Tyler Robinson's Defense Team Desperate, Goes Full Female Theater Kid Already
Tyler Robinson’s defense team, led by Kathy Nestor, weaponized a prosecutor’s daughter’s presence at the Charlie Kirk shooting as a delay tactic, despite no conflict of interest. Nestor’s dramatic, vague DNA questioning—highlighting mixtures from five individuals without context—was deemed theatrical and dismissive by judges, including Dave Hall’s testimony that Robinson’s prints were found at the crime scene. Legal analysts like Will Chamberlain warn such tactics risk alienating courts while failing to undermine evidence, suggesting the defense prioritizes public perception over legal strategy. The episode underscores how procedural theatrics may backfire in high-stakes trials like Robinson’s, where facts, not spectacle, determine justice. [Automatically generated summary]
I want to take a second to remind you to sign up for the Pozo Daily Brief.
It is completely free.
It'll be one email that's sent to you every day.
You can stop the endless scrolling, trying to find out what's going on in your world.
We will have this delivered directly to you, totally for free.
Go to humanevents.com slash pozo.
Sign up today.
It's called the Pozo Daily Brief.
Read what I read for show prep.
You will not regret it.
Humanevents.com slash pozo.
Totally free.
The pozo daily brief.
This is what happens when the fourth turning meets fifth generation warfare.
A commentator, international social media sensation, and former Navy intelligence veteran.
This is Human Events with your host, Jack Posovic.
Christ is king.
Amid already heightened tensions, today military escalations with Iran.
The American aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, which just arrived in the region as part of President Trump's military buildup, was today approached about 500 miles from the Iranian coast by an Iranian drone flying aggressively and with unclear intent, according to U.S. Central Command.
The Lincoln scrambled a fighter jet and shot it down.
But what is really the major problem in this country today is the fascism in our streets.
The attacks on American citizens by masked hoodlums.
If you were attacked by a masked person, you might think you were being kidnapped.
You'd be justified in shooting the person.
For those who are not a national security threat or public safety risk, you are not exempt from immigration enforcement actions.
If you're in the country legally, you are not off the table.
And let me be clear, President Trump fully intends to achieve mass deportations during this administration, and immigration enforcement actions will continue every day throughout this country.
The other thing we can't lose sight of is you probably have in Minnesota, and it's worse in some places like California, $19 billion in fraud.
And we're going to find out.
You know, we're very deep into that investigation.
The accused assassin of conservative activist Charlie Kirk was back in court today.
22-year-old Tyler Robinson was shackled at the waist as he watched his defense attorneys argue pretrial motions that could impact whether he gets the death penalty.
Among them, the defense is trying to get the prosecution team tossed from the case.
They claim that there is a disqualifying conflict of interest.
The key fact is that the daughter of a deputy county attorney was actually in the crowd at the rally when Charlie Kirk was assassinated.
So, will that make a fair prosecution impossible, as the defense argues?
Today, the county attorney said no, denying that the daughter's presence at that rally had any impact on any prosecutorial decisions.
Was a search warrant on the defendant's house executed in this case?
It was, yes, down in St. George.
And was evidence obtained from his house?
It was, yes.
What kind of evidence?
If I recall, there were some bullet casings that had some inscriptions on.
There were some tools that were believed to have been used to make those inscriptions.
There were targets, I believe, that had been used and also targets that had been purchased recently or just prior to the event.
There was ring doorbell camera footage obtained from other residences down there.
And then a number of electrical items, laptops and such that were collected as part of the warrant.
All right, folks, Jack Pisovic here.
We're back human events daily live on Real America's Voice.
Today is February 4th, 2026.
Anno Domini.
New Year's Resolution Turning Point00:05:26
And yesterday, of course, you know, we've been working hard putting together the show for the Super Bowl, the halftime show that they don't want you to see.
Now, we know the Super Bowl Sunday, of course, is this Sunday, but our turning point, USA, halftime show, is the one you want to see.
This is the all-American halftime show.
And you only want to watch the all-American halftime show, the one that's in English, the one that's not in a foreign language, and the one, of course, that's got an incredible lineup headlined by Kid Rock himself.
I got to tell you, I am watching all of Woodstock 99 to get ready.
No, not just Kid Rock's part.
I'm talking everybody at Woodstock 99 to prepare for this auspicious event.
But then in the middle of all of that, what did I do?
Went back and had to watch this hearing, Tyler Robinson.
And there's this moment where one of Tyler's defense attorneys, I'm sorry, she just goes full theater kid on us.
Check it out.
And you mentioned, I know I have two minutes.
I'm going to talk very fast.
I know she's about to kill me.
You mentioned the DNA evidence.
You're certainly not a DNA expert.
Is that correct?
I'm not, no.
And are you aware that the DNA evidence that was seized from the scene consisted of a mixture of at least five different individuals?
I'm not a DNA expert, so.
So you know enough to say what helps him, but you're not going to answer whether or not there were five individuals mixed into that DNA.
I'm not aware of that, no.
Okay.
And you're certainly not qualified to interpret complex DNA mixtures, are you?
No, I'm not.
Okay.
Court's indulgence for just one moment, Your Honor.
Six minutes.
Ms. Nestor, is there?
I know I gave you that six minutes.
Is there any other questions that you feel you need to ask?
Thank you for asking, but I think I'm done.
Thank you.
Thank you.
What is going on here with this lunch pail?
She's up there going, all right, explain this to me.
She's like, oh, you're not the DNA expert, but we're going to ask you about a bunch of DNA stuff that isn't in evidence and also has no bearing on you and anything that you did.
But we're going to go check this out.
We're going to go look at this.
We're going to try.
Excuse me.
And then she accuses him.
She, oh, well, you'll give the other guy an answer, but you won't give me an answer.
Oh, you answered my question.
And he's like, I'm not qualified to do that.
That would be breaking evidentiary rules.
That would be break all sorts because she's going full theater pit kid.
Why is she going full theater kid?
It's very clear to me.
Desperation is setting in.
That's why they're trying these delay tactics, these emotional tactics.
We're going to do a full deep dive of this.
But coming up next, we got a special guest with us to break down the all-American halftime show.
Right back.
Human Events here.
In our way, and our golden age has just begun.
This is Human Events with Jack Posobo.
Now.
Now it's time for everyone to understand what America First truly means.
Welcome to the second American Revolution.
All right, Jack's up.
We're back live here.
Human Events daily on Real America's Voice.
Folks, if you're anything like me, you know, the holidays, they were brutal.
Every healthy habit gone, desserts, late nights, skipped workouts.
But now that we're in the new year, it's time for a reset.
So let's undo all that and make a new year's resolution to actually give our bodies what they need.
For me and my family, that fresh start begins with Cove Pure.
Here's the thing.
Everybody jumps into the new year with new supplements.
You want to try a new diet, try a new workout, but you completely ignore the most important basic thing, your water.
Even mild dehydration impacts energy, focus, metabolism.
And when you think about all the garbage that's in our water, you're starting behind the curve before you even begin.
Their ClearWave technology is certified to remove up to 99.9% of contaminants.
Pretty much anything that isn't water, PFAs, microplastics, pharmaceutical residue, fluoride, it all gets removed.
It's the purest water you can get.
And what I love most about Cove Pure is it lets you choose the temperature of your water.
Hot, cold, warm.
And it tastes, it makes your water taste so good, pure, clean, no aftertaste.
Cove Pure makes it so easy to get a pure water with the push of a button.
So this year, make a new year's resolution that sticks.
Improve your health with clean water.
Right now, you can get $200 off for a limited time if you use my link, covepure.com slash posto.
That's C-O-V-E-P-U-R-E dot com slash posto to start the new year right.
All right.
So folks, this Sunday night, 8 p.m. Eastern, maybe a little even before 8 p.m. Eastern, maybe around 7, 6, because there's more stuff going on.
You want to turn on Real America's Voice because right here we'll be streaming the Turning Point USA All-American halftime show.
You can also get it, of course, on X.
It's going to be at Rumble.
It's going to be YouTube.
I'll have it up on my page.
All-American Halftime Show00:10:54
People could see it on the Turning Point USA social media.
Just all the accounts, like all the places that we have are our normal social media.
You'll be able to see it there.
A couple other spots that are also going to be partnering with TP USA.
I know Daily Wire is coming up, Sinclair, a few others.
So you want to get it, but really a TBN.
But I really do think that the RAV, the RAV stream is just going to be phenomenal.
I think there's going to be some special coverage, some pre-game coverage, pre-show coverage that you're going to want to see.
So check that out.
And I wanted to, you know, kind of talk some more about how this isn't just, this is not a political event.
This is beyond political.
This is cultural.
This is about identity.
This is about who we are as Americans.
It's about heritage.
It's about supporting all of those things.
And I thought, who better than to comment on all of the cultural production than our good friend Kevin Sorbo, who joins us now?
What's up, Kevin?
Hey, how you doing?
It's good to see you again.
Doing real well.
So I got to ask you, how did you think when the announcement came down that the turning, or excuse me, that the other halftime show was getting bad bunny?
You know, I didn't even know who the dude was.
And my boys had to let me know who it was.
And I went online to look at his music and stuff.
And it's just, it's interesting to me what they do within the Super Bowl halftime show, what it used to be and what it's kind of turning into over these last five, six years, because the whole idea of the Super Bowl with the commercials, who are they?
Who are they promoting?
Who are they going after?
They're going after the people that actually buy products.
And that's the 40 years old and older people.
And yet they bring a guy out that most of these guys, 40 and older, I can know who the heck this dude is.
And we got a little taste of, of course, at the Grammys, which I never watched.
I just watched some of the clips, of course, because all these award shows keep getting less and less coverage because nobody cares anymore.
They only care within the little bubble of Hollywood, just like the Democrat only care about the little bubble in Washington, D.C.
But we got to realize that the commercials coming on right now, these two, three, $4 million commercials are targeting people that actually can afford the products that they're actually promoting for the most part.
And that's the crowd that wants to watch.
They'd rather see Fleetwood Mac.
They'd rather see Super Tramp.
I'd rather see Sticks or Journey or Eagles or something in a halftime instead of this guy.
So I think a lot of people are going to flip over to what you guys got going at TPUSA with a group of people that represent America far better than the bunny die does.
Well, and that's what we're going for, right?
Because, you know, and what's funny is, and I've said this a couple of times, Charlie and I used to always kind of joke about this.
We had conversations.
Charlie, he would always rail about the Super Bowl shows, their halftime shows, and he would talk about them and say, I can't stand this.
I can't stand where this is going.
And people, we've been pulling up the old tweets that he has up and some, we're going to play some old clips from him talking about it.
And it was somewhere where he said, you know, maybe one day we'll do our own.
Maybe one day we'll do our own.
And you know what?
Given this situation, it is, as you say, it does come down to a lot of where people spend their money.
This is actually an economic thing because we know that this Sunday is going to be a huge driver of economic activity for a lot of corporate America.
And guess what?
Over at TPUSA, we don't have corporate America's backing.
We don't have, you know, these massive, you know, ad spends that are going around for the thing.
We literally just have supporters.
But you know what?
I think we got the truth on our side.
And I realize that's something that you do as well because you're always pushing cultural content and understanding that if we're ever going to win this thing, we have to take back the culture because politics, all the rest of it, that's downstream, as Andrew Breitbart taught us.
Yeah, well, that's why I do movies that Hollywood used to do.
Movies that have love, hope, laughter, redemption, faith, things that Hollywood used to do all of the time.
And you see the road they've been going down.
I think there's a tipping point, though, because they're starting to reach out to do a little more family-driven, more morally driven type of shows.
I'm not saying stop doing the movies they're doing, but they've totally banned what they used to do.
Look at the Disney loss.
I think Disney's like $1.8 billion they've lost and their movies over the last five years.
I mean, if you're a stockholder, you're not too pleased about that.
So to me, it's like, you know, why not?
And actually, I don't know.
Did you see, I don't know if you happened to catch yesterday, this was going viral, that in the Warner Brothers Netflix hearing, they actually had to admit that the Superman movie that came out last year totally underperformed.
Yeah.
Well, they hate to admit that.
But look, the best Super Bowl performance that I can think of memory right now was not even an American guy.
He was from across the pond, but Paul McCartney, when they had Paul McCartney, it was huge.
People loved it because he's about as American as you can get with the music that had an influence on people back in the 60s and 70s.
So I don't know why they don't go back to that.
Why they cater to the teenagers?
Maybe they're trying, I don't know.
Maybe they're trying to build the NFL to have more viewers in that age group when so many of them in that age group probably don't even watch anymore.
So I know I'm a football guy.
I probably love college football more than the NFL, but I'll be watching the Super Bowl game.
I still got my favorite teams out there.
So it's going to be interesting to see how many people flip over to watch TPUSA's halftime show as compared to the halftime show that already has a locked in audience only for the football game.
Well, no, and I think that's absolutely huge.
By the way, I love that you bring up that Super Bowl because, of course, the Eagles, my team, the Eagles lost that Super Bowl.
So I try to pull that out of my memory.
But yes, Paul McCartney was definitely the highlight for me.
I think that was the 04 season.
So I guess they played in 05.
And, you know, it's really something where what does it mean, Kevin?
If we can get an audience, and you've seen all the great cultural content, Angel Studios is out there.
Your stuff is out there.
The numbers are going like crazy for these parallel cultural content.
What does it mean if we put up numbers that rival or even surpass the other show?
It shows you that Americans, it reinforces why Americans voted for Trump.
Voting for somebody like Kamala Harris, who only made this country even worse, because that was the best person that they could actually come up with to run against Trump.
But I hope it does.
And I think it really comes down to people getting out their word of mouth.
I mean, word of mouth is the biggest thing to make things happen.
So, like you said, you don't got a $100 million advertising budget to promote this thing.
So, hopefully, people will spread the word and say, guys, flip the channel, get over there and watch this halftime show.
Because I can't remember the last time I sat through an entire halftime show.
I just don't care anymore for the people they bring out there.
Call me old school, but the 70s, 80s, 90s had much better music than what's going on right now.
That's right.
And I'm told that for folks that watch it right here on RAV, by the way, right here on RAV, that Kid Rock already said in one of the interviews that he's got a big surprise planned.
I don't know what it is.
People are like hitting me up like crazy.
Jack, what's going on?
What's the plan?
I'm like, look, guys, I know a little bit, but the actual content, you know, that's really up for the artists.
You know, there's a lot that people are leaving to them.
And, you know, Brantley Gilbert, Gabby Barrett, Lee Bryce.
I mean, it's just going to be a phenomenal lineup.
But, you know, a guy like Kid Rock, that's somebody who should have been headlining halftime shows before.
He should have done multiple already halftime shows.
And I'm kind of surprised that he hasn't because this is a guy who, you know, tours coast to coast, sold out, huge star, huge songs.
Plus, you got the lineup that is phenomenal.
And I'm just going to tell people: if you miss this show, you are going to miss a piece of history.
And people are going to remember where they were when they took a stand and when they changed the channel, put on RAV and watched this halftime show.
That's really what it's about, isn't it, Kevin?
Yeah, come on and join the party.
It's a better party than what they're going to have at the Super Bowl.
But once that's over, go back to the game.
So my prediction is Seattle's going to win.
I'm a Viking guy, and I'm not happy with your Eagles when you beat us back.
Was it 2018 or whatever it was?
Yeah, that's right.
And your main quarterback was out.
You had Coles or Foles, whatever his name is.
Yeah, Foles, Foles.
He played the best he's ever played for three games in a row and then disappeared.
It's just amazing.
Yeah, it was, I mean, just God ordained.
What can I say?
God ordained.
Kevin, where could people go to check out everything that you're up to in terms of the cultural output?
Sorbo Studios.
Go to sorbostudios.com.
I've got an amazing documentary out there right now that I did with the wonderful John Lennox.
He's the one, the world's greatest apologist.
It's on Amazon right now.
It's called Standing Against the World.
Please check it out.
It's about proving God in a world of science.
We shot three weeks to Oxford, England, where he's a retired math professor and two weeks in Israel.
Standing against the world, please check that out.
And sorbo studios.com has all the information.
Plus, the cruise that my wife and I are hosting late September into October, we're going to walk in the footsteps of the Apostle Paul.
Go to sorbocruise.com, sorbocruise.com, sign up right now.
You're going to love this cruise all through the Greek Isles.
And it's going to be an amazing trip, late September.
And no, that's amazing.
By the way, I got to ask, I don't know if you've caught any of the new, the new Game of Thrones, Knight of the Seven Kingdoms, because I'm watching this saying, wait a minute, isn't this just the legendary journeys of Hercules, but put into the Game of Thrones?
It's like the exact same thing.
I got to check it.
I'm sure it is.
I'm sure it is.
That was a wonderful seven.
And it was written around the same time.
Yeah, it's too funny.
So hopefully I'll do that.
But by the way, the reason I'm cheering for Seattle to win is one reason only because of their quarterback, Sam Darnold.
He was with the Vikings.
The Vikings are the only team in the world.
Influencers.
These are influencers.
And they're friends of mine.
Jack Krasovic.
Where's Jack?
Jack.
He's got a great guy.
All right, Jack Krasovic.
We are back live, Human Events Daily.
And of course, you know, as we're so excited for the TPUSA All-American halftime show, I look, people keep asking me what's going on Sunday.
I'm like, Jack, they're like, Jack, what do you know?
My guys, I know a little bit.
You know, my big mouth kind of maybe started some of the ball rolling on this, even though it's really Charlie's idea.
He was the one, you know, who was always talking about the halftime shows and all the rest of it.
But, you know, in all honesty, it's you're going to have to see on Sunday.
You're just going to have to see Kid Rock saying that he's got a surprise.
So we all want to see what that is going to be.
But we did, of course, have the Tyler Robinson hearing yesterday.
And I wanted to bring in Libby Emmons, the editor-in-chief of the Postmillennial, because Libby, I know that you watched this hearing in full as well yesterday.
We Want to See This00:06:09
Libby, can you walk us through a little bit?
What was this contention?
You know, I see the headlines and, you know, just explain for the folks back watching that didn't get a chance to see it.
They're trying to disqualify the entire prosecutor team, prosecutorial team from the Utah, Utah County.
What's going on?
Yeah, so Tyler Robinson's defense attorneys are attempting to disqualify the entire Utah County prosecutor's office from being able to try this case in Judge Tony Graff's courtroom.
And their reasoning is that one of the prosecutors who is an expert in homicide, apparently, his daughter was at Utah Valley University on September 10th when Charlie Kirk was killed.
And that's their entire contention.
So their daughter was there.
She's 18.
You know, that came out in some of the reporting.
Horrifying, obviously.
But at the same time, is it really a conflict of interest if someone was just nearby where a crime took place and that person is not a material witness?
Because it seems that her presence was incidental to the actual crime that took place here.
Yes, that's exactly right.
And that's what the prosecutors were pointing out.
They brought an agent from the Utah State Bureau of Investigations to testify in court yesterday.
That was Dave Hall.
And the prosecutors questioned Dave Hall about the significance of the young lady's perhaps witness testimony.
Now, what happened was Dave Hall said that the Bureau and the FBI put out posters encouraging people who had been at UVU on that day to come forward and discuss what they had seen.
The young lady was not one of the people who had come forward.
And the prosecutor spoke to Hall and Hall said that he did eventually see the footage that she had taken that day and that it was very similar to footage taken by countless others who had come forward and shared the footage.
He said that there was nothing particularly unique in anything that she saw or anything like that.
So that was pretty interesting because basically he was saying, no, like even if she was there, she doesn't have anything to offer that tens of other people or maybe more have to offer as well in terms of her, what she could perhaps testify.
And she's not even particularly believed to be one of the witnesses in the case once it does eventually go to trial.
And so I thought that was interesting because Hall pointed out that none of the footage that they got from the people who had just been in the crowd there was able to point out anything about the identity of the shooter.
So right.
And this is what I mean by incidental in the sense that was she a witness?
Yeah, but there were thousands of witnesses who were present, obviously millions of witnesses at home to the events that took place.
And, you know, for folks watching, look, I'm trying to be analytical about this.
I'm trying to put my emotions on the shelf, as I always say, about one of these situations, even when, yes, the victim is someone that, you know, I was close to, that we're trying to analyze what the actual situation is here objectively.
And when you analyze it to say, okay, well, was she a victim?
No, she wasn't.
Did she see him running up a staircase?
Did she, you know, see him running into the woods?
No, she did not.
So it really does seem like the, you know, the legal term here would be de minimis, that her presence was de minimis, meaning it's minimized.
It's not something that is, again, material or germane to the case.
And something, the great Andrea Burkhardt, I know you and I have both been sharing her analysis.
Huge shout out to her.
She had a great point as well that, look, when you're in a small town, people run into each other.
And these are just things that kind of happen in the general course of daily life.
And you have to deal with them in the best way possible for the interest of justice.
So, you know, if you're in a town where there's, you know, only a couple of judges, maybe only a couple of lawyers, obviously Orm is a little bigger than that, but the point still stands that you are going to have people that know people that run into the middle, but that doesn't supersede the need for justice to be done in our system.
And of course, I believe the judge is worry and the fact that, so I believe he did deny the referral to the attorney general because they're saying, oh, the attorney general should, you know, review all this.
He denied that.
I believe, and I think a lot of people, that that is a sign that he's probably going to deny this motion.
Yeah, I got that sense as well.
And that is my feeling.
Of course, we're not going to know until February 24th, which actually brings me to something that I think is important, which is I believe that the defense attorney, I believe that what they are trying to do, that team is put in a lot of delays, is put in as many questions ahead of the trial as possible.
Robinson still has not entered a plea.
There hasn't been an arraignment.
That's not scheduled until something like May.
So I think what they're trying to do is really muddy the waters here of what otherwise looks like a pretty straight ahead murder case.
And so they're trying to bring in all of these extra ideas of, you know, perhaps the prosecutor has been biased.
And the prosecutor was asked outright, you know, the one whose daughter was at UVU, why he decided to not only announce that he was bringing the death penalty early, but actually said that he was going, planned to do so.
And he said essentially that it was a preponderance of the evidence that made him say in this case, a death penalty looks like it is warranted.
And that he brought that announcement out in order to assuage any questions and just make plain what it was that the prosecutors were going to intend to show here.
And I think that's right.
Muddying The Waters00:02:56
And I think that that all needs to be understood.
That all needs to be dug into.
We're coming up on a quick break.
Libby, I want to hang on with you.
I want to bring on an attorney after the break to dig into this.
And I also want to dig into perhaps some of the defense strategy, which I believe came up during the cross-examination of the lead investigator in this case.
We'll dig into that huge, deep dive.
the trial of tyler robinson for the murder charlie kirk human events daily continues jack where's jack where is he jack i want to see you Great job, Jack.
Thank you.
What a job you do.
You know, we have an incredible thing.
We're always talking about the fake news and the bad, but we have guys.
And these are the guys that be getting policy.
Okay, Jack Pasobic, we are back live here, Human Event Daily.
Folks, every day, Americans make choices that shape our country's future, right down to which cell phone provider we support.
Here's what most people don't realize, Patriot Mobile, the great Patriot Mobile, it's not just a wireless provider.
They're an activist organization funded by selling top-tier cell phone service.
They've been on the front lines defending our freedoms long before it was cool, standing in the gap when others couldn't.
The best part is they deliver prioritized premium service on all three major U.S. networks, giving you the same or even better coverage backed by 100% U.S.-based customer support.
Get unlimited data plans, mobile hotspots, international roaming, and so much more.
And when you switch to Patriot Mobile, you'll help grow a movement that fuels the Christian conservative cause.
Every bill you pay helps advance the values of faith, family, and freedom.
Switching is easier than ever.
Activate in minutes.
Keep your number, keep your phone, or upgrade.
Take a stand today.
Go to patriotmobile.com slash posto or give them a call, 972Patriot, and use promo code pozo for a free month of service.
Help us out on the show here.
That's patriotmobile.com slash posto or call 972 patriot and make the switch.
Today, I want to bring on Will Chamberlain now from the Article 3 project.
Will, I know you've obviously been tracking the case.
You've seen a lot of this.
How are you doing, Will?
I'm doing great.
Enjoying a brief amount of nice weather in Palm Beach after a couple of weeks of freezing stuff in North Carolina.
So it's a good thing down here.
So now we're, you know, we're still frozen all over in Pennsylvania and other parts.
Will, Libby Emmons was just on talking about how she believed that it's a delay tactic here, the Tyler Robinson case on the part of the defense team to this whole conflict of interest, the daughter being there, but not in any really material capacity.
Five People, One Question Mark00:15:07
I wanted to get your sense on that as well.
Why are they making such a big deal about the presence of the daughter when she was just another person in the crowd?
I mean, it's an argument to make.
You know, you want to preserve arguments for appeal.
You don't want to be called for malpractice as later on when the guy gets convicted and sues you for ineffective assistance of counsel.
So you're just going to make all the arguments available to you.
So I think that there's a combination of stalling and throwing stuff over the wall and seeing what sticks.
I've looked at this argument.
It's obviously very weak.
It's not frivolous.
So they can bring it.
And I think, you know, when you're, I know I've been there when I've been practicing and felt the obligation to bring every non-friendly argument I can to bear on behalf of my clients.
So I think that's sort of what's going on here.
No, I think that's, that's, I think that's right as well.
You know, for me, it's, it's, it's, it's so much they're going in.
You know, to say that you have to disqualify all the members of the prosecution, it's, it's, to be fair, it just seems like they're a bit of a stretch.
It just seems a bit of a stretch.
I'll put it that way.
Yeah, and your intuition is going to be right here a lot of the time.
This is one of those areas of law where something that seems ridiculous on its face is going to be ridiculous.
I mean, if you think about what is the standard for conflicts of interest, it's about whether a reasonable person would find that there was, you know, impropriety or whether, you know, it's all about reasonableness, which comes back to the standard of it's a standard that means that even the layperson's intuition is usually going to be right.
And so a reasonable layperson would think there's no reason that a prosecutor couldn't bring a case just because his daughter was among the hundreds of people who was present in that venue if that person had no evidence to bring.
I think that that's just sort of obvious that there's not a meaningful conflict of interest there.
It'd be one thing if she were uniquely impacted by this.
If there was some evidence that she personally was traumatized into a degree where she's going through therapy, maybe.
I mean, if there was something like that where you could say there's just a reason this particular person is more invested in the prosecution of Mr. Kirk than any other prosecutor would be, then maybe you'd have some sort of argument.
But it's just, it's just not, it's not a very compelling case.
And if, I mean, if you, if you applied the standard of disqualification to include the prosecutor's office based on this, you'd any sort of major like public murder of somebody, it'd be very, very difficult to find a prosecutor's office to be able to take it on because, you know, if you've got 500 witnesses, well, you can always just draw out some sort of connection to somebody in the office and then theoretically get them disqualified on that basis.
That can't be the way the law works, and it isn't the way the law works.
Right.
No, and then you could play that, you know, whisper down the lane, you know, game in six degrees of Kevin Bacon all day long.
But I want to play this clip again for both of you guys and get your take on it.
This is the clip of Kathy Nestor questioning the lead investigator about DNA evidence.
Let's play that now.
And you mentioned, I know I have two minutes.
I'm going to talk very fast.
I know she's about to kill me.
You mentioned the DNA evidence.
You're certainly not a DNA expert.
Is that correct?
I'm not, no.
And are you aware that the DNA evidence that was seized from the scene consisted of a mixture of at least five different individuals?
I'm not a DNA expert.
So.
So you know enough to say what helps him, but you're not going to answer whether or not there were five individuals mixed into that DNA.
I'm not aware of that, no.
Okay.
And you're certainly not qualified to interpret complex DNA mixtures, are you?
No, I'm not.
Okay.
Court's indulgence for just one moment, Your Honor.
Six minutes.
Ms. Nestor, is there?
I know I gave you that six minutes.
Is there any other questions that you feel you need to ask?
Thank you for asking, but I think I'm done.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
So I wanted to get the sense.
For me, I thought this was just very theatrical and emotional.
You know, she's, oh, you'll, you'll answer his questions because she answered, you know, he answered kind of a very just brief sense of the DNA questions from the prosecutor's team on direct and had just sort of repeated what the charging document said about the DNA match between the rifle, the screwdriver, and Tyler Robinson.
And, you know, but the way that she's sort of like berating him, haranguing him, to me, it just seems like she's coming across very theatrical, like full theater kid.
Like her, the way she says her words in this emotional, like very millennial tone is going to have some kind of difference here.
Libby, of course, you have a theater background.
We'll get your sense on that.
Yeah, I thought it was also very dramatic.
And it was interesting too, because she used the fact, as you said, that DNA had previously been brought up to bring it up again.
And then in so doing, she posited something that was basically a new theory that no one had really heard before, that there were apparently five different individuals of DNA.
She left out an awful lot, like where she alleged that this had been found, what it had been associated with, or any of that.
And I think that was intentional.
I think that was to sway anyone who might be watching, who may perhaps end up in the jury pool, who knows, you know, to sway the American public to believe that there is more of a doubt in this case than there likely is, given the preponderance of evidence, which is the evidence also that the investigator mentioned when he was being questioned by the prosecutors.
No, that was my sense as well.
Will, I wanted to get your take on that.
Well, so it's interesting to hear her try and make this claim.
It's like, oh, there might have been five other sources or five other people with evidence from the scene.
I don't even know if the scene just refers to the specific place where the shooter was pointing, you know, shoot it, shot Charlie from, or you're talking about the scene being where the gun was left.
But this is actually very common because oftentimes what happens is that there's multiple, there's the DNA of the criminal, and then there's the DNA of the police officers who are there to collect the pieces of the scene.
So it's the kind of thing that when if this actually tries to come up at trial, I don't know that it will because I wonder if the defense counsel will just be ready for the obvious follow-ups from the prosecution, which will be like, okay, so who are the other four people that were identified?
And then it'll be a list of four of the police investigators who came onto the scene or something like that.
Or it'll be his friends.
Yeah, or yeah, friends, the roommate, lover, boyfriend that he had, or the fact that we know that this was a family firearm.
So did that mean it was like his father, his brothers, his grandfather, because it was a grandfather's rifle.
They handled it.
Plus, there's also the question of the proportionality of the DNA.
What was the proportion?
Was it 98% Tyler Robinson's DA and DNA and 2% the rest in this touch DNA?
Because that would matter as well.
So all of these things, of course, do come up.
But of course, I'm reminded of that old saying: you know, when the facts are on your side, pound the facts.
When the law is on your side, pound the law.
And when neither are on your side, pound the table.
It just seems to me that she's doing here.
I mean, what is really the argument here?
I mean, they have video evidence of a guy matching Tyler Robinson's description, entering and exiting the building, walking around with an extremely stiff leg, and then all of a sudden he doesn't have that problem when he's the guy who's fleeing.
And it's the parents who identify him.
It's overwhelming.
We're coming up on a quick break.
Will, I want to hold you over.
Libby, tell people where they can go and find you and get more access to this incredible work that you're doing breaking down the case.
You can check out everything we're doing at thepostmillennial.com and humanevents.com.
And also, please check out our new podcast, The Pod Millennial.
You can find the links at thepodmillennial.com.
The team over there at the Postmillennial and Human Events is top notch.
If you want the best coverage of the Tyler Robinson trial, you've got to go right there.
And also stick it here.
Make sure you're downloading, of course, and subscribing to the Human Events podcast wherever you get your podcast.
We'll be right back.
Jack is a great guy.
He's written a fantastic book.
Everybody's talking about it.
Go get it.
And he's been my friend right from the beginning of this whole beautiful event.
And we're going to turn it around and make our effects excited again to him.
Amen.
All right, Jack Prasebook.
We are back here.
Will Chamberlain is our guest.
We're talking about the latest in the Tyler Robinson trial, who's on murder on trial for the murder of Charlie Kirk.
Will, some of the questions that we're getting in regarding these forensics, the DNA, okay, a mixture of five strands of DNA.
You know, this is one of those things that I've noticed in other murder trials that I've covered over the years that it always seems to come up, especially when it's a death penalty trial.
They really get into the nitty-gritty of the DNA, of the DNA tests, the way it's written, the way it's worded, because again, not typically because they're looking to actually disprove the guilt, but they're looking to just obfuscate the actual situation and the actual test.
So even though you have a test that shows, okay, there is a match between here and here, they'll play all these games with the words, with the phrasing, with the math involved to try to make it seem like there is a disconnect when in fact there really isn't one.
Yeah.
And I mean, the way that testimony or that line of questioning from the defendant's defense lawyer went made me think of exactly that.
Like you're bringing up this very, very one vague fact.
There's five other people's DNA there, but you're not talking about who those people are or how much of their DNA was found and found on what.
And the odds that this, that sort of evidence will be meaningful once those questions are answered is low.
Because if, you know, what, you know, what she didn't say was that Tyler Robinson's DNA was not among the five people, right?
That's, that's a very obvious missing piece.
Exactly.
Right.
So if Tyler Robinson's DNA is among the five people, and, you know, that that would seem to be the more relevant piece of information that it demonstrates that he was one of the people.
Yeah, go ahead.
No, just to add on that is, so, okay, so he was, he was, but also, you know, there's other pieces of information then that you have to, so this is just logical deduction.
So, okay, we can, we can say, all right, you know, who are those other four people?
Can they be, you know, was it family members?
Was it friends?
Can we look at this?
But then also, this isn't the this, this type of argument or this type of line of questioning only really makes sense if you look at this piece of evidence in in a vacuum and don't consider the fact that, okay, well, do we have evidence of anyone else running into those woods and then coming out of those woods on the ring camera?
Oh, we don't for the entire period of time, which included the time that we know that police were there surveilling the area, securing the area.
He actually says in one of his own text messages, I can't go recover the gun because there's a police officer there.
So we know police were there fairly quickly in the area where the gun was, where the rifle was.
Is there a cell phone trail?
Is there an electronic trail from a cell phone that can be tied as well?
Were any of these other people that were found on the DNA?
Were there electronic signatures found there as well?
Footprints, et cetera.
I mean, I could go down the list of all of these other ways that you can prove.
So it's never just one piece of evidence.
But of course, in this instance, they'll try to make you think, well, oh, this shows that something else was involved.
They do this with the OJ trial all the time, by the way, when it's like, well, someone else was there.
But we can tell that there were only three people on that on that sidewalk.
We can tell that from the evidence.
There's only evidence of three people.
So you can't be, you just can't add these people because there's no evidence of that.
Right.
I mean, who else is going to have access to this specific gun prior to Kirk's shooting?
That's another obvious question, right?
Suddenly you have five people with DNA on it.
Okay, you can, everybody on that list who would have not possibly had access to this gun is irrelevant because it means that their DNA came onto the scene after the crime was committed.
Okay, so now we're down to just who?
The family members?
Is there, and then maybe there's like, or it's Twiggs or something.
Is there any evidence that a guy matching Twiggs description was on scene?
Is there any electronic evidence that any of these other people were in the shooter's nest?
Oh, no, just Tyler Robinson.
Okay.
Like this is people, you know, the funny thing is the defense lawyer is bringing up this piece of information as though it's going to be vindicate them.
But in reality, the fact that there's only five DNA matches to the crime scene and Tyler Robinson is among them is a devastating fact for the defense.
And it's going to be something the prosecution actually leans on.
And so, you know, I think maybe she's just trying to sort of set the frame in these preliminary hearings well before any evidentiary rules come into play.
Cause like the, you know, obviously this line of questioning wouldn't be allowed in trial in front of the jury because there's like a lack of foundation.
There's all sorts of other problems with it.
But we're in a preliminary hearing discussing whether or not the go ahead.
No, no, but I was just going to say that we say we're not in front of the jury, but in a sense, we are because she herself brings up the fact that there have been theories bandied around on social media, that there's this entire firestorm going on regarding this.
She well knows and is in fact the one that calls attention to the social media theories and this very real sense that potential jurors are on social media who may have seen this.
She knows exactly what she's doing.
She wants this piece of information to get out there to sow the seeds of doubt, not just in the jurors, but in anyone who's going to be in that member, members of that 12-person jury pool, the two alternates, et cetera, that she is already working to do that.
That's why she asked that question because she wants the headline out there.
That's correct.
I'm reminded of when Lee Kuan Yew talked about one of the cases he handled in Singapore in his youth as when he was actually a practicing litigator, practicing criminal defense lawyer.
And he talks about how he basically pushed this theory that he knew was not what actually happened.
He knew his client was guilty, but he pushed this theory and aggressively tried to bring it up and persuaded a jury to acquit him.
And that's ultimately what led Lee Kwan Yu to oppose trial by jury in Singapore was his own ability to get understand that juries were very, very fallible.
So that sounds like what this lawyer is doing.
Unimpressive Dramatics00:03:18
Like, I don't blame this lawyer for doing their job.
Their job is to, you know, within the bounds of ethical responsibility, try and put forward arguments and make the case for their client and increase the chances that they'll be acquitted.
I'm not going to get mad at the lawyer for doing their job, but it's obviously the obligation of the judge to rule the correct way on her motions, which are not meritorious.
They're not frivolous, but they're not certainly not meritorious.
And then for the general public to understand what she's doing and to just say, look, this is, you know, this is not a good argument here.
What was your sense of the tone?
Because for me, Andrew Burkhart, I believe, described her as pushy.
I'm calling her theatrical.
I would say she was berating, haranguing.
To me, the tone was an immediate turnoff, right?
There are ways to ask that question.
There are ways to boldly ask that question.
But the tone, the demeanor just seemed very dismissive and this sort of sarcastic, oh, you'll help him.
But he's not helping the prosecutor.
He's answering the question.
And, you know, I don't know if I just as an objective person, when people use tones like that, it really turns me off.
You know, how much of a role that role do you think plays in the jury?
Who knows?
I mean, who knows if she used a different tone with the jury?
I can tell you that, I mean, in these preliminary hearings, this is very unimpressive to judges and very unoppressive to her opposite counsel, but who care, that's not that important, but it's unimpressive to judges.
It's unimpressive to the judges, clerks.
This sort of these sort of dramatics and emotional histrionics when the judges are trying to get the law right.
And we're all, you know, these are people who are in the courtroom all day, every day.
So they're not impressed by sort of baseless theatrics.
And judges, in my experience, get really irritated by this tone being taken with them in motion hearings.
Like they, they really just want you to stick to the facts and the law and not get indignant as a counsel.
Judges really don't like arrogant, indignant lawyers in front of them, especially when they're arguing to the judge for the judges' ruling on something.
So I think I don't think she's doing herself any favors with this.
And even if I were her colleague, I would be telling her that, you know, save this, save whatever your dramatics are for the jury, maybe, but certainly do not do this sort of stuff in front of the judge who will not be impressed.
Yeah, especially when the reason that they're even having this entire hearing, which is, again, we're still pre-arraignment at this point, is because of her own challenge.
So it's like we're all here because of, you know, this, having these extra hearings because of your motion.
So, you know, anything that you're doing to, you know, clearly, you know, stand on your soapbox and perform is, I'm sorry, she's playing for the cameras.
I just, I'm just saying it.
She's playing for the cameras.
There's no question about it in my mind.
And, you know, I agree with you.
I don't think the judge is, you know, I think he's a fair guy.
I think he's working very hard to be fair, but at this, and he's giving them a lot of leeway.
But yeah, not scoring points.
Will Chamberlain, out of time, incredible analysis.
As always, of course, we'll have you back on as this trial continues for my friend and yours, Charlie Kerr.
Where can people follow you?
That's right.
Follow me on X at Will Chamberlain and follow what the Article 3 Project is doing at a3paction.com.