the death penalty case. I get it. Smart. Smart on their part. It's up to the judge to keep things moving and to not allow unreasonable delay. And the defense said, oh, no, no, we can't have a ruling. We got to brief this whole thing before you wish you were ruling on whether there's probable cause we got to brief this thing out. You know, we got to put pen to paper. No, we don't. We don't. Not everything requires a brief. This doesn't require a brief at all.

Anybody with two eyes and two ears can see what's going to happen here. And this judge knows full well, what's going to happen here. And again, if he had more confidence, he would say, with all due respects, sir, that's not necessary. I'm going to rule tomorrow. So we are having closing arguments tomorrow. Nope, he had to indulge. So, I mean, okay. So now we are having briefs filed on whether there is probable cause to hold Tyler Robinson over for a trial. And that briefing schedule is going to play out over the summer with now oral arguments on it scheduled for September 1st. Okay, after the summer's over.

That means we might not know We might not know whether his Charlie's accused killer is going to go to jail Or sorry, going to go to trial until a full year after Charlie's death This, it's far more simple than this. Honestly, this is unbelievable what this judge is doing. You're given serious Judge Edo vibes, Judge Graff. Get it together. You are steps away from seeing the dancing Edo's take over

one of the nighttime shows only they'll be called the dancing graphs and people might add a T to the end of your name if you don't get it together because they're going to start to mock you. Trust me.

The general public is starting to get that you seem feckless. You seem scared and you don't seem like you've ever been in a courtroom before, even though I know you have. We're going to take you live

into this courtroom as the news warrants. They do a lot of preliminary stuff that's not that interesting and then they get to the substance, and when they do that, we'll dip in. In the meantime, you can watch the entire hearing uninterrupted on YouTube.com slash Megan Kelly. Okay, before we dig into the action in court, both what happened yesterday after we signed off and this morning, we want to take a look at what we learned yesterday.

Utah State Bureau of Investigation Sergeant Jennifer Falmouina. Faumouina, Faumouina. She was back on the stand. this is the woman who's like really kind of running hurt on the evidence and we saw for the first time through her those infamous engravings on the bullet rounds found in the rifle. I mean it was somewhat jarring I have to say it was somewhat jarring to see like we knew it was on them because the feds had released that and just as you see bullet casing after bullet casing and you know this guy engraved these words imagining killing our friend it's just chilling and disgusting um but we'll show them to you

okay first first we'll show you a little bit of foul moina discussing what's on the bullets watch what are we looking at here in exhibit 19 this is the cartridge case that was recovered from the gun and what position was this in in the gun this was the or this is what was in the chamber Okay, and the chamber meaning that's where a cartridge is before it's, or when it is fired, correct? Yes. Do you notice an inscription or an etching on this cartridge case? Yes, I do. Will you read what that says?

Yes. Notice is bold. And if we can go down to page two of the exhibit, will you read what this says? O-W-O-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-and. And page three? this and question mark correct

yes question mark what she was describing came from the cartridge that packaged the bullet police say killed Charlie Kirk it was a little

hard to see so we enhanced it and you heard her espouse that it reads Notices bulge OWO what's this

that's Notices Bulge O'D what's this? Now, if you are not part of the trans-fury culture, you probably don't know what that means, but the New York Post explains, quote, the engraving is a meme used in transgender and furry subculture, a reference to being surprised by genitalia when someone is dressed up in an animal costume or in drag.

Oh, I see a bulge. It's actually a man. It's not a woman named Luna. It's actually a human. It's not a dog. Oh, I was fooled by your dog ears. Lance Twigs. I'm sorry.

This is a sick, sick group. This is like a whole other issue. I mean, it's connected, but it's a whole other issue. How the left tries to normalize this shit. Like schools are allowing this. They are allowing this at school. They are allowing kids to go to school dressed as, quote, furry. with the ears and the tails,

it's a mental illness that should not be indulged, not least because of which, it is potentially contagious. It is part of a social contagion. I mean, it truly is akin to having the anorexic parade around to math class in her bikini and to have people celebrate it. Like, it's a valid choice.

That's your choice. It's sick. All right, so that's what he put on the bullet casing that he used to kill Charlie notices bulge. I mean, it's coming together, obviously, that Tyler Robinson, who was dating Luna Twigs, his alleged trans-fury lover, was motivated by his hatred of Charlie Kirk's views on transgender issues.

I mean, among other things, he describes him as hateful. I assume the list is long, but the bullet tells the story. In the video we saw in court yesterday, Lance, aka Luna Twigs, admitted that he knew about Robinson's engravings. He asks you here, remember how I was engraving bullets. Was he engraving bullets before this? Yeah, I don't remember exactly when,

but he had said he was planning to go hunting with his family. And he asked me for a, if we had like a dremel to, Because he said he wanted to create messages on bullets. And I just told him where Dremel was and I told him to make sure he doesn't, like, set off a bullet on accident in the house. But I didn't really think about it until then. How long before September 10th was this that he asked about the Dremel? I don't remember because he'd been talking about the hunting-slash-camping trip. for a couple months,

but I don't remember when he was specifically asking to engrave the bullets. So are we talking like a year before? Oh, no, not that long. It would have been, I'd say at most a month before this was when he was asking.

It's all very relevant, obviously, because we're trying to figure out how long in advance of the murder he decided to kill Charlie Kirk. And that's a month in advance, according to Twigs that Tyler Robinson is engraving these bullet casings with these messages, notices, bulges, there are more. Hey, fascist, we'll go through them. You notice there in that testimonial, we only got audio for portions of it. So in the audio clips, we've added just the

still shot of Lance Twigs and how he looked during this Q&A. They showed us actual video of him at the beginning of the Q&A yesterday in that 13-minute video or however long it was. And then it would go to black at some portions that the prosecution was forced to fast forward through. And for some of it, we saw nothing because we were only allowed to have audio. So we've added his picture so you can see him. And you'll notice there that he is in a male suit. He's in a regular male suit coat, males dress, you know, shirt and tie. He's got long hair down to his shoulders.

There's no ears as he's prone to wear. We've seen the pictures, Lance, and he's not appearing to demonstrate his transgender identity. In fact, he appeared to downplay that throughout, which was an interesting choice. I'd love to know more about this. Here he is talking about his conversations with Tyler Robinson when it comes to the issues of politics and gender identity. watch. Did you and he ever talk about politics? He did more than me. I didn't really still don't really keep up with politics very much. He'd usually talk about stuff he heard on the radio on his drive to work and like their work car, since it sounds like their whole crew went

in the same car most of the time. But I wouldn't say super consistently because it wasn't a topic I really contributed much on. How about Charlie Kirk? Did he ever talk about Charlie Kirk? I personally had never heard him talk about Charlie Kirk before specifically. Okay. How about political issues? So did you ever talk about gender identity issues and LGBT rights? No, not really. usually if he did talk about politics stuff it was relating to Trump or current like policies being like issued or voted voted on I think but yeah okay so before that you have been

for a short time yes okay and I understand you're going by Luna at some point to some people yeah but not as an overall thing What? Okay. He doesn't go by Luna as an overall thing. Tyler certainly called him Luna. That we saw with our own eyes. Back to that note that Tyler Robinson wrote to Lance Twigs and left it under Tyler's own keyboard in front of his computer in his bedroom. And again, he alerted Lance Twigs to go check under that keyboard. at 11 p.m. the night of the shooting saying, go check under my keyboard. In that note, which was accidentally shown

by the court proceedings yesterday, he addresses, he addresses Lance Twigs as Luna. So Tyler Robinson clearly called him Luna. It's like, these people were sick, you know? They're sick. It's what Viva said yesterday on the program. These sick losers sat in their disgusting apartment together where, again, Lance was reportedly engaging in making mold experiments, trying to grow mold spores that were all over the apartment, not to mention weird experiments with like a whisk with tinfoil placed in water. What would it grow? And not to mention, he described Luna as consuming near alcoholic levels of alcohol.

and Tyler sitting on the couch engraving bullets, talking about his upcoming hunting trip, as he writes, Hey, Fascist on his bullet casing and notices bulges, and plotting the murder of one of the most prominent, special, brilliant, kind, loving Christian Americans we had. And now we have to argue about

what the two-second reveal of Tyler's handwriting should cost the prosecution and or the press in the context of this case. We're getting a better feel for what the defense wants. I'll tell you that when I finish this. Now, the court filings, again, have revealed the text of this letter before in its entirety. But here it is for the first time in Robinson's handwriting. It's out there, and we are going to show it to you. And there's a fucking no prejudice this guy in showing it to you.

Sorry, here I go. Luna, if you're a wrong. reading this per my text, then I am so sorry. I left the house this morning on a mission and set an auto text. I am likely dead or facing a lengthy prison sentence. I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I took it. I don't know if I will have succeeded, but I had hoped to make it home to you. I wish we could have lived in a world where this did not feel necessary. I wish I could have stayed for you and lived our lives together. I lacked the words to express how much I love you and how very much you mean to me. Please try and find joy in this life. I love you always,

Tyler, unquote. I mean, it's so bizarre. He loved him so much that he was going to deprive his love from Luna's partner, Tyler, for the rest of Luna's life. He loved him so much that he had a murder another person for him. Oh, that's true love. I mean, like, think of the sick mind, the sick mind. The question is, why is Lance Twiggs trying now to downplay his trans identity? Is it because there's something to all the messages we saw online where it seemed members of the trans community had foreknowledge of Charlie's murder? Does he have reason to downplay that connection of his? For example, on X, an account called Mushy, which is a child, the handle at Talley Hall album wrote on September 3rd, quote,

it'd be funny if someone like Charlie Kirk got shot on September 10th, LMAO, unquote. Then on September 11th, the day after he was shot, the account posted, did it. I mean, it posted did I, but obviously they were missing the tea. Another account, a person who goes by Osamu bin Tezuka, five days before the shooting. On September 5th, wrote, quote, you guys, I have something big coming soon. just be sure to check the news you'll know when you see it with an emoji giving a wink. Then on the day of Charlie's murder at 4.52 p.m. the account posted, well, that's that. Another chud bites the dust, unquote. And a reported online friend of Twigs. So there's an actual

connection here who goes by Cherbum 75 wrote, Charlie Kirk deserved that shit. Let it die. Let it die. with a photo of Charlie and then we fucking did it. We fucking did it with a photo of Kirk, unquote. Seems like that's something we might want to investigate. We asked FBI director Cash Patel about this exact issue on December 5th of 2025.

You can find the whole interview on episode 1207 of the MK show. Watch. There were texts by certain trans individuals online before the, assassination talking about something big is going to be happening and then after he was killed, saying, and there it is, leading many of us to wonder whether there was some sort of trans-tifa connection to the murder or at least maybe some tip-off to the community. Is that under investigation?

That is most definitely under investigation. And we've disclosed a lot of that to the prosecution or all of it that we have. And they've made some of it public to include that he was in a relationship with an individual who was part of that community and that he was engaged. in communications with other individuals in that community. But as to how they relate to the prosecution, that's up to the Utah prosecutors to say, we need this in court. And we're going to hold it until we release it until his trial. Okay. So there you hear it. Most definitely under investigation, we disclosed it all to the prosecutors as to how they relate to the prosecution that's up to them.

I mean, it's somewhat unsatisfying. I'm going to be honest. What does that mean? Are you done investigating? you disclosed it all to the prosecution? What do you mean? Like the prosecution, you're the FBI. I mean, I assume and believe that that investigation would have continued at the FBI level or at a minimum at the state police level in Utah. What came of it? What came of it?

We still don't know. We have no idea, but it's very interesting now that Luna who saw Tyler Robinson engraving the bullets, who lived with Tyler Robinson as he prepared for this crime, whose DNA was on the towel in which the gun was wrapped, whose DNA was on the screwdriver used on that rooftop, according to police, to assemble the gun, and who did not call police even after he was notified by Tyler Robinson

that he had killed Charlie, and his main concern seemed to be in the text exchanges. Stay safe! like watch out for yourself, never called cops, and appears to have tried to delete all these texts and photos that were retrieved by police thanks to police software. It appears that he may have a motive of his own for suddenly showing up as lance

and downplaying his breasts and his new name and his obvious presence in the trans and furry communities. joining me now for reaction are Dave Arrenberg, host of the MK True Crime Show on our MK Media Podcast Network, and Viva Fry. He's former litigator and rumble creator. Is your dog a picky eater? It's stressful. You try different brands, you mix in toppers, but those processed brown pellets just sit there and your dog gets skinnier and skinnier. Maybe your dog simply knows the difference between junk and real food. Sundays for dogs is different. Founded by a veterinarian, Sunday Sundays starts with over 80% all-natural meats, blending them with superfoods like kale,

ginger, and blueberries, no fillers, or synthetic chemicals. Because it's gently air-dried, instead of blasted with high heat, it looks and smells like premium human-grade jerky. Best of all, it requires no fridge, no prep, and no mess. It is the quality of a home-cooked meal with the ease of a scoop. Plus, Sundays just launched a brand-new fish recipe, made with 80% fish, It offers a rich flavor packed with omega-3s for healthy skin and a shiny coat. It's the ultimate upgrade your dog deserves. Consider switching to Sundays. Go to SundaysforDogs.com slash Megan and get 50% off your first order.

Or you can just use the code Megan when you check out. That'll get you 50% off your first order at SundaysforDogs.com slash Megan. Or don't forget to use that code Megan at checkout. Guys, welcome back. Viva, what do you make of that? Like, it is pretty surprising that this guy with this long hair, but as you are proving right now, you can have long hair and not be trans or a furry, made a point of saying, oh, he never discussed LGBTQ or trans issues with Tyler. I don't believe that. He was growing breasts and taking HRT, according to Turkey Tom, our YouTuber yesterday.

and that he never discussed this with Tyler and also, oh, just Luna, it was just an occasional thing. There's two things going on here. One is what Lance Twiggs said in his video statement for the purposes of a preliminary hearing for probable cause and two, whether or not Lance is lying, has reason to lie or as part of the broader conspiracy. I've been fighting with people online

just as pure matters of fact where people say, you know, Lance never identified Tyler Robinson. and I play them the clip where he says literally the last two photos look like Tyler Robinson that you might think he's a liar and he might very well be lying

and I do think he's lying about the fact that they never discussed politics there's nobody on earth at this point in time who doesn't discuss politics let alone people heavily involved in one of the key demographics of heated political debate

there's zero chance of that so whether or not he's lying and it comes out at trial for the time being the question everybody has to ask themselves is what did Tyler Robinson say and is it sufficient for the purposes of a finding of probable cause?

And like you say, it's a foregone conclusion. The damage that the judge might be doing with this belabored, drawn-out process is de facto converting preliminary hearings into trials on the merits, if not as a matter of law, just as a matter of public reality. People are looking at this

and thinking it's a trial on the merits. And if this is the new precedent going forward that this judge sets, I mean, everybody's going to have a field date in these preliminary hearings. hearings by virtue of the fact that now they get to claim five days adversarial hearings and effectively converted into a trial on the merits. But bottom line, I don't believe Tyler, I don't believe Lance Twiggs in everything he's saying. When Cash Patel comes out on your show

and says, that's a wishy-washy answer passing the buck in terms of whether or not the people who posted in advance are being investigated. Well, we've given them, no, you're the FBI. There's a federal element to this. And if you're not doing it, tell us concretely who is and what been done since because as of now, nothing. And not that anybody would even believe what Cash Patel has to say at this point in time, because people are still angry with him and rightly so for saying he believes Epstein killed himself. That answer wasn't even a categorical statement to be disbelieved. It was a wishy-washy passing of the buck. And right now, despite all of that evidence of people with advanced knowledge, we've got nothing in terms of anyone else who may have

been involved. Dave, your thoughts? Yeah. When you're talking about, Lance Twiggs, he had that relationship with Tyler Robinson that was romantic and very close. And it's hard to believe that they didn't talk about gender issues, LGBTQ rights. I mean, that is hard. And I'm just trying to figure out why he wouldn't fess up to that. Why would he lie about that? The only thing I could think of is perhaps to try to minimize his role and his knowledge in advance. That's the only thing.

But I don't think it moves a needle on who did it here. I do think that Lance Twiggs's testimony from what I saw was credible. I do think it's possible that he knows more than he lets on. But to me, the testimony is credible that we've got the guy who did it. The evidence is overwhelming. And there's no other outside actors involved. Dave, what do you make of this ridiculousness over showing the letter for two seconds? I'm going to show you what we're arguing over.

Okay? This is Sergeant Jen Fowmouina, who's on the stand. and they're showing us, you know, some exhibits can be shown to the general public and some cannot. And for two seconds, the actual letter from Tyler to Lance was shown. Here it is. SOT 59. Part that I'm pointing out is the paper that you can kind of, you can still see the lines in them and as well as some handwriting as well to the edge to the left edge of that piece of paper. All right.

Have you also observed the image of a note that was recovered from last Whigs phone? Yes. And I'd like to show you side by side, Exhibit 24. And there on the left you see Exhibit... How is it? There on the left we see Exhibit 24. Do you see that? Yes, I do.

And on the right, you see... Excuse me, on the right, it's 24. On the left, it's 16. Let me stop you, Mr. McBride. I'm not sure. is this being broadcast? Let's take that down. The horror. So I know. Obviously what the prosecutor was trying to do is show here's the burned remnants of the letter that you found in the kitchen trash can. And here's the original letter,

the contents of which are not private and in fact have been made public in their entirety prior to this in an earlier filing. The only thing that was added, Dave, was we saw the handwriting. Heaven's to Betsy. We saw the handwriting. I mean, you know, with my background as a prosecutor, how I'm going to feel about this. I mean, big deal. At worst, it's what you said, harmless error. It shouldn't have any impact. And I know the defense is going to scream about it because they said this is prejudicing the

future jury pool here. Well, okay. I mean, you're going to be able to ask them questions to ferret out people who have already drawn a conclusion. And also, future jurors are not expected to be blank slates or empty vessels. They're going to hear about it. They're going to know about it. They just have to be able to say that they're going to put aside everything they've

heard and know and just follow the evidence in the law. This is much to do about nothing. They're already allowed to discuss the confessions. And by the way, there's like been like five confessions by Tyler Robinson. Yes. Right? They're allowed to discuss it. Literally. So they showed a couple seconds of his actual handwriting with one of his confessions. Okay, not a big deal. Well, it was the reality. Literally five confessions. We talked about this yesterday. One via text to Lance Twigs. One in the letter to Lance Twigs. One in person to Lance Twiggs is, Lance Twiggs testified to all three of those yesterday, one to his parents before he got turned in. And there was a fifth.

The discord. The disc and then one on discord. Exactly. The hour before he turned himself in. Go ahead, Viva. Because right now, the defense is arguing that the consequence as a result of this two-second showing of the thing whose contents we already knew about should be that the media should be kicked out. And there should be no more public airing of any exhibits or anything.

inside of this corner. Look, defense is going to defense and lawyers are going to lawyer, and there's a reason why people hate lawyers because they will make a mountain out of a molehill. Two seconds, let's be honest, is an eternity on the internet. It's out there forever for an eternity. It's never being stuffed back in the toothpaste. Not just what's the prejudice. There's a prejudice in not publicly showing it because what you're going to have are people out there if they don't believe Tyler Robinson did it are going to say they're not showing it to us because we will be able to see that it's not his handwriting. And therefore, they can't disclose it to us because we, as Internet salutes, would determine

that it's a fake note written by somebody else because it doesn't match Tyler Robinson's handwriting. There is zero prejudicial impact that this could possibly have on Tyler Robinson. If anything, the defense should want it to be released so the Internet can go have at it and say, oh, that's not his handwriting. He dots his eyes in another way on another letter and here. That's what the defense would want to do ordinarily, but they will also certainly want to make the biggest issue they can out of this mistake, as innocuous as it was, because that's

their job here. But no, I see, again, the judge is not doing a service to the public by blocking certain things. We know what was in the letter. Do we care about Tyler Robinson's handwriting only if you think it's not his handwriting? Right. Which I haven't heard the defense assert or anybody assert. You know what this is reminding me of you guys?

I'm sure you guys have been watching some of the World Cup, as have we, even though I'm not really a sports person, but it's fundamental. watch these games. And when they, the fake injuries are so beyond where they, they roll and they're like, oh my God. And they all completely overplay their alleged injury. And then literally two seconds later, they're up and they're smiling and they're running when nobody pays attention to them. The way we all do with like our three-year-old who's overplaying a fake injury, you know, and you're like, you ignore, ignore, don't reinforce this bad behavior. And then they're back up and they're playing and they're totally fine. We all know they were just faking hoping to get somebody else in trouble.

That's what the defense is doing here. Oh, the alleged. Oh, the outrage, the injury to our client. It's beyond the pale. And what I really want as a remedy is the thing I've been begging you for all along, which is to remove all media access to these hearings, including he's arguing the cameras should go. He wants all the cameras to go. He does not want this to be broadcast at all.

Why is that, Dave? Why doesn't the defense lawyer want cameras in there? Because conspiracy theories help the defense. All the people talking garbage on the internet, that works to the benefit of the defense. You just get one of those jurors who's been influenced by the conspiracy theories on the internet in the jury pool. And that's a hung jury. You get 12 and that's an acquittal. That's why they don't want cameras in the courtroom.

They don't want transparency. But let's go back to Duke Lacrosse 2006, the fakesst of the fake allegations to hit in recent history. And those three boys were actually accused and actually charged with raping Crystal Mangum, the accuser, who was a stripper in Durham, North Carolina, who accused these three Duke lacrosse players with completely baselessly. Those three boys would have loved, loved cameras in the courtroom Viva. At every turn, they made the defensive evidence they had public through reporters like me. I was there. They wanted as much sunlight on that case as possible because they knew that the more evidence

came out, the more it would benefit them. It's very telling to me that this defense lawyer is so afraid of the public. seeing one minute of these proceedings? It's the old, you know, the three things can not long be hidden, the sun, the moon, and the truth, the sun, the moon, and the truth, the innocent love exposure and the guilty love concealment. It's just a rule of nature because the innocent have nothing to hide and the guilty do have something to hide.

It should have been, it should be broadcast in its entirety, saving except for like, you know, social security numbers, addresses. But if this were not broadcast to the public, what you would have is you have a concealment. conspiracy theorist's delight, it would be the best thing ever for the defense. For example, today, you would have people running around saying, I heard the bullets were full metal jackets, and those should have gone through Charlie, and it makes no sense that it didn't. Whereas because you have internet sleuths out there who look at the bullets and say, oh, these look like soft point Remington's, which are designed to expand on impact. And we wouldn't have that, but for the fact

that this has been televised and scrutinized by the aggregate knowledge of the internet. But it's obvious, you know, not televised under the dead of night in the darkness benefits the guilty. It benefits those with something to hide. And these are supposed to be public court proceedings. This is among the most monumental, politically relevant prosecutions in recent history, if not in history. It needs to be broadcast to the fullest extent possible. And now we have a ruling from the judge who, you know, I must have consulted with a more senior jurist behind the stage and come up with a ruling. This is what he's ruled.

This is per Nate Eaton, a reporter who's been covering this with, what's he with? I don't know. He's got his own independent news coverage, and he's been covering this trial. East Idaho News. Okay. I don't know what that is, but if that's his or not. But in any event, this is what he reports, that Judge Graff says his order prohibiting broadcast of the exhibit by media cameras was violated.

Everyone agreed it was. He denies the defense's request to remove cameras, but says the camera. cannot capture any exhibits today during the hearing. This is ridiculous. And then he refused to make a decision on cameras for the September 1st hearing where they're going to be arguing closings, Dave. This is Judge Graf. He likes to give each side a little something.

Remember when the defense said the prosecutors spoke out. They released a statement to TMZ about the ballistics, sanctioned them. And I was like, no way they're going to be sanctioned. for that. And the judge said, yes, I'm going to hold them in contempt, but really there's no penalty. We're not going to take the death penalty off the table. So he likes to split the baby. And I think that's what he's doing here. But he shouldn't even even pretend to be open to do removing cameras in the courtroom at the later hearing. That only helps conspiracy theorists. You do not want to do something that's going to make people believe that up is down and down is up.

You know, Viva, the rule in Utah is you have to get permission for cameras in the courtroom, but there is a presumption that they belong. There's a presumption that the public is entitled to watch these proceedings take place for it all to be aired, you know, consistent with the sunlight being the best disinfectant theory. And this judge even indulging the fiction that two seconds of seeing Tyler Robinson's actual handwriting result should result in a penalty to the public. We're the ones who are about to be punished, as well as the prosecution,

because showing the exhibits helps them. Maybe today it hurts the defense, too, because it's their witness who's going to be on testifying. Is it to engage in nuttery? This is nuttery. Well, it's convenient. So now today, the public won't get to view the exhibits, whereas had that been the case yesterday,

hypothetically, we did not see the video of Lance Twiggs testifying. Well, it certainly put into perspective the he, she, Luna debate. I had never heard Lance speak until that video. And looking at a guy with a voice deeper than mine, in the context of all the hoopla that had been made around his gender identity, it put things in perspective. The bullet is another example. If the public doesn't see that bullet, they are going to be misled by people out there referring to it falsely as a full metal jacket, whatever. But, you know, people are going to take issue with the fact that it will say it hurts Erica, this process, you know, they're going to deny justice to Charlie. You know, as if to say

Tyler is guilty and so therefore his rights don't matter. It's going to prejudice everybody, including Tyler, including the defendant, because it prejudices the process itself. And when people don't have faith in the legitimacy and validity of the process, defense or prosecution, it does an injustice to everybody as a whole. The idea to change the rules midstream now for the last day, what are we not going to see today? What conspiracy theories is it going to create. Who's going to think that it, you know, was acted against their interests and rights? Everybody. So it's an idiotic ruling. When you split the baby, you kill the baby. So congrats, Judge. You kill the baby. Yeah, exactly. Now, speaking of Erica Kirk, there was an outrageous moment yesterday,

which escaped our notice, where one of the defense lawyers, his name, his last name is Bert, first name Michael, Michael Burt. This is the guy who represented Lyle Menendez, one of the Menendez, during the 1993 trial in which the jury deadlocked on whether Lyle was guilty of murder for killing his parents. He also represented the man known as the Olympic Park bomber, Eric Robert Rudolph, who was convicted of killing one person and injuring over 100 others by planting a pipe bomb at the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, among many others. He worked for the San Francisco Public Defender's Office for 24 years. Okay. San Francisco Public Defender, my goodness. Okay. This guy is on Tyler Robinson's court-appointed defense team. And he got up there because Erica and not just

Erica, the Kirk family, have a representative. They have a lawyer in there to stand up for their rights as the victim because Utah has specifically written a law protecting the victim's rights and affording them the right to be present at all proceedings among other rights. And they were arguing that the unwillingness to show the evidence that was being displayed in court to the family members, to Charlie's mother, to Charlie's widow and so on, was violating their right to be present for the proceedings. What does it mean to be present if you can't see the evidence being shown? So they got up when they made an argument. And then this guy, this this Michael Burke, sorry, Bert, like Bert Nernie, gets up there and launches an attack on Erica Kirk.

which was completely, by the way, unsupported by the facts, but here he is. As a court knows, we have witnessed availability problems. We spent the bulk of today and yesterday arguing about nothing to do with the evidence in the case, but with rights of third parties. And it's appropriate for the court to consider that. But at some point, I think the court has to return to the purpose of these hearings, which is to expeditiously,

hear the evidence and then determine probable cause. And I want to point out to the court, Ms. Kirk has been very adept at holding press conferences at which she has revealed evidence. She has represented that the state is her attorney. She has access to all the evidence that the state has publicized and that the media and her own lawyer argues

is already in the public domain. So they're perfectly free. to go outside this courtroom under the court's protective order. They're free to go out and hold press conferences and announce to the world outside the courtroom what they think the evidence is. Unbelievable. Erica Kirk has not held any press conferences.

She's made certain media appearances on podcasts and so on. Maybe that's what he's referring to. But she has not held a press conference. And not that I recall, not that my team could find either. And she's revealed evidence? No, she hasn't. She's talked about the evidence that's already in the public domain at times, just like we all have. Wait, she hasn't revealed. He's trying to make it sound like, oh, she was trusted once and she blew it, judge. Like, she got out there and she lifted the dress up. That's bullshit. She's talked here and there, I think, about the evidence against Tyler Robinson, Dave, but not revealed evidence. She has all the evidence that the prosecution has, he says, that's not true either. Her, their family lawyer got up there immediately after and said, that isn't true. The prosecution has not shared all of its evidence with us. These are lies.

So what's up with this defense attorney launching an attack on the widow of the victim? This is strategy, Megan, because Erica Kirk and the Kirk family, they're advocating for transparency, for open access to evidence because they fear the conspiracy theories and they want the world to see the reality of the crime. And so what the defense is trying to do is to spin that into improper tainting of the jury pool as trying to prejudice the future jury pool. So they're trying to go after not just the Kirk's, but transparency as a whole, saying transparency harms our class right to a fair trial. And they can't really say that transparency is bad because everyone likes transparency.

So they're doing it in a way by saying Erica Kirk and the other side and the prosecutors, they're doing something untoward and improper. It's strategy, and I don't think it's working. I don't. Viva, look, I understand Erica has become a controversial figure in America, okay, for all sorts of reasons. I have my own theory on why. I realize that there is different factions who just don't like her. My own belief is forget who's attacking her here, there, or on what basis.

I think it's at based Erica's problem with the PR to me. is she's not Charlie. She's taken over Charlie's organization. She didn't want to. This was not her goal. She would much rather have her husband. But she's not Charlie. And there's like an underlying resentment from people,

whether they are conscious of the fact that they're blaming her for not being Charlie or not. You know, like they want Charlie. And whoever had stepped into the role of CEO of Turning Point was going to face high levels of resentment because no one can be Charlie. you know and Erica then tried to honor his book tour commitments and so on and put herself out there at a time when she was grieving but people thought it it showed an absence of heart around her

husband's death and so I'm like I get it all I understand exactly how this went down but my point is simply it is different when you have defense counsel for the man accused of murdering her husband stand up in court and try to make her the villain to the judge well let's preface this by saying he would be right if what he said were to be true. So if all of the facts that he alleged that, they're going out there and themselves poisoning the jury pool, if he's right on the facts, then he's right on the conclusion. It would be improper.

The only problem is, and I did my best to see what she said. Did she talk about any evidence that was not disclosed to the public? I've never heard a thing about it. So he's wrong on the premises, and therefore the conclusion to which he came is equally wrong. The only thing is, you go back to Joseph Goebbels' propaganda techniques, accuse your adversaries of doing what you are doing supposed to create confusion. The only

people misrepresenting evidence to the general public is the defense in respect of the bullet not matching or the fragment not matching the casing which was matter of fact false that required the prosecution to go out and clarified. The only people doing

what that guy accused Erica Kirk of doing is the defense itself. So again, part for the course, there's a reason why people hate lawyers and there's a reason why lawyers are hated and that is part and parcel, at least It's one of the reasons. Lowest, lowest of the low. You guys remember when you first went to law school?

Maybe you thought as I did. I was like, people are going to have to respect me if I become a lawyer. What an idiot. Anyway, I want to show you one substantive moment yesterday that was good for team defense. They called Samantha Karner, C.A.R, N-E-R to talk about the forensic evidence that had been submitted by the prosecution and including the bullet fragments. in autopsy. Listen to what she said. Could you specify which of those possibilities exist in this case? Was this a case where you had microscopic dissimilarity,

but in your opinion it was insufficient to form a conclusion of source exclusion? No, my conclusion is inconclusive, just as it says in the appendix, there is a lack of sufficient agreement and sufficient disagreement, so I'm unable to say one way or another. Okay, but I guess my question is, were there points of dissimilarity between the question and the known bullets? Again, there was sufficient agreement and sufficient, there was not sufficient agreement or sufficient disagreement. So yes, there was times that I saw agreement in the striations and the land and grew of impressions, also seeing disagreement, but there was also a lot of lack of microscopic marks of value to see it all.

So because of this lack of quality and quantity of marks to be able to, to see, it never reached the threshold of sufficient agreement nor sufficient disagreement. So an identification or exclusion could not be rendered. So she was an ATF examiner and like a firearm and toolmark examiner with about seven years of experience. And what she was saying was that she examined the rifle, the four cartridges, the autopsy bullet fragments. She authored Exhibit 32 after examining the rifle, the four cartridges, and autopsy bullet

fragments and agreed that the DOJ reporting standards do not permit claims of uniqueness, infallibility, or statistical certainty. She's calling into question whether the bullet that was found in Charlie could ever be matched to what they believe was the murder weapon. What did you make of it, Viva? Well, to the extent that we understand, more often than not, you can't trace the bullet to the cartridge or definitively, if it doesn't leave fingerprints on the projectile, Again, I'm not an expert in any of this. My understanding is that more often than not, the bullet, you know, the piece that hits you is fragmented and otherwise you can't trace it to the actual cartridge itself. Okay. So it's nothing out of the ordinary. To the extent, and again, probable cause, we're trying to determine what the likely cause of death was. To the extent they've identified it as a bullet tip. I mean, okay, fine, defense will raise. We don't know where it came from, so therefore that's your reasonable doubt. But at the probable cause, again, to the extent we've now concluded.

It was a bullet that killed Charlie. It was fragmented into a number of pieces. Can't do a definitive trace back to the frame. Okay, that's two reasonable doubt. That's not the probable cause. We have everything else that we need to get to the probable cause where we've got, you know, tenfold over what we need to be. Mm-hmm. It is a preview of where the defense is going when this case gets to trial, which is you can't conclusively prove that the bullet that was found in Charlie matched Tyler Robinson's gun.

They like that fact a lot for obvious reasons. It has not been able to be proved to not be from that gun, but they couldn't affirmatively connect it. And if I were the defense lawyer, I'd be hitting that too. Guys, thank you. Have a great weekend. Thanks for all your hard work for us this week. We'll be right back with more.

Running a business means you're always reachable until you're not. And we all know that the exact second you miss a call at tax or a follow-up, a competitor is waiting right there to pick it up. That's why I want to tell you about quo. It's spelled QUO. And it's the business phone system built so you never miss an opportunity. All your calls, texts, and voicemails into one single place. That means anyone on your team can jump into a conversation, see the full history, and respond fast.

You can set it up in minutes on any device, keep your existing number, and add teammates as you grow. Plus, they have a built-in AI agent that handles your after-hours calls. So even when your team is completely offline, you are still capturing leads. It also integrates seamlessly with the tools you're probably already using, like HubSpot and Claude, which saves you a ton of time and keeps you from constantly chasing information. Money's on the line. Say hello with Quo. Try Quo for free. Plus get 20% off your first six months when you go to Quo.com slash mK. That's QUO.com slash mK. Day five of the Tyler Robinson hearing is underway trying to determine whether there is probable cause to hold him over for trial.

We're going to bring in our panel in a minute, but first, I want to just dip into the live court proceedings right now where the defense has put its third of three forensic expert on the stand. She is testifying now. We believe about, well, actually, I don't know what she's testifying about. I just know she's a defense witness from the ATF. Let's listen to. Do you agree with that? Yes. Explain that because that's a little above my pay grade in terms of understanding.

So a likelihood ratio statistic compares the probability of the DNA profile of the evidence given two competing hypotheses or two competing scenarios. Typically the first is that the person of interest is included. And then the exclusionary hypothesis would be that the person of interest is excluded. So there's a random unknown unrelated individual contributing. And when they're elaborating on that point, they say a likelihood ratio indicates if, and to what it stand, the DNA analysis results support one proposition over another. It is not possible on this basis alone to determine which is the most probable proposition. Do you agree with that? Yes.

Okay. And then the next limitation they suggest. you convey is that convey the DNA statistics cannot imply uniqueness within a population. Do you agree that that's a legitimate limitation? Yes.

And explain what that means. Does that go back to the issue of source? You can't assign a source to a DNA sample? Correct. Okay. It says you should delineate the meaning of a

verbal qualifier, but you didn't use one in this case, right? Correct. Okay, we'll continue to monitor it, but clearly what the defense is trying to do is poke some holes in the DNA evidence that was offered by the prosecution this week, where they had testimony that it was

Tyler Robinson's 95% and Lance Twigs 5% DNA on, I believe those are the percentages, but it was overwhelmingly Tyler's with a much smaller single-digit percent belonging to Lance Twigs, DNA on the towel, that was wrapped around the firearm, which they found in the woods, as well as on the screwdriver that was found on top of the roof, the Losey center from which the shot was taken, say prosecutors. And then they also, you know, swabbed Tyler and Lance, for that matter, but they swabbed Tyler and there was testimony that his DNA was everywhere. It was all over the gun. It was all over the bullet casings and so on. So, I mean, they, in addition to all the confessions and so on, they have his DNA.

all over what they say was the murder weapon, the murder cartridges, and so on. Now, they do have to close that loop by proving those are the murder weapons and, you know, bullet casings that were used in this crime. So there's that, but this is part for the course to have the defense lawyer come up there and chip away at how DNA's not an exact science and you can never really know and maybe the prosecution didn't do it quite right. And all of that will be fleshed out of trial and it will actually be very interesting to see what the defense does, but it's not going to make any difference. There's way more evidence than they need to find probable cause here. So it's mildly interesting, but it's not critical. In any event, let's bring in our panel. Matt Murphy, who is co-host of

In the Well, as well as Mark Eglarsh and John Sillbore, they are co-hosts of positively legal. Those are all shows on our MK Media Podcast Network. You find it. Just search up MK True Crime as a podcast, and you'll get access to all of these shows. You should definitely be listening. especially as things heat up this week legally. Guys, thank you all for being here. So, Matt, you've done more of these than anybody. The DNA testimony, this is how it's done, right? Just chip away.

I mean, I'm thinking of OJ, right? Like, that's when DNA analysis was still pretty new. I was in law school, and I remember watching the OJ trial. And was it Barry Sheck who got up there and he was responsible? That's, this is your jurisdiction out there in L.A., where you used to be. It's just about chipping away, just the confidence in it and the reliability of it, which is now in 2006 a much tougher task than it was back in 1994. That's right.

There's been so many advances, Megan, back when OJ, they did what's called the RFLP, which with the old gel trays that was like first generation, you know, we were all learning about forensic DNA. Now they use these things called co-filer and profiler kits where they basically, it comes out on a graph and it's totally different. In this case, there is, at least on the towel and the screwdriver, it's known as a genetic mixture. I don't know, Mark and John, if you guys have ever seen them do this, I've never seen them put a percentage on major and minor contributors before like that. I've done triple DNA mixtures and I had an old live, one of our lab supervisor,

she named was Mary Hong. She used to say, Megan, it's a dirty world. And in the modern era, everything is so sensitive, the equipment they use, that you get a DNA mixture on just about every swab. It's almost becoming rare that you'll have a single source DNA unless they get it isolated from a sperm fraction or something really like one source of blood. But other than that, it's very common to see this. And you're exactly right. He's using the parlance, like they can't exclude a person. That's what the FBI protocols allow them to say. And crime labs will allow them to say, this person.

can't be excluded even if it's one in 17 quadrillion, you know, population frequency, which for our purposes means he did it. And the prosecutor can say it's a match. The forensic scientists won't. So this is performative. I don't know who this guy's talking to, really, because is it just a prelim? The judge knows all this already. So. Yeah, the judge is a former prosecutor, so he really knows it. So basically what she's trying to say is you, Matt Murphy He cannot be excluded. Mark Eglars cannot be excluded. John and I, maybe, I don't know if they can do female versus male more easily, but that's

basically what he said. Like, could have been anybody. That's what they're trying to say, yeah. Yeah. Okay. So we'll see how effective that is. I do want to play the soundbite. This is Amanda Baker breaking down the Robinson and Twigs DNA on the towel and the screwdriver

that we were just referencing SOT 7. You stated, I believe, that the minor sample, the minor contributor was less than 20. 20% and that it was actually 5% and the ratio was 5% to 95% for one of the samples yes. Do you remember that? Yes. Does that mean the 5% was from Twigs and the 95% that 95% is assumed from the defendant, the Robinson? When I calculate the statistic, Twigs' DNA profile aligned with the 5% contributor and Mr. Robinson's

DNA profile align better with the 95% contributor. Okay. Same question with regard to eight. I think you said the ratio is 11% from the minor and 89% from the major. Is that twigs being the 11% and Robinson being the 89%? Yes, twigs better aligned with that 11% contributor and Mr. Robinson better aligned with that 79% contributor. Okay, so I actually believe that that was a defense witness.

but she's given it up that, yes, there was another person's DNA on the towel and the screwdriver mark. But that other person contributed just a small amount. I mean, I don't, maybe this gets Lance Twigs in some sort of trouble or makes them more interesting to law enforcement when they're investigating this crime. But 95% all the prosecution is trying to prove is that Tyler Robinson's DNA was on there. Right. And they're able to prove it. The vast majority of it is his DNA. Right.

And to Matt Murphy's point, why is this happening right now? This is a PC hearing. So I'll answer the question. Why is it happening? It shouldn't be happening. This is not what we do. So what's happening is they're clearly speaking to the conspiracy theorists who now can grab onto this and say, aha.

So even the DNA isn't 100%. There's problems with that too. That's the only reason. Wait, can I interrupt you for one second, Mark? Because some of the conspiracy theorists or whatever we're calling them believe that Lance may actually be like. either the killer himself. Oh, sure.

And he set Tyler Robinson up to take the fall. Right. Or that maybe Lance is a Fed, who was kind of sent in there to lead Tyler down this lane, right? Just so people know what you're talking about. Yeah, you know what? My bad. I wasn't opened to those theories. And thank you for letting me know that.

Sarcasm added. I'm trying to avoid them, trust me. I also want to know then along with that theory, name me the officers who are risking their own liberty, their future, the lives of their families essentially because they'll go to prison if they can be proven to have sacrificed Tyler Robinson for no reason why they picked him. Oh yeah, except he looks like the guy on the video, you know, the one that we see who's been identified as Tyler Robinson. They're on the scene, scouting everything out, there that the confession matches to.

So the whole thing not only frustrates me, but it annoys me and offends me. me because there's no lying in what I'm seeing in this prosecution. It's a mere probable cause hearing, save it for the trial that he will lose, and try to work this case out to life. That's what I keep saying. I don't know why I'm not that bothered John up by the conspiracy theories. I guess I just feel like I've been in news a long time. Forget my legal career. I've been in news a long time. And there are so many conspiracy theorists out there. Like, I've seen this happen so many times in my career where you're like, what? And then you find out that a lot of people believe this stuff.

A lot of them are very smart. They're well educated. They're well off. They're sophisticated. I like, this is America. They're allowed to have their beliefs about stuff like this. Yeah. Especially in 2026 America.

There's a lot of reason to distrust formal government narratives. I, maybe I am naive, and I will be proven totally wrong on this. but I still believe in the legal process. I just still kind of believe they're going to do what they do. People like you guys who are still in active practice are going to do what you do, like really talented people inside the courtroom, who have to abide by the rules of evidence, which were set up long ago for very good reasons. And they tend to work pretty damn well. They're not perfect, but they tend to work pretty damn well. In keeping most of this stuff out, voir dire will be used, John it, to screen away jurors who are completely like bought in on this stuff. and lawyers can be very clever with their jury consultants on voir dire to like ferret out somebody

with that kind of thinking. I guess I, again, maybe I'm just naive, but I still trust the system to work based on evidence that gets submitted in a courtroom. Am I nuts? You're not that nuts. We all want to believe that, especially, you know, that. She's right. Only slightly.

But yeah, I mean, the job now, like we, we, we next. never had to worry about, I think, years ago, keeping the tinfoil hat wearers off a jury. And we didn't have to worry so much about the conspiracy theorists because they didn't have a keyboard in front of them. They didn't spend their time on social media. They weren't, you know, trying to knock down Phil Holloway's theories and being on social media warriors. They get to do that now. And it gives people meaning. It gives them something to do.

And it gives them a space in the, in the atmosphere, in the relevant atmosphere. So that's why part of it, I think, happens. The job, our job, is to make sure those people don't end up on the jury. And even that has gotten harder because you have people who think they're going to get their 15 minutes of fame. They're going to get their book deal. They're going to make whatever statement they want to make by being a nullified juror or whatever they want to do or convicting or not convicting. And so that part of what we do is really hard, which is why I said you're not that nuts, but you might be a little nuts because this is the world in which we live now. Megan, she said it perfectly. You know, I'm all in favor of people's First Amendment rights and if they're just, you know, cuck, cuck, cag, and they're saying stupid stuff, that's okay. We've been down that road. But like, John, I think, just perfectly articulated, the more that it's out there, the more people want to believe in these alternative theories. And these people can speak to those who can potentially be on the jury. And there's nothing perfect about jury selection. Most judges barely give you that much time. And you don't know who's

actually going on the jury. I've had ones that you find out things after the fact that blow your mind. So yes, it does frighten me because it jeopardizes the integrity of the system when such false information is being disseminated out there. I don't know. You go, Matt, because you've been in the courtroom for all of your adult life. I guess this is a relatively new phenomenon that it's so pointed and millions of Americans are buying in. You know, we're definitely seeing that on the Charlie narrative. There's no stopping it. The answer, of course, to all of this,

if you want to even win in the battle of public opinion, is to just put out what's real. This is my own view. Just keep putting out what's real. But like, you, trust me, I have been dealing with this, God, since 2010, actively in my journalism profession. I've had specific, specific conspiracy theories thrown right at me.

I mean, let's not forget the, one of the biggest of all times, which was that the Sandy Hook mass murder was made up, that it was an op to institute gun control by our government and that the parents were participants in it. And I interviewed almost, I don't know, two-thirds of those parents, myself, including Neil Heslin, who I love and adore, who held his dead son in his arms in a body bag and then of course went down a road

with Alex Jones that would become infamous but my point is simply the answer is not to like necessarily battle it out tit for tat it's just to stick to what we know

can be proven and appeal Matt to people who are not swept up in like I don't know what you'd call that the romance I got a few words knowing

well do you know what I'm saying though but like I want to hear that I'm trying to be generous. So like the excitement of like, no, no, no, I think we need to be careful not to do that. Don't, don't be pejorative of them because I know a lot of these people and I don't think they're nasty. I mean, like, I know them in my life. They're not nasty.

They would tell you that they care about Charlie Kirk too. They really want answers about what happened to Charlie Kirk, but they don't trust government. They don't trust the narrative. And the only way we can speak to those people and maybe, and if they're true conspiracies, theory, they're not getable, but there are a some percentage. There's a percentage who we can convince. They're not going to listen to, you're a fucking nutcase by, I know better. Like, we need to actually talk to them about why we're so convinced. If they want to be spoken to. Yeah, you know. The people I know do. So on most, on most cases, Megan, and, and I'm with you,

I think we've, we've just got to let the process sort itself out. You know, it exists for a reason and step by step, we'll get closer to the trial. There's some interesting procedural stuff going on. Like, he's going to make a ruling in September. That's what we just learned, which is a long time to wait. But we talked about this yesterday. He's being careful. And I was right. Are you ready to tell me I was right now? I was right. And you and Garagos were wrong. Well, no. You were right in that he was, he's being, I can't criticize you for your opinion that he's being overly cautious. my view is he's taking, he's playing the long game and he wants to ensure that he,

he indulges everything the defense raises to ensure the integrity of the conviction during the appellate process. That's, that's what I'm seeing. What you're saying is I was right. I understand your flowery qualifiers. But the bottom line, didn't we talk about this on positively legal, Mark and John? When I know I'm right, I would like to be told that I'm right. I know I was right here. Give up Matt. Just give up. Okay. Yeah. Look, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, problem with the conspiracy theory is on this one. Okay. And this is in there, there are different things about this case, Megan. And there, there's a lot of emotion around it, which I think is, is to be understood. And I agree with you all the way up to the point where, um, they start

hurting victims families, you know, like, like the Sandy Hook example you just gave. Um, you know, a conspiracy theory is one thing, but one, it makes it worse. You know, I was in a homicide for 17 years. And the first thing I would do is always, after I filed charges, I would sit down with the family and my team so they could put a face to the people that were working with them. And the death of a loved one, and you're personally experiencing it in this case, Megan, you know, it is the worst thing somebody can go through. And my heart just goes out to his family. And so, like, people are coming up challenging the government, wanting to see the evidence. I have zero problem with that. That's our process.

That's why courtrooms have to be open to the public at all times. So people can come in and see the process. So there's faith in it and integrity. But I have a problem with the people when they're hurting Erica Kirk. And I don't know her. I've never met her. That's where I draw the line personally. And that's where I personally want to push back.

You heard me do that yesterday. That's as the kids on the street would say today, that's triggering to me. When you sign your insurance policy for some brokers, the finish line, handshake, they get their commission, and then they're kind of done with you. You may not hear from them again until it's time for renewal, in which case, once again, they're your best friend. That's annoying. But your business runs all year, and so do the gaps and the risk, and things happen. And this is why I want to tell you about SuperSure. If your company has more than 25 employees, whether you're the owner, the CFO, or the HR

manager, it can be too complex to just buy a policy online. SuperSure is the super agency built just for you. It's licensed in every state for your business insurance and employee benefits with year-round support for you and your team. At supershure.com, you can access tools like fine print facts, which translates your current policy into plain English so you see what's covered in what's not. Plus a business value calculator so that you can estimate what your business is worth and know what actually needs protecting. Go to supershure.com slash Megan, one super agency, one powerful platform, all your policies in one place. SuperShure.com slash Megan, paid for by SuperSure insurance agency LLC, a licensed insurance agency.

Every season change seems to come with the same realization, a closet full of clothes and absolutely nothing to wear. Haven't you been there? Between work, travel, your family commitments, and everything else, you might not have the time or frankly the desire to spend hours shopping. Or maybe you are like me where I do have the desire, but I don't have the skill. Like, left in my own devices, I really don't have a lot of style. So I rely on other people to help me. And this is why I am so excited to tell you about daily look. It is the number one highest rated premium personal styling service for women.

With daily look, you get your own dedicated personal stylist, a real person, not an algorithm, who curates a box based on your body shape preferences. and lifestyle. And you get the same stylist every time. So she gets to know you and your preferences and what's already in your closet. You can try up to 12 premium pieces at home, keep what you love, and send back the rest with free shipping both ways. It's time to get your own personal stylist with Daily Look. Head to Dailylook.com to take your style quiz and use code Megan for 50% off your first order. But let me tell you something. With or without the 50%, you should try this because it pays for itself. You buy a couple of like nice outfits that once you get home don't look good or you never

wear and you've wasted your money. And for this, the low, low price of using the folks at daily look.com, you can avoid those costs and get stuff you actually love and will wear all the time. All right. So that's daily look.com for 50% off and make sure you use our promo code Megan, which will ensure you get your discount. All right. And then they'll know we sent you. It's me, Megan Kelly. I've got some exciting news. I now have my very own channel on Sirius XM. It's called the Megan Kelly Channel, and it is where you will hear the truth, unfiltered, with no agenda, and no apologies. Along with the Megan Kelly show, you're going to hear from people like Mark Halperin, Link Lauren, Morin Callahan, Emily Jashinsky, Jesse Kelly,

Real Clear Politics, and many more. It's bold, no BS news. Only on Megan Kelly Channel, SiriusXM 11, and on the Sirius XM app. naming Erica for anything having to do with Charlie's death is completely unfounded and deeply wrong. And I've objected to it multiple times. Criticizing Erica or not liking Erica for, you know, her behavior publicly over the past 11 months or however long it's been. I don't like it and I don't agree with it. But I, that is fair game because she took over Turning Point. She's the CEO of Turning Point. And there's just, that's going to happen. She became an overnight superstar in

the public eye because she took on that role and also because she's a grieving widow. And it like saying that she's immune from criticism, given that she wears this hat as the chief of one of our largest political organizations in America is just not going to fly. She's not going to be insulated from from attacks because she wears that hat. She and I have talked about this many times over the past year. She's aware. She knows that. I as her friend would love for her not to be doing that role.

I really would. I would love for her to just be a grieving widow so that she would take herself out of the line of fire, forgive the euphemism given this case. But you know what I mean? So that she could just focus on her personal life. But she is very, very committed to saving turning point. And I think she genuinely believes she's needed. You know, she's needed for Charlie's vision. She was his love, his wife, the mother of his kids. She's the one with the journals on how he wanted it done. I just, she loves her husband. She misses him. She thinks this is a way of honoring him and I don't question it for a minute, but as her friend, I see, it's made her that piece of her fair game for criticism. You cannot take on a role like that and say, you can't criticize me now. You can criticize her. Sorry. It doesn't work like that. Yeah, people can criticize her for her role in Turning Point. And there's, you know, it seems like half the country has a different political position these days, right, or a little less than half based on the last election. But saying there's a big difference in my mind between criticizing her for

a role in a, you know, an organization like Turning Point and saying she murdered her husband. And here are all the reasons why. And let me tell you how the, you know, the, she flew in on an Israeli jet and parachuted in with all her co-conspirators and all the insanity that we've heard. That's, those are different things in my mind. And I think there is a, there is a too far on that because it makes her pain worse in my, in my view. But unfortunately, we're never going to be able to never agreed with or wanted the criticism of Erica as a potential participant in anything having to do with Charlie's death. That didn't happen. So we're not going to be able to stop these people who are blaming her for things.

But one thing that could be controlled with her as the victim in this case is the judge not waiting until September to do what we all know he can do right now. And that is find probable cause. So to Matt's point, and I love the way he said. made me feel a little bit less angry about it, that the judge is just taking his time to ensure that the defense's rights are protected and that he can consider everything. He can do that in a much shorter period of time, though. Okay, I'm going to give everybody another week to brief this and send it to me. But to keep Charlie Kirk's widow and anyone else who has an interest in this case sitting

around until September sends almost the wrong message to the public, like this is some close call. I need to take my time on this because it's so difficult. Two months, Mark. I'm a fan of this judge. Hold on. I don't know. I'm not jumping on the Megan Kelly. You're wrong.

Listen to me. I like a lot of things this judge is doing. But it's almost like when when someone's so compassionate, they could be compassionate to a fault. And in this case, this judge is so caring, but almost to a fault. It's waiting until September. Oh, caring. That is caring. I was the only the moment this judge had is when he wins when watching the video.

That showed his. humanity and I appreciate it. Megan, he's a decent judge. Everything else has been absurd. Whatever. Megan. That's your opinion. I don't share it at all. I criticized him. I've spent 10 years inside of a courtroom. It may not be 30, but 10 years. He looked in front of federal judges, state judges. I've tried cases. I've argued appellate arguments. This is a feckless weakling. Jonna, your thoughts.

She's looking for support, John. No, I can know. I completely agree. This makes absolutely no sense to me. I don't, I can't think of a time where I ever had a judge want oral argument after a prelim, every single prelim that I've ever been involved in, and we don't do many in New York, we did much more in California. The decision was made before you walked out of the courtroom after it was over, after the conclusion of the evidence. You didn't get two months to brief. And then, like, that doesn't happen. Why is it happening here? And Mark is claiming, well, it's happening because he wants to be extra careful. Okay, it's a death penalty case. But I have to call bullshit on that. And here's why. This is just one step in the process.

buying this guy over for trial because there's ample evidence to do that. The defense will have plenty of opportunity to file motions to suppress evidence, to do whatever they want, to bring in other experts, to do all of that. Then you have the trial, which this was a dress rehearsal for, and then you have the appeal. Like, we don't need to solve all the world's problems at the end of this prelim. That's why I like her. I love her passion. It's great.

She's great. A great co-host. You've been trying to get this out of me for two days, Mike. On this point, you were right. Okay. And so, Sir John and Mark. 24-07.

Yeah. We do do a lot of prelims in California. I've done over 50 murder prelamps, I think. And Mark and John are absolutely spot on on this. Never. What's that? You never waited a few months for a ruling on a PC. I've never waited a few days for ruling.

You guys are spot on on that. And look, Megan, on this point, you're right. You've got a guy who he's, he is newly appointed. I think, I still think he's doing a fine job. However, a more experienced jurist would probably make the call today. That's what, that's what we're all expecting. And because that's what happens in prelims. They hear it. They go, okay, argument for the people. And you never argue, by the way, and argue, argument for the defense. And they'll say some stuff so that they can check the boxes. And then the court finds them over. And that's what happens. I've never seen a month-long recess on a

on a pre-limb. But two months. Yes, right, two months. You saw my math skills and play. I can't defend that. But I will say this. Judge Murphy would have said, right. I understand where I'm issuing my ruling today.

That's what Judge Murphy would have. I would have. However, it's not, you know, we've got the public side of it. We have the family side of it. And then we have the legal side of it. And it's not going to prejudice the prosecution's case either. It doesn't have anything to do with. the sides. It has to do with testicles. You either have them or you don't. And I'm sorry,

this judge is missing something underneath that road. Okay, what I'm hoping, he better find it by the time we get to trial. What I'm hoping for as my, as one of my old buddies, Howard Gundy used to say the unit, is that he grows a sack when we get to trial. Okay. And that, you know, but, but look, these are also cheap gimmies. And every single one of these things will be appealed to the umpteenth. And this is an opportunity for him to, to throw the defense, a bunch of bones, and listen to a bunch of nonsense and make the ruling in the safest way that he sees possible, you know, I don't think it's going to hurt the case long run. But on that point, you guys are right. It's not going to hurt the case long run. But it's just

annoying because we all know that this is unnecessary. And it's like a fiction. It's like a legal fiction. I was saying in the first hour, the defense getting up there and being like, showing that note for two seconds of the handwriting reminds me of the performances in the World Cup where the guys are riding on the field. We all know where they're fakers. It's like, you're fine. Get up. Like two seconds after that, they're running down the full soccer field scoring goals. Like, so that was all an act. That's what we're watching. We're watching acting inside this courtroom right now. All right. I want to keep going,

because I want to talk about a couple of items that actually, like, happened, that mattered in court. There has been a question out there about whether Tyler Robinson actually turned himself in. There was testimony that he did. He, Lance Twiggs said, Tyler told him he was going to go turn himself in. The criminal information said that he went to his parents and they convinced him to turn himself in through the help of a deputy sheriff, former deputy sheriff friend. And then they actually submitted video of Tyler Robinson in custody. Here it is along with a sound bite from agent Brian Davis in Sot. Well, it's Sot 2 here. All right.

Yeah, you guys see. States Exhibit 15 may be played. And Agent Davis, who are we seeing here? That's Tyler Robinson. And although we are watching it on video, what is he wearing at this time? He's working a dark colored baseball cap with a, that's like a, it's like a, maybe the hurdy symbol on it, like a white symbol on front. It's a burgundy short sleeve shirt with no graphics.

It's blue jeans and gray and white tennis. shoes, believe they're converse style tennis shoes. Thank you. Was Mr. Robinson, you stated that he was arrested in the early hours of September 12th. Is that right? Yes, that's correct. Did he remain in Washington County Sheriff's Office or was he taken somewhere else? No, he was transported from there to the Utah County Jail.

Okay, so that's all these little building blocks are there to support what we see in the confession of the texts and the testimony of Lance Twigs and so on, just little building blocks that add support to the overall narrative. And I have one more for you. This is sort of a weird one, but bear with me. The more fully revealed text messages have a reference from Tyler to Lance in the Twigs on the night of the murder, sorry, from Tyler to Lance Twigs on the night of the murder,

where he's describing waiting for the cops to leave so he can get his gun back from that wooded area. And he makes a reference to how loud the crickets are around him. Listen here. It's SOT 70. He continues. The squad car was moved further away enough that I should be able to move in. I backed off because I thought I heard footsteps, maybe a foot patrol. But the crickets here are so fucking loud. Okay.

There actually are loud crickets heard. on video from the ring cam that was introduced at this hearing. There was a woman whose ring cam captured Tyler Robinson when he stopped his car, and she or the detective somehow got to her and found it on her ring camera. And you can't really see much of the car. I'm sure they zoomed in and were able to identify the car somehow because it was Tyler Robinson's, we're told. But listen, just listen to the video that they introduced here in SOT 71. Is there any sound associated with this?

There is judge, but it's, it's night sounds. It's crickets chirping and, um, okay. I just wanted to see if it was, I just wanted to see if there was sound or not. Okay. All right. You may play the video. Okay, you get the picture. You can hear the crickets right where he stopped his car loud and clear.

And then last but not least, and this is obviously in, in its own category of evidence. you heard, you read Tyler Robinson texting Lance Twiggs about engraving the bullets. Remember when I was engraving the bullets? Then you heard Lance Twigs testify about seeing him engraved the bullets, allegedly for a family hunting trip that he, Tyler Robinson was going on. And then yesterday, we saw with our own eyes for the first time the bullet casings, which was just chilling. I mean, it's one thing to again hear about what he allegedly wrote on the bullet casings that were there as he killed our friend and it is another to actually see it on the bullet casings we've enhanced them so that the audience can see the writing more clearly but first i'm just going to play you this soundbite

we read the one of the bullet that was used the bullet casing to kill charlie that read notices bulge o w-o what's this and here is uh sergeant jennifer faumouina discussing the engravings on the other bullets. Sop 54. Is this a photograph of one of the cartridges that was found in the gun? Yes, it is. And what are we looking at here in this view of page one on Exhibit 20? This is the head stamp of it, and it says it is a, according to the headstamp,

it is a Remington 30-06 Springfield. Is that a different caliber than a 2-2-3 round? Yes, it is. Will you look at page two of, Exhibit 20. Will you read the markings here? A fascist. And page three.

Catch. And page four. Up arrow, right arrow, down arrow, down arrow, down arrow. All right, let's go to exhibit 21. And was this another round that was found in the gun? Yes. Will you read the inscription here? Oh, Bella Chow.

Page two. Chow, chow. All right. Let's go to Exhibit 22. Another round that was found from the gun, correct? Yes. Do you please read the letters here? If you read. Page two.

This comma, your, or correction, this comma, you are. Page three. Gay. And page four. L-M-A-O. So there it is. L-M-M-A-O, laughing my ass off. The arrow sequence, up, arrow-side, arrow, down. down, down,

widely recognized as the stratagem input for the 500 kilogram bomb in the video game, Hell Divers 2. It was a very online guy, obviously. But, you know, back to kind of our earlier discussion on the conspiracy theories, one of the biggest downsides of spending so much time discussing them

is we're not focused on what clearly was this guy's actual motivation. and and the trans stuff the notices bulges on the cartridge of the the bullet that was used to actually kill Charlie. Hey, fascist catch, O Bella Chow, a fascist anthem is not getting, these are leftist narratives about what's wrong with our country, about what's wrong with the right wing. There was testimonials early at the work, testimonials early on from the mother to the cops reportedly. saying he had grown more and more left wing in his thinking since he got pulled into this trans-fury world. Now you have Lance Twiggs trying to play down his trans affiliation. Sure. Sure, Luna.

And this clearly was a motivation. Matt, as we've seen now in countless cases, that this world is subversive and dangerous and can really do a mind meld on people who are weak. Yeah, I mean, this is the tragedy. of modern America, in my view, Megan. I mean, from a prosecutor's standpoint, this is motive. This is what we call motive. But it's also you run the risk in modern America that you,

more so than the conspiracy theorists, what I'd be worried about in jury selection in this is people that come in that align politically and can't put those ideas aside. You know, I think that's the real danger. It's not so much the cuckoos with the tinful hats. It's the people that believe in their hearts, that this, that murder is somehow okay. That they've rejected 3,000 years of Western philosophical and religious tradition that the ends don't justify the means and think it's all right.

That's what I would be worried about in jury selection personally. Social murder. They were calling it just recently the Luigi murder. social murder. Like it's... It's disturbing to me. It's okay if you put that label on it to take somebody out because, as Tyler Robbins said, some hate can't be negotiated out. And there is a faction of the left that believes this. They do. And who's next on the list, Megan, is what I want to know.

Who's the next healthcare CEO that is okay to kill? You know what I mean? It's like the reign of robespier. Who's next in the media landscape? If we're going to start killing people that want to engage in dialogue. Who's next? You know, Mark, you, me. Like, it never, that list never ends. And we've seen that with Pol Pot and Stalin and Mao. And, you know, we could go back through political movements going back to ancient Rome on that. And I don't know if it's that people who forget history are doomed or repeated or if these people are so wrapped up in their own self-righteousness that they've decided that if they do it and their intentions are pure, therefore murder the worst. thing that any human being can do throughout history is somehow okay. And I still haven't wrapped my

head around it. I'm still working on getting, getting through the Luigi Mangione stuff for the same reason. But you're right, Megan, this is one of the, another things about the conspiracy stuff that bothers me is that it's distracting from the real discussion that I think we need to be having as a country. And that is, this can't be our future. And we all need to agree to that. We railed for months, we in the right wing and independent media. about how the FBI, Joe Biden's FBI, would not release the so-called manifesto of that Nashville, Tennessee trans shooter. This is a, this was at a school. Her name was Audrey Hale. And we railed for months that they wouldn't release this person's manifesto about why they did it and what was, and it was like all. It was laden with trans references and mania from the trans stuff. This is kind of the same thing. This is a, everything beyond what he's said on these bullet casings, what everybody who knows him has said, what he's made clear was his motivation.

Anything beyond that, look, you can spend time on it, but it amounts to the FBI cover up of what the real motivation was in Nashville. Like, we have very good evidence of what the motivation was by Tyler Robinson. Very good. It's on the bullets, Jana. And, you know, we ignore it at our peril. We've been ignoring so many of these murders at our peril because there's. There are people on the left and the right who think the whole trans mania thing is just sort of a like, whatever. That's not one of our real problems. Oh, yes, it is.

Right. And we're just mean. We're just mean when we talk about it in that sense. But I'm going to at the risk of beginning my own mini conspiracy theory on your show, I don't think the engravings on the bullet casings only show motivation. Clearly, they do show motivation. I think when you look at the casings and you look at the casings, and you look at the, you look at the, look at the very detailed text messages. In my mind, Tyler Robinson wanted to be caught. You do not leave a trail of breadcrumbs that large and that unmistakable unless at some point you want to get caught.

You know, his attorneys are sitting there fighting over, well, you know what, the bullet information, the bullet fragments are inconclusive. Well, you know what? The bullet casings are not inconclusive. And so when you leave a digital trail, we talked about this on your show the other day, when you leave a digital trail with those messages, you know, is he writing a memoir? Oh, the crickets, oh, they're so loud. But every single excruciating detail to his, you know, furry lover, when you know darn well, you know darn well, they're going to get found. And you take the time to carve these engravings telling your furry lover that you're going hunting.

The deer can't read. Like, come on people. this guy on some level wanted to be caught. That's my mini-conspiracy theory. I'll leave it right there. But I mean, I don't disagree with you because look, within 24 hours, he was confessing to everybody, to his lover, to his parents, to the deputy sheriff friend, to discord. It's one thing to confess to your lover and say, delete these texts and you believe he will and maybe you won't. But like getting on discord and telling everybody, by this point, he's not.

he had already agreed Mark to turn himself in. So I'm sure he's thinking, I don't care. You know, I'm, he was reportedly suicidal. You know, the parents are trying to talk him out of taking his own life, according to the criminal information. And I guess it just given it up. But like, there's been no examination of really what happened to Tyler Robinson, right? What happened to him?

Where he went from this kid who had a 4.0 according to his mom and got a scholarship to this decent university that he did not finish at. to this. You're going to hear about it. You know, when you'll hear about it, in the penalty phase, and it'll come from the defense, there's somebody right now dedicated

to just that focus, who's handling the second chair, as we call it, who's looking for everyone who ever said, God bless you to, any good deed he's ever done, and they'll throw in there

things like he surrendered. He allegedly felt sorry for what he had done and wished he didn't do it. And I know you think it's crap, But those facts in that environment may fuel one juror in believing, well, okay, then the scales tip in favor or towards mitigation. I'll let them live. And that to me is the challenge for prosecutors, because anything other than death, people will deem this a failure.

I mean, I don't know that I think it's crap. He felt sad that he did it and regretted. I just don't care. You know who will care? Jurs. They're going to listen to it. They're going to hear it and they can put that on the side of the scale. Maybe down in your neck of the woods, Mark Eglars, but in Utah, they're more like me.

Maybe, but you never know. Death is different. Everyone has their own particular feelings as to what warrants the death penalty. And no one knows. There's a reason Utah has the death penalty. If there was some revolt against it, Utah would be California where they have the death penalty, but they just won't enforce it. It's like what it was either Garagos or you mad who called like the soft death penalty.

penalty the other day. Like Utah, Utah's different. Utah's full of Christians, Mormons, their law abiding, there are a lot of red state voters there. And I just think that's our best chance because I don't think they're going to be moved by the, you know, sob story. Tyler Robinson had it rough. You know, he was a good kid. And I realize I said this yesterday. He didn't have a lifetime of crime. But the death penalty takes into consideration that, but also how horrific this crime was. Does it not? Matt Murphy literally wrote a book called The Book of Murder and has done, has tried death penalty cases. Just the one is enough to get you the death penalty if it's horrific enough, if it's deemed worthy. Yeah. So the way it works, Megan, and you, you mark

both right here. It's aggravating versus mitigating factors. And in California, we call it K-factor evidence. I don't know what it, what number it comes down to in Utah, but it's essentially a catch-all where the jury, before somebody is sentenced to death, they're entitled to the individual vote of each juror. So it's a little bit different than the guilt or penalty. And they're instructed that individually, they must, you know, make up their own mind, essentially. And they're allowed to consider anything that ameliorates or somehow lessens the severity of what they'd which goes to Mark's point, and that is they're basically given, it's like an e-ticket ride in Disneyland. The defense has a catch-all that they can put in all kinds of different evidence.

Like if he was a Boy Scout, if he walked an old lady across the street, every picture, Megan, every death penalty case I did, and I did eight of them that were we actually tried them. I think every single one of those had a picture of the defendant as a kid holding a puppy. All of that stuff comes in. And, you know... Let me ask you this, Matt. Let me ask you this. As a prosecutor who was on the opposite side of all this,

trying to overcome those pictures, wouldn't you, if I were the prosecutor in this case, I think I'd get up there and I would play the video of Charlie's neck exploding and a vesuvius of blood coming out of it instantaneously and then I'd show a picture of his two kids, his babies, his two babies, not to mention his mom and his dad and his wife and his sister. Like, that's the argument for death.

That's it. That's the argument. Forget Charlie's massive role in society, his obvious future status is a probable president and all that. His status is a Christian faith revivalist. I know that is relevant because if he was murdered for his political views, that can be an aggravated factor on some of these crimes. But you see that video, Matt. That video is incredibly compelling. It's very emotional. It's truly horrific, so bad that most of us don't want to ever see it

again. And most people who have seen it won't look at it a second time. And most people who haven't seen it have zero desire to see it because they understand it's a before and after moment. Well, the circumstances of the offense, and you're right, Megan, the circumstances of the offense include victim impact testimony. So some of the most powerful stuff we're going to see are going to come from Erica Kirk and Charlie Kirk's loved ones. And they're going to come in and they get to testify, but the impact that the murder has had on them, on their lives. You know, and we used to ask three questions. Describe your relationship with the, with the murder victim. Where were you when you learned about it? And her story, she's right there, right? And how is it impact?

your life. There's the three questions and you just let them talk and it is, that is the most powerful evidence I've ever seen in a courtroom and it is, and the jury gets to hear all that and then they get to assign a weight to that and then they compare

that weight against whatever was presented in mitigation, the picture of the puppy. The fact that maybe he turned himself in, the fact that maybe he cried, they have to if, and the standard is if the jury finds that the aggravating circumstances substantially outweigh any circumstances and mitigation,

that's when they can but are not required to return of a rift of death. And I think... And in most, in the vast majority of murder cases, you don't have videotape of the moment of death. You don't have videotape of the actual crime in the moment of death, which we do have here. Megan, I want to bring up a point. To your point, it is absolutely abhorrent to that video. We thought we had the same thing here in South Florida when Nicholas Cruz went through Marjorie Stelman Douglas High School and shot up students. The video, the photos were horrible. They found him, you know, three people thought he should live. So you never know what's going to happen.

Apologies, but I got a wrap. Okay, great to see you all. Thank you. We'll be back with new shows next week. Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.