Up Next
Forensic Expert Reveals How Bullet Engravings May Have Saved Lives in Charlie Kirk Shooting
13:34
Zach from WolvesAndFinance Investigates Shocking Evidence Government Is Lying About Charlie Kirk Shooting
21:35
Brandon Tatum Breaks Down the FBI's Sniper Evidence and Debunks Charlie Kirk Conspiracy Theories
15:12
Breaking Down the Probable Cause Statement in Charlie Kirk's Shooting Case with DNA and Surveillance Evidence
Brandon Tatum's detailed examination of the probable cause statement filed against Tyler James Robinson in the shooting death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University reveals extensive evidence including DNA on the weapon's trigger, surveillance footage tracking the suspect's movements, and family testimony. Tatum outlines how investigators recovered a bolt-action .306 rifle with Robinson's DNA, traced his path across campus through multiple cameras, and documented his surrender to police after his own parents identified him from surveillance images. This analysis addresses widespread misinformation and conspiracy theories by walking through the actual court documents that will form the basis of the prosecution's case.
The Importance of the Probable Cause Statement
The probable cause statement represents the most critical document in understanding the shooting death of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University. This document contains the actual evidence that prosecutors will present in court, and everything included must be supported by verifiable proof. Law enforcement cannot include speculation or unsubstantiated claims in this filing without risking the entire case being dismissed.
The document was filed in the Fourth District Judicial Court of Utah County, State of Utah, with the State of Utah as plaintiff versus Tyler James Robinson as defendant. It outlines multiple charges including aggravated murder, weapons violations, evidence tampering, and crimes committed in the presence of children. Each charge is supported by specific articulable reasons and evidence that investigators claim to possess.
The Shooting and Initial Response
On September 10, 2025, at approximately 12:23 p.m., Charlie Kirk was shot and killed while speaking to a large crowd on the campus of Utah Valley University. Police recovered a bolt-action .306 rifle near the scene. The subsequent investigation triggered a manhunt lasting approximately 33 hours until the evening of September 11, 2025, when Tyler James Robinson surrendered to police at the Washington County Sheriff's Office accompanied by his parents and a family friend.
According to the probable cause statement, after shooting Kirk, Robinson hid the weapon, discarded the clothing he wore during the incident, and instructed his romantic partner and roommate to delete incriminating text messages and not speak with police. The statement also notes that children were present at the time of the shooting, which constitutes an additional charge. This charge refers to the presence of minors in the crowd, not specifically Kirk's children, and represents prosecutors throwing the book at the defendant with every applicable charge.
UVU Surveillance Investigation
At the moment of the shooting, a UVU police officer was watching the crowd from an elevated vantage point. Upon hearing what sounded like a rifle shot, he immediately began scanning for threats and potential sniper positions. He identified a roof area approximately 160 yards from Kirk's position as a likely shooting location and rushed to investigate.
The suspected shooter's position was adjacent to an open, publicly accessible walkway. To access this location, someone would need to climb over a railing and drop onto a roof slightly below. The UVU officer climbed over the railing and onto the roof, then walked to the suspected shooting position where he confirmed a clear shooting corridor between that location and where Kirk had been seated. He also observed markings in the gravel consistent with someone having laid in a prone sniper position, including impressions potentially left by elbows, knees, and feet.
Police reviewed surveillance camera footage covering the roof and discovered recordings of an individual dressed in dark clothing crossing the railing from the public walkway and dropping onto the roof at approximately 12:15 p.m. Although the individual moved out of the camera's view briefly, the camera captured him running across the rooftop and then low-crawling to the area where the officer had identified the prone shooting position. After a short time matching the known time of the shot, the individual stood up and ran across the roof to the northeast.
Tracking the Suspect Through Campus
This discovery led to an intensive review of UVU surveillance recordings in an attempt to track and identify the suspect. The surveillance footage revealed the following timeline:
At approximately 11:51 a.m., the suspect entered campus from the north wearing a black shirt with an American flag in the center, a dark baseball cap, and large glasses or sunglasses. Throughout the surveillance footage, the suspect keeps his head down and rarely raises it enough to get a clear image of his face. As he proceeded across campus, he walked with an unusual gait, moving with very little bend to his right leg, consistent with a rifle being held in his pants. This unusual gait continued until the suspect was seen crossing the railing over the open walkway and onto the roof where he left the camera's view.
A camera later captured the suspect running across the roof to the shooting position. Immediately after the shot was fired, a camera captured the suspect running across the roof carrying an item whose shape was consistent with a rifle. The suspect was then seen climbing down from the roof, appearing to drop the item he was carrying as he hit the ground in a controlled fall. He then picked up the item and ran towards the northeast end of campus.
Expanded Crime Scene and Weapon Recovery
Law enforcement officers followed the suspect's escape path to the northeast end of campus where they believed the suspect left campus and entered a wooded area. In the wooded area, investigators found a bolt-action rifle wrapped in a towel. The rifle contained one spent round and three unspent rounds.
The presence of a spent casing still in the gun barrel is significant. This means that at some point, someone's finger was on that trigger and shot a round out of that gun, leaving the spent casing inside. This is consistent with what officers observed at the scene immediately after the shooting: no shell casings were found on the roof, suggesting a bolt-action rather than an automatic weapon was used and only a single round was fired. The reason for not ejecting the round would be to avoid leaving evidence at the crime scene.
The rifle, ammunition rounds, and towel were sent for forensic processing. DNA consistent with Robinson's was found on the trigger, other parts of the rifle, the fired cartridge casing, two of the three unfired cartridges, and the towel. Law enforcement was unable to immediately locate the shooter, so they published photos of the shooter from UVU surveillance cameras and asked for the public's help to identify him while continuing their investigation through other means.
Washington County Investigation and Family Testimony
On the evening of September 11, 2025, Robinson went to the Washington County Sheriff's Office with his parents and a family friend to turn himself in. Robinson's mother provided the following statement to police, which was documented and submitted to the court with supporting evidence:
On September 11, 2025, the day after the shooting, Robinson's mother saw the photo of the shooter in the news and thought the shooter looked like her son. She called her son and asked him where he was. He said he was at home sick and that he had also been at home sick on September 10th. Robinson's mother expressed concern to her husband that the suspected shooter looked like Robinson. Robinson's father agreed.
Robinson's mother explained that over the last year or so, Robinson had become more political and started to lean more to the left, becoming more pro-gay and trans rights-oriented. She stated that Robinson began to date his roommate, a biological male who was transitioning gender. This resulted in several discussions with family members, especially between Robinson and his father, who had very different political views. In one conversation, Robinson mentioned that Charlie Kirk would be holding an event at UVU, which Robinson said was a stupid venue for the event. Robinson accused Kirk of spreading hate.
Robinson's father reported that when his wife showed him the surveillance image of the suspected shooter in the news, he agreed that it looked like their son. He also believed that the rifle police suspected the shooter used matched the rifle that was given to his son as a gift. As a result, Robinson's father contacted his son asking him to send a photo of the rifle. Robinson did not respond. However, Robinson's father spoke on the phone with Robinson, and Robinson implied that he planned to take his own life.
The Confrontation and Surrender
Robinson's parents were able to convince him to meet at their home. As they discussed the situation, Robinson implied that he was the shooter and stated that he couldn't go to jail, that he just wanted to end it. When asked why he did it, Robinson explained, "There is too much evil in the guy, Charlie Kirk, spreading too much hate." This statement was given to police as testimony from the father.
They talked about Robinson turning himself in and convinced him to speak with a family friend who was a retired deputy sheriff. At Robinson's father's request, the family friend met with Robinson and his parents and convinced Robinson to turn himself in. The family friend spoke to police and reported telling Robinson that it would be best if he brought all evidence with him to the sheriff's office to avoid police having to search his parents' home. The family friend also asked Robinson if he had any clothes related to what he had done. Robinson replied that he had disposed of the clothing in a different area.
The Roommate's Testimony and Text Messages
Police interviewed Robinson's roommate, a biological male who was involved in a romantic relationship with Robinson. The roommate told police that he received messages from Robinson about the shooting and provided those messages to police. These statements and evidence were presented at the initial hearing before a judge.
On September 10, 2025, the roommate received a text message from Robinson which said, "Drop what you're doing. Look under the keyboard." The roommate looked under the keyboard and found a note that stated, "I had the opportunity to take Charlie Kirk and I'm going to take it." Police found and photographed this note, which was submitted as evidence.
The text exchange that followed has been widely discussed. These text messages were not Discord messages but actual phone text messages. In the court document, some messages appear with ellipses (...) between them because investigators are showing selected portions of recovered conversations, skipping around to highlight relevant exchanges. Some messages were deleted but recovered through forensic evidence extraction from the cell phone.
Search of Robinson's Residence
Police executed a search warrant of Robinson's residence. During the search, police discovered shell casings with etchings like the etchings found on the shells in the rifle recovered near UVU. This indicates consistency between ammunition at his residence and ammunition at the crime scene. Police also found several targets with bullet holes in Robinson's home, suggesting he had been practicing target shooting.
The Strength of the Prosecution's Case
The probable cause statement alone presents a substantial amount of evidence against Robinson. Taking just what's in the probable cause statement to trial could result in a conviction based on the cumulative weight of the evidence. This includes surveillance footage tracking movements, DNA evidence on the weapon and ammunition, family testimony identifying him and reporting his statements, the roommate's testimony and text messages, and physical evidence recovered from both the crime scene and his residence.
However, the key to this being a definitive case is the ballistics analysis. After the autopsy, the round that was lodged in Charlie Kirk's body will be test-fired for comparison. Every rifle barrel has unique striations, almost like a fingerprint. Investigators will fire rounds through that barrel and compare the bullet found in Kirk with the test-fired rounds to see if they are consistent with being fired from the same barrel. If the evidence shows that bullet matches that gun and shell casing, there's little room for doubt. If the gun doesn't match the .306 round, then investigators would need to explain the discrepancy.
When a person's father and mother tell investigators they believe the suspect is their child, when the father notices a missing rifle that looks like the one gifted to his son, and when DNA evidence places that son's fingerprints on the trigger of that weapon, the circumstantial and forensic evidence becomes compelling. While some family associates have reportedly suggested the family no longer believes Robinson is guilty, the initial statements to police were documented as evidence. Parents might change their position to avoid their son receiving the death penalty, but their initial identification and statements to investigators remain part of the record.
Addressing Conspiracy Theories
The conspiracies surrounding Charlie Kirk's death have become increasingly problematic because people are spreading misinformation intentionally. When individuals conduct investigations or deep dives into Kirk's death, they should be exposing fact-based information from court documents and established evidence that will be used in the trial. Instead, many are avoiding evidence-based court documents entirely.
The probable cause statement is publicly available and contains the foundation of the prosecution's case. If anything stated in this document is not true or backed up by evidence, it is inadmissible in court and would be thrown out. Every claim in the probable cause statement must be supported by actual evidence that can be presented to the court.
One particularly absurd conspiracy theory suggests that a lapel microphone exploded and killed Charlie Kirk. This theory is physically impossible for multiple reasons. A lapel microphone is only connected to clothing with a magnet on the backside. For a projectile to shoot out of the lapel into Kirk's neck with enough force to cause his injury, there would need to be a stable anchor for the opposite and equal reaction. Without a stable platform, both the projectile and the device would move in opposite directions, just as an unanchored gun would move backward when fired.
Additionally, the autopsy revealed only an entry wound with no exit wound on the same side as the lapel. The injury was on the opposite side of where the microphone was positioned. There was no explosion damage on his shirt, no staining, and no evidence of any explosive device. The technology to fire a projectile from a lapel microphone with enough force to penetrate a body and travel through it doesn't exist in any known form. The theory also ignores the recovered .306 rifle with spent casing and DNA evidence.
Understanding Ballistics and Wound Characteristics
Some have questioned whether a .306 round would cause the type of injury Kirk sustained, arguing that such rounds typically cause more damage or over-penetration. While this may be a fair question, it cannot be stated definitively without forensic analysis. Various factors affect wound characteristics, including bullet construction, trajectory, what the bullet strikes inside the body, and distance.
Many rifle rounds, including .308, .223, 5.56, .300 Blackout, and 7.62, typically over-penetrate targets. However, over-penetration is not guaranteed in every circumstance. Hollow point ammunition, for example, is designed specifically to prevent over-penetration by expanding and tumbling inside the body rather than passing through. This is why law enforcement uses hollow point ammunition. Whether .306 hollow point ammunition exists and whether it was used in this case are questions that forensic analysis will answer.
According to multiple independent sources, including skeptical sources, an autopsy was performed. The autopsy has been confirmed by various parties, and there was sufficient time to complete it before Kirk's private memorial service. The memorial service featured an open casket, which some have questioned given that an autopsy was performed. However, open casket services after autopsies are very common. Medical examiners have techniques that allow them to conduct extensive examinations, including examination of the brain and internal organs, while still returning the body to a condition suitable for viewing.
The autopsy is important for several reasons. It reveals wound trajectory information, the condition of internal structures, and the path the bullet took through the body. According to news reports and statements from Turning Point USA, the round was recovered from Kirk's body very close to the entry point, which suggests it likely hit something hard that stopped its progression, possibly the brain stem or other bone structures that would explain Kirk's immediate reaction.
The recovered round can now be compared to rounds test-fired from the recovered rifle. While this analysis might not be 100% conclusive in confirming every detail about Robinson as the shooter, it will definitively dispel theories involving an entirely different trajectory or weapon. If the round matches the rifle with Robinson's DNA on the trigger, combined with all the other evidence, the case becomes very strong.
The Problem with Internet Investigations
It's okay to question things and want answers, but there's a difference between having questions and making suggestive claims that spread misinformation without verification. People who have questions don't necessarily need to broadcast those questions on the internet, especially during an ongoing investigation. Some questions will be answered at trial in an open forum where all evidence is presented and challenged.
Broadcasting conspiracy theories and unverified claims can taint the jury pool, making it difficult or impossible to find impartial jurors. If someone who actually committed murder cannot receive a fair trial because the jury pool has been indoctrinated with misinformation, that person might go free. A hung jury or acquittal based on a tainted jury pool would be a miscarriage of justice if the defendant is actually guilty.
Internet investigators lack the tools, training, authority, and access that professional investigators have. They cannot obtain warrants, conduct forensic examinations, interrogate witnesses under oath, or compel testimony. They don't have training in evidence collection, crime scene analysis, or legal procedure. They don't know how to write a probable cause statement or understand the legal standards required for prosecution. Many professional investigators have 30 to 40 years of experience in their field. The idea that amateur internet detectives can outperform trained professionals with decades of experience and access to actual evidence is unrealistic.
Additionally, the defense has the right to challenge the prosecution's evidence and conduct their own examinations. If the defense believes the prosecution's autopsy was conducted incorrectly, they can have their own forensic expert evaluate the autopsy or request an additional examination. These challenges will come out in court where both sides present evidence and expert testimony.
Evaluating Claims and Muzzle Flash Videos
Some people have posted videos online claiming to show muzzle flash in footage from the incident. However, the frame rate on a regular cell phone is not fast enough to capture a muzzle flash. Muzzle flashes occur in a split second, requiring high-speed cameras costing millions of dollars to capture. A typical phone operates at 24 to 30 frames per second, while a muzzle flash happens in a tiny fraction of a second. The probability of a standard cell phone camera capturing a muzzle flash is extremely low.
Videos claiming to show projectiles or suggesting Kirk was shot with a drone represent fabricated evidence or misinterpretation of video artifacts. The reality is often simpler than elaborate conspiracy theories suggest. People kill other people because of hate, ideology, and evil motivations. This happens regularly, and the opportunity is often the only thing preventing more such incidents.
When other politicians have been attacked or killed in their homes by motivated individuals, nobody constructed elaborate conspiracy theories. The killers were simply evil people who acted on their hatred. Robinson appears to be part of a broader group of people who believe violence against political opponents is justified. Many people laughed at Kirk's death, celebrated it, or suggested it was deserved. This demonstrates a cultural environment where violence is increasingly normalized against those with different political views. It's not surprising that someone from this group acted on those beliefs.
The Likely Defense Strategy
The defense is likely not planning to defend this case to achieve acquittal beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, their strategy is probably focused on keeping Robinson from receiving the death penalty. Unless the recovered round does not match the rifle, which would create reasonable doubt about the weapon used, the evidence appears overwhelming.
If the ballistics analysis confirms the round recovered from Kirk's body was fired from the rifle with Robinson's DNA on the trigger, the case is essentially closed. A forensic expert will explain in court how rounds travel through and penetrate the body, what factors affect their path, and why the wound characteristics match the evidence. The defense will need their own expert witness to counter this testimony and explain why the prosecution's forensics are wrong. This courtroom battle of expert witnesses is where the case will likely be decided if it goes to trial.
Supporting Kirk's Family
Beyond the legal aspects of this case, there's an important human element. Charlie Kirk's death represents not only the loss of his current income but also unrealized future potential. Kirk had a show, television appearances, and numerous projects that generated income. Now that he's gone, those income streams have stopped. Networks and media companies will not continue his show indefinitely out of sympathy for his family. They will eventually replace him with someone else who can generate revenue.
Kirk's family faces not only the emotional trauma of his death but also financial uncertainty. Kirk likely would have written many more books, built his media empire even larger, and possibly pursued other significant opportunities. His wife Erika is not Charlie, and certain things he could do cannot be replicated by anyone else. This is why efforts to support his family financially are important.
Fundraising efforts have been established with the goal of raising one million dollars for Kirk's family. Products have been sourced and sold with 100% of profits going to the family. This allows the community that valued Kirk's work to contribute to supporting his family during this difficult time. Whether Erika Kirk chooses to keep these funds for family needs or donate them to organizations like Turning Point USA, the goal is to provide significant financial support to help offset the unrealized income and opportunities that Kirk's death represents.
The Importance of Waiting for Evidence
As a responsible adult and concerned citizen, the appropriate response is to wait for the complete presentation of evidence in court. Crimes are not solved on the internet by amateur detectives. People don't have the right to obtain warrants, conduct forensic evidence searches, access people's phones, or conduct formal interrogations. Without training in investigations and interrogation, without the mechanisms that FBI and local law enforcement have to execute investigations and arrests, and without knowledge of how to properly document evidence and submit it to courts, internet speculation cannot replace actual investigation.
The legal system exists to ensure both that guilty parties are held accountable and that innocent people are not wrongly convicted. This requires following proper procedures, collecting admissible evidence, and presenting that evidence in a court of law where it can be challenged and examined. Spreading conspiracy theories and misinformation undermines this process and potentially interferes with justice being served.
The autopsy results, ballistics analysis, and other forensic evidence will be presented in court. Both the prosecution and defense will have opportunities to present their evidence and challenge the other side's claims. Expert witnesses will testify about complex technical matters. All of this will happen in a public forum where everyone can evaluate the evidence and arguments.
If investigators have the wrong person, the evidence will reveal that. If Robinson is guilty, the evidence will demonstrate that as well. The probable cause statement provides a roadmap of what the prosecution believes happened and what evidence they have to support their case. This evidence will be tested in court, and that is where the truth will ultimately be established. Until then, spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories serves no constructive purpose and potentially causes real harm to the investigation and prosecution of this case.
Video Transcript
So, if you're going to speculate or want to know more about it, you need to read this stuff. Probable cause statement. The probable cause statement is the most important document that one can have retrieve or read as it relates to the shooting. This is the actual evidence that they are going to present which they claim they have evidence of. You cannot fluff this. You cannot deviate from this or you have no trial. So everything that you see when I read this probable cause statement, everything that you see here, they they have the evidence of this that they present to court in their initial hearing. Let let me just tell you what, we we sourced these tumblers and and we sourced it from a guy who's a who's a American patriot, but bro, these are the best quality tumblers that I have ever got my hands on. Boy, if y'all don't get that and and just know when you do get it, 100% of the profit will go to Charlie Kirk's family. And we're trying to raise my goal was to raise a million dollars for his family. And that's why we continue to push the products even though we give 100% of the profit to them because my goal is to get to a to a million dollars so I can write Erica Kirk a check for a million dollars on our behalf. All of us write that check and she can she can decide where it goes. Because one thing you guys got to realize is that although people think in their mind, Charlie Kirk is rich probably. Well, Charlie Kirk when he's alive is rich, but Charlie Kirk when he's not alive, a lot of future income and income that was coming in ain't coming in. I want y'all to understand that Charlie Kirk had a show. He was on TV. He had all kind of stuff going on. And now that he's gone, they're not going to just I mean, it's a dirty man. It's a dirty game out here. Now that Charlie Kirk is gone, they're not gonna feel sorry for his family. They're not gonna keep his show going on on television. They're just not gonna they're not gonna do it. They're gonna give it a while and they're gonna replace him with somebody else that they can make money with. And it's unfortunate, but this is why I feel like it's invaluable for us to raise money and support his family because there is unrealized gains. Charlie Kirk would have probably written 50 born books. Charlie Kirk would have probably been the president one day. Charlie Kirk would have done so many amazing things and built the empire even bigger than it is today. but he's gone. And God bless Erica, but Erica is not Charlie. And there's certain things Charlie can do that nobody else can do in the world. And so that's why I feel compelled to support him using our resources and being able to get his wife a pretty nice check for their family or if she want to donate to Turning Point or whatever the case be. We all are going to contribute to that. So go and support today. Um we we almost caught up with all the orders. So, just know that we're getting ready to take the pre-order setting off and we'll be able to just send it to you without you waiting 2 to 3 weeks. The conspiracies around Charlie Kirk's death has just been something that just continues to bother me. And it's because there are people who are out here spreading misinformation intentionally and and it's it's kind of weird and sad. It it's really weird and sad because it's like why why why if you're doing an investigation and a deep dive into Charlie Kirk's death, why why are you not exposing a some fact-based things that are court documents, stuff that's established in the court that's going to be used in the trial? Why are people evading evidence-based court documents when they talk about this topic? So, I'm going to have um Nick put this on the screen and I'm just going to read a little bit of it because I think people have not actually heard evidence that's going to be submitted to the court or that had been submitted to the court that they are going to use in this trial against the alleged shooter of Charlie Kirk. And so therefore, people are they got all these mysteries out here and and and rumors and and skepticism and and and and let me just clear some things up for you guys on this document, right? You see this in the fourth district court, judicial district court, Utah County, state uh of Utah. Case numbers here, information here, plaintiff is here. Uh and the versus the defendant, which is this idiot, I don't like to say his name. And then it goes through and this is pretty much the document that's submitted to the court of probable cause, what charges they're going to charge him with, right? These are the charges. These are the articulable reasons why each charge is going to be charged. And it's all there. So, if you're going to speculate or want to know more about it, you need to read this stuff. Probable cause statement. The probable cause statement is the most important document that one can have retrieve or read as it relates to the shooting. This is the actual evidence that they are going to present which they claim they have evidence of. You cannot fluff this. You cannot deviate from this or you have no trial. So everything that you see when I read this probable cause statement, everything that you see here, they they have the evidence of this that they present to court in their initial hearing. And they can't fluff it and say this and this is this without evidence. And I'm going to try to read it uh with you guys. Maybe I'll try to scan it if Nick, you can follow along with me. I'm going to start with probable cause statement. Brian Davis of the Utah State Bureau of Investigations have probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the above listed offenses submitted the following evidence in support of the filing of this information. On September the 10th, 2025, at approximately 12:23 p.m., Mr. Charlie Kirk was shot and killed while speaking at a large crowd um on the campus of University or Utah Valley University in Utah. Counts one and two. It says police found the suspect murder weapon, a boltaction 306 rifle nearby. Over the next approximately 33 hours, police conducted a manhunt for a shooter until the evening of September the 11, 2025 when Tyler James Robinson surrendered to police at the Washington County Sheriff's Office. DNA consistent with Robinson was found on the rifle's trigger after shooting Mr. Kirk. Robinson hid the gun, count three, discarded the clothing that he wore when he fired the rifle, count four, and told his lover, roommate to delete incriminating text messages, and not to talk to police, count six. Children were present at the time of the shooting, count seven. Now, some people are saying the FBI lied because Charlie's kids was weren't there. They're not charging him because Charlie's kids were there. They're charging him because there were children present. This is what you call throwing a book at somebody. When you have committed a crime in the presence of minors, that is an additional charge that they charge you with. There were people there who had kids and in the presence of those kids, he committed these crimes. That's why he got charged with children being present. The shooting, I I may not need to go through the whole shooting uh scenario. We could scroll through that part. That's pretty much mundane. I want to go through the surveillance and I'm going to give this document so you guys can read it. I'm going to go through the surveillance uh investigation, right? Because this is an incredible part that a lot of people miss out on because they don't know exactly what the government is even saying against Robinson. The UVU surveillance investigation, it says at at the moment of the shooting, UVU police officer UVU officer was watching the crowd from an elevated vantage point. As soon as he heard a shot, he began to scan the area for threats. Believing the shot came from a rifle because of its sound, he looked for potential sniper positions. He noted a roof area approximately 160 ft 160 yards away from Mr. Kirk as a potential shooting position and rushed there to look for evidence. The suspect or the suspected shooter position is adjacent to an open publicly accessible walkway. To access a suspect's location, a person must climb over a railing and then drop to the roof only slightly below. The UVU officer climbed over the railing and down onto the roof. He then walked to the suspect uh shooting position and confirmed a clear shooting corridor between the position between that position and Mr. Kirk's seat. He also noticed markings and and gravel on the rooftop consistent with a sniper having laid on the roof. Impressions of gravel potential left by the elbow, the knee, and the feet of the person in a prone shooting position. This is what they're telling the courts with evidence. Okay, so they obviously took pictures of this prone position and they submitted this to the court as evidence and obviously they got to submit this to the defense. Police reviewed the surveillance cameras covering the roof and discovered that the the recording or that it recorded an individual dressed in dark clothing cross the railing from the public walkway and dropped onto the roof on approximately 12:15 p.m. Although the individual moved out of the camera's view for a short time. The camera again captured the individual running across the rooftop and then low crawling to the area of UVU officers uh recognized as where the suspect sniper had dropped into the prone shooting position. So, they have evidence, video footage that they may not have showed the public that they are showing the courts via this affidavit and probable cause statement that they show him running to his shooting position and going and low crawling to a prone position. After the shooting, after a short time, which matched the known time of the of the shot, the individual arose and and ran across the roof to the northeast. This discovery led to an intensive review of the UVU surveillance recordings and attempted to track and identify the suspect. Surveillance revealed that surveillance revealed the following. At approximately 11:51 a.m., the suspect centered or entered a campus from the north. He is seen wearing a black shirt with an American flag in the center and a dark baseball cap and large glasses or sunglasses. Throughout the surveillance, the suspect keeps his head down and rarely raises his head enough to get a clear image of his face. As he proceeded across the campus, he is seen walking with a unusual gate. The suspect walked with this little walk with a very little bend to his right leg consistent with a rifle being held in the pan in his pants. The unusual gate continued until the suspect is seen crossing the railing over the open walkway onto or and onto the roof where he leaves the camera the camera's view. Now, with that being said, they are articulating evidence of a camera that they have submitted to court. I haven't seen this video. They haven't released this video to the public, but they released it to the court, which will be visible from the judge and the defense attorney. A camera later captured the suspect running across the roof uh to the suspect's shooting position. Immediately after the shooting, the shot was fired. A camera capture the suspect running across the roof carrying a item whose uh item whose sharp or shape is consistent with the rifle. The suspect is then seen climbing down from the roof. He appeared to drop the item he was carrying as he hit the ground in a controlled fall. He then picked up the item and ran towards the northeast end of campus. Expanded crime scene. Law enforcement officers followed the suspect escape path to a northeast end of the campus where they believe that the suspect left campus and enter into a wooded area. In the wooded area, investigators found a boltaction rifle wrapped in a towel. The rifle contained one spent round and three unspent rounds. So, this is what people need to understand is that a spent round means that a bullet was fired from the from the gun, but he did not eject the round. He left the spent casing in the round. I mean, inside the gun barrel. So, what does that mean? They are submitted evidence of his DNA finger on the trigger of a gun that was fired with the shell casing still in the gun. So, I don't know. I don't know what anybody would think, but there's a spent casing in the gun. So that mean that at some point his finger was on that trigger and shot a round out of that gun that left a spent casing in it. This is consistent with the fact that officers observed at the time I mean immediate after the shooting no shell casings were found on the roof suggesting that a boat action uh rather than an automatic loaded weapon and only a single round was fired. And why would you use a 306 and that and not eject the round because you don't want to leave evidence at the crime scene. Okay. Uh, and here's a little bit of the evidence of what was written on the on the gun or whatever. All this is submitted into the court. The rifle ammunition, the rifle, ammunition rounds, and the towel were sent to forensic processing. DNA consistent with Robinson's was found on the trigger. Other parts of the rifle, the fire cartridge casings, two of the three unfired cartridges, and the towel. Law enforce officer was unable to immediately locate the shooter. So, they published photos um of the shooter from the UVU surveillance camera and asked for the public's help to identify him. Meanwhile, law enforcement continued to try to identify the shooter through other means. Washington County investigation. On the evening of September 11, 2025, a law enforcement continued their investigation of Dum Dum when the Washington County Sheriff's Office with his parent with his parent. Hold on, let me see that. It says went to So the Dum Dum went to the Washington County Sheriff's Office with his parent and a family friend to turn himself in. Robertson's mother stated the following to police. Now, I want you guys to understand this. This is recorded documentation that they submitted to court. I'm going to keep telling you this because they will not and cannot write in an affidavit or a probable cause statement that something happened that they do not have evidence of happening. So, it says, "Robin's mother stated the following to police. On September 11, 2025, the day after the shooting, Robinson's mother saw the photo of the shooter in the news and thought the shooter looked like her son. Robinson's mother called her son and asked him where he where he was. Now, they're not going to say, and I'm just telling you about evidence, they're not going to say that Robinson's mother called her son and asked where he was by taking her word for it. they are going to have electronic communication from her phone that's submitted into evidence of this actual phone call taking place. He said he was at home sick and that he also been at home sick on September the 10th. Robinson's mother expressed concern that her husband that to her husband that the suspect shooter looked like Robinson. Robinson's father agreed. These are statements submitted to the court. So now we have for all the conspiracies out there and people that are not reading this document that's old now. But these are testimonies from his parents. Okay. Robertson's mother explained that over the last year or so Robertson had become more political and has started to lean more to the left becoming more progay trans rightsoriented. She stated that Robinson's began uh to date his roommate, a biological male who was transitioning his gender. This resulted in several discussions with family members, especially between Robertson and his father, who was very difficult, who had very difficult political views. In one conversation between the shooter, Robertson mentioned that Charlie Kirk uh would be holding an event at UVU, which Robertson said that was a stupid venue for the event. Robinson accused Kirk of spreading hate. Robinson's father reported that when his wife showed him the surveillance image of the suspect shooter in the in on the news, he agreed that it looked like their son. He also believed that the rifle that the police suspected the shooter to use matched the rifle that was given to his son as a gift. This is his parents giving statements to law enforcement regarding this this uh information here. As a result, Robinson's father contacted his son asking him to send a photo of the rifle. They have electronic communication between the father and son regarding him asking him about the rifle. Okay. Robinson did not respond. However, Robertson's father spoke on the phone with Robertson. Robertson implied that he planned to take his own life. Robertson's parents were able to convince him to meet at their home. This is statements that were given to the police by Mr. Robinson or Robinson's dad. This is not conjecture. This is not conspiracy. This is documented evidentiary stuff that been entered into evidence with the court that this is what the father had said. As they discussed the situation, Robertson implied that he uh he was the shooter and stated that he couldn't go to jail, just wanted to end it. When asked why he did it, Robertson explained, "There is too much evil in the in the guy, Charlie Kirk, spreading too much hate." This is the what he said to his father that was given to the police. Testimony. They talked about Robertson turning himself in and and convinced Robertson to speak with his family friend, who is a retired deputy sheriff. At Robertson's father's request, the family friend met with Robertson and his parents and convinced Robertson uh to turn himself in. So now you got the d the sheriff deputy who was a friend who is now testifying to this reality that the parents had consulted him or communicate with him to agree to get Robertson to turn himself in. The family friend uh spoke to police and reported telling Robertson that it was in his best interest or it it would be best if he brought all evidence with him to the sheriff's office to avoid police having to search his parents' home. The family friend also asked Robinson if he had any clothes that were related to what he had did. Robinson replied that he had dis disposed of the clothing in a different area. The roommate police interviewed Robinson's roommate, a biological male who was involved in a romantic relationship with Robertson. The roommate told police that the romantic or the roommate received messages from Robertson about the shooting and provided those messages to police. So, they contacted the roommate. The roommate gave over evidence to the police regarding the communication between him and Robinson. These statements that are given are evidence given or presented in the initial hearing is going to be presented initial hearing before a judge. If anything that is said in here is not true or backed up by evidence, it is inadmissible in court and thrown out. I just want people to be aware of that. On se on September the 10th, 2025, the roommate received a text message from Robertson which said, "Drop what you're doing. Look under the keyboard." The roommate looked under the keyboard and found a note that stated, "I had the opportunity to take Charlie Kirk and I'm uh going to take it." Police found a photograph of this note. That's another point of evidence that they have to submit to the court. The following text exchange then took place. Okay. After reading the notes, the roommate responded, "What? You're joking, right? And then we know we see the text exchange that everybody has been talking about. Okay? And I want you to understand points here. Let's go up real quick. Or when you see this is not okay, just so you guys know, these are text messages. This is not a Discord message. So this is not appearing to the investigators and they're extracting the conversation. It's not appearing like this. It's in the phone. messages that were there, some messages that were deleted that through forensic evidence they can extract. That's why you see the dot dot dot here and dot dot dot here because they're skipping around and showing conversations here. They're skipping to this conversation and dot dot dot they're skipping to another conversation and then they're skipping around to other conversations. So all of this is not one consistent uh direct conversation. These are skips in conversational um text that they put together and put it on a form so you could see it. But this is not what they saw. They they're recovering this from an actual cell phone. And I think that everybody in America has probably looked at these text messages. I don't think I need to read them again. I think we all seeing these. I don't think there's anything new in this. But some people are saying he he he don't say the word vehicle and all this other stuff. And it's like we got plenty of videos him using the word vehicle when he's talking about a car. We got plenty of video of people who say nobody use the word vehicle and they using the word vehicle. You know, it's it's you know, I think people should just listen to it, let them explain it in court before you make a judgment. But for people saying nobody talks like this, this is not you. Most people aren't killers either. Most people aren't deranged enough to go and kill a person because they don't like what they had to say. Search of Robinson's residence. Let's look at that real quick. Police executed uh a search warrant of Robinson's residence. During the search, police discovered shell casings with etched with etchings like the etchings found on the shells in the rifle near UVU. So, when they got to his place, they found also other etchings at his house that were consistent with the etchings they found on the scene. Police also found several uh targets with bullet holes in Robinson's home. So, that tells you that it appears that he was going target shooting and practicing. So, they found targets with bullet holes in it. Can't say that for a fact, but it it can be perceived that way based on the totality of circumstances. Count one, it says aggravated murder pertaining to Robertson shooting and killing of Charlie Kirk manner exposed others. Okay, these are just the counts of the murder. And then they end the the affir the uh affidavit this way. Now, why am I saying this is because I think people need to realize that there is a plethora of evidence. There are family members who told investigators that their son, they believe their son did this. Now, if you take just what's in the probable cause statement to trial, I think that this pretty much is a is a open and shut case. I think they can win this at 80% if you just took the probable cause to trial. Just that, nothing else. However, the key to this being a shut open and closed case is if after the autopsy, well, the autopsy has already been done, but the findings of the autopsy, if that round that was lodged in Charlie Kirk's body after being test fired, meaning that they're going to take that rifle and they're going to test fired in a lab and every rifle barrel has striations that are consistent only with that rifle. It's almost like a fingerprint. So, they're gonna fire rounds through that barrel. And then they're gonna compare the bullet that they found in Charlie with the caliber and bullet that they test fired to see if it line up with it being consistent with firing from the barrel of that gun. If they have evidence that that bullet matched that gun and that shell casing, there's nothing else to be said. If they don't, if they find that that gun didn't match the 30 6, then they got some explaining to do. And I wouldn't say explaining to do, it just mean that they didn't got they don't have the right person. But when you have a person's father and and mother tell that they believe this is their child and and every we don't have other parents saying that they believe that was their child. This is the these are the parents that said they believe this is their child. You have a missing rifle that the father noticed that it looked like the rifle that was gifted to him. Why would his parents lie on their son and he didn't have nothing to do with it? Now, I know that people have come out and said that the family don't think he did it. People that I've heard say that is saying that they talking to a third party person that's associated. They're not talking to the parents. They're talking to a third party person that's saying the parents are saying this. Maybe there the parents could change their tune cuz they don't want him to get the death penalty. But when you go to the police and you make a statement to say, "I think it was my son." Oh, do you really? Why do you think it's your son? Because when we saw the surveillance, this is what we saw. Well, I saw the gun and I think it was the missing gun that belonged to that was gifted to my son. Oh, his DNA is found on that same gun on the trigger. Not just holding the gun, but on the trigger of the gun. DNA is found on the shell casings. His DNA is found on the towel. You know, at some point, people got to realize that it's not beneficial for you to push a conspiracy theory. What's beneficial for you to do is for you to wait until the evidence is fully exposed so that you have something to go off of. And and and and I'll add to the other conspiratorial stuff. It's okay to question things. It's okay to want answers, but don't be a dag and don't be a mindless idiot listening to everything you hear on the internet as facts and truth. Saying that the lapel mic exploded on Charlie and killed him is the dumbest, most ignorant thing I ever heard in my life. You got to understand energy like like if you have a lapel here and which I hope he go to he burn in hell for what he's saying cuz he's a liar. He know he a liar. What is his name? Pete. What is his name? >> Stu Peters. >> Stu Peters. I hope he burning hell for being a liar and a and a devil. You got you you have a microphone that's only connected to your shirt with a magnet on the backside. You're telling me that had a projectile shoot out of the lapel into Charlie's neck which caused his injury? It didn't shoot on the same side the lapel shot on. It shot around the other side because there's no entry room. I know that for a fact. The autopsy revealed that there's no uh entry exit. It's only an entry wound. That's a fact. Now, for you to think that this exploded with a munition that fired out and projected out with no anchor that that that thing is going to sit here and project a 223 round out of it, which essentially went into his body and down his back? What are you saying? What are you What are you really saying? It's the dumbest thing ever. It exploded, but it didn't blow up on his shirt. It had no stain, no explosion. It's just shot around out of it. How How could How could that propulsion be possible? You don't have any anchor of the device. So once it once the bullet propels out of it, there's going to be an opposite and equal reaction. That means that it's going to go like this. Unless you got a stable platform. Have you ever had a gun and then you pull the trigger on it, you're not holding a gun? What's going to happen? The gun and the bullets are going to go like this. But somehow a lapel on his shirt with we don't even know of technology that even exists like this. A lapel on his shirt, shoot a 223 round out of it. And the only anchor is a magnetic clip on his shirt. And you believe that's what killed Charlie. It's the preposterous stuff that I got a problem with. Saying, "Hey, a 30 out six tend to do more damage than what it did." That's a fair argument. And maybe you know, maybe you don't. But you can't say it's impossible. How do you know what's possible? I shot every round except a 30 o six. But bro, a 308 to go through through you as well. Uh- uh 223 will go three and for 200 yards. What do you mean? every round from a 5.56, 223, 308, 300 blackout, uh, uh, 762 will probably overpenetrate more than likely. And only reason that a round would not overpenetrate, especially if you had a, you know, you have green tip, but if you if you got a hollow tips, that may be a different story. Now, I don't know if they make 306 306 holo tips. I I don't know if that exists, but one of the reasons we use hollow tips in law enforcement is because we don't want over penetration. We want the we want the round to hit you and tumble so it gets trapped in your body and it don't go through and through. >> Um Jim, we do know that they have recovered the round. Why is that important? Even if we don't know at this point what they discovered about the round. >> Yeah. So, so what's um some of the claims we're seeing online is why have they not released the autopsy or the claim that there was no autopsy at all? Now, we already have from several independent sources, even skeptical sources that acknowledge that the uh autopsy was performed. So, we know it's been performed and and that's something that Turning Point has even broadcast that there was an autopsy done. There was certainly enough time to do it. And and when you do this kind of thing, even you might think, well, how do I prepare? We don't know what the the private memorial service was for the family, but if we have some pictures. Now, you might think, well, if an autopsy was done, could you still have an open casket? Yeah, that's very common. >> You you saw Jim Erica released a picture. >> I was in I was in the room. He It was an open casket for the family. >> Um but I I'm not at liberty to say what what else happened, but yeah, they you you saw him. It was an open casket. >> Yes. And you might think, well, how can you do an extensive autopsy, especially on this kind of an injury, and then leave the body in condition that you can have an open casket? Well, I'm not going to get into the details of this, but they have a way of doing it, a way of of of entering the they can do all of it, including um doing a examination of the condition of someone's brain, all of this, and then return the body to a position where it could be in an open open casket. >> So, so there's so much that can be done in the autopsy. It does not preclude, nothing is precluded um from the fact they did an autopsy. And that autopsy is important for several things. Number one, what are we looking at? Well, we're looking at what all the wound trajectory stuff we're going to be able to tell from that. And apparently, according to several now news reports and even to what TPUSA has released, the round was recovered from his body. So, and it was very close to the actual entry point, which probably means that it hit something hard. And you can kind of see from there's a couple of reasons why you might see the reaction that Charlie immediately experienced, but one of those might be that it either it hit the brain stem, it hit something that would have changed the trajectory of the round, all kinds of things. So, so from my perspective, there's nothing unusual about what we're going to see. But here's what's great. We are going to recover a round that we can now compare to the rounds we have at the actual rifle. So, we've got enough uh data both from metallurgy and from ballistics from the rifle and what kind of condition that leaves the round in when it leaves the barrel. There are some things we can look at and they'll be pretty close. But here's the most important thing. Even though this might not be 100% a way to to confirm every detail of Robinson as the killer, what it will do is dispel all of these alleged theories that involve an entirely different trajectory. So everybody, we wrong and all the naysayers are right. Man, if I really thought that there was sufficient evidence or sufficient critique in this investigation that warranted me to really put my neck out there, I'd say so. I can't, you know, cuz cuz let's be honest, if the if a person killed Charlie and got away with it and they had some strategic cover up and all this, we're all in danger. All of us all of us are in danger. All of us are are one step away from getting murdered by somebody. I'm that would make me in fear. So why in the world would I be happy to have a real killer out here just roaming around? No, it's that's not the case. You know, it the real person is seem like they got a guy with a tremendous amount of evidence. And my argument is that the defense is only trying to keep him from getting the death penalty. That's it. I do not think the defense is really planning on sufficiently defending this case to get him off beyond a reasonable doubt. I only thing they can get is if the round don't match the gun, then they may have a they may be able to get him off. He may he may not go to prison. But if that round match that 306 rifle, it's open and shut case. There's nothing else out there. And they're going to go in court and they're going to have a forensic expert explain how does a round go through and penetrate and travel through the body like XYZ. They're going to have a forensic expert explain that in the court. And what people like you and I who are not forensic experts and we did not do the autopsy, we can sit back and listen and say, "hm, that makes sense or that doesn't make sense." H what does the defense have as a counter witness that they're going to bring to disprove this? Now, what does the defense say from their expert that a 306 couldn't go through and it's impossible and all this other stuff? That's why as a responsible adult, you just wait. You're not gonna solve a crime on the internet. You don't have a right to to to to get a restraint. I mean, uh, a warrant for somebody's arrest. You can't do a forensic evidence researching anybody's phones. You can't even call people without their permission. And then they can lie to you. You're not trained in investigations. You're not trained in an interrogation. You You don't have the mechanisms in place that FBI and local law enforcement have to actually execute an investigation and actually execute an arrest. You don't know how to write a probable cause statement to get somebody to submit it to the courts. You don't know what the what the what the laws are. I mean, you can look them up, but if you don't do this often, how are you going to do better than investigators that have been doing this for 30 and 40 years? Some of them been doing this 30 and 40 years. You know, there's an autopsy that was done. And to be honest, the defense I maybe the defense can argue that they do an additional autopsy because if you believe that the uh prosecution's autopsy was done incorrect, you can have a forensic person on your side do an additional autopsy or do an evaluation of the autopsy that was done. And those things will come out in court. A doctor cannot tell you the results of Charlie Kirk's autopsy. First of all, it's under investigation. Second of all, that's his own personal privacy that only the family would know. They just can't disclose a person's personal information out to the public. That's that's that don't work. People say 306 make no sense. Well, what round was he shot with? And where did it come from? That's all you got to think it through. You can say, "Yeah, it sound crazy. It sounds impossible." But where's your other evidence? Unless you saying they made it all up and none of it is real. That which is which is which is more unbelievable than a 306 hitting Charlie and traveling down his back. Where's your other shooter at? and you got somebody putting online on a video uh uh a muzzle flash. The frame rate on a regular cell phone is not fast enough to catch a muzzle flash. You have to have a high-speed multi-million dollar camera to catch the split second of a muzzle flash. A regular phone is not going to catch a muzzle flash. So, everybody that's going around posting a picture of, "Look, there's a muzzle flash out the corner of the screen." What amateur camera caught a muzzle flash? Am I right, Nick? Am I tripping? No, I'm saying as far as can a regular phone catch a muzzle flash? All right. Seems to be highly unlikely it will catch a a muzzle flash at the frame rate that a cell phone is is operating under. Maybe I'm wrong. I And it's it's technically possible, but it's highly unlikely. 30 frames per second is what a typical phone's frame rate is. So like like for instance, so according to the information that we're looking at right now, go up a little bit. I mean, so an average phone is between 24 and 30 frames per second. A muzzle flash happens in a a tiny fraction of a second. Tiny fraction of a second for you for you to for your camera to so be sound be so good to catch a muzzle flash. I mean, that's highly unlikely. So, I think that people are framing and making up fake videos. They're saying it's projectiles. They saying he got shot with a drone. It's not that crazy, man. People just they're hateful and they're evil and they kill people. That's what happens. You know, it's funny that nobody tried to do all these conspiracies when that dude ran in the house of those other politicians and killed him. The man was evil. He ran in their house and he just killed them. People want to kill us all the time. They just don't have the opportunity to kill us. It's not that weird of a conspiracy. It doesn't have to be some super super dark secret. It's a it's a kid that's bought into this derangement and he decided to kill Charlie. And you can see that he ain't the only one that think like this cuz look at the people who marked Charlie uh Charlie's death. Look at the people who laugh at him. Look at the people who think that it's justified to kill your political opponents. You have a whole wave of these same leftist young idiotic people who get brainwashed that all agree that Charlie should got should have gotten killed. Why do you think that one spun up from that group of people that just went out and did what he did? And he actually wasn't good enough to not get caught. Because he's an amateur because he left DNA. Because he thought he was covering his head by walking like this. Cuz he don't know where all the cameras are at. He's walking down the street, don't know that people have ring cameras. and he's walking with a limp in his leg cuz he got a rifle down his pant leg. He didn't wear gloves. Got his DNA on the on the thumb on the thing. He thought he was going to go back and get the gun, but he couldn't. Which which where you see him in videos in in restaurants around the area, which matches the text message that he was sending to his lover that he wanted to go back and get the gun, but he can't at the moment. All right. Um, and this generally speaking with anybody, it's okay to ask questions. I don't believe it's okay to make inferences or to make suggestive claims that incite misinformation without verification. You can question that don't mean you have to put it on the internet. Like if I had a question, for instance, if I had a question of whether or not they had the actual suspect, do I need to put it on the internet just cuz I have a question? What would be my solution to that question? Is that first of all, I don't want to tank the investigation and I don't want any impropriy to be out there. I don't want to tank the jury pool. So some stuff I don't need to put out even though I have questions about it because those questions will be answered at trial and then therefore we all can have it in the open forum. But what you don't want to do is end up being a person that has so much influence and impact on pushing conspiracies that you begin to taint the jury pool and now you they can't find jurors that are impartial. And then if the guy really is a killer and you get a jury that's indoctrinated and then they have a hung jury and the person who actually killed Charlie get off. That would be crazy. Heat up [Music]
Related Books
Browse Conservative Books
Comments
Be the first to comment on this video.