Charlie Kirk Assassination Bombshell: Tyler Robinson Is the Patsy – TPUSA & Erika in Full Panic
Former prosecutor Lionel Nation argues Tyler Robinson is a patsy in the Charlie Kirk assassination, citing TPUSA's panic and Terrell Farnsworth's suspicious SD card removal. He highlights evidentiary flaws: the fatal bullet disintegrated, the rifle's DNA doesn't match the projectile, and unauthenticated Discord confessions are unreliable. Nation asserts Candace Owens correctly exposed these inconsistencies while noting Erica Kirk is not a killer. The strategy involves creating reasonable doubt against "deep state" players, proving death and causation require recovered bullets or clear chain of custody, ultimately suggesting Robinson's guilt rests on insufficient forensic evidence. [Automatically generated summary]
I don't believe we're going to see anything like the upcoming Tyler Robinson case.
Complexity of the Tyler Robinson Case00:02:05
I don't think we're going to see anything in terms of the complexity of it.
And nothing really compares.
The O.J. Simpson case was important only because of the subject matter.
The case wasn't as complicated.
This is complicated.
A lot of moving parts.
A lot of great stuff here.
And Candace Owens has been superb, but it's a team.
It's a team of things.
What I want to do as former prosecutor, trial lawyers for 30, no, 40, 40, 43 years.
43 years.
I've seen these before.
So, I know a little bit about how the courtroom works and what may or may not sound fishy or weird, continuances, motions, pro forma, motions in lemonade, Brady material, exculpatory, all this kind of jazz, what it means.
It doesn't matter.
Candace has been asking the perfect questions, and I will tell you what matters, what doesn't, what's important and what's not, what's critical and what's not.
But the most important thing that we can do.
It is for all of us to understand what we are a part of.
We are standing up for this thing called, what is it, class?
Truth.
Truth is what we're about.
We do not have a vested interest in Tyler Robinson per se.
We never knew who he was.
Understanding Probable Cause Requirements00:04:42
He wasn't a part of this.
He's been thrust at us.
He's the guy.
He's the guy that apparently somebody or some group wants you to believe was responsible for it.
And so far, at this interstitial level, it doesn't make any sense.
We're not buying it for a host of reasons.
And we're going to go through this.
But it's having all of the trappings and all of the accoutrements and all of the aspects of a case that stinks.
And what's even more important is that TPUSA is freaking out.
Erica's not freaking out.
I mean, she's, you know, she's there.
She's there.
She's doing her thing.
But she's not, how do I say this?
She's not actively a part of any kind of cover up.
So she's not freaking out.
Look at the people who are freaking out.
They're going nuts.
Candace picks up the phone.
Did you do this?
Why'd you pick up the SD cards?
Just tie your all over.
Why'd you do this?
Why are they even talking to her?
I have no idea.
There was an indication that she said today that apparently somebody had called up, I think her husband, George, and they said, listen, they want to find out.
Do you have any screenshots or do you have any recordings of your FaceTime with so and so?
Why?
Who's asking?
The FBI?
So, what she's doing is turn up the heat so that people can start to pay attention to it.
This is the best thing possible.
The worst thing you can do is to let a case seem as though nobody is watching it, that nobody cares about it.
It's the worst thing that can happen.
You don't want that.
You don't want it.
That's the part which is the most.
You don't want that to happen.
You don't want to allow a case to be just, you know, put it aside or so complicated nobody can really understand it.
You don't want that either.
I don't think that's the case here.
So, by virtue of us doing this, it is critical that we say we're going to be watching everything.
Now, the case hasn't started yet, the actual facts of the case haven't.
Really been induced.
We think we know by virtue of pre trial motions, some initial preliminary hearing things.
You know, this preliminary hearing stuff is terrific because what preliminary hearing means is you want to be able to say, do you have enough evidence to even go forward?
Whenever there's a case that has not been provided for by probable cause, for example, if you ever want to get rid of a pre trial preliminary hearing, just indict somebody.
Why?
When you indict somebody, A previous tribunal has listened to the case and issued a true bill indicating we found probable cause.
Let me say this again.
You don't have a preliminary hearing if there's been an indictment.
You don't have that here.
You do that in the feds all the time.
This is a chance to go before a court and to say, now listen, I know they arrested him, and I know that the prosecutors and the state are saying that there's probable cause.
And enough evidence to hold him.
But there's never been an independent body that has ever reviewed this a grand jury, a trial.
We want you to determine is there enough evidence?
And the reason why, guaranteed, the reason why I promise you, there is always enough evidence to hold him.
You got to find probable cause.
The definition of probable cause is he probably did it.
But the reason why you want to do this as a defense lawyer is that the state.
The prosecutor has to come forward with its information.
It comes forward with its version.
Prosecutor Burden and Evidence Standards00:13:46
Our good friend Donovan says, Where does Cash P go to hide that face in shame?
Well, I don't think he has any sense of shame.
I don't think he is a part of that.
I don't think he's, seriously, I don't think he understands anything.
I don't think a lot of people, Christy, know him.
Do you see this with her husband?
I don't think she has any shame.
I don't think anybody knows.
I don't think they care.
I really, I really don't.
And Cash's involvement is, I guess, maybe sort of, well, maybe.
Look, let's go through this.
First, hats off to, this is so great.
Hats off to Candace, because this is where we get into.
What is my passion?
Not necessarily, look, I know that Erica is a lot of things.
I know that.
And I know that.
And you know that.
But I never thought Erica Kirk was a killer.
She's a lot of things, but I never felt right with it.
Shouldn't Tyler be out of jail on bail?
No way.
No way.
Murder one?
No way.
You can almost by statute guaranteed you never do that.
It's, I mean, under the most.
Now, if it was something else, maybe second, maybe manslaughter, but murder one, something that carries with theoretically.
I don't know if they've waived or if they've completely taken off the table the potential.
I don't think it's going to happen.
But the potential for any kind of capital offense, no way.
You don't get out.
Uh uh.
And that's fine.
Let him sit there.
But make sure he's in that his safety.
They better really be careful because remember what I'm telling you.
If something happens to him, all of their concerns are over with, all of their problems are over with, all of their worries are done, finished.
You understand what I'm saying?
All of them are over with, all of them are done.
All of them.
So please be careful of this.
But what we're having right now is so interesting.
The people, because the Charlie Kirk assassination is, or the case rather, is collapsing.
The bullet mismatch, tampered, now we're talking about SD cards, TPUSA insiders exposed.
I mean, who are these people?
Why are they freaked out?
What's the purpose of this?
What's the best thing?
We can, what's the best thing we can do or say to support Candace at this point?
Watch her, support her in terms of make sure her numbers and her views, your words, your comments, she's absolutely 100% correct.
I was listening very, very carefully.
She intuitively understands what's happening.
She intuitively understands.
There are some things where I would tell her the good news is this happens more often than you think.
It may mean something, but it doesn't shock.
The conscience of the courts, so to speak.
But she's spot on with this.
Spot on.
We're looking at something right now which is so, so, so critical right now.
And that is simply this everything seems to indicate, and we have suspected, that there is a, I don't want to say a Patsy, but it sure as hell looks like a Patsy.
It looks like it.
And what you also find out is simply this history has taught us that when people become involved in trying to set up someone else, no matter how careful they are, they always make a mistake.
No matter how careful they are, they always make a mistake.
There's no way for them to think ahead of time.
You don't have a team.
That sits down and says, okay, what are we going to do?
Who's going to be the fall guy?
Fall guy is going to be Tyler.
Okay.
How are we going to do it?
What's Erica Kirk's future look like after being exposed?
And again, being exposed for what?
A conniving, phony, whatever.
I mean, maybe.
I don't think she's been exposed anything in terms of.
Anything in terms of this.
Remember, I don't think there's anything.
Look, if I thought she was, if I thought there was a very serious, look, she may be a lot of things.
She may, seriously, she may be a lot of things and she may be opportunistic and she may be horrible.
But I do not think there was any evidence.
I think it's a bit much to think that she was actively involved in the dispatch of her husband.
I'm sorry.
She's not a killer.
She may be a lot of things.
She may be a lot of things that bother you, but she is not a killer.
And she is not somebody who I think people are.
Because sometimes I heard somebody today, you're going to love this.
Somebody said, this is interesting.
They said, Charlie faked his own death.
Can you believe that?
Faked his own death.
Somebody said that.
And I'm thinking, I don't know if people really think this thing through, or maybe they just sort of, I don't know, maybe they just say things.
They just say things that are possible, but that's just ridiculous.
So she's got her problem.
TPUSA is.
But for them, Remember, if this were a real prosecution, FBI would be swarming over TPUSA and saying, Why are you acting like this?
Why are you freaking out?
You were his business partner.
You're not acting like this.
You're acting really weird.
What are you worried about?
If this were a real prosecution with a real attempt, if you will, to find the truth, that would have been something.
But they're not even doing that.
Now, the bottom line, let's just go through a few things here.
This is the most important.
A lot of this other stuff is, you know, the fellow who, you heard the story, which is really good.
This is so interesting.
This isn't just sloppy police work, this is a different story.
The ATF thing we'll talk about in a moment.
But what's really interesting is, and she brings up things that are fascinating.
You know, Charlie was, of course, dispatched on this day.
Prosecutors are pointing to three main pillars.
The alleged, these Discord messages, which are no good.
They're per se not verifiable.
You have to authenticate them, chain of custody.
You just can't show somebody a snapshot or a screen grab of something.
The texts that were then sent to his roommate, Lance Twiggs, and the rifle itself.
So, hours after this shooting, somebody used an account.
Tied to Robinson and posted in a Discord group that said, Hey guys, I have bad news for you.
It was me at UVU yesterday.
I'm sorry for all the this.
This was a mistake.
And Discord confirmed the account to the FBI.
He allegedly then texted his roommate, I had enough of this hatred.
Some hate can't be negotiated out.
I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I'm going to take it.
And he asked the messages be deleted.
And the rifle, this World War II era 30 out of 6 Mauser 98, this heirloom, was found wrapped in a towel in woods.
And his DNA was found on the trigger, but it's his rifle.
Other DNA was found.
Other DNA.
And on paper, this may sound strong to you.
But if you look at it closely, digital confessions are notoriously unreliable and you have to authenticate them.
And you have to say, I need somebody who is, we used to call it the custodian of records, to tell me, how do we know this?
Is what you say it is.
How do we know this?
Accounts can be hacked, spoofed, accessed under pressure.
Who knows?
We don't yet have full transparency on the chain of custody for those messages.
And Tyler, by the way, turned himself in the very next day.
So you would ask why would a calculated sniper who supposedly bragged online immediately surrender and then enter a not guilty plea?
There's different reasons for that.
Why was he wearing this?
This smock that was usually worn for people who are contemplating self harm might have been pro forma, might have been just the way they did things.
Is this a cold blooded killer gloating?
Most importantly, even if his DNA appears in the rifle, I remember the reports show multiple DNA profiles, the bullet doesn't match.
And ballistics is the gold standard.
This is it.
And if the government's own ATF experts cannot link the fatal projectile to that specific weapon, the rifle becomes irrelevant or worse.
Potentially planted or staged.
And Robinson's father confirmed it was a family gun, but ownership alone doesn't prove it fired the shot that killed Charlie Carr.
Doesn't matter.
And now we come to the part that truth seekers like Candace and others have highlighted for months the deeply suspicious actions of TPUSA.
Now we heard about this insider, Terrell Farnsworth.
The missing SD cards.
Farnsworth was the TPUSA staffer who was responsible for all the audio and video and all this stuff at the event.
And he was one of Charlie's closest associates.
And according to this, and a lot of it was, they said they had it, I heard they had it, but according to video obtained and aired by Candace, she's showing that this farm, Farnsworth, within seconds of the gunshot, apparently climbed onto rocks around there and some selfie video declaring they shot Charlie, he's dead, God help him, or something like that.
Not Charlie's been shot, or a call for help, but he rather prematurely declared Charlie dead while emergency efforts were still underway.
So they're saying.
Now, what does that mean?
Does that go to a jury?
No, no.
It's interesting.
It's weird.
Sometimes people freak out.
But remember, just keep track of all the things that don't make any sense.
And then within minutes, he breached the crime scene area and he's physically removing SD cards from the cameras that were positioned directly behind Charlie's speaking position.
The very angles that would have captured, that would have been used by the authorities to capture the shooter's location.
Any muzzle flash or trajectory or anything that can allow you to triangulate positioning and the possible.
Additional suspects or staging.
So, what was TPUSA's explanation?
They were simply securing the footage to prevent it from being stolen or something like that.
And they were also afraid.
It was the typical one that said, I think it was similar to the one that was being referred to, that the reason why Jack Ruby said he was responsible for Lee Harvey Oswald, he said it was something to the effect of, I didn't want.
I didn't want Jackie to have to testify.
It was like, what?
So, law enforcement was already on the scene.
Proper chain of custody demands that critical evidence like video recordings be left untouched and documented by the police.
So, removing the SD cards before cataloging is textbook interference and contamination.
And it compromises the most vital visual record of the assassination.
And Candace didn't just report these facts, she released the raw behind the scenes footage itself.
And her reporting has exposed multiple inconsistencies in TPUSA's timeline.
Security claims and official statements.
And she's also listed what she calls the 10 TPUSA verifiable lies about the event.
I mean, she's on this.
And she called out those rushing to judgment and shamed anyone overwhelmed by non existent evidence.
And time after time, her questions have proven Prussian, Vatic, Pythonic.
And adding even that she talked about now, what's been said that Farnsworth's cousin, Michael Burt, serves as one of the lead attorneys on Tyler's case.
I don't know if that's been proved.
That's what they say.
I've heard it before.
Red Flags in Defense Strategy00:06:23
We'll see what happens.
If there's a familial connection, it certainly has fueled intense discussion.
People can ask how the defense can feel confident in a fair trial when the person who removed the critical SD cards is related to a key member, and we've got these other problems, and you've heard this before.
So there are so many red flags, not necessarily red flags that are responsible for ruining the case or providing non guilt.
This is the most interesting there is.
Leslie Watson says, Would you be allowed in the courtroom and have you thought of going?
I so depend on you to sort this out.
Thanks, Lionel.
You're required viewing.
Thank you.
Oh, I'd love to do that.
Oh, I'd love to do that.
I was in the courtroom during the OJ civil trial and there's nothing like being there.
Nothing like being there.
How would they bring a foreign entity to trial?
You got to show some entities involved.
Utah is not going to do this.
They're not equipped for this in the least.
Katrina says, Katrina Gibson says, Will Erica Kirk continue to be pushed as America's widow or pushed aside?
Will she be seen as a damaged asset?
How could she not be?
Seriously.
Nobody's going to announce it.
By the way, thank you very much, Katrina.
Nobody's going to say, Oh, by the way, the following people have been removed.
From the list of people that we pay attention to.
You.
How can anybody.
This may not sound like much to you, but when Drewski decides I'm.
And he doesn't necessarily.
Again, this is more of a.
This is more of a.
I guess you'd call it a sort of a.
For lack of a better word, this is a.
Kind of a social barometer type of thing.
But when he notices this, when he sees the fact that she's not of believability, you ask yourself, why would anybody not notice this?
How could anybody not?
So she's a part of this.
Remember one thing when something starts to stink, Do you ever open up the refrigerator and say, There's something in there?
I don't know what it is.
I don't know where it's coming from.
Might be a little bit of this, might be a little bit of that, but I got to get rid of it.
That's what we have here.
TPUSA stinks.
Erica Kirk stinks, not in terms of criminal complicity, but just in terms of who she is, because she's not to be believed.
She's just, everything she said, again, not to be believed, not that she had anything to do with it, but that her reaction, you don't believe it to be real.
You think she's doing this as an excessive.
What am I trying to say?
As this excessive, over the top, whatever you want to call him.
But now we're talking about Tyler.
Do you know what would happen if a jury said, if a jury acquits?
Because let me just remind you of something.
You don't have to prove innocence at all.
Nothing.
They said to you, Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I mean, unless they just withdraw the rifle completely, they said to you, this is the murder weapon.
This, this is the one.
And he was on the phone with Lance Twiggs to go get the rifle, the rifle that he used, and the rifle that was the instrument of death, and the rifle that belonged to him and his grandfather and the Mauser, and this, the rifle, Oh, by the way, forget the rifle.
Why?
Well, the bullets don't match.
Or there's no evidence of any kind of corroboration or any kind of connection.
Don't worry about it.
How will Candace's evidence even get into the courtroom at all?
Oh, simply this.
If she, if somewhere during the defense, if Tyler's lawyers bring her up, if they're trying to show that.
I'll give you an example.
One of the things which is important always to say is to say, is why didn't you look elsewhere?
Why didn't you look elsewhere?
When somebody called you up and said, no, I saw somebody else there, or it was another person, sometimes the police won't even listen to them.
A judge theoretically could say, okay, for the purposes of this, to show how the police didn't do enough.
Or didn't care enough.
And by the way, get to that sheriff.
Why did he step down?
What's that about?
You're going to step down during the biggest case of your life.
Either you stepped down because you wanted to, or you were forced out.
One of the two.
But if somebody were to testify, you would have to say, put her on the witness list, and they say, why are you calling Candace Owens?
Now remember, whenever you take the stand, Every witness puts their credibility into question.
And they can go after her and bring up God knows what in terms of everything she might have said about whatever.
Israel, or isn't it true, Ms. Owens, that you've got a $400 million libel case?
I mean, okay.
Listen, that may backfire.
Johnny Cochran Trial Tactics00:03:43
People might say, oh, I love that.
So she's got to understand if you were to take this stand.
But it could be done if the judge allowed it.
To show that, Ms. Owens, did you ever contact the feds?
Yes.
Did you contact TPUSA?
Yes.
Did you tell them that you had this information?
Did you call the police?
What did they tell you?
You know what that's like?
To show that, I mean, it's always relevant when the police never ever showed up, never asked a question.
What if they never dusted for prints, which they did, but let's say they didn't?
See, you can show that they were negligent by not doing something.
You could theoretically show that they were negligent by not using Candace as this person.
See, let me explain to you.
It's very, very simple.
Johnny Cochran said, and we keep saying it if the glove doesn't fit, you've got to acquit.
That was it.
Is that true?
No.
Did I ever tell you this story?
I knew Johnny Cochran.
He was the nicest man you have ever met in your life.
I mean to tell you, he was the greatest, the sweetest man, great lawyer doing his job.
And he knew exactly what was going on.
I mean, he's not stupid, but he just did his job.
He was very, very good.
So one time I had him on the air on WABC then, and it was very good, I think, because what I did was I had him on, and before he was, how do I say this?
Before we had him on the air, like 15 seconds, 30 seconds, right before, as I was going to go to him.
I hear the time, the board operator was saying, you know, 30 seconds, 15 seconds.
You know, Johnny, you know that phrase you use?
If the glove doesn't fit, you've got to acquit.
He goes, of course.
10 seconds.
He said, You know what I would have said?
What?
I said, If you acquit, you're full of shit.
We're back on the air with Johnny Cochran.
And he was just because I caught him off guard.
That's what they do.
You don't even know if the gun was fired.
There was, they don't even know.
Did anybody ever check to see whether they say to Mr. Robinson, May we do the GSR, the galvanic skin response, you know, GSR or whatever, or the, they call it nitrazine and paraffin, rather.
You know, can you see, is there any powder residue?
Could you bring, do you have to have the clothes you were wearing yet the day before?
Yeah.
Because if they said, My God, it's loaded with gunpowder here.
And because remember, he's shooting like that.
Nothing.
As far as we know, nothing.
Don't you imagine putting that lead detective?
Don't you know that that's the first thing you would want to know?
Yeah.
It seems to me, detective, if I didn't know better, and I must be wrong, that you didn't want to find out something that you already knew the answer to.
And then during the defense, you bring up all of these expert witnesses who teach police sciences.
Expert Testimony on Gunpowder00:15:09
We have something in New York called the John Jay School of Criminal Justice.
It's like one of the premier law enforcement.
It's part of CUNY, City University of New York, but it's famous.
Get somebody who's been retired FBI, retired NYPD, who keeps showing they were negligent, negligent, negligent.
They didn't do this.
They didn't do that.
They didn't preserve this.
This is my goal.
I want that jury.
To be so sick of this case and to hate everything about it.
Forget Charlie Kirk, forget Tyler Robinson.
Just so sick of the incompetence that they say, Give us the verdict right now.
I want to show these people.
I want to show them.
Now, you can't do this.
You can't say, Show them with your acquittal.
You'll send a message.
No, It's almost like the golden rule.
That's mistrial worthy.
You never can talk about and send a message.
How would you feel if your family?
No, no, no, no.
You got to only talk about the evidence.
But if you think incompetent, incompetent, incompetent, Incompetent.
Why didn't you immediately say nobody move?
Nobody move.
Boise Jet Guy says, How in the world is Candace going to end her show saying Charlie went to UVA, U hospital before being transferred to Timpanagas Regional?
I don't know.
You should ask her.
I have no idea, sir.
I would always defer.
Whatever she did, I'm sure she has a good reason for it, but thank you.
Remember, Does that make any difference?
Does that make any difference?
I can show you things that are so weird.
You want to bring up Fort Huachuca?
No.
You want to bring up the tarmac hug?
No.
It's nothing to do with this.
It's irrelevant.
Remember, there's relevance and the materiality, and the two have nothing to do with each other.
Relevance is defined in the evidence code as something, evidence which has the tendency in logic to prove or disprove a material issue in fact.
So, material is subsumed into that, and material means it has a bearing on the case.
That's it.
So, all this stuff isn't it true they didn't go to this hospital?
What is this hospital?
Well, no, there isn't me.
But what are you getting at?
What's your point?
I don't know.
I'm just showing some stuff.
Isn't it true that Laurie's mother had 57 LLCs?
What?
Laurie found Erica's mother found.
Nothing to do with it.
Arrogance is not even a.
Keep her off.
Keep her out of it.
Don't let her get up there and pull this new routine and maybe fool these people.
Who knows?
Maybe they haven't seen her act.
I don't know.
They might say, you know what?
I was going to.
I can't find this guy not guilty.
This woman's.
And she's gone on and basically told everybody, oh, yes.
I know he does it.
I've seen the autopsy report.
Really?
What have you seen?
Because we're looking for it.
Did you see pictures?
Did you see how they say how the bullet went in and then went down up to C6 and then disintegrated?
What?
What are you talking about?
Let me get some forensic pathologists.
Let me get some great expert testimony.
People who were in war, people who were themselves.
Oh my God.
Good luck with that one.
Donovan says the incompetence of the investigation has compromised the entire trial.
People need to be fired, resigned, face St. Peter.
Well, to be fair, and we always want to be fair, we don't know what the evidence was.
We don't know yet what the evidence was, what they have pulled together.
We think we know.
We have an idea of what we know.
We've seen it through the eyes of the.
We've seen it through the eyes of the defense, but we don't know.
I mean, we don't know yet.
We don't know.
Not sure.
But interestingly enough, wait until you get the key is get TPUSA on the stand just to have them freak out.
What I mean by that is.
Get these folks on the stand.
Talk about SD cards and talk about this.
Talk about these folks.
Get them on the stand.
Get them to explain.
Get old Farnsworth up there.
Ask him, what did you do?
Get Terrell Farnsworth.
Get everybody.
Crowder or whoever these people are, Tyler, bring them all on.
And say, Did you do this?
Did you get up?
Did you grab?
This is a murder case and you're grabbing SD cards?
As Candace brought up, he left the camera.
Camera's worth a fortune.
You want to bring the SD cards?
Why would you do this?
Did anybody tell you to do this?
And remember, sir, you're under oath.
You know what the penalty of perjury is, right?
The pain of perjury.
You understand this?
Another one, too.
Mr. Farnsworth, did anybody offer you immunity for your testimony?
What?
No.
Okay.
You sure?
What does that mean?
That means if someone, and they say, I'm not going to talk, I'm going to take the Fifth Amendment, if they grant you immunity, you have to testify.
You can't get away from it.
So that's interesting.
So you were granted it.
I'm not saying it happened.
But you act like he's Sammy the Bull.
Did you ever, were you ever granted or do they ever offer to waive prosecution?
For what?
Tampering with a crime scene?
You involved yourself.
You were in a crime scene.
It's a foreign word.
Let's assume there's a shooting and you ran up and went and grabbed the decedent's wallet and took out his license and then put it back in and took it.
You can't do that, can you?
No.
So why are you taking this?
What was your motivation?
Why did you do this?
And then you start, remember, the jury is hearing, it's like, what the hell is going on here?
This case stinks.
And when he gets on the stand and there's a hamana, hamana, hamana, you know they're going to do it because all these people, all these folks, all of them are, pardon my French, it's a technical term, they're pussies.
All these people, they've never, they have no gut.
They've never, they've had, they've lived this la-de-da life where they're, I don't know what they are.
Are they religious?
Are they a part of a church?
Are they, I don't know what they're doing.
Get them on the stand and ask them, what are you doing?
Boise Jet Guy says, logic puzzle.
If there's only a bullet fragment and there's no exit wound, is it really a bullet fragment?
Great question.
I hope they preserved it.
I hope they preserved it.
I hope they have all of the information, all of the pictures, all of the data.
All of the bone fragments.
I'm going to bring in my team and I'm going to bring in forensic pathologists.
I'm going to bring like a Bodden in.
Maybe not him per se because he's getting up there, but other people.
And they can sit there and say, Dr. Jones, yes.
How many years have you been a forensic pathologist?
I've been a forensic pathologist for 35 years.
Do you hold any advanced degrees?
Yes, I do.
Do you have any teaching credentials?
Yes, I'm a clinical professor.
Have you ever had the chance to testify?
Yes, I have.
How many times have you testified on behalf of either the state or the defense?
A hundred times.
Have you ever been qualified or certified as an expert?
Yes, I have.
Could you charge them with tampering evidence?
Maybe, but the only people who could do that would be the police, and they're not going to tamper or they're not going to charge their witness with breaking the law.
You know what I mean?
That will eliminate whatever worth they had as a.
As a witness, and then they got to grant him immunity because they're not going to testify.
So, yeah, they could, but they're not going to.
Dr. Jones, it has been presented to you the following that this bullet, this 30 yacht six round, entered here, immediately went into the C2 vertebrae and careened downward two,
three, four, where it exploded and fragmented into shards and pieces.
Are you aware of that, sir?
Are you aware of that?
No, I'm not.
Have you ever seen this before?
No.
What happens when?
Are you familiar with the effects of a 30 out of 6 round on a bone the size of?
In fact, I have something here, my doctor.
If you don't mind, this has been marked as defense exhibit number one for identification and inspection and possible objection.
What is this?
Ah, this would be a facsimile of a C2 vertebra.
Is this a true and accurate depiction of this?
Yes, that's authentication.
Good.
What would happen, in your opinion, if a 30 odd six round hit this?
In your opinion, based upon your opinion and based upon your experience, what would happen?
And the doctor, whatever professor could say the witness well, aside from the head being vaporized, that piece of vertebra would have been also.
Turned into powder.
Could it have been so strong that it caused a redirection, a redirection of the bullet below?
Is that possible?
Well, it's possible, but would you put any money on that?
Well, no.
Not, no.
So where's the bullet?
I don't know.
If you had to surmise, If you had to come up with an explanation, Dr. Jones, that would be consistent, a hypothetical, an alternative theory that would be consistent with this, what would that be?
What?
What?
I don't know.
Is it possible, sir, that, oh, and do you think, doctor, based upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty and your experience, And your knowledge with ballistics and momentum and the force of this, what would have been the chances of this round not exiting the body?
What would have been that chance?
Good sir.
Next to nothing.
Have you ever seen this?
No.
Have you ever seen a 30-odd six round hit a little, almost like a soup bone?
Like, have you ever seen oxtails hit it and Drive it down.
It's so hard because of Charlie's good diet and his good health.
It was so like granite, like titanium.
It deflected the bullet down, where on its way down, it just atomized.
No.
What is this consistent with, in your opinion?
And also, doctor, when you see something like this, when you see a wound where the, remember this, where the spurt was.
Obvious.
Is that normally consistent with entrance wounds, exit wounds, or both?
He could say both, maybe yes.
Okay.
Now I turn to the jury, and the jury says, I don't even believe this.
Not only do they not have the bullet, not only do they not know, not only does this heirloom, this gun that has his DNA on it, which we don't even know if it even was shot by anybody, not only that, the story of any round hitting it is preposterous.
I don't know what to believe.
Paisley Park, welcome.
You see where we're going with this?
They don't even say, what are you, what is this?
This case stinks.
And I would just say, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what do you believe?
Forget what they proved.
Do you believe any of this?
What do you believe happened?
I believe, unfortunately, that Charlie Kirk is dead.
That is immutable.
And that's why we're here.
Believe me, if there was any evidence that he wasn't or that he, quote, faked his own death, that would be the first part of a motion to dismiss because.
The jury instructions say that you must find, number one, that the victim is dead.
And you have to have somebody who comes forward medical examiner, family member who says, somebody has to say, I saw a person identified to me as Charlie Kirk.
This person, I know this sounds crazy, but it's true.
This person that I saw was dead.
Death has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Number two, this person caused it.
If this person didn't cause it, that's like sometimes when multiple people would fire on somebody, you don't know who did what.
Did you cause it or were you sick?
Proving Death Beyond Doubt00:03:03
It's a little bit of a different story.
So this may seem kind of silly to you, but you've got to prove the person's there, he's dead, and somebody has to say, yep, that's Charlie Kirk, either through dental records, family members, some kind of identification.
And you also have to find out specifically what was the cause of that.
Remember NASH, N A S H, natural, accidental, suicide, or homicide.
Actually, unexplained would be NASHU, either for it.
That's it.
This is what the medical, the ME testifies to.
This was a homicide.
Okay.
Do you know by whom?
No.
Isn't it true, doctor?
You can't even tell what caused it.
You assume it's around.
You assume it.
We keep calling it a bullet, a bullet, a bullet, a bullet.
Do you know it's a bullet?
What exactly did you find?
Fragments, fragments of what?
A bullet?
Could it have been some form of shrapnel from something else?
You don't know.
Could it have been an exploding microphone?
Hypothetically, hypothetically.
You don't know, do you?
Yet we keep talking about this rifle.
This rifle, granddaddy shooting iron, the Mauser, the 30 odd six.
You don't know anything.
So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, they want you to put this young man in prison.
Why exactly?
We're not sure.
We're not really sure.
We think it's because they think he has something to do with the death.
We think that's true.
We don't know.
I don't know.
So, exactly when you go back and you find they want you to find them guilty, guilty of what?
What did he do?
This is a lint brush.
It had nothing to do with the murder either.
Now, my.
My DNA is on this and other people's DNA.
What difference does it make?
This rifle is like a lint brush.
It doesn't.
What does it mean?
Not only that.
Thank you, Tara.
Very nice of you.
Appreciate it.
Not only that.
Not only that.
You've got to show that in the course of this, he took it apart.
You know how the threads and you got to put this thing together?
Imagine bringing in somebody.
This is great, too.
Bring in an expert.
Experts are the best.
And he's sitting there on the desk, or the witness chair stand.
And he takes out a little felt thing and he brings out a facsimile of a very safe, of a Mauser.
And he says, This is what you have to do to take it apart.
And I've done this a million times.
And he has a screwdriver and then to put it back together again.
And just look at the clock.
Just look at this.
He's up there doing this once, twice, three times.
The Truth About Foreknowledge00:16:00
Donovan says, If foreknowledge is proven, can you say.
CK was, Charlie Kirk was lured.
Lured, he was there at the event.
He was there.
The audience was lured.
He was there speaking.
This wasn't an arranged.
I mean, you, I mean, remember, what does this have to do?
If you're the defense, don't get into areas where you could get stuck.
Doesn't mean anything.
All you've got to do is prove doubt or show or create a doubt.
Create a reasonable doubt.
That's it.
I don't want to make it too complicated.
Why was he there?
Who was there?
Were there foreign?
What about this?
Why at all?
Charlie was saying some stuff about Israel.
No, don't bring that up.
Don't even worry about that.
We don't need to go there with that.
I mean, it might be important for you in a different context, maybe in terms of political implications, but not for purposes of this.
Don't go there.
Make it very simple.
Very, very, very simple.
That's all.
So remember, jury goes back.
Ask yourself this question What are they going to find if they say, no, no, we're going to find them guilty?
Well, because the state, Utah, proved beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt what?
What did it prove?
What did it show?
What?
What did it prove?
I don't know.
It's got to prove him.
Now, I'd love to see, love, I don't know if it could ever happen.
Tyler takes a stand.
Mr. Robinson, did you do this?
Nope.
They say you did.
I know.
Didn't you contact your girlfriend, Tyler Twiggs?
Yeah, that's not me.
I didn't say that.
Did you ever tell your family you did this?
Nope.
Well, why'd you turn yourself in?
Well, I went to my father because they told me they're coming after me.
And they told me specifically if you don't turn yourself in, in the middle of the night, they're going to break down your door and you may get somebody who's a little trigger happy.
And it might be a good idea for you to obviate any type of whatever.
You got that?
Yeah.
Okay.
Okay.
I got it.
So you didn't do it because you were.
No, I didn't do it because I was such a.
I did it because of this.
Okay.
Fine.
Fine.
That's it.
Fine.
This is the thing which is the most important.
This is the issue.
This is what I'm talking about.
And then if he says, I never said that.
I never said this.
Did you take a gun?
No.
Was that you on the roof?
Now, how do we know that's him on the roof?
Was he there in the first place?
He was there somewhere.
Why were you there?
I don't know what the story is.
That's not enough.
If Tyler is found innocent, what then?
Oh, he walks.
See ya.
And then they're going to say, oh my God.
What do you say about that?
And don't forget, too.
Don't be surprised if we find out that Erica is going to be turning up the heat.
Remember, she wants this case answered quickly, In most states, the defendant has the right to a speedy trial.
The defendant, because you have the right to a public and a speedy trial.
You don't want to be lounging around in some lockup forever while the state or the feds lollygag and act dilatory regarding your case.
They give in this case the victim the chance to opine, to say, well, this is what I think as well.
We would like for you to speed this up because it means a lot.
Okay, fine.
So we'll take it in an advisory capacity.
Don't forget, she told Barry Wise.
Absolutely, I believe he.
I know he's there.
And I want it sped up.
Don't you think it'd be the Christian thing to do to maybe let the case?
He's pled not guilty.
Don't you think it'd be good to maybe not inter.
Fear with this interrupt.
What if some juror were to hear you?
Why are you doing this?
Remember, I'm not saying he's innocent.
I don't know.
Hey, but he was there.
So what?
So what?
CL says that TR put the screwdriver away.
Tyler, put the screwdriver away, please.
DNA.
I don't know what that means.
If they found DNA on a screwdriver, that's terrific.
They could say the screwdriver, I'm sorry to say this, the screwdriver is not part of the trajectory.
Nobody was ever, how do I put it this way?
Nobody's ever been killed by a screwdriver, I mean, other than used as an implement.
So whatever they find, DNA on it, fine.
I want a witness to show you.
This is what happens when you break down a gun.
This is what it looks like.
You're like this.
It's just, it's next to impossible.
Imagine doing this.
He did this there, but then broke it down to go up, broke it down, put it back together again, and left it.
And the dogs, the dogs, the best trained dogs that can ferret out and sniff out bombs and.
Nanoparticulate couldn't find the gun, it missed it.
And again, what this does is the jury just sits back and says, I don't know what to believe.
I mean, I just and that's that's a reaction you want.
I screw it, not guilty.
I'm tired of this.
This is ridiculous.
None of this makes any sense.
What am I doing here?
So he never confessed, assuming now.
Somebody could say, Oh, yes, he did.
I've got him right here.
Here he is on Vim.
Okay.
Maybe there's something that they know we don't know.
Let's always never assume we know everything.
But if it's like this, he didn't confess, never told his parents, nobody knows about this.
What's happening?
Oh, yes, it was Colonel Mustard from the observatory.
Yes, in the parlor with the candlestick.
If a jury just sits here and hears nothing, over it, over it, over it, good.
And you say, what exactly, what is the most important, what is the most critical piece of evidence?
CL says, here's a towel for a shower.
Tyler Robinson, here's a towel for a shower.
Okay.
Thank you.
Perhaps I might not be as smart as people to understand either the significance of the quip or the relevance of that particular statement, but I thank you.
So this just got started.
And they dumped how many pages and thousands of terabytes of.
Come on.
Come on.
But ChatGPT can help tremendously with that.
AI can help tremendously with that to go through all this kind of stuff.
Let me tell you something.
All of this can be corrected.
We may have it all wrong.
Ladies and gentlemen, we may have it all wrong.
Every bit of it may be wrong.
It may be just stupid and a waste of time.
We may just.
But I don't think so.
And I want to find out why are these TPUSA people so upset and so nervous and so freaked out about this case?
Why?
What is it?
What is it about it?
How does this work?
I mean, seriously, how?
Does this work?
It blows my mind.
How does this work?
It's the most incredible thing I've ever seen in my life.
And Candace has been spot on.
Spot on.
CL says the prosecution says the gun wrapped in a towel.
Yes, the gun was wrapped in a towel.
And why would he want his beloved to go look for the gun and the towel and do what with it?
Bring it home?
Enter an area that's one of the most watched and surveilled crime scenes with drones and everything else?
Are you kidding me?
Are you kidding me?
Nah.
Nah.
Why?
And he took it apart?
I just don't mean this.
See, we don't know enough about this yet, but it just got started.
Now, remember, Candace is doing a tremendous job.
I think more surgically in terms of the defense.
I don't, a lot of the stuff which I think is great for purposes of watching her and learning about these sniveling, slimy, reptilian prevaricators.
And I got that.
But that may have absolutely nothing to do, nothing.
With the case at hand.
That's the most important point.
That's the thing I wanted to tell you.
So it's going to get good.
It's going to get so good.
Just remember, just remember, nobody has to prove innocence.
All they have to do is to prove a reasonable doubt about something that is significant.
Not a reasonable doubt about something irrelevant, but a reasonable doubt as to something that they had to prove.
What evidence do you have that Tyler Robinson killed anybody?
What?
Chickadee's a new member.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
What evidence do they have?
A gun?
Screwdriver?
Does the gun work?
Bullet didn't work.
Yeah, but there's, but there's, but there's, thank you so much, but there's DNA on it.
So what?
It's his.
What is the evidence?
If they found a perfectly kept, round, spiraling, the ballistics came from that gun, that gun is the gun that he had, that was his grandfather's gun, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Kathy Ficarota says, everyone who is awake knows this is a shame trial.
Deep state players at work here.
In time, the truth will reveal itself.
Mark my words.
Well, I thank you.
The truth may be the non guilt of these people.
The truth may be the non guilt.
That's the part which is important.
That's the critical part.
That's what I wanted to say.
The truth of this may be the fact he just says there's just nothing, there's nothing to link him with.
Ask yourself this question.
When we're done and you're free, just ask.
If you were doing a closing argument, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you must find Tyler Robinson guilty because what?
What?
The gun?
Didn't prove it.
Bullet?
Didn't prove it.
There's no evidence of it.
What?
We don't know.
We don't know.
Now, a lot of people are going to be standing up for Erica Kirk because they don't know any better.
They're going to be sitting there and say, look, it's no skin off their nose.
They're going to be politically.
How do I say this?
They're going to be politically.
Remember, she didn't do anything.
She is the victim of this.
She is not.
And no matter how creepy you think she is, and she's creepy, there's no evidence that she had anything to do with this particular case.
Why show the bullets with the words carved into it?
Oh, you mean the casings?
I don't know.
Was there fingerprints on that?
I don't know.
What does that mean in and of itself?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Is that enough?
You've got a shell casing with something written on it, but not the round, not the bullet itself, not the projectile.
Does that mean anything?
Is that important?
Is that critical?
I don't know what to tell you.
What does that prove?
What if they had letters?
He had videos that Charlie Kirk was, he's terrible.
Okay, good.
That's a good, nice little motive.
Any proof of this?
No.
There are people who hated Charlie Kirk.
There are people who talked about Charlie Kirk all the time.
There are people, they weren't there either.
What direct evidence do you have that on that day, on September the 10th, Tyler Robinson performed some type of activity?
The narrative is that he shot, that it went and hit him here.
And remember the magic bullet?
Remember Arlen Specter and the JFK?
It went up and turned around and changed direction.
This one, this is like the.
Flight 93 plane in 9 11.
Remember, Flight 93, remember the plane just disintegrated.
Just disintegrated.
One like this flew down and boom, just disintegrated.
Makes no sense.
But that's what they're doing.
Is all this court stuff normal if confessed?
Maybe.
Yeah.
Because, first of all, He is going to say, most probably, he did not confess.
There were these two, I told you, there's Billy and there's two young ladies, Billy and.
Brandy or something.
Anyway, they were in a courtroom, and other people are saying, and Candace has interviewed others that said there was no confession.
But let's say there was.
There are people who will challenge the confession.
A confession has to be willingly, knowingly, and intelligently made.
Was it made to a relative, a friend?
What was said exactly?
Can you authenticate it?
And they always say, notwithstanding, let me remind you something.
When there was the Lindbergh kidnapping in 30, whatever it was, in New Jersey, more people called the police.
Don't forget, Norman Schwarzkopf's father was the chief of police.
More people called the police then and admitted to this, admitted to the case, even though they had nothing to do with it.
Confessions are just so confessions in and of themselves.
That's why you have to have a corpus delicti.
Authenticating Critical Evidence00:07:28
The rule applies to confessions.
I don't care what he says.
So, I'm going to say, great.
Ladies and gentlemen, he's crazy.
He confessed to something that you can't even prove.
What does he know?
Okay, let's assume he did.
Let's see what he would have had to go through in order to pull off what he's confessing to.
That's the point.
That's the point.
Now, people are going to say, but there's a lot of proof.
Tell me.
Tell me.
People are going to say this.
Who was it?
Jonathan Turley said, I think somebody said, that if you lost the gun or the rifle completely, there's so much overwhelming evidence, you might as well just forget it.
What is it?
What's the overwhelming evidence?
Confession.
He's going to say he didn't do it.
Family's going to say he didn't do it.
Or that the confession or whatever it was was perhaps subject to a motion to suppress.
There's all kinds of things.
See, it's not what you.
It's not what people want to get through with this.
Because remember something people don't really care about Charlie, about Trevor.
I can't say Trevor, Tyler.
They don't really care about Charlie.
They really don't care.
They just hate you and Candace for being contrarians, for being conspiracy theorists, for always raising your ugly head.
And at the last minute, saying, This isn't what happened.
You don't know what you're doing.
You're a fool.
You're a rube.
You've been duped, duped by the deep state, the police, and blah, blah, blah.
And they hate you for that.
I know what I'm talking about.
I've seen this my entire life.
And I don't know why they are like this, but they just are.
It's one of those things.
They hate you.
They're saying, Don't you understand?
Stop doing this.
There's evidence, convict them, and let's move on.
What do you care?
I don't care, but I don't like you.
And I don't like you when you keep coming up.
You're in that Kansas.
Oh, you're so smart.
Oh, you're.
I've heard people who were so adamant about 9 11 or JFK or whatever it is, they don't want to hear.
Anything to the contrary because they just hate you destroying the narrative that they, for some reason, have invested in.
And I don't know why.
Don't you think they want to know what the truth is?
Don't you think?
I do, but they don't.
Whether it's war, whether it's politics, nobody wants to know the truth.
They don't want to hear this.
But you know what I say?
Too bad you're going to hear it or you're going to hear the reasonable doubt.
So let's keep going, my friend.
And I hope, I hope that there's a back channel.
I hope that.
That Tyler's lawyers send investigators over to meet with Candace.
And say, give us all the information you have.
Whom did you speak with?
Maybe we want to amend our defense list, our witness list to bring up as many people as possible that we're going to talk to.
Maybe we'll do that.
Maybe that will help.
Because if you overwhelm the jury, overwhelm the prosecution with doubt, doubt, expert, this is going to be a battle of the experts.
There are people who are going to come out of the, people will volunteer to do this.
Ballistics experts, shooting experts.
Police experts, police procedure experts, forensic collection experts, you name it.
And then all the other people that testify how everybody from TPUSA got real hinky, real strange.
And what if there was somebody from the police department who says, you know, we reached out to TPUSA.
They didn't get back with us.
Why would they want to get to the.
I don't know.
Does that prove anything?
It adds to the layer, the layers of, hmm.
You got what I'm saying?
So, my friends, It is going to be a barn burner.
And we will continue.
Please watch what we're doing.
By the way, please follow.
You've been so nice.
My wife, Lynn Shaw, at Lynn's Warriors has great, great, great videos for her.
Please follow her on YouTube at Lynn's Warriors.
It means quite a bit.
Oh, X says, Lionel, with a high level overview.
Well, thank you for that.
I'm going to also give you kind of like the specific, I'm not going to waste my time with a lot of stuff.
It doesn't matter.
This is what a lawyer would want to know.
This is what you're going to say.
And it's very simple.
It's very, prosecution has a lot of work to do.
Defense, it's simple.
Create doubt.
That's it.
Create doubt.
Make that jury walk back and say, and the reason why, by the way, the reason why I want to create doubt is not because I love Tyler Robinson or not because I just want to cause problems, but because I want the truth.
And nothing about this case has been truthful.
At every level there is, nobody's been truthful.
Why should the prosecution be?
And you know, and I know this case stinks.
And we don't have to prove what happened.
We don't have to understand if there were foreign entanglements or who the bad guys were.
But we can say this you are not going to take another innocent man and put him away for the rest of his life if he didn't do it.
And more importantly, if you can't prove it.
Because we haven't abandoned the Constitution, we haven't abandoned due process.
And if you are truly a Christian and believe in what's right, you will not ever bear false witness against a fellow citizen.
Period.
You got it?
Good.
All right, dear friends, tomorrow is April Fool's Day.
So let's pick this up.
Please make sure you like this video.
Please make sure you like this video and you subscribe to us and make sure that you know what's going on.
We're going to have a lot of things.
By the by, I would absolutely love one day to give Candace my version.
Of what to look for.
But if she wants to reach me, she knows how to do it.
She's busy enough, and God bless her.
She is superb.
She's the most powerful person on digital information today.
Period.
Period.
Most powerful.
Ah, somebody might get more views.
You know, there's some, have you seen some of these Indian stations?
They have 20 million, 30 million people.
That's incredible.
I said, who he goes?
A loyal and true friend like Candace.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
And somebody who, by the way, is indefatigable, and somebody who becomes more and more determined to find the truth.
Whenever she's challenged.
So, anyway, dear friends, thank you so much.
Have a great and a glorious day.
I've got another video kicking around.
Watch that as well.
I may have another one later for you.
I've got a lot to say because I'm going to learn you this one.
I'm going to learn you because remember, it's about reasonable doubt because reasonable doubt stops the train.
All right, my friends, have a great and a glorious day.
Thank you for your kindness and your support, super chats, and the like.