Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson Debate the DNA and Ballistics Evidence Against Tyler Robinson

[00:00] Between zero to 100, what is the

[00:02] likelihood that you think Tyler Robinson

[00:03] shot Charlie Kirk and killed him?

[00:05] >> Based on the evidence right now, um, I

[00:08] don't know. I'd say 75 85%.

[00:10] >> Candace,

[00:12] >> 0%.

[00:13] >> 0%.

[00:13] >> I'm at zero. So, with what we've seen in

[00:15] terms of the evidence, I'm at 0%.

[00:17] >> So, not not only, you know, that maybe

[00:20] somebody was behind him as a pathy

[00:22] influencing him, you're not even saying

[00:23] that he didn't even shoot Charlie Kirk,

[00:25] >> right? I would if you said was he

[00:26] involved that day as I have consistently

[00:28] said on my platform I would say yes he

[00:29] was.

[00:30] >> I I don't know what role he played but

[00:32] as the shooter 0%.

[00:34] >> Do you have any evidence for it?

[00:36] >> Uh for what my percentage

[00:37] >> the fact that he didn't he didn't shoot

[00:40] and kill Charlie Kirk?

[00:41] >> Yes. Which I'm hoping we're going to get

[00:42] to all of the evidence that he feels

[00:44] that he has. I mean I don't I'm not even

[00:46] convinced that Charlie was shot from the

[00:49] rooftop on Losi that day based on the

[00:51] evidence that has been

[00:52] >> Do you think he was shot? I I do not

[00:56] think that Charlie was shot from a 30

[00:58] six from

[00:59] >> just shot at all.

[01:00] >> I don't I don't know. I I think that a

[01:03] projectile hit Charlie and I'm open to

[01:06] other people's presentations, but I have

[01:08] not seen any compelling evidence that

[01:10] Charlie was shot by a 30 six.

[01:12] >> Can we see maybe if we're going to uh

[01:14] have an olive branch to each other if

[01:16] maybe we can establish what we consider

[01:19] the facts of the case to be first?

[01:20] >> Yeah, sure.

[01:21] >> Okay. So you don't you you're not sure

[01:24] if he was actually shot. You're open to

[01:27] alternative theories.

[01:28] >> I he was definitely hit with a

[01:29] projectile of some description. If we're

[01:31] talking about was he shot from a gun, a

[01:34] 306, I would say definitively no.

[01:37] >> Okay.

[01:37] >> It defies it defies common sense to

[01:39] think that he had a Superman neck. And

[01:41] even if he did have a Superman neck,

[01:43] which has been demonstrated, I think

[01:45] actually recently a YouTuber actually

[01:47] set up Spalhalla steel cages and shot it

[01:51] and it went through. So

[01:52] >> under no circumstance will I

[01:54] >> So at least not a 30 six

[01:56] >> definitively not a 300

[01:59] ft. No,

[02:00] >> but you're not necessarily closing off

[02:01] the avenue that he could have been shot

[02:03] at all

[02:03] >> with maybe a smaller

[02:05] >> smaller caliber. Okay. And then um

[02:09] there's some things that I'm going to

[02:10] make concessions on that I do think we

[02:12] need more answers on and I'm fine with

[02:13] that and we can get to those things as

[02:15] well. The other thing is in the

[02:17] timeline, one of the things that we

[02:19] dispute I think on the timeline

[02:21] >> is that you think that uh Robinson drove

[02:26] hours away to a steakhouse

[02:28] >> in the timeline. Is that correct?

[02:29] >> Yes.

[02:29] >> Okay. And what's the compelling evidence

[02:32] that you think you have there?

[02:34] >> I spoke to the owner of the restaurant.

[02:36] Mhm.

[02:36] >> Um and I u have seen the receipt. I know

[02:40] the conversation that I had and uh I

[02:42] think it's enough that you know it will

[02:44] be presented obviously if this goes to

[02:46] trial but yes I do believe that he was

[02:49] in Panguage which is near his

[02:50] grandparents home.

[02:52] >> Did he give you an unedited copy of that

[02:54] receipt?

[02:55] >> I have seen an unedited copy copy of

[02:57] that receipt. It was not given to me

[02:58] from the owner. But I want to before you

[03:00] we get into like all the timeline stuff,

[03:01] I want to address what you think is

[03:02] evidence so we can keep this on par with

[03:04] what your claim is since

[03:06] >> Well, I think that that's a piece of

[03:07] evidence that's in dispute and that's

[03:09] why I'm

[03:09] >> Yeah, but we're we're trying to get to

[03:11] whether there's overwhelming evidence

[03:13] that Tyler Robinson did this. Yeah.

[03:16] If you want to use the first part of

[03:17] that for the internal critique,

[03:19] >> we should go over the actual evidence

[03:20] that we feel

[03:21] >> the first reason that I think and I

[03:23] think it's compelling evidence is that

[03:24] Tyler Robinson's rifle was found uh near

[03:28] the crime scene. So, I would consider

[03:31] that to be very good evidence. And also,

[03:34] the fact of the matter is is that I

[03:35] dispute this claim that a 306 could not

[03:38] have made this wound. I think that

[03:40] that's absurd. 150 grain Remington

[03:42] corlocked. absolutely could shatter when

[03:45] it hits the neck of any human being.

[03:48] When you say that there's some steel

[03:49] neck and it's a smaller caliber, you

[03:51] have to make a counter explanation. Why

[03:53] wouldn't a smaller caliber also go

[03:55] through bone?

[03:55] >> It could. I didn't say it can't.

[03:57] >> Right. Exactly. So, if that's the case,

[03:59] then ammunition is going to be the

[04:01] critical key here. And if we have

[04:03] frangible ammunition, which we do in

[04:05] this case, a flex tip round, well, I'm

[04:07] sorry, not a flex tip, a soft point

[04:09] round from a 150 grain Remington core

[04:11] lock, that's just a small jacket that

[04:13] goes around the actual lead piece.

[04:15] These, this thing could have split apart

[04:17] in air for all we know, but definitely

[04:19] upon impact. And we have the medical

[04:21] examiner who confirms this in a summary,

[04:23] and my team can bring that up, the

[04:25] summarization, which means he would have

[04:27] to be a part of some kind of conspiracy

[04:29] as well.

[04:29] >> Okay. So, just to start with your point

[04:32] about saying that the gun was found near

[04:34] him, I mean, uh, near Loy Center or I

[04:38] guess off in the woods. That gun, did

[04:41] you watch the the testimony? Did you I'm

[04:43] Did you watch the preliminary hearing?

[04:44] >> Covered it live. Yeah.

[04:45] >> Okay. So, forgetting what the summary of

[04:46] the medical report was, did you watch

[04:48] the testimony that was given by the uh

[04:52] Caitlyn Oliver, the ATF woman, Samantha

[04:54] Carer, any of those people who went into

[04:56] the science of

[04:58] >> Yes, I recall. You're talking about

[05:00] >> the bullet analysis.

[05:01] >> Yeah. When they went into the DNA.

[05:02] >> Okay. So,

[05:03] >> that's kind of the most relevant part.

[05:05] Okay.

[05:05] >> I'm not denying I've never denied on my

[05:07] platform or anywhere else that a gun

[05:09] owned by Tyler Robinson was found near

[05:11] the crime scene, right?

[05:13] >> That doesn't that doesn't remove if you

[05:15] think somebody set up as a psy you could

[05:17] take a gun out of this room right now

[05:19] and you could walk out and plant it in a

[05:20] woods near a crime scene. That's not

[05:22] convincing evidence to me.

[05:23] >> I concur. I concur with the fact that

[05:25] that's a possibility. So you are you I

[05:28] think have said on a platform that you

[05:29] were a gunsmith.

[05:30] >> Mhm.

[05:31] >> Okay. And for how many years?

[05:33] >> Many many years.

[05:34] >> For many years. You also said that you

[05:36] were an army sniper.

[05:37] >> I wasn't a sniper in the army. Okay.

[05:38] >> And I never said that. But

[05:39] >> sorry. Your wife tweeted that you were

[05:41] an army sniper.

[05:42] >> Yeah. I don't know. Like 15 years ago,

[05:44] she said something. Does it change 15

[05:46] years later?

[05:46] >> She said that it was colloquial. So

[05:49] >> Army sniper is a colloquial term.

[05:50] >> Yeah. I'm not an I was never an army

[05:52] sniper.

[05:53] >> Okay. Um what did you do in the army?

[05:54] Did you teach this? She then I corrected

[05:55] it and said you taught rifles in the

[05:56] army.

[05:57] >> Not no I didn't teach rifle. No, I

[05:59] taught rifles as a private citizen.

[06:03] >> Okay.

[06:04] >> Mhm.

[06:04] >> Uh

[06:05] >> and I was an NRA instructor for many

[06:06] many many years alongside my my gun shop

[06:09] >> as with your expertise when

[06:12] >> she uh gave testimony on the stander

[06:18] that there was dust and there was debris

[06:22] >> that was found in the gun barrel. Y

[06:25] >> and then when we had the person who and

[06:28] this was I believe Caitlyn Oliver who

[06:31] explained painfully about the DNA the

[06:35] prince.

[06:35] >> Well, let's start with a point.

[06:36] >> I'm not done. You you said something so

[06:38] I'm going to finish my thought. Right.

[06:39] >> You don't want to do a point in time.

[06:40] >> No. Well, sure. If you want to respond

[06:42] to I want you to respond to two points.

[06:44] I want I want you to start with two

[06:45] points. Okay.

[06:46] >> Dust and debris in the gun barrel.

[06:48] >> Yeah. Secondly, the fact that there were

[06:50] five sets of prints, five plus actually

[06:53] by the end of the testimony, five sets

[06:55] of prints, uh, for which we already had

[06:57] the woman who worked for the FBI

[06:59] forensics testify that above two prints,

[07:01] if you're taking a sample,

[07:03] >> it it's no longer a science, right? She

[07:06] testified that when they took the sample

[07:08] of what was on the trigger, they saw

[07:09] five plus prints. And among those five

[07:12] plus prints, Tyler Robinson's was the

[07:15] most degraded. Mhm.

[07:17] >> So, I would like you to explain how

[07:19] Tyler Robinson's prints could be the

[07:21] most degraded when she said, "Actually,

[07:24] you could have DNA on something that

[07:26] you've touched. You could have DNA on

[07:27] something that you've never touched."

[07:29] And to get DNA degradation, we've

[07:31] they've looked at pieces um items 20, 40

[07:36] years on that don't have degradation.

[07:38] Yet, Tyler Robinson's prints amongst

[07:40] five plus other prints were the most

[07:43] degraded on that weapon.

[07:44] >> Yeah. So, let's get into all three of

[07:46] the claims. First with debris. When it

[07:48] comes to debris, firing a rifle doesn't

[07:50] always blow the debris out of the

[07:51] barrel.

[07:51] >> Okay. That I I

[07:53] >> You think there could be debris? Uh I'm

[07:56] sorry. Debris and dust.

[07:58] >> Yeah.

[07:59] >> He just fired the weapon.

[08:00] >> Okay.

[08:01] >> Not only that, he left it in a forest.

[08:03] >> Now, I don't know if if you agree with

[08:05] me, but if you leave a rifle in a wooded

[08:07] area, it's also possible that debris

[08:09] could get in that way. But I'm not even

[08:11] sure that that's what the case is. I

[08:13] think it's far more likely that he fired

[08:15] the shot. It just didn't blow all the

[08:16] debris out. And it often doesn't. You'll

[08:19] find this if you if you take Grand

[08:21] Papy's, you know, dirty rifle and it's

[08:24] all dusty inside the bore and you go

[08:25] fire it. You'll often look down the

[08:27] board and there's still dust.

[08:28] >> Okay.

[08:28] >> Happens all the time.

[08:29] >> Okay. And the prince?

[08:30] >> Yeah. So, the prince we don't know all

[08:33] of the details on just yet.

[08:34] >> We do. It was It was excruciatingly long

[08:37] testimony.

[08:38] >> We don't because they haven't gone to

[08:40] trial. So, we don't know uh on the print

[08:42] front, but Tyler Robinson's DNA was on

[08:44] there. You made the claim that Lance

[08:45] Twig's DNA was on there and it was not.

[08:47] >> Uh, well, when she gave the testimony.

[08:49] No, hold on. First, let's go to your

[08:51] first point cuz that's wrong. We can get

[08:52] a fact check on that. What do you mean

[08:53] we don't know until it goes to trial

[08:54] about the degraded prince? She testified

[08:56] and this is the person who who took the

[08:58] prince.

[08:58] >> Yes. But the problem is is that inside

[09:00] of this particular testimony, you agree

[09:02] with me that there's going to be much

[09:03] more of the DNA analysis trial, right?

[09:06] >> But you also would agree that her fact

[09:08] is not going to change that among the

[09:09] prince, his was the most degraded. So,

[09:11] I'm asking you to address that. How

[09:12] could that be possible? Let's give it um

[09:14] let's just grant this for a second as a

[09:17] possibility that his fingerprints were

[09:19] degraded.

[09:20] >> It's not a possibility. It's it's a

[09:21] fact. The person who took I'm just

[09:23] granting it for the sake of argument.

[09:24] >> You should grant it because it's a fact.

[09:26] >> So now So now So now it's granted. So

[09:28] what?

[09:30] >> What do you mean so what?

[09:30] >> Yeah. So what? What does that prove?

[09:32] >> It proves that if his prince were the

[09:35] most degraded amongst five of them.

[09:37] >> You're going to have to explain how

[09:38] that's possible if he's the one that

[09:40] recently fired the weapon.

[09:43] Yeah. So, wait a second. You're saying

[09:45] that it's an impossibility that if his

[09:47] fingerprints are the most degraded,

[09:50] you're you're the gunsmith.

[09:51] >> Well, wait a second. How would a

[09:52] gunsmith give an analysis on

[09:53] fingerprints or DNA? Do you think that

[09:55] I've worked in a DNA laboratory?

[09:57] >> So, your answer is I don't know. You can

[09:59] just say you don't know. You don't have

[10:00] to.

[10:01] >> But I did. But I did.

[10:02] >> No, you said so what? So say I don't

[10:04] know. I actually don't have an

[10:05] explanation for that. Candace is my

[10:07] question. Well, I think that what it

[10:08] would prove is that it is a more viable

[10:11] theory that people who had stronger

[10:13] prints on the gun may have used it more

[10:16] recently.

[10:16] >> Did they tell did they say who else had

[10:18] fingerprints on the gun?

[10:19] >> They named Matt Robinson explicitly and

[10:22] then and this was a part of the

[10:24] testimony where she was speaking about

[10:26] how they got samples of um elimination

[10:29] samples from the home of Amber Robinson,

[10:32] Matt Robinson, and Lance Twigs. So,

[10:34] those were the three names they named.

[10:35] So, are you saying that Twix?

[10:36] >> Would you like me to finish my

[10:37] statement?

[10:38] >> I just want to make sure I'm clarifying.

[10:39] >> I'm I'm I'm trying to finish the answer,

[10:41] but it can't be clarified until the

[10:42] answer comes out of my mouth.

[10:43] >> Okay. So, go ahead. This was a portion

[10:45] of her testimony where she was

[10:47] explaining how they got elimination

[10:49] samples from the home. And she named

[10:51] Matt Robinson, Amber Robinson, and Lance

[10:54] Twigs as the elimination samples that

[10:55] she was using. Um, and so she explicitly

[10:58] said she said some of them some, so we

[11:00] can assume two out of the three

[11:02] >> uh were their prints were found on the

[11:05] gun. She explicitly named Matt Robinson

[11:08] um as someone who had prints on the gun

[11:10] and then said there were five people

[11:12] that they had taken that sample from.

[11:14] And again, what's also relevant here is

[11:17] the earlier testimony uh which came from

[11:21] uh the FBI forensics analyst. I believe

[11:24] it was on day two where she said that

[11:26] when you're using those mixtures and

[11:28] those samples and you get up to five

[11:30] plus, it's really hard to make any sort

[11:32] of a determination. So, both of those

[11:34] things are relevant. If you can't

[11:36] explain why his prints are the most

[11:38] degraded and you're saying he is the

[11:40] shooter, it's not really a so what, it's

[11:42] an open-ended question that people have

[11:44] a right to pursue. It's not a

[11:45] conspiracy. It's actually proof of my

[11:47] claim that there is evidence that he was

[11:49] set up as a pathy.

[11:50] >> That wouldn't prove anything about him

[11:52] being a psy. It said it's evidence it to

[11:55] support the claim that he could have

[11:56] been set up as a

[11:58] >> patchy. So this is why I said earlier,

[12:00] so what because even if it's the case,

[12:02] this doesn't have an explanation for it

[12:04] yet. That doesn't actually give you any

[12:05] evidence in your corner for Tyler

[12:07] Robinson being a psych.

[12:08] >> Hang on, hang on, hang on. I didn't cut

[12:10] you off,

[12:10] >> right? You would need to actually

[12:12] explain how this would demonstrate Tyler

[12:14] Robinson. This is tied into to Robinson

[12:16] being a pathy. Are you claiming that

[12:18] these fingerprints were Lance Twigs or

[12:20] that he had any DNA there? I I'm saying

[12:22] that it could be Matt Robinson. It could

[12:24] be Amber Robinson. That sort of

[12:26] information is going to come out during

[12:27] the trial.

[12:27] >> How would that tie into the idea that

[12:29] he's a psych?

[12:30] >> Yes. Because if his is the most degraded

[12:31] prince and the information that I shared

[12:33] on my platform is true that this gun was

[12:35] given to Tyler Robinson as an heirloom.

[12:37] I had conversation with members of the

[12:40] Robinson family, Twigs family, both of

[12:43] them. You know, like I said, we're not

[12:44] just dreaming. Um, and if we're having

[12:46] those conversations and they told me

[12:49] that that gun was only given to Tyler

[12:50] Robinson because it was a family

[12:52] heirloom. Okay. So, it was his

[12:53] grandfather's gun or great-grandfather's

[12:55] gun. I don't remember the difference.

[12:56] Uh, I don't remember which one it was.

[12:58] And so, he got it because he's the

[12:59] firstborn. So, but he's not much of a

[13:01] shooter is what I was told. Uh, and so

[13:04] he has this because he inherited it

[13:06] essentially. So, if I get something from

[13:08] my grandpa and I put it up on the shelf

[13:10] and I own this, you could see that could

[13:11] be

[13:12] >> How do we get to the patchy part? But

[13:14] you don't let me ever get to the end of

[13:15] the sentence. So, how could we get to

[13:16] the psy part if I can't get to the end

[13:18] patiently till we get

[13:19] >> So, that could be a reasonable

[13:20] explanation as to why there was dust in

[13:22] the barrel because he doesn't often

[13:24] shoot this weapon and he is indeed a

[13:25] fisher. Um, and it could also be a

[13:27] reasonable explanation for why we have

[13:30] Matt Robinson's prints on this.

[13:31] Obviously, Lance Twigs, even if he has

[13:33] prints on things, they live together.

[13:34] That doesn't really mean anything. But

[13:36] that could demonstrate that somebody

[13:38] took his weapon and put it somewhere.

[13:40] His prints are the most degraded.

[13:41] somebody else's prints there. There's

[13:43] more presence of somebody else's prints

[13:45] and that could demonstrate that somebody

[13:47] is taking items from his house and

[13:48] putting it into very

[13:49] >> but it also could demonstrate nothing.

[13:51] So the problem the problem that you have

[13:52] here is that this is pure conjecture.

[13:55] This is hang on. This is not evidence

[13:58] that Tyler Robinson is Apache. It's only

[14:00] evidence that you have conjectured up

[14:02] that uh well if it's the case that these

[14:06] are the the more degradated prints then

[14:08] therefore that means must be psy

[14:12] parents finger dad's fingerprints on

[14:14] guns must be

[14:16] >> describe how this actually links in to

[14:18] Robinson being a psy

[14:20] >> okay I just described that for you so

[14:22] I'm not I can explain it to you but I

[14:23] can't understand it for you so I'm going

[14:24] to move on from that uh but to just go

[14:26] back to your point about this is not

[14:28] evidence uh You can't make that claim

[14:30] because you're the entire basis for why

[14:32] you think that there is evidence for

[14:33] Tyler Robinson being the person that

[14:35] took the shot is based off of a hearing

[14:37] under Utah 1102 rules. Meaning that they

[14:40] are doing the exact same thing that I am

[14:42] doing. This is the state. You said

[14:43] you're here to represent the state.

[14:44] Well, did you watch the preliminary?

[14:46] >> No, I didn't say I was here to represent

[14:47] the state.

[14:47] >> The state's position you think is strong

[14:49] and convincing.

[14:50] >> What I'm here to do is represent my own

[14:52] opinion, which is said in your opening

[14:53] statement based on the evidence

[14:55] presented so far by the state. state has

[14:57] presented evidence under Utah's 1102

[15:01] rule.

[15:02] >> But this doesn't demonstrate any

[15:03] patching.

[15:03] >> No, that's very important because that

[15:05] rule is hearsay. So you can't say at the

[15:07] same time, Candace, you're not allowed

[15:08] to. And and what that means under the

[15:10] Utah rule, which I'm sure you know cuz

[15:12] I'm sure you watched the preliminary

[15:13] hearing and yourself understand what

[15:15] that means is that the entire hearing

[15:17] was hearsay. It means none of that

[15:18] information that was presented is going

[15:20] to be allowed. The majority of it, the

[15:22] overwhelming majority of it is is not

[15:24] going to be allowed at the trial.

[15:25] They're allowed to present when it's

[15:27] this appropriative hearing.

[15:28] >> I don't think all the evidence that was

[15:29] that was put in was hearsay.

[15:31] >> Okay. You didn't watch this case.

[15:33] >> But not only that. No,

[15:34] >> no, no. That's this is a huge point.

[15:35] This

[15:35] >> I want you call for a fact check if all

[15:37] the evidence need more than a fact

[15:39] check. This was every single day.

[15:42] They want to go there. So they said they

[15:43] had there's a medical examiner's

[15:45] explanation of the shooting

[15:47] >> that's in the back. Rob, if you want to

[15:49] pull it up and then Candace, if anybody

[15:52] from your team wants to pull something

[15:53] up, no problem as well, but they're

[15:54] requesting it. If you guys got it, pull

[15:56] it up uh so we can show it. And in the

[15:59] interim, can is that it?

[16:00] >> Yeah. So, I'll read this.

[16:02] >> Just what what are we looking at? Just

[16:03] so we know.

[16:04] >> Yeah. So, the this says the bullet or at

[16:07] least part of it sequentially perforated

[16:09] the interior left of Mr. Kirk's neck,

[16:12] strap muscles of the left side of the

[16:13] neck. This is a summary, by the way. Uh

[16:16] left common uh carttoid on the left

[16:19] internal external jugular veins. The

[16:20] bullet also obliterated the left side

[16:23] C27 vertebrae, transacted the cervical

[16:26] spinal cord. Medical examiner observed a

[16:29] significant portion of Kirk's cervical

[16:31] spinal cord was traumatically absent.

[16:34] Mr. Kirk suffered from other severe

[16:35] injuries including bilateral apical and

[16:38] posterior intercausal hemorrhages,

[16:41] pulmonary apical hemorrhages, multiple

[16:44] disruptions to the thyroid, etc., etc.

[16:46] So there the summary of the examination

[16:48] is that he was shot. Okay,

[16:50] >> that was what they were pulling that up

[16:51] for.

[16:52] >> Okay. And I don't I'm not disputing that

[16:54] he could have been hit with a

[16:55] projectile. I we're not disputing that.

[16:57] So, I don't know why this was brought up

[16:58] as a fact check. Uh could you bring up

[17:00] 1102 Utah rule? Cuz this is an

[17:02] unbelievable point that you're making by

[17:03] saying that I am not allowed to infer

[17:05] off of evidence.

[17:06] >> You can infer. I'm trying to follow the

[17:08] inference.

[17:09] >> No, but your your entire reason like you

[17:11] you asserted that you believe there's

[17:12] overwhelming evidence on the basis of

[17:14] what we saw in the preliminary hearing.

[17:16] The entire preliminary hearing was

[17:19] hearsay.

[17:19] >> Yeah, I'm fine with your inference.

[17:21] >> But no, no, you just literally said I

[17:23] couldn't do that. Yes, I can.

[17:24] >> No, I didn't. I'm just saying from your

[17:25] inference, how do we get to PY?

[17:28] >> This is how you got to shooter. The

[17:30] Tyler Robinson did it. The same way you

[17:31] got to shoot from that. Yes, you did.

[17:33] You You again, we This is something

[17:35] important. So, we should pull up a fact

[17:37] check about what the 1102 Utah under

[17:40] their constitution for the sake of a

[17:42] preliminary hearing. They do not have to

[17:44] have hard evidence. They don't have to

[17:46] put people on the trial for them. But

[17:48] no, no, that's why the entire hearing

[17:50] was basically hearsay. Officer back and

[17:52] not all of it. Like I said,

[17:53] >> the overwhelming majority I mean outside

[17:57] of the one that you don't that you

[17:59] [clears throat] don't want to give me

[18:01] though outside of No, that is what's in

[18:02] dispute. It means that your entire brand

[18:05] of saying you don't have evidence, you

[18:07] don't have evidence falls apart when the

[18:09] entire preliminary hearing is based off

[18:11] of hearay. In fact, Lance's testimony

[18:13] before they had about an hour debate,

[18:15] actually maybe it was more than an hour

[18:17] debate before he sat and they said,

[18:18] "This is not going to be allowed. You

[18:19] wouldn't even be allowed to do this.

[18:20] We'd be able to cross-examine him. Uh

[18:22] the questions that they're asking,

[18:23] Lance, are all leading." And what did he

[18:25] say? Well, I'm the magistrate under Utah

[18:28] Constitution. You know, 11:02 it is my

[18:30] job to allow all of this so we can see

[18:32] if the state has enough here that we can

[18:35] then move to a trial, which will then

[18:37] they would not allow this stuff. They

[18:38] would say we get to cross-examine Lance.

[18:39] Lance will disputing.

[18:42] >> No, but the entire substance of your

[18:44] argument is that people can't infer off

[18:47] of evidence. That's what you're saying

[18:48] to me. You when you say Candace,

[18:52] which is a fact infer off of that that

[18:55] Tyler could have been a psych

[18:57] making stuff up. So here's what the

[18:59] position is. I'm making 112.

[19:04] I am doing exactly what the state did. I

[19:07] am looking at a piece of evidence and I

[19:08] am saying

[19:08] >> But you're not showing me how you get

[19:09] there. you describe to the audience what

[19:11] rule 112.

[19:12] >> So this just so everybody who's watching

[19:13] this at home understands what I am

[19:15] saying even if he doesn't what Andrew is

[19:18] arguing is that I don't have the right

[19:20] to extrapolate from a stand like um

[19:23] making it up

[19:24] >> just purely making it up. I'm asking

[19:26] based on based on your show my evidence.

[19:29] You just showed yours. Reliable hearsay.

[19:32] Reliable hearsay and criminal prelim

[19:34] preliminary examinations. The entire

[19:38] >> uh preliminary hearing that you just saw

[19:40] was on the basis of reliable hearsay.

[19:42] And what that means essentially is the

[19:44] people who are making the statements can

[19:45] just say Patrick told me that he did

[19:48] this on Monday. Patrick's not here. Uh

[19:51] and that is they they can allow that

[19:53] into the hearing. That's just it because

[19:55] it's just meant to be probitative and so

[19:57] it's the state saying here's what we

[19:59] have inferred. So you are allowed to

[20:01] take a piece of evidence and then you

[20:03] are allowed to infer off of that

[20:05] evidence. Okay,

[20:06] >> case in point that's a demonstration of

[20:08] to give you that's a demonstration of

[20:10] what I just did. I said the prince were

[20:12] the most degraded off of Tyler Robinson.

[20:15] And from that what I am inferring is

[20:17] that it's plausible that Tyler Robinson

[20:18] was set up.

[20:19] >> That doesn't that's the point in

[20:21] contention.

[20:21] >> That's not a point in contention. That's

[20:23] the point in content.

[20:24] >> It's not a point in contention. If

[20:25] you're saying it's a point, it is the

[20:26] point in contention.

[20:26] >> It's not the point in contention. I'm

[20:28] telling you that was what the entire

[20:29] hearing allowed for. So the evidence

[20:30] that he is describing that he is using

[20:33] to argue his case is all based on

[20:36] inference, not fact.

[20:38] >> Inference, not fact. So what they are

[20:40] inferring off of the facts.

[20:42] >> When we set out to create a shoe that

[20:44] blends comfort, [music] function, and

[20:46] luxury, we had the choice to make it

[20:49] fast. We had the choice to make it

[20:51] cheap. We chose neither. Instead, we

[20:54] chose Tuscano. We chose true Italian

[20:56] [music] craftsmanship. Each pair touched

[20:59] by 50 skilled hands. We chose [music]

[21:01] patience, spending two years perfecting

[21:04] every detail. And we chose the finest

[21:06] quality at every step. Introducing the

[21:10] future looks [music] bright collection.

[21:12] Not rushed, not disposable, not

[21:15] ordinary. rather intentional, luxurious,

[21:20] timeless.

[21:25] If you enjoy this video, you want to

[21:27] watch more videos like this, click here.

[21:28] And if you want to watch the entire

[21:30] podcast, click here.