Lover's Interview Could Change the Charlie Kirk Case...

Piece by piece, day by day, prosecutors are trying to prove the case against the man they have accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk.They've presented a video timeline, DNA, and now the star witness, Lance Twiggs, the defendant's roommate and lover.Do you know Tyler Robinson?

Yes, I do.And it's the same Tyler Robinson that's been charged with the shooting of Charlie Kirk?Yes.

Twigs is not testifying in person.Instead, prosecutors are using his recorded interview.And did he talk about what he had done?

He started crying a little bit, so he wishes he hadn't done it.

Twigs' testimony is crucial for prosecutors, as it includes motive and an alleged confession.And there's something else happening in that courtroom.Charlie Kirk's widow, Erica, is upset that evidence is being hidden from the public.

This has not been easy, as you can imagine.And I think the family deserves to see the evidence that's been gathered in this investigation.They deserve to know what happened to Charlie.

And now, day four of the preliminary hearing is revealing even more new evidence that prosecutors hope will be enough to get this case in front of a jury and put the defendant death row.Because this is a death penalty case, everything inside this courtroom is heightened.And the fact that the victim is Charlie Kirk has heightened it even more.So prosecutors need to present a rock solid case.And Lance Twiggs is the key.Will his testimony tie all those pieces together?

I'm Vinny Palitan.Let's investigate.So I wanna begin again with the victim in this case, Erica Kirk, it's her husband, Charlie, who was shot and killed, and she's not happy.And she's not happy because of the lack of full transparency during the course of this hearing, this preliminary hearing.Evidence is coming in, evidence that the defendant, the prosecutors believe proves the defendant is guilty, evidence of what he did, and not all of it is being displayed in the courtroom.not all of it is being shown on television.

So the public is not seeing or hearing all the evidence in the case.Erica Kirk not happy because that fuels, from her perspective, fuels the people who believe something else happened, that this defendant is some sort of a patsy and something else happened.And she doesn't believe that.She doesn't believe there was a grand conspiracy.She believes this is the guy who did it.But if the evidence is hidden from the public, It then fuels the people who believe that the government is in on this, the government is hiding something.

The judge is the one trying to balance all of this.He's got to balance the rights of a victim like Erica Kirk and Charlie's parents, the rights of the public in a public trial to see and hear what's happening with the rights of the defendant to get a fair trial.So that's what he's sort of doing.balancing throughout all of this.And one of the reasons he's so concerned about that balance is for the defendant, his life is on the line.This is a death penalty case.

So the judge wants to be careful, wants to make sure that he protects the rights of the defendant because death penalty cases are the ones that are shown the most scrutiny, especially on appeal.And a case like this, you don't necessarily want to try twice, right?Ask the folks who prosecuted Alec Murdoch if they want to try.case again, and they have to because things went awry.And that's the judge's concern here.But for prosecutors to prove this case, the ex is the key.

Lance Twiggs, his ex, his ex -roommate, his ex -lover, like that's the key to the case.He's the one that has the most important information.Now, on April 20th, he sat down for like a Zoom interview with prosecutors.He did that because they did not want to bring him into the courtroom to testify.They just wanted to use his interview.That way he's not cross -examined, right?

That's really what's happening.It's strategy.And the judge has permitted it.And I'm going to show you that interview.There are redactions, though, so Erica Kirk's still not happy.There are pieces of this interview that have been cut out.

But you're going to see and hear a large chunk of what Lance Twiggs said in his April 20th interview.Sometimes the screen goes black, but when the screen goes black, that's because they're looking at exhibits that prosecutors did not want to show during the Zoom hearing, the Zoom interview.But they did go through it in court afterwards.So I'll be able to fill you in on some of those details.So let's take a look now.This is Lance Twiggs, the lover, the motive in this, the motive, according to prosecutors.

Let's watch.

Do you know Tyler Robinson?

Yes, I do.Yeah, I do.

And it's the same Tyler Robinson that's been charged with the shooting of Charlie Kurt.Yes.And would you say when you first met Tyler?

I think it was 2023.I've known him longer than that, though.That was, I think, the first time I met him in person.OK.

And we described your relationship with him.Tyler when you first met him anyway?

When I first met him, I didn't know him super well.He was just a new roommate.So I knew he knew my friend group and I knew he liked playing games, but that's about it when we first, like when he first moved in.

OK.And then at some point, your relationship progressed to something more than just roommates, is that right?

Mm -hmm.When was that?I think we started dating 2 or 3 months after he moved in.Okay.And where did you live at that time?

St. George in an apartment complex.And is that apartment the same place you lived on September 10th?Yes.When you lived there with Tyler, were you in the same room?Did you live in the same room or different rooms?Separate rooms.

And at that time, let's say September of 2025, What were you doing with your life?Were you working, school?

I was working.I was doing like bathtub and shower repair and stuff and new construction.

Okay.

How about Tyler?I think he was both working.I think he was working for an electrician company then and he was also in a trade school for being a, I don't know, higher ranking electrician.I'm not sure how the trade system works for that.Okay.But yeah, I think he was both.

What was his typical work day like?I think you'd leave around 7 generally and get back around 3 to 4, depending on where the job was and how long it was for the day.And then on certain days of the week duringlike semesters, he would then later in the day, I think around 5 or 6, go to school.So, yeah.

Okay.Let's jump to September 10th.Did he spend the night in the apartment the night of September 9th into September 10th?Yeah, he did.Yes.Do you know when he left the apartment on September 10th?

I don't know an exact time.I just know he left early.I heard him leaving, and he just said he had a long drive to work that day, so he was leaving early.

So early.Any guess as to when that was?

I don't know.I would have thought it was 5 a .m., because that's when an early work day was for him, but it was probably more like 4.Okay.What time did you get up on September 10th?

Probably like 12 to 1 p .

m.You didn't have to work that day?No.And did you hear from Tyler?Did he call or text you before then?

No, he sent that message in the group chat I mentioned, but he didn't message me directly at all that day.

OK, when did you first hear from him on September 10th?

It was at 11 o 'clock with that like automated message.

11 p .m.Yeah, he asks you here.Remember how I was engraving bullets.

Was he engraving bullets before this?Yeah, I don't remember exactly when but he had said he was planning to go hunting with his family and he asked me for a if we had a like a Dremel to because he said he wanted to create messages on bullets and I just told him where Dremel was and I told him to make sure he doesn't like set off a bullet on accident in the house.

Let's hold it right there for one second.Bullets are important here.The engravings, the etchings on the bullets, because prosecutors say that they found cartridges.The fired cartridge had an etching on it.No Tysons, Bulge, OWO, what's this?And then there was a second, third, and fourth cartridge that also had etchings on it.

So again, prosecutors putting the pieces together.This is before all this happens.He's inscribing on some bullets, and they find bullets with the inscriptions.The pieces are fitting together for prosecutors.Let's watch some more.

I didn't really think about it until then.How long before September 10th was this that he asked about the Dremel?I don't remember, because he'd been talking about the hunting slash camping trip for a couple of months.But I don't remember when he was specifically asking to engrave the bullets.So are we talking like a year before?Oh, no, not that long.

It would have been, I'd say at most a month before this was when he was asking.

Right.You talked about the note that he left.I want to bring this up and I should say that these text messages that we've been looking at here are Bates number 54.The notes.have been titled 16 .3 with a note, and this is base number 58.Do you recognize that on the screen there?

Yeah.What do you recognize it as?That was the note under his keyboard that he was referring to in the first text of that chain.So where did you find this?On his desk underneath his computer keyboard.

I assume you read it.

Yeah.And then what did you do with it after you read it?I believe I just put it back down on the desk after I took a picture of it.

OK.And again, the time you read it was probably around 11 o 'clock or so on the 10th.Yes.The night of September 10th.

Okay, this is the most important evidence for prosecutors coming from Lance Twiggs.A note that he left under his keyboard that he took a picture of.Now, all of these notes and everything for this hearing are coming into evidence through another witness, right?Through the case agent.Not through Lance Twiggs.He's authenticating them, however.

And those notes, what he says there is so significant.He looks under the keyboard and the note says, I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I'm going to take it.Okay?That's the note that is left under the keyboard.Lance Twiggs says, that's the first time he ever read it.And then he texts back to him, what?

You're joking, right?Robinson writes back, blah, blah, blah, blah.Then again, Lance says, you weren't the one who did it, right?Because everyone's talking about, of course, the shooting of Charlie Kirk that day.And then Tyler Robinson says, I am.I'm sorry.

That's the confession.That's the alleged confession that prosecutors are going to use as evidence in this case.And it's coming straight from the defendant to his roommate slash lover the night of the shooting.Let's listen to some more.

And did you ever see that again after you placed it back on his desk?No, I don't think I did.And that was a desk in his bedroom?Yes.And that's a separate bedroom than your bedroom?Yeah.

And now I want to go to what's been titled 16 .2.And do you recognize this series of messages here?

Yeah, that was the server of his friends that I was mentioning.

OK, and this is your phone again?Yeah.And I'm assuming you recognize it because the big crack up at the top.And so this is a server.Is this Discord?

Yeah, this is Discord.

And who are members of this server?I don't want names, just generally.Who are these people?This is his friend group.

They play D &D together every week.

OK.And I just want to scroll through this to make sure that I get a chance to take a look at it.I go to the next page.Yes.So Tyler Icum, who's that?That's Tyler Robinson.

These other people are just others.They're members of the server.Yes.Jug, Barnaby, Marina, DM.

Mm -hmm.Yes.Yeah, DM means Dr. Master.So most of them are names they're using in the game they're playing currently.Got it.

Yeah, it looks like the last text from Tyler, it looks like it's 8 p .m.And do you know what day this would have been, 8 p .m.on the 10th or the 11th?

I would think that would be the 11th.Because at least I think so, because I don't think on the 10th that he messaged anyone before me at like 11.

And he turned himself in on the 11th, right?

I thought so, yeah.

All right, so again, those messages covered from September 10th to the evening of September 11th.Now, September 11th, what time did, or did you see Pyle ever on September 11th?Yes.When did you first see him on September 11th?So this is the day after the shooting?

Yeah, I saw him when I woke up.Um, like I said, he was, uh, up and around doing a lot of stuff around the house.Um, and then I, uh, I think I saw him after that message where I said, I'll come home and say I'm doing laundry because I didn't want him going to my parents' house right then when he said there was probably cops outside.So I went back home and it was just him there and I said bye to him and then he drove off.So I just went back to my parents' house.

So he acted erratically.Um, Was he pacing?Was he just sitting down, relaxing?No, he was walking around a lot.And that's within the home?

Mm -hmm.

And did he talk about what he had done?

Didn't go into detail.I just asked him in person if what he said was true the night before, and he said it was.He started crying a little bit and said he wishes he hadn't done it, and then kept going around.Just doing stuff, I think, to keep himself busy or distracted or something.Did he talk about what he was going to do next?And eventually he said that he would talk to his parents or turn himself over.

And when you left, was that how you left, understanding that he was going to turn himself in or go to his parents' house?

Yeah.And I didn't really want to be at our apartment while any of that was happening, regardless of what went down.

OK.Before he came home, had you seen the press, the press releases, any of the media on this?

I'd seen one Instagram link a friend of mine had sent in our group chat.But I hadn't really looked into it at all.

And had you seen the images that were released of the suspect?

I did the next day.I don't think I saw any on the 10th.

I'm on the FBI's website.You can see the URL there at the top.This is a press release about this event.And here on the screen, you see there's looks like there's two rows of three images.Do you recognize the person in these images?

I wouldn't say with 100 % certainty just because of camera quality, but that looks like him in terms of the shoes he's wearing, the sunglasses.I don't think I'd specifically seen him wearing that hat, but he was usually wearing a hat and then jeans.So it definitely, especially the bottom, the last two definitely do look like him.They do look like Tyler Robinson.And you talked about that with your friends, right?Yeah, his his friends.

Yeah, I don't um, I don't know if I talked I don't remember if I talked about it with any of my friends Um, and then since I didn't have my phone after that for a while and I still am not using social media I don't I don't know He's identifying the suspect from the video.

Okay.All right.Yeah, it's it looks like him.It's like can he say?1 000 no, he can't because it's just the videolittle bit of blur to it, right?

That little bit of blur.But you hear the tone, the way he's, yeah, that's him.Like, he's my roommate.He's my lover.I know what he looks like.That's him.

The shoes, the sneakers, yeah, that's him.That's an important identification, significant identification.Let's listen to more.

He did more than me. I still don't really keep up with politics very much.He'd usually talk about stuff he heard on the radio on his drive to work in their work car, since it sounds like their whole crew went in the same car most of the time.But I wouldn't say super consistently, because it wasn't a topic I really contributed much on.What about Charlie Kirk?Did he ever talk about Charlie Kirk?I personally had never heard him talk about Charlie Kirk before, specifically.

Okay, how about political issues?So did you ever talk about gender identity issues and LGBTQ rights?

No, not really.Usually if he did talk about politics stuff, it was relating to Trump or current like policies being like issued or voted on, I think.Okay, so before that you have been?For a short time, yes.And I understand you're going by Luna at some point.To some people, yeah, but not as an overall thing.

The Dremel that you talked about, you said he had asked for that.Is that right?And he told you it was to inscribe bullets.

Yeah.

And so did you have a dremel then?

Yeah.

Okay.

It was in our like, we had a, our apartment, we had a section where we kept all our like random tools for household stuff in our like lower basement level pantry.So yeah.

Okay.And did you give that to him or tell him where it was?I just told him where it was, yeah.

Is there any piece of this that is not fitting together?Again, I'm a former prosecutor.This case is like a dream prosecutor.You take away all the noise, the politics, and everything else.If you just focus on the facts, the evidence, the narrative, the story you're gonna tell, everything fits together.I've been talking about how important Lance Twiggs is to this case and how important his testimony is.

And it's about who he is and his connection to the defendant and the information that he got from the defendant.So what I want to do here is go back inside the courtroom so we have a fuller understanding of how all this came about and how significant the testimony of Twiggs is and how he was handled by investigators.Because remember, if you're going after his lover, you're going after his roommate.You've got to be careful in the way you approach a witness like that, because you want to get the information.So let's go in.This is Agent Brian Davis talking about how they approached Lance Twiggs and how they got information from him.

Let's take a look.

Are you familiar with an individual named Lance Twiggs?

Yes, I am.

Who is he in regards to this investigation?

He's the roommate of Tyler Robinson.

Was he interviewed as part of it?investigation?

He was.

How many times?

Two times.

When was the first time?

The first time was the early morning hours of September 12th, and that occurred at St. George Police Department.

So we've heard of several people coming in and being spoken with at Washington County Sheriff's Office.Correct.Mr. Twiggs was spoken with at St. George PD?

Correct.Let's hold it there for one second.This starts September 12th, right?So this is early, early on in the investigation.The defendant has turned himself in and now investigators are trying to figure out how big this is.Is it just about the defendant, the suspect himself?

Is this a wider conspiracy?Are other people involved in the plotting and planning and what happened here?And that's got to be on the back of investigators minds.They're not just building a case against the defendant.They're also investigating to see if anyone else is potentially involved in all of this.Let's watch some more.

Do you know who was present for that interview?

It was FBI agents, Larson and Agent Ling.

Are you aware of Mr. Twigg's buckle swab was taken at that time?

I don't recall happening there.I think, I believe it happened later.I'd have to, but it did, it did occur.That was obtained from him.

But you're not sure if it happened on the 12th?

I don't recall if it was there or later at his residence.

But ultimately, a buckle swab was obtained from Mr. Twiggs?

Yes, it was.

Do you know if his phone was taken from him?

It was.

When did that happen?

So it was during that interview with FBI at St. George Police Department.They conducted an interview of him.and then he provided his phone.He did it voluntarily also, provided it to those agents.

And that would have been on September 12th, 2025?

Correct.

You mentioned a second interview of Mr. Twiggs?

There was a second interview, yes.

When did that take place?

April 20th of this year.

Where was that?

Happened at the Utah County Attorney's Office.

Who was present at that second interview?

It was Mr. Twiggs with his attorney, Jill Cuttrell.It was Lauren Hunt, Sam Pede with the U .S.Attorney's Office, Ryan McBride, Sergeant Elschulz, well now it's Lieutenant Elschulz, and myself.

We've talked about two interviews of Mr. Twiggs, one on the morning of September 12th, 2025, second on April 20th, 2026.Are you aware if both of those interviews were recorded?They were.Have you reviewed those recordings?

I have.

Before Mr. Twigg's interview on April 20th, 2026, well, first let me ask you this, are you aware of what use immunity means?Yes.

What does it mean?It's a letter that use of immunity is essentially giving the individual, during the limited time of their statement, they're given that immunity from statements that are made in regard to an incident.But it does not preclude them from prosecution.from evidence that would be known or found then or later outside of that interview.It just gives them that limited immunity during the type of the interview.

And this is an important concept, use immunity.That's kind of what Wendy Adelson got in the Adelson case.right she she testified and she wasn't given full immunity she can still be prosecuted but the things that she said on the witness stand cannot be used against her and they can't from that testimony attempt to get other evidence to use against her and that's what he's gotten here so anything that lance twig says can cannot be used against him and any evidence derived as a result of what he says cannot be used against him, but it's not full immunity.So if he's involved in this, he can still be prosecuted.It's just, they can't use his own words or any evidence you got as a result of what he said against him.I hope that makes sense to you.

And this is very common, very common.Like if you have a lawyer and you're giving a statement, you're not going to let your client talk, right?If you're a lawyer, you're not, I'm not, why, why, why do I want him to talk to you?I don't know if you're going to go after him.Why should I let him talk to you?Well, then they give you use immunity.

Okay, so now, okay, what he says cannot be used against him.Me as a lawyer, I'm protected.I'm protecting my client just in case prosecutors want to go after him, even if he's innocent, right?Lawyers will try to protect their clients, even if they're innocent, because they are skeptical of law enforcement, right?They always are.And they've got to protect the rights.

They've got to do their job.So that's what's happening.

For any statements made during the interview, They're given immunity for that, but they're not generally prohibited from being potentially prosecuted outside of that interview.Is that fair?

That's my understanding, yes.

Was Mr. Twiggs given use immunity?

Yes, he was.

By what offices?

The Utah County Attorney's Office, as well as the United States Attorney's Office.

You mentioned that both of Mr. Twiggs' interviews were recorded.Have you reviewed them?Yes, I have do they fairly and accurately depict those interviews?

Yes, they do.

We've talked about 1102 Statements we've talked about a form and you you talked about that There's an admonition on there that that warns that if false statements are given pursuant to 1102 then that Person may be subject to a class a misdemeanor.Is that fair?Yes, that's correct was a similar admonition given to mr. Twiggs during his second or before his second interview on April 20th, 2026?

Yes, it was.

By whom?

By Ryan McBride with the Utah County Attorney's Office.

And again, you were present for that interview?

I was.

Did Mr. Twigg say that he understood that admonition?

He did.Yep.

Was he told that the April 20th, 2026 interview was being taken in lieu of him having to come and testify at the preliminary hearing?

Yes, it was.Yes, he was.

And it'll be interesting to see What, if anything, the defense does, if there's a trial and if Lance Twiggs is called to the witness stand, will the defense attempt to use the fact that he got use immunity against him to try to implicate him in the case?Kind of dangerous because if you implicate Lance Twiggs, is he going to commit this crime without the defendant?Be interesting to see what the defense does.So yes, there are cameras in the courtroom for this hearing.It's open court.There's microphones.

We're seeing and hearing what's happening, but we're not seeing and hearing everything including some of the evidence in the case and that has bothered me.people for different reasons, right?I'm a member of the media.I'm covering something.I believe in open and transparent government.I want to see and hear everything.

I just believe this is a public trial.This is an allegation of a public crime.Taxpayers are footing the bill for everything.The judicial branch is part of our government.It's not like, you know, brought down from the heavens above.So I believe in that, but that's from my perspective.

What I want you to hear is Jeffrey Neiman, who is an attorney representing Erica Kirk and the Kirk family and their thoughts about the lack of complete transparency in this case.Take a listen.

I've been very hesitant to speak up at these proceedings.We understand it's the state, the defense, and the judge, you're all doing your job.But I feel as if we need to.I want to be clear as to what the Kirk's family's position is on all of this.The Kirk family believes strongly that if the evidence is being admitted in this preliminary hearing, it should be made public for the world to see.No redactions.

This court has tools at its disposal to make sure the defendant receives a fair trial.You'll use them if you find that you need to.That's it, Your Honor.To not be transparent here, to not be open, to not let the world see what happened, will create doubt and distrust in the judicial system.And that's not what anybody wants.That's not what any of us believe should happen here.

And we'd ask the court to consider the position of the family in making its ultimate decision.

Yeah, not all victims' families are this vocal about it.But this was a public figure.It was an assassination caught on camera.Everything was public.Everybody knows.Everybody has seen it.

And we know what has taken place after all of this.And the family's under intense pressure.And they just say, listen, let the public see the evidence.These are the arguments I make all the time about the trust in the system.The way you gain trust is through transparency.Anything other than that will create problems.

It always does.It always does.Like, if there's a case and no one gets to see anything and you just get the verdict, you're like, well, yeah, I know what happened there.No, you don't, because you didn't see it.Like, that's the mission of Court TV, to let you see it so we understand the verdicts.We understand how the system works or sometimes doesn't work.

Let's take a listen to the judge, because the judge is in a tough spot here.He's in a real tough spot.Let's watch and see his perspective on this transparency issue.

Part of the reason in responding to the media, and it's an important point, and to the representative for victim representative Erica Kirk is I recognize the importance of transparency.And it is a fine line.I'm balancing all these competing rules, constitutional rights, as well as transparency.And sometimes it is an imperfect balancing act.But I'm trying to act in the interest of justice in making this balancing act and for transparency to actually be transparent.

Yeah it's yeah it's a balancing act it's a juggling act at the same time.The bottom line is Court TV and I've been here longer than anyone on earth right all we do is cover high profile cases and and I've covered cases where all the evidence is out there before the trial and the jury bases their verdict on what theyhear inside the courtroom.During the trial, they listen to the judge's instructions.Everything here about hiding evidence from the public is basically our system of justice saying, we don't trust the juries.We don't trust them.

We don't trust them to be honest when they come to the courtroom for voir dire.We don't trust them to follow the judge's instructions.We don't trust them to not put aside any preconceived notions.Like that's crazy.If you don't trust the jury, then the whole system just blows up.Which all these arguments against transparency, the bottom line, what I'm hearing is we don't trust the jury.

We don't trust the jury.The defendant can't get a fair trial because we don't trust the jury.And I've seen it.I've seen cases in Orlando, in Los Angeles, where everything is out there beforehand, public sentiment overwhelmingly against the defendant and the jury comes back not guilty because of what happened inside the courtroom, not what they heard on the news, not what they saw on a stream, not what they may have thought beforehand.Okay, the Kirk family has taken it a step further though.They filed a motion now.

And this, I think this really gets into what they're going through in all this.This is from their attorney.For 10 months, the victim's family has waited for this preliminary hearing.Erica Kirk, the widow of Charlie Kirk and his grieving parents traveled to this courtroom for one reason, to be present at these proceedings and to bear witness to the evidence concerning the death of their husband and son.At certain points throughout the preliminary hearing, the Kirk family sat in the room while evidence was admitted but not presented for their viewing.They were present in body yet denied the very thing their presence was meant to secure.

Their ability to meaningfully, meaningfullythe preliminary hearing.The victim's failing position is simple.At a minimum, every exhibit entered into evidence during this preliminary hearing must be visible to every person lawfully present in the courtroom.To receive evidence in a manner shielded from those seated in the courtroom, as happened today, is not transparency.And in the absence of transparency, speculation and conspiracy theories related to this tragic assassination of Mr. Kirk will continue to proliferate in the public domain, breeding doubt and distrust in the judicial system.

This is not what anyone should want.For the foregoing reasons, Erica Kirk, on behalf of the victim's family, respectfully request that the court, at a minimum, order that all exhibits admitted into evidence during the last three days that were not published to the courtroom be so published during the preceding schedule for July 9th, 2026, so that all persons lawfully present in the courtroom may view them.Order that any exhibit admitted into evidence during the remainder of this preliminary hearing be displayed openly and in real time so that all persons lawfully present in the courtroom may see it.In order that no evidence be received by the court in a manner that conceals it from those lawfully present in the courtroom.I agree.I don't think it's just the courtroom.

I think it should be for the public.And I believe a camera in the courtroom is no different than a person lawfully in a courtroom, a camera lawfully in the courtroom.is there for people who cannot make it down to the courtroom, people who may be waiting on line because the lines are starting overnight.People are waiting in line to get inside that courtroom and not every member of the public can fit inside there.So as a public trial, public proceeding in a public courtroom, the evidence should be made public.So Erika Kirk and her attorney,

the potential conspiracy theories that are out there, right, that have permeated the coverage of this story in this case and could potentially eke into the courtroom, into that jury box, right?I mean, that's part of it.So I was curious because I feel like there's a real groundswell of this that is happening online and anywhere else you go.So I was curious, so I put a poll up on my YouTube channel just to kind of gauge where the true crime community is on this.And the folks who watch me, they're law and order folks.They are law and order people.

They are not conspiracy based, okay?The folks who watch me on YouTube, like you, right?So let's take a look at that poll and what the results were.I thought it was fascinating.My question was, Do you believe Tyler Robinson is a patsy in the Charlie Kirk case, right?And people can interpret the term patsy, fall guy, taking the blame for someone else, part of something bigger, framed, whatever, however they want to interpret that.

Look at those numbers.Look at those numbers.I mean, those are real numbers.61 % say no, but 39%, and this is 2 ,000 people responding, right?And I've noticed on my polls, once I get to like, 500 or so, the percentages generally don't change that much, regardless of whether you have 2 ,000 votes or 20 ,000 votes.So I'm pretty confident this is kind of where the true crime community is.

And it's like a 60 -40 split that they believe the defendant in this case is a patsy.May not mean that he's innocent, but like there's something else going on here.There's something else going on here.So I was wondering, where is this all coming from?So I wanted to take a look at some of the things that are happening, some of the posts onsocial media, to get a flavor for it.

Because I'm genuinely curious about what evidence are people looking at that are coming to these conclusions.First thing was a note, a comment to the poll itself.And this one says, and it's from Leona.Wait, we got to go back.There we go.It says, There is a video of a guy in black military garb in a prone position who may have fired the shot.

He left immediately in a totally different direction than TR did.Okay, I haven't seen that video, but.Is there another video of another person in a prone position other than the guy on the roof?Or is she referring to the guy on the roof going in a different direction?Plus, to my knowledge, there is no bullet to be found, okay?They're trying to match ballistics.

They said it wasn't a match, but it wasn't necessary.They couldn't exclude it.That evidence at this point was inconclusive is what we've heard.The size of the wound did not measure up with the bullet that fits the rifle that TR had.This is probably one of the biggest theories that I've seen or themes that I've seen.People believe that that bullet would have done much more damage than it actually did.

And there's been a lot of gun experts online talking about that.So prosecutors gonna have to address that.Because it's out there, so their experts are going to have to address that, the medical examiner.They'll have to bring in some sort of ballistic expert, probably a rifle expert or a weapons expert to talk about the damage that you could expect from a weapon like that, because it's a real issue.And that's one that I saw in many places.I think many are in on this story, too many inconsistencies.

OK, the inconsistencies, that argument, I see that in every argument.I cover.Every trial I cover.So to me, that's just an old -fashioned reasonable doubt argument.That doesn't prove anything.There's just inconsistencies.

Every case, when you look at it under a microscope, there are things that might not fit exactly together.I think many are in on this story.I want to know who the many are though.Okay, let's go to the next one that I grabbed from social media.And Candace Owens, if you're not familiar, she's really been leading the charge that this is something bigger, that there's all these other entities involved.But I will say this, here's a fact.

I wanted to zero in on one fact that she's zeroing in on.to understand the basis, the genesis of trying to prove that there is something larger going on here, that it's not just this defendant, or it's maybe not this defendant at all.Because as I demonstrated on my show, there were many young men that all woke up and decided to dress in maroon shirts and light shorts on the day of Charlie's assassination.The footage can be any one of these young men, and in my opinion, is likely multiple of them.If Tyler Robinson's defense would like to contact me, I'd be happy to supply them the folder of the maroon boys that I began archiving when I noticed the bizarre fashion trend." So one of the facts that she's basing this on is that the guy in the video, in the surveillance video, isn't necessarily the defendant because there was a concerted effort by a group of people to all dress with maroon shirts and light shorts.

And that is part of what happened that day.That's interesting, right?But like, You'd have to talk to all the people who wore maroon shirts and light shorts.Who are they?Like, is there any proof that any of that is true?of these people are anything other than students who were interested in going that day?

And how unusual is it for people to be wearing maroon and light shorts?I don't know.I don't know.But I don't think this is necessarily something that prosecutors would have to address inside the courtroom.Let's go to the next one.This is someone who posted, and this was based on the short video, the redacted video that was shown in the courtroom.

Why do we never clearly see Tyler Robinson's face?Well, here he never turns to the camera.He never sits during the short, short redacted video that was shown in the courtroom.My guess is there's a longer version of the video that may show his face.This is the problem with the redactions.By redacting the evidence, you have now added to the conspiracy.

You have added to the skepticism of your case because the only piece of evidence you show is something that doesn't show his face.And that's a problem.That's the problem with lack of transparency.Let's take a look at one more.This is from Ben Swan.He's been another person banging the drum here.

And he says the case against Tyler Robinson is collapsing in plain sight.The Tyler Robinson hearing is an absolute joke.And the record so far makes that painfully clear.The state's key evidence, a surveillance compilation edited by the Utah Attorney General's office, was rejected for alterations, and there's still no raw, uncut footage of the assassination.The officer on scene couldn't even recover the shell casing from Robinson's alleged rifle, and the DNA in the towel is 95 % linked to Lance Twiggs, not Tyler Robinson.I think it's the other way around.

I think it's the other way around.To make matters worse, the officer's body cam was conveniently turned off at the most critical moments.As it stands today, the state has zero solid evidence actually tying Tyler Robinson to these satellites.of Charlie Kirk.Well, that last sentence to me does not make sense, because I've been watching it.I'm a former prosecutor.

Everything lines up in their story.Everything lines up.Now, there's a couple of little things here you want to pick up.The officer's body cam, yeah, it stopped at a crucial time.What does that prove?It proves that there's no video there.

Does it prove he turned it off?No.Did he?He said he didn't.He said he thinks the battery ran out.I don't know, do batteries run out on body cams?

That's something that needs to be addressed by the prosecution.They've got to address that, because that's kind of weird.A juror could get hung up on that when all of a sudden the camera stops.Why is the camera stopping at this moment when evidence is being recovered up on the roof?Why does it stop then?That's a problem.

That's a legitimate problem that would need to be addressed by prosecutors.So again, transparency, but I hope prosecutors are listening to what's bubbling online because if it's 40%, three of the jurors could be of the same sort of mindset.That's it for this time.I'm Vinnie Pallatan.Thank you so much for watching.Until next time, in the meantime, please don't forget to hug the kids.