Explosive New Details Rock Charlie Kirk Murder Case

[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 [00:00:37] Speaker 2: notice of intent to seek the death penalty. Prosecutors seeking the death penalty up the [00:00:42] Vinnie Politan: 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 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 3: So, you were securing the Hall of Flags walkway, correct? Yes. On the south end? Yes. Can you describe what you were seeing? What did you observe? On that day, I observed Charlie going back, [00:05:59] Speaker 4: 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 answering questions and talking to individuals that would [00:06:12] Speaker 3: ask him questions. The tent you're referring to, is that the tent that we see when it was set up in [00:06:17] Speaker 4: the courtyard? Yeah, that white square tent. The white top? Yes, he was under that. Fast forward to about [00:06:24] Speaker 3: about 12:20 or so. So, a little bit after noon, the noon hour. What happened? What did you see and what did you hear? [00:06:31] Speaker 4: 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 he was underneath the tent, so I could only see probably the right side of his body. He was answering a question. Kid asked him a question and then I heard a shot fired. Do you know what time that was? Yes. What time was that? 12:23. What did you see? At that moment, I saw him [00:07:03] Speaker 3: lean to the left, so I... When you say him, you see... Charlie. Charlie. So, I saw him go to the left, [00:07:10] Speaker 4: 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 to the left. Okay. Can you describe... [00:07:19] Vinnie Politan: 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. Describe the reaction of others that were there. [00:07:44] Speaker 4: Yeah. So, then everybody started getting up and starting to run in more of a chaos kind of situation. [00:07:54] Speaker 3: 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? [00:08:06] Speaker 4: So, how would you describe it in your terms? In my terms, 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, 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. You mentioned... So, you mentioned you heard something. [00:08:33] Speaker 3: What did you 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 4: 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. [00:08:59] Speaker 3: Okay. You're a police officer helping to secure the area, correct? Yes. [00:09:04] Speaker 4: What did you do? At that moment, I recognized it as gunfire. 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 are running up. People are 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. [00:09:32] Vinnie Politan: What happened next? 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 [00:09:54] Speaker 4: of the 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, 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 [00:10:44] Speaker 3: injuries that I could see at that moment. Okay. Was your attention drawn to anything else at that time? [00:10:50] Speaker 4: 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 [00:11:31] Speaker 3: was more of a rifle shot and not a pistol shot. And what causes you to say that? [00:11:38] Speaker 4: 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 sound. It's longer. So that's why I recognized it. [00:12:00] Speaker 3: Okay. Is a rifle sound louder typically? Yes. Okay. Going back to when you heard this gunshot, could you tell where it came from, the direction? [00:12:15] Speaker 4: Yes, I knew it came from the east of me. From the east of you. Okay. [00:12:20] Speaker 3: So you see this realization comes to your mind. What did you do next? [00:12:25] Speaker 4: At that moment, when I saw the holster, the empty holster, I turned to my chief and I said, 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 Losey 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 and questioned. 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 3: That's a lot happening very quickly. Let's watch some more. Can you just briefly describe your route to the Losey Center? [00:13:35] Speaker 4: So from the courtyard, you can go into the Sorenson Center. And like I said earlier, there was, on level one, there's some elevators or there's stairs. I ran up four flights of stairs. I got to the fourth level of the Losey building and proceeded to the south of the Losey building. There's some stairs, which is that breezeway between the computer science building and the Losey building. There's some stairs that go up to the top of that. And so I went to the top of that. Is that the stairway that you previously described? Yes, on the outside of the Losey building. Okay. And it's a public stairway? Yeah. Okay. [00:14:13] Speaker 3: Did you make it to the rooftop? I did. Do you know about what time you got there? I probably, [00:14:19] Speaker 4: I got there 12:44. Okay. What did you do when you got on top? When I got on top, I hopped over the guard rail. I noticed that there was an object which was sitting right about 10 or 15 feet in from the other side of the guard rail in the gravel that looked out of place to me. And this is interesting, right? [00:14:47] Vinnie Politan: 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 had 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. Let's see what he finds. [00:15:27] Speaker 3: In relationship to where you hopped over the guard rail, what direction was that object? To the west of the guard rail. Okay. And did you recognize the object? [00:15:38] Speaker 4: I did. And what was it? It was a red and black screwdriver. Okay. Did you touch that object? I did not. Okay. [00:15:52] Speaker 3: I am going to refer the witness on your screen, officer Bagley to state's exhibit 3.1. Let me know when you see that. Yes, I see it. Do you recognize what that is? I do. And what is that? That's a picture of the [00:16:11] Speaker 4: screwdriver that I saw that day on top of the rooftop of the Losey building. Okay. And that's how it [00:16:17] Speaker 3: appeared on the roof that day? Yes. Is that a fair and accurate portrayal of the screwdriver you observed and found that day? Yes. You're on the state offers, state's exhibit 3.1. Ms. Nestor. [00:16:31] Speaker 5: Your Honor, we renew, excuse me, we renew our standing objection and object on the grounds that there's no foundation laid as to when the photo was taken or by home. Thank you. [00:16:42] Speaker 6: Same response, Judge. My previous arguments. And did you state that this was a fair and accurate representation as of September 10th, 2020? I had said that day. I'll ask it again. All right. To the [00:16:54] Speaker 3: officer. Officer Bagley, you saw this screwdriver you're describing on September 10th, 2025. Is that correct? Yes. Is State's Exhibit 3.1 a fair and accurate depiction of that screwdriver that day, [00:17:09] Vinnie Politan: September 10th, 2025? Yes. Important piece of evidence, right? You've got to take forensic evidence, things that are found, and link it to the defendant. Because we know the video that we see is way too far away to make an identification, right? So anything that is left at the scene, linking the defendant to where they believe Charlie Kirk's killer was firing that weapon. Now, again, powerful evidence, great police work. Let's take a look now at the cross-examination. Again, it's a preliminary hearing. I mean, odds are always against the defense, but one thing they want to do is sort of flush out some of the testimony, flush out some of the issues and lock people into their testimony. Let's see what she [00:17:55] Speaker 5: focuses on in her cross-examination. So I believe in your report, um, you also don't state whether or not, um, you don't mention anything about thinking it came from the low C building or anything like that, [00:18:10] Speaker 4: right? Uh, later on when I recognized where the, when I saw the empty holsters, when I, I think I actually said that in there where I see the empty holster that I realized the line of sight. [00:18:20] Speaker 5: Okay. So let's talk about that holster for a minute. Um, so you heard the shot and did, you only heard one shot, correct? Yes. And then you came down from the walkway above the, um, tent, right? Yes. And you came down to really the grassy area that we've all been looking at the courtyard. Yes. And there was kind of chaos, people running around. Yes. And, um, while you were down there, you saw what you said was an empty holster. Yeah, as I, as I was clearing people out and making sure [00:18:55] Speaker 4: that the evidence was preserved, uh, about towards the top after a little bit, I saw an empty holster [00:19:00] Speaker 5: sitting there. And when you say towards the top, can you be specific and tell us where you were? [00:19:04] Speaker 4: There's so on the south side in the courtyard, there's some tiers of seating where the grass is different levels and was towards the top. Maybe just right before the cement is where everybody's standing. So there's different levels towards the top on the grass. And when you saw the holster, [00:19:22] Speaker 5: can you describe to me what it looked like? An empty concealed holster. For what type of weapon? For a pistol. Okay. And did it have any markings on it? I didn't even, no, not that I noticed. And what happened to that holster? I have no idea. Did you ever take custody of it? No. Did you ever tell anyone else to take custody of it? No. You just left it on the grass? I did. Was it ever fingerprinted to your? [00:19:55] Vinnie Politan: The defense always has to look for doubt anywhere they can. Make police look like they don't know what they're doing. They botched the scene. We can't trust anything. That's a typical defense when you don't have much else. But will the defense actually go there, right? And say, well, the first guy you got, that's the suspect. That's the person responsible. I can't imagine they would. I can't imagine they would point the finger at this guy who was, who was, who was stopped, but then cleared based upon ballistics and everything else. But it doesn't, the defense will make anything you do look like you're not doing your job. And you just left it. Of course he left it there. They had that person in, in custody. We're questioning him. He didn't believe it was a pistol. So he's going up there because it's a chaotic situation. There, there may still be a shooter on the loose. So he's going to go where he thinks the shot was taken from. So it was actually good police work to just leave it there and go. But she's making it look like he did something wrong there. Maybe a jury will agree. I don't know. Let's watch a little more. [00:21:18] Speaker 5: Your knowledge. I have no idea. [00:21:24] Vinnie Politan: Yeah, I think this is going to be one of those cases. I don't know if the defense will point the finger at someone else or just kind of pointed all over the place saying this scene was so chaotic, the investigation was sloppy. You can't trust the evidence. Obviously there's a lot at stake in this case, a whole lot. It's a, it's a death penalty case. So when you have a trial like that, you're going to see a lot of litigation, a lot of motions made. You're going to see the defense fighting everything because it's, it's not just another trial. This is a case where the defendant's life is hanging in the balance. So what I've seen through the years at Court TV is that when it's a death penalty case, the defense will bring up many more issues and push a lot harder. One of the things that happened in this case was that there's a gag order, but there was a leak of some information and some misinterpretation of that information by the media. And to correct it all, prosecutors spoke out, despite the gag order, which is very problematic. So the defense made a lot of noise about it and wanted the death penalty taken off this case removed because prosecutors had violated the gag order. So let's take a listen to the judge ruling on this motion, because this could be very significant. If you remember in the Lori Daybell case, how, uh, a few years ago, there were problems, there were mistakes made by prosecutors in, in the discovery sense of the litigation. And as a result, the judge there penalized prosecutors by removing the potential death sentence for Lori Daybell. [00:23:08] Speaker 6: So that's what's happening here. Let's take a look. The court has thoroughly reviewed the pleadings, affidavits, declarations and exhibits submitted by both parties, including defendant's motion, the declaration of counsel, the state's opposition, defendant's reply, the state's opposition to defendant's request to move the death penalty, and defendant's response thereto. Furthermore, the court has considered the testimony and evidence presented during the evidentiary show cause hearing held on June 12th, 2026, where Deputy County Attorney Ballard and Utah County Attorney Jeffrey S. Gray testified under oath. Drawing upon Utah statutory law, the Utah rules of professional conduct, constitutional authority, and persuasive precedent from other jurisdictions, the court issues this ruling in order. The court has independently determined the facts and applied the law to ascertain whether civil contempt has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. This case involves a high-profile capital prosecution of Tyler James Robinson, who was charged with the aggravated murder of Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist, which allegedly occurred at Utah Valley University. Between March 31st and April 2nd, Mr. Ballard engaged in extrajudicial communications with multiple media entities. On March 31st, 2026, Mr. Ballard was quoted by TMZ stating, "Generally, when a bullet fragment analysis comes back as inconclusive, that means the fragment did not contain enough detail for the examiner to say one way or the other. There's just not enough there to determine whether the bullet was fired by a particular firearm. We have ample evidence to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Tyler Robinson committed this murder, and we will present some of that evidence at the upcoming preliminary hearing, and we will present all that evidence at trial." Mr. Ballard further stated, "He is presumed innocent. The ultimate decision will be up to the jury. We believe we will be able to overcome his presumption of innocence. A false media narrative asserting that the murder weapon has been definitively forensically excluded constitutes substantial undue prejudice to the prosecution. Mr. Ballard's statements explaining the forensic mechanical definition of an inconclusive test were narrowly tailored to mitigate this specific prejudice. While comment 5 generally prohibits discussing the results of the test, the safe harbor of Rule 3.6 authorizes otherwise restrictive responsive statements only to the extent reasonably necessary to mitigate the recent prejudicial publicity." Conclusions on Allegation 1: "The Court finds Mr. Ballard's statements clarifying that the ATF's inconclusive findings were protected by the safe harbor provision of URPC 3.6 . These statements do not constitute a violation of the publicity order. The adverse publicity here concerned one specific piece of physical evidence, a bullet fragment. The Court does not conclude that Rule 3.6 prohibited all public response. To the contrary, Rule 3.6 expressly recognizes that in limited circumstances, counsel may respond to recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or lawyer's client. The question is not, therefore, whether Mr. Ballard could respond, but whether a reasonable lawyer would have believed the additional statements concerning the overall strength of the prosecution's evidence were necessary to mitigate the specific prejudice created by the inaccurate reporting concerning the ATF examination, stating that that the prosecution has ample evidence to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Tyler Robinson committed this murder reasonably communicated to the public the prosecutor's assessment of the defendant's guilt that the defendant was guilty. This directly violates comment 5 Roman numeral 4 of Rule 3.6, which prohibits expressing any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant. While Mr. Ballard offered a cursory nod to the presumption of innocence, he immediately undercut it by publicly broadcasting his belief that the state will overcome his presumption of innocence. These statements were not reasonably necessary under Rule 3.6 to mitigate the confusion surrounding the ATF report. Rather, those additional public statements possessed a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the proceedings. For the reasons stated above, the Court independently determines that the movement has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Deputy Utah County Attorney Christopher Ballard is in civil contempt of the September 16, 2025 and December 15, 2025 publicity orders. The Court finds that striking the death penalty is grossly disproportionate to the misconduct and legally unavailable in this civil contempt framework. The Court will consider expanded Bordiah procedures, additional jury questionnaires, expanded jury summons, or other remedial measures as necessary after consultation with the party's attorney's fees. Because this civil contempt proceeding was necessitated by Mr. Ballard's violation, the Court shall compensate the defendant for the reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in the filing, drafting, and litigating of the motion for order to show cause in the evidentiary hearing. [00:29:21] Vinnie Politan: Okay, so the death penalty stays, but this is a prime example of lawyers lawyering. Like, to me, the part of this that makes, I get it, the judge is making sense, but what doesn't make sense is a prosecutor saying, "I believe we have enough evidence here to prove the defendant guilty." Like, if a prosecutor doesn't believe that, they shouldn't be bringing the case in the first place. Like, ethically, that is, to me, a bigger problem. Like, if you bring a case, you don't believe you have enough evidence to prove. The problem is he's saying it out loud. He's saying it out loud. He's proclaiming it after there's a gag order. He's saying, "Yes, we have the evidence to prove this case," which he'll say in front of the jury in his opening statement, "By the way." To me, I get what the defense was doing. I don't understand why prosecutors would risk it in a case like this, but the problem wasn't correcting the record about the bullet fragment, which is really what the statement was all about. It was the next statement that he made saying, "We're going to prove this case despite the fact that he's presumed innocent," which is basically him saying, "I'm a prosecutor. I'm going to do my job." So it's interesting that the prosecutor got in trouble for saying, "I think I can prove the case. We've got the evidence to prove the case." But the problem was there was a gag order in place. Now, prior to there being any gag order, prosecutors actually laid out the specific evidence that they believe they have to prove the case. So they're already on record as saying all this stuff. So let's take a look at this. This is the original press conference when they were charging the defendant here. Let's take a listen to what they say and what the evidence is that they believe that they had. This goes back to September 16th of 2025. [00:31:19] Speaker 2: Approximately 15 minutes into the event, Mr. Kirk was answering a question about mass shootings by transgender individuals when a gunshot ring out. The bullet struck Mr. Kirk in the neck. He slumped to the ground almost immediately. Hold it right there for a second, right off the top. [00:31:42] Vinnie Politan: And I'm wondering how big of a role that may have played if he's talking about transgender individuals. And that's the subject matter of what Charlie Kirk was talking about at the moment, in light of what we've learned about. Tyler Robinson and his personal life and his his lover transitioning or attempting to transition. To me, as a prosecutor, I would use that evidence like that. That plays right into the entire case that you're trying to build. Let's watch some more. [00:32:14] Speaker 2: Well, its trajectory passed closely to several other individuals beside Mr. Kirk, including the questioner who was standing directly in front of Mr. Kirk. Children were visible near Mr. Kirk's stage when he was shot. Mr. Kirk was rushed to a nearby hospital where he was declared deceased. This discovery led to an intensive review of UBU surveillance recordings to attempt to track and identify the suspect. Surveillance revealed the following. At approximately 11:51 AM, the suspect entered campus from the north. He is seen wearing a black shirt with an American flag in the center, a dark baseball cap and large sunglasses. Throughout the surveillance, the suspect keeps his head down and rarely raises his head enough to get a clear image of his face. As he proceeds across the campus, he is seen walking with an unusual gait. The suspect walks with very little bending in his right leg, consistent with a rifle being hidden in his pants. This unusual gait continues until the suspect is seen crossing the railway off the open walkway and onto the roof, where he leaves the camera's view. A camera later captures the suspect as he runs across the roof to the suspected shooting position. Immediately after the shot was fired, a camera captures the suspect running across the roof, carrying an item whose shape is consistent with a rifle. The suspect is then seen climbing down from the roof. He appears to drop the item he was carrying as he hits the ground in a controlled fall. He then picks up the item and runs toward the northeast end of campus. Expanded crime scene investigation. Law enforcement officers followed the suspect's escape path to the northeast end of campus, where they believed the suspect left campus and entered a wooded area. In that wooded area, investigators found a bolt action rifle wrapped in a towel. The rifle contained one spent round and three unspent rounds. Robinson accused Kirk of spreading hate. Robinson's father reported that when his wife showed him the surveillance image of the suspected shooter in the news, he agreed that it looked like their son. He also believed that the rifle that police suspected the shooter used matched a rifle that was given to his son as a gift. As a result, Robinson's father contacted his son and asked him to send a photo of the rifle. Robinson did not respond. However, Robinson's father spoke on the phone with Robinson. Robinson implied that he planned to take his own life. Robinson's parents were able to convince him to meet at their home. As they discussed the situation, Robinson implied that he was the shooter and stated that he couldn't go to jail and just wanted to end it. When asked why he did it, Robinson explained there is too much evil and the guy, referring to Charlie Kirk, spreads too much hate. They talked about Robinson turning himself in and convinced Robinson to speak with a family friend who is a retired deputy sheriff. At Robinson's father's request, the family friend met with Robinson and his parents and convinced Robinson to turn himself in. The roommate. Police interviewed Robinson's roommate, a biological male who was involved in a romantic relationship with Robinson. On September 10th, 2025, the roommate received a text message from Robinson which said, "Drop what you're doing. Look under my keyboard." The roommate looked under the keyboard and found a note that stated, "I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I'm going to take it. Police found a photograph of this note." The following text exchange then took place. After reading the note, the roommate responded, "What? You're joking, right?" Robinson, "I am still okay, my love, but am stuck in Orem for a little while longer yet. Shouldn't be long until I can come home, but I gotta grab my rifle still. To be honest, I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age. I am sorry to involve you." Roommate, "You weren't the one who did it, right?" Robinson, "I am. I am. I'm sorry." Roommate, "I thought they caught the person." Robinson, "No, they grabbed some crazy old dude, then interrogated someone in similar clothing. I had planned to grab my rifle from my drop point shortly after, but most of that side of town got locked down. It's quiet almost enough to get out, but there's one vehicle lingering." Roommate, "Why?" Robinson, "Why did I do it?" Roommate, "Yeah." Robinson, "I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out. If I am able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence." [00:38:08] Vinnie Politan: Overwhelming. I mean, you've got motive, opportunity, direct evidence of an alleged confession that is taking place here as well. And they didn't even mention, because they probably didn't have the results yet, the DNA that they claim to have connected to the weapon. And the family recognize him. I mean, all these pieces just built seemingly an insurmountable case for prosecutors. So, a lot of evidence, but I want to focus right now on the video evidence, the surveillance evidence, which I think is crucial for prosecutors. You know, tracking the movements of the suspect here. Let's take a look, and this is the part where he's on the roof, which is where they believe he fired the weapon from. And you see the figure running across. You see a reflection through the back of the building, now comes around and comes to the edge here. From this, prosecutors are able to find other pieces of evidence in tracking the direction and where he's going. And he's got a bag. Consistent, again, with the weapon. Now, something that people have done taking a look at this, you know, they zoom in and they slow down. Well, that doesn't look like this, that doesn't look like that. The bottom line is everything that we're seeing and hearing from prosecutors is consistent with this defendant and points the finger at this defendant and proves a story that makes a lot of sense. To me, if you're one of those folks who believes that someone else did it, he's a patsy, that he had nothing to do with it. Like, how could you ever even attempt to prosecute someone else? Because if you try to prosecute someone else for this, they're going to take all this evidence and point it right at Tyler Robinson. So, sometimes cases are exactly what you think they are when you look at and see the evidence. And everything piece here for prosecutors is fitting together. The direction where he goes, the timing of it, where they found the weapon, all of that leads to one conclusion. And sometimes, and I get it, this is a case that has been oozing with politics, right, in the world we live in. Because everything was live streamed, all the biggest pieces of evidence, the actual assassination is caught on camera. And everyone, and this is not something new, by the way, this phenomena. I've been covering cases at Court TV longer than anyone on earth, okay? And what I've seen through the years is a very similar pattern, although it breathes a lot louder these days because of social media, is that there's the prosecution theory of the case, there's the defense theory of the case. And then there's always a faction, sometimes really large, sometimes kind of small, that has a completely different theory of the case. That is neither what prosecutors are saying, or what the defense is saying. And I think that's what we're seeing in this case, but it's amplified because of who Charlie Kirk is, and because of the state of politics in our nation and around the world. And I think that's what has taken over here. At least some people who are very skeptical about what they're seeing, which is why cameras in the courtroom are so important in this case, for the public to see and hear the evidence. You want to trust a result? Well, show us the evidence, let us see the evidence. And in a case like this, where the skepticism is at a very high level, a very high level, based upon what the evidence is, to have that much skepticism with this type of evidence, well, let's see it. And let's see if there are things that, for whatever reason, don't make sense. But for me, as a former prosecutor, this is like a case that is like tied up with a ribbon on it. The transparency is important. And that's something that Erica Kirk, who is a victim here, right? It was her husband, the father of her children, who was assassinated. She wants to ensure that the public sees the trial as well. And there's actually been another statement that's been released by Erica Kirk on her ex account as this preliminary hearing is beginning. Statement on behalf of Charlie Kirk's immediate family, his parents, Robert and Catherine, his wife, Erica, and his sister, Mary. And I think this is part of the story that can't get lost because of who he was publicly. At the end of the day, like I said, he's a husband. He's a father. Charlie was a beloved husband, son, brother, friend, and father. Every court proceeding serves as a painful reminder of his death and the loss that has irrevocably impacted our lives and the lives of his children. Like that's forever. Regardless of the verdict at the end of the case, that is forever. The only thing families can get at this point is some sense of justice where they can turn the page and say, okay, someone's been held responsible. We remain deeply grateful for the support, prayers, and kindness we've received. The outpouring has sustained us during the darkest days of our lives. What this case is doing, which is different than most cases because of the public nature of it, is that we are seeing it kind of play out publicly. What a family goes through, the pain, the difficulty in trying to move forward. And for the Kirk family, it's been, I think, exponentially increased by everything that is happening online, all the chatter. But part of that is the outpouring of support, which is helping them through all of this. Out of respect for the judicial process, we will not be commenting further at this time. We ask for continued privacy as we navigate this process and immense grief, which is quite understandable. Most families don't want to talk during the process. But the good part of this is that Erica Kirk realizes that this was a public assassination and the public should see what the evidence is to see if the truth comes out inside of the courtroom. Obviously, we'll continue to cover this story, but that's it for this time. Until next time. In the meantime, please don't forget to hug the kids.