Up Next
Michael Franzese Questions Candace Owens Motivation in Charlie Kirk Assassination Investigation and Erika Kirk Controversy
57:32
Charlie Kirk’s Chief Of Staff & Father Caught Blatantly LYING!
20:24
Patrick Bet-David Poll Shows 70% Support Candace Owens Over Turning Point USA in Investigation Debate
8:42
The Foundation of Reasonable Doubt
As a trial lawyer and former prosecutor for 43 years, I've developed a way of thinking that exists exclusively in the courtroom—a framework that doesn't translate to the real world of speculation and theory. When I say Tyler Robinson is not guilty, will be acquitted, should be acquitted, or will walk, I need to be crystal clear about what I mean. I'm not saying he's innocent as the driven snow. He might be, could very well be, and I wouldn't be surprised. But that's not my point.
In my world, we operate from a specific position: somebody will prosecute us, accuse us, arrest us, or sue us. They come forward and say, "This is what you did." At that point, you might respond in various ways—"I didn't do that," or "I did that, but not the way you think," or "It wasn't as bad as you claim." Perhaps it wasn't burglary but trespass. Not aggravated battery but simple battery. The fundamental premise is this: you've got to tell me what I did. I'm not going to say anything. I don't have to disprove or prove anything. I might want to, but I don't have to show you motivation, thinking, nothing. You came to me with this charge, and now I'm going to ask you: can you prove this?
The Standard of Proof
In the case of Tyler Robinson, the standard is beyond and to the exclusion—and I know this is weird language—of every reasonable doubt. This means if I come up with a doubt that I can attach a reason to, the prosecution fails. For example, if I say I doubt this because I think the alibi presented was credible, or I think the connection to the rifle was faulty, or I think the identification was wrong, or I don't believe the confession—I have to have a reason. It's not a forced doubt or a speculative doubt. Read the jury instructions for reasonable doubt in your jurisdiction.
Reasonable doubt means if I can tell you I doubt this one particular, very important element that you were trying to prove, and I've got a reason for it—that's it. Not guilty. That's it. And here's the best part: you can know in your heart of hearts, you could think that person did this theoretically, but you're not the detective. You're the juror. You're not Columbo. You're the juror. You're the doctor who holds up the X-ray and says broken or not broken, pregnant or not pregnant. That's it. We don't know whether you tried to get pregnant, how many times you tried, whether you're promiscuous, how old you are. We don't even know who this person is. Pregnant. This sample pregnant. Yep. You proved it. That's it.
The Courtroom Versus Speculation
When you think like that, it helps you understand the case. Now, what we love to do in the world of analysis—which is great, I love this—we love to get into the granular, the minutiae, the particular, the interstitial, the atomic details. That stuff doesn't come up in the courtroom. That's not what happens there. This is great for discussion and investigation, but it doesn't belong in trial.
Do you think that maybe when they told Charlie Kirk that he had better watch what he says as far as not supporting certain countries—could that be relevant? That doesn't come into this. Do you think that maybe Charlie Kirk might be alive? If Charlie Kirk is alive, that is an affirmative defense. That is a defense because one of the first elements in murder is that he's got to be dead. Not only that—that Charlie Kirk is dead. Not some guy that you saw there, but Charlie Kirk is dead and he was killed by Tyler Robinson, depending upon how the particular phrase of the ultimate charging document reads—by gunshot or what have you.
The Two Pieces of Evidence
I'm looking at this case completely differently. I don't know about other aspects. I don't even know about various theories. Did you prove anything? Here are the issues. There are two pieces of supposedly good evidence here. Theoretically.
One is the confession or admission. There's a difference between confession and admission. A confession is admitting to all of the elements of the crime: "I admit that on the 10th of September in 2025, I did knowingly and intentionally and furtively and feloniously with malice aforethought take the life of this individual with a firearm." That's a confession—everything. An admission might be "I was there." It might be partial. It might be "Okay, I admit it was my gun." That's a different story. But okay, we'll just call it the confession for now. We'll get to that later.
The Magic Rifle That Wasn't Fired
And then the gun—the Mauser 98, the 30-06. I will show you that a lint brush has as much to do with the dispatch and elimination of Charlie Kirk as that rifle did. Specifically, it was found and alleged to be the instrument used against Charlie Kirk. This talk about a magic bullet—this 30-06 hits a piece of cervical spine and just fragments because of diet and strength and health? It's a ridiculous story.
But that rifle—that's it. Big problem. Can't link it to anything. Can't link it because the same way you can't link a lint brush—because this had nothing to do with it and neither did that 30-06. It had nothing to do with this, and you can call it all you want.
I'll never forget how they explained it on cable news shows the first time this happened. They had experts saying, "Well, there are a lot of reasons why you can't find any fragment of the bullet or the round." Why? "Well, it often times just obliterates—that's why these are so lethal." Anything else? People were listening to this thinking, "You've got to be kidding. How much did they pay you to say this?"
The Ballistics Problem
What would you like me to do as a juror? Just introduce it into evidence? Just look—it may not be able to connect with the elimination of Mr. Kirk, but don't worry about that? Why do we have ballistics tests? Why? Why don't we just use whatever we find on or near the defendant? That's good enough? No, no, no, no. We normally like to connect them. And if they don't connect, if you can't connect it either by evidence, ballistics, lands and grooves, whatever you want to call it, we say sorry. This is not enough.
It's like fingerprints—we only have one little ridge. That's not enough. "Oh, come on, sometimes these prints get sloughed off." What? You're not going to let a murder prosecution go because you can't match it? Yes, if there's no other identification. "Oh, come on, sometimes people just can't make IDs. It's dark." I've never heard somebody argue that a pregnancy test that says negative might be wrong because sometimes those things are bad, or maybe you didn't dip enough. None of this makes any sense.
The Million Dollar Piece of Evidence
They're acting like the gun issue is no big deal, and then they get mad at you. "I can't believe these conspiracy theorists are making a big deal because the gun doesn't test." But here is the million-dollar piece of evidence—if ever you need something that makes complete and total sense, listen to this.
There's a fellow—and by the way, I always give credit to all of these great brothers and sisters in the world who bring things up—named Valhalla VFT who said something about a month ago that was so good. He said, "You know that rifle they had? These gun-sniffing dogs couldn't find it." He continued, explaining that because of his special forces training and extensive military background, he can tell you these dogs can smell a fish fart. They are so sensitive—if there's one little microgram, any particle of gunpowder residue floating, they'll find it. You can hide nothing from these dogs. They can smell this stuff.
And that should have been the tip-off. He just answered the question. But he continues: "Do you know why the FBI dogs couldn't find this? Do you know why they couldn't find that rifle? Do you know why these dogs that are trained to find weapons that have been fired didn't find it? Because it wasn't fired."
It's the most obvious answer. Yes. And do you know why the blood splatter experts didn't find any blood? Because there was no blood. So you have this weapon wrapped in a towel, thrown out, that wasn't fired—because if it had been fired, those dogs would have been all over it from the next county over.
The Planted Evidence Theory
You think maybe somebody might have dropped that gun there? You think maybe somebody might have planted it? Makes sense to me. Makes a lot of sense.
The first thing I'd do is call witnesses. The defense team has some of the best voices out there because it comes down to facts and practicality. Jimmy Dore on the evidence of taking the gun apart—this is expert testimony. The defense team has access to people who understand the practical impossibility of what's being alleged.
The Confession Conundrum
Okay, here's the problem. What the hell was Tyler confessing to or admitting to his parents? The magical gun? Is he stupid? Does he think—first of all, I don't think he brought anything. But if I could sit there and say, "Tyler, I'm your lawyer. You can answer this question and I can't tell anybody—attorney-client privilege. Did you shoot him? Did you? With what? Sure as hell not that thing, that old granddaddy shooting iron. What did you shoot him with?"
Most probably I'll bet you anything he says no. Then what the hell are they talking about you confessed to? And if you did confess, you're nuts. There must be another rifle out there because it sure as hell isn't that one. What are you confessing to?
And what did you say? "Hey guys, I was there, he was saying some bad things"? Wait a minute. See what I mean? This is why I struggle with this. Sometimes in law there are these conundrums or conundra—things that don't make any sense. They're kind of illogical, but they're interesting to analyze. One of them is there's no such thing as attempted assault. Why? Because assault is attempted battery. So attempted assault would be attempted attempted battery. Little things like that.
The Legal Absurdity
People always ask questions like can you clone yourself? Yes, perhaps you can. What is the clone in relation to you? It's you. Who are its parents? Your parents. It's fun legal theory. We're not there yet, but it's the kind of thinking lawyers engage in. This case, though—you're going to need a wider whiteboard and you're going to need someone brilliant to come in to explain this because I'm telling you, it's nuts.
Listen carefully. I don't have any dog in this fight, any skin in this game or whatever you want to call it. Tyler Robinson is somebody who was just—well, he's just who he is. But I've got this thing, this funny thing as an officer of the court. It's called the Constitution. When I was sworn into the Florida Bar and the New York Bar and the New Jersey Bar and the DC Bar and the Supreme Court of the United States and all of the attendant federal courts, the thing we always swear to is to uphold the Constitution. Not to uphold justice or prosecute the guilty, but to uphold the Constitution.
And if that kid is found guilty based on this evidence, then there's something very wrong here. And I mean something really, really wrong.
The Evidentiary Gaps
What the hell are you talking about? How did that gun get there? First of all, to know that he'd be in the room with you would require planning. What if Tyler said, "I don't know. I never said any of that. I don't know why I'm here"? Did he tell his father that he did this or was involved in this? And if he did, with what weapon?
And by the way, did anybody check his hands for GSR—gunshot residue—or anything like that? Remember the old days when they did nitrate or paraffin tests? Did anybody check his cheek? No. This is like the worst case. And by the way, if he had confessed, you would have bet it would have been right there, documented immediately.
You want to confess to the cops, not the father, typically. Are you sure he said that? We're getting into hearsay territory—well, it's not hearsay because it's an exception because it's an admission. But the point is the cops would be there. They'd ask, "Would you sign this? Can we reduce this to writing? Is this your statement? Would you sign this, please? Did anybody threaten you in any way or promise you anything? Was this made freely, not out of duress? Do we have a camera of this? Would you sign this?" That's the way cops do it. You've seen them on TV.
The DNA Non-Issue
Let's move backwards. Assuming that somehow that rifle gets into evidence—how? I don't know. The lint brush should be in evidence too—it had nothing to do with it either. But they made a big deal that his DNA is all over it. It's his gun. What about the other people, though? Let's check those DNAs. By the way, who found this? Can we check your DNA, please?
I'm not sure what this DNA proves. These are the only people who make a big deal over the fact that they found his DNA on something he owned. This is where we're going with these people. This is the lunacy. Let me tell you something, the reason why he's going to walk is that this jury is going to say, "What the hell is going on here? What do you have? Why is he even in jail?"
The Prosecution's Impossible Burden
Forget the preliminary hearing—that's coming up. I'm going to say, "What the hell are you holding him for? What is your evidence?" Ideally, Mr. or Mrs. Prosecutor, when the jury goes back, what exactly are they going to be finding him guilty of? What? The confession? The confession of what? Firing a rifle that was never fired? Using an imaginary rifle? What are you talking about?
That's it. You told us that's it. You said the dogs couldn't find evidence of firing. And if those dogs can't find that a rifle was fired, it wasn't fired. That's it. And guess whose evidence I use? Their own. They'll call Valhalla VFT or one of these folks to show up with their medals—this brave American soldier who knows a little bit about war, who himself saw these detection dogs work.
This is nuts. You work backwards. It's like they created this premise and you're saying no. Well, okay, there was a confession—but if he confessed, what is he confessing to? Because he would have confessed to using the rifle. And then he what? And then he supposedly said, "Can you get granddaddy's shooting iron"? Why? What are you worried about? Did you bring that?
And this is where Jimmy Dore comes in as a key witness, talking about breaking down the weapon and how preposterous this would be. Not only that, trying to get somebody to go and retrieve something—this case makes no sense. I haven't even gone to the ballistics yet. I haven't even talked about that.
Imagine you're going to introduce a confession of a person who used a weapon that was never fired. That's the prosecution's case, and that's why Tyler Robinson will walk.
Video Transcript
[00:00] I'm a lawyer.
[00:02] I'm a trial lawyer,
[00:06] former prosecutor
[00:10] for 43 years.
[00:13] And for 43 years,
[00:16] you think like one. You you think
[00:22] like a lawyer, like a prosecutor and
[00:26] then
[00:28] you try to introduce that way of
[00:30] thinking which is completely and totally
[00:36] it doesn't exist in the real world.
[00:40] And I'll tell you why.
[00:43] When I tell you
[00:45] that Tyler Robinson
[00:48] is not guilty
[00:51] or will be acquitted or should be
[00:53] acquitted or will walk,
[00:56] I say this carefully.
[00:58] I am not saying he's innocent,
[01:05] driven snow. He might be, could very
[01:08] well be. I wouldn't be surprised. That's
[01:11] not what I'm saying.
[01:13] In my world,
[01:15] we sit back and somebody will prosecute
[01:21] us, accuse us, arrest us, sue us. They
[01:25] will come forward and they say, "This is
[01:27] what you did this." Okay, now follow me
[01:31] on this.
[01:33] And sometimes you might say, "I didn't
[01:36] do that."
[01:38] Or you might say, "Well,
[01:41] I didn't do that."
[01:44] Or, "Well,
[01:47] I did that, but not the way you think."
[01:50] Or not as bad. I didn't burglarize the
[01:53] home. It was a trespass. It wasn't
[01:56] aggravated battery. It was battery. You
[01:57] know, I mean that that So, so we start
[02:02] off with a premise. You've got to tell
[02:04] me what I did. I'm not going to say
[02:06] anything. I don't have to disprove,
[02:08] prove anything. I might I might want to.
[02:11] I don't have to show you motivation,
[02:14] thinking, nothing.
[02:16] You came to me and you are giving me
[02:21] this charge. You are hitting me with
[02:22] this. And now I'm going to have to ask
[02:24] you, can you prove this? In the case of
[02:27] Tyler Robinson, beyond and to the
[02:30] exclusion I know this is kind of weird
[02:32] language of every reasonable doubt.
[02:36] Meaning if I come out come up with a
[02:39] doubt that I can attach a reason to or
[02:43] on for example if I say um you know I
[02:45] doubt this is because I think the alibi
[02:49] that was presented was one thing or I
[02:52] think the
[02:54] connection to the rifle was faulty or I
[02:57] think that identification was wrong or I
[03:00] don't believe the confession or I don't
[03:02] believe the c I have to have a reason. I
[03:05] just don't say, you know,
[03:09] no, it's not a forced out doubt, a
[03:11] speculative speculative doubt.
[03:14] Read the jury instructions for
[03:16] reasonable doubt in your jurisdiction.
[03:18] And it's kind of weird, but it means
[03:21] reasonable doubt is if I can tell you I
[03:24] doubt
[03:27] this one particular very important
[03:28] element that you were trying to prove
[03:30] and I've got a reason for it. There's a
[03:32] reason why I doubt it. That's it. It's
[03:34] not guilty. That's it.
[03:38] And the best part is the best part is
[03:42] you can know in your heart of hearts.
[03:45] You could say that son of a did
[03:48] this theoretically,
[03:50] but you're not the detective. You're the
[03:54] juror. You're not Columbbo. You're the
[03:56] juror.
[03:58] You're the doctor who holds up the the
[04:01] X-ray and says broken,
[04:05] not broken, or
[04:10] pregnant,
[04:12] not pregnant. That's it.
[04:15] We don't know
[04:17] whether you tried to get pregnant, how
[04:19] many times you tried, whether you're a
[04:22] slat, how old you are. We don't even
[04:26] know who this person is. Pregnant. This
[04:28] sample pregnant. Yep. You proved it.
[04:31] That's it. Very very.
[04:36] And when you think like that, it helps
[04:37] you. Now,
[04:41] what we like to do in the world of this,
[04:44] which is great. I love this. We love it.
[04:47] We love to get into the granular, the
[04:49] animistic, the particular, the
[04:51] interstitial, the the abscidarian,
[04:56] just atomic. Love that stuff. That
[05:00] doesn't come up here. That's not in the
[05:02] courtroom. This is great for this. Do
[05:04] you think that maybe Do you think that
[05:06] maybe
[05:08] maybe
[05:10] when they told Charlie
[05:14] that he had better watch what he says as
[05:16] far as not supporting certain countries
[05:19] that was it could be that doesn't come
[05:22] into this?
[05:25] Do you think that maybe
[05:27] may we can go on to this? We we could
[05:29] I'm telling Do you think that maybe
[05:31] Charlie might be alive? If Charlie's
[05:33] alive, that is the that is an
[05:37] affirmative defense. That is a defense
[05:40] because one of the first elements in
[05:42] murder is that he's got to be dead. Not
[05:44] only that, that Charlie Kirk is dead.
[05:47] Not the some guy that you saw there, but
[05:49] Charlie Kirk is dead and he was killed
[05:52] by Tyler Robinson. And if the depending
[05:57] upon how how the particular phrase of
[05:59] the of the ultimate charging document is
[06:02] by gunshot or what have you. All right,
[06:04] you got that? I I I just had to say
[06:06] that. So, I'm looking at this thing
[06:09] completely different. I don't know about
[06:13] Erica. I don't even know about that. Did
[06:16] you prove anything? And here are the
[06:18] issues.
[06:19] There's two pieces of really good
[06:22] evidence here theoretically.
[06:25] Theoretically, one is the confession,
[06:29] the admission. There's a difference
[06:30] between confession and admission.
[06:34] A confession is admitting to all of the
[06:38] elements of the crime. I admit that on
[06:40] this on the 10th of September in 2025, I
[06:44] did knowingly and intelligently and and
[06:46] fertively and feloniously with malice of
[06:48] forethought did take the life of this
[06:50] two wit with a fire. You know, that's
[06:52] that's that's that's the confession.
[06:54] Everything
[06:56] an admission might be I was there. It
[07:00] might be a partial board. It might it
[07:01] might be okay. I admit it was my gun,
[07:04] which we'll get to in a moment. I admit
[07:06] that's a different story. But but but
[07:08] okay. So we'll just call it the
[07:09] confession. We'll get to that later. Get
[07:12] to that later.
[07:14] And then the gun,
[07:16] the Mouser 98, the 306.
[07:23] This is a lint brush.
[07:27] And I will show you that this lint brush
[07:30] has as much to do with the dispatch and
[07:33] the elimination of Charlie Kirk as that
[07:36] rifle did. Granddaddy's shooting iron.
[07:39] Okay.
[07:41] Specifically,
[07:44] specifically
[07:46] it was found
[07:49] and it was alleged to be at least what
[07:53] we're saying to be the instrument of
[07:56] dispatch. I got to watch this for
[07:58] YouTube purposes. The instrument of
[08:00] dispatch
[08:02] for Charlie Kurt. All right.
[08:05] This talk about a magic bullet. This 30
[08:08] odd six hits a piece of cervical and
[08:11] just
[08:14] not not not his head, the bullet. It
[08:16] just fragments because of the of the the
[08:19] the
[08:21] food and the the the diet and the
[08:24] strength and the health. It's ridiculous
[08:27] story. Anyway, but that rifle, right?
[08:30] That's it. Big problem. Can't link it to
[08:34] anything. can't link it because the same
[08:36] way you can't link a lint brush because
[08:38] this had nothing to do with it and
[08:40] neither did that 306.
[08:43] It had nothing to do with this
[08:47] and you can and and you you you can call
[08:49] it all you want. I'll never forget I'll
[08:51] never forget I'll never forget how they
[08:53] said the first time this happened they
[08:54] had all these cable news shows well we
[08:56] have it on expert and expert says well
[08:58] it's it's it's
[09:00] there's a lot of reasons why you can't
[09:02] find any fragment of the bullet or the
[09:05] round yeah why well it's
[09:10] it it often times just obliterates
[09:12] that's that's that's why these are so
[09:15] lethal Uhhuh. Anything else?
[09:18] People were listening to this like, "You
[09:19] got to be kidding. How much did they pay
[09:22] you to say this? It's unbelievable.
[09:27] What?
[09:29] Really?
[09:32] I you know I I'm thinking to myself, I
[09:34] Well, it's so what what would you like
[09:36] me to do?
[09:39] Just to say, you know what, we as a
[09:41] juror, we'll just introduce it into
[09:43] evidence. We'll just just look. It may
[09:45] not be able to connect, you know, with
[09:48] the elimination of Mr. Kirk, but we'll
[09:50] just you just don't don't worry about
[09:53] that.
[09:55] Why do we have ballistics tests? Why?
[09:57] Why? Why don't we just use whatever we
[10:00] find on or near the defendant? That's
[10:02] good enough. No, no, no, no. We normally
[10:07] like to connect them. And if they don't
[10:09] connect, if you can't connect it either
[10:11] by evidence, ballistics, lands and
[10:13] grooves, whatever you want to call it,
[10:15] we say sorry. This is not enough. Sorry.
[10:19] Fingerprints.
[10:22] We only have one little ridge. That's
[10:24] not enough. Oh, come on. It's Look,
[10:26] look, I can explain that. Sometimes
[10:28] these these prints get uh, you know,
[10:31] sloughed off.
[10:34] What do you mean? What is this? What?
[10:36] You're you're not going to let a murder
[10:38] prosecution go because you can't match
[10:40] it. Yes.
[10:42] There's no there's no identification
[10:44] other ways. Oh, come on. Sometime look,
[10:46] sometimes people just can't make they
[10:48] can't ID. It's dark. I've never heard
[10:51] somebody who just,
[10:55] you know,
[10:57] here's a pregnancy test. Let me let me
[11:00] dip this in. Oh, it says negative. Wait
[11:03] a minute. Wait a minute. Sometimes
[11:05] sometimes those things can No, no, it's
[11:07] pregnant. Sometimes they're bad.
[11:09] Sometime maybe you didn't dip enough. I
[11:12] none of this makes any sense. I'm trying
[11:14] to give you an analogy because analogies
[11:15] don't work. It's crazy.
[11:18] They're acting like, well,
[11:21] and then they get mad at you. Oh, I
[11:22] can't believe these conspiracy theorists
[11:24] are getting making a big deal because
[11:25] because the the the gun doesn't test.
[11:27] But here is the
[11:31] here is the million dollar. Oh my god.
[11:35] The million-doll
[11:37] piece of evidence. The million-doll.
[11:40] This is it. this if ever if ever you you
[11:43] need something which is and by the way
[11:45] when you hear this when you hear this
[11:48] when you see this when you're aware of
[11:50] this you will say to yourself oh my god
[11:53] that makes complete and total sense
[11:55] complete and total sense
[11:58] there is a fellow
[12:02] and by the way I always give credit to
[12:04] all of these great great fellow brothers
[12:09] and sisters in the world who will bring
[12:14] things up. I I'm telling you, I I hear
[12:16] it all the time.
[12:19] And there's a fellow named Valhalla VFT
[12:25] who one time said something which was so
[12:28] good. He said this um when did he say
[12:32] this? This is not new. It was a while
[12:34] back. It was uh it's about a month ago.
[12:38] You know, I'm trying to think of new
[12:40] ways, new new new new ways to to bring
[12:43] this and and I'm sifting through. I'm
[12:45] watching so many Listen, I guess we're
[12:48] at war and I'm just immersed in this
[12:51] Charlie Kirk Robinson things. Anyway, he
[12:55] said, "You know that uh that rifle they
[12:59] had, these these these gun sniffing dogs
[13:04] couldn't find it." I'll tell you one
[13:06] thing because of his special forces
[13:09] training and his extensive military
[13:10] background. He said, "I can tell you
[13:11] these dogs can they can they can smell a
[13:14] fish fart." You know, let me tell you
[13:15] something. They they they are so if
[13:17] there's one little micro micron
[13:21] microgram
[13:22] any pic of this floating, it'll find it.
[13:26] You can they they can smell this stuff.
[13:31] Huh. And that should have been like the
[13:33] tip off. That should have been like,
[13:34] "Wait a minute, wait a minute." I think
[13:36] he just answered the question. But he
[13:39] continues. He says, "And do you know
[13:41] why? Do you know why the FBI dogs,
[13:43] whatever, couldn't find this? Do you
[13:44] know why? Do you know why they couldn't
[13:47] find that rifle? Do you do you do you
[13:51] know why these dogs that are trained to
[13:54] find weapons that have been fired? Do
[13:56] you know why they didn't find it? Do you
[13:58] know why? Why? Because they did. It
[14:02] wasn't fired.
[14:05] It's like the most
[14:07] obvious.
[14:09] Duh. Yes.
[14:13] And do you know why the blood splatter
[14:16] experts didn't find any blood? Because
[14:20] there was no blood. Because you know
[14:23] what I mean? It just so you have this
[14:27] weapon
[14:28] that's wrapped in a towel thrown out
[14:32] that wasn't fired
[14:37] because if it had been fired those dogs
[14:39] would have been in the next county and
[14:42] they they would have been off.
[14:46] So,
[14:48] you think maybe somebody might have
[14:50] dropped that gun there?
[14:54] You think maybe somebody might have
[14:56] dropped that gun there? You think maybe
[14:58] somebody might have planted him? What do
[15:00] you think, Aunt B? What do you think,
[15:02] Goomer? Huh? What do you think, Shazam?
[15:04] What do you think about that?
[15:07] Okay, pretty good, huh? Good.
[15:10] Makes sense to me, doesn't it? Makes
[15:13] sense. Makes a lot of sense to me.
[15:16] And the first one I do is I'd call I Oh
[15:18] my god, we've got some of the best
[15:20] witnesses.
[15:23] You should have heard I say this all the
[15:25] time. Jimmy Door on uh on the on the
[15:27] evidence of taking the gun apart. I
[15:29] mean, this is this this is
[15:31] the the defense team has some of the
[15:34] best
[15:36] voices out there because it comes down
[15:37] to facts and it comes down to practical.
[15:39] Okay,
[15:42] here's the problem.
[15:44] What the hell does he do? What what what
[15:46] was what was Tyler confessing to or
[15:51] admitting to to his parents? What
[15:55] what the magical gun? Does this is he
[15:58] stupid? Is he they start with does he
[16:00] think that bring first of all I don't
[16:02] think he brought anything. But
[16:05] if I could sit there and say Tyler
[16:09] I'm your lawyer Tyler. You you can
[16:11] answer this question and I can't tell
[16:12] anybody. Attorney client privilege. Did
[16:14] you shoot? Did Did you shoot him?
[16:16] Did you? Yeah. With what?
[16:19] With what? Sure as hell not that thing.
[16:22] That old granddaddy shooting iron. What
[16:24] did you shoot him with? And most
[16:27] probably I'll bet you anything he says
[16:29] no.
[16:31] Then what the hell are they talking
[16:32] about you confess to then? And if you
[16:34] did confess, you're nuts.
[16:38] Then you must have a there must be
[16:39] another rifle out there because it sure
[16:41] as hell isn't that one. What are you
[16:42] confessing to? And what do you said? Hey
[16:45] guys, with your discord and your gay
[16:49] girlfriend, boyfriend, whatever this
[16:51] whatever
[16:53] I was there, he was saying some some bad
[16:57] things. Wait a minute. See what I mean?
[17:00] This this is why I'm like that. See,
[17:02] sometimes in law there are these
[17:05] conundrums or conundra. These things
[17:07] don't make any sense. They're kind of
[17:08] illogical, but they're fun.
[17:10] One of them is
[17:13] there's no such thing as attempted
[17:14] assault.
[17:16] Why? Well, because assault is attempted
[17:19] battery. So, attempted assault would be
[17:21] attempted attempted battery. Little
[17:22] things like that.
[17:25] People always ask the question of can
[17:27] you can you clone yourself? Yes, perhaps
[17:30] you can. What is the clone in relation
[17:32] to you? It's you.
[17:35] Who are its parents? Your parents.
[17:39] I mean, you know, it's it's it's it's
[17:41] fun. We're not there yet, but it's kind
[17:43] of who we are and why we do this. This
[17:46] one, you're going to need wider erase
[17:48] board and you're going to need Irwin
[17:50] Corey or somebody to come in to explain
[17:52] this because I'm telling you, it's nuts.
[17:56] So, listen carefully. I don't have any
[17:59] dog in this fight, any skin in this game
[18:01] or whatever you want to call it. Tyler
[18:03] Robinson is somebody who was just well,
[18:05] he's just who he is. But I've got this
[18:07] thing. I've got this funny thing as an
[18:09] officer of the court.
[18:12] It's called the Constitution. When I
[18:14] have sworn into a member of the Florida
[18:16] Bar and the New York Bar and the New
[18:17] Jersey bar and the DC bar and the
[18:19] Supreme Court of the United States and
[18:21] all of the attendant federal courts, the
[18:23] thing we always swear to is to uphold
[18:26] the Constitution. Not to uphold justice
[18:29] or prosecute the guilty, but to uphold
[18:32] the Constitution. And if that kid is
[18:36] found guilty based on this and you
[18:40] can that's a legal term, by the way,
[18:43] then there's something very wrong here.
[18:47] And I mean something really, really
[18:50] wrong. Fine. What the hell are you
[18:52] talking about? Are are are you were you
[18:56] planning?
[18:59] How did that get there? Now, first of
[19:01] all, to know to know that he'd be in the
[19:03] room with you would be terrific. He
[19:04] says, "I don't know."
[19:07] What if What if Tyler said, "I never
[19:10] said any of that." Yeah. I don't know
[19:12] why I'm here. I don't know why I'm here.
[19:15] I never I I Well, well, did you did you
[19:18] tell your your father that you did this
[19:20] or you were involved in this or And if
[19:23] he did with what?
[19:26] And by the way, did anybody check his
[19:28] hand for GSR gunshot residue or anything
[19:31] like that? Remember the old days they
[19:32] did these nitroine or or paraffin test?
[19:35] Did Did anybody check his cheek? No.
[19:38] This is like the worst case. And by the
[19:40] way, if he had confessed, you would have
[19:43] bet it would have been right there.
[19:45] Right there. You You want to confess to
[19:47] the cops, not the father?
[19:51] Are you sure he said that?
[19:54] Well,
[19:57] I don't know if he said that.
[20:00] Now, we're getting into it's not hearsay
[20:02] because it's an exception because it's
[20:03] an admission. But, but the point is the
[20:06] cops would be there. Would you would you
[20:07] sign this? Can we reduce this to
[20:08] writing? Is this your Would you sign
[20:10] this, please?
[20:12] Did anybody threaten you in any way or
[20:14] promise you anything? Now, would you
[20:15] sign this? Was this made free? You know,
[20:17] not out of duress. Do we have a camera
[20:19] of this? Would you sign this? Yeah, you
[20:21] can. You can keep the pen. Well, maybe
[20:22] not cuz you'll probably be any
[20:26] that's the way cops do it. You've seen
[20:28] them on TV. This So anyway,
[20:32] let's move backwards.
[20:34] This would be now assuming assuming and
[20:38] I keep saying this that somehow that
[20:40] rifle gets into evidence. How? I don't
[20:43] know. The lint brush should be in
[20:46] evidence. It had nothing to do with it
[20:48] either. But his DNA is all over. Oh,
[20:52] they made a big deal. His DNA was all
[20:54] over it. It's his.
[20:57] What about the other people, though?
[20:59] Let's check those DNAs. By the way, the
[21:02] uh who found this? Yeah. Can we check
[21:04] your DNA, please? Thank you very much.
[21:06] I'm not sure what this DNA is,
[21:07] fingerprints or whatever. These are the
[21:09] only people who make a big deal over the
[21:10] fact that they found his DNA on
[21:11] something he owned. This This is where
[21:13] we're going with these people. This is
[21:15] where we're going. This is the lunacy.
[21:18] This This is great. this. Let me tell
[21:21] you something. The reason why he's going
[21:22] to walk is that this jury is going to
[21:23] say, "What the hell is going on here?
[21:27] What what do you have? Why is he even in
[21:30] jail?" Forget the preliminary hearing or
[21:32] that's coming up. I'm going to say,
[21:33] "What the hell are you holding him for?
[21:36] What is your evidence?" They did
[21:38] differently. Ideally, Mr. or Mrs.
[21:41] Prosecutor, when the jury goes back,
[21:44] what exactly are they going to be
[21:45] finding him guilty of? What? The
[21:46] confession. The confession of what?
[21:51] firing a rifle that was never fired
[21:55] using an imaginary ri. What are you
[21:56] talking about? That's it. You told us
[21:59] that's it. You said that's a
[22:04] they couldn't find it.
[22:07] And if those dogs can't find that rifle,
[22:12] it wasn't fired.
[22:14] That's it. And guess whose evidence I
[22:17] use? their own
[22:20] and they'll call call Valhalla VFT or
[22:23] one of these folks show up with your
[22:25] medals and this America brave American
[22:28] soldier who knows a little bit about war
[22:29] who himself saw these people. I mean
[22:31] this is nuts. You work backwards. It's
[22:34] like they create this premise and you're
[22:36] saying no well okay there was a
[22:39] confession but if he confessed what is
[22:42] he confessing to? because he would have
[22:46] confessed to use the rifle. And then he
[22:51] what?
[22:53] And then he supposedly said, "Hey, can
[22:54] you can can you get granddaddy shooting
[22:56] iron? Why?
[23:01] Why?
[23:02] What are you worried about? Did you
[23:04] bring that?" And this is where Jimmy
[23:05] Door comes into uh uh the key where he
[23:08] talks about breaking it down and how
[23:11] preposterous this would be. Not only
[23:13] that, not only that trying to get
[23:15] somebody to go and to retrieve
[23:16] something. I mean, not not not this this
[23:19] case
[23:21] makes no sense. I haven't even gone to
[23:23] the ballistics yet. I haven't even
[23:25] talked about that. I haven't even
[23:28] It's like, imagine you're going to
[23:30] introduce a confession of a person who
[23:34] used a weapon that was never fired.
Comments
Be the first to comment on this video.