LAWYER REACTS — Prosecution’s FINAL Argument to Send Tyler Robinson to Trial

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: we'll give people just a couple minutes here and i will read my obligatory youtube intro and then we'll actually get into the actual show today we're joined by attorney octavia lavon martinez to analyze one of the most consequential moments yet in the tyler robinson case octavia is a former felony prosecutor experienced trial attorney and regulatory and administrative defense attorney licensed in both texas and arizona in both the state and federal court and she's also licensed to practice in the united states supreme court she began her legal career in phoenix where she handled high stakes matters ranging from felony prosecutions to commercial trucking and medical malpractice litigation she's a graduate of the university of virginia and the ohio state university moritz college of law and she is admitted to practice before multiple federal courts and the u.s supreme court as we mentioned now on september 1st which is coming up here shortly the prosecution will make its final argument for why the evidence against tyler robinson is is sufficient to send the case to trial now the prosecution has already submitted the defense is not that should be coming here shortly so when that happens we will also cover that and then september 1st i will be live again with valhalla and we will be doing the whole thing we'll see what the final is going to be that should be interesting i would definitely not miss that because that is going to decide if this goes to trial at all quick housekeeping make sure you guys hit the like subscribe make sure you check if you are subscribed because a lot of people have been involuntarily unsubscribed from many channels uh let's see what else uh check out my other channel off script where i do long form interviews with creators and experts i do have many more people lined up for that show as well and of course octavia welcome [00:01:43] Octavia: thanks for having me matt uh quite a privilege to be here so i know that people are probably wondering like who the heck am i why am i talking about this you know what is the angle here and i i don't have one you know i talked to you yesterday about the fact that when i was 12 that was when the oj simpson trial was being live broadcast that was huge right the country and that was the biggest case of my lifetime and that is the case in which i decided you know i think i want to be an attorney that seems fun so the next year at the age of 13 i did probably the nerdiest thing anybody can do and i went to a sleepaway lawyer camp that was for middle school age children it's a thing it was actually at ohio state [00:02:28] Speaker 3: believe it or not and it was the most fun i ever had so being an attorney has been a lifelong dream [00:02:34] Octavia: a lifelong journey it's something that i love so this case obviously is the biggest case in our life and i would dare say it's probably even bigger than the oj simpson case because of who the victim is in this case so i just started talking on x about legal things being the nerd that i am and just gained just you know a little bit of traction there and then you know i got your message like [00:03:00] Speaker 3: hey do you want to talk about this i'm like of course because i'll talk about this in my house to my children and my husband for you know for nothing so sure well and of course um i invited her on [00:03:10] Speaker 1: because she was in some x spaces and um she speaks very well she's very knowledgeable so i figured you know i'm not a lawyer and i'm not gonna fake like i am so i figured i bring someone who's actually a lawyer and she actually uh you know she got the information she got the document and she's been going through it like she's been studying this document yeah like she's preparing like she's going to argue the case so she's going to present it to us and then um obviously i'll ask questions here and there and i might i might be able to add a few things uh just based off some some searching and stuff that i did but this is basically your show and of course the guest opinions are always theirs i have my opinions and uh yeah let's get into it so where would you like to start [00:03:48] Octavia: so and it's interesting because you know i'm just going to take this from the the framework because i have an active caseload i haven't had the time to dive in deeply like so many of you like the barons and the candaces and the stupiders so i really just read their filing that they did recently that concluded after the preliminary hearing and then i went back and i watched all five days of the preliminary hearing i listened to the attorney's arguments and that's kind of how i formulated my opinion and as i told you yesterday i did feel like i was preparing for an oral argument before the court um but i have to slow it down because we're usually rushed in court you have to get to the point quickly and you got to do it in 15 20 minutes so it's a little bit weird to be able to take my time to go through it and i do have experience doing criminal trials uh in the 18 months that i was actually in one of the biggest prosecutor's offices in the country in maricopa county i probably did in 18 months 50 trials so you did the math how many trials i'm doing a month and several jury trials so what i did here right away you can see they're coming in hot with hyperbole so before we go into the document let me just tell you what the standard is that they have to meet because one of the things i keep hearing everybody stay online is that this is a low bar of course he's going to be bound over for trial i don't know about that you know i don't necessarily think even the judge should look at this like it's a foregone conclusion because the standard in utah is and this is the case that the prosecutor cited when evidence becomes so contradictory inconsistent or unbelievable that it is unreasonable to base belief of an element of the prosecutor's claim on that evidence magistrates need not give credence to that evidence and they shouldn't bind the defendant over for trial so what that says in plain english is that the evidence the state presents has to be believable [00:05:53] Speaker 1: that's the standard well you said this before that it's basically this is the equivalent of the [00:05:59] Octavia: prosecution's theory that is oh yes so you hear a lot now because you have bigger youtubers who are questioning whether or not the state's theory of the case is actually what happened and so they're getting up labeled conspiracy theorists but i would say that there is no fact in this case other than charlie kirk died and i understand that it's being disputed in several places but to simplify this the only fact that we have is that charlie kirk died everything else is a theory that's why even in criminal cases it's always called the state's theory of the case the defense's theory of the case and so i think when you have people labeling others as conspiracy theorists well what do you think the state has they have a theory that they have to prove and the other thing people need to understand is that the prosecution's filings and even the defense filings those are not evidence so even if they are asserting something in a document like you see right here that does not mean that that is evidentiary and that the judge has to take that into consideration what they're trying to do in this document is to clean it up and say well this is what we presented to you judge remember in this five-day hearing therefore you need to rule in our favor for these reasons but i'm going to go through this and i'm going to show you where i think there are significant evidentiary gaps i think that they are stacking inferences here that they actually did not elicit testimony to and that there are some missing elements here that may not have evidence to back up this standard that it has to be believable because that is the standard that they cite throughout this brief so here on page one you're starting the introduction with hyperbole this is hyperbolic and it's ridiculous and i also think this makes the state lose credibility the very first line here says this is likely as straightforward a bind over decision as this court will ever see i mean really this is straightforward with as much uh questions that people have as many questions as they have i don't know that that's really a legitimate argument but there's something here on this page that i wanted you to look at here so they're going through that he alleged to admit this to several friends including his roommate that he assassinated him that he surrendered to law enforcement and look what it says here these admissions along with others establish probable cause to support most of the elements of the charges so they're not even saying that everything is relevant just certain things right but what's the problem here if it supports most of the elements [00:08:52] Speaker 1: right so is that is that the equivalent of them saying that the information contained in this document supports most of our theory [00:09:00] Octavia: so they're not saying the information contained in the document they're claiming the evidence that they presented so they're they're using this document to summarize they claim the evidence that they presented to the magistrate at the hearing yeah but they're claiming that the admissions establish most of the elements and that the dna testing surveillance video eyewitness testimony buttress those elements and demonstrate probable cause to support the remaining elements but let's go through the remaining elements because i'm not sure that they did that so you could take that down because i've got some notes here that i didn't put up on the screen but what people need to understand is that a preliminary hearing is not a rubber stamp so if you are a defense attorney for example you should not treat it as a foregone conclusion and you need to work very diligently to make sure that your client is not just being rubber stamped through the system because once somebody gets charged arrest arrested and then charged with a crime the state is an apparatus and it builds this machine around a person and it will sweep them through one step to the next step to the next step and so people have to be very diligent in examining each step and not just trying to rush through like i know candace she said that she wants the trial to go forward because she wants to see what type of evidence is going to come out but i don't think people should have the mindset that they just want the machine to continue to steamroll i think in this case and what we're going to go through i don't know that the state has actually proven and provided believable evidence that support um the elements of the prosecution's claim because one of the biggest things they have to prove is identity so let's talk about the identity did they prove the identity this is the defense's strongest point in this case we're going to start with this and the reason why i'm presenting this from the defense posture is because there are already a lot of voices out there that are pushing the state's theory of this case pushing the state's posture of this case you have the vice president of the united states that's declared him guilty already you have senator mike lee that are oh i'm [00:11:27] Speaker 3: sorry is my dog going off in the background you want me to i have the door shut on she's so loud i'm sorry [00:11:35] Speaker 1: guys okay yeah she almost she almost sounds almost as loud as you she's very loud okay i've got the [00:11:44] Octavia: door shut of course it's um i'm home by myself and i have a little like remote um but it's out there [00:11:53] Speaker 1: i think like a remote uh remote control car and put some snacks on it just grab it around keep them [00:11:58] Octavia: distracted yeah i know sorry guys she's quiet now now that i stopped talking you see that she's quiet [00:12:06] Speaker 1: no what now start talking and watch the bark start right away yes she does it all the time isn't that [00:12:10] Octavia: true so if you have children or you have pets when you have to get on a zoom call doesn't that happen where the kids just think it's like wwe time and like let's jump off the furniture or the dogs deciding like i've been quiet all day all week today's the day that i'm just gonna lose it all right she's quiet where did she go maybe she distracted herself she's actually she's inside guys she's right outside the door well she actually wanted to be in here but if i had her in here she would um she would be even louder she's a dachshund so i don't know if you guys are familiar with dachshunds but i have a dachshund as well i have a mini dachshund hold on let me let me go see what i can do about her give me one second [00:12:54] Speaker 1: all right and while you do that i'll cover this little piece over here so one thing i want to talk about is some of the major issues move that and that so i ran this whole thing through this entire document and it says the dna evidence only says there is a very strong support that the defendant contributed dna to the screwdriver towel and parts of the recovered rifle encasing it never gives clear numbers or addresses how dna can move around that's in the document now i know some of that stuff may have been covered in the preliminaries but this is supposed to be their final argument so that's important then we have there's no mention of matching the actual pieces of the bullet that hit mr kirk to the specific rifle we know about that and then we have the description of how the bullet traveled through the body front to back slightly left to right and downward is never clearly matched up with the claimed shooting position on the roof about 410 feet away so there's a lot of pieces that are stacking up that just you know they're gonna have to prove all these points in trial if it goes to trial all right she is back so let me there is [00:14:00] Octavia: somebody outside fixing a fence so she's uh very interested in him so i let her go outside to go talk to the man fixing our fence back there okay so where were we we were on identity okay so the things that the prosecution has to prove they have to prove the elements of the crime but the first element they have to prove is the identity of the defendant the perpetrator so if they can't prove the identity then the rest of the elements fall apart because how can you then state that that particular person that you are holding over to be charged is the one that committed the crime hope this is making sense so in viewing the evidence in the preliminary hearing because that's the only thing that the judge is supposed to look at he's not supposed to look at the charging documents for evidence he's not supposed to look at the lawyer's words it's what was the testimony elicited on the stand or the exhibits that were admitted into evidence that is all the judge is supposed to look at so let's talk about the identity because in my opinion i do not believe that the state has reliably identified tyler robinson as the shooter they are making this assertion that it's him but what happened at the preliminary hearing well detective hole was asked exhibit 12 this is the exhibit that created the stir online this was the exhibit where you had people coming out saying that they saw 4k video of tyler robinson laying down prone on the rooftop he was taking the shot he he shot him he he was walking all over campus it was exhibit 12.1 that the defense was objecting to but the same exhibit was admitted it was 12.4 and that's the one that didn't have the edits where there was i guess they were circling stuff but it was the same video so it was just one had edits where the state was creating like circling figures zoomed in right zoomed in and it was just a series of someone or people walking around in different parts of the area at different times of the day so detective hall was asked on the stand by the prosecutor if he observed any surveillance video camera footage and he testified yes i watched about 10 to 20 hours of surveillance video and he's like and who is that on the video and he says i believe that's tyler robinson so i'm waiting to hear and i did not hear this from the defensive attorneys objection foundation how did he come to that believe it was tyler robinson and he never testified to that he never said i determined that was tyler robinson because x he didn't say that and there was no objection to that question so what happened every single time the prosecution then asked about more things on the video the prosecutor said okay so now what is what is mr robinson doing in this part of the video what's mr robinson doing on that part of the video no objection to any of this i mean you want to make those objections then to preserve the issue for appeal and i'm sitting here like oh man like why are they not objecting to this and the only thing that she objected to during the whole identity phase was when he was asked do you see that person in the courtroom today and he and so she objected and said this is suggestive he's the only one at council table yeah but her objection should have come in before that when detective hole said i believe that was tyler robinson well how did you determine that how did you how do you know definitively detective hall that that person was definitely 100 tyler robinson and he never answered any question like [00:17:53] Speaker 1: that you know well and that's that's why i brought you on here because i watched every hour every minute of that that entire week we hosted it all week long and me not being a lawyer never would have caught those [00:18:04] Octavia: little details like that so this is great keep going sorry yeah and so then the next question so after he changed his clothes apparently there was like somebody else or maybe the same person it's not really clear on the video um he said well how do you know this is still mr robinson and he says well uh it's because the shoes are the same okay but you didn't establish it was him the first time so how did you get that the first time like let's go back and i just wanted to go back and like why why why are we not saying anything if you don't have identity how do you have a case all of the evidence presented was just pieced together footage of different surveillance videos of someone a white male approximately 5 10 5 11 medium to athletic build in his mid 20s young 20s i am not a demographics expert i don't live in utah but i would say there are probably a lot of people who could fit that description of a white male 20 [00:19:07] Speaker 1: something 5 10. even the same day on the ubu footage that everyone has on the cell phone there's like [00:19:13] Octavia: thousands of them exactly so how are we saying for sure because now she did ask him on cross examination well could you see his facial features but she really should have objected at the beginning and make the state work for that evidence make them work for that foundation don't just give that away don't let detective hall say i believe that's tyler robinson you do well how did you form that basis for your belief because he's the one that's saying he determined he was not a hearsay witness to make the identification he said oh i believe that's him i watched the footage so she could have clearly cross-examined him i think a little bit stronger on that issue because if you can blow out the identity all of the other elements fall away because if you don't even have [00:20:03] Speaker 1: the right guy what are you doing here and that happens by the way yeah so in your opinion do you think that this is like a side side thing but do you think that there's any chance that the defense is compromised [00:20:16] Octavia: i don't know and people keep asking me that question because i will say in parts of the hearing like defense attorney i think his last name was novak i think he did a pretty good job objecting um with something some of the things i thought he was kind of focusing on that i didn't think were that important uh they really objected to this video being played but i don't think it was prejudicial to tyler in the way that they were claiming this is the 12.1 video where it was clicked that ended up being the exhibit 12.4 i don't think that hurt tyler robinson's case and they were claiming it was it was going to be unduly prejudicial and would affect tyler robinson's ability to get a fair trial i disagree with that why because any person with two eyes can see i don't know who that is on the video who is that so i think they should have let that play and then you know he did also make a lot of objections this was during i think the dna thing and we'll get to that but i don't know if they're compromised i did hear from you and others that i guess prior to the preliminary hearing one of the defense attorneys had just come off another murder trial so she said she hadn't really had time to prepare um it's not something i would probably admit on the record um in front of my client like hey sorry haven't had time to prepare for your case i know it's a capital murder trial but you know i guess we're here like you don't you don't want to do that like tell that to your client privately don't tell that into a public court with the media present like hey sorry i've been really busy no don't do that i don't understand so you know look i'm not them i don't know them but i think they're going to have an issue because all the attorney said you believe this to be mr robinson he answered i do yes and then there were no further questions about how or why he was able to identify him so that lacked foundation he doesn't have personal knowledge he doesn't explain that he came to it because of an unidentifiable facial feature his clothing his gate a comparison a forensic image you would want to see all of that you didn't see that it was just his answer was i do yes when she said do you believe this to be mr robinson objection foundation objection lack of personal knowledge he just stated the conclusion without showing the math you remember school you have to show your work when you were in math class you have to show your work if you're the witness particularly if you're the detective laying the foundation for evidence you can't just state the conclusion and the defense attorney is just letting the conclusion go by and i'm like don't do that what are you doing so i'm like yelling at my computer a week later like objection nobody cares you know but i'm just like i can't believe this is happening so they they they just made the conclusion that it was him and everybody moved on and so then they're just sort of you know going on into the next steps and i'm like no i don't i don't think that we need to to leave it there so then you know that's that's the big one identity is the big one um it wouldn't have excluded the video but it would have forced the state to work for it you want to make them work for this because the state already gets the presumption of being uh they have power so the average juror thinks in their mind and we went through this when i was a prosecutor and when i did defense they assume that a prosecutor is if somebody's being arrested and charged then they must have the right guy they're the professionals they know what they're doing they know better than me who am i to question that and so when you're an attorney you know that that's how people think you have to make the state work for the conviction that is your job as a defense attorney i'm not trying to make this very defense heavy but this is a pretty significant issue up front that i'm noticing particularly when you have them saying this is likely as straightforward a bind over decision as this court will ever see and i think they even said i'm trying to find what page it was on [00:24:25] Speaker 1: they said don't they say that right here is that in the first introduction it is and then if you go [00:24:30] Octavia: to page six yeah like a look at this let's go to page six where is it you see right here at the [00:24:39] Speaker 3: bottom where it says this isn't a close case really they said this isn't a close case so they're saying [00:24:47] Octavia: they already want it this isn't a close case like what are you what are you talking about there's another there's other language they use that was really hyperbolic i'm trying to see if i can find it they were quoting here it is this page eight look at this i mean i'm trying not to laugh when i read this because to me this is just ridiculous in this case look at the bottom okay you see my little cursor here in this case the state presented more than enough evidence so as to sail safely over the bind over standard on all seven charged offenses more than enough evidence i was not blown away by any evidence that i saw because they're lynching the identity of tyler robinson on the detective hall's conclusion without any other evidence that he believed the person on the video is tyler robinson and he never testified to the judge how he came to that decision so they are trying to wrap that in with the alleged confession given to lance twig so let's talk about lance twigs that's my next point so the state is claiming we've identified tyler robinson because detective hall said that is him on the video and lance twigs who's his transferee boyfriend told us that tyler robinson confessed to him but did you notice during the preliminary hearing that there was no testimony presented about this immunity deal everybody knows lance twigs got yeah that is a significant issue now to be fair they did not show the entire video to the public but the judge said i have this whole video it's the whole thing has been admitted into evidence but we're only going to show clips of it to the public now is that strange is that strange in and of itself that they didn't show the whole thing it's strange that they had a pre-recorded video evidence of a an eyewitness who was not subjected to cross-examination that's very strange because the whole point of doing a preliminary hearing as opposed to just taking this to the grand jury is so the defense can cross-examine the witness so the defense has an opportunity to cross-examine the accusers so how were they able to get this video in and that's when defense attorney novak i thought he did an excellent job because he said something that this is actually mr mcbride's 1102 evidence that's one of the prosecutors on the case what's his name his name is ryan mcbride so ryan mcbride was the prosecutor who was questioning lance twigs in the room and he said this is uh prosecutor mcbride's 1102 testimony it's not even lance twigs and he was right if you watch what was presented it's the prosecutor asking glance leading questions and then all lance is doing is just agreeing with him but if you know that he has use immunity so immunity is different than use immunity so i don't know if you guys know the difference let me tell you what the difference is so in utah they have something called use immunity which means that if they are compelling someone to testify any compelled testimony that they've provided any evidence or information cannot be used against that person um who is an immunized witness in a criminal case so think about what lance turned over to the prosecution he they can now not use that evidence against him was he not the one that found the note [00:28:34] Speaker 1: okay the note that he then burned and then now would he get immunity from that specifically though [00:28:42] Octavia: anything that he turns over to them so he got immunity and he's turning over some of their smoking gun evidence but have you seen the step outside of the case for a second have you seen people doing this sort of amateur handwriting analysis of lance twigs and the note yeah very interesting but because he turns that over he gets this use immunity anything he provides them cannot be used against him how convenient and then he's got these text messages okay so they're supposed to have testimony before they get this guy's testimony they're supposed to elicit testimony that he has this immunity deal why that's important is because then the judge is going to weigh the credibility of that witness based upon the fact that he can't be prosecuted why would this witness need immunity that would be the first question i would [00:29:36] Speaker 1: be asking that's interesting um can you check can you check really quick um by the way everyone can you guys hit like it helps push this out and obviously subscribe if you're interested make sure you're still subscribed if you were before and maybe you're not now and uh just want to check really quick can you go down to your settings cog and make sure your camera is set to 1080p oh yes let me check that i think it might be defaulting to like 720 or something right now hold on let me check no it says full high definition okay we are we're good it's it's not terrible yeah it's not super bad or anything i was just curious because i know yesterday i was at 480. really i was as blurry as tyler robinson's [00:30:14] Speaker 3: supposed campus surveillance videos yeah so that's my bad joke okay so his testimony so this is the whole [00:30:23] Octavia: entire what they're lynching the identity on is the video evidence and lance twigs saying yeah that's him but do you remember that piece of the testimony of lance twigs trying to identify tyler robinson on the video yeah it it took like several uh times for ryan mcbride to sort of pull it out of him that it was him he wasn't even sure at first he's like i mean yeah i i'm pretty sure i think that's him i'm trying to find what his exact words were he said something like he likes hats yeah but then he did he never saw him wear that hat yeah he wears hats but i've actually never seen that one but i think it's him because you know he's got shoes that are kind of similar that does not seem believable and remember that's the standard the state has to present believable evidence and so and this is the other thing that people don't realize when a jury is impaneled it is part of the standard jury instructions to tell the jury to use their common sense a lot of people don't know that because what are you having right now people that are arguing about this case they want to know what makes you qualify to talk about this are you ballistics expert are you a surgeon are you a paleontologist you know whatever like these people are ridiculous like what are your special qualifications but the jury is not going to have those qualifications they're going to be regular everyday people who are going to be instructed by the court use your common sense so that that applies now a judge is not supposed to switch off the common sense part of their brain if they're serving as a magistrate because again we'll go back to the standard when evidence becomes so contradictory inconsistent or unbelievable that it is unreasonable to base belief of an element of the prosecutor's claim on that evidence the magistrates need not give credence to that evidence if this is state versus virgin this is a 2006 case i believe in utah and so this is the one that the prosecution [00:32:30] Speaker 1: it's right here someone someone in chat made a really good point too is that i guess from what i've heard this i can't say 100 but i've heard this from other people too that the two images that he says yeah that's definitely looks like camera that's definitely him they were the ones that were enhanced [00:32:44] Octavia: by the fbi that were put out right and so you have an issue right there with the enhancement because then you have an issue with the foundation what did the original image look like what is the unenhanced version you know was there some ai that was used to enhance the picture those are all questions and because they didn't bring him to the courthouse to testify and be cross-examined you know it seems very much like the state is just trying to put rubber stamp push it through and you and i talked about this yesterday because i also told you how unusual it was that you have the statutory victim representative who has appeared in this case with an attorney who is then also filing a motion for a speedy trial now in arizona when i was a prosecutor there victims rights are baked into the state constitution but i never prosecuted a case where the victim appeared with the lawyer who then was pushing for a speedy trial so i find that interesting and strange so it's not something that i've seen done but do people do it possibly i just find it weird that there's this it seems like there's this uh pedal being pushed down in a car that's just being driven straight through it's like okay rubber stamp given these arguments i mean more than enough evidence so as to sail safely over the bind over standard this is not a close case i mean they actually wrote that someone wrote this isn't a close case i would actually say it's not but it's not a close case for the defense because they haven't properly identified him shut it down right there this is what i told you yesterday the fact that there are so many different theories nobody really can state for certain how charlie kirk died do you want to know what that's called ladies and gentlemen that's called reasonable reasonable doubt if you can't make up your mind and you all of you are prospective jurors this is exactly if you all lived in utah and you were called to be prospective jurors you would probably be tasked with asking these questions and if you can't state definitively oh yeah for sure he died this way you have reasonable doubt but we don't even have to get to the manner of death let's start with the identity of the perpetrator so what did detective hall testify to he believed that person was tyler robinson so then he starts talking about the gun and he was asked questions about the gun so actually no before we get to the gun i want to back up and talk about some of these items that they're associating with him the screwdriver let's [00:35:26] Speaker 1: just start there because have you seen kelly raybon's video yes okay yes so and that was after i talked to [00:35:34] Octavia: yesterday and i was like exactly so you have an issue with identity we've already established that they never laid the foundation there was never anyone to testify i need to find on the page i'm trying [00:35:45] Speaker 1: to find the page where they talk about i might just go ahead and play her video really quick sure it's only about two minutes so i'll just play that and for anyone what we're going to show or what i'm going to show here is kelly raybon she uh she went out in the field she was in orem she went to uvu and of course you know she's ex uh investigative journalist professional so she was sneaking around a little bit not doing anything illegal but she was doing her sneaky sneak and her uh her detective work and this is really interesting so let's see what she had to say remember how prosecutors kept talking [00:36:25] Speaker 4: about that red and black screwdriver they say they found on the uvu rooftop with tyler robinson's dna on it did you recognize the object i did and what was it it was a red and black screwdriver well look what i found when i was at uvu inside a uvu golf cart i happened upon this red and black screwdriver set just sitting there in the open with phillips a flathead and a set of pliers same color scheme same general look and it's clearly part of the everyday campus tools not just some mysterious assassin kit so why does this matter well you know because in court and in the media the red and black screwdriver has [00:37:04] Speaker 1: been treated like a smoking gun the dna on the screwdriver are positively processed for the suspect in custody [00:37:11] Speaker 4: the one object that supposedly proves that tyler was on the roof when charlie kirk was shot but if multiple red and black screwdrivers and these sets are just standard equipment on uvu property that should change how we see that evidence who knows oh my gosh look at this a screwdriver oh what are the chances how can one screwdriver automatically prove who was on that roof or when and if campus staff maintenance workers security if they all use similar tools whose dna should we expect to find on them and how many people touch these things every week every month you'll have to follow me at kelly raybon on youtube and x see you soon well there you go what do you guys think [00:38:03] Octavia: i mean that's is it more likely that a maintenance man was doing maintenance on the rooftop and dropped [00:38:09] Speaker 1: a screwdriver that's pretty significant plausible now the only piece obviously that's still the question is they say that there's a dna consistent with the suspect on it okay so that that starts to [00:38:23] Octavia: be figured out you know right so i want to get to that but before that there's something else i forgot i want to back us up again to identity there's one last piece and here's the thing that people keep saying on x didn't tyler robinson also confess to his parents have you heard people say this that he confessed to his parents and they turned him in yeah yeah i've heard different variations of it yeah right so remember in a preliminary hearing you can use what's called reliable hearsay so say for example the prop this police got statements from his parents saying my son confessed to me that he killed charlie kirk you would have heard the detectives testifying to that they would have said that now that would have been a close case yes they would but you would have seen and heard that testimony elicited from the prosecution because everybody's saying why didn't the defense put the parents on to say that charl tyler robinson did not confess to them but why didn't the state put on their detective to say officer so-and-so took statements from tyler robinson's parents and they said he confessed because that would have been admitted under the reliable hearsay standard but notice that you never heard the state even posit that everybody keeps saying the defense didn't bring it in but the state didn't say that either because if they would have had that they would have said it at the time absolutely because in a grand jury so the way grand jury works defense are not allowed and the state can use like one witness maybe two to present a grand jury and basically kind of go through the police report and go through here's what this detective told me here's what this officer got from this person it's it's a lot of hearsay and you can do those same things in a preliminary hearing although they're subject to cross-examination so you didn't hear that so i just wanted to say that all right so now let's get to this um screwdriver and all these other items so the physical evidence that you saw presented by the state all it does is associate tyler supposedly with items but it doesn't link to any fatal shot so let's start with the screwdriver so in this brief the defense excuse me the prosecution is arguing that it's the state's position that tyler robinson assembled and disassembled the rifle on the rooftop but when i went and listened to the preliminary hearing they actually did not elicit that testimony from anyone they're making the inference in the briefing but you can't just keep stacking inferences upon each other and hoping that meets the believable evidence standard of the preliminary hearing just because they're saying it in their motion doesn't mean they actually oops forgot to elicit that from a witness and when detective hole was asked on the stand if he saw a gun what was his answer no he didn't even see a gun in the video he said and so what you have is they're they're saying well officer bagley testified that he went up to the rooftop and he located a screwdriver and whoopsies the camera died just at the moment that i located this magical screwdriver that now we know happens to match some of the maintenance man's screwdriver but camera died wow it's shocking so you have this guy who says he found this screwdriver on the screwdriver on the rooftop and they tested it and that tyler robinson contributed some dna to the screwdriver but there was no testimony then linking that you have to draw the nexus hello prosecutor to that evidence to the fatal crime the fatal shot how then was that screwdriver used in the commission of the crime you need to elicit testimony from a witness do you have it on video do you have you know did he confess something like i use the screwdriver you know there was none of that it's just an assertion they're making in the brief now is that something you would expect in the preliminary stage yes if you have the suspect the defendant's dna you want to show the judge how that dna evidence is relevant to the case and how you can demonstrate that it establishes not only that he was associated with the item but that the item was then used somehow in the commission of the crime okay okay [00:43:02] Speaker 1: okay so basically what they've done to this point is they've shown us a a loose association with questionable dna that's degraded to items but you're saying they haven't even got to the other part of that which is where those items actually used to do something right because what did the ballistics [00:43:18] Octavia: because they're saying it was used to assemble and disassemble the rifle okay how did you come to that conclusion mr prosecutor mr state you know how did you come to that conclusion there there was no one there to to make the conclusion they're just writing it in the brief as if it's a foregone conclusion it's just an inference and yes some inferences can be made but that's a pretty significant stacked inference that they're just trying to get the judge to come into agreement with how did you get that how did how did how did you determine state this is your theory what evidence do you have that tyler robinson used the screwdriver to assemble and disassemble a rifle i didn't see any evidence to make that assertion during the preliminary hearing they're just stating it in the brief but they didn't present a single witness to testify how he did that and that he did that it's just a stacked inference there therefore because it was there and so this looks very much like they're trying to find something to tie him to the crime scene supposedly crime scene because the identity is iffy so what they're doing is sort of creating this murky water well the identity is a little bit iffy but it's going to be very difficult for the defense to explain how his dna ended up on you know the screwdriver on the rooftop well the last time i checked charlie kerr did not die by screwdriver as far as we know could it be a theory maybe could be one of several but that's not that's not the murder weapon and then let's get to the murder weapon so i did not just my dad wanted to make sure that i mentioned this today he's like don't forget i didn't hear any testimony about gunshot residue yeah on tyler robinson and as far as i know i don't even i don't know if it was tested for this is a case that they're claiming the victim died by homicide gunshot in what case have you known that they were able to apprehend a victim in close time for a suspect in close time frame of supposedly shooting a victim with a gun that they did not do gsr swabs on the suspect i didn't unless i missed that part of the testimony i'll search for it while we're talking you're gonna check i did not hear anyone testify about gunshot residue so if i'm the defense that's what i'm gonna be talking about where's the gunshot residue that's pretty simple standard test in a gunshot case because if he actually fired a gun that day he would have gsr on his hands [00:46:10] Speaker 1: all right let's see what it says [00:46:14] Octavia: going pretty slow that's okay i'm looking at the chat they are also saying they don't remember any reference to gunshot residue and they don't think he was tested i didn't hear any evidence [00:46:27] Speaker 1: okay here's the official it says no no gsr test results or evidence were presented at tyler robinson's [00:46:33] Octavia: preliminary hearing that's correct that is a huge problem for the prosecutor because every other case mr this we've presented all this evidence to sail mr state is what you say exactly how dare they say that they presented more than enough evidence to sail over the standard and they forgot to swab the suspect for gsr what kind of case is this like who's running this come on like this is like you this is like investigation 101 you have a gunshot victim supposedly you caught the guy in 33 hours and you didn't swab his hands come on it's frustrating to me so that's a really you know put that again in the bucket of the defense they didn't properly identify him their only witness that is claiming that he confessed and he found this confession note but then burned it was given use immunity for all of that information he turned over to the state so he can't be prosecuted and now you have no gsr so you don't even have any evidence that tyler robinson ever shot a gun just like you don't really have any evidence that he was there so now let's talk about the firearm did not the ballistics expert testify that the fragment found fragments there were seven found but she only got four so now you have a big question what happened to the other three but then you also have the issue of it was inconclusive what type of caliber so i'm looking at this and i'm seeing the state's case just kind of collapse like what kind what evidence what is this more than enough this is not this is the what go back to page one this is likely a straightforward a bind over decision as this court will ever see this is like gaslighting at this point because you don't even have a caliber match so even if they found six guns with tyler robinson's dna on it they never they can't prove that he shot a gun why because they didn't swap him for gunshot residue well that's okay yeah well they can't prove [00:48:35] Speaker 1: that he shot it and they can't prove that it came from that gun so they have you know two ways and it's [00:48:39] Octavia: not so all you have proof of supposedly is he's associated with these items but you still don't have proof linking them to a crime perpetrated against the victim that's why it's boggling my mind that people keep saying this is such a low bar you know this is a low bar you know he's they're gonna meet it have they even met it i don't think so but i know how the system works and i also know this is a very politically charged case yeah it's if i was the judge no i'm not holding him over for trial based on this because you have to meet all the elements and if we don't have identity i mean that's already you can't really go any further than that but let's go ahead let's let's do this question here [00:49:20] Speaker 1: really quick because i'm curious too uh silk says and by the way thanks for the super chat what is your honest opinion of the way the defense is handling tears case you've kind of touched on some of it but [00:49:30] Octavia: do you want to give a more specific answer my i can't i don't have as much uh involvement in looking at everything that they filed like i said at the beginning so my opinion is only based on what i watched in the preliminary hearing and i haven't seen their response to this i did think that there were some objections that they probably missed but they made a lot of objections that okay i mean i don't know i don't i think that they are handling the case where they're operating in the framework that this is a legitimate prosecution but i don't think it's a legitimate prosecution because i think that we have significant physical evidence problems because it looks like the state is trying to shoehorn a cause of death and just fit their evidence into this cause of death and there's questions here and i don't see the defense stepping outside of this cause of death framework to question that they're sort of it appears that they've accepted this is how charlie kirk died so we're only going to stay right here and that's why i think they brought forward all of these witnesses on the dna stuff and they kind of are getting stuck here in this dna weeds it's like they've accepted that this is the cause of death and they're not going to question outside of that does that make sense that's a good way of putting it is it seems that they've already accepted their fate right there's so much here for them to work with the no gsr is a big one the lack of foundation for the identification is another one the screwdriver is another one they didn't present any evidence that he assembled and disassembled and all you see on the video is somebody you can't tell who it is it looks like a pixel running across the screen running on a roof there do this crawl they get down they get up they run away you tell me what did you see on that could you see somebody taking a screwdriver disassembling a rifle putting it back together laying down taking a shot grabbing it like you don't see that i don't think anyone can see that no one can see that it's a total lie and yet the defense is just in this little box with the state and so they're allowing the state to control the flow of the case and i think as defense they need to take control of the case and they need to yank the case out of this neat little box and have the question examine the cause of death because that is where all of the reasonable doubt is sitting right now that's why you've got all these people online who are questioning that and if you can't even establish how [00:52:15] Speaker 1: he died because let's get to well okay so so on that point though so you're talking about reasonable doubt but the point of the preliminary is to create probable cause okay so probable cause they have [00:52:28] Octavia: to present where evidence becomes when evidence becomes so contradictory inconsistent or unbelievable that it is unreasonable to base the belief of an element of the prosecutor's claim on that evidence magistrates need not give credence to that evidence so is what they've presented inconsistent yes is what they've presented contradictory yes is it believable i don't think so do you think it's believable what's been presented so that's the standard they still have to factor in the believability of the evidence and it's not believable at this point when they're claiming that the only reason why they're focused on the screwdriver is because he used it to assemble and disassemble a murder weapon to which the ballistics expert testified that the match to the caliber was inconclusive hello inconsistency not believable it's contradictory so how have they met that standard i'm not believing this are you believing this i mean you don't have to answer but you know i i and the judge the judge who may not be chronically online like a lot of us and may not be watching anybody's youtube streams this is what's sitting in front of him right now how am i going to piece together this is this believable is it consistent but you again you only have association with the items and the screwdriver we don't know what it was used for and now we don't have a foundation to establish an accurate chain of custody other than this singular officer who claims he's the one that found it and the body cam footage which could corroborate that testimony he now claims conveniently the body cam died so that's a really convenient thing to have happened in that moment is oops body cam died sorry nothing can corroborate my testimony now i wonder because they have cameras everywhere is there an external camera that has picked up him finding the screwdriver did has anybody seen that has it been established do we know i haven't seen it or heard it and i also said [00:54:45] Speaker 1: they also said they have like 300 terabytes of footage sure something insane but if you are the [00:54:50] Octavia: prosecutor and you know that officer bagley you're going to have him testify that he's the guy that found the only piece of evidence linking tyler robinson to the campus that day you better go through those terabytes of data and find another video to prove that officer bagley found what he said he found [00:55:10] Speaker 1: have you seen or heard of any cases where the body cam footage made or break like made or broke the case [00:55:17] Octavia: yes on these um like use of force officer deadly force cases you see that a lot where if an officer is claiming i feared for my life that's why i shot this person you will see officers can be convicted or acquitted based on those body cams so can the defense have [00:55:36] Speaker 1: his testimony thrown out if they can't prove the body cam actually died it's not going to be thrown [00:55:43] Octavia: out but you would use that to impeach him in his credibility so if he gets up there and says yeah and now we're in let's say he's held over for trial and we're in the jury part of the case and he's testifying in front of the jury like yeah i found this but you know my my body cam footage died and then defense uncovers it actually didn't die and we looked through all the terabytes of data and we watched you on this um rooftop and we didn't see you bend down and pick up anything that's going to be used to impeach him and then you have the jury thinking he's not really credible is he so that's but you can't get his testimony just thrown out it'll you just have then the defense asking the question [00:56:23] Speaker 1: and making him look so that's so it's more so it's more like just discrediting right and that's [00:56:29] Octavia: actually what happened in the oj simpson case we're back to that now full circle so oj simpson if you recall there was an issue with one of the testifying officers and there was some audio that was captured where if i remember i was only 12 but he was using um racially charged language and i don't i don't remember the specific details but i do remember at some point during the trial he was advised to plead the fifth johnny cochran who's brilliant okay whatever you think about johnny cochran he was an excellent defense attorney he knew so in a criminal case if somebody's invoking their fifth amendment right to remain silent they have to invoke it for every single question that's asked if you're invoking your fifth amendment right in a civil case you can pick and choose so johnny cochran and his genius knew that every question he asked the officer the officer was going to give the same answer even though a jury's instructed to say well they're they're instructed to not give that any weight when a witness is invoking the fifth amendment right you can't assume that means they're guilty even though an average person when they're hearing somebody invoke their fifth amendment right what's the first thing they're going to think that person's guilty as heck because why do you need because they're not talking yeah anything why do you have to be quiet so that's what johnny cochran did so in that case he started asking the most outlandish questions because he knew the only answer the officer was going to get was give was i uh on the advice of counsel i invoke my uh fifth amendment right to remain silent so he's like isn't it true officer so until you planted the evidence and he gave the fifth isn't it true that somebody else killed these people like that's what he did and that's how he won that case because the jury's like well why won't he answer the question because the average person's not going to know he had to answer the fifth amendment question for every question he was asked he couldn't how it works in a criminal case you have to give that answer once you invoke it you have to invoke it forever or it's waived johnny cochran knew that so he slid right in and he's like let me just so he created all the reasonable doubt using that witness because trial is an art and a science you know right right so what did anthony fauci do he made himself look guilty as heck because if he didn't do anything wrong why is he invoking his fifth amendment right to remain silent 111 times 100 he looks guilty as heck so that's exactly what happened in the oj simpson trial so if that happens in this case let's say it's discovered that he lied about his body cam dying the defense can invoke the johnny cochran method okay so if this officer doesn't want to testify officer bagley isn't it true that you planted that screwdriver on the rooftop on the advice of counsel i like my right that's exactly [00:59:23] Speaker 1: what happens i hope that happens i hope that happens yeah you hate when that happens when you [00:59:30] Speaker 3: accidentally have to invoke your right to remain silent [00:59:36] Octavia: but it's true because in a jury trial the standard is you can't unring a bell so even if somebody testifies and let's say the attorneys have an agreement before the trial you're not allowed to ask this witness can't really say this and somebody accidentally does it the judge will say you know we're going to strike that answer the jury is not going to regard that answer is that really realistic can a jury just unhear what they heard no of course not so yeah i mean officer bagley he's going to have some problems at trial because of that an average juror is going to they're going to want to know well has his body cam ever died and you want to know in arizona this is crazy and not many states do this during jury trials jury jurors are allowed to ask the witness questions so i would be doing a jury trial and if we had a witness for example like officer bagley and he's saying oh you know what that pesky body cam it just died jury would write the question give it to the judge and the judge would say the jury has a question officer bagley on the job how many times has your body cam ever died you'd have to answer under oath so the jury gets to question the witness they don't do that in utah but that would be really awesome if they can do that in this case because it gives you an idea of [01:00:52] Speaker 1: where their head is in this case now are they i don't know if you know much about this piece of it but are they going to force can can they basically subpoena that they get the information about how it died because i thought uh i think it logs internally if it was manually shut off or if it was if it died or whatever it may be so that that information should during discovery the defense can [01:01:13] Octavia: request it and it has to be turned over to the defense so they can absolutely make a discovery request for all of the metadata relating to the cameras if there's any um dispatch if he radioed anything in about finding it so you want the computer aided dispatch in that case because if he's standing on a rooftop and he's in uniform i'm assuming yes because he had a body cam on then he was probably radioed in somewhere saying hey i've got something here on the roof so you would want to look at the computer aided dispatch reports because that's going to tell you what the officer radio to dispatch he [01:01:51] Speaker 1: was for the uniform there's uh some pictures of him that came out recently right yeah unless he got [01:01:56] Octavia: up there and found it and said nothing then on the computer aided dispatch report you're not going to have anything but if you're investigating a murder that just happened in broad daylight and you find something suspicious it was you don't call it in then you're going to have a credibility problem exactly and so i want to know what about a screwdriver would be suspicious to an officer think about it this guy's standing on a rooftop and he sees a tool on the ground would that flag a suspicion of an officer especially based on what kelly just found about the maintenance men would would would an officer be suspicious just seeing a screwdriver what was it about that screwdriver where the officer's zeroing and as a defense attorney i would ask that question why was the uh screwdriver significant to you like what made you zero in on that to think that is potentially a piece of evidence but then they're finding bullets or bullet fragments or casings or no they were intact bullets on another rooftop that they did not impound as evidence but they impounded a screwdriver so you see that's a really good point actually right in a gunshot murder trial you find another set of caliber bullets at least one on another rooftop you don't impound that as evidence but you find a screwdriver and you impound that this is not making sense to me so their whole hyperbolic this is smooth sailing across the standard this is the close this is in a close case this is straightforward there's a reason why they're being hyperbolic and it's because of the points that i raised here that's why they start off on page one bang this is as straightforward as you're ever going to see because it's not it's not straightforward why would you not take the bullet that you found on another rooftop but you take a screwdriver what if he found a hammer up there instead of a screwdriver then how ellen they got tyler robinson's dna on a hammer i mean they could have found a wench i don't know you guys know tools i don't know tools pick a tool and put it up there and they would have just had that with tyler robinson's dna how are they associating that to the commission of the crime so that's the issue that you have and the ballistics like i said was inconclusive and hall didn't see a gun so the physical evidence you have a problem i don't know how you're going to get identity and tying him to the commission of the crime all they have is an officer who gave his conclusion but they didn't state how he reached that conclusion there was no work that was being done to establish that conclusion [01:04:45] Speaker 1: what someone had a question what does it actually mean to impeach a witness sure so when you mp i know [01:04:50] Octavia: because most people hear the term impeachment in terms of politicians but to impeach a witness means to i'm trying to define the word about using the word to point out his credibility on the stand so you're impeaching his credibility you're showing the jury or the judge hey this person is not credible i'll give you an example if you have somebody testifying for example in a deposition ahead of trial depositions are sworn testimony and they're asked questions under oath and they give a series of answers and then when they appear at trial and they are put under oath again and they're asked the same questions and they give different answers to their first set of questions you now can present their previously sworn testimony to them and say do you remember being deposed mr smith on october 7 2009 about this case yes i do do you remember that i asked you about whether the car was red or whether the car was blue i do and do you remember uh the answer that you gave me on that day not really is there anything that you think is going to help refresh your memory sure do you remember um we talked about you had to sign a transcript sure let me show you that you see here on line uh 16 on page 20 you answer that the car was blue do you remember that oh yeah i see that but when your attorney just asked you right now what color was the car you're saying without question it was red so when a jury sees that sorry my husband let the dog back in when a jury sees that they're gonna say wait a minute why are they changing your testimony so that's what it means to impeach a witness so that i hope that answers the question let me see i've got somebody here set of hands okay yeah so let me let me look through my notes here so you have yeah we talked about identity the physical okay here's another one this was great so one of the other issues that they are they have these enhancements that they're trying to do and one of the enhancements was that he put other people in the zone of danger of being hurt oh yeah okay did you you remember seeing [01:07:10] Speaker 1: that argument so where is that and especially because there were children present that was part [01:07:17] Octavia: of it because there were children present but one of the things that i thought was interesting and this is the inconsistency that we talked about um it's page 13. let me go to that so not only so when they're giving this zone of danger argument by the way they are they were citing case law so let me just kind of nerd out this is on page 13. i'm just going to be like a legal nerd here for one second and explain this to your audience so i want you to see here when you see these italics this is them citing a case law you see this is an abbreviation of a state so this is pennsylvania you've got florida you've got pennsylvania again um we've got arizona why am i pointing this out to you because in state court which this is when you are trying to make an argument to a court and you are citing case law which is authoritative in the jurisdiction in which you're citing so this is utah so the only law that the judge is bound by is the case law in utah why is the prosecution finding it necessary to quote case law from three different states because it's not considered authoritative it's persuasive i find that interesting because they're the ones that decided to be super hyperbolic at the front of their brief saying this is the most straightforward case not a close case if you need to state that then i need you to have some straightforward utah case law that's all i'm saying but i'm seeing case law from pennsylvania arizona and florida so where's your utah case and it was the zone of danger so we talk about the consistent versus inconsistent standard so they're claiming that he knowingly created a great risk of death to everyone near him when he pulled the trigger and i just thought it was interesting because on this page they're going back to this assembling and disassembling that because he previously calibrated his rifle and scope he disassembled the rifle to transport it to the roof undetected then reassembled it to the rooftop using the screwdriver and one reasonable inference from these facts is that the reassembled rifle would not be as accurate as it previously was when it was cited in while in one piece so when they're saying here this is a reasonable inference they're just telling you right off the gate they never had anybody establish that and there were also um arguments in here about the fact that tyler robinson i'm trying to find it that he did here is page 13 that he did target practice so i don't know if you've had a chance to read this but they were basically stating this is what i find interesting that's only going to hurt the state's case they were stating that where is it where is it they were stating somewhere in this brief and i'm trying to find it [01:10:34] Speaker 1: the tyler robinson why are you doing that why are you doing that i'll show the targets sure go ahead yeah this is the ones they showed in court so um if you look at this one center he's basically shooting off to the left assuming that it's him shooting and not you know lance or someone else same with this one off to the left and this one kind of down and right but but you look at this one and there's some flyers right like they're kind of all over the place and this is the only one where it looks like anything's even close and uh these three are decent but they're still to the right so a lot of people you know they kind of postulate that maybe he was aiming for if it was him and if a shot was taken that they're aiming for the center mass of the body or the head and accidentally hit the neck i've never heard of a sniper who was like i'm gonna aim for the neck so right if you even [01:11:24] Octavia: want to call him a sniper what the argument was that i'm trying to find was that because of the target [01:11:30] Speaker 1: practice he had missed that he was not a good shot but if he missed if he wouldn't be having this case [01:11:37] Octavia: right so they said because he did poorly in his target practice and because he assembled and disassembled this rifle it could have affected the accuracy of the shot that is how he ended up putting the other people in danger because he could have missed again like he did in target practice and hit other people but if i was the defense i would be honing in on that point because here you have some inconsistent evidence if he was a bad shot during target practice and then all of a sudden he's he's not it just creates questions there like okay so during target practice he was not really hitting his targets correctly but he hit the target now it just there creates a lot of questions and so i would say if i was a defense i would be highlighting that under the is it inconsistent or unbelievable standards that they have to meet and i just found it go ahead to try to impeach him well but also in their argument in their response to this to try to keep him from being bound over to trial because that's what defense their response didn't you say it was due like in four or five days or something like that yeah it's coming up shortly yeah and so the other enhancement that they need to prove is the motivation because because of the beliefs of charlie kirk versus um tyler robinson okay because they're claiming that it was tyler robinson killed charlie kirk based on his beliefs and how they were adverse to the trans community well their only identifying witness who allegedly got these confessions who was granted use immunity testified that he never heard the defendant ever talk about the victim don't you find that odd their entire case was hinging upon it's tyler robinson's trans leftist ideologies which is why he killed charlie kirk and so he never yeah so he he testified that he didn't [01:13:56] Speaker 1: talk about charlie kirk and he testified he didn't talk about lgbtq stuff but that's what they're saying [01:14:01] Octavia: is the reason why he went after charlie so you you also you have a motive because most juries are going to want to want to know why would someone do this what was the point you need a motive that's what they're claiming the motive is and their only witness who could have provided them the motive in the time that he actually wasn't being led by the prosecutor and the questioning said no he never talked about this so you don't even have motive you have no identity no murder weapon that was definitively proven uh it was inconclusive you have some items that were not established how they were used towards the commission of the crime and you don't even have any testimony of motive that's why i don't think that this should just be rubber stamped you know i don't necessarily believe they've met their burden i think that there are there are some problems here that they they have not overcome and so what they're trying to do is overcome it now in the briefing phase because i don't think that they have met that i don't think that they met the standard i think the evidence that was presented was too inconsistent it contradicted itself and to me it's just not believable and that's part of the standard and so in my opinion i don't think that they that he should be bound over for trial based on what was shown do i think that's going to happen no i think that he's going to be bound over for trial because we know how the system works and for those that don't i'll just tell you most people miss this judges and most states are elected officials prosecutors are elected officials and public defenders the guy who holds the main office is also elected so you have a system being run by elected officials elected officials are what politicians so you have a system being run by politicians so it's highly likely that there would be too much political backlash on this judge if he didn't bind tyler robinson over for trial even though i don't think that there's enough evidence to bind tyler robinson over for trial at the preliminary low bar stage there's a bar here still do you think it would be like that career suicide if he didn't go to trial for them sure because it's this is political you have the white house who's interjected their opinion into this case you have donald trump jr was there during the preliminary hearing you have jd vance who interjected himself into this immediately he's the one that transported charlie kirk's body on air force two you have him talking about the fact that um tyler robinson committed this crime well i can't remember what his exact tweet was maybe somebody can find it um but jd vance has also himself talked about what he thinks the guilt is you also have other senators and you have the victim the statutory victim who went on stage internationally and said that man that murdered my husband so you have all of these high-powered high-level people who are already planting the seed to the jury that tyler robinson is guilty even though we know in a perfect world he enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence these people who are elected officials they're government agents they're already declaring he's guilty before the case the jury even gets impaneled and i mentioned this to you yesterday there was someone on x who's got a decent following he said he lives in orem utah and he was tweeting against candace owens but he said something and he said uh we who are in orem utah we're not going to listen to candace owens she's the most evil person we're going to convict tyler robinson and i said to him you have just now made the argument for the defense to file a motion for change a change of venue because a jury has to be unbiased a if somebody was in voir dire voir dire is when you do jury selection if somebody was asked in voir dire could you remain biased if you were to have to decide today this is a question we would ask to eliminate jurors if you have to decide today would you find the defendant guilty or not guilty and if they said guilty they are excused why because they haven't heard any evidence so when you have a perspective juror with a decent following on x telling you already they're planning to convict tyler robinson that's a mo exhibit a to defense motion for change of venue because you've got perspective jurors saying that you're not going to get a fair trial so that's you know that's my two cents but i think that they're going to hold him over because i if anything the last several years has taught us anything i think people are too afraid to go too far against the grain and unfortunately what you have here is a person who's being prosecuted for a crime where i can't really see evidence that even reaches the preliminary hearing standard and i know they're going to be a lot of people that disagree with me i've already been asked how many murder trials have you done how many defense what's your win-loss ratio i'll tell you in a criminal case and i've told you this already outside of um this video chat that the standard of proof and the evidentiary procedure does not change no matter the type of crime so if a prosecutor is prosecuting a dui case on a monday and they got to do a home invasion case on a thursday the standard of proof is the same it's beyond a reasonable doubt when once you're in the jury trial phase and the rules of evidence are the same this is why prosecutors can plug and play if you will different you can have a prosecutor i had a trial once where they handed me the file the night before because the prosecutor had to be out of the office and they said hey octavia um this case is going to trial tomorrow you have to do it i'd overnight to prepare for an entire trial you know i had a colleague who had the same thing happen to him and he said well i got the file the morning of the trial so i walked into the jury and i'm like ladies and gentlemen the jury we're both going to find out together what this case is about that was his opening statement we're going to find out together what the case is about i'm like oh my gosh so but it doesn't change it doesn't change that's why you have prosecutors that can do all different types of crimes because the amount of crimes that are charged and the number of prosecutors especially in a large jurisdiction there's just not enough people so you have a prosecutor that will have low-level misdemeanors on their desk and they'll have high-level felonies some bureaus have a capital litigation bureau that's capital uh litigation murder uh first-degree murder death penalty cases they'll have a specialized team of prosecutors but then there'll be prosecutors in other other divisions that will also do some capital litigation mixed with car thefts and things like that so i don't need to have done only murder trials to be able to assess the evidence because [01:20:48] Speaker 1: the procedure doesn't change yeah that makes sense yeah and i think that's what happens is you know it's that whole discrediting thing you know they're going to say oh she's a lawyer she has experience but does she have the exact experience that i want her to have exactly but that she's no good yeah exactly so and again you're not representing them this is just your opinion this is just my [01:21:12] Octavia: opinion i don't have a stake you know people keep calling me a grifter on x which makes me laugh because i'd probably be the worst grifter because when i'm not monetized on x yeah well i don't have enough following and i've got a lot of student loans and so if i'm drifting i haven't learned how to do it right because i haven't made a dime like i'm just telling you my opinion for free so i'm not i haven't really caught on i i have to i don't know if i should go on like chat gpt how do i grip like what do i do give me the steps because i don't know what to do that's hilarious so that's that's what that this was this was my this was my oral argument that i prepared for you and your audience today if you have any questions i'm happy to try to answer some but that's my official opinion after [01:21:54] Speaker 1: looking at all this evidence now would you okay so say if they came out because a lot of people in the chatter saying that you should represent him so how much would you charge to represent tyler [01:22:05] Octavia: robinson well i probably couldn't because one i'm not licensed in utah so the only way that i could do that is to do like a pro hoc v and that's latin for this matter only and that can happen and i think in other cases like if you have high profile attorneys they'll pro hoc what's called pro hoc into a case in another jurisdiction but tyler robinson a defense i can just tell you how much it costs to take a case from beginning to end but when you're dealing with a case as serious as this one from what i understand he has public defenders if he had a private attorney and i'm not saying i charge this okay before everybody just like excorciates me in the comments if you charge that much money but when you have like a capital murder or a murder trial a defendant is looking into the six figures and legal fees well you know depending upon the seriousness and i would say in this case it seems that there is this machine behind the regular machine that is pushing this forward unfortunately and he's sort of just in this machine and we don't know what he told his attorneys we don't know if he's not saying anything i will tell you because you see this on x a lot and it's really annoying well if he really was like at that restaurant in pengwich for example he would have told his attorneys and they would have brought that up i will tell you as someone who represents people that your clients are not always going to give you um critical information at the beginning of a case that you would think that it would be um like they should know hey i need to know that there have been many times throughout the course of my practice i have i will have a client who has held onto a smoking gun to help them and they'll tell me eight months into the case oh hey did you need this and it's like the smoking gun i'm like why didn't you give me this at the beginning oh i thought about this but i wasn't sure if you actually needed it so i held on to it so it is very routine for clients to withhold information from their attorneys one because they don't think it's significant or two they might be embarrassed about the information so it is not unheard of for people to not tell their attorneys everything [01:24:10] Speaker 1: it just happens all right so now you've gone through yours and you've done a very great job of putting everything together um i thought you did amazing and i think the audience agrees as well thanks and they asked me if uh you're going to be back for the defenses i can i haven't seen it come through but i certainly can yeah that that's probably gonna be next week i'm guessing and i don't want to be [01:24:34] Octavia: disappointed that's the thing that's going to really bother me because i'm not able to read these things without putting my own like oh why didn't they do this so it's going to be because i don't know that they're going to take this approach because again i like a little triangle i drew i think the defense is in this rectangle of charlie kirk was shot with a gun with 30 odd six it's just not tyler so i'm assuming they're in this um little box here and that their response is going to be kind of cognizant of that [01:25:04] Speaker 1: i don't know if that makes sense yeah it does and then also um and then september 1st obviously i'll be live with valhalla and i don't know if you're available that day but we'd like to invite [01:25:18] Octavia: you if you'd like to uh watch it with us yeah i have to look at my calendar but yeah i mean if i'm available i don't think it's going to be an issue it's in the morning i know it's probably going to [01:25:28] Speaker 1: start at the same time they typically do like nine mountain ten central yeah great yeah it's um [01:25:36] Octavia: it's tough man i i feel for tyler and it's not that i i know people are like oh but you're letting it's killer free or you're like a murderer sympathizer it's like but is he a murderer was he even there yeah i get that people want justice for charlie kirk and you should just because we live in a society where we should want people who commit crimes to be held accountable but you don't want just a warm body in a chair because you want vengeance for charlie like that's not justice that's perverted justice that's an injustice it's a miscarriage of justice if you're going to make really hot claims like like they did on page one which to me is completely ridiculous um if you're going to say stuff like this is likely as straightforward a bind over decision as this court will ever see i better darn well see that and i don't see that and so if you haven't presented evidence of such you should not be making these types of assertions because i think it's ridiculous because now you've set the standard high mr state and you failed to meet your own standard [01:26:41] Speaker 3: i think we should make that official mr mr state mr state it's so i don't insult anyone personally mr [01:26:49] Octavia: state yeah because and that's the other thing too people forget like yeah even though they're seeing these people and they're individuals prosecutors are not individuals and you need to understand that and so i know that prosecutors they actually are held in the legal world to a higher ethical standard than other attorneys so prosecutors they have to be above reproach they don't get the benefit of making mistakes why is that because they maintain significant power over people's lives so the prosecutors have a higher ethical duty than every other attorney and so if i'm an attorney and i was a prosecutor at one time i am scrutinizing them knowing what their ethical standard is and i don't like seeing this type of hyperbole because if you have the evidence you better let it speak for itself and i don't see that [01:27:44] Speaker 1: well let's go through these major issues this is kind of a kind of a summary sure um i thought this was interesting as well and i feel free to like jump in whenever if anything stands out to you so we have the dna evidence only says there's strong support and they didn't really get into the detail in this document this this is only covering just this document this is not covering [01:28:07] Octavia: preliminary or anything right and actually i have that i have that highlighted it's on page five so let's go there so page five you have dna testing of the screwdriver recovered from the low c building roof and the towel wrapped around the rifle provided quote very strong support end quote for including defendant as having contributed to the dna samples recovered from those items dna testing on the recovered rifles trigger trigger guard grips protected underside of the receiver and other parts as well as the fired cartridge casing and the rifle supported defense including defendant as having contributed to the dna samples recovered from those items and areas but again the only thing that they've shown is that he has some association with those items you don't have the nexus that you would expect beyond this to show how were these items then used in the commission of the crime you go about your day touching stuff all the time your dna is going to be everywhere that doesn't mean it was used in the commission of a crime so and they said it's very strong support from having contributed to the dna okay and how are those items used well the language [01:29:24] Speaker 1: interesting too because it's always like um they say consistent with or contributed to they don't say [01:29:30] Octavia: an exact match right and so if they're saying contributed that to me sounds like there are other dna that may have also been contributed like so when you say somebody is making a contribution the way that i understand that word because words matter when you're an attorney that presupposes the notion that there are other contributors correct yeah so if his dna is contributing okay but who are the other contributors is there other dna on that and that's what i want to know did the state run um why dna testing on that item and whose other dna and now that kelly has brought forward this video of the maintenance crew i would just be curious if they have like you know maintenance that covers that area of campus if their dna is found on that screwdriver yeah 100 i would just want to know you know maybe that's something the defense should explore if he's held over for trial and then we have let's see no mention [01:30:33] Speaker 1: of actual pieces of bullet that hit mr kirk matched to the rifle we know about that the description of how it traveled through his body at that distance um without exact measurements of angles or how mr kirk was facing it started to confirm the shot came from that exact rooftop spot aside from the fact that uh you know the screwdriver theoretically places him there and then the fbi said they found like a body [01:30:55] Octavia: print up there and then we have the video of somebody up there and he also testified in that exchange that part of the view was obstructed do you remember that yeah but then they did not um go through and flesh that out and i don't believe the defense did either what do you mean it was obstructed so so let's back it up so now you have an identity problem you have an association with items but no causal nexo link to the crime and how it was committed you have inconclusive um calibration of bullet fragments and now you have a potentially obscured vantage point from the rooftop so again mr state and this is not even a close case and we're sailing through those are five really significant things i don't know that does that those are pretty significant things too because did he was he not able to see now have you been out there to go on the rooftop i have not okay i have not has anybody that you featured gone out there and [01:31:58] Speaker 1: gone on the roof okay oh yeah yeah are they able to say that uh well yeah so kelly was out there billy and brandy were out there i think uh blake was also up there and then diligent denison i think [01:32:11] Octavia: all of them were on site yeah yeah yeah somebody made a good point here the degradation and presence of many others dna makes the dna exculpatory yeah right so that's what i'm saying they're saying it's contributing so and that's the other thing if there's other dna evidence well whose dna is it and i believe she did testify that she saw tyler excuse me lance twigs dna on some of these items and remember he's got use immunity that alone should be reasonable doubt for the jury like why is it the one witness because they didn't have independent that was the other point i forgot to make that they did not have independent corroborating evidence to support lance twigs's testimony so his testimony which they didn't explain the deal prosecutors are supposed to explain the type of immunity deal that they give a witness because the jury's going to feel very betrayed if they find out they listen to this witness only to find out that he was given a deal and he won't be prosecuted yeah so they're going to say well why didn't you tell us this juries don't like to be lied to they don't like to be misled so what the state did not have was other evidence that supported or corroborated everything that lance twigs brought to them or testified to instead they're letting lance twigs's testimony stand alone in addition to this grainy video saying case closed it is not case closed at all and this is not even bringing in anything anybody else has said this is just me examining the preliminary hearing and the arguments that they're making here [01:33:54] Speaker 1: now the the thing i want to say about dna is i've been digging into this a lot especially since the the one defense attorney was droning on for like an hour and a half or two hours about and the judge finally got sick of it yeah but the one thing i noticed in research is obviously degradation means that it's broken down but degradation is not equivalent to age so i think a lot of people are basically saying that if it's degraded that means it's like older right but that's that's not necessarily [01:34:20] Octavia: true at all and i don't think it was necessary for them to take that much time with the dna and completely sail over the identity yeah 100 that should have been where they spent hours was let's break this down how is that person on the video my client tyler robinson and instead they just the defense treated that as a foregone conclusion and then spent i think half a day arguing about whether they can bring in these other dna witnesses because again they're going under the notion that these must be the murder weapons and tools associated with the murder weapons but why why are they giving that legitimacy that is illegitimate evidence they should have focused on the identity and then kind of gone down the train from there okay now that he's got these items but nobody saw him shoot the dust in the barrel that's another [01:35:19] Speaker 1: one exactly now have you seen anything specific about where the dust was in the barrel because obviously if the gun was shot then all the dust in it would be blown out if there was just the barrel near the maybe the opening of the like the muzzle because he like you know supposedly like laid it in the bush or something right maybe but they didn't really say where and how much like right important and i i haven't [01:35:42] Octavia: but i also forgot the gunshot residue or the lack of the gunshot residue test i mean there were so many things that they could have focused on and they just and then just they're trying to get down onto the dna and so sometimes attorneys depending upon whether your defense or the prosecution they're very good at getting the the opposing side to focus here on the weeds and get bogged down in the minutia that they're not they're they're forgetting to focus on the major salient points which is hey you haven't really properly identified him why didn't you do any gun swabs you know you flub this investigation you've got you know misfiring camera equipment that suddenly doesn't work i mean the the thing that the oj the the dream team of oj was that they really focused on how poorly the cops did their investigation there was a lot more evidence that was um i think in support of possibly convicting oj simpson than in this case and they were able to get the jury to question the legitimacy and the integrity of the investigation and i just didn't see that from the defense and if your defense you want to come out the gate doing that like why are we assuming that this is a legitimate investigation let's start there and they didn't they just dna and you hear all this objection about we don't want this video to be shown i also don't understand why the defense doesn't want the the media there it doesn't want this really publicized [01:37:20] Speaker 1: that doesn't that's why some people were asking if you you know if you thought they were compromised [01:37:25] Octavia: that is a weird thing to me because if you have a case and i have a few cases that have been in the public where statements are made by the state against my clients the first thing that we do is get back into the press if we can to counter those statements obviously they have to have permission of their client to do that but if the state has already done several press conferences about the defendant you've got the statutory victim saying whatever she wants now i understand there's a gag order now but before that they could have been in the press also then pushing back on some of this narrative reminding people that tyler robinson has a um constitutional uh presumption of innocence they should have been reminding people of that that juries haven't been impaneled but instead they're also not wanting publication of some of this evidence that i don't think hurts their case i don't think the video hurts the defense case because you can't tell who you're looking at yeah you know all of these costume changes that they said he did that that to me does not fall under the believable evidence standard that's really unbelievable because did was he carrying a suitcase where do you get all these clothes you know like this is ridiculous they were flown in by drone exactly the drones that the security didn't check for you know exactly like it's this is so ridiculous and so i don't know why the defense is arguing for not wanting these things published because it it's not hurting them but if if they're they're only what they're doing is they're making people think well there must be some evidence they really don't want the public to see it must be really strong you know if they don't want that's that's what people and prospective jurors are thinking so they're already going to go in there thinking oh no you know maybe i guess he did it but the state's theory does not make sense it's inconsistent contradictory and not believable and that is the standard by which the judge is going to weigh this evidence the theory is multiple costume changes you can't really tell who it is his dna it's degraded you don't have a ballistics match none of this is believable consistent you know i i don't know i don't i don't see it well so let's look at some of the problematic [01:39:54] Speaker 1: statements sure so calling the case straightforward and saying the admissions cover most of the needed proof makes the evidence sound stronger than it may be right so like you said they're trying to convince us yes that there's something going on there everyday people can understand that a person's own words are powerful but the physical evidence still needs to hold up on its own right so the fact that they're trying to reiterate enforce this idea that it's an open and closed case and the judge should just push [01:40:22] Octavia: it through yes and most people are agreeing with that i keep hearing people say this is a low bar anyway as if it's a foregone conclusion but if you are an attorney you don't treat this as a foregone conclusion particularly when you have somebody's life and liberty hanging in the balance you better push back and you better push back as hard as you can and if they've already made your client public and public enemy number one he has nothing to lose and be prior to the gag order for his attorneys to be out there defending him but i understand if it's the public defender's office they are constrained because they're probably not allowed to make public statements they probably have media policies because the office is run by an elected official that's where you kind of get if he had a private attorney his private attorney might handle it a little bit differently in terms of media you know having a publicist for him to remind people he hasn't been convicted of anything but they argued so much about not having this video as it should be a sanction it should not be published it's unduly prejudicial i don't think it is i don't think that the video that they clipped together of some grainy figure walking through the campus hurts tyler robinson's case it gives people eyes to see hey i don't know who that is [01:41:47] Speaker 1: you can't tell you say that again oh yeah it just it just proves to people in the public that you can't [01:41:53] Octavia: tell who it is exactly so i don't know why they wasted their time arguing that they should have been like yeah let him see it like how how is this going to hurt him how is it going to hurt his case because they've again he already has the vice president and the president's son there supporting the victim he's got the people in the highest upper echelon of the political space who've declared him guilty he has nothing to lose at this point [01:42:27] Speaker 1: yeah that's interesting mm-hmm so we have the bullet path they didn't prove the path to him or inside of him right so did you did you look through the medical report and all that stuff [01:42:40] Octavia: at all yeah so that's actually how i ended up on the twitter space so page three and by the way your husband's a doctor yeah yeah there were a lot of people who were swarming my account they were in that 92 person um chat so that's how i ended up on twitter because i asked my husband to explain this to me like i'm five i don't speak medical words okay so i don't know when it says the medical examiner also observed hemorrhaging around mr kirk's heart hemopericardium both of his lungs left and right hemothorax and then the sub arachnoid space around the cere cerebellar vermis and the parietal regions i don't know what the heck that means i said you know can you explain this to me like you know lay person like what does that say and in your medical opinion how does somebody get injuries like that so he just said what this says is that he had bleedings in both lungs in his heart and bleeding near the base of his brain on both sides i said okay ease are those injuries consistent if somebody were to get shot in the neck and the reason why i asked him this is because although my husband is not a surgeon now anymore he's a family medicine physician he did have training for two years in general surgery at ohio state university that's where we met and he has experience treating gunshot victims and trauma victims and so he has seen people who've had catastrophic injuries uh people who've been hit by trains people who've been involved in rollover crashes with 18 wheelers so he said no i have never seen those injuries um in a gunshot unless the person is shot in those areas he said the brain injury is what he was mostly focusing on and he said i've only seen those types of injuries to the brain if somebody has some sort of blow blunt force trauma he said think of like if somebody fell out of a building if they were in high speed collision that's the type of brain bleeding that you would see he said if somebody was hit in the head with a blunt force object i said okay but what if somebody's like shot i i asked two hypotheticals if somebody was shot with a large caliber bullet to the neck would you see this bilateral bleeding down in the chest and in the base of the brain and he said no he hasn't i said what if it was a small caliber to the neck and in his medical opinion he said no because you would see those like if somebody got shot in the chest yeah you're going to see bilateral bleeding on both lungs and in the harp you would also see a corresponding external wound if somebody has the bleeding in the brain you're going to expect if it's from a gunshot you're going to expect they were shot in that area you would see a corresponding external wound so he couldn't make sense of these injuries based on the state's theory of the case that's all i said on x it sent everybody into an epic meltdown they started doxing him finding his linkedin he's only a family doctor you live in a rural area you would never know this i got the box swarm from the 92 person chat they really moved hard to discredit him and then discredit me you're not even you're a civil attorney you don't know what you're talking i mean it was crazy all because i asked the question do gunshots explain this now you have to understand my husband and i are two of the nerdiest people you could ever meet okay so we met when i was in law school he was a med student so we've been together almost 20 years and so our daily conversations are probably boring to the average person but we talk about medical and legal stuff all day every day like this is our life so i have conversations like this with him all the time and so this is kind of an interesting case because i can kind of provide some insight he can provide some insight we're dorky like that and so i just happened to type out what his insight was on x and people freaked out so he's not a medical examiner you know somebody said he's not a pathologist i know i made the joke early about the paleontologist you know he's not he's not a pathologist he's not a medical examiner he's not a ballistics expert it's like okay but there's a trauma physician or physician trained in trauma have to be a ballistics expert to evaluate um traumatic injuries no yeah so yeah so i asked him what his opinion was because i don't know i i don't shoot guns i don't know what a gun would do but he's he's dealt with gunshot victims he's also dealt he told me that for this um brain injury he's he had a patient that had that type of brain injury and that young man was involved in a rollover 18-wheel collision on a highway and that's when he saw that type of bleeding in the brain and i asked him because then i was like okay because i know about the exploding mic theory and all that i said well would an electric shock or um what does john bray call it come on what's the shape charge or something like that explain those injuries and he said well you know the type of sort of electric shock or um electrocution he's like it would be from something like uh he said a lightning strike but even that is rare you're not really going to get the type of brain bleed in a lightning strike so he wasn't really sure he wasn't really convinced that it could have come from that so the other [01:48:29] Speaker 1: question yeah so yeah so basically nothing he's seen in his experience really explains anything [01:48:35] Octavia: that we're seeing so far well then he asked the question which is a valid question what happened to him in the car that's the only space and time that people don't have evidence and video evidence from because i said everything you saw on the video of charlie kirk where he seizes up he falls over dan flood comes over and kind of like shoves him or pushes him to the ground i said does that explain those injuries he said nothing i've seen can explain all of those injuries together so he said so what happened to him in the car it's a valid question and one we don't know and it's a question the defense should be asking back to the murder trial because was charlie kirk alive in the car was there a superseding intervening cause what that means is if you want to state that someone caused an injury to a person personal injury lawyers use this argument or the death of a person you better not have another event that came in superseded that event that actually caused the death or caused the injury so if charlie kirk let's say he was alive and he had a pulse and they picked him up without stabilizing his neck which is weird why would you not stabilize the neck and head of a person with the neck injury and they didn't put him on a board and put him on a gurney and put him in an ambulance instead they picked him up like a duffel bag and ran to an suv there should not have been a superseding intervening cause that could have actually contributed to the death of the person and unfortunately we're never going to know the answer to that question and so it's a fair question to ask when you've got a murder trial and you've got somebody who's being charged with committing the murder people need to know what happened in the car there's something somebody asked on your post about this uh live stream today what is this and i saw in the car it looks like a pulse oximeter case yeah we have them in our house because of who my husband is we just have them around and i'm like why is there a pulse oximeter in the car now i don't know the answer to that question but i we don't know what happened to charlie kirk in the car and that's that's a huge unknown yeah well and people obviously have speculated about all that [01:50:53] Speaker 1: stuff but you know we're just we're mostly focusing on what we have in front of us from prosecution [01:50:58] Octavia: but um they didn't stabilize the victim we don't know if he had a pulse and the people who are in the [01:51:04] Speaker 1: car he had a pulse once he got back to the hospital or they got april they claim but you've got people [01:51:09] Octavia: who are who were in the car giving inconsistent accounts of what happened yep that's the problem it's like they they can't even tell us what happened they're just telling different stories and then there's no witnesses at the hospital because the hospital was mysteriously cleared up ahead of time supposedly by a whistleblower in the hospital so there are several questions here that the defense could poke at those because the biggest thing is did tyler robinson cause the death of charlie kirk that's the question presented to the jury that's the question right now presented to the judge is there enough evidence to to believe that tyler robinson probably caused the death of charlie kirk the answer is no because they haven't even established identity and then you get into the manner of death has also not been established at all well and now this is the overall assessment from [01:52:04] Speaker 1: like we won't go over the huge list of everything it said but it's takeaway it says for everyday people looking at this early stage of the case the state is presented enough for a judge to send the charges forward to trial the defendant's own repeated admissions the fact that he turned himself in the recovery of matching type ammunition and a related rifle near the path he took the security video showing a person consistent with him which whatever it's not but on the roof form a solid foundation uh let's see the weaker parts the dna results which do not rule out uh dna and how it can travel indirectly the missing direct link between the broken bullet fragments and the specific rifle the incomplete explanation of the bullet path from the roof the lack of residue testing these are the areas most open to questions and further challenge later in the process the claims about risk to other people and political targeting rely more on interpretation than on clear direct proof [01:52:58] Octavia: yeah i think if you go back up that that overstates uh that first paragraph yeah defendants own repeated admissions where was their testimony of repeated admissions from from a source that outside of the the person who was given use of immunity that was able to be cross-examined there was no evidence of that yeah they're saying the parents supposedly no because what did i say did you see any evidence of that did anybody testify and say they took a statement from the parents and the parents admitted that their son [01:53:33] Speaker 1: uh killed charlie kirk let me ask it if um if its final assessment is based on only this document hold on see is your final assessment biased or only using this document because that is a uh that'd be interesting question a lot of people don't use ai because it's uh right certain people and pushed a certain way [01:54:00] Octavia: and not only did i have the so i watched it but i also had the transcripts which i then also had analyzed to find me pinpoints of times of when things were testified to and it also generated for me um what when the exhibits were introduced on what day and what the exhibits state there was no evidence presented that tyler robinson made repeated admissions other than all of the information that was presented by lance twiggs during testimony where he was asked leading questions by the prosecutor that's it [01:54:37] Speaker 1: okay so this is saying the final assessment is neither biased nor drawn from any source other than the [01:54:49] Octavia: memorandum itself right and that's so this is what they're they're they're making these inferences that's what i told you when i was messaging you when i first read it that they're stacking inference upon inference but i'm looking at that to see where did they establish that at the hearing they didn't they're just making the assertion that he made repeated admissions i didn't see evidence of that i didn't hear any testimony that there were repeated admissions and they even said in their brief i meant to bring this up that he made repeated admissions to several people but then again you're getting all of that from lance twiggs lance twiggs is saying he said this he said this he's asked leading questions about that but lance twiggs was given immunity and so you would need a corroborating evidence outside of that because you're going to have you know credibility problems with that witness now what about now what [01:55:42] Speaker 1: about the parents so if the parents did say or if he did admit to them and they you know if he said hey [01:55:48] Octavia: mom and dad i did it would you think that that would come out in the preliminary or would yes yes 100 you would have the detective who either took the statements from the parents or a their case agent who read the police report would have testified that they got statements from the parents of tyler robinson and they said that he confessed to them you didn't hear anyone testify to that now what's the chance that they would be saving that for the trial just in case you wouldn't because one of the main elements you have to establish is identity so all of these people who are telling you on x that a prosecutor would never put all their best evidence they just need it's a low bar they just need to put a little bit out there and save it for the trial that's garbage that's nonsense if you had multiple sources of witnesses who received confessions from the defendant you are absolutely going to solidify that portion because if a defendant can't get out of the identity portion then it's going to be very difficult for them to start knocking away these other elements so it doesn't and they also didn't argue it in their brief that the that he admitted it to parents because if they had it they would have presented it they just said [01:57:10] Speaker 1: friends and lance twigs they never said the parents in this brief that's correct interesting they don't [01:57:17] Octavia: have it they the parents didn't say that because they would have presented it and if they didn't i would be questioning what kind of prosecutors these are if they're not putting on identification testimony but i don't know why the defense again didn't object to their first identification witness which was [01:57:39] Speaker 1: detective hall all right let's do these uh super chats we've had you here for a couple hours we definitely appreciate your time you've been awesome everyone said we should definitely have you back great let's see heather may thanks for the super chat hi trigger hi friends happy friday like subscribe and buy some merch jonathan vents defense connection to turning point have you heard of anything that connects anyone in the [01:58:06] Octavia: defense i think i have i haven't looked at it deeply but i do remember there's people that on x that are talking about the defense has connections was it to tyler boyer i don't remember i think i think i [01:58:20] Speaker 1: think the original rumor which i think has been debunked is that like a farnsworth married someone right okay farnsworth i knew it was one of them yeah yeah yeah mr burt mr burt was married to a forest worth or something but i think that's been debunked as far as i can tell yeah i don't know death before dishonor thanks for the ten dollars from new zealand um let's see we did that one yeah we have clapping seal let's see auto hoax is it true the er was empty prior to 12 23 have you been able to find anything on [01:58:55] Octavia: that no and i haven't looked so i don't know if it's true i just know that's what's being reported i have no idea to know if that's actually accurate but i will say that in the report of this whoever apparently if it was a whistleblower from the hospital took a picture of the internal emr that's electronic medical record at the hospital where it showed charlie they doxed him charlie james kirk his patient number i mean that's also a significant hipaa violation so yikes so but i don't know if that's actually true i just know it's been reported you haven't heard anything that says that's a 100 [01:59:32] Speaker 3: no i haven't heard anything from anyone else to corroborate that no [01:59:37] Speaker 1: thanks for the mystery gift thanks lizard for becoming a new member and lizard again thanks to the super chat is the judge prioritizing his career over evidence [01:59:48] Octavia: so i'm going to give you two answers to this i'm going to give you the politically correct answer and then i'm going to give you here's what i have observed in my career as an attorney so the politically correct answer is of course nobody would ever do that it is about the justice and the law and getting this right and that is what people will tell you but the reality is that that sort of thing happens not just with judges but with attorneys and so you know in my background he was very charitable and that my bio and it's public it's on my website there's a period of time where i walked away from the law and i walked away from the law because you mean like you were in hiding like where you're like on the road for a few years and 20 my you know how they say people are like red pilled um j-pilled black pilled so we need to find a term my computer is getting well we need to find a term for like legal pilled okay so this was actually i was involved in the criminal defense case and it was after i had moved here and and where i'm located now in texas judges are elected and when i was working here with a firm they would host luncheons for judges and contribute to their campaigns but they would have cases in front of those judges and so i was super uncomfortable with that i asked the question you're not allowed to ask which is how is this not bribery um was quickly sort of shuffled along out of the i quit you know but they made it clear that i didn't really fit into this firm because you're not supposed to ask questions like that and it's very common and also what i observed because in that case i was representing two people who were being significantly railroaded by the prosecution they were both facing over a decade in prison had never committed a crime and uh the firm was trying to put another attorney on the case and get them to agree to fire me and they didn't and i wouldn't quit and it was then that i woke up to the reality of our justice system and my own colleagues were fighting against me and i was only one sort of standing to help the clients not go to prison for a crime they didn't commit i watched the prosecution commit prosecutorial misconduct i filed motions for that eventually got the cases tossed it took eight months but i watched my colleagues stand against me telling me it's my fault the prosecution's asking this acting this way you're making our firm look bad to the to the prosecutor you know because they had golf and lunches and i started to see that there's a whole subculture here that no matter if you're the defense attorney or the prosecution or if you're a litigator and you're in plaintiff's worker defense they a lot of people and judges they want to sort of protect their little ecosystem of lawyers and so instead of being an advocate for their client they're sort of suppressing some of their more stronger points because they want to go along to get along and it's very common and i don't fit into that i didn't fit into that so once i got their keys thrown out i said i don't want to work in a system that's going to make me feel like i have to sacrifice my integrity to maintain a license because i don't believe it's my job to worry about having lunch with lawyers and judges to be able to do a good job and these people at this firm would tell me you're never going to be a good lawyer down here because nobody knows who you are you need to socialize you need a network and i resent the notion that i have to somehow schmooze in order to be an effective attorney so i just quit i said i'm not going to do this this is not for me and i quit for years stayed home with my kids i'm homeschooling we bought a farm and i only recently came back to practice in 2024 when someone in my life had a legal crisis and they were dissatisfied with their attorneys because their attorneys had that mindset of let's not upset the state right let's not upset the prosecutors you know just take this deal and just you know quietly accept that and i said why why should you not fight this with everything in you and they said well can you help and i said i mean i've never done this particular type of law but i think i can and they said you're probably the only person that cares enough about the case like i do and so that's how i ended up coming back into law practice in 2024. so that's a very long answer to your question that that is a real possibility that that will happen about a judge prioritizing their [02:04:30] Speaker 1: career over the evidence and he's also a newer judge so why would he ruin it right up front right yeah exactly lizard 47 thanks for another super can the judge take to trial but remove death penalty [02:04:46] Octavia: i don't know how it works in utah because i know in arizona the jury does both the trial phase and the penalty phase there's two phases to trial it's like a mini trial so you do the trial phase first and the jury will find the person guilty or not guilty if they're found guilty you then present another trial to the jury it has to be unanimous if the death penalty is going to be applied or not and i do think it's been a while i want to say there could be situations the answer is probably very simple and i can't think of it of if a jury sentences someone to death if a judge can can i have to look that up i don't want i'm sorry i don't want you to waste your super chat let me look it up but there's another [02:05:37] Speaker 1: question i'll while i'm looking this up all right so let's go to ccxx this is interesting thank you thanks for the super chat moon goddess thanks for being a member for wow six months it's been a while does she think that this case should go to trial officially no i do not and i think you've laid out pretty well why you think um let's see silk thanks for the super does this case have a chance at a fair appeal if it came to an appeal based on the lack of evidence at the prelim [02:06:19] Octavia: like if if it was bound over to trial and they appealed it right away is that what they mean i'm assuming that's what they mean i think the answer could be yes but i'm concerned about the lack of objections with respect to the identification question because in order for you to appeal an issue you have to lodge the objection to preserve the issue for appeal that was my problem with the whole identification of him in the video i didn't hear significant or any objections to that line of questioning so it's going to be difficult with that to object and then appeal that because if somebody does not here's the scary thing if you do not make the objection you have waived your right to appeal it so you can't come in later and say they never laid the foundation for the identification if you did not object to it at the time you've waived the issue [02:07:21] Speaker 1: two truth for liberty thanks to the super in utah does determining the bar of probable cause disregard conflicting or contrary evidence [02:07:31] Octavia: yes so that's what i was reading at the beginning this is this this is the utah standard when evidence becomes so contradictory inconsistent or unbelievable that it is unreasonable to base belief of an element of the prosecutor's claim on evidence the magistrates need not give credence or weight to that evidence so they can disregard evidence and then if so if they're disregarding a portion of evidence and it's linking to an element of the crime and therefore they don't have all of the elements you'd have not met that what they keep calling a low bar now do you agree with low bar yeah because the standard is lower than even in a civil case but there's still a bar because the civil case is more probable than not the standard is is even less than that but again there is a bar still it's not just anyone goes to trial for whatever reason you know so to me it's like they didn't even meet this bar like come on people but i'm only the person uh i'm probably one of the few people that's going to argue that most people are going to tell me um are going to probably say yeah they met the bar so i'm looking here uh the death penalty question i'm i'm looking just kind of looking at federal law and remember every every state is different but generally a judge can't if a jury for example has determined the death penalty uh they can't take it off the table now i know people have their sentences commuted by governors after the fact but if it's a jury that's determining the penalty phase and they sentence someone to death the jury uh the judge cannot generally take that off the table can the judge take it off at any point [02:09:24] Speaker 1: before a census like the final sentencing so like say if say if this takes six months to a year like say six months in can the judge say well based on the evidence and stuff we see right now we we don't [02:09:35] Octavia: think death penalty should be on the table anymore no because if this is a jury trial it's the jury's decision and so now what the defense can do let's say this is bumped over to trial the state puts on their evidence prior to the defense putting on their case in chief they can move for in arizona it's called a rule 20 motion or a motion for a directed verdict but they can tell the court the state has not met their burden and we ask that you find the defendant not guilty they haven't met their standard of proof dismiss the case and the judges can do that before it ever gets to a jury the judge can decide the state did not provide enough evidence to meet the burden um preemptively that's rare to get those granted by the way you could do it in a civil case and you could do it in a criminal case but it's again it's rare because you have judges who don't want to be the one because let's say this person did commit a crime let's say pretend we're not talking about tyler robinson let's say you've got jack the ripper on the stand or on trial he's finally been arrested for his serial uh crimes of all the murders that he committed and his defense attorneys move for like a rule 20 like in arizona that's what it's called motion you don't want a judge doesn't want me to be responsible for say okay well you know i'm not sure if there's really enough evidence that the state met but what if he is guilty i don't want to be the person that lets jack the ripper out into the streets so i'm just going to let the jury decide so most judges will just let the jury decide because it takes the pressure and the weight off of them because if it goes all the way to a jury then it could be appealed but if the judge is making the decision ahead of time that's a lot of pressure for the judge because they don't want to get it wrong and let somebody back out onto the street who's actually a dangerous person and you're back to politics again too exactly yeah it's sort of all and so the justice system is run by politicians this is why a lot of the time it feels like there's no justice well do you feel like you get justice with the executive branch or the legislative branch no so why would it really [02:11:40] Speaker 1: be any different in the judicial branch julie han tyler needs a pro bono good lawyer yeah i agree the key accord uh i don't know anything about these jewels and gifts and stuff that's something new that's newly turned on so thank you i don't i don't know what these do um same with that one uncle thanks shauna jones moon goddess how do we stop this injustice from happening [02:12:09] Octavia: i don't know i mean it's hard because you also have this machine that's happening offline here's what i think is going on because this happened to me when i told you i just i typed up my husband's opinion about the injuries and i put it on x and there was this swarm of people immediately moving to discredit us the machine and and they right away you're a candace owens cultist i said nothing about candace owens at all by the way in that post about charlie kirk's injuries but what's happening is because she's sort of the loudest most prominent voice who is opposing the state's theory which you know great good for her what people are doing who don't like her and they're calling her a demon and all these things is that if anyone else has a different viewpoint of the state's theory because that's all it is is a theory the only fact is charlie kirk died there's no other facts that anybody knows for sure they're labeling them candace owens cultists brainwashed what this is doing though it's continuing to plant this seed with prospective jurors so what i think is going to happen is if you have a jury member who's sitting there let's say he's bound over for trial which is highly likely um they if they're not believing this if they've heard over and over again that if you don't believe this you must be in candace owens cult they might be afraid to go against the grain and speak up because they don't want to be labeled to candace conspiracy theory and all this stuff so i think there is a machine because somebody asked me in an x space do you think candace owens can unduly influence the jury and i said well let's let's examine that what's worse when you have the vice president of the united states a sitting senator and the statutory victim who are very public and prominent people who've already made declarations of charlie tyler robinson's guilt of killing charlie kirk and the death penalty if they unduly influence a jury what is the worst that can happen tyler robinson is convicted and possibly executed if candace owens unduly influences a jury in favor of tyler robinson what's the worst that can happen they acquit them these are not even outcomes it's worse if you have a political machine influencing a jury towards a conviction that's going to be worse for everyone you don't want that it doesn't matter what candace owens is doing oh y'all forbid she she convinces the jury to acquit a man where the evidence was not really that strong is that really a bad outcome because you don't have a second body now but if you have jd vance donald trump jr who's showing up at the preliminary hearing on behalf of the kirk family and mike lee and all of these people charlie's killer influencing a jury towards a conviction you now have a second body that's not good for anyone and a lot of people think that it's rare for people to be railroaded by the state and i'm here to tell you it is very common and they do it on a regulatory level an administrative level and in a criminal level because i do like you said at the beginning administrative defense so i'm fighting against state prosecutors every day in my practice of people who are being railroaded and the prosecution is seeking to strip them of their property which is their right to work with their licensing and they we have to go through these fights and it happens so much people don't think it's rare it's not rare it's very common i found [02:15:58] Speaker 1: interesting what you said too about like the cultism on each side right it's interesting because since the beginning of this case what i've done is i've always looked at everything from every angle and tried to analyze the pieces of it that can be tested right and recently i started testing the official narrative and people were saying that well so so previously we'll say the other side has been labeling us all like you said like the candy the candy side like the candace side right and then i did this video and now that side is labeling me the fed side or like the fed slop side right and i'm neutral [02:16:30] Speaker 3: like i'm just doing research i saw sam parker's response to you where he said oh welcome to x people don't understand nuance i laughed i'm like that's true they don't well unfortunately i look at both sides [02:16:43] Speaker 1: and i just pray that they'll you know be open-minded to truth either way well but that's what a jury is [02:16:47] Octavia: supposed to do yeah a jury is supposed to be the blank slate they're supposed to hear all the evidence and to them let's get past the preliminary so now we're going to talk about the the problem the reasonable doubt there's going to be instructed to be firmly convinced so a jury at the end of the trial has to be firmly convinced it means there has to be no reasonable doubt meaning a reasonable alternative explanation can't be unreasonable so i know there are people who don't think charlie kirk is dead but that is not a reasonable alternative to present to a jury i think that's a bridge to what the defense should really focus on are the other reasonable explanations for how he died that is much more reasonable to go into in front of a jury than trying to convince them that he's alive because there is way too many unknowns so i think it's way more reasonable for the defense to say well how do we know he died from a gunshot let's explore that and explore the manner of death if i was a defense attorney i would be having john bray in front of the jury because i think he he presents credibly a very [02:17:53] Speaker 1: compelling alternative yeah i mean he could probably go there but he has submitted his information to them they haven't responded but they have his information they have his website he's given them [02:18:05] Octavia: like an official like evidence package yes and they need to call him and that's the thing people think that defendants never i told this to stew peters defendants do not have the burden of proof except two times self-defense or not guilty by reason of insanity other than that they don't have to prove anything definitively even in their case in chief they don't have to prove to the finish line beyond a reasonable doubt the alternative they just have to poke holes in the state's case and i'll give you an example of this and i gave this example uh to stew peters i did an attempted murder trial like 10 plus years ago and this victim was stabbed 17 times in the back he had a leather jacket but he lived but he was so drunk he couldn't identify the perpetrator was his friend they were arguing over some chick at a bar and the defendant pushed the victim to the ground and just grabbed the knife and just started stabbing him in the back 17 times and the leather slowed down the knife enough that it actually saved the man's life because it just they became sort of more superficial back wounds than penetrating all of his organs his lungs and everything but the the witness was this woman i guess she was homeless we call him unhoused now i'm not really sure what your political correct term but she she was traumatized watching this man be stabbed she thought he died um to death and so during that trial the victim could not identify who stabbed him but the witness did and she was super reluctant to come to court so imagine having to subpoena a homeless [02:19:45] Speaker 1: witness for trial who didn't want to be there difficult very difficult and so she's testifying what [02:19:53] Octavia: she saw we had the murder weapon we had the jacket you know we held it up and you could see the 17 stab wounds all over the back of the jacket and the defense's theory in the case was that he wasn't stabbed because he couldn't tell you he couldn't even testify that he was stabbed he was too drunk to remember but that he must have been so drunk that he fell down and slipped on glass 17 times so when we got up in our rebuttal closing we said ladies and gentlemen the state has proven this case beyond a reasonable doubt why is that because it is not reasonable and this is what my co-counsel did she was lead counsel that the victim fell down stood back up fell down again and she did that 17 times to show the jury how ridiculous [02:20:45] Speaker 3: that theory was it was hilarious the jury's like trying not to laugh i mean the guy was great the [02:20:50] Octavia: victim was totally fine he was you know and they still ended up being friends afterwards it's ridiculous but that's that's what the defense theory was they didn't have to prove definitively that he fell down they just posited the theory and had the jury kind of mull that over and we were like it's not reasonable but in this case if i were the defense attorney i would have john bray in front of that jury because he is providing a very compelling alternative cause of death do the bullet fragments add up to one fired [02:21:24] Speaker 1: around two i fired around i think it's one but um i don't know and i don't know that that [02:21:31] Octavia: testimony um posited that either and also she said at the lab that she only got four of the seven fragments but she couldn't state definitively what caliber those fragments were so we still don't have proof that the 30 odd six was used in the commission of a crime oh let's see i think i missed one [02:21:58] Speaker 1: michelle mobell thanks for being a member for six months octavia awesome having you here matt and chat love matt and chat okay tk parks thanks for the super what can the defense do and can it mean for the case since they don't have critical evidence like the necklace suv ck shirt mike etc yes so let's say hypothetically the [02:22:21] Octavia: realistic probability is that he's going to be bound over for trial they need to bring all of that up this is the oj simpson trial but in reverse meaning a lot of people thought oj simpson was guilty and he was acquitted they need to point out the fact that you have a state investigator who did not impound the clothing of the murder victim his cell phone or it's on public record that he's received threats you don't impound the car in which he was transported even though um he should have been transported by ambulance also they need to point out the fact that the suv was detailed and sold yes you need to present all of that evidence to the jury to basically get them to question how did the state mess this up so badly this investigation it's sloppy it's sloppy police work well this is a quick plug for [02:23:21] Speaker 1: baron in his episode that he did with i believe it's michael scott i don't remember the guy the gentleman's name but he's a forensics expert you know expert testimony he's done that stuff for for decades um they had a very interesting conversation but the big takeaway is that there are so many different points where they didn't meet the minimum bar for different parts of this case like the handling of evidence you know like you said like transporting him in a regular vehicle not letting the emts you know tend to him not having someone watching the roof like all these different things where they drop the ball all the way through this whole thing that's basically what their conversation is about so make sure you guys go check that out after this uh yeah someone said john scott morgan is that the name [02:24:02] Octavia: it's like three first names that's awesome yeah i think that they need to and also like i said they need to have john bray or someone like him who's providing what i think is a reasonable alternative theory because that's all the state has as a theory the state doesn't have facts they have the one fact that charlie kirk died everything else is theory and everything else is fair game especially for the defense [02:24:28] Speaker 1: i think john said he's open to it if uh if they actually responded but they haven't he should i don't [02:24:33] Octavia: know why they're not like they need to because he's he's actually doing work and yeah the state is probably going to try to have like a 702 argument what that means is you have to qualify someone as an expert to testify as an expert so it's a daubart robinson standard you have to show that their methods are generally acceptable within the scientific community i do believe that john bray has talked about his methods and how they are acceptable and he cited studies so i do think he could be qualified as an expert but if i was tyler robinson's defense team i would have already had [02:25:08] Speaker 1: him on retainer at this point yeah uh let's see debbie thanks for the super didn't the judge a year ago didn't the judge okay didn't the judge a year ago and he comes from the prosecution i think you should have her here if it goes to trial yeah we're definitely gonna have her back um i think you're [02:25:27] Octavia: asking if the judge was he a prosecutor that's not uncommon so well what she's talking about is that the [02:25:34] Speaker 1: judge was he worked with the prosecution previously yeah that's not in the same office yeah yeah and so [02:25:41] Octavia: in arizona i said here in texas judges are elected in arizona the judges are appointed and so in appointments or even elections but mostly with the states that appoint their judges you're going to be picking from a pool of former prosecutors or defense attorneys or civil attorneys but like in a state like arizona they have to have the backing of their colleagues on both sides to see if they can be objective but it is not uncommon to see a former prosecutor then become a judge i believe the prosecutor that i worked under the elected prosecutor i believe is now on the supreme court in arizona if i'm not mistaken so that happens it's not uncommon yeah okay let's see moon goddess she gives me hope [02:26:27] Speaker 1: they're still decent attorneys thank you bonnie lynn thanks for being a member for six months great show glad i was here for it so informative and speaking of members um i have to date i have not done a member show so that's something i'm going to start doing each week is some kind of member show it will not be like you know this format where it's you're super serious and all that kind of thing it'll probably be more fun or just kind of like hanging out chatting or doing like games or something else so i'll be starting those here shortly wicked smart wicked smart 74 high five i think that was to you oh thank you silk thank you matt and miss martinez mrs martinez right let's see yes martinez is my husband's name this was an amazing show one of my favorites covering the trk so i appreciate it this is my first live and i am subscribing congratulations that's awesome moon goddess if they can do this to [02:27:23] Octavia: tyler they can do it to any of us it's happened to people it has [02:27:29] Speaker 1: silk thanks for becoming a new channel member miss bradley thanks for the super chat your breath of fresh air mrs octavia assertive clear and authentic thank you both sean doberman can a gun be tested to determine if it had been fired recently that's a great question but they can test to see if there's gunshot residue and they can see if there's like copper and different things and all that inside of it um the temperature would obviously be something if it was very recently fired but if you're talking about like if the gunshot residue and stuff inside can be tested in some kind of way to stay along it's been there i don't know that's not something i'm [02:28:05] Octavia: familiar with you know anything about that me no i am not a gun person at all i couldn't tell you anything about gun tests all i can tell you what i know about guns in the context of trials is if you have a gun and that is a theory you would hope to see some sort of gunshot residue swab testing unless a defendant is apprehended like months days weeks later you wouldn't see it but if you get somebody less than 36 hours after the crime is committed you can swab them there really is no [02:28:37] Speaker 1: good reason they didn't do that yeah and also their vehicle none of the any other things they've touched because it might be transferred over right i'm searching i'm searching right now for an answer to that question about the uh if you can tell it recently guns been fired that's a really interesting question actually i have no idea my mind is blown remember for five months i'm late but looking forward to the show well welcome and you'll probably hear that in about uh two hours so all right let's see yes forensic scientists can test for indicators of how recently a firearm was discharged but the results are estimates of time ranges rather than precise time stamps of course accuracy depends heavily on the type of firearm ammo storage conditions whether the barrel was sealed or cleaned temperature humidity number of shots so long story short yes but not uh definitive it's just time ranges like maybe it was fired within the last you know 24 hours or something similar good question debbie thanks for the super trigger this is for you how in the world did the casing of the bullet end up in ck body uh which proven to be a 30 cal this was a great show so the casing itself was not inside his body it's the jacket for the bullet so some bullets have a copper or other material that actually wraps around the lead and that is what we see and actually i'll show it to you um so it makes a clear picture of what i'm talking about but this is a good question because i think a lot of people have had this same question because when you look at the evidence that they showed um he wouldn't understand that they thought that the casing was inside of his body let me share screen and i'll pull that down so this right here this is what's wrapped around the lead that's up here so think of it as like lead is around the in the inside and then they i don't know exactly the processes they use but they they have this on the outside and that is then put inside the casing and when it hits the body it breaks open and it looks like this they call it mushrooming so this circle right here or this oval this is the piece that would be pushed down inside of the casing and then all the stuff that's mushroomed out this would be the pointy part of the bullet or the the end or tip of the bullet so that's what we're seeing here all right let's see we did that my mind is blown gifted five trigger smart memberships thank you very much and make sure you show some love and say thank you down in chat i'm not sure who gets it it is completely random we have no way of controlling that zero way of controlling that all right so we've had you here for two and a half hours it has been great yes thank you um again you know she shared her opinion of this stuff and um you know we all have different ideas and i expect [02:31:39] Octavia: most people are going to disagree with me who are attorneys so i know that and that's it's kind of been like the story of my life because again we all know how the system works they're generally probably going to bind him over for trial but that doesn't mean that we can't take a critical look and see did they actually meet the standard for preliminary hearing and i just i don't think so and i haven't looked at any of their other filings i just watched i got i got the benefit of watching the preliminary hearing all at one time most people saw it one day at a time so they probably forgot what was brought forward the day before i watched it all at once all five days after reading this motion and i'm like all right well let me see if i see that in there and so i didn't i didn't see it did you know [02:32:25] Speaker 1: about the uh nine hour condensed version that i put up in one video no that probably would have been [02:32:31] Octavia: helpful for you but i wanted to see because i wanted to also hear the arguments that the attorneys were making yeah i think the sidebar and the the objections that's what i was listening for because i wanted to see that kind of tells me depending upon the objections that the defense council is making it gives me a window into where their head is at [02:32:54] Speaker 1: all right we had one more coming here really quick sean dobberman thanks for the super my thinking is if it hadn't been fired that day it's been in storage for a period of time those people don't strike me to regularly going to the range you mean like the if he is like a furry lgbtq type right you i wasn't really convinced either that lance well here's the thing well i agree with that um but as far as there's whole groups of lgbtq like like armed queers and those kind of groups where they train all the time and um you can see it if you go to the shooting range regularly especially like in certain areas you'll see whole groups of people that are out there you know trans and everything that are shooting guns and training and stuff just like everyone else so wouldn't that probably apply to [02:33:38] Octavia: lance twigs wasn't he the furry in the supposed relationship but he had him saved his phone as a [02:33:43] Speaker 1: roommate which was also weird well so he supposedly won and so was the medical examiner's wife yes but but tyler robinson wasn't the furry right no we have no um i haven't seen anything yet who's phone i believe [02:33:59] Octavia: it was one of them had the other saved as a roommate that's pretty interesting because if this is a boyfriend would he save him just as roommate don't you find that odd well it could have been saved as [02:34:14] Speaker 1: roommate at first and then they started dating afterwards but yeah i get your point i mean when [02:34:19] Octavia: you met your spouse when you met your wife like you know did you ever change how she was saved in your phone when she went from just being somebody new to like somebody you were dating well playing devil's [02:34:30] Speaker 1: advocate i put my wife in as her name and it's still her name i didn't change okay i am the same way but [02:34:35] Speaker 3: i thought i was rare like my husband is just his first and last name i never changed that yeah but i think the average person like they put like little hearts or names and stuff i'm just dorky so i'm like [02:34:46] Speaker 1: your first and last name miss bradley says i didn't know about the nine hour video but i do now yeah so for anyone that hasn't watched and a lot of people a lot of people haven't but anyone that hasn't watched the five days of streaming that we did i basically took all of those videos put them on a huge timeline and i cut out all the spaces all the dead air and like the intro where the judge is like welcome in and that kind of stuff all that stuff's taken out and it's just the arguments and stuff straight through so if you want to go to my channel and check that out if you actually want to sit and watch all of that again that's a great way to do it it's pretty condensed it went from like 20 29 hours down to like nine wow a lot of it was just filler and there was so there were times where they'd sit [02:35:26] Octavia: for 15 minutes and just like hang out it was great because i could on youtube you have the transcript so i could just skip to when the word started again and skip all the breaks that's what i did yeah smart [02:35:39] Speaker 1: let's see moon goddess thanks octavia for being brave enough to speak up no problem firms mom fern's mom yeah friends mom thanks for the super what were the 1102 objections that [02:35:52] Octavia: definitely kept making that the defense kept making so 1102 is the rule in utah that grants the uh state the ability to bring in what's called reliable hearsay i think that's sort of an oxymoron but basically in a preliminary hearing the rules of evidence very loosely applied so this is how you had a case agent who was able to testify about things that maybe he didn't even do but somebody did or when you had the lab people it wasn't really them but it was somebody in their lab that did some portion of some analysis that they were able to testify about so the defense was arguing that it was hearsay lack of foundation didn't apply under the 1102 standard so they were lodging the appropriate objections to try to preserve it on appeal but then like i said they kind of really didn't do the identity objections that they [02:36:44] Speaker 1: really should have let's see yeah so make sure so right now you're only on x right that's correct [02:36:53] Octavia: or linkedin i am not a content creator correct yeah so she's not like doing this to you know get famous and be you know that kind of thing the whole podcast circuit i'm not monetized on x i just i have an x account i'll tweet pretty hot takes there about a bunch of different stuff i find i've been getting into a lot of arguments with people about arguing like i'm having an argument now on x about what is a debate is debate arguing i mean it's a stupid stuff yeah so that's that's pretty much my ex account it's [02:37:24] Speaker 3: just me and my opinions i've had people i know that when uh the swarm of people tried to dox me they were looking for my employer and they were probably really upset to find out that i'm self-employed [02:37:37] Speaker 1: that was great that's kind of a flex if you think about it yes it's like i'm going to report you to your boss give them your number and they call you and you answer again like what the hell she's a great employee yeah make sure you guys hit that like subscribe thanks again to meet you and [02:37:57] Speaker 5: talk and thanks so much and this was fun but thanks to all the moderators as well and again make sure [02:38:03] Speaker 1: you guys check out my other channel off script with matt where i do long form interviews and uh there's some interesting stuff over there some interesting things coming also before i forget because i almost forgot i spent today doing some testing so what we wanted to figure out is could you make the shot in the five seconds that supposedly this person on the roof had so we made it so basically he had a set target and this is like multiple angles and everything else but basically he had to do jumping jacks get his heart rate up jump down into position with the rifle and the towel and everything open it up and within five seconds acquire the target make the shot at that distance so that'll be coming out either probably tomorrow morning i'm guessing uh maybe tomorrow afternoon and uh i see my mind is blown thanks for the super uh let's see flex that is a flex you're flexing on them octavia but yep we appreciate everyone being here and uh like i said we'll be oh we have a few oh let's see moon goddess my great niece's name is octavia too wow it's a rare name yeah very rare [02:39:10] Octavia: let's see i've only met five other octavia four other octavias in my whole life and i'm over 40 [02:39:17] Speaker 1: so there's not many of us so my favorite octavia nothing against you sure it's in the 100 have you seen that no it's a serious it's like a post-apocalyptic movie that's semi-futuristic but it's basically like ai melted down all the nuclear stuff on the planet and they split into factions one went to space one's in the mountains and one actually somehow survived on you know like tribal on land wow and they all interact and fight and like you know fight for resources and everything else but octavia is the sister and she ends up becoming like the leader of the tribe and it just gets insane so if you want to see if you want to go on a wild ride for like seven seasons check out the 100. [02:39:56] Speaker 3: nice that's great i know they didn't pay me to say that you don't get a special sponsorship [02:40:04] Speaker 1: all right thank you again everyone and we will see you on the next one