All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 17, 2025 - Owen Shroyer Live
56:27
Former NYPD Cop Explains How Kirk Assassination Crime Scene Was Tainted 2025-09-17 18:49
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And then it clips to his microphone right here.
Everybody can see that microphone clipped right here.
And then it goes back down to whatever audio source he is getting.
So this is why people think it's body armor.
I think that's totally debunked.
I don't believe there is body armor.
Plus, you can see Charlie walking around before, and you can see there's no body armor.
No offense to Charlie, but I mean, you can, you know, you can see his, you can see his chest, you can see his nipples.
So, I mean, it's like, you know, you can tell to me there is no body armor, but that anomaly is just a wire.
So what I see, what I think is the bullet comes in here, hits the earpiece, boom, earpiece goes up, goes up in the shirt like this, and then the microphone goes flailing.
So I only saw one microphone.
Those two pieces, I don't know if it's shrapnel or what it is, the two objects in the air that hit that after impact, you can kind of see against that one bodyguard shirt.
So you think those are microphones?
Yeah, I think they were.
One is definitely a microphone.
It's a skinny little microphone.
I believe he's worn that to other events.
The second one you see that was on his other side of his collar, I think is a road mic.
Now, the road mics, anyone could have, you need two of them on a cell phone because I think he used to have the multiple audios.
I mean, if you watch his production, it's top-notch.
It takes a lot of equipment.
So he had two microphones on him, which is what flew up and looks like it's all kinds of stuff going on.
But that's why the guy behind him jumps because he got hit with the microphone.
That's what essentially happened when the microphone went up.
So both mics came off of him.
And that's what looks like it's some kind of round.
I don't want, I know people are discussing that.
So there's a little confusion with that, but I think people don't realize there's two microphones.
It's a little one and I think a road microphone is a square.
So that part with the shrapnel, because people are trying to figure out where this bullet came from, which is a whole nother subject.
Because first, we know there's a complete failure in the aftermath of this crime scene.
Secondary, we'll get back into that.
But since we're on this, there's clearly three anomalies, right?
There's clearly three anomalies.
There's an object that you can see before impact that appears to be behind Charlie to his right.
Okay.
Again, let's say we're not reaching any conclusions, but these things can be seen on camera.
There is clearly an object.
It appears to be behind Charlie to his right immediately before impact.
And then the object disappears and then there's impact.
And then immediately after impact, there's the two objects that you can see that appear to go flying.
People were convinced it was shrapnel from body armor or whatever.
I'm convinced there is no body armor.
I'd say that's a fact.
But so you're saying you believe, because this is how it works so that people understand.
When you've got a bunch of different cameras, you might have to have multiple audio sources.
So he might have to have one microphone going to this camera over here that might be an isolated recording.
And then he's got this microphone over here that might be going to his live stream audience that's going out.
And then he's got his handheld microphone that's feeding into the system speakers so that everybody can hear him at the event.
So that's why he would have multiple microphones.
If people are saying this doesn't make sense, it actually does when you're doing a big event like this, it does sometimes you have to have multiple mics.
Yep.
Or that huge battery pack sometimes you have on that they put on you.
So the battery, and again, you need a wire.
From what I could see, I don't think he had any kind of body armor.
And I'm talking about his state-of-the-art kind of body armor, which is almost, I'd say, paper thin, but you would kind of see an outline of it.
I didn't, from what I saw, I didn't ever suspect that there was body armor.
But there are, there's a few anomalies without people getting into the conspiratorial part of it.
So first would be the crime scene is the most one of the two most glaring.
So let's get back into that.
To me, this is like the most utter failure right out of the gates.
Yep.
Is that, and so maybe, I mean, I could even, you know, let's just consider all possibilities.
Obviously, you know, this happens and there's, there's your moment of shock.
You know, there's your moment of shock and horror that this is happening.
But, you know, a trained police officer, your training kicks in, right?
I mean, your training kicks in even after the moment of shock, eventually your training kicks in and you're, hey, clear the scene, clear the scene, lock down the scene.
But immediately after, people running all over, breaking things down.
So yeah, again, just really highlight how much of a disaster the handling of the crime scene was.
I mean, not just immediately after, now they've literally built over it.
Yeah.
Now it's like, oh, well, people have said, oh, well, it's over.
You know, they cleared out the crime scene and they paved over it, I believe.
So the first thing you do when you're trained is you're going to take cover as a cop.
You're going to take cover and scan for your threat.
So that threat was never isolated.
We don't know where nobody knows anything about what happened there.
So when you see a couple of guys dive underneath the table, that's what they train you to do.
So they took cover and then you cover and scan for your threat, which is what you saw.
When you realize, though, what's going on and they have to take him directly to the hospital, ASAP, you have to then, whoever, whichever one of you, someone needs to stay behind and realize this is a crime scene, and we have to guard this as if we're guarding a hospitalized victim or hospitalized prisoner.
So one or two, if there's two cops, one goes with Charlie.
The other one has to, you have to stay there and guard that crime scene.
Clearly, you have a major crime here, and there's no one left behind.
Or if they were left behind, they were being lackadaisical because someone has to set up the perimeter and start telling people, go away, get out the exit.
And while you're doing that during the chaos, no one's allowed to walk in.
If you notice five, 10 minutes after, though, there's video of people just strolling right in and taking things and playing around.
There's a camera that was directly behind Charlie.
Somebody takes this down.
I don't even know who this person is because clearly there was never a crime scene established.
Because another thing, Owen, when people come into a crime scene and you're there, you have to say, oh, hey, my name is such and such.
I'm from where.
Who are you?
And you have to write this down and document who's in this crime scene, where they're from, what agency they represent.
So none of this was going on.
And that's why we don't know anything because it was complete bedlam and everyone just did whatever they wanted.
Well, and I don't even, I'm not even trying to get conspiratorial here.
This is just like basic, let's try to understand what's happening here.
And that's why I want to have Sal Greco on with me here, former New York police officer, talking about the crime scene.
And we can get into some other stuff as well.
Now, this is kind of a theory, let's say, that I would have.
I'm not really necessarily convinced of anything, but maybe you can enlighten me on if I'm heading in the right direction or not.
If the wound that we see in his neck is an exit wound, which I believe it is, I don't know if you do or not.
You can comment on that.
But if that is, when the bullet comes out, because we don't know anything about the bullet other than what we're told, we haven't seen the bullet.
I mean, we really don't, you know, they're just claiming it, but we don't really know.
Would the bullet be right there, like right there near the body after it exits?
Would it have fallen right there or would it have continued to go into the crowd?
Because we don't have any other news of anybody else getting struck.
We don't have any evidence that anything else around him was struck, any of the objects, the barriers, the fencing was struck.
So I'm assuming it might have just come out and fallen right there on the ground.
I think there's even a video where it looks like that.
Now, they're not releasing any of the HD video, which is strange enough.
That camera that they broke down immediately after the shooting is now the most important video footage that we can have, and they're not showing it to us.
Where would the bullet have ended up?
Either way, if this is the entry or the exit wound, where does that bullet end up?
Because this is a major part of the crime scene, maybe the most important.
Yep.
And this is why you have to have people on a crime scene because the larger the perimeter, the more they could look into where they're going to do all of that, by the way.
They come in and they set up an investment.
They set up the point.
They could do all of this by going there.
Now, if it is behind them, like you're saying, which I don't know the angle because I see a tent.
I think it'd be very difficult for anyone to pull that off from the back unless there's an angle I'm not seeing because it would have to be from behind him to his almost right, right to left.
If that bullet came from that way, so you're saying if it came from behind, then that bullet would have went towards the crowd and then it would have landed.
And there were guardrails there.
There were also, you know, there's equipment.
It could be anywhere.
Of course, we'll never know because they completely botched the crime scene.
But it would be there, right?
I mean, it's not like it, because I mean, I disappear.
That's I can tell you.
That's just not the magic bullet.
But if it, if it was stuck, if it was somehow stuck in him or parts of it stuck in him, I think they would have told us that.
Again, there's one video that I see.
And again, there is an HD camera right there that would give us this answer.
It wasn't a live camera.
It was a recording camera that would give us this answer.
But the best, it does look like from one, and again, this is just me, I guess you could say conspiracy theorizing.
It's just what I see.
It does look like something comes out of there that's not blood, Not with enough velocity to go flying too far, but it looks like it comes out and it probably just rolls right there next to where he was sitting.
Now, we don't have any answers on this.
Now, I kind of had the original instincts that you had, which was because of the tent, it would make the angle really tough for any of the shots.
But I looked a little deeper into it and the videos are a little, the video angles, I think, are a little deceiving.
There's actually a lot more headroom than it looks like.
So, you actually can kind of have a little bit of a raised angle.
I think a little higher than you might suspect.
Not enough to be on the roof.
Again, this is from my just looking at analysis.
Not enough for it to be on the roof.
I think once you get to the roof from that back angle, I think that the tent does get in the way.
But if you're in that crowd or in kind of that weird little space where there's where there's that muzzle flat or what appears to be a muzzle flash, I don't know if you've seen that or not.
Yeah, I've seen any of that.
That actually would be able to get under the tent.
See, the other thing, too, is if there was a tent, right?
Did the round go through the tent?
Because if it went either through him through the front or the back, there might be a hole in the tent where this trajectory of this round went.
I don't see any evidence of that.
I don't see it.
Well, we won't know because they all came in and started touching it.
Don't you think, though, if a bullet ripped through the tent, I mean, that would make the tent move.
I've not seen the tent move because I've looked at the angles to see if there's any movement in the tent and it never moved.
Now, I could be wrong.
I guess the bullet could just go right through it and not move it, but I haven't seen any evidence that the tent gets hit.
Yeah, I love, don't you love speculation?
But no, the tent, the tent itself looks pretty sturdy.
So to say, I mean, it would take a whole lot of rounds to make that thing move.
If this thing is sleek, I don't know the caliber round it was that they're saying it is, but it would go right through it.
They're saying 30-odd six.
30-odd six.
So still, it would make if it came, let's say it did come from behind and it was behind the tent, then you would see that would be some shot, a blind shot into nowhere, but you would see a trajectory.
That's the other thing.
The trajectory of this round, where is this round coming from?
Because even the acoustics and people on the ground, well, they weren't letting anyone, like you told me, no one was allowed to speak after this.
Someone somewhere would have heard through your ear where this thing came from.
Yeah.
Is anyone speaking about that?
Because that would give you.
I'm not telling anybody about that.
So, okay, to expand on that, if the shooter, if it comes from the roof, like the official story, people in the crowd would have heard the, they would have heard that breaking through the atmosphere.
Yes, someone somewhere, it's going to be close, so you would hear the sh come by you.
That's undeniable.
I mean, I've heard bullets whizz by me.
You know, here's what's so strange about it.
And of course, you never can see everything, but the only times I saw people actually trying to speak after shooting, they were getting shut down.
They were literally getting told to shut up and stop speaking.
They had the mic ripped out of their hand.
And so I'm seeing that.
I'm saying, well, what the hell is going on?
So it's like, how do we, who's interviewing all of these witnesses?
Who's asking all of these questions?
It doesn't seem that anybody, it doesn't seem anybody is asking these questions.
And again, it goes back to just basic procedural stuff.
And that's why I think your opinion on this as a former police officer is so important.
This is just basic procedure stuff, right?
I mean, we're not even talking about going to extremes here.
We're talking about basic procedure.
Lock down the crime scene, interview witnesses, try to get a better picture of what everybody saw, and then relate it to the crime scene.
And you got none of it.
No.
None of that.
I tell you, me first, everything in policing is the first responder, which is the first cop on scene boots on the ground.
He's got to make, he or she has to do all these procedures to make sure everything goes smooth.
They look like, what's that?
It's a little nuance.
It's very big because these things, these steps that I'm telling you, we're not taking.
I could see it just from what the aftermath were not taking.
You need to set up the perimeter.
You need to check who's coming in and out of that tent.
We need names.
You need to know all this.
So if this guy who took the camera down worked for TPOSA or he's a federal agent, whatever it is, you have to write his name down.
We need to know who's going in there contaminating stuff because they're going to look for DNA as well because there's going to be DNA, right?
So there's that failure.
And then who you interrogate, first people that come to mind, the guy that asked that question about transgender, it seemed very convenient that that happened.
He seemed to be very close to that.
I'd ask him, find out what his deal was.
The next, you know, another group of people I would definitely want to question would be his own security.
I don't know.
He had about six people, they say, and there's like a six-man security team.
How that even happened and was broken down is a complete failure.
Now, I understand they say Charlie liked to have like his events open and doesn't want like all this kind of stuff, but the security team is in charge of the, we'll say the principal, because even though they work for him, they need to listen to him when they say, okay, this is not safe.
I don't think an event with 3,000 people and only six security agents, that's not even a, that's a safety hazard, number one.
Number two, why aren't they scanning the rooftops?
And I mean, we did see drones.
Right there.
Let's pause it right there.
And let's get to the rooftop situation in a second because I kind of want to go through my personal experience here because, you know, I've been the principal before, obviously, as well.
I've done events like this with advanced security.
And so I know kind of that dynamic between here's how I want it to go and then my security saying, well, here's what, here's what we need it to go.
And then you kind of have to find that happy medium.
Now, I don't know, you know, I don't know where Charlie landed as far as if he was going to have final say or if he was going to let security have final say.
Normally for me, I would let security have final say because, you know, they're going to be convincing and they're going to say, hey, look, here's the risk factor of this if you want to do it this way versus our way.
And for me, it was normally like, yeah, okay, your way is better.
So again, I can't say where Charlie leaned on that, but obviously he had extremely, I mean, he obviously had top level security and they were, and I'm sure that they were having these discussions.
Okay, so now you get to the roof aspect, which to me is like, and again, this is why the camera behind him is so important because it should have that shot of the guy.
I mean, that should be it, really, Sal.
I mean, to me, this is kind of no pun intended, but to me, that's the smoking gun.
The fact that we haven't seen that camera angle is the smoking gun, because that would be open and shut.
You can literally see the guy line up the shot, take the shot, muzzle flash, hit Charlie.
I mean, that would be case closed.
And the fact that they haven't showed us that has me extremely concerned.
Plus, it would show, it would prove that this would be the entry and that would be the exit, which to me, if the exit is in the back of his head.
And again, I don't know because different things could happen when they're carrying out, but I don't see blood pouring out of an exit wound in his back.
I just simply don't see it.
There could be an explanation for that.
I just don't see it.
So getting back to the roof, and I asked you this earlier.
So you've got security eyes there, police officer eyes there, at least 2,000 attendees eyes there.
Nobody, you're telling me nobody saw this guy on the roof setting up a sniper's nest.
I just find that hard to believe.
Yeah, the only video I think, one of the initial videos I saw was somebody saw somebody running on the rooftop and said, what's going on with that?
That was the only person I could think of I've seen that said anything about, oh, there's someone on that roof.
Like, wait a minute.
Because, and if you, there's another shot they show of when Charlie's speaking, one of those Zoom shots, and I could have sworn I see two other guys behind them.
Now, I don't know if that's a roof or is that a walkway on top?
I think those are hands.
I think I know the one where people to me, I think that's somebody's hands is what I think.
If we're talking about the same video where it looks like there's two guys on a roof, yes.
Because I think that's just somebody's hands in the air.
That would be absolute failure by the security team.
And you know, you know, because you've been a principal.
So on a very high target, very, you know, well-known figure like Charlie Kirk, when you go into an event like this, your security team itself would have its own drone.
The reason you have your drone is you're going to scan the crowd and the roofs if you can't do it visually, because you remember not a police department, but be that as it may, we did see drones in footage.
A friend of ours, Jason Goodman, you know, crowdsourced the truth.
He was one of the first to spot this, and he's been hammering this point home.
There's multiple shots of a drone.
It's not a bug.
It's a drone.
How do you know?
Drone.
Yes.
It's definitely not a bug or a bird.
It's moving way too fast.
I would say, I would say I'm not, I don't know what it is.
There's something there.
I can't say for sure what it is.
But to expand on your point too, again, the security team would do in advanced detail, right?
I mean, they're there doing in advanced detail.
So they know the danger spots.
They know what to look and what not to or what to look for rather.
So again, I just go back to how was this guy able to set up on the roof and get away with this?
It's almost like the Butler situation.
Yeah, the drone, the drone deal is weird too, because you know, all this stuff is so highly regulated that it's hard to fly a drone without there being some sort of a digital record or a data footprint, but nobody can find that information.
Nope, and you could clearly see that there's something that zigzags, and it's not a bug, it zigzags, and it gives you the same characteristics of a drone.
Now, his team should or would have had a drone if they can't physically be somewhere on the roof, they would be able to see it because it some one of the guys would be manning at all times.
And if they see anything, you would see them race in and grab him or get in front of him or put him on the ground and say, We got to go.
That never happened either.
So, I would question the entire security team because that was again a failure on their part for not recognizing any of this.
Unfortunately, they say, you know, the police department gets blamed for everything, right?
So, when something happens, there was an accident, somebody got killed.
Oh, the cop should have done this, they should have done that.
In this instance, they were on the ground, they were there.
Their job is really simple to protect the protect their principal.
And how do you not see this guy on the roof?
And you, there is footage of someone running around up there.
So, how you know that's that was like their first tip.
Was that yeah, of the video of the guy on the roof running?
That's that's ultimately what led them to arrest the suspect they have now.
Is is that video?
And that's see, it's the same kind of thing like in Butler.
Butler, I think, was even worse, only because it involves the Secret Service and the police.
Well, obviously, yeah, right, right.
This, this one, but you know, and here was, but see, to get back to the Butler comparisons, guess what?
Everybody saw the guy on the roof, yeah.
Remember, we have the roof, guy on the roof, guy on the roof.
So, it's like people saw him on the roof.
That's what I'm saying.
It's like 2,000, however many people, people walking around, nobody saw this guy setting up a sniper's nest.
Nobody, nobody.
I mean, and sometimes you can't teach instinct.
You're a cop, you're told there's someone up there.
I know you're supposed to give way to Secret Service.
Sometimes you just got to take an initiative.
And I saw the video of the guys actually doing that when they finally did do that.
But initially, when they say there's all these commotion of him running around, you got to run to that.
Okay, what is going on there?
So, you have to take initiative.
And that's that's what I'm saying.
These security guys, maybe they lack a Daisy Cole.
I don't know them, but I know seeing this, you have a failure in the police department.
There's no crime scene's a complete catastrophe, and everyone contaminated that scene.
And then, initially, security, even cops on the ground, how do you not see this guy?
I'm first thing you're looking for is you're always scanning up.
You're going to have guys that are going to scan the crowd, guys that are scanning upwards.
Obviously, nobody was scanning upwards because if this bullet came from up top, which these kinds of events, you always have to worry about perches.
There's going to be somebody up, just like every assassin's always hanging out on a building rooftop.
Well, this is actually such a great point, too, because okay, campus security there knows they have a big event, so they're going to have heightened, they're going to have heightened awareness.
They've got the cameras everywhere, which, by the way, to me, this is like again, not even to get conspiratorial, but it's like, where is all the footage?
Where is all the footage?
Where's the footage of him getting up on the roof?
He didn't teleport onto the roof, okay?
And Cash Patel today said, Oh, we saw him climb on the roof.
Well, let's see the footage.
So, here's so, here's an obvious question: Campus Security has security footage, they know there's a big event there that day.
Somebody should have been monitoring these security feeds as soon as that guy went onto the roof.
Somebody should have been over there investigating.
So, it's like, how does I mean, I guess you could say the guy monitoring the security cameras looked away to grab a coffee?
I don't know.
I mean, okay, I suppose it's plausible at some degree, but it's just like once you get to all these different degrees of plausibility, eventually it almost reaches an unbelievable number of impossibilities happening here.
Yeah, because what you're doing now is every single you're checking off all these things that could go wrong and they all went wrong.
And it just, what is the give me a plausible number saying that that's that's probable that could happen?
That could happen, that could happen.
So, campus, right?
You say campus security.
I think they said they only had one or two people working.
You have an event where 3,000 people are expected to show up, you're only going to have two or three campus security.
You want to think about calling in people saying, Yeah, we're going to have overtime or whatever.
We're going to need 10, 15 of our best guys out there because there's 3,000 people that could overrun us or take over the school.
Nobody thinks like that's how I think.
You're going to need the highest number of security guards, whatever you could get, just to make sure nothing goes wrong.
The reason this really happened is it's an absolute failure on all run, all angles, because you're not enough boots on the ground, people being lackadaisical.
And in the end, the cops, the most simplest thing to do to set up a perimeter, fail to do so.
So the evidence is completely contaminated on the scene.
So now you're going on whatever this kid's, this kid's on Discord, whatever, because you don't have the lack of evidence that you would have because you failed to produce.
You didn't set up the most simplest thing, which is the crime scene.
Oh, and it's the easiest thing to do when you're on the ground.
And they didn't even do that.
They never even did it.
And now they've literally like built a new concrete lift with new grass.
I mean, they did that in less than a week.
How long would a crime scene typically be up like that for a major shooting like this?
How long would a crime scene usually be blocked off?
I've seen crime scenes that last a week.
It could be a couple of days.
It really depends if they have everything they need out of that crime scene.
The problem is, oh, and they contaminated it.
So what can you really get out of it?
Yeah.
Well, they got nothing.
They don't have anything.
I don't even think they found the round if the round exists.
That round.
They have not told us anything about the round.
And they were supposed to the hearing.
I don't know.
I left it because nothing was getting done.
I said, I'm going to interview you instead.
You'll give us more information than this hearing.
I was hoping somebody would bring these questions up and nobody did.
Yeah, they're going for the easy, the gotcha moment.
You know, they're going for word salads because they're not investigators.
None of those congressmen, you know, a lot of them, they've been there for 100 years, and they shouldn't even be there.
They're there 50 years already.
These are the questions that matter is the crime scene.
Why didn't that, what happened with that?
Why was there no perimeter?
Why was everyone allowed to walk in and out and do what they want?
Who are these people that just take things down?
You got to have names, names to faces.
That's the most important thing.
Who are these people walking in and out?
Was there, is this, was there an exit of a round?
Was it the tent?
Is there a hole in the tent?
Is this bullet?
Do we have it?
The actual bullet that killed Charlie Kirk, where is it?
Do they have it?
What happened with this?
Was there a bullet?
Did anybody hit in the crowd?
Did you interview people from the crowd?
Did you interview the security where clearly there's a lapse in it?
What's this drone footage we're seeing?
These are easy questions without going into conspiracies of who or what was behind it.
But they're not going to ask that.
This is just, this is a dog and pony show today.
Yeah.
No, the whole thing is starting to feel that way.
Let me play you this video of why I've landed on the conclusion, and then maybe you can tell me where you think the second microphone is because I just don't know.
I'm wondering if you can point it out to me.
So I want to show this video here real quickly of why I believe the conclusion I've reached is earpiece wire.
Okay, so just quickly, you can see there's something right here, right?
I mean, I think we can all agree that this is an object pattern right here.
And to me, this is the microphone clipped onto the earpiece.
Now, you'll understand what I'm saying about the earpiece here in a second.
Watch closely here.
Okay.
Did you see this?
Yes.
Sorry for the graphic nature of the video, folks.
It is what it is.
This, to me, is his earpiece.
The moment of contact.
Let me play this again real quick.
This is a short video, so these frames are kind of tight on the scale here.
Okay.
So, okay, here's the first instance.
Earpiece is out.
So here's contact.
Earpiece comes out.
This is the actual, I think, what was in his ear.
And you'll see this go flying in a second here.
Okay, so earpiece comes out.
And somewhere, somewhere in this process, obviously the microphone goes flying.
Yes.
And there's a secondary thing on that with a round went.
I think that's the road mic or whatever.
The other mic that was.
Where was that on his person?
It might be under his shirt.
Okay.
Because you know, you need two mics to try to make it more.
Or maybe somewhere, maybe somewhere under his collar.
I don't know.
But here's to me, this is what I'm convinced of.
This microphone right here, because this is a common, this is a common thing when you're doing interviews like this to have your wires under control, your mic's under control.
So earpiece in here.
Wire goes around the ear, around the back of his neck, and then pops up right here and comes over here.
He has it clipped to his mic, and then it goes down here, feeding into whatever the source of the audio is.
And to me, that's why when the earpiece gets shot out, that wire pulls it up and then flings this, the microphone, in this direction.
So that's why I believe that the body armor theory is completely debunked because this is a wire to this earpiece.
And once that earpiece gets yanked by what I believe is the entry, again, this is my theory.
I believe it enters here, flings the earpiece, sends the wire up, and sends the microphone flying.
I'll play this one more time, Sal, as you comment.
Yeah, I could see that.
It definitely looks like I thought that was the actual microphone flying out, but since you mentioned it, that would be the earpiece.
There'd be a wire.
The wire is on the other side, which is what pulls the shirt.
And clearly, there's no, there is no body armor.
You could, I mean, no way.
You want to put this over body armor anyway because you can't even, you would see it.
It would stick out like a sore thumb.
That clearly is the wires coming out from the back, which was attached to an earpiece, and then the microphone goes out.
I thought there was another microphone here because I saw something, but that could have been the wire itself.
I think that might be a that might be an earpiece clip, is what that could be.
That could be an earpiece clip that he had clipped to his shirt just to secure it, maybe.
Yeah, but there's definitely here is a wire or another mic here.
And the one you clearly see was the one that went flying.
And of course, if the earpiece was there, that was what came off because that's what the speculation is of his shrapnel.
And that's it's it's that.
That's what people keep seeing.
Of course, there's other footage that no one, uh, you know, you're not allowed to look at, you're not allowed to footage.
We don't get the HD footage because, by the way, all of the, they have, I mean, I counted at least three HD cameras that were filming this.
So we're talking about pure HD, uh, probably 4K cameras that were filming this from every angle that his team has that nobody's seen.
So, unfortunately, we have to kind of go off of these live stream videos.
We have to go after these other videos that have been compressed over and over and over again as people are re-downloading it and re-uploading it.
So, unfortunately, this is, you know, this is the best we can do.
And the reason you need that is it's not because people want to glorify what's going on.
In the absence of facts and evidence, what are the people supposed to do?
Because I know that if you could see the angle of what Charlie was looking at, you're going to see very clearly what's going on in the front, meaning you're going to see who the real, you know, people don't trust or believe the government.
I think that's the real problem here.
Yeah.
No one trusts the government.
So when they tell you, oh, I think it's this guy, you're going, I could go back eight years ago and I still don't know what happened that day in Vegas with that massacre.
We still, I mean, it's still questions with that.
So why wouldn't there be questions with this?
And again, another situation: a guy perched up somewhere shooting down.
So again, there's always these failures going on.
So a camera like that, we're not doing, we don't even want to look at it to see, you know, what happened to Charlie.
It's very unfortunate.
It's to see the crime occur.
And we've always been told one thing and we find out, you know, like I think Roger, our friend Roger Stone said it best put up a graphic right away.
Said Patsy.
And he saw this guy and he put a picture of him side by side with Lee Harvey Oswald.
And that's the crazy beginning.
It's crazy.
That's the kind of stuff where I'm just like, what am I?
What is this world?
What is this simulation?
Is this all like you see that stuff and the similarities?
What are the odds of it?
It's almost impossible.
But I don't know.
You can't really draw much from that.
The playbook, whoever was, we know, if it's this, I mean, and then the other thing is, I'm looking at this kid, I'm like, he perfectly wrote to his transgender, whatever the guy is that he's with personally.
I don't believe that note.
The questions that his own, the guy, whatever, boyfriend, whatever that person is, is asking him is what you would be asking in an interrogation.
I've never seen a guy drop anything.
If we go back, all these crazy people have done these things.
Never have I seen them texting someone and that other someone asking him exactly what did they do step by step.
And the other person answers them.
Yeah.
Well, think about it.
He has the time to answer him.
Oh, yeah, I'm waiting.
I'm doing this.
I'm doing that.
You don't think he'd be afraid that they're going to come and get him and arrest him?
Apparently, you know, he was afraid of getting grounded by dad because he took grandpa's gun.
So he's afraid of getting grounded by dad.
Yeah, that makes sense.
All the loose ends tied up perfectly.
And, you know, I think the most innocent explanations to me are: one, you know, whatever the partner, whatever this relationship is, this partner who apparently he's texting with, you know, maybe this person gave them that to cover their own tracks.
Okay.
You know, maybe, so maybe that was something that they put together to try to cover up something else.
Or maybe it's something that the FBI kind of fabricated to tie up their own loose ends and to try to get people to stop asking questions.
Yeah, they love that.
They hate when you ask questions.
They want you to stick with, they love official narratives.
They are very much, like I've been saying, I say every day on my show, perception management and controlling the narrative.
That's what these governmental agencies love more than anything else.
Unfortunately, it's infected the Trump administration itself.
They love controlling that narrative because if you can't control a narrative, people are going to ask questions and you're going to get to the truth.
And they like to shield the truth for whatever reason.
And the people are just tired of it, which is why we have what we have here because there's more questions than answers.
All we could kind of do is speculate.
But I could tell you from experience, the glaring thing was that the crime scene was a disaster.
The security team allowing this and the fact that I see drones and the drones would be very big because even as a security team, you would have drones up to scan the rooftops if you don't have the manpower for it.
Then there's all these other little nuances that we could add on that nothing adds up.
And again, this official narrative, people are not buying it.
And that's why people like Roger have that graphic up that say Patsy.
And people are going to be questioning this for a long time.
Yeah, I mean, the only conclusions that I feel confident reaching is that Charlie was shot directly in the neck from the front or the back.
I can't say for certain.
I'm of the belief that it's from the back, but I'm not constantly 100%.
I'm 100%, though, it was directly in the neck.
100% there was no bulletproof vest.
And 100% that we're not getting the full story by design.
And let me just ask you this.
And if you want to say this is from your own expert opinion from being on crime scenes or the scenes of shootings, or if you want to say, well, I may not have the best expert, but here's what I think.
Do you believe that this looks like an entry or an exit wound?
I'm not like the greatest expert when it comes to this stuff, but from that initial hit that I'm seeing, it looks like it's from the front only because your body tenses up.
Kind of like when you notice JFK, same thing.
Your body always reacts to whatever.
If you got hit in the front, hit in the back, you'd see your body move a different way.
His initial hit is that his body jumps, but it jumps backwards because you get hit from the front.
Let me push back on that a little bit because I think the reason, again, this is just where, this is where my, you know, where my thoughts are going.
I think he got hit in the neck and it either hit his brain or spinal cord, and that's why he went stiff.
I think the initial reaction of this was because it hit brain or spinal cord.
And you know, when you, when you have an injury like that, the first thing that happens is your body just tenses up and becomes paralyzed.
So that's kind of how I kind of reasoned and logic my way around that response of how I've landed on my conclusion.
But you think from your analysis, do you believe that it did come from the front?
Yeah, without knowing anything yet, they haven't said anything on where or how this happened.
I would heavily bet that it came from the front only because of the way his body reacts as it tenses up backwards and then rocks forwards and then sideways.
So it's the same thing when you watch the JFK when you notice that they've done a thousand, you know, watch it over and over again where that round came from first.
Because remember, they're telling you it was a guy perched up on the Texas school book depository when it looks like could have been a guy right in the front, right on the side, and his body, the way it reacts, tells you that it could be that way.
So that's why I would lean to say it was something that was hit from the front, and that's why you tensed up.
But, you know, until we don't even have the real footage yet.
So, you know, because they're hiding that.
Right.
And that's the thing.
We're discussing this.
You know, I think we're all open-minded discussing this and trying to make sense of it all.
And they could release all the HD footage and give us a much clearer picture.
Now, I anticipate, you know, you can even think the worst of the FBI with all of this, but eventually they're going to have to come out and do a layout of everything.
I mean, eventually they're going to have to come out and present their final conclusions, and they're going to have to show the trajectory.
They're going to have to show the exact spot, the exact trajectory.
I mean, they're going to have to come out and lay it all out, as we've seen so many times before, like we saw with the Butler shooting.
So, you know, that'll be another moment for us to kind of, okay, respond to here's what they're saying now.
But I'll tell you, I agree with what you've said.
I don't think it matters.
Even if they're telling the truth, trust in government is so low.
And even with this administration, trust is so low.
I don't think, even if they were being completely honest, I don't think people are going to believe it.
That's the world we're in now.
That's the problem.
Even if I expect the FBI going to have to, we've never even saw with the Butler incident, a 3D mapping of everything and how, because you got to find out how this even happened, really.
Other than it's apparent, it's a lapse in security and a failure in the police department to even have a crime scene conducted and there's drones in the area just to know who's flying them.
So, you know, you have all these things and the trust in the government is low.
It's even lower in that.
I think a lot of people are, I hate to use the word disappointed in the Trump administration.
We like, you know, there's a lot of like, wait a minute, what's going on there?
I didn't like, you know, you didn't expect this coming out of the Trump, but, you know, now people want answers.
And I, I hate to even say this.
I see, you know, from what we could tell, I would think that Trump and Charlie were very close.
I mean, you know, Charlie's family says that, but his reaction to this is, I would expect the JD Vance reaction to be Trump's reaction.
But he's.
Do you want my take on the reactions?
This is going to get a little controversial.
This is going to anger some people.
Yeah.
First of all, the Trump response has been extremely disheartening.
And, you know, I've just decided to just kind of leave Trump out of this equation because I'm just over the whole Trump gravity thing.
My mind and the things that I think and the conclusions I reach don't don't, Trump has no pull on them anymore.
So it really doesn't even weigh into any of this for me anymore.
But for Trump to post a picture with Charlie with an Israeli flag behind it, that was one of the most, that was one of the most offensive things I've seen.
And I don't even think it was meant to be that way.
Maybe it was just a bad decision he made.
Then he's in front of the White House, I believe, and a member of the press asks him a question and he starts talking about the construction at the at the ballroom.
And there's like, oh, what about your friend Charlie Kirk?
And he says, we're doing great.
Look at the construction.
We're building the grand ballroom.
And I'm like, dude, what?
They just asked you about your friend Charlie Kirk.
What are you talking about a ballroom construction for?
So that was really strange.
You know, the Vance thing was, you know, I think it was more just kind of procedural, just like, hey, let's, you know, have JD come on here.
And he had a good relationship with Charlie and he can say some nice things about him.
I didn't think too much of that.
But I'll say this.
I'll say this, because I've been monitoring, let's say, the media response very, very closely, very closely.
I've been watching this.
And, you know, I think you kind of have to, you kind of have to have a little time and space to let everybody just get this first thing out of the way.
But to me, for example, when I saw what happened on Charlie Kirk's show when the Daily Wire took it over, okay, and let's just say, let's just say I compare that to maybe Tucker, Carlson, Megan Kelly, and Candace Owens, who are getting a lot of scrutiny.
And this is just my opinion.
I know this, you know, people are going to get pissed off, whatever.
You know what?
I just got to tell the truth and people can think whatever they want.
To me, specifically the response from Candace, but to me, the people that are getting the most scrutiny, Candace, Carlson, and Kelly, to me, they are the ones that seem to be actually grieving this.
They are the ones that seem to be really more emotionally disturbed and upset about this.
When I looked at, you know, Shapiro and them on the Kirk show, they didn't seem as disturbed.
They didn't seem to be, it didn't seem to hit them as much emotionally.
It all seemed to be very transactional to them.
It all seemed like very transactional to them.
Like, here's a series of transactions, and now we're sitting here in these chairs.
Whereas with Candace and Tucker and Kelly agree or disagree with what they're saying, they seem to actually be really emotionally impacted.
That's just my takeaway.
That's how I kind of felt about it.
Yeah, I think that people that are closer to him are obviously going to be taking it harder, but other people might see it as an opportunity.
And I would think that Ben Shapiro sees an opportunity right now, that there's a void as a leading voice.
And here he comes because now he could be the unabashed leader himself with no, you know, because whether people agreed with it or not, I think Charlie was probably the leading voice when it comes to the entire conservative movement.
He's 31.
He had the brightest future coming, very smart.
I think if he wanted to run for office down the road, he could have.
He had a major organization.
The sky's the limit for him.
Without that voice now, who would fill this void?
Yeah.
Well, and I think too, you know, obviously people are talking about the aspect of the Israeli lobby and the donors that maybe didn't like the direction Charlie was going on some of the geopolitical issues.
And I don't even really think that's up for debate, right?
I think that that's pretty much concluded.
Now, how you feel about, you know, the different sides of it may determine how you feel about the shooting.
But to me, even if you don't believe there was some foreign entity or something else going on here and you believe it was a left-wing assassination, which I'm still open-minded to believe.
In fact, I would say last night, I would still say that was the odds on favorite, that it was a left-wing assassin.
Now I'm like split because what I see, what the response from the donor class and the response from the pro-Israel side of this has been, you know, Doth protests too much.
Doth protests too much.
But even if even if it was just a left-wing assassin, which I still say is a fair possibility, or maybe the odds on favorite, you can see that they were ready to move in and take the reins of the conservative youth and push them back into the Israeli lobby's arms where they're clearly trying to escape.
And maybe Kirk was too.
Yeah, see, you got to look at a crime like this as who has the motives to do it or who would be the strings, you know, pulling everything behind the scenes.
And there could be many avenues that you could go with.
I mean, I saw the bizarre, I don't know why Netanyahu goes on national TV to say Israel didn't, I mean, I don't know what the hell that was.
Even if you, let's say the wild, like you weren't even thinking about that conspiracy, why would he want to interject himself into something like this?
You're the leader of a country.
You know, you should say, I knew Charlie.
It was a horrible thing.
My heart goes out to his family.
He'd be devastated about it.
But to say, well, Israel didn't kill him.
Who the hell said anything about that?
You're the guy that just opened that door saying, because you're running in the country and you say that.
So there's an angle that you didn't expect coming.
But I don't know if this is like to try to, you know, veer eyeballs away from who it really could be because you never know.
But the reason we're having this again, this entire discussion, is because nobody trusts the government.
And the official narrative, no matter what it's going to be, no one is going to trust it.
No one, because they've lied so many times.
And it's funny.
This happened a day prior to probably one of the biggest things that ever happened in American soil, 9-11, right?
So it all jammed into one big circle, one big thing.
We're saying to ourselves, wow, it's like one conspiracy central here of all these entities and the what-ifs and the who's.
And it's almost like these people are taunting the American people.
It does feel that way.
I think that that is an undeniable feeling a lot of people have.
And by the way, you know, for what it's worth, this was the first trip on college.
This was the first trip on Charlie's college campus tour.
Is that a coincidence?
That seems kind of like an interesting thing to consider as well.
But yeah, I could see it being as innocent of, I could see it being as innocent as, you know, Netanyahu and the Israeli lobby saying, hey, we're losing a lot of support in the youth.
We're losing a lot of support on the right.
Let's use this moment of Charlie Kirk's death to kind of come in here and maybe win some of that support back as tasteless as that might be, whatever.
Okay, I could see that being innocent enough.
But now it's just reached a point of, hey, Doth protests too much.
You know, eventually when a guy's running around the crime scene, this has been the saying I've been saying.
If I've got some guy running around the crime scene screaming, I didn't do it.
I didn't do it.
I didn't do it.
Well, eventually I'm going to pull that guy aside and say, hey, I got some questions for you, actually.
You know, you keep saying you didn't do it.
I didn't expect it.
You were doing it.
But now all of a sudden, because from my timeline, and you can go look back on my social media activity and from my, you know, just following all this, again, the first day, that day, everybody reached the conclusion this was left-wing violence.
I mean, that was the consensus.
Okay, this is pretty clear what happened.
But like you said, then Netanyahu comes out and makes that statement.
And then they try to start making it all about Israel again.
And then so here it's like, oh, wait a second.
Now we're looking over here again.
So that's what made me so mad.
They're like, oh, the right wing did this.
No, Netanyahu did this.
They're the ones that came out.
Netanyahu made the first statement.
The Jerusalem Post had the first story.
They had a giant, like five-story tall banner up in Israel like the next day.
Those things take a long time to make, by the way.
So no, they're the ones that put the eyes on them.
Nobody was looking at them until they did it.
Yeah, you'd have to ask this guy directly, kind of like what Trump did with the Epstein files.
Like you kind of, you kind of created something that more than likely has nothing to it, but now it's entered the discussion.
Now, again, I don't know if they do this to distract.
I don't know if this is some, I don't know, they want to enter because they want to be relevant, but that I believe was unnecessary, just like Trump mentioning the Epstein thing and the way they're handling it.
That was unnecessary.
It's a self-inflicted wound, we'll say, to yourself or the organization or the government will say, I have no, I watched that and said, what the hell is he doing even talking about this?
Why would he mention it?
Netanyahu, it reminded me of Trump with the Epstein thing and how they've completely botched that and made it worse by continuously throwing the, you know, the, the, the, the, the gasoline on the fire when there was nothing there.
That's why that has spin, it's spun into what it is today.
And I don't know if that's what they're hoping for.
I don't know.
If that is that they want to interject in a conversation that have nothing to do with, who knows?
But you know, the problem is you got a government you can't trust.
So now you don't know what to believe anymore.
And ultimately, I think that's our big problem.
And when we have so many things that don't make any sense, so many things that don't add up, and they're not giving us the evidence that would, that would close all these conversations, then the conversations are just going to continue.
Now, we'll see.
We'll see what the conclusion of all of this is.
But at this point, it's pretty clear what they're going to sell us.
And now, if they can give us anything else to convince us that this is the truth, then the burden is on them.
Because right now, they haven't convinced me.
They haven't convinced you.
And I don't think they've convinced the majority of Americans.
Sal Greco, my guest today, former New York police officer.
Sal, just closing statements on this discussion.
You know, I think this is a time, though, that people, you really need to pull it together and you have to have trust in one thing is your faith.
I could say this probably with the most certainty is whoever did this, whether it was this crazed guy, another guy that's probably on meds, but they're not even discussing that part or entities or organizations.
Is he on meds?
I want to know that because big pharma has a lot to do with a lot of these people coming out of woodwork, all these mental patients running around with guns.
So the problem with this and the biggest thing I've noticed is they have a void in their life.
And the reason everyone usually has a void in your life is because when you were created by God, you had a hole there wanting to always be with God.
If you are one of with one with God and one with Jesus, you won't have that void.
But those that don't believe in anything have a huge void.
So what do they do?
You've encountered them in the street personally.
You see them out there with that.
I see them painting over murals, saying crazy things about Charlie's death.
And you got to remember, we all end up in the same place, Owen.
So you're going to get judged.
First, I believe when you do crossover, you're going to judge yourself before you get to be judged by God himself.
So if you think waking up in the mirror and wishing death on people and this whole death cult that they have, whatever pharmaceuticals they're on, if that's your God, God help you when the time comes.
But for people like us that we believe and we believe in God, I go to church all the time.
Roger was there on Sunday.
You know, Roger was devastated over this.
I mean, media came.
She, you know, for her to come to church was like, whoa, because, you know, she's actually a Buddhist.
So she, for her to come, even though she grew up a Catholic, she, she came, she's like, I had to do this.
Like, you know, this has been really bothering me.
This affected everyone the way it was done.
And again, the problem is that the government, we can't trust them.
Oh, and that's, that's really boils down to.
But I think people need to find their inner self and their faith and stick with that because these are some really dark times.
We have some really, whether you want to say evil people or people that are high on drugs, because that's everywhere, that are just running rampant.
And you can only pray that they get saved at some point because they don't believe in anything and we do.
And, you know, my condolences to Charlie's family.
I didn't really know him.
I've been in the same room with the guy and I really didn't talk to him.
But, you know, that moment will be, I'll be seeing this over and over again.
And I feel so sorry that this happened and it was completely botched by the cop snare, by his security.
It's something that was so simple to fix, but it was caused by what?
Did it do it intentionally or they just messed up because they messed up?
We'll never really know because you don't trust the government.
Well said, Sal Greco.
Love you, brother.
Appreciate your time today.
Where can people follow your show?
You can follow me on at the Sal Greco on X, also on Instagram.
I have at the Sal Greco show, also on Instagram and TikTok, which, by the way, try to ban me because I put a video up of Owen, just so everyone understands.
Hashtag Owen Schroyer banned on TikTok.
You will be shut down, just so I want you to know.
Yeah, we got, we got, well, we actually got multiple problems with TikTok right now, but let's just, we'll just leave it there for now.
Sal Greco, great friend of mine, great American patriot.
God bless and Godspeed.
Folks, coming up, I am going to be on with Enrique Tario.
I'm going to be on with Redacted.
And I got an interview with Zeb Boykin later this afternoon, right here on this same channel.
▲
Export Selection