15 Pieces of New Bombshell Evidence in Charlie Kirk’s Murder

[00:00:00] Vinnie Politan: The assassination of Charlie Kirk, a moment caught on video and seen by millions of people around the world, shook the nation. A young father, husband, an iconic figure, shot and killed in public. The murder was shocking, but then came the investigation and the arrest. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We got him. Tyler Robinson was arrested and charged with the murder, and investigators talked about all the evidence they had, including surveillance video. For prosecutors, this seemed like a very straightforward case with overwhelming evidence. I am filing a notice of intent to seek the death penalty. Prosecutors seeking the death penalty up the stakes even more. But then something strange happened. Despite the powerful evidence made public, there was a surge of skepticism online that Tyler Robinson was just a patsy and not the real killer. But now we'll get to see and hear the evidence in a courtroom as prosecutors try to convince a judge that there's enough evidence to try Tyler Robinson for murder. The preliminary hearing will be the first opportunity for the public to judge for themselves the evidence and determine if Tyler Robinson is in fact the man responsible for the assassination of Charlie Kirk. This is a huge story on different levels. Of course, first there's the politics of it. Then there's all the skepticism online about who the real killer is. But for me, it's about a big trial. And now we get to see the evidence inside a courtroom. I'm Vinnie Politan. Let's investigate. No matter how you look at this case, I always come back to the fact that Charlie Kirk was a father and a husband, a father and a husband first before he's anything else. And this is a murder case. Children who don't have a father, a wife who doesn't have her husband, a family that has been impacted forever. Children whose lives are going to be so, so different. And that's the reality of this case. And that makes it no different than any other murder. When a loved one has been killed, the family is impacted first and foremost. But we all know Charlie Kirk was a very public person, a public figure. And he was speaking that day. And that's what he did for a living. And the thing about Charlie Kirk was he was an advocate for freedom of speech. And to me, that's why I find this particular murder so offensive as an American. The constitutional right to speak your words, whatever it is you want to say. And to be killed exercising your God-given right as an American to me is offensive. Well, this trial is about who's accused of doing it. And his name is Tyler Robinson. And the one fact above and beyond any other fact that makes me believe that the evidence in this case is strong, that it is in fact, Tyler Robinson is how he surrendered himself. He was convinced by his own family to surrender himself. A father convincing his son, a father convinced that his son is responsible for this crime. And this wasn't a father who was out to get his son. This is a family. And they realized what had happened here. And to me, that's very persuasive. Whether it's persuasive in a courtroom is different. For me, it's like a confirmation of the strength of the evidence in this case. But it doesn't matter what I think. Ultimately, it's going to matter what a jury thinks. But right now, it's about the evidence in front of a judge. Because the judge must make the determination at this preliminary hearing about whether or not there's enough for this case to go to trial. So I'm going to take you inside the courtroom. The first witness testifying, Chris Bagley, he's a Utah Valley University police officer, or was at the time. And he's not just an officer who's investigating something. He was there that day. So he's a witness to what was happening as Charlie Kirk is being assassinated. And to understand his testimony about what he saw and what he did, I first want to show you where he was that day at the moment that Charlie Kirk was shot and killed. So if you take a look, this is sort of his vantage point, only he's on the roof of this building. And if you stop it right there for a second, you can see the top of the tent. The top of that tent is where Charlie Kirk was when he was shot. Officer Bagley is on top of the roof of that building. It is this building. We're now looking at it from behind. You see the tent. And then you see the courtyard. Now, if we freeze it there for one moment, and we look at the large United States flag, that is the roof where Officer Bagley was. That's where he is observing what is happening. And the tent is just below him. But he was able to see Charlie Kirk, part of Charlie Kirk as this was happening. So I want to take you to the courtroom. And let's listen to his testimony about what he observed that day in the moments that Charlie Kirk is shot and killed. [00:05:44] Speaker 2: So you were you were securing the the Hall of Flags walkway, correct? Yes. On the south end? Yes. Can you describe what we were what you were seeing? What did you observe? [00:05:55] Speaker 3: On that day, I observed Charlie going back doing some meet and greet with some people, getting some foes taken. He then came underneath the Hall of Flags and went to his tent. And he was, there as answering questions and talking to individuals that would ask him questions. [00:06:13] Speaker 2: The tent you're referring to, is that the tent that we see when it was set up in the courtyard? [00:06:18] Speaker 3: Yeah, that white square tent. The white top? Yes, he was under that. [00:06:22] Speaker 2: Fast forward to about about 1220 or so. So a little bit afternoon, the noon hour. [00:06:29] Speaker 3: What happened? What did you see? And what did you hear? I heard an individual talking to Charlie and I happened to kind of glance over the edge of the railing about that time. I could see the right side of Charlie's shoulder. So not his whole body because I had that he was underneath the tent. So I could only see probably the right side of his body. He was answering a question, kid asking him a question. And then I heard [00:06:51] Speaker 2: a shot fired. Do you know what time that was? Yes. What time was that? 1223. What did you see? At that moment, I saw him lean to the left. So when you say him, Charlie, Charlie. [00:07:07] Speaker 3: So I saw him go to the left because I could no longer see the right side of his body. So he went further underneath the tent to the north side of the tent. So left. [00:07:17] Vinnie Politan: Okay. Can you describe? This is unusual, right? You've got someone who is an officer who is investigating this case. And usually you have the police officers come in and they tell us about things after the fact. But he's a witness to everything as it's happening and actually saw Charlie Kirk as he shot. And more importantly, also heard the gunshot. Let's watch some more. [00:07:42] Speaker 2: Can you describe the reaction of others that were there? Yeah. So then [00:07:47] Speaker 3: everybody started getting up and starting to run and more of a chaos kind of situation. [00:07:54] Speaker 2: Before you continue, can you describe a little bit? So you mentioned Mr. Kirk was answering questions, talking to individuals. Yes. Were there others present? Yes. Any idea about approximately how many? How would you describe it in your terms? In my terms, [00:08:09] Speaker 3: I'd say, when I was up there looking down, I'd say there's several thousand people because you had it on the grass. It was jam-packed in the amphitheater sitting on the grass. You had people standing on the back up along the cement. You had people that were on the second level of the Sorenson and over by the Woodbury building. There's another level there where a lot of people were standing and watching. So it was pretty packed, several thousand people. So you mentioned you heard something. What did you [00:08:34] Speaker 2: hear again? I heard a gunshot. Okay. And can you describe Mr. Kirk's reaction? Was that simultaneous to hearing the gunshot? Yes, it was. When he fell to the left? Yes. Did you see the reaction from the crowd? Yes. What was that? [00:08:50] Speaker 3: Not everybody kind of got up. They all set up. A lot of people were screaming, standing up and starting to run in all different directions away from the center of the tent. Okay. You're a police officer [00:09:02] Speaker 2: helping to secure the area, correct? Yes. What did you do? At that moment, I recognized it as gunfire. [00:09:09] Speaker 3: I left my post, which was right there on the south end of the Hall of Flags. I proceeded to, between right where the fugal and the Hall of Flags meet, there's some outside stairs that I was starting to run down. As I was trying to get down to the bottom of the stairs, people were running up, people were laying down on the steps. I'm trying to jump over people to get to the bottom of the stairs so I can help stop an individual that's probably shooting. What happened there? [00:09:36] Vinnie Politan: Just a reminder of the difference between us and them. I'm talking about law enforcement. We hear the gunshots. We're heading for cover. We're getting away from it. He's running towards it to try to help and save others. Let's watch. Thanks. By the time I got to the bottom of the [00:09:55] Speaker 3: stairs, I was informed on the radio that we had a shooter in custody. So I thought at that moment, I was like, well, that was kind of fast. Obviously, it was close range probably because we had an individual in custody. Another officer came on and said we had an individual in custody. So I decided to, since the threat is gone, now I can assess for anybody that's injured and start looking for any medical needs that's needed at that moment. I started canvassing the area. As I canvassed the area, I was looking for anybody that was injured. I saw a kid on the ground that was on about the second or third tier in the grass next to a wheelchair and he was almost convulsing. I thought he'd maybe been shot. I talked to the dad as I was running over there. He said that he was just having a seizure, that he was fine, he was not injured. So then at that moment, I observed that there was no other injuries that I could see at that moment. [00:10:46] Speaker 2: Okay. Was your attention drawn to anything else at that time? [00:10:50] Speaker 3: Yeah. So after we got some people kind of cleared away a little bit, I thought I needed to start preserving the scene because we had a crime scene. And with some of my experience and training to that effect, I decided now we need to contain the scene and help preserve as much evidence as we can. So I started pushing people off the grass out of the courtyard area because I knew that's where the crime scene was. As soon as we started pushing those guys out, my chief, Chief Long, that was right next to me, I looked down and saw an empty pistol holder that was sitting just on top of the grass. And at that moment, things had died down just a split second. I realized that the shot I heard was more of a rifle shot and not a pistol shot. And what causes you to say that? Just from being around firearms through all my trainings, the difference is, you know, a handgun is more of a short bang pop sound. With a rifle, you have a more of a longer violent bang or crackle sound. It's more of a violent kind of [00:11:56] Speaker 2: sound. It's longer. So that's why I recognized it. Okay. Is a rifle sound louder, typically? Yes. Okay. Going back to when you heard this, this gunshot, could you tell where where it came from? [00:12:14] Speaker 3: Direction? Yes, I knew it came from the east of me. The east of you. Okay. So you see this, [00:12:22] Speaker 2: this realization comes to your mind. What did you do next? At that moment, when I saw the holster, [00:12:27] Speaker 3: the empty holster, I turned to my chief and I said, that was that was a rifle shot. And he said, I agree. And I looked up at that moment, right in the line of sight, I could see the Losi building had a direct line of sight. So I proceeded to go look at that and see what was going on up there. [00:12:45] Vinnie Politan: This is a huge moment in the midst of all this chaos, right? The report is on the radio that we've got the suspect in custody. And remember, there was someone who was initially taken into custody in question. I think there were two actually. And at that moment, case solved, right? That was quick. That was easy. He sees a holster. He believed it was a rifle based upon what he heard. Quick conversation with the chief. And now he's focused on on the building. On the building where at this point, we know prosecutors believe the shooter was. [00:13:26] Speaker 2: That's a lot happening very quickly. Let's watch some more. Can you just briefly describe your route [00:13:33] Speaker 3: to the Losi center? So from the courtyard, you can go into the Sorenson center. And like I said there, earlier, there was on level one, there's some elevators or there's stairs. I ran up four flights of stairs, got to the fourth level of the Losi building, and proceeded to the south of the Losi building. There's some stairs, which is that breezeway between the computer science building and the Losi building. There's some stairs that go up to the top of that. And so I went to the top of that. Is that stairway that you previously described? Yes, on the outside of the Losi building. Okay. And it's a public stairway. Yeah. Okay. [00:14:13] Speaker 2: Did you make it to the rooftop? I did. Do you know about what time you got there? [00:14:19] Speaker 3: I probably, I got there 12:44. Okay. What did you do when you got on top? When I got on top, I hopped over the guardrail. I noticed that there was an object which was sitting right about 10 or 15 feet in from the other side of the guardrail in the gravel. That looked out of [00:14:38] Vinnie Politan: place to me. And this is interesting, right? Like this is great police work taking place very quickly, although it seems to be playing out quick more quickly because he's on the stand. He's got sort of condensing. There's a lot of things happening, but a couple of things. Number one, how easy it is to access that roof where he, where he got to, but all of a sudden he is spotting things quickly, spotted the holster. Now spotting another object. As soon as he gets onto that rooftop where he suspected the gunshot came from based upon what he heard that day. So I mentioned that there's a lot of evidence in this case and a lot of different types of evidence. And let's start with the surveillance video, right? This guy is literally caught on camera. If you believe what the prosecution is telling you, right? If you believe the videos, if you believe they're real, right? He's literally caught on camera before, during, and after all of this. And the video of him during this, while you can't identify him from the video, it's direct evidence. It purports to be direct evidence of the shooter himself. Okay. So you got direct evidence right there. Plus the circumstantial evidence of the video before and afterwards. You've also got this so-called love note confession made by the defendant to his lover, which also included a motivation for what he was doing, right? I'm going after him. This guy's full of hate, et cetera. His lover's going through a transition. All of that is direct evidence. If you are saying, if you are admitting to doing something, that is direct evidence of the crime, right? Your words. Again, if you believe it, if you believe he wrote the note, if you believe those are his words, that is direct evidence. It's also a DNA case. There's DNA involved in this case, including the murder weapon or alleged murder weapon, directly connecting the defendant to the weapon. So you've got direct, you've got circumstantial, you've got DNA that we love, surveillance video. Like it's wrapped in a nice bow. I look at this case as a former prosecutor. It's exactly what you would want. So what's the defense? Like if this guy didn't do it, was he framed? Is that the defense that he was framed? I don't know where else you go. Like someone else did it. Okay. Well, where's the evidence pointing to someone else? And don't tell me, well, they didn't do a full and complete investigation. And because they did. So there is a lot of evidence. It's strong evidence from my perspective, potentially overwhelming, but you have to trust the evidence. And I think that's where part of the break is here with those who are still skeptical of the case against the defendant here. Now that's for us looking at this case, right? We're looking at, can you prove it? Will, will that happen for Erica Kirk? It's a much different experience. This trial, it's deeply personal and it's, it's no different for her than any other murder victim. And when you say murder victim, those are the, the, the family, the loved ones of the victim in a murder trial. They are considered victims and it's a different experience. It just is. I want to show you some photos because we've seen a lot of the video from inside the courtroom, but how about some photos from outside the courthouse? You get a better flavor for, for what's happening. And we begin by taking a look at the parents of the victim here, Charlie's parents. And to put on a strong front like that is difficult. Obviously they've been dealing with this for a while now, but this is the new chapter. This is when you're in the courtroom with your son's alleged killer. It's a much different experience. And I think you see it more on the face of Erica Kirk, how tough this is. Like I recognize that face. I've seen that many times in courtrooms across the country. That is the face of a victim. Not easy, not easy at all. So what I want to do right now is take a listen to the judge, because the judge in this case, very cognizant of what it's like to be a victim and what it's like to be in a courtroom when some of this evidence occurs. Take a listen to what he did. [00:19:29] Speaker 4: And before we get started, I want to clarify on the record that pursuant to the Utah constitution, section one, I'm sorry, article one, section 28, where victims and victims representatives are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect that if they choose to leave the courtroom there, they can come back whenever they wish. They're not prohibited to coming back slowly at the break. So I just want to clarify that in case there was any question about that. [00:20:05] Vinnie Politan: And that's important, right? Utah represents, you know, recognizes what it's like to be a victim. Give them some dignity, because in this case, they're really locking down the court courtroom. Many courtrooms, you can come in and out during the course of any trial. But in this particular trial, the judge is like, if you're in, you're in. When you leave, you're out. Okay. We don't want people coming in, coming out, coming in, coming out. Okay. But if you're Erica, if you're Charlie's parents, if you're the victim in this case, you're going to be treated with some level of dignity. To further understand the experience of what's happening inside, I want to put something else on the screen. Brian Enten, great reporter for News Nation, was inside the courtroom first day, made these observations. And I think they're very telling about the experience for everyone inside the courtroom. And Brian Enten writes, "Seeing from inside the Tyler Robinson courtroom, Erica Kirk was crying before the hearing started." Crying. Like the realization, okay, now we're going to go through all this. Donald Trump Jr. is in the front row with his wife. The suspect, the defendant, was laughing with his attorney before the hearing started, right? He won't be laughing as you get closer to the end of the trial. That's when the realization hits most defendants. Like it's over, my life is in the hands. And in this case, a death penalty case, my life is literally in the hands of those 12 strangers. So while he's laughing now, that will change when you get to the end of the trial. And then there was a description of the shooting, and that's when Erica Kirk left the courtroom. So you can see the real impact that this does have. Like this is the reality of it for the victims. And I thought that was important to recognize and acknowledge. Because we tend to get into the evidence, we get into the rulings, all of that. And what can't get lost in the sauce is that the man died. Parents are burying a child. A mom is raising her kids without the dad there, without their dad. Okay, let's get back now to the testimony. And David Hall, lead case agent, putting together a timeline through the surveillance video, being able to track the movements of the defendant in this case. Let's watch this because this is a big, big part of the case that will be presented in front of [00:22:38] Speaker 5: a jury if this goes to trial. What are we seeing here, Agent Holm? That's the vehicle that is believed to belong to Mr. Robinson arriving in the parking garage on campus. At what time in the morning? Well, what time of the day? It's approximately 8:30 in the morning on September 10, 2025. And what leads you to [00:22:57] Speaker 6: believe that this particular vehicle belongs to Mr. Robinson? Information that was provided [00:23:04] Speaker 5: in regards to driver's license and Department of Motor Vehicle records. The vehicle fits the description of a vehicle owned by Mr. Robinson. Is there anything unique about that vehicle that stands out to you? The shape of the vehicle is very distinct, but predominantly the wheels were very distinctive on this version of the vehicle. Now what do we see? The driver of the vehicle exits the vehicle and then walks on foot to exit the parking garage. It's the individual in the red t-shirt [00:23:37] Speaker 6: and the shorts and the shoes. And do you believe you recognize who that person is? Yes. Who is that? I believe [00:23:46] Speaker 5: that's Tyler Robinson. All right, where does he go from there? He heads out of the parking garage on foot into the campus and actually goes to the quad area of the campus. At that time he makes contact with some representatives from TPUSA. By quad area? Sorry, the amphitheater is what I've previously referred [00:24:10] Speaker 6: it to. All right, so he goes up on campus, visits the amphitheater area, the courtyard or quad. Correct. [00:24:17] Speaker 5: And then what do we see here now? He returns on foot back to the same vehicle. And what time is he returning back to the vehicle? It's about 9:25 a.m. What do we see now? That's the vehicle exiting with Mr. Robinson driving the vehicle. Let's hold it right there for a second. So this is significant, right? [00:24:35] Vinnie Politan: He shows up early in the morning, 8:30 in the morning and is sort of scouting the place out, according to prosecutors, talking to some of the representatives from Turning Point and trying to get an idea and putting together his plan for the day. And it's amazing how they were able to go through hundreds and hundreds of hours of video to isolate and find the suspect. Let's continue to watch. [00:25:09] Speaker 5: Now what do we see? This is Mr. Robinson returning to the campus on foot from the neighborhood to the northeast. You can see he's wearing the same clothing as in the previous video. And he's carrying a blue backpack. Describe the clothing. It's a maroon colored t-shirt with gray or olive colored shorts and then Converse shoes. [00:25:41] Speaker 6: And what time did he return to campus? Just after 10 a.m. And does he leave the parking structure eventually? He does, yes. And during this visit, do you know where he goes after he leaves the parking structure? [00:25:56] Speaker 5: Yes, we were able to track his movements on campus. He went to Chick-fil-A in the Sorenson building and purchased some food, sat and ate the food. [00:26:07] Speaker 6: Then, I'm sorry. Where did he purchase the food from? Chick-fil-A in the Sorenson Center. And where is that in relation to the amphitheater or the courtyard? It's kind of on the northeast side of the amphitheater. [00:26:22] Speaker 5: It would be on the upper back edge of the amphitheater, furthest away from where the tent was that Mr. Kirk was in. And from there, where does he go? From there, he moves across campus, out across campus drive into a wooded area on what would be kind of the northeast side of campus drive. Then returns back onto campus. We noticed at this point that he's no longer carrying the backpack that he was originally wearing. He moves through the Gunther building and the computer science building. And then goes where? Then goes across to the railing that gives access to the roof of the Loci building. From there? From there, he comes back down the stairs and walks off campus from that [00:27:16] Speaker 6: point. And about what time was that that he left campus that second time? Do you know? I believe it was [00:27:25] Speaker 5: approximately 11 a.m. or just after, if I recall. I could verify from my notes if you need an exact time. Uh, yeah, if you don't mind. It was just prior to 11 a.m. when he walked off campus. [00:27:35] Speaker 6: Okay. What do we, what do we see displayed here now? Go ahead. [00:27:39] Speaker 5: Uh, this is a video of Mr. Robinson returning back to campus the same way that he did previously on foot. [00:27:47] Speaker 6: And this takes just a moment. Let's hold it there for one second. [00:27:54] Vinnie Politan: So if you recall the evidence when it originally came out, he comes to campus, goes in the garage, but then parks off campus and then walks to the campus. You recall there, there was video of him walking through the neighborhood ring video of him in the actual neighborhood. And now, as we watch him, the clothes have changed. He's wearing different clothing, no longer wearing shorts, now wearing long pants. And notice the way he walks because the allegation by prosecutors is that the gun is down his pant leg. Let's watch. [00:28:33] Speaker 6: And why, uh, well, let me ask you this. You believe this is Mr. Robinson returning to campus? I do, yes. Okay. And, and what do you believe is Mr. Robinson? [00:28:41] Speaker 5: Uh, the shoes are the same. And, um, the images that we have, uh, from, from my viewing and seeing Mr. Robinson on the video, it's the same person. [00:28:54] Vinnie Politan: Mr. Robinson. This is a case built on forensic evidence, direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, and eyewitness testimony. And to me, a key witness in all this is Lance Twiggs. Lance Twiggs will be the star witness in this case. Um, this is the roommate slash lover of the defendant. He apparently was transitioning, uh, at the time. And this is important because what Lance Twiggs provides for, for the judge and ultimately perhaps for the jury is the prosecution's motive, which is the suspect, the defendant has a lover who is transitioning and all of that sort of stuff is on the opposite side of the political and religious spectrum, uh, where Charlie Kirk is from. And it's as a result of, of that conflict that he wants to end Charlie Kirk's life and wants to just shut him up permanently from spreading, um, his beliefs. Okay. Now, Lance Twiggs, key witness in all this, but in the preliminary hearing, you won't see him because he's testifying via a recorded statement, the recorded statement that is taken when he is first interviewed. And, um, this statement, uh, allegedly further implicates the, the suspect in all of this and sort of verify some of the evidence for prosecutors. So it's important. It's important evidence for the prosecution, but again, he's not testifying in person. It's the recorded statement. It's a preliminary hearing. The judge allowed it over the defense's objection. Meanwhile, you take that evidence on top of the other evidence we've seen, the other video evidence, which was tracking the alleged shooter on the rooftop. And there's an image, uh, taken and it sort of follows where the, um, alleged shooter is going, how he ends up on the rooftop, how he then exits the rooftop and flees the scene, right? Compelling evidence from the prosecution, able to track the person they believe is responsible for all this. But despite all this evidence, right? The skeptics are not convinced online. Uh, they're still not convinced. And a lot of them are even questioning whether or not the person who is being tracked on that video is in fact, the defendant himself. Um, is that him? Is that him? Well, here's an image of him in the sunglasses and the hat. And this is the image of the person who's been captured. And that's the person that they follow all around. Now I put them up on the screen next to an image that we know is the suspect. If we could just hold it right there for a second. Um, I don't want to lose these too quickly. Um, so on the left hand side, this is the image of the suspect that is tracked on video, tracked on video onto the roof, as we see on the right, right? Is that the same person? Um, let's continue. Let's, let's take a look at the next image because what I want to compare here is whether or not, all right, hold the image right there so we can, we can see it for a moment on the right. Clearly the suspect, the defendant in all of this on the left, is it the same person? Is that the same person? Skeptics say, no, it's not. They say it's not even him. Okay. You take a look. You decide the, the, the general frame is the same lanky, thin, um, sunglasses on his eyes and this one, but sunglasses up on his hat on this one. And it appears he's wearing different hats, uh, in these two photos, not taking the same day. Um, but what do you think? Is that the same person? And so the jury's gonna have to decide. Let's, let's go to the next image and take a look at, um, another image of the defendant. Let's hold it right there. Closer shot. You see the sunglasses again, always has the sunglasses apparently with him. Um, but it's basically the same build. The image on the left, not as clear, right? Surveillance videos, never as clear. It just never is. It never works out that way. Let's take a look. I think we have one more image that we want to show you. And we take a look here. All right, let's hold it right there. Now he's got the sunglasses on. Smiling on the right, not smiling on the left, but has a hat and sunglasses on clearly from my perspective, similar, absolutely similar. Do the skeptics, do they concede that they look similar? So as part of the setup here, finding a doppelganger for the defendant and it's someone else, I I'm trying to understand I'm following the prosecution case, which makes a lot of sense. And I'm trying to look for the holes in it. And I'm trying to understand why so many people are skeptical of the prosecution evidence. Okay. Let's take you into the courtroom. Now. Um, this is important evidence. One of the case agents, Brian Davis on the stand here, talking about the defendant turning himself in. And as we watch and listen to this again, if he's not the one responsible, why is he turning himself in? Is he part of this, of this plot as well to turn himself in for a case that is now a death penalty case? Is he some sort of a martyr? I don't know. I I I'm trying to follow that. Like I'm following the prosecution case again, looking for the holes in where they may lie. Why would he turn himself in if he's 100% innocent and not the person depicted in those videos? Let's take a look. [00:34:53] Speaker 7: I want to direct you your attention to September 11th, 2025. Do you remember that day? I do. What happened on that day in relation to your investigation? [00:35:07] Speaker 8: I spent the day at the command post with various assignments. That evening, it was about 8:30 PM, I believe, of the 11th. I received a phone call from Sergeant Elshills requesting that I travel to St. [00:35:22] Speaker 7: George. Who is Sergeant Elshills? What agency is Sergeant Elshills with? With SBI. And he requested that you travel to St. George? Correct. [00:35:33] Speaker 8: What was the reason stated for that? We received information that an individual had was turning himself in or had turned himself was going to turn himself in to police in regard to his involvement with the incident, the shooting on UVU campus. [00:35:52] Speaker 7: And I'm sorry, what time did you get that information, that call? About 8:30 PM. [00:35:57] Speaker 8: Did you travel down to St. George? I did. On what day? Of September 11th. Where did you go once you landed in St. George? There we were transported via ground to the Washington County Sheriff's Department. [00:36:11] Speaker 7: Did you coordinate at that time with any other law enforcement agencies down in Southern Utah? Oh, we did. You did? We did, yeah. What other agencies? [00:36:24] Speaker 8: Well, with FBI as we were traveling and then along with mainly the Washington County Sheriff's Department, we also have agents with an SBI assigned to the Southern Utah area. So working with them as well just making plans and coordinating resources and manpower and personnel. And you stated you went to the [00:36:42] Speaker 7: Washington County Sheriff's Office. Yes. What time did you arrive there? [00:36:48] Speaker 8: Probably somewhere close to midnight, maybe just a little before midnight of the 11th. What happened next? So we met several other investigators, agents and detectives there along with some other prosecutors. There were some federal prosecutors as well that were present. And from there we began kind of making plans, determining how to handle [00:37:11] Speaker 7: the situation there. Did you, you mentioned the reason you went down there was you had been told that an individual wanted to turn themselves in? That's correct. Did you observe that individual? [00:37:23] Speaker 8: I did. And where was that person at the time? So when we arrived, we went into the the room that we were in. It was one of the their office, the cubicles there. On the the wall there was a TV, a television monitor where I viewed an individual on that screen that was sitting in one of the the soft interview rooms. That room was equipped with audio video recording device. And so I observed him on [00:37:48] Speaker 7: that screen at that time. Were you aware or did you become aware what time that individual arrived at [00:37:56] Speaker 8: Washington County Sheriff's Office? I was told he arrived there about 9 p.m. that evening. And was he with anybody else? He had been yeah, he'd come there with his parents and a family [00:38:09] Speaker 7: friend. Did you speak with this individual that we've been talking about? Yes, I did. Did you get his name? [00:38:20] Speaker 8: Yes, we obtained his name and date of birth. What was his name? Tyler Robinson. [00:38:27] Speaker 7: Did he tell you that himself? He did. You mentioned other individuals came there with him. And then you also said that you had kind of coordinated with the team of law enforcement officers that were there. Were those other individuals spoken with by law enforcement? They were. Uh, let's go through them. Um, for one second. As we see this [00:38:54] Vinnie Politan: wide shot, we can see the suspect watching every moment of all of this. He's not stupid. He's actually a pretty smart student, uh, or was a smart student at, at, at one point. Um, but he's turning himself in. He's turning himself in parents convinced him to do it right. There's DNA connected to this case. There's surveillance video connected to this case. There's alleged confessions made communications with Lance twig connected to this case. All the evidence is going one way. If he's a patsy, if he's set up for this, is he part of it? Is that what we think? Is that what the skeptics think here? That he's part of the whole thing that they're using him and who's using him? Like, how are they contacting him? It's one thing to point out things that, oh, that doesn't make sense. Or I have a couple of questions about that because everything's not always clear in a criminal trial. But I'm trying to understand, like, how it is all this evidence points to one person. All of it. Let's continue to watch. [00:40:17] Speaker 7: Who, or I guess, how did that happen? Who was, who was spoken to first of the other individuals? [00:40:25] Speaker 8: Uh, so Tyler's mother was interviewed by, uh, SBI agent Holgreen and FBI agent Cox. Um, and then kind of simultaneously his father was being interviewed by SBI agent Terry and FBI agent Smith. Um, and also at that time, uh, the family friend Mike Mitchell was interviewed [00:40:48] Speaker 7: by, um, other agents as well. And you said that this was, these interviews were being conducted simultaneously? Uh, yes. Were you part of, um, the interview with either of Tyler's parents? [00:41:08] Speaker 8: Uh, yes. Yes. Myself and agent Folger, did I misspeak earlier? Myself and agent Folger interviewed the mother. [00:41:14] Speaker 7: Uh, all right. Let's, let's make sure the record's clear on that. So agent Folger, what agency is, is he with? Uh, with FBI. And yourself interviewed Tyler's mother? Yes, that's correct. Um, I just want to make sure the record's clear. Who interviewed Tyler's father? [00:41:29] Speaker 8: Yeah, I think everybody misspoke. It was agent Holgreen, agent Cox that met with his father. [00:41:35] Speaker 7: And then who spoke with family friend Mike Mitchell? Uh, agent Terry, agent Smith. Down in St. George, Washington County Sheriff's Office, was Mr. Robinson detained at that time? [00:41:52] Speaker 8: Yes, he was. Was he formally arrested at that time? Yeah, following, after all the interviews were completed when we talked to everybody, um, that he was formally arrested at that time. And I'm going to [00:42:06] Speaker 7: come back to that in a second. Um, well, I, excuse me, where did the arrest take place? Uh, at the [00:42:14] Speaker 8: Washington County Sheriff's Office. And what date did that happen on? Uh, would have been September 12th. Um, it was about 4 a.m. I believe of September 12th. At Washington County Sheriff's Office, [00:42:38] Speaker 7: where you initially observed Mr. Robinson, uh, you stated that he was in a room is that room equipped with video recording? Yes, it is. Is that standard practice for a facility like that to have video recording in such a room? Yes, very, very common. Agent Davis, who are we seeing here? That's Tyler Robinson. Let's hold [00:42:59] Vinnie Politan: there for one second. So these are the first images that we're seeing publicly in the court of him on the night he's turning himself in. Not the night that they figured out who it was or who they thought it was. And they tracked him down at his house and they went in with guns a blazing. No, this is him turning himself in, by the way, wearing a black hat just for the record. Can we, can we note that he is wearing a black hat? He's got a maroon shirt on, which I think, uh, is the same color of a shirt he was wearing earlier on the day of the shooting, uh, before changing. Um, again, the same lanky build and all, but this is not a case where investigators said, all right, let's get this guy. This guy came to them, came to them. Big distinction, big, big distinction. So I want to begin again with the victim. In this case, Erica Kirk is her husband, Charlie, who was shot and killed. And she's not happy. And she's not happy because of the lack of full transparency during the course of this hearing, this preliminary hearing evidence is coming in evidence that the defendant, uh, the prosecutors believe proves the defendant is guilty evidence of what he did. And not all of it is being displayed in the courtroom. Not all of it is being shown on television. So the public is not seeing or hearing all the evidence in the case. Erica Kirk, not happy because that fuels from her perspective, fuels the people who believe something else happened. That this defendant is some sort of a patsy and something else happened. And she doesn't believe that she doesn't believe there was a grand conspiracy. She believes this is the guy who did it. But if the evidence is hidden from the public, it then fuels the people who believe that the government is in on this, the government is hiding something. Um, the judge is the one trying to balance all of this. He's got to balance, um, the rights of, of a victim like Erica Kirk and Charlie's parents, the rights of the public in a public trial to see and hear what's happening, uh, with the rights of the defendant to get a fair trial. So that's what he's sort of balancing throughout all this. Um, and one of the reasons he's so concerned about that balance is for the defendant, his life is on the line. This is a death penalty case. So the judge wants to be careful, wants to make sure that he protects the rights of the defendant because death penalty cases are the ones that are shown the most scrutiny, especially on appeal. And a case like this, you don't necessarily want to try twice, right? Ask, ask the folks who prosecuted Alec Murdoch, if they want to try that case again, and they have to, because things went awry. And that's the judge's concern here. Um, but for prosecutors to prove this case, the X is the key. Lance Twiggs, his ex, his ex roommate, his ex lover, like that's, that's the key to the case. He's the one that has the most important information. Now on April 20th, he sat down for like a zoom interview with prosecutors. He did that because they did not want to bring him into the courtroom to testify. They just wanted to use his interview. That way he's not cross-examined, right? That's really what's happening. It's, it's strategy and the judge has permitted it. Um, and, and I'm going to show you that interview. There are redactions though. So Erica Kirk still not happy. There are pieces of this interview that have been cut out, but you're going to see and hear a large chunk of what Lance Twiggs said in his April 20th interview. Sometimes the screen goes black, but when, when the screen goes black, that's because they're looking at exhibits that prosecutors did not want to show during the zoom hearing, the zoom interview. Um, but they did go through it in court afterwards. So, um, I'll be able to fill you in on some of those details. So let's take a look. Now this is Lance Twiggs, the lover, the motive in this, the motive, according to prosecutors. Let's watch. [00:47:17] Speaker 9: Do you know Tyler Robinson? Yes, I do. Well, yeah, I do. And it's the same Tyler Robinson that's been charged with the shooting of Charlie Kirk. Yes. And would you say when you first met, uh, Tyler? [00:47:32] Speaker 10: I think it was 2023. I've known him longer than that though. That was, I think the first time I met him in person. Okay. Um, [00:47:44] Speaker 9: and when you describe your relationship with, with Tyler, uh, when you first met him anyway. [00:47:51] Speaker 10: Um, when I first met him, I didn't know him super well. He was just a new roommate. So, uh, I knew he knew my friend group and I knew he liked playing games, but that's, that's about it. When we first, uh, like when he first moved in. Okay. And then, um, at some point, uh, [00:48:11] Speaker 9: your relationship progressed to something more than a dream. I said, right? When was that? Um, [00:48:16] Speaker 10: I think we started dating two or three months after he moved in. Okay. And where did you live at that time? [00:48:24] Speaker 9: St. George, uh, in an apartment complex. And is that apartment the same place you lived, uh, when on September 10th? Yes. Um, when you lived there, uh, with Tyler, were you in the same room? Did you live in the same room or different rooms? I was separate rooms. And at that time, let's say September of 2025, um, what was, what were you doing with your life? Were you [00:48:51] Speaker 10: working school? Uh, I was working. Um, I was doing like bathtub and shower repair and stuff. And new construction. Okay. How about Tyler? Um, I think he was both working. I think he was working for an electric, like an electrician company then. And he was also in a trade school for being, uh, I don't know higher, like ranking electrician. I'm not sure how the trade system works for that. Okay. But yeah, I think he was both. What was his typical work day like? Um, I think you'd leave around seven, generally, and get back around three to four, uh, depending on like where the job was and how long it was for the day. And then on certain days of the week during school, like semesters, he would then later in the day, I think around five or six, go to school. So yeah. Okay. Let's jump to September 10th. [00:49:52] Speaker 9: Um, did he spend, spend the night in the apartment the night of September 9th into September 10th? Into September 10th? Yeah, he did. Uh, yes. Do you know when he left the apartment on September 10th? [00:50:06] Speaker 10: Um, I don't know an exact time. I just know he left early. Uh, I heard him leaving and he just said he had a, like, a long drive to work that day. So he was leaving early. Okay. So early, um, any guess as to what, um, when that was? Uh, I don't know. I would have thought it was 5 a.m. because that's when like an early work day was for him, but it was probably more like four. Okay. What time did you get up on September 10th? Probably like 12 to 1 p.m. [00:50:42] Speaker 9: You didn't have to work that day? Uh, no. And did you hear from Tyler? Did he call or text you [00:50:48] Speaker 10: before then? Uh, no. He sent that message in the group chat I mentioned, but he didn't message me [00:50:54] Speaker 9: directly at all that day. Okay. When did you first hear from him on September 10th? Uh, it was at 11 o'clock [00:51:02] Speaker 10: with that, like, automated message. Okay. 11 p.m.? Yeah. He asks you here, remember how I was [00:51:08] Speaker 9: engraving bullets? Was he engraving bullets before this? Uh, yeah. I don't remember exactly when, [00:51:14] Speaker 10: but, uh, he had said he was planning to go hunting with his family. Um, and he asked me for a, if we had a, like a Dremel to, cause he said he wanted to create messages on bullets. Um, and I just told him where Dremel was and I told him to make sure he doesn't like set off a bullet on accident in the [00:51:35] Vinnie Politan: house. Um, let's hold it right there for one second. Bullets are important here. The, the engravings, the etchings on the bullets, because prosecutors say that they found cartridges, the fired cartridge, uh, had an etching on it. Uh, no Tice's bulge. Oh, W. Oh, what's this. And then there was a second, third and fourth cartridge that also had etchings on it. So again, prosecutors putting the pieces together. This is before all this happens. He's inscribing on some bullets and they find bullets with, with the inscriptions, like the pieces are fitting together for prosecutors. Let's watch some [00:52:16] Speaker 9: more, but I didn't really think about it until then. How long before, um, September 10th was this that [00:52:24] Speaker 10: he asked about the Dremel? I, I don't remember because he'd been talking about the, uh, hunting slash camping trip for a couple of months, but I, I don't remember when he was specifically asking to engrave the bullets. So, so are we talking like a year before? Oh, no, not that, not that long. It would have been, I'd say at most a month before this was when he was asking. Right. Um, you talked about [00:52:52] Speaker 9: the note that he left. Um, I want to bring this up and I should say that, um, these text messages that we've been looking at here are, um, Bates number 54. Okay. Uh, the notes have been titled 16.3 with a note. And this is base number 58. Do you recognize that, that on the screen there? Yeah. [00:53:22] Speaker 10: Yeah. What do you recognize it as? Um, that was the note under his keyboard that he was referring to in the first text of that chain. Okay. So where did you find this? On, on his desk underneath his, like, [00:53:37] Speaker 9: computer keyboard. I, what, I assume you read it? Yeah. And then what did you do with it after you read it? [00:53:45] Speaker 10: Um, I believe I just put it back down on the desk after I took a picture of it. Okay. And again, [00:53:51] Speaker 9: the time you read it was probably around 11 o'clock or so on the 10th. Yes. The night of September 10th. [00:54:00] Vinnie Politan: Okay. This is the most important evidence for prosecutors coming from Lance Twiggs. A note that he left under his keyboard that he took a picture of. Now, all of these notes and everything for this hearing are coming into evidence through another witness, right? Through the, the case agent, not through Lance Twiggs. He's authenticating them, however. And those notes, what he says there is so significant. He looks under the keyboard and the note says, I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I'm going to take it. Okay. That's the note that, that is left under the keyboard. Lance Twiggs says it's the first time he ever read it. And then he texts back to him, what? You're joking, right? Robinson writes back, blah, blah, blah, blah. Then again, Lance says, you weren't the one who did it, right? Because everyone's talking about, of course, the shooting of Charlie Kirk that day. And then Tyler Robinson says, I am, I'm sorry. That's the confession. That's the alleged confession that prosecutors are going to use as evidence in this case. And it's coming straight from the defendant to his roommate slash lover, the night of the shooting. Let's listen to some more. [00:55:21] Speaker 9: And did you ever see that again after you placed it back on his desk? Uh, no, I don't think I did. And that was a desk in his bedroom? Yes. And that's a separate bedroom than your bedroom? Yeah. And now I want to go to, uh, what's been titled 16.2. And do you recognize this series of messages here? [00:55:47] Speaker 10: Um, yeah, that was the server of like his friend that I was mentioning. [00:55:55] Speaker 9: Okay. And this is your phone again? [00:55:57] Speaker 10: Uh, yeah. [00:56:00] Speaker 9: And I'm assuming you recognize it because the big crack up at the top. Mm-hmm. And so this is a server. Is this discord? [00:56:09] Speaker 10: Yeah, this is discord. [00:56:11] Speaker 9: And who, who are members of this server? I don't want names. Just generally, who are these people? [00:56:16] Speaker 10: Um, this is his friend group. Um, they played D and D together every week. [00:56:21] Speaker 9: Okay. And I just want to scroll through this to make sure that I get a chance to take a look at it. And go to the next page? Mm-hmm. Yes. So, Tyler Icom, who's that? That's Tyler Robinson. And these other people are just others that are members of the server? Yes. Jug, Barnaby, Marina, DM. [00:56:46] Speaker 10: Yes. Yeah, like DM means Dr. Masters, so this is, uh, these are like, most of them are names they're using in the, in the game they're playing currently. Got it. [00:56:55] Speaker 9: Yeah, it looks like the last text from Tyler, it looks like it's, um, 8:00 p.m. And do you know what day this would have been 8:00 p.m. on the 10th or the 11th? [00:57:06] Speaker 10: Uh, I would think that would be the 11th. Because, uh, on, at least I think so, because I don't think on the 10th that he messaged anyone before me at like 11. [00:57:20] Speaker 9: And he turned himself in on the 11th, right? [00:57:21] Speaker 10: I thought so, yeah. [00:57:23] Speaker 9: All right. So again, those messages hovered from September 10th to the evening of September 11th. Now, September 11th, what time did, or did you see, however, on September 11th? Uh, yes. When did you first see him on September 11th? So this is the day after the shooting? [00:57:44] Speaker 10: Yeah, I saw him when I woke up. Um, like I said, he was, uh, up and around doing a lot of stuff around the house. Um, and then I, uh, I think I saw him after that message where I said I'll come home and say I'm doing laundry because I didn't want him going to my parents' house right then when he said there was probably cops outside. So I went back home and it was just him there and I said bye to him and then he drove off. So I just went back to my parents' house. [00:58:17] Speaker 9: So he acted erratically, um, was he pacing? Was he just sitting down, relaxing? No, he was, he was, uh, walking around a lot. And that's within the home? [00:58:29] Speaker 10: Mm-hmm. [00:58:30] Speaker 9: Um, and did he talk about what he had done? [00:58:35] Speaker 10: Uh, didn't go into detail. He just, I just asked him in person if what he said was true the night before and he said it was, uh, he started crying a little bit and said he wishes he hadn't done it. Uh, and then kept going around and just doing stuff, I think, to keep himself busy or distracted or something. Okay. So he talked about what he was going to do next. And eventually said that he would talk to his parents or turn himself over. [00:59:07] Speaker 9: Okay. And, uh, when you left, was that how you went, you left understanding that he was going to turn himself in or go to his parents' house? [00:59:16] Speaker 10: Yeah. And I didn't really want to be at our apartment while any of that was happening, regardless of what went down. [00:59:23] Speaker 9: Okay. Before he came home, had you seen the press, the press releases, um, any of the media on, on this? [00:59:30] Speaker 10: Uh, I'd seen, uh, I'd seen one Instagram, like, link a friend of mine had sent in our group chat, but I hadn't really looked into it at all. [00:59:41] Speaker 9: Okay. And, uh, had you seen the images that were released of the suspect? [00:59:45] Speaker 10: Uh, I did the next day. I don't think I saw any on the tech. [00:59:51] Speaker 9: Okay. I'm on the FBI's website. Um, you can see the URL there at the top. Uh, this is some press release about this event. Um, and here on the screen, you see these, there's, looks like there's two rows of three images. Mm-hmm. Um, do you recognize the person in these images? [01:00:12] Speaker 10: I wouldn't say with a hundred percent certainty just because of camera quality, but that looks like him in terms of the shoes he's wearing, the sunglasses. I don't think I'd specifically seen him wearing that hat, but he was usually wearing a hat. Um, and then jeans. So it definitely, especially the bottom, the last two definitely do look like him. Oh, they do look like Tyler Robinson. And, uh, you talked about that with your friends, right? His, his friends. Yeah. I don't, um, I don't know if I talked, I don't remember if I talked about it with any of my friends. Um, and then since I didn't have my phone after that for a while, and I still am not using social media, I don't, I don't know. [01:00:57] Vinnie Politan: He's identifying the suspect from the video. Okay. All right. Yeah. It's, it looks like him. It's like, can he say 1000%? No, he can't because it's just that little bit of blur to it, right? That little bit of blur. But you hear the tone the ways. Yeah, that's him. Like he's my roommate. He's my lover. I know what he looks like. Yeah. That's him. The shoes, the sneakers. Yeah, that's him. That's an important identification. Significant identification. Let's listen to more. [01:01:35] Speaker 9: Uh, on my friend's end. Um, did you and he ever talk about politics? [01:01:39] Speaker 10: Um, he did more than me. Uh, I, I didn't really still don't really keep up with politics very much. Uh, he'd usually talk about stuff he heard on the radio on his drive to work in like their work car, since it sounds like, uh, their whole crew went, went in the same car most of the time. But, uh, I wouldn't say super consistently, because it wasn't a topic I really contributed much on. How about Charlie Kirk? Did you ever talk about Charlie Kirk? I personally had never heard him talk about Charlie Kirk before specifically. [01:02:15] Speaker 9: Okay. Um, how about, um, political issues? So did you ever talk about gender identity issues and LGBTQ rights? [01:02:26] Speaker 10: Uh, no, not, not really. Um, uh, usually if he did talk about politics stuff, it was, uh, relating to Trump or current like policies being, uh, like issued or voted, voted on, I think. But yeah. Okay. So before that you have been. Mm. For, uh, for a short time. Yes. Okay. And, um, I understand you're going by Luna at some point. Uh, to some people. Yeah. But not as an overall thing. [01:02:58] Speaker 9: The Dremel that you talked about, um, you said he had asked for that. Is that right? Mm-hmm. And had he told you it was to inscribe bullets? Yeah. And, uh, so did you have a Dremel then? [01:03:10] Speaker 10: Yeah. Okay. Uh, it was in our, like, we had a, our apartment, we had a section where we kept all our, like, random tools for household stuff. Uh, in our, like, uh, lower basement level pantry. Um, so, yeah. [01:03:23] Speaker 9: Yeah. Okay. And did you give that to him or tell him where it was? I just told him where it was. Yeah. [01:03:29] Vinnie Politan: I cannot say enough times that this is a strong case. Prosecutors have strong evidence. Despite some of the headlines that I'm looking at online, talking about the prosecution case falling apart. Disintegrating. Um, not sure where they're coming from with that. I know where I'm coming from. I've been covering the nation's highest profile trials for decades. Longer than anyone on earth here at court TV. So I've seen a lot. I've seen high profile cases. I've seen strong cases. I've seen weak cases. I've seen cases with holes cases. This is a strong case. Let's go through some of what they have. You've got a confession. You've got a confession memorialized in a text message. This is what we call direct evidence of the crime. You're not arguing, oh, this is a purely, merely a circumstantial case. No, this is a case with direct evidence also. An admission by the defendant memorialized in a text message. Prosecutors love that. And it's, and it's not even a confession that was elicited by law enforcement, like some sort of forced coerced confession. This is a confession on the day that it happened in a text message to his lover. There's also surveillance video. This video evidence is strong. You are tracking the defendant all day long. When he's arriving on campus, each time he goes and leaves and goes and leaves, you've got timestamps. You've got him walking. You've got him walking in one set of clothes. You've got him walking in another set of clothes. You've got him walking normally. You've got him walking with this strange, stiff leg. Now you've either got him on video or you've got his doppelganger on video. The doppelganger, who by the way, is driving almost an exact replica or an exact replica of his car. So there's that also. And also the fact that this defendant turned himself in. Like he knew like they were closing in on him. His own father recognized the gun. His father's convincing him to turn himself in. He doesn't want to subject his family to some SWAT situation. He knows he's going to be arrested. He knows the strength of the evidence. He's not out there denying it. But that's not going to stop the defense from fighting. They're going to fight back. Of course they are. They always do. Every case I've covered, the defense has done something. They don't just sit there and say, oh, I guess the evidence just looks bad. We don't have a case. No, they have an opening statement. They have a closing argument. They have a theory. They have an approach. Whatever it is. And it's different in different cases. What's interesting here, though, is what will the defense do? Is the defense going to adopt the public narrative that is playing with a certain population of the public? Whether that percentage is 20, 30, 40 percent who think there's something else going on here. That this guy's a patsy. Will they adopt that? Kind of like what we saw in the Karen Reed case. The difference with the Karen Reed case was is that the public adopted the narrative of the defense team. Here I'm wondering if the defense team is going to adopt the narrative of the public, which has been generated through social media and other places. All right. So let's get an idea. Preliminary hearing. The defense was able to call some of their own witnesses. They decided to call a couple of witnesses from the ATF. So these are obviously people who work for the prosecution and investigation of the case, but they believe they have evidence that can help them. So first up is a Caitlin Oliver, forensic biologist for the ATF. Let's take a listen to the defense examination, the defense direct examination. [01:07:39] Speaker 11: None of the testing in any of the three reports can answer the question of how and when DNA got deposited. Is that true? [01:07:48] Speaker 12: That is true. DNA can't speak to the activity that led to the deposition of the DNA. [01:07:53] Speaker 11: And the report says with regard to that issue, with the increased sensitivity of DNA techniques and sophisticated software, a DNA profile may be developed even when the contributor of that DNA never touched the item or area that was swapped. Alternatively, a person's DNA may be present when they were not involved in the crime. Do you agree with that? [01:08:18] Speaker 12: Yes, once again, I cannot speak to the activity. [01:08:21] Speaker 11: How can you explain how it's possible that a DNA profile may be developed even when the contributor of that DNA never touched the item or area that was swapped? [01:08:34] Speaker 12: So it's possible if, say, the pen that you're sitting there using for the week, you say, hand it off to the judge and the judge then touches it for a period of time and then I swab it. It doesn't speak to who handled it last. I could test that. I could get both of your profiles. I wouldn't know which person was the last person to handle that item. [01:09:00] Speaker 11: All right. And similarly, if you had a lot of DNA on your hand, we shook hands, I then went to pick up an exhibit, a gun, I touched the trigger of it, your DNA could be on that trigger, right? [01:09:18] Speaker 12: It is possible, yes. Okay. [01:09:22] Vinnie Politan: All right. Are they going to attack the DNA by saying it's all transferred? That someone came in contact with the defendant and then transferred his DNA onto everything? Who are they going to point the finger at? Lance Twiggs, his roommate/lover? Is that where they're going? Let's watch. [01:09:41] Speaker 11: Okay. Even though you never touched the gun? Yes. And that's why, because of those possibilities, you can't make any assessment of how or when DNA got deposited, correct? Correct. Now, the second report that you wrote had to do with a Dremel item that was taken from Mr. Robinson's home? Correct. And did you request certain what are called elimination samples in regard to items that were recovered from his home? [01:10:21] Speaker 12: Yes. An elimination sample is a sample taken from a known individual that it may be assumed that they could have come into contact with it. If I were to, say, swab your vehicle, then I would want your DNA sample as an elimination to eliminate you in order to look for any additional DNA that may be there. [01:10:42] Speaker 11: And you say they're assumed contributors because, depending upon the location, for instance, somebody's house, you would expect if there were multiple people in that house, that perhaps everybody in the house could contribute to a certain DNA result. [01:10:59] Speaker 12: It's possible. [01:11:00] Speaker 11: So you'd want samples from all those folks to see if they contributed to an item that would be associated with a place where they congregated. Correct. The elimination samples that you requested in connection with item C from Mr. Robinson's apartment were from Amber Robinson, Matthew Robinson, and Lance Twiggs, correct? Correct. And that's because you had information that those people were associated with the house. Correct. And when you tested or compared, first of all, you determined their DNA types, right? Correct. Then you compared their types to what you found on the evidence. Correct. And for a certain number of those samples, you found the presence of DNA of your elimination samples. Not because they were suspects, but because they were associated with the premises, right? [01:12:03] Speaker 12: There was support for inclusion of some of these individuals, yes. [01:12:06] Speaker 11: Okay. For instance, item number 1.4, which was a swab from the rifle, you used the elimination sample of Mr. Robinson's father and you found his DNA on that particular swab, correct? [01:12:25] Speaker 12: I would say there was support for inclusion of Matthew Robinson on the sample obtained from the swabs of the bolts of the rifle. [01:12:34] Speaker 11: I'm glad you pointed that out. That's, again, consistent with your other testimony. You're talking, again, about support for inclusion as a possible contributor. [01:12:46] Speaker 12: Correct. [01:12:47] Speaker 11: Similarly, with respect to 1.6, you found, again, Matthew Robinson on swap number 1.6 or a profile that indicated he was a possible contributor. [01:13:01] Speaker 12: There was support for inclusion of Matthew Robinson. [01:13:04] Speaker 11: Okay. You found support for inclusion of Lance Twiggs on swabs of buttons of a Dremel tool, correct? [01:13:14] Speaker 12: Correct. [01:13:17] Speaker 11: And going back to what we were talking about before, if a person named Lance Twiggs lived in that residence, came into contact with Tyler Robinson and then touched a button on a Dremel tool, you'd expect Mr. Robinson and Mr. Twiggs' DNA to be on there, right? Or you could. [01:13:39] Speaker 12: It's reasonable to assume that anyone living in the household could have contributed to DNA on an object found in that household. [01:13:46] Vinnie Politan: Hold it right there. Talk about two different things here. The defense is trying to get to the transfer world while the agent keeps saying, well, if it's in the house, both of them could touch it. But what the defense is trying to say is Lance touches Tyler and then Lance touches the Dremel. So he's the one making all the markings in the cartridges. It's not Tyler. He never touched it. He just touched Lance, who then touched the item. That's where the defense appears to be going in all this. And at trial, if it goes to trial, that's what their expert's going to talk about. Let's watch some more. [01:14:27] Speaker 11: And similarly, you found profiles to suggest support for inclusion of Mr. Twiggs on other areas of the Dremel tool, correct? Correct. [01:14:42] Vinnie Politan: Okay. Let's watch the cross-examination because the defense is just trying to kind of like lay things out there, lay things out there. The defense comes back to kind of focus the judge. [01:14:55] Speaker 9: We just list off the areas of that firearm where there was support for evidentiary support for inclusion of Tyler Robinson. [01:15:05] Speaker 12: The swabs of the stock and grips of rifle, the swabs of the butt plate of rifle, swabs of the trigger and trigger guard of rifle with possible ridge detail slash smudging, the swabs of the bolt of the rifle with possible ridge detail slash smudging, and the swabs of the forend of the rifle. [01:15:24] Speaker 9: We go to page three. [01:15:31] Speaker 12: Swabs of the barrel of the rifle with possible ridge detail slash smudging, the swabs of possible ridge detail slash smudging on the optical accessory. [01:15:42] Speaker 9: And page four. And page four. [01:15:47] Speaker 12: The swabs of the protected underside of the receiver of the rifle after disassembly, the swabs of one 30-06 cartridge case, the swabs of one 30-06 cartridge, and the swabs of one 30-06 cartridge. [01:16:04] Speaker 9: I want to ask you about a couple of those conclusions. Exhibit 1.3, do you know where that swab was taken from? [01:16:12] Speaker 12: The 1.3 is the swabs of the trigger and trigger guard of the rifle. [01:16:15] Speaker 9: What was your conclusion as to the likelihood ratio that you analyzed in this question, calculation number three? [01:16:27] Speaker 12: For this exhibit, the DNA profile was at least one trillion times more likely if it originated from Tyler Robinson as the major component and three unknown unrelated individuals than if it originated from four unrelated individuals. [01:16:44] Speaker 9: You say at least one trillion times more likely, so it could be a much higher number than one trillion, is that accurate? [01:16:51] Speaker 12: It's possible. Or? The 1.13 is the swabs of the protected underside of the receiver of the rifle after disassembly, and 2.1 is the swabs of one 30-06 cartridge case. [01:17:04] Speaker 9: Why do you group these two together, Exhibits 1.13 and 2.1, in your conclusions here? [01:17:10] Speaker 12: They were both mixtures of two individuals, and they both yielded a likelihood ratio of the same magnitude, so they can be grouped together. [01:17:19] Speaker 9: Okay, what was your conclusion as it relates to both of these as to the likelihood ratio? [01:17:24] Speaker 12: The DNA profiles are at least one trillion times more likely if they originated from Tyler Robinson as the major contributor and an unknown unrelated individual than if they originated from two unknown unrelated individuals. [01:17:38] Speaker 9: And did you make a conclusion here as well about the probability statistic? [01:17:45] Speaker 12: Yes, so the probability of an unrelated individual in the population who has not contributed DNA to these samples, yielding this level of support, so meaning yielding this likelihood ratio, is less than one in a trillion. [01:18:00] Vinnie Politan: Less than one in a trillion, it was someone else's DNA on the trigger. Like, are you kidding me? Are you kidding me? Okay, but wait, there's more. Remember, that's a defense witness. Let's take a look here at another firearms expert from the ATF, Samantha Carner is her name. Again, called by the defense. Let's watch the direct end cross. [01:18:25] Speaker 11: You concluded here, did you not, that the exhibit 6A bullet jacket fragment could not be identified or excluded as having been fired from the exhibit 1A based on an agreement of all discernible class characteristics, and neither sufficient agreement nor sufficient disagreement of individual characteristics. The result of the comparison was inconclusive. Yes. That was your ultimate conclusion, right? Yes. And on the next page, if you could go to two pages in, you have an appendix, do you not, where you explain what inconclusive means? Next page. One more. There we go. I want to ask you because I'm unclear on what inconclusive means. You say reasons for an inconclusive include the presence of microscopic similarity that is insufficient to form the conclusion of source identification, a lack of any observed microscopic similarity, or a microscopic similarity that is insufficient to form the conclusion of source exclusion. Could you specify which of those possibilities exists in this case? Was this a case where you had microscopic dissimilarity, but in your opinion, it was insufficient to form a conclusion of source exclusion? [01:19:56] Speaker 13: No. My conclusion is inconclusive, just as it says in the appendix. There is a lack of sufficient agreement and sufficient disagreement. So I'm unable to say one way or another. [01:20:06] Speaker 11: Okay, but I guess my question is, were there points of dissimilarity between the question [01:20:13] Speaker 13: and the known bullets? Again, there was sufficient agreement and sufficient, there was not sufficient agreement or sufficient disagreement. So yes, there was times that I saw agreement in the striations in the land and group impressions, also seeing disagreement, but there was also a lot of lack of microscopic marks of value to see it all. So because of this lack of quality and quantity of marks to be able to see, it never reached the threshold of sufficient agreement nor sufficient disagreement. So an identification or exclusion could not be rendered. [01:20:44] Speaker 11: And can you have bullets fired from different weapons that can have individual characteristics that look pretty similar? [01:20:53] Speaker 13: There is occasions, yes, that tool marks that are made by two separate tools are similar, yes. [01:20:58] Vinnie Politan: It sounds like they're gonna argue there was a second shooter. That's what that is, and they'll bring in an expert to talk about how this is dissimilar. Trust me, they will. But it looks like they're going with a second shooter theory. Let's watch some more. [01:21:17] Speaker 11: Comparisons show individual characteristics, indicating that it was fired from the same weapon. [01:21:24] Speaker 13: There are individual characteristics present, but without examining it in person, I don't feel comfortable making a conclusion. [01:21:30] Speaker 9: The result of the comparison was inconclusive. What, could there, could further testing be done to try and see if there is any, if you come to a conclusion on this round? [01:21:41] Speaker 13: There was no further testing that I could do, no. [01:21:43] Speaker 9: Is there further testing that could be done in the field? [01:21:46] Speaker 13: There is the possibility of using a 3D system to visualize the individual characteristics on the bullet. [01:21:54] Speaker 9: Do you have the capability of doing that at your lab? [01:21:56] Speaker 13: My laboratory currently does not have that capability. [01:21:59] Speaker 9: Do you know if the FBI lab does have that capability? [01:22:02] Speaker 13: I believe they do. [01:22:03] Speaker 9: Defense Council put up a list of potential firearms that could have fired this round, or this bullet. Is that list comprehensive? [01:22:13] Speaker 13: It's not an all-inclusive list. [01:22:15] Speaker 9: There's been some discussion about a bullet, the 6A bullet jacket fragment. Will you describe what a bullet jacket is? [01:22:22] Speaker 13: Yes, I do have a demonstrative. May I use that? [01:22:25] Speaker 9: Do you have that with you? Yes. Yes, please go ahead. [01:22:29] Speaker 13: So this is a demonstrative of a bullet. So a bullet jacket, it would refer to the outside of the bullet. Inside the bullet would be the lead core. So when I'm referring to the jacket, it means that I've only received that outer portion. I did not receive any of the lead core intact with it. In this circumstance, you received a bullet. [01:22:48] Speaker 9: In this circumstance, you received a bullet jacket fragment. What does that mean that it's a fragment? [01:22:54] Speaker 13: Fragment means that I don't have the entirety of that jacket. [01:22:59] Speaker 9: And can you testify as to why you don't have that entirety? [01:23:03] Speaker 13: No, I cannot. [01:23:07] Speaker 9: And your report also says that there are four lead fragments. Why would you have lead fragments? [01:23:16] Speaker 13: So the lead fragments, the lead would be from the inside of the bullet, that core. Occasionally, when the bullet reaches its final destination, it can split. And some of that core might be pulled off of the jacket and be found where it landed. [01:23:32] Speaker 9: And would you be able to gather information from those lead fragments that could identify them as coming from this particular firearm? Would you expect to be able to make that comparison? [01:23:45] Speaker 13: I would not expect to see any characteristics that would help me reach a conclusion, no. [01:23:50] Speaker 9: Why not? [01:23:51] Speaker 13: Because the lead core is on the inside of the bullet, the landing grooves are going to be imparted onto the jacket or the exterior. So when it's moving down the barrel, the inside is not coming into contact with rifling whatsoever. [01:24:05] Vinnie Politan: Okay. They're going to go somewhere with this, some experts. If this was the only issue, okay, maybe you've got something here because it's inconclusive. But there's all that other evidence that prosecutors are going to rely upon. What you say or text can be used against you in a court of law. And I think that is something that the defendant in this case is learning. In the moments after and the hours after the shooting of Charlie Kirk, prosecutors say this defendant was sending text messages to his roommate/lover, Lance Twiggs. Those text messages, perhaps some of the most compelling evidence in the case, if you trust the evidence, right? If you don't believe that someone planted the text messages, if someone didn't manipulate his phone. But if you believe that these text messages are legit, this is compelling evidence.