Blake Neff and Brandon Tatum Break Down Day Two of Tyler Robinson's Preliminary Hearing

[09:03] All right, welcome everybody. We are

[09:05] live here for our special day two of the

[09:09] state of Utah versus Tyler Robinson

[09:11] preliminary hearing. Uh we've got so

[09:14] much to get to. We've got uh myself,

[09:17] obviously Blake, Brandon Tatum, Officer

[09:19] Brandon Tatum, and Joe Bob. All there.

[09:22] There you can see him right there.

[09:24] Gentlemen, thank you so much for coming

[09:26] and joining us. Uh Brandon, I know you

[09:29] were in the courthouse all today. I I

[09:31] can't wait to dive in and get your POV.

[09:34] I want to set this up just really

[09:35] quickly for our audience before we get

[09:37] into it. The day two was, I think, uh an

[09:42] absolute bombshell of a day. uh there

[09:44] was more probable cause, which again is

[09:46] the standard in a preliminary hearing to

[09:48] take it to a full trial. Okay, the

[09:51] morning started off huge. And gentlemen,

[09:53] this is where we're going to start. We

[09:56] we left off last night where they were

[09:58] trying to submit this the state was

[10:00] trying to submit this video compil

[10:02] compilation and they had sort of a John

[10:03] Madden style version of it that they

[10:05] were not allowed to do. But this morning

[10:07] they got the compilation in. It was more

[10:09] of the raw footage version of it, but it

[10:12] was huge. huge, huge, huge. Uh there was

[10:16] now we've established that Tyler

[10:18] Robinson was on campus, the UVU campus,

[10:21] four times. Uh twice in the morning, uh

[10:25] then during the actual uh shooting and

[10:28] then once in the evening that actually

[10:30] bled into the early hours of September

[10:33] 11th.

[10:34] Uh Officer Tatum, I want to start with

[10:36] you, sir. What was that like watching

[10:39] that footage and hearing for the first

[10:41] time four times on the campus of UVU?

[10:45] >> Yeah, I can say uh thanks for having me

[10:47] on. I I can say it was an incredible

[10:49] relief um that we can match up common

[10:51] sense with evidence and get it presented

[10:53] in court as a probable cause, you know,

[10:56] effort. And because a lot of people were

[10:58] saying that, well, not a lot of people,

[11:00] I think people without a connected brain

[11:02] stem are saying that Tyler Robinson

[11:03] wasn't even on the campus whatsoever.

[11:05] And obviously we see him on camera

[11:08] verified. He he was even stopped by law

[11:10] enforcement at 12:30 a.m. on on the 11th

[11:13] uh where they identified the vehicle and

[11:15] they identified him as a person driving

[11:17] the vehicle. Then they com they compiled

[11:18] that and compared that to some of the

[11:21] videos that they had uh from previous

[11:23] days and it and or the previous day and

[11:26] it's clear that Tyler Roberts was the

[11:28] one driving the car on campus even

[11:29] though he's not a student on campus. He

[11:31] has no reason to be there. He lived

[11:32] probably 200 miles away. So it was

[11:34] damning evidence for the for the defense

[11:36] team.

[11:38] >> Yeah. And and

[11:39] >> which they themselves were aware of.

[11:40] >> Yeah. This is this that's the other part

[11:42] here.

[11:43] >> The first hour of today was back and

[11:45] forth where they basically were again

[11:47] were arguing can we please not show this

[11:50] sequence of video even the unedited

[11:52] version can we not show it because there

[11:54] is a a quote a realistic likelihood of

[11:57] prejudice to Mr. Robinson's right to a

[12:00] fair trial. that basically this video

[12:03] getting out there would be so viral, so

[12:05] widely seen, it would just make it it

[12:06] would make it too difficult for Robinson

[12:09] to have an untainted jury someday.

[12:11] >> Yeah. Well, that I mean, as soon as as

[12:14] soon as this went out, it went viral all

[12:16] over. Joe Bob, what did you see from

[12:19] your perch uh as soon as that that video

[12:22] evidence was made public and was

[12:24] actually broadcast too to Judge Tony

[12:26] Graph's credit?

[12:28] >> Yeah. So to to back up to the kind of

[12:30] the procedural part of it, uh there was

[12:33] obviously arguing over whether or not

[12:34] this should be shown and it was

[12:36] interesting to see I think he's an

[12:38] attorney representing the media side of

[12:40] it saying hey well if Judge Graph is

[12:42] going to make a decision on whether this

[12:44] is going to proceed to trial everybody

[12:46] needs to see what he sees unless of

[12:49] course obviously it's graphic that way

[12:51] so they if he makes an assess when he

[12:53] makes an assessment people can believe

[12:55] that assessment which is is an

[12:56] interesting dynamic in in the courtroom.

[12:58] Obviously, uh we're all grateful that

[13:00] this footage is now out uh and public.

[13:03] Uh in terms of the internet reaction, um

[13:06] it it it was it was huge. Like,

[13:09] everybody I knew shared uh at least some

[13:12] version of one of the several videos

[13:15] that came out and the normal people

[13:18] reacted like, "Yeah, this kind of seems

[13:20] like something we knew, something we

[13:22] knew was coming and and now it's here."

[13:24] And then you've got, you know, 2% of the

[13:26] population who then decided to take it

[13:29] and run a different direction. Well, but

[13:31] but but but like, okay, well, there's

[13:33] nothing you can do to please those

[13:34] people. Uh, but overall, this, as

[13:38] Brandon was saying, kind of put to bed

[13:40] uh a lot of the

[13:42] I I don't even know what to call it. The

[13:44] the craziness that was out there. Uh

[13:47] Tyler Robinson wasn't even on the

[13:48] campus. Okay. Uh thankfully we finally

[13:51] have footage now to uh to make sure that

[13:54] that uh that that gets put to rest.

[13:57] >> All right. So I I totally agree. There's

[14:00] still going to be, you know, theories

[14:02] that emerge that are, you know, I would

[14:05] say divergent from what the state is is

[14:08] posting. We're seeing those online. I

[14:10] Brandon, what was it like in the

[14:11] courtroom when that was happening? Uh it

[14:14] it felt like there's been a couple

[14:16] instances where I've seen Judge Graph

[14:19] actually get a little bit you can see

[14:21] his patience is wearing thin. He's very

[14:23] good at keeping a dead pan uh

[14:26] presentation, but you could see there

[14:28] was a couple moments and then finally he

[14:30] rules on this. What was it like in that

[14:32] inside the courtroom when that was

[14:34] happening?

[14:35] >> Well, for for me it was an incredible

[14:37] relief. I I think I can echo the

[14:39] sentiment of of most people that was,

[14:41] you know, that's on the Charlie Kirk

[14:42] team. Charlie Kirk's side is that

[14:45] initially it was questionable whether or

[14:46] not they were going to get this amount

[14:48] of evidence or this type of evidence

[14:49] into the trial. Um but towards the end

[14:51] of the day yesterday we kind of knew

[14:53] that if we prepared it right um the

[14:55] evidence would be admissible. Um but it

[14:57] was a it was a sigh relief and

[14:58] especially because we were able to you

[15:00] know I think it was a give or take cuz

[15:02] it was a sigh relief because we were

[15:03] able to get the information in.

[15:04] Therefore the world can see that Tyler

[15:06] Roberts was it's evidence that he was on

[15:08] campus. But but the thing that was a

[15:09] little disappointing in part was that

[15:12] there was the other variation of the

[15:13] video that had some circles and zooms

[15:15] and blurs on it that I think would have

[15:18] been more appropriate for the audience

[15:20] uh at large. You know, people in the

[15:22] courtroom, we we could see what was

[15:23] going on. We knew what we were looking

[15:25] at. I mean, it's pretty obvious, but to

[15:26] the public with that video being

[15:28] displayed the way it was, it's not very

[15:31] easy to see unless you zoom in. So, the

[15:34] video that the judge allowed to be

[15:36] admissible in court but not viewed by

[15:38] the public uh was a video that I think

[15:40] would have been a lot easier uh for

[15:42] people to digest online. And but

[15:45] overall, I think it was incredibly

[15:47] powerful and I think it was a sigh of

[15:48] relief that we were things were going in

[15:51] the right direction for the for the

[15:52] Charlie Kirk team.

[15:53] >> Uh I saw that you posted some kind of

[15:57] selfie videos, Brandon. Uh I don't know

[15:59] if those are on break or whatever dur

[16:01] during uh today in in the middle of the

[16:04] the different uh breaks and in in the

[16:07] action, but you were talking about this

[16:10] theory of like the pathy theory and you

[16:13] were talking about uh could other people

[16:15] have been involved and that we're still

[16:18] kind of dealing with this this notion of

[16:20] and I think you know this is coming from

[16:22] Candace that you know she doesn't even

[16:24] believe that he was on campus that day

[16:26] and she doesn't believe that this guy

[16:27] was the right height. or whatever. Let's

[16:29] go ahead and play this clip and I'll

[16:30] have you respond. 34.

[16:33] >> I don't

[16:33] >> Who do you think is behind this?

[16:34] >> I don't think Tyler Robinson was there.

[16:37] >> You don't think he was there?

[16:39] >> I think he's a total psy. I think they

[16:41] get look alikes and they get everybody

[16:43] wearing the same outfit. I think he

[16:44] played a role and I believe that what he

[16:47] did was he picked up clothes and he

[16:49] dumped them behind the the Dairy Queen.

[16:53] I think he had a role.

[16:58] What do you make of that?

[17:01] >> Well, I I I think people should be able

[17:03] to digest this information and say if a

[17:06] person is going to say he wasn't even

[17:08] there, he was a psy and there's no

[17:11] evidence whatsoever presented to back

[17:13] that claim up, then you should probably

[17:15] question what a person is get where the

[17:16] person is getting their information

[17:17] from. It is clear as the noonday son, he

[17:20] was on campus four times. and for him

[17:23] being a a body double or something like

[17:25] that. Even the defense isn't arguing

[17:27] this. This the thing that people need to

[17:29] understand is that if how is somebody

[17:31] how is somebody who's not associated

[17:33] with the case, has no investigative

[17:35] skills, is not investigating anything,

[17:37] you know, any substantive thing um going

[17:40] to argue something that defense isn't

[17:41] even arguing. They're not arguing that

[17:43] Tyler Robinson wasn't wasn't on campus.

[17:45] They're not arguing against that. You

[17:46] know, the funny thing that I found in

[17:48] this point, Brandon, that's such a good

[17:49] point. But another thing is as well is

[17:53] that the on campus and and the defense

[17:55] isn't even objecting to it because you

[17:57] would think that the defense will object

[17:59] to it because it's still a probable

[18:00] cause hearing. They haven't determined

[18:02] that they have probable cause to believe

[18:04] yet that Tyler Robinson is in fact that

[18:06] suspect. But the defense isn't even

[18:08] objecting to the prosecution claiming

[18:11] this is Tyler Robinson. He did this, he

[18:13] did that, he walked here. And and I'll

[18:14] tell you something else that the defense

[18:16] messed up on. um because they're, you

[18:18] know, they they're not doing an adequate

[18:20] job when it comes to this is that she

[18:22] tried to be impartial when she said a a

[18:24] suspect jumps off of the roof. Then she

[18:26] says, "And then he did this." It's like,

[18:29] "Well, wait a minute. I thought you were

[18:31] articulating that this is a kind of an

[18:33] impartial person. How do you know if

[18:34] it's a male or a female? None of these

[18:36] things have been presented yet. Why are

[18:38] you saying he?" It's because they know

[18:39] for a fact that it was Tyler Robinson.

[18:41] And at least I think they believe it was

[18:43] Tyler Robinson. And those things are

[18:44] being brought up in court. I I encourage

[18:46] people to look at the evidence. Quit

[18:50] listening to people online, especially

[18:52] those who do not have law enforcement

[18:53] experience or experience doing

[18:55] investigations or those who won't even

[18:57] interview people with experience. You

[18:59] you you have to put those things

[19:00] together. So, listen to what's going on

[19:02] in the hearing, make the determination

[19:03] on your own, but it has to be rooted in

[19:05] facts and it has to be rooted in

[19:07] evidence.

[19:08] >> Yeah. I I think what we'll see we're

[19:10] we've seen it the last few days and we

[19:12] will see it in the weeks, months,

[19:14] potentially years to come is that people

[19:16] who are committed to this line of

[19:18] reasoning that Robinson is a psy that

[19:20] Robinson wasn't there that Robin that no

[19:23] one fired a shot from the top of that

[19:25] building. I don't think they're really

[19:26] motivated by believing a particular

[19:28] source. I think they're motivated

[19:30] frankly by by malice. they want to

[19:33] believe a certain line and they don't

[19:35] they genuinely don't care what the

[19:38] evidence is. Uh but fortunately I think

[19:41] most people aren't going in that

[19:42] direction. I wanted to flag another

[19:44] thing that was very strong uh besides

[19:46] the four times on campus. Uh I think

[19:48] this gets at the crux of why we can be

[19:50] so confident in this case that they

[19:52] actually asked uh investigator Hull, did

[19:57] you guys have a suspect in this case

[19:59] until you got news that someone had

[20:01] turned himself in? and he said the

[20:02] answer is no. In fact, I think we we

[20:04] didn't get a chance to play that

[20:05] earlier. Let's play it now. Uh they're

[20:07] asking about this. This is clip 17.

[20:10] >> And isn't it fair to say that

[20:15] as of the moment that Tyler Robinson

[20:17] voluntarily surrendered to authorities

[20:20] in Washington County? As of that moment,

[20:22] you all did not know who the shooter

[20:24] was. Is that right?

[20:26] >> We had identified a person of interest,

[20:28] but we did not specifically know who the

[20:30] shooter was at that time. Okay.

[20:35] And you became aware that Mr. Robinson

[20:39] was voluntarily surrendering. How? How

[20:41] did you become aware of that?

[20:43] >> That information came originally, I

[20:45] believe, from the Washington County

[20:46] Sheriff to the administration at the uh

[20:51] the control center at the university on

[20:53] the evening of the investigation.

[20:55] >> Okay.

[20:55] >> Or the second evening of the

[20:56] investigation.

[20:57] >> So So that just lays it out. They did

[20:59] not this he didn't get arrested because

[21:02] they'd identified him uh through a story

[21:05] we've already heard that his parents

[21:07] became suspicious. They brought in

[21:09] pictures of him a friend. I believe they

[21:10] said it was a scout master of his who

[21:12] had a former sheriff something like

[21:15] that. They loop him in into the part of

[21:18] the process and he turns himself in.

[21:19] >> He calls and said, "Hey, if we bring if

[21:22] you know if he turns himself in

[21:24] peacefully, can we do it that way?" They

[21:25] agreed. He goes and turns himself in.

[21:27] And they didn't they had these their

[21:30] command center at the university did not

[21:32] know they they had a person of interest.

[21:34] Presumably they'd identified this person

[21:36] they'd seen on cameras. So they were

[21:38] releasing photos. But I think my

[21:40] interpretation of that was they did not

[21:41] have a name. They didn't have a name.

[21:42] >> They didn't have a particular person

[21:44] they were on a manhunt for

[21:46] >> and then they learned that he had

[21:47] voluntarily turned himself in. That's

[21:50] the defense. That's the defense attorney

[21:51] saying that Tyler Robinson turned

[21:53] himself in. And that's another thing

[21:55] that these people online have tried to

[21:58] deny ever happened.

[21:59] >> Go ahead, Brandon.

[22:00] >> Yeah, this is this is incredibly damning

[22:03] to the defense

[22:05] when you have no idea who the person is.

[22:08] Why would a person that had nothing to

[22:10] do with this voluntarily turn himself

[22:13] in? It's not like they had his name,

[22:15] right? It's not like they said Tyler

[22:17] Robinson did it. We're looking for this

[22:18] guy and then he said, "Okay, okay, y'all

[22:20] got me. I'm gonna turn myself in without

[22:22] incident." No. this person voluntarily

[22:26] said, "I am surrendering, taking

[22:29] responsibility for killing Charlie

[22:31] Kirk." Like, I I don't understand how

[22:33] anybody's still questioning whether or

[22:35] not this this boy is involved in this.

[22:38] He voluntarily did it. This is this this

[22:40] flies in the face of the of the of the

[22:42] theory that he's somehow being used by

[22:45] somebody else. If if somebody turned him

[22:47] in, meaning somebody snitched and said,

[22:48] "Hey, it was him." and they went and

[22:50] picked him up and it happened that way,

[22:51] then I can see somebody saying he's a

[22:53] pacy or something. But why would your

[22:55] parents who love you presumably I see

[22:58] him in the courtroom and and they go,

[23:00] I'm just going to make this up. I'mma

[23:03] act like my son did this heinous crime

[23:05] that's going to put him in a in a bad

[23:07] light for the rest of his life. It's

[23:09] going to go down in history if he's

[23:11] found guilty that he killed one of the

[23:13] most incredible men to ever live in the

[23:16] United States of America. And you

[23:17] telling me that parents just turn him in

[23:19] because one day they just got a wild

[23:21] hair and thought it'd be cool to turn

[23:23] their son in for this and he could be

[23:24] put to death over this. I think it I

[23:26] think the case is closed on that.

[23:28] >> Absolutely. And Joe Bob, I want to work

[23:29] you in here in just a second, but but

[23:31] what what we're talking about I think is

[23:32] a really important vein and that is

[23:36] >> what the defense has already just sort

[23:38] of admitted to that Tyler Robinson

[23:40] turned himself in. You know, it's like

[23:42] they it's the dog that didn't bark kind

[23:44] of thing. that you know this is what's

[23:47] interesting. There's a uh some of there

[23:50] was an analyst on Fox News who said it

[23:52] was a mount Everest amount of of

[23:54] evidence presented against Tyler

[23:55] Robinson. And these are people that that

[23:57] know prosecutions that no criminal

[24:00] defense and prosecution. So, but it's

[24:02] crazy cuz like what else is the defense

[24:05] not saying, right? They're not saying

[24:08] anything about exploding mics. They're

[24:10] not saying anything about Egyptian

[24:11] planes. They're not saying anything

[24:13] about MSAD. They're not saying anything

[24:14] about reicside. They're not saying

[24:16] anything about any of that stuff. So, I

[24:20] just I I just like to our point here

[24:22] kind of like keeping us focused on on

[24:24] what the evidence actually is saying to

[24:26] us. Now, I I I think I have more I want

[24:30] to say, but I I I was going to work in

[24:32] uh Joe Bob here. Joe Bob. Well, I I

[24:35] don't want to I don't want to jump ahead

[24:36] too far in the day, but there's the

[24:40] commentary that I saw online uh was when

[24:42] they got to the DNA portion of it and

[24:45] the examiner there uh wouldn't say, "Oh,

[24:49] definitive this, definitive that." Um

[24:52] when actuality, it's US DOJ policy that

[24:55] examiners don't use definitive language

[24:57] when presenting DNA evidence. uh and

[25:00] specifically in a pre-trial. Um and and

[25:04] to that point on the on the crazy side,

[25:08] uh if the the word show trial has been

[25:11] thrown around, if this were a show

[25:13] trial, why would any of the evidence be

[25:16] inconclusive? Okay, wouldn't wouldn't

[25:19] all of that be tied up? And and also, if

[25:23] it's all a lie, if all of this stuff is

[25:25] made up, then you can't use it as your

[25:28] argument. you can't use the perceived

[25:30] inclus inconclusivity as part of your

[25:33] argument. So, the whole thing crumbles

[25:35] in the conspiratorial mind. And and you

[25:38] know, I I I pulled up a a Bible verse

[25:40] here that's I'm sure been referenced a

[25:42] number of times. This is second Timothy

[25:44] 3. Uh beware of the worms who gain

[25:48] control over gullible women who are

[25:49] loaded down with sins and swayed by all

[25:51] kinds of evil desires. Always learning

[25:54] but never able to come to a knowledge of

[25:56] the truth. And isn't that exactly what

[25:59] we are seeing in real time? Just, well,

[26:02] nothing is ever enough. Okay, so the DNA

[26:05] evidence, the video evidence, the

[26:07] admission of guilt, all of these things,

[26:09] it's all fake. It's it's

[26:12] >> I love that you brought this up, Joe

[26:13] Bob. I love that you brought brought

[26:14] this up and and Officer Tatum, I'm going

[26:17] to appeal to your experience as a police

[26:19] officer here. Uh there a lot has been

[26:22] made about this uh Ring camera footage

[26:25] that shows Tyler Robinson's car going in

[26:27] front of it and I guess the owner of the

[26:29] house remembers somebody baldled with

[26:32] three pe driving the car and with three

[26:33] people in it or something to that

[26:35] effect. So everybody's saying, "Oh, see

[26:37] it wasn't Tyler, you know, driving it or

[26:39] whatever." But the Ring camera shows

[26:42] what actually happened and that's that

[26:44] the car was driving by the house. So

[26:47] explain the difference between witness

[26:50] eyewitness testimony recollections, you

[26:52] know, the human frailty of memory versus

[26:55] the video evidence from pulled from that

[26:57] ring camera.

[26:59] >> Well, thank you for uh going to me with

[27:01] this one, but um I I think that people

[27:04] have to understand that they're looking

[27:05] at the totality of evidence and in a

[27:08] actual trial. It's beyond a reasonable

[27:10] doubt. So there is a burden that you

[27:12] have to prove that's beyond a reasonable

[27:14] doubt. So, you put all the evidence

[27:16] together and this is why they don't just

[27:19] talk to the people that live in the

[27:20] house and get their written statements.

[27:22] That's why they have a video because

[27:24] sometimes people in a in a haste or

[27:26] people could be misidentifying certain

[27:28] things. That's why you can't go on their

[27:30] testimony alone either. You have to look

[27:32] at the video and say, "Okay, now we get

[27:34] what they have said. This is their ring

[27:35] camera, but what do we actually see?"

[27:37] There are people that can look at we can

[27:39] all all of us can look at the same

[27:40] person and we may get their height

[27:42] different. You go, "Hey, man. I think

[27:43] they do the 6'3. Somebody say 61.

[27:45] Somebody say 510. You take the the

[27:48] totality of evidence and you put it

[27:50] together and build uh a testimony of

[27:52] what happens. You don't take little

[27:54] parts here, parts there, and try to make

[27:56] a whole case on it. They're going to

[27:58] look at the vehicle as one element of

[28:01] placing him on campus, but they have a

[28:04] plethora of other evidentiary points

[28:07] where they see him here physically

[28:09] getting in and out of the car. the

[28:11] traffic stop that happened at at 12:30

[28:13] on on the 11th where they where a police

[28:15] officer identified the vehicle and him

[28:17] driving the vehicle around the same time

[28:19] that he's being, you know, seen on the

[28:21] on the uh ring camera. So, they're going

[28:23] to put all of this stuff together and

[28:25] they're going to be able to present that

[28:27] before jury and they're going to have to

[28:29] prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, I

[28:30] want people to be very clear on this

[28:32] because you can't put the cart before

[28:33] the horse. This pre-trial is a probable

[28:36] cause hearing. That's right. So all of

[28:38] the evidence that's being presented now

[28:40] is not does not have to be tested

[28:42] against other experts and scrutinized

[28:44] and cross-examined. It just needs to be

[28:47] presented and eligible to be presented

[28:48] in a pre-trial. So the win here would be

[28:52] probable cause being established to go

[28:54] to trial. Now here's the other thing

[28:55] that could happen in this that I think

[28:57] people need to consider because Tyler

[28:58] Robinson's team and the defense haven't

[29:00] put in put in a plea. So it could be a

[29:03] very likely scenario where if probable

[29:06] cause is established, they're not going

[29:09] to I just don't see them having a chance

[29:11] in the court of law and therefore they

[29:13] may even plead guilty at the end of this

[29:15] probable cause hearing. So that's why

[29:17] sometimes it's referenced in the court

[29:18] that there may not be a trial and that

[29:21] is because if the evidence is

[29:23] overwhelming, they may uh plead guilty.

[29:25] >> That's a fascinating fascinating. Uh

[29:29] it's a fascinating idea I hadn't

[29:30] considered yet. Um, here's one other

[29:33] thing that I want to get your take on

[29:35] because I saw this going around on

[29:37] social media as well and this is uh

[29:40] again when the examination of officer

[29:42] Hull was uh ongoing the they the defense

[29:46] brought up the fact that there was

[29:48] another bullet uh found on site. Let's

[29:51] go ahead and get this and I want to get

[29:52] your take on it. 32

[29:54] >> the unfired bullet that you referred to.

[29:57] It's your understanding that um that

[30:00] bullet was accounted for.

[30:02] >> That's my recollection. Yes.

[30:03] >> Okay. And it possibly belonged to an

[30:05] officer that could have maybe been

[30:08] clearing his weapon.

[30:09] >> Yes, that was that was the that's what I

[30:12] recall being told about that particular

[30:13] item. Yes.

[30:14] >> When you said that it it was possible

[30:16] that that round uh was from an officer

[30:19] clearing his weapon, what what exactly

[30:21] do you mean by that?

[30:23] Um our standard practice in our

[30:26] department is to carry a rifle cruiser

[30:27] ready.

[30:28] >> Uh which is we carry our rifles in a

[30:31] situation which is called cruiser ready.

[30:33] >> What does that mean?

[30:34] >> Means we don't have a round chambered.

[30:37] >> Um so if an officer deployed with his

[30:39] rifle, he would chamber a round. Uh once

[30:42] he had done whatever task it was that he

[30:44] was doing in order to put that weapon

[30:47] back, he would eject the magazine and

[30:50] eject the round. Sometimes in doing so,

[30:52] rounds are dropped or not accounted for.

[30:56] >> So, I I don't know if you've ever been

[30:59] part of a cruiser ready team, Brandon,

[31:01] or if you have any experience with this,

[31:03] but explain clearing the chamber, what

[31:05] this means. Uh, have you ever

[31:07] encountered an instance in your your

[31:09] professional career where a bullet went

[31:11] missing? Explain all of that to me and

[31:13] and how do you account for how many, you

[31:15] know, how much ammo you have as a as a

[31:17] police officer, etc.

[31:19] >> Yeah, perfect. I think every police

[31:21] officer in America probably uh go by

[31:24] these standards. They call it cruiser

[31:25] ready. So, you don't want to have a

[31:27] round in the chamber while you're

[31:28] driving around with your rifle in the

[31:30] car because if something goes wrong,

[31:32] well, it it depends, but mo more than

[31:34] likely you don't want to have it that

[31:35] way cuz a lot of people carry their

[31:36] rifles in a bag in the trunk. And so,

[31:39] you don't want something to happen where

[31:40] you get into a crash or something hit

[31:41] the trigger and a round goes off from

[31:44] the back of your car. So, you you ride

[31:46] with no uh round in the chamber.

[31:48] Normally the boat is is is you don't

[31:51] want to have the bolt locked either

[31:52] because then you can drop a round in if

[31:54] you hit a bump. So you you normally have

[31:56] the chamber the bolt forward with no

[31:57] round in the chamber. Now when you get

[31:59] out the car cuz it's time to get busy,

[32:01] you got to chamber one and so a lot of

[32:03] times they'll rack one and put it in the

[32:05] chamber. Now if you don't get into a

[32:07] shooting or anything, you got to get the

[32:08] gun back ready to put back into your

[32:11] vehicle. So a lot of times what you do

[32:12] is you drop the magazine out and you and

[32:14] you you know you hit the round and it

[32:17] comes out. Now, in a campus situation

[32:20] where there's an active shooter

[32:21] potentially, I could see an officer

[32:23] getting their rifle ready and leaving

[32:25] the round because they don't have time

[32:27] to stick around and wait for it. A lot

[32:29] of times what I would do is pick my

[32:31] round up, right? Because you have to be

[32:32] accounted for every round that's in the

[32:34] magazine. So, it is a possibility that

[32:36] an officer could have done that where

[32:37] they ejected a round because they were

[32:39] getting ready to make their their rifle

[32:40] ready to put back in the car. Now,

[32:42] another scenario that could have

[32:43] happened that I think that the detective

[32:45] uh or or the investigator alluded to was

[32:48] there are sometimes where in the heat of

[32:50] the moment, you may not know if you have

[32:52] a round in the chamber or not. And so,

[32:54] you you're going to make sure that

[32:55] there's one in chamber. So, you may rack

[32:58] it in order to make sure there's one in

[33:00] the chamber, but there's already one in

[33:01] the chamber. So, you accidentally eject

[33:03] the round out. Now, if you're doing that

[33:04] in a heated situation, you're not going

[33:06] to go back and grab the round. You're

[33:08] going to go and you're going to go

[33:09] wherever you need to go with your rifle

[33:10] loaded. So that could have been the

[33:12] case. But nonetheless, we all know what

[33:15] the autopsy has alluded to, at least the

[33:18] evidence that have been presented that

[33:19] it was a 30 caliber round that was found

[33:22] in Charlie Kirk's body. So the the round

[33:24] that was found on the ground on the

[33:26] other rooftop was a 5.56 223. That's not

[33:29] consistent with the caliber round that

[33:32] was found in Charlie's body. So that is

[33:33] not applicable whatsoever anyway. So, I

[33:36] think that if somebody wanted to

[33:37] question that, they should they should

[33:39] divert to what the detective said or or

[33:41] the investigator said on the stand as

[33:43] this could be the possibility of that

[33:44] round um ending up where it's at. Plus,

[33:47] he was told that that was the case in

[33:49] the first place.

[33:51] >> Yeah. And I I I think that is a great

[33:54] explanation honestly and your personal

[33:56] experience with this is invaluable. Um

[34:00] and they and it would make sense by the

[34:02] way I believe the round was found on

[34:04] another rooftop and I'm sure that that

[34:06] was kind of the first place these guys

[34:08] were going to go check anyways. Right.

[34:11] So uh

[34:12] >> or or they may have already been on a

[34:13] rooftop or or some to some degree. Um

[34:17] and then that could have been the reason

[34:18] why they ejected around right there on

[34:20] the on the on the turf.

[34:21] >> No, but it was a great explanation

[34:23] actually. Um, so the uh we have a couple

[34:28] other we have a couple other clips on

[34:29] that, but I think I think we've kind of

[34:31] dealt with that. I wanted to get to this

[34:34] this point in the proceeding where it

[34:38] was David Engelhart's letter

[34:41] >> and it was kind of a a a purpose of the

[34:43] org and Charlie's faith and man that

[34:47] took so long so much back and forth. I

[34:50] think it was um the lawyer's name was

[34:52] Novak for the defense and and that was

[34:55] another moment where I saw the judge get

[34:57] visibly sort of his patient was patience

[34:59] was wearing thin. Uh Joe Bob uh were you

[35:03] watching that? And I mean as as a

[35:06] non-legal expert I who who is a

[35:09] Christian who you know who knows

[35:11] Charlie's how his faith was so

[35:13] intermixed with him with what he did his

[35:16] campus debates. What was going through

[35:18] your mind in that moment?

[35:21] >> Yeah getting pulled a lot of different

[35:23] directions. One is probably similar to

[35:26] what Judge Graph is feeling. It was like

[35:28] this is this is a lot for this. Um to my

[35:30] understanding again not a lawyer. It

[35:32] would would have been some sort of

[35:34] enhancement to the charge. Uh being that

[35:36] Charlie was an outspoken Christian. Uh

[35:38] there's obviously a cultural angle of

[35:41] the organization and did Tyler Robinson

[35:43] act on Charlie's faith uh or the the

[35:46] cultural presence of the organization?

[35:48] Uh which is obviously why they would

[35:51] include uh the letter. I think there's

[35:54] there's a part of me there's a lot of

[35:56] obviously there's a lot of evidence

[35:57] there is this super necessary especially

[36:00] with how long uh that took but then

[36:02] there's another side of me that thinks

[36:04] you know so often there are um instances

[36:09] where where something happens to a a

[36:12] some sort of I don't know racial

[36:13] minority or ideological minority and

[36:17] that's the only thing that matters it

[36:19] was a a Muslim person here who's the

[36:21] victim of something or a gay person here

[36:23] is a victim of something and almost

[36:26] never never is it brought up uh okay

[36:28] well the victim was a an outspoken

[36:30] devout Christian as was the case in in

[36:33] Charlie's case and so while I I you know

[36:36] there's not going to be an enhancement

[36:38] that's going to be at least again to my

[36:40] non-awyer understanding that's going to

[36:42] be uh higher than aggravated murder it

[36:46] it is good to put it out there and be

[36:48] public about it hey this was at least

[36:51] part of the decision decision uh that a

[36:54] char that Tyler Robinson allegedly made

[36:56] to kill Charlie. And Charlie was

[36:58] motivated purely by his faith.

[37:00] >> Yeah. And and you know, he's he's in a

[37:02] rel he's in a gay relationship with a

[37:04] transidentifying

[37:06] person, Lance Twigs. Obviously,

[37:09] >> and by the way, I recommend anybody out

[37:11] there I I think I'm going to tweet this

[37:12] out soon just to kind of help get it

[37:14] back out there, but the the Turkey Tom

[37:16] uh video I've been told has been

[37:18] authenticated. Turkey Tom is a YouTuber

[37:21] who interviewed extensively one of their

[37:24] roommates or friends that kind of lived

[37:26] and kind of hung out with these guys and

[37:28] and can give a very first person

[37:31] experience of what it was like to be

[37:32] around their relationship. And I mean

[37:34] it's it's a very depraved

[37:36] >> Lance twigs nesting

[37:38] >> nesting the the the audible u sexual

[37:41] relations upstairs the the manic

[37:44] depression the drug

[37:46] >> where everyone kept speculating oh my

[37:48] love actually that is how they talk to

[37:51] each other. Yeah, that is how they talk.

[37:52] And by the way, throw this uh up here to

[37:54] your point. Throw this up. Uh this is

[37:56] the 143. This is uh what investigators

[37:59] say they found these text messages

[38:02] between them. And to your point, Joe

[38:03] Bob, this enhancement of that that

[38:08] Charlie was killed for his political and

[38:10] religious beliefs. I had enough of his

[38:13] hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated

[38:15] out. Uh, ironically here in this same uh

[38:18] text though, by the way, it explains why

[38:20] we might have seen uh Tyler Robinson on

[38:24] campus that night, right? Because he

[38:25] goes, "If I'm able to grab my rifle

[38:27] unseen, I will have left no evidence.

[38:29] Going to attempt to retrieve it again.

[38:31] Hopefully, they have moved on. I haven't

[38:33] seen anything about them finding it

[38:34] yet." So, that might actually kind of be

[38:36] that full circle from why he went back

[38:38] on campus late in the evening on uh

[38:41] September 10th into the wee hours of

[38:43] September 11th. But that first part is

[38:46] establishing motive. And that was what

[38:48] that letter was all about. And you're

[38:50] right. You're not a lawyer, but I've

[38:51] I've been talking to lawyers all day,

[38:53] and I'm sure Brandon understands this.

[38:55] Well, the death penalty has to be you

[38:58] have to establish these enhancements,

[39:00] which would be, you know, killed for

[39:02] religious political beliefs, right? So,

[39:04] the defense is trying to undermine this

[39:08] argument and take the death penalty off,

[39:10] which makes me think, Brandon, kind of

[39:13] about what you're talking about with

[39:14] this potential plea deal if he's going

[39:16] to plead at the end of this, right? Cuz

[39:19] if they could establish, if they could

[39:21] get the enhancements off by Judge Graph

[39:25] and get the death penalty off the table,

[39:27] they might be more motivated to take

[39:28] this thing to full trial. But if they

[39:30] know they're staring at a death penalty

[39:32] trial, you know, that might factor into

[39:35] their calculus. What do you think?

[39:37] >> Yeah, I think they have to utilize some

[39:39] tactics here because I think the

[39:41] evidence is pretty overwhelming. And

[39:43] when they finish putting all the

[39:44] evidence together, I think it's going to

[39:45] be very clear to anybody who's willing

[39:47] to listen, but they they do have to the

[39:49] prosecution does have to prove um

[39:52] probable cause for uh 10 different

[39:56] charges. So you have 10 charges. They're

[39:59] going to have to methodically go through

[40:00] and say this is our probable cause

[40:02] statement that a person who observed

[40:04] this evidence would reasonably believe

[40:06] that Taylor I mean that Tyler Robinson

[40:07] did this. They got to go through every

[40:09] element and one of the elements is the

[40:10] enhancement. And the enhancement is very

[40:12] clear that Tyler Robinson opposed

[40:15] Charlie Kirk's religious beliefs. He

[40:17] propos opposed his political beliefs.

[40:19] And here's one thing that they were

[40:20] trying to differentiate which I think

[40:21] the judge caught. The defense wanted to

[40:25] make a difference between political and

[40:28] faith. And

[40:30] >> these two things overlap. Charlie Kirk's

[40:33] religious beliefs or or his political

[40:35] beliefs was stemmed from his faith.

[40:37] Yeah.

[40:38] >> And so, uh, Tyler Robinson's hatred

[40:40] towards Charlie Kirk was political, but

[40:43] Charlie's political statements were

[40:45] faith-driven statements. So, his

[40:47] lifestyle that he lived, Tyler Robinson

[40:49] lived, um some of the reasons why he

[40:51] hated Charlie with was all coupled with

[40:53] his political beliefs and faith. Now,

[40:55] this is the reason why this is very

[40:56] important that they're going to have to

[40:57] prove later on in in this hearing is

[41:00] that they charged him with a enhancement

[41:04] based on political beliefs. And so, the

[41:07] defense is trying to say these trying to

[41:08] say these two things are different. So

[41:10] the prosecution didn't meet the burden

[41:12] of identifying that this is political

[41:15] inside of this statement from Eckles. I

[41:18] think I may have said his name wrong.

[41:20] >> Anglehart

[41:20] >> Anglehart Anglehart because Anglehart's

[41:24] document was was mainly religious.

[41:27] >> But I think the prosecution to be able

[41:29] to identify that there is no separation

[41:31] between these two things. They're

[41:32] they're virtually the same. and that

[41:35] Tyler Robinson's lifestyle was

[41:37] antithetical to what Charlie was saying,

[41:39] which is why he wrote those things and

[41:41] then eventually shot and killed Charlie.

[41:44] >> I want to get to two more things here.

[41:46] Um, I want to get through the DNA, which

[41:49] was a really, really laborious thing. I

[41:51] mean, I don't know. I see you shaking

[41:52] your head. I mean, it was hours. You can

[41:55] tell that they brought this this

[41:56] attorney on to the defense team

[41:58] specifically for forensic

[42:00] cross-examination cuz this guy was

[42:02] asking very much in the weeds. And

[42:04] eventually the judge did basically try

[42:07] and rein it in because it was dragging.

[42:09] >> It was going and going. I I just want to

[42:11] make sure we play this because we did it

[42:12] came after our last segment just where

[42:15] they're asking. They had items that had

[42:17] intermingled DNA of Lance Twigs and

[42:20] Tyler Robinson, and they were laying out

[42:23] the odds that this was anyone other than

[42:25] Tyler Robinson on this object. Uh, let's

[42:29] do clip 31.

[42:31] >> Male DNA was obtained from item seven

[42:34] sub one. Item 7 sub one was interpreted

[42:37] as originating from two two individuals,

[42:40] one of whom is twigs. The DNA results

[42:42] from items 7 sub one and are 1.7

[42:46] octillion times more likely if Twigs and

[42:48] T Robinson are contributors than if

[42:50] Twigs and an unknown unrelated person

[42:53] are contributors.

[42:55] Male DNA was obtained from item 8 sub1.

[42:58] Item 8 sub1 was interpreted as

[43:00] originating from two individuals, one of

[43:02] whom is Twigs. The DNA results from item

[43:05] 8 sub1 are 30 quintilion times more

[43:09] likely if Twigs and T. Robinson are

[43:11] contributors than if Twigs and an

[43:13] unknown unrelated person are

[43:15] contributors.

[43:16] >> Do you know if uh Lance Twigs's DNA was

[43:19] obtained uh for this for comparison in

[43:22] this test?

[43:22] >> Yes, it was.

[43:23] >> And how was that DNA obtained?

[43:25] >> It was obtained by law enforcement

[43:27] officers.

[43:29] >> Okay. So, quintilion. I don't even know

[43:32] what that is.

[43:32] >> That's after a trillion.

[43:34] >> That's a lot. Um I don't know. I'm I'm

[43:36] not good at the maths, but I can tell

[43:38] that's that's a lot. And the first one I

[43:40] think was 1.7 octilion. So eight eight

[43:44] times alen. And so that's

[43:47] >> so I want to I want to make a point here

[43:48] because I've seen the internet running

[43:50] wild with this one too. So Lance Twig's

[43:52] DNA was also found on the towel and a

[43:56] lot of it actually and I don't want to

[43:58] get like down some weird, you know, you

[44:03] know, rated R kind of thing, but it's

[44:05] these were two men that were living

[44:06] together and who knows where that towel

[44:09] came from. I'm just going to leave it at

[44:10] that. Okay.

[44:11] >> Well, some people have been running with

[44:13] that. It had apparently had more of

[44:15] Twigs's DNA on it than Robinson. Same

[44:17] with the screwdriver. I wouldn't be

[44:19] surprised if the obvious explanation is

[44:21] that Robinson just took those items from

[44:23] Twigs.

[44:24] >> From Twigs. Yeah. So, but here here's

[44:26] let me just make this clear clear. Um,

[44:29] as a reminder, Twigs is believed to be

[44:31] cooperating with the prosecution and may

[44:34] be receiving a limited immunity in

[44:37] exchange. Now, of course, and I think

[44:40] Tatum, you said this uh on one of your

[44:43] videos, if it comes out that he actively

[44:47] participated in the murder, that

[44:50] immunity would presumably go away and I

[44:53] would be totally in support of that.

[44:56] Okay? As I would be in support of if it

[44:59] comes out and is revealed that other

[45:00] people had fornowledge, other people

[45:02] radicalized him, other people were

[45:03] involved. That's not what this case is

[45:06] about. This case is about did Tyler

[45:09] Robinson kill Charlie? Okay. I still

[45:12] have questions about how did he get

[45:14] radicalized? Who influenced him? How did

[45:16] he get to that point? A thousand

[45:19] billion%.

[45:21] And and I have questions about Lance

[45:22] Twigs. A lot of questions about Lance

[45:25] Twigs. But for this purpose, he is a

[45:27] state witness against Tyler Robinson. Uh

[45:33] Officer Tatum, do you have anything

[45:34] specifically you want to say about that?

[45:37] Yeah, I I think that to kind of sum up

[45:40] this uh DNA question mark, it's I think

[45:43] that the purpose of the questioning by

[45:45] the defense was to just prolong and draw

[45:48] the thing out. They never got to any

[45:51] foundational conclusion. It I don't

[45:53] understand how the judge allowed them to

[45:55] do this for 3 hours. This is a probable

[45:57] cause hearing. The only burden that the

[46:00] state needs to prove is that is this

[46:02] admissible and is the the uh

[46:05] documentation reliable because the

[46:07] source is reliable. That's it and it

[46:10] should be admissible in court. They drug

[46:12] this thing on and the judge said several

[46:14] times reminding both council that this

[46:18] is a probable cause hearing. So, I I

[46:20] think that this was just a tactic by the

[46:22] defense to draw this thing on so that

[46:24] the the the defense or the prosecution

[46:26] couldn't cross-examine the witness and

[46:27] get the facts out the way they should

[46:29] have been presented. Um, also the Lance

[46:31] Twigs thing, the limited immunity, the

[46:34] reason why you would give somebody

[46:36] limited immunity is that they are

[46:38] involved to a point where the things

[46:41] that they say could get them in trouble.

[46:43] And so you say, "I'm going to give you

[46:45] immunity up until the testimony that you

[46:48] give and you could give us the testimony

[46:51] and you won't go to jail over this."

[46:53] Now, if we find out later through other

[46:55] investigative methods that you were

[46:58] involved, you're still going to go to

[46:59] jail for that. But the testimony that

[47:01] you give, because it could be

[47:03] incriminating to you, and obviously it

[47:05] probably was. That's why they gave him

[47:06] limited immunity. You can feel free to

[47:08] tell us everything you know and how you

[47:10] were potentially involved in this. Now,

[47:12] the DNA aspect of it is that I think

[47:16] they were trying to prove that the items

[47:18] couldn't have been something that wasn't

[47:20] associated to to Tyler Robinson because

[47:23] if the towel was just found in the

[47:25] bushes, it could be anybody's towel. The

[47:27] towel could have been, you know, placed

[47:28] there by somebody else. But because

[47:30] Lance Twigs and Tyler Robinson's DNA are

[47:33] on the items, it draw it it draws the

[47:36] connection to Tyler Robinson because

[47:37] they live in the same place and the

[47:39] items must have come from his house. And

[47:42] so when you have the gun, you have I

[47:44] mean at least the screwdriver and the

[47:45] towel, both of those things associating

[47:47] the two individuals together would

[47:49] indicate that this couldn't have been

[47:51] external. This couldn't have been

[47:52] somebody planting it on Tyler Robinson

[47:54] and and and putting his DNA on there

[47:56] mysteriously. It had to have been

[47:58] something that came from a a domain or

[48:00] dwelling that they both shared. And I

[48:02] think Lance Twigs may have prepped some

[48:05] of this stuff for him,

[48:06] >> which is probably how he got the partial

[48:08] immunity.

[48:09] >> And then they're going to he going to

[48:10] testify against Tyler Robinson in court.

[48:13] >> Uh, one other thing here real quick and

[48:15] then I want to throw to Joe Bob with

[48:16] this story that came out from inside the

[48:18] court in Erica. But um you know I see

[48:20] people saying that you know the is there

[48:24] any footage of the shooting and the

[48:26] prosecution saying no. You guys have

[48:28] probably seen this. A lot of people are

[48:29] running with this on social media.

[48:30] >> Don't run with anything.

[48:31] >> That is not what happened. Uh what

[48:34] actually happened and this is about the

[48:36] compilation

[48:37] video. They're asking it basically was

[48:40] there anything visible about the

[48:42] shooting in that video.

[48:44] >> A and they said no. In that specific

[48:46] exhibit, they were asking, "Is there

[48:49] footage of the of the shooting in it?"

[48:51] They said, "No."

[48:52] >> But but even then, even then, we don't

[48:54] need to go for that far down it because

[48:56] we have footage of the same person

[48:59] showing up on campus repeatedly, him

[49:02] going into the position where our

[49:03] ballistics evidence and our video

[49:05] evidence suggests the bullet came from.

[49:07] >> He's there at the time the shooting

[49:09] happens. He's running away after. You

[49:11] don't need a video of someone firing a

[49:14] gun if you have every single piece of

[49:17] surrounding evidence supporting the idea

[49:19] that someone went there and shot a gun.

[49:20] >> So, to be clear, no, the prosecution did

[49:23] not say there's no footage of the

[49:24] shooting. The prosecution said the

[49:26] exhibit, which contains a compilation of

[49:28] surveillance footage of Robinson moving

[49:30] around on campus, didn't cons contain

[49:32] graphic footage of the shooting. That

[49:34] was relevant. By the way, Erica needs to

[49:36] know that stuff, too. the the the the

[49:39] victims sitting in the courtroom need to

[49:41] be aware of that. Go ahead, Mr. T.

[49:42] >> Yeah. Yeah. Andrew, I I think you made

[49:44] an incredible point that I think if

[49:45] people weren't sitting in the in the

[49:47] courtroom, they wouldn't have understood

[49:48] this. The purpose of the clarification

[49:52] and and the prosecutor actually came

[49:53] back and clarified that there is video

[49:56] of the suspect getting on the roof,

[49:57] going to a prom position, and the shot

[49:59] is believed to be fired during that

[50:01] position. But they wanted to clarify so

[50:03] that Erica didn't have to be in the

[50:05] courtroom

[50:06] >> witnessing Charlie getting shot. So they

[50:08] were saying that it's not graphic in

[50:10] nature. So you're going to see the the

[50:12] suspect get on a rooftop. He's going to

[50:14] get into a prone position in this area.

[50:16] We believe the shot happened. It's not

[50:18] very clear and conclusive, you know,

[50:20] that the shot happened. But you can use

[50:23] the reasoning.

[50:24] >> But but by the way, the time stamp is at

[50:26] 12:23 when he's sitting in the prone

[50:28] position, which is exactly when Charlie

[50:30] was

[50:31] and he also admitted to it, right? So,

[50:33] you got you got a ton of people that

[50:35] heard that the shots happened. You have

[50:38] him on the roof at the time that the

[50:39] shot happened and then you got him

[50:41] turning himself in as a person

[50:42] responsible for shooting Charlie Kirk.

[50:44] So, I mean, this this is why they put

[50:46] the totality of evidence together and

[50:48] they have to prove beyond a reasonable

[50:50] doubt. And I think that with the

[50:51] evidence that we see, it's going to be

[50:53] it's not going to be a challenge for

[50:54] them to prove to a juror to a jury to

[50:57] say, do you believe beyond a reasonable

[51:00] doubt that there's no reasonable doubt

[51:01] that Tyler Robertson did this when they

[51:03] put all the evidence together? And it's

[51:04] going to be clear. You you you don't

[51:05] have a video of a guy who was identified

[51:08] by his parents going up the stair

[51:10] stairwell getting into a prom position

[51:13] admitting that he took the shot. The

[51:15] shot is being heard by multiple people

[51:17] at the same time. they even look back at

[51:19] the direction where the shot came from

[51:21] with a clear clear line of sight. I

[51:23] mean, you don't get all of that and and

[51:25] people have a doubt. It's going to be

[51:27] very clear with the totality of evidence

[51:29] in my opinion that he was 100% the one.

[51:31] And Lance Twigs is going to be a the key

[51:34] in this case. And I think that as the

[51:36] pre-trial continues, his testimony is

[51:39] going to get brought up. And I cannot

[51:41] wait to hear what he has to say. And I

[51:43] wouldn't imagine that if he's a witness

[51:46] for the state, he must be giving

[51:48] incriminating evidence that points to

[51:52] >> toler. And reminder everybody, the cop

[51:56] from yesterday said, "I heard a rifle

[51:58] shot. I identified as a rifle. The

[52:00] medical examiner report identifies the

[52:02] cause of death as a gunshot wound uh you

[52:07] know to the neck." So there's I mean

[52:08] there's all kinds of stuff that when you

[52:10] when you talk about this totality of

[52:12] evidence, Officer Tatum, Joe Bob, you

[52:14] wanted to bring this up this uh there.

[52:16] So apparently Erica, there was a story,

[52:19] >> you know, they're going to claim that I

[52:21] planted this story. I had no idea about

[52:23] the story. I didn't even know what

[52:24] al.com was, but anyways, go ahead.

[52:26] Please tell everybody. No, it was uh so

[52:29] during the during the trial, you're

[52:30] you're watching on screen, but there's

[52:32] obviously a lot of lulls and boring

[52:36] moments, for lack of a better term. And

[52:38] so I I sometimes take the time and

[52:39] scroll through some of the live feeds on

[52:41] different newspaper websites. The New

[52:43] York Times has a a live updated feed. Uh

[52:46] the Associated Press also does, too. So

[52:48] I was scrolling through the Associated

[52:49] Press and during the lunch break, uh I

[52:52] don't know if this is on video, but it's

[52:54] in print. Uh the Associated Press

[52:55] reporter asked one of the people who was

[52:58] inside what the experience was like and

[53:00] I think we have a graphic of it. It says

[53:02] a woman attending the hearing says it's

[53:04] been emotional. D Branch, this is again

[53:07] I'm reading from the Associated Press

[53:09] who had li lined up with friends at

[53:11] midnight to get some of the few public

[53:14] seats in the courtroom said she teared

[53:16] up during the hearing and Erica Kirk

[53:18] reached over and offered her a tissue.

[53:20] Uh I'm quoting from Branch here. She

[53:22] says she doesn't know if I'm team Erica

[53:25] or not, yet she handed me a tissue and I

[53:27] lost it. Branch said during the lunch

[53:29] recess she didn't know if I was a friend

[53:32] or not and she showed love. And I in the

[53:36] midst of all of this in trying to sort

[53:38] through all of the the stuff going on in

[53:40] the actual court, I I couldn't help but

[53:43] just like isn't that Erica? Like isn't

[53:45] that just like typical classic Erica?

[53:48] And one,

[53:49] >> well, for those of us who know her,

[53:50] yeah, it is Joe Bob. But yeah, everybody

[53:54] that got that's normal that know Erica,

[53:57] we're not shocked. You know what I'm

[53:59] saying? This is what she does.

[54:00] >> It's that's just so the the first time

[54:03] that I saw Erica, you know, kind of face

[54:06] to face after all of this happened was

[54:09] backstage at a big event in Phoenix. And

[54:12] I, you know, I I didn't I don't know

[54:14] what to say. Like what what what do you

[54:16] say? I mean, obviously I've talked to

[54:17] her before, but like what do you say?

[54:19] And she's walking down the hall and goes

[54:22] out of her way. I think Andrew, you were

[54:24] there. Breaks kind of the the big pack

[54:26] that she's in. Comes over and gives me a

[54:27] hug and says, "Good to see you." And I

[54:29] like I I I lost it. But also, that's

[54:32] that's just the person that she is.

[54:35] Like, it's showing kindness and love to

[54:38] anybody in the vicinity uh who's willing

[54:41] to accept it. That's just Erica. And

[54:43] when I was scrolling through this, I was

[54:44] like, "Yeah, like that that tracks uh

[54:46] you know, amid all of this stuff." Of

[54:49] course, yeah, this this is this is

[54:51] classic air.

[54:52] >> For our real America's voice, we're

[54:53] going to take a a 90 second break really

[54:56] quick or two minutes, whatever they tell

[54:58] me to. Officer Tatum, Joe Bob, thank you

[55:00] guys so much for joining us. We are

[55:02] going to be joined next by an expert on

[55:05] juries and she's got a CV that'll blow

[55:08] you away. We're going to be right back.

[58:20] All right, welcome back. Uh, that was an

[58:22] excellent, excellent, uh, recap with,

[58:25] uh, Officer Brandon Tatum and Joe Bob

[58:27] Typhie. We are now joined by our next

[58:30] guest who is a jury consultant.

[58:32] >> She's a jury consultant,

[58:34] >> which I think is really important in

[58:35] this instance. And you want to bring her

[58:37] in?

[58:38] >> Yes. Yes. uh we she's actually a local

[58:40] in this area, so we're hoping to have

[58:41] her in, but she had uh uh something pop

[58:45] up with her work and so we're having her

[58:46] by Zoom. We're joined by Joelyn

[58:49] Demetrius and uh correct me if I got any

[58:52] of this wrong, but you have quite the CV

[58:54] as a jury consultant. Uh for those who

[58:57] are not familiar with her, she helped uh

[58:59] she helped out with the uh OJ Simpson

[59:02] defense team with their jury selection,

[59:04] which a lot of people regard as quite

[59:06] the feat of jury selection. More

[59:08] recently, you advised uh Daniel Penny's

[59:10] defense team, the Kyle Writtenhouse

[59:12] defense team. So involved in three of

[59:15] the most uh

[59:17] >> high-profile trials that we've had. And

[59:20] we wanted to have you in to because

[59:21] we're already looking ahead. This is a

[59:23] preliminary hearing, but we're looking

[59:24] ahead to the trial that we know will

[59:27] eventually be coming and what sorts of

[59:30] strategies even now the prosecution and

[59:33] the defense might be looking towards

[59:35] because we know this is

[59:37] >> Yeah. And and my my main interest, Joe

[59:40] Ellen, is just because this is the first

[59:42] high-profile public assassination of a

[59:45] political figure in the social media

[59:48] era. And how does that change everything

[59:50] with all the conspiracies and stuff? So,

[59:51] welcome to the show. Thank you for for

[59:53] joining us.

[59:55] >> Well, f first of all, Andrew and Blake,

[59:57] thank you so much. And I'm sorry I

[59:58] couldn't be there in person, but I'll

[00:00] definitely uh take a rain check. I would

[00:03] love to be there in person. Uh what a

[00:05] lot of people don't know about my

[00:07] background is that um actually probably

[00:10] the first eight years of my career, uh I

[00:13] did capital cases in California. Um so I

[00:17] am intimately familiar with uh what is

[00:20] not only happening now in the

[00:22] preliminary hearing but what will happen

[00:25] at trial and as you know and you've

[00:28] probably had guests that have shared

[00:30] right now uh the responsibility is up to

[00:33] the judge that the prosecution has to

[00:36] show probable cause that the judge would

[00:39] then say okay I've seen uh enough

[00:42] probable cause we'll move on to the

[00:44] trial and of course the trial is a whole

[00:47] different um uh standard. The standard

[00:50] being reasonable doubt. So, you're

[00:53] right. Um I think Andrew, in talking

[00:55] about social media and the impact that

[00:59] that is going to have and is already

[01:01] having on the jury population in the

[01:04] state of Utah. Um you know, so many

[01:08] things are being said uh from both

[01:10] sides, all sides of the spectrum. And

[01:14] you know, depending, I think, upon where

[01:15] you rest politically, um, you know,

[01:18] people are picking up on those things

[01:20] that tend to support what their

[01:23] political views are. You know, in a

[01:25] preliminary hearing, what's uh unusual

[01:29] certainly is that the defense does not

[01:31] have to put on uh any witnesses. They

[01:34] only have the ability to cross-examine

[01:37] the witnesses. What to me is fascinating

[01:40] at this point is that the prosecution I

[01:44] think very adroitly

[01:46] has indicated um pursuant to a rule 1102

[01:50] in Utah that they're going to be putting

[01:52] on uh Tyler's roommate via the the uh

[01:57] video that he took while he was um he

[02:00] was being investigated uh so that the

[02:03] defense will not have that opportunity

[02:06] to cross-examine am everything now is

[02:10] going to be viewed through that fine

[02:13] tooth comb called the camera in the

[02:16] courtroom and and I can certainly speak

[02:18] to cameras in the courtroom uh certainly

[02:21] based on what we saw in in OJ how uh you

[02:25] know my goodness we had witnesses that

[02:27] were impacted by uh other witnesses and

[02:31] their testimony and reactions to the

[02:33] testimony and now it's certainly just

[02:37] balloon wounded because of social media.

[02:41] Uh so what's happening right now in the

[02:43] jury pool? You know, I think to some

[02:46] degree we all want to think how much uh

[02:48] they're paying for their gas or where

[02:50] their next meal is going to come from.

[02:52] They're not necessarily going to be uh

[02:55] glued to social media about this. Well,

[02:58] >> that said,

[03:00] >> oh, I I want to I want to go at that a

[03:02] bit, Joelen, which is when we get to

[03:04] jury selection,

[03:07] what level of selection are they going

[03:09] to have here in terms of are they going

[03:11] to be trying to find people who are

[03:13] really oblivious, who maybe can't

[03:15] remember who Charlie Kirk even is?

[03:17] >> I have a question on that, too. Like,

[03:18] are are they able to say who do you

[03:21] follow on social media? Can they

[03:23] actually like review like who they

[03:25] follow and who they engage with? Is that

[03:27] level of granularity available to the

[03:30] prosecution and the defense? A

[03:32] >> absolutely. And and I would certainly,

[03:34] and I say this to my clients, I think

[03:36] there's a level of uh perhaps misconduct

[03:39] by attorneys who don't use uh social

[03:42] media searches. What what I'm worried

[03:45] about as a consultant and I think any

[03:47] consultant who may be working on this

[03:50] case um or weighing in about the case is

[03:53] that uh someone who may have a an

[03:56] agenda, a hidden agenda um you know,

[03:59] they may choose to if they find out

[04:02] they're being um uh summoned for jury

[04:05] selection, they may sadly uh scrub their

[04:09] social media if it has something that is

[04:12] favorable to Charlie or something that's

[04:15] uh favorable uh to to Robinson. And

[04:19] that's where so much is going to go into

[04:23] both the teams on both sides about uh a

[04:27] juror questionnaire to ask specific

[04:30] questions about knowledge about the

[04:31] case. Um to look at their social media

[04:36] um what their um what their internet um

[04:41] collection may be. Um, and then judging

[04:44] all of that by what the oral responses

[04:48] are during the voyagire process. What's

[04:50] interesting about a capital case is that

[04:53] there's two phases. The first is the

[04:56] guilt phase. The second is what we call

[04:59] the punishment phase. And that would be

[05:01] hypothetically if the prosecution goes

[05:03] ahead and charges the death penalty uh

[05:07] they would be uh questioned about their

[05:09] views about the death penalty. Um, so

[05:12] there's a lot of layers to jury

[05:14] selection u that will occur um you know

[05:19] uh if the judge sends this to trial. Um

[05:22] and certainly social media is a huge

[05:26] component of that for for both sides.

[05:28] >> Joan, so what so I'm just curious kind

[05:31] of the sequence of events here. So a

[05:34] person gets a jury summon in the mail.

[05:37] they have to show up for, you know, to

[05:39] to the court or whatever. At what point

[05:42] is, say, the state in this instance, the

[05:45] prosecutors aware of their jury pool

[05:47] that they have, and would would they be

[05:50] aware that that person is going to be

[05:52] brought to, you know, say in this

[05:55] instance, the Tyler Robinson trial

[05:57] before the juror does. So, I'm I'm

[05:59] getting to the point of would they would

[06:00] the jury even know they have time to

[06:02] scrub their social media account because

[06:04] they're thinking, "Oh, I'm going to get

[06:05] called for the Tyler Robinson trial."

[06:07] >> You know, a great great question,

[06:10] Andrew. And and every judge is

[06:12] different. Um I can share with you that

[06:16] uh when I worked on the Enron case,

[06:18] obviously that's not capital punishment,

[06:21] but um summons were sent out to jurors.

[06:25] I I want to say like gosh uh two months

[06:28] a month and a half before the actual

[06:30] trial. The questionnaires were then sent

[06:34] out by the court to the jurors um and we

[06:38] the teams were able then to review the

[06:41] questionnaires um prior to ever seeing

[06:43] the jurors. So your your question as to

[06:47] when both sides would know who these

[06:50] people are is really going to be

[06:52] contingent upon the judge in this case

[06:55] and how he's going to uh proceed with

[06:58] the process. And I'm sure there will be

[07:00] motions on both sides about how that

[07:04] process should exist. Um, should it be

[07:08] that uh those people that are summoned,

[07:11] they receive a questionnaire uh in the

[07:14] mail or uh in other cases uh that hasn't

[07:17] happened until the jurors have actually

[07:19] showed up in the courtroom? Um, needless

[07:22] to say, I I think the judge um is is

[07:26] very uh solemnly looking at all of these

[07:29] things and ultimately determining

[07:33] what is going to give the best

[07:35] information without being too invasive,

[07:39] I guess, to to a juror's uh privacy,

[07:42] which um in in a death penalty case, you

[07:45] know, I I don't see how you can be

[07:48] somewhat invasive.

[07:49] >> Yeah. And Joan, we're gonna say uh a

[07:52] quick goodbye to our Real America's

[07:53] Voice Partners who's been taking this.

[07:56] Uh but I think you answered the question

[07:57] that the judge does have at his disposal

[08:00] different mechanisms to sort of kind of

[08:03] make sure that the jurors, potential

[08:05] jurors don't even know what case it is

[08:07] that they're answering the questionnaire

[08:09] for or the timing of it. Uh because that

[08:12] does seem like a concern. If if I'm the

[08:13] defense, I'm probably going to want, you

[08:15] know, certain people to be following

[08:17] certain people on social media. If I'm

[08:18] the prosecution, I would want the

[08:20] opposite. So, hang right there, Joelen.

[08:22] But this was great. Real America's

[08:23] Voice, thank you. We'll see you

[08:24] tomorrow. We're going to continue on

[08:26] with Joel Ellen right here on the

[08:27] stream. Um, so, uh, continue on, Joelen.

[08:31] I didn't mean to cut you off there, but,

[08:32] uh,

[08:32] >> No, that's okay.

[08:33] >> Yeah, but it it it it's good to hear

[08:36] there's that both the defense and the

[08:37] state can file motions, uh, to the judge

[08:39] to determine the process for jury

[08:41] selection. That's a huge huge insight.

[08:43] So, thank you.

[08:44] >> Well, you know, the the other part of

[08:46] this, Andrew and Blake, is that um I

[08:48] suspect um I don't know for sure, but

[08:52] the defense may file what's known as a

[08:54] change of venue motion. And in a change

[08:56] of venue motion, um you're saying to the

[08:59] court and to the prosecution, we cannot

[09:01] get a fair trial here. We've conducted a

[09:03] survey. We found that 80% of the people

[09:08] in the county in which the case will be

[09:10] held uh think that our client is guilty.

[09:15] What happens in that situation?

[09:17] Obviously, there's a hearing and um

[09:20] whomever does the survey is brought in

[09:22] to testify.

[09:24] uh should a judge decide that in fact

[09:27] there is uh enough evidence for a change

[09:31] of venue, the judge then has the

[09:33] discretion about where to move it to. Um

[09:38] it's very rare, very very rare to have

[09:41] it moved out of state. What more

[09:43] traditionally happens is the trial would

[09:46] be moved to probably a a contiguous

[09:49] county. um the the county that it's in

[09:53] right now. Um the judge may say, "Well,

[09:56] we're going to move it to such and such

[09:58] a county, which is contiguous, because

[10:00] you don't want to create a lot of um

[10:04] problems for witnesses that would be

[10:05] coming in to testify. Um

[10:08] >> would the judge the judge the judge

[10:09] would stay put though on the on the

[10:11] trial, right? That that wouldn't mean

[10:12] like a new judge gets appointed or

[10:14] something."

[10:15] >> No, that a good question. Um no. uh the

[10:19] judge generally generally goes with and

[10:21] that's one of the reasons that they

[10:23] choose contiguous counties because you

[10:25] know if you were to go from I don't know

[10:27] a county in northern Utah to you know

[10:29] something like down in St. George um you

[10:32] know that might be problematic for the

[10:34] judge as well. So everybody's um uh you

[10:39] know everybody who's participating all

[10:40] the witnesses the lawyers you know all

[10:42] of that would be a factor I think in the

[10:44] judge's ultimate determination.

[10:47] So, there's a there's a big elephant in

[10:49] the room with this case uh that we're

[10:52] all thinking about, which is besides the

[10:55] more direct questions of guilt or

[10:56] evidence with Tyler Robinson. We know

[10:59] there's been a lot of really weird

[11:00] conspiracy theories surrounding this

[11:03] case, people have been pushing them for

[11:04] the past year. People have been still

[11:06] pushing them as hard as ever over the

[11:09] past few days. And we've noted the

[11:12] defense lawyers don't seem to have made

[11:14] many gestures in the direction of that.

[11:16] They did ask one of the witnesses if he

[11:19] was involved in the decision to pave

[11:21] over the site of the shooting, which

[11:23] there's been some discussion about, but

[11:25] there's not too much about exploding

[11:28] lapel pins, anything of that nature. And

[11:30] so I was wondering if you have thoughts.

[11:32] First of all, even if the defense aren't

[11:36] talking about that, is it possible that

[11:38] they'll be making maneuvers when we get

[11:40] to jury selection to make it possible

[11:43] for one of those people to get on a

[11:44] jury? someone who's not going to care

[11:46] about evidence, someone who's going to

[11:48] believe really delusional things,

[11:50] something who someone who might have

[11:52] that agenda you mentioned, get me on the

[11:54] jury and I'll do what I feel like.

[11:56] >> And let me just boil it down. I mean,

[11:57] the people that are kind of part of

[11:59] this, I mean, it is it's almost cultlike

[12:01] in the way that they sort of believe the

[12:05] opposite of the facts, right? It doesn't

[12:06] matter what the fact says, you cannot

[12:08] convince them that that there's anything

[12:11] to them that it's all fed slop. It's all

[12:13] narrative, right? even though there's

[12:15] like DNA and fingerprints and

[12:16] >> and so three things that I I guess I

[12:18] would get at which is one is the defense

[12:20] thinking about this is there strategies

[12:22] they would do two are there strategies

[12:25] the prosecution can do to get ahead of

[12:27] this and I guess three biggest picture

[12:29] of all uh how can the judge handle this

[12:32] case to how do you handle it if there's

[12:35] if there's a a cult out there that could

[12:38] potentially taint your jury pool

[12:42] >> um great all all Great questions. Um,

[12:45] and it suffices to say, number one, yes,

[12:47] the defense is looking at all of these

[12:50] aspects. Um, they have to, uh, they have

[12:53] to look at, you know, the the crazy

[12:55] components that are out there and the

[12:58] not so uh, crazy components that are out

[13:00] there. I mean, goodness, like in in OJ,

[13:03] we remember hearing about the Colombian

[13:05] uh, necklace uh, you know, uh, during

[13:08] some of our meetings. So it it suffices

[13:11] to say they are definitely looking at

[13:13] that and I think that the prosecution is

[13:15] too. There's so many different um issue

[13:19] areas that you know were were I working

[13:21] with either side, I'd be looking at

[13:24] that. I'd be looking at um people's um

[13:28] personal use um and understanding of

[13:31] guns. I'd be looking at their views of

[13:34] law enforcement. I'd be looking at their

[13:36] views of um First Amendment, free

[13:39] speech, oh my goodness, political views.

[13:42] Um and and I think and I I don't know

[13:44] this to be the case, but I think that

[13:46] the the defense um has utilized a a

[13:50] consultant in the past. I don't know the

[13:52] individual's name or the company name.

[13:54] Um but my guess would be that they're

[13:57] probably already taking a look at some

[13:59] of those issues. You kind of wonder, to

[14:02] Blake's point, when they brought up the

[14:03] paving over of the crime scene, which

[14:05] again something we learned about on the

[14:07] news, just like the uh the witness that

[14:10] was testifying today, it you you you

[14:13] sort of wonder um

[14:16] I don't know just how how much that has

[14:18] crept in to the psyche of the of the

[14:23] jury pool and and you know, how do you

[14:25] how do you find anybody in a case this

[14:27] high profile that is kind of dispassion?

[14:30] ately removed from it and is able to

[14:32] look at something objectively. I will

[14:34] tell you to something that you said it's

[14:36] we're so close to this. This is sort of

[14:39] all consuming all day. It's what we do

[14:41] today. It's what we did yesterday. It's

[14:42] what we're going to do this week. But

[14:44] when I go out in, you know, in the real

[14:46] world and I talk with, you know, when we

[14:49] me and my wife are hanging out with

[14:50] friends or whatever, they have no idea

[14:52] that uh, you know, I'm in a Twitter feud

[14:54] or uh, you know, something like that.

[14:56] They have they have no idea about so

[14:58] much. And it's actually really

[15:00] relieving. So I I do sort of understand

[15:03] what you're saying that there's a lot of

[15:05] people out there that are not tuning

[15:06] into this 247, you know, getting the

[15:08] full Tik Tok of it every day. So let's

[15:11] hope that there's still enough untainted

[15:14] potential jurors out there.

[15:16] >> Well, you know, in for both sides

[15:18] perspective, really the only thing that

[15:20] you can hope for is um you know, people

[15:24] will will know about this. You hope and

[15:27] you pray um during the process of jury

[15:30] selection and the trial that those 12

[15:33] people ultimately that you do select are

[15:36] able to listen and only focus and only

[15:38] make their determination on the evidence

[15:41] that they've heard in the courtroom. And

[15:44] you know, sadly, you know, we learn

[15:48] about bizarre things that happen all the

[15:51] time, like Alex Murdo, what happened

[15:52] with the the court clerk in that case

[15:55] influencing verdict. Um, but I I think

[15:59] hopefully that's the rarity and and I do

[16:02] believe that people take jury service

[16:07] and they want to do the right thing. Um,

[16:10] but now there's so many other factors

[16:13] that are out there. The one thing I can

[16:14] tell you for sure though is that this

[16:17] judge will very much protect the

[16:20] identity of those jurors and that jury

[16:24] panel when they come in. And how is that

[16:27] done? Well, first of all, you know, the

[16:29] media is never allowed to take photos or

[16:31] video of of jurors. Secondly, uh if a

[16:35] questionnaire is used, um only the

[16:38] number of the juror will be used. Um and

[16:42] sometimes a judge if they release the

[16:46] completed questionnaires, they will

[16:48] excuse me, they will black out elements

[16:51] that might um in some way identify them

[16:54] like where they work, um how many kids

[16:57] they have, something like that. Um, so I

[17:01] I can assure you just based on uh what

[17:03] I've read about this judge, he will be

[17:06] very very protective o of these jurors

[17:09] and you just hope that there isn't

[17:12] somebody that has a hidden agenda for,

[17:14] you know, for either side that ends up

[17:16] coming in on this jury panel.

[17:18] >> Uh, you're an expert on jury profiling.

[17:21] I think was it you created the the

[17:23] perfect juror that the OJ team wanted to

[17:27] look for?

[17:28] What would we you say? What's the ideal

[17:31] type of juror that you maybe might

[17:33] anticipate for the prosecution in this

[17:35] case? And I suppose for the defense, if

[17:38] you're willing to speculate on that, I

[17:39] don't want to put you on the spot.

[17:42] >> That's okay. Um I get put on the spot

[17:45] all the time. So traditionally um in

[17:48] this kind of case um you would want to

[17:50] be from the prosecution's perspective

[17:53] you know clearly you want somebody who's

[17:55] law and order somebody who um doesn't

[17:57] nec believes in the credibility of the

[18:00] police doesn't necessarily uh discount

[18:02] what their testimony may be um I suspect

[18:06] you would probably want somebody who is

[18:08] f has familiarity with weapons u rifles

[18:11] in particular

[18:13] um you you know, you're generally, I

[18:17] think, looking for older individuals.

[18:19] What's interesting here in in Utah is is

[18:23] the religiosity component of this case.

[18:26] Um, and by that I refer to the large

[18:29] number of LDS uh individuals who live in

[18:33] Utah. Um, you know, there I actually

[18:37] kind of uh was looking at this the other

[18:40] day. Um the from what I understand the

[18:43] LDS church does not have any public um

[18:47] uh statement about the death penalty.

[18:49] They kind of leave it up to the

[18:51] individual

[18:53] uh their individual congregation as to

[18:56] what would u you know make up their

[18:59] mind. But clearly the prosecution is

[19:01] going to want somebody if in fact um

[19:05] they do charge um uh Tyler with the with

[19:08] the death penalty um they want somebody

[19:11] who's going to be supportive of that. On

[19:14] the other side, on the defense side,

[19:17] you're going to be looking for those um

[19:20] individuals who, you know, opposite um

[19:23] don't necessarily have the trust for uh

[19:26] the police. You're looking for

[19:27] individuals who don't have u experience

[19:31] utilizing uh weapons um that can be you

[19:35] know perhaps led by an expert in any way

[19:38] um that they can. Um also I think

[19:42] politically you're looking for people

[19:44] who are more liberal traditionally in um

[19:48] in in capital cases that's what you're

[19:50] looking for. uh people who would have a

[19:54] difficult time themselves applying the

[19:57] death penalty. I mean, for me in this

[20:00] case and what I know about this case,

[20:03] you know, I I I think from a defense

[20:06] perspective, they would be looking

[20:09] towards that second phase in terms of

[20:12] who are the people they're going to want

[20:14] to eliminate, who are the dangerous

[20:15] people to them, and who are the uh the

[20:18] people that might be favorable to them.

[20:20] So, just as a very general proposition,

[20:23] I think those are areas that both sides

[20:26] would be looking at.

[20:29] >> I think that's really smart. And I just

[20:30] want to give some free advice to the

[20:32] prosecution. Not that they'll probably

[20:33] listen to me, but

[20:34] >> cut everyone who listens to true crime

[20:36] podcast.

[20:36] >> Yeah, exactly. If you're really obsessed

[20:39] with uh Netflix true crime documentaries

[20:42] or YouTube shows, uh basically I would

[20:46] say cut all like 20 to 40 year old white

[20:48] women. uh just in case. Too many too

[20:51] many instances of that. But that's me,

[20:54] John. I'm not putting words in your

[20:55] mouth. I'm just It's just free advice.

[20:57] I'm putting it out into the world. Um

[20:59] but this has been really fascinating, by

[21:01] the way. Totally fascinating.

[21:02] >> See, Andrew, I I think you've got a job

[21:05] as a jury consultant. Um you know,

[21:08] you're making

[21:10] >> Yeah. I I I have too much lived

[21:12] experience. I don't need like a survey.

[21:14] I I could just like basically size size

[21:16] you up and kind of know where you're

[21:18] going to be. a lot of times. Anyways, u

[21:20] and I'm not saying all 20 to 40 year old

[21:22] white women. I'm just saying there's a

[21:24] higher proportion in that particular

[21:26] crew. Okay. Um this has been amazing.

[21:28] Joel, we want to respect your time and

[21:30] the time of our audience. We try and

[21:31] keep the the nightly recaps on the

[21:34] tighter side. So, I think we're going to

[21:35] close out here, but thank you so so

[21:37] much. Uh a really incredible insight,

[21:40] especially on how the judge can um kind

[21:42] of protect the jury pool from knowing

[21:44] which case they're going to be a juror

[21:46] on and the social media scrubbing. That

[21:49] was really fascinating. So, thank you

[21:51] and we're going to have you on again

[21:52] soon if you're willing. If you'll if

[21:53] you'll come back on with us, so we need

[21:55] to have her here.

[21:56] >> Absolutely. I'd love to. This has been a

[21:58] treat. Thank you.

[21:59] >> Awesome. Great. Well, have a great night

[22:01] and God bless you and thank you so much.

[22:03] That concludes our night two um of day

[22:07] two of the preliminary hearing in the

[22:09] state of Utah versus Tyler Robinson. Uh

[22:12] please let us know if you have any other

[22:14] questions. Sends us emails at

[22:15] freedomcharlkirk.com. freedom

[22:17] charliekirk.com. If you have questions,

[22:19] that means we should probably be trying

[22:20] to provide answers. So please send us

[22:22] those questions and we'll get right on

[22:24] it. Uh until tomorrow, God bless you.

[22:26] We'll talk to you then.