July 14, 2026 • 57 mins
The preliminary hearing in the murder for the accused killer of Charlie Kirk took place in Provo, Utah, with prosecutors trying to convince a judge there is enough evidence against Tyler Robinson, 23, to move forward with trial. Joseph Scott Morgan and Dave Mack examine some of the decisions made, like allowing a heavily redacted interview between Robinson's roommate/boyfriend Lance Twiggs and investigators to be played in court, essentially allowing Twiggs to testify without being subjected to cross-examination. Professor Morgan also gives in-depth forensic analysis of the weapon and ammunition used in the murder of Charlie Kirk.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Quodybags with Joseph Scott Morgan. I come to you today,
my friends, with information information that as of just a
couple of days ago. It's the time of this taping
as hot off the press, as they used to say,
(00:24):
we've come to a conclusion or an end rather and
what has been referred to as the Tyler Robinson Preliminary
Hearing held out in Utah. Well, we've had some things
revealed to us that previously we didn't know about the
murder of Charlie Kirk, and today, as best we can,
(00:45):
we're going to dive into that and talk about a
few of the things that we discovered during this five
day prelim hearing. I'm Joseph Scott Morgan and this is
Body Back Brother Day. We you know, most of the time,
(01:05):
we we grab cases that we find interesting relative to
their forensic value, things that we see in the news,
or that many of our colleagues are talking about, or
even some some that are recommended to us by our
friends out there that faithfully to listen to us, and
we are so grateful for that. But here is a
(01:26):
case before us that I don't know we've been talking
about now for months. A lot of people have been
talking about it. Everybody has an opinion, and yeah, I know,
I know what you're going to insert there. We're not
going to do that. But what we're going to say,
we're going to say. We're going to say, well, we
have some information now.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
Yeah, Well, you and I were the day this happened, Okay.
You know, you and I were already in the studio
taping something, and as the assassination of Charlie Kirk happened,
we were called and they're like, you guys need to
go live, you know, you need to do this in
real time. And we're like, well, okay, but there's not
enough information to go on. I mean, you're talking about
(02:07):
We're not talking about the next day. We're talking about
the next hour, okay. And Joe and I were going
blind into this trying to find out what happened and
what was real what was not real. And both Joe
and I have lived in the time after the assassination
of John F. Kennedy, and we both know that there
(02:30):
were things said in the immediate hour after the assassination
about where he was, where the car was in Dealey Plaza,
where the shots came from, and we know the lies
that we're told and so with the assassination of Charlie Kirk,
I have to be honest, Joe. I came to it
from let's get the first people. Let's find out who saw,
(02:51):
who was there, where were they because what has happened
since then has been one humongous pack of lies. Yeah,
that are not based in any kind of fact. And
I'm gonna be honest with your friends. Some people are
very good with videos, editing video, and they can make
(03:12):
something look real. There are some suggestions that Charlie Kirk
was a hologram, and that's probably the biggest one, you know,
in terms of how far out people will go. Today
we're going to talk about the preliminary hearing. It was
(03:32):
five days long. The judge heard all the evidence. This
is not a trial. This is a preliminary hearing where
the judge listens to both sides. Okay, The prosecution gets
to present their facts, the defense gets to undermine those
facts or present their own, you know, and the judge
then decides is there enough information to move forward with
(03:56):
a trial? And you know, that is what this entire
five day testimony was. And I believe based on what
we saw, there's enough evidence to move forward with trial. Joe,
do you do you feel the same way?
Speaker 1 (04:12):
Yeah, yeah, if you if you come to this from
the perspective and let me give you a word picture
with an empty bucket, and you have to fill that
bucket up with information to determine whether or not you're
going our bucket overfloweth at this point in tom it
would seem to me because of all of the data
that was put forward in a trial and the judge
(04:34):
did not rule immediately. I've had I think three people
reach out to me, including some rather big podcasters that
that I'm friends with that don't know the guts of
the court, that sort of thing, and they're like, what's
he not? Is he not going to rulize? Like no September. Yeah,
he's assessing everything. Yeah, I mean, and it is you know, uh,
(04:56):
it is like you know, you know, like our friends
and says on a regular basis, like drinking from a
fire hydrant. Just let's just no, no, no, let's just
put ourselves in in the judge's shoes for a moment.
All right, You're talking about five days worth of data,
and most judges, most thoughtful judges, do not rely upon
(05:18):
anybody else to come and filter what they're going to
say to do their assessment. So let me tell you
how this is going to look in his chambers or
in his offices. Now he might have a clerk that
we'll be clerking with him, perhaps okay, and he has
a staff. But what's going to happen is if you
just imagine and this stuff is all digital. But in
(05:39):
the past, what he would do is he would have
reams of transcripts. Imagine how what a weighty thing this is.
This would be laid out all over the table. So
just envision a big table in your in your brain,
and everything is kind of compartmentalized. It's probably done day
by day. You know, each bit of data you know
that kind of passed for his eyes and through his ears.
(06:01):
Everybody that was sitting over in the in the dock,
you know where they're they're they're chatting or talking to
the court. One interesting thing that I saw, and I
hope our friends out there appreciate this, is that And
forgive me, I can't remember her name off the top
of my head, but one of the ladies, I think
it may have been the DNA person. And this is
(06:22):
something I used to do in court. She's being addressed
by the prosecutor, and she doesn't speak to the prosecutor.
Guess what she does my right hand right here, the
judge is to her right. She rotates in her chair
and looks at the judge and directly addresses the judge.
Now that's something that's a trick I used to do
(06:42):
with the jury as well.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
Jury.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
Yeah, because the attorneys wants all of the attention on them,
and it would be very frustrating. As a matter of fact,
I used to have attorneys that would move in front
of me to try to get get in between me
and the judge, which can't really with the judge or
me and the jury. So because trying to explain something,
you're asking me a question, I'm not explaining it to you,
I'm explaining it to the jury. You know, you don't matter,
(07:07):
and so prosecution of the defense and I would do it,
so anyway, it's probably not appropriate, but I would do it.
I never got censured for it or anything. But with this,
and this goes to the point that the judge where
the judge is okay, for those that have never testified
(07:29):
in court, I want I just want to make this
abundantly clear, particularly if you're an expert, and from an
expert's perspective, all right, when you go and you sit
and provide testimony, you have to obey the rules of
the court because it's not just about having a conversation.
(07:52):
It's not It is a skill set that you have
to develop. And I remember being so terrified the first
time I did it, because when you walk into a
court room, it's like you're walking onto an alien into
an alien planet, and if you disrespect that space, that's
one of the ways you'll get slapped down really quickly,
particularly an old school judge. They don't I've had, Dave.
(08:15):
I've actually had friends that were held in contempt. Back
during the day when people still had pagers, page went off,
I've had I've had friends that were sent home because
they didn't have a tie on. I always showed up
to court. Yeah, like I was gonna go visit Jesus.
You know, I'm gonna go to church. That's that was
(08:35):
my rule of thumb. And now much like church, you know,
you'll have people dressed in any manner of way, you
know when you walk into that environment. I've covered I've
covered cases, I've covered cases with people sitting in their pajamas,
you know, providing testimony. They might say, it's not it
looks like pajamas. So it's just it's a different world,
(08:57):
and this judge is having to drink all of this
stuff in lay it out so that he can make
sense of it brother day.
Speaker 2 (09:04):
But to be clear, though, the judge is the only
one that actually means anything in a preliminary hearing, because
like I said, it's the prosecution presenting the evidence, or
not all of it. They're presenting the evidence they believe
sufficiently shows that they can move forward with trial. They
have they have what they need, and the defense is
there to knock holes in those things that are being
(09:26):
presented in the hopes that the judge will go, well this,
there's two we can't do this, we cannot move forward.
And yet here we are five days later, and just
so you know, the judge will make his decision. I
think it's September the first, and that's when he will decide.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
So yeah, he will have had time he does, and
it will take I don't know what else he has
on his docket. And that's the list when you hear
term docket, that's the list that that judges use it's
dockett means what's upcoming. So I don't know if he
and I love this term too. I want my docket cleared,
and so if and if he has colleagues, If he
(10:07):
has colleagues, he might push other cases off to them,
and those judges will handle those cases. I don't know.
I don't know what the size of their judicial staff is.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
But what happened this week, Joe, what did you see
this week?
Speaker 2 (10:19):
What was was there a big aha revealed that you
didn't know about that popped up during the test line?
Speaker 1 (10:26):
Wow, a big aha moment. I probably let's see. I
think from my perspective, it's going to be the volume
of DNA evidence that they have because it you know,
I'm not dismissing the rest of the evidence, but what
I'm saying numerically, when when you hear them, and I'll
(10:52):
throw these numbers out to you when you hear them,
use terms like quintillion and octilion. Yeah, talk about putting
a fine point on the old pencil. It was, you know.
And then the multiple the multiple locations that they had
identified where they were able to harvest DNA, I think
(11:15):
was rather striking and the fact that I think on
the deposition on the towel with Robinson and Twigs, you
both have their DNA there.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
And by the way, Lance Twiggs is the roommate slash
boyfriend of Tyler Robinson. And during the testimony we actually
heard evidence. Now Lance Twiggs did not testify in court.
Video was played of an interview conducted with Twigs that
was recorded with police in April.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
April.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
Yeah, and I will tell you, Joe, I was surprised
at what we heard. But I think Lance Twiggs is
the first person that the media has said is transitioning
that has zero pictures online of transitioning. I don't ever
see him wearing makeup or dressed as a woman. I mean,
(12:08):
he's got long hair, but you know a lot of
people have long hair.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
Yeah, precisely. That makes me, that really makes me question
kind of the validation of all of this. And we
see that one image that floats around where he's dressed
in the costume and all that wasn't dressed like that.
You know, he had a coat, a shirt, and a tie,
specifically as I dressed earlier, relative to how you show
up to present yourself. And you know, if even the
(12:33):
old school judges back in the day, if you came
to court dress like that, despite if you've got long
hair not, they don't really care. They would say, this
young man is dressed dressed like you should be to
present yourself in court. So there was nothing, you know, like,
you know where you're thinking about what do I need?
You know, how am I going to address this person
or anything like that. Right, So that added a bit
(12:56):
of clarity, you know, just knowing that and then what
is being put forth by him. I got to tell
you a lot of that testimony, correct me if I'm wrong,
Brother Dave. A lot of his testimony is kind of redacted,
wasn't it. I mean there's like huge gaps of stuff
that is missing out of that interview that was conducted.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
This was an argument that Charlie Kirk's widow, Erica, and
Charlie's parents. They filed paperwork with the court because Utah
law allows for victim's families to see the evidence, and
the family argued that the judge allowing this to be
presented in such a heavily redacted manner was preventing them,
(13:40):
the family, from seeing all the evidence. And I don't
know where that will go, but that was an actual
point during the course of the five days of testimony.
Speaker 3 (13:49):
But the thing.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
Is, Joe, what we learned from Lance Twigg's interview, it
is I understand why they were redacted a bunch. Again,
it goes back to the prosecution at this stage, Joe,
they do not have to lay out everything they're going
(14:11):
to use a trial. They only have to layout enough
to show the judge this needs.
Speaker 3 (14:18):
To go to trial.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
And you know, they're not allowed to hold any evidence back.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
They're not allowed to do that. Prosecution.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
They have to everything is available, okay, but they're not
showing everything right off the top of the game here.
So there were a number of long blank spots in this,
but we still saw a lot. We found out that
they dated for two they were roommates for two months
before they began dating again. I challenged this whole idea
(14:48):
that Twigs is transitioning Joe just because he shows up
as a guy in April. We've heard this since day one,
that you know, Tyler Robinson was involved with a you know,
a that was transitioning And I don't see any anything
there that just goes back to the political nature of
all of this.
Speaker 3 (15:08):
We did see and I thought, the.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
Most important thing we'll get in this in a minute
the text messages that went between Tyler Robinson and Lance
Twiggs after the assassination. Because Tyler Robinson, Joe, he was
still there. He was he was watching as investigators were
(15:31):
looking for evidence, and he was texting to Lance Twigs.
The one thing that I questioned, at what time are
you and I responsible for calling police when we know
something we have information? Because Lance Twiggs knew based on
(15:53):
his text messages with his boyfriend that Tyler Robinson said
as he killed Charlie Kirk. We're talking the evening of
hours after this joke.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
I thought, yeah, I gave that some thought too. I
was talking to some friends this past weekend specifically about this.
You know, let's just say you have somebody on the
ground in front of you and they're bleeding out and
they're still alive. Okay, where does your obligation begin an
end at this point time? And I'm sure that prosecution
or counsel, let's just say counsel in general, anybody, let's
(16:30):
just say he was being represented, Okay, they would argue that,
you know, any kind of emergent thing had had passed,
they might argue that, but if you have knowledge of
somebody that's gone out and committed a murder, all right,
and then you add the extra spice to the fact
that it might be politically motivated, and that's where all
of the pundits start using the word assassination. You know,
(16:53):
I'm looking at it as a murder, just like I
do with JFK. You kick it up a notch. And
now you know, there's been people that have talked about
this from a federal level, that this has terrorism kind
of attached to it. Okay, all right, so you think
about that. You know, what kind of obligation do you have,
(17:16):
right and when do you start to get over into
the area of aiding and a betting right, and you know,
being a party to this, I find it really interesting too.
And I want to say this right now, he's got
limited immunity right now. I don't know how we define
(17:39):
those limitations there. But if you're saying limited limited has
to be defined very very specifically, and from a proscatorial standpoint,
do they have any other evidence from a forensic standpoint perhaps,
or circumstantial evidence that can be you know, filtered into
some kind of case. That would be because they're I've
(18:00):
seen it online. You know, there are people out there
they're saying he should be prosecuted as well. So that's
a big conundrum. And what tie backs do you have. Well,
from electronic forensics, you've got these communications that are going
back and forth. The letter that was found beneath the
keyboard and he snapped the image of it. I think
it's the same letter that the crime scene tech testified
(18:23):
to that was seen in the in the garbage that
was partially burned, and she alludes to her in her testimony.
You still see some handwriting on it, you know, So
you know there's there's certainly evidence there, But you know,
you think about it. You think about the relationship that
they had and what was happening. The relationship I'm worried about, though,
(18:51):
is Tyler Robinson's relationship to a thirty off set trifle.
My grandfather, uh I had old family property up in
(19:13):
southern Arkansas, and he had a bunch of brothers and
one of the things they used to do was they
would go hunting. But the difference was you think about
deer hunting, they didn't hunt deer in a tree stand.
This is a long long time ago. They used dogs
and uh.
Speaker 3 (19:32):
Dogs used dogs.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
Boy, that that southern comes out when you said that.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
Man, I love if you could see these dogs, write
about them, about them in my in my memoir. Uh
Clyde and Bernice were his two hunting dogs he used.
They were Catahoula curs, which were these big, big dogs,
and they used to hunt deer on horseback. And my
grandfather hunted with iron sides. He didn't have go so
(20:01):
the dogs will go in and flush deer, and you
know it was hell bent for leather. These brothers will
be on horseback killing deer and it was something to see.
But you know the reason I'm saying that is that
I never got that rifle. He had a lever action
Marlin thirty thirty rifle, and I would have given anything
(20:22):
to have possessed that and to have had it. In
this case involving Tyler Robinson, he does allegedly have the
weapon of his grandfather, Dave. That's correct, right.
Speaker 2 (20:38):
And you know it's interesting that we mentioned a minute
ago about the tax messages that went between Tyler Robinson
and Lance Twiggs after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and
in talking about the gun now again we didn't get
everything because there was a number of issues redacted, you know,
(21:01):
so we got parts of the text messages, we got
parts of the testimon or the interview. But there was
discussion about the gun and Tyler Robinson saying that it
was a gun, a thirty out six given to his grandfather,
and he was talking about he was wondering if it
would be that his dad, Okay, in talking again, now
(21:22):
you're dealing with Tyler Robinson has the thirty out six
from his grandfather. Tyler Robinson's father wondered if that gun,
the thirty out six that his grandfather had, would be
strong enough to hunt deer.
Speaker 3 (21:36):
He was it would still be strong enough.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
And I thought that was kind of interesting because I
wanted to ask you about the age of a weapon
and its ability to continue to fire at the level.
Speaker 3 (21:49):
That it did when it was newer.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
But anyway, that came out in these text messages back
and forth, and Tyler Robinson made a comment that well,
I guess, I guess.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
We know now basically it was strong enough.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
But the talk about the gun and the serial number
whether or not it existed. The thing was is that
Robinson made a comment saying he hopes that whoever it
was that gave it to his grandfather was gone, was dead,
you know, that the gun would be tracked back to
that person.
Speaker 3 (22:20):
You know, I thought that.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
Was fascinating that that is where his mind was going,
that this gun was came from somebody else to his grandfather.
His dad was curious, it was still strong enough to
hunt and here's Tyler who used it to allegedly murder
Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
That was just what an infantile way of thinking about things,
right relative to the world that we live in. That
you that, let's say that it came from a third party,
that somehow this is not going to be able to
be tracked in the world in which we existed, particularly
if you leave a weapon behind. Uh, they're going to
(23:03):
you know, the serial number of stuff alone is enough
to that we could have a cup of coffee over
for about an hour, you know, to kind of talk about,
you know, again using the word infantile, that you actually
believe that because somebody has passed on that may have
been the point of initiation with this weapon, that it
cannot be tracked or traced back. I don't I don't
(23:25):
know what planets you're living on, dude. But it's that's
in and of itself, it's just totally bizarre, you know
when you you know, when you take that out consideration.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
It kind of fit with something else that Tyler Robinson
wrote to Lance Twigs.
Speaker 3 (23:40):
Now, just set the stage here.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
Tyler Robinson has allegedly just killed Charlie Kirk in broad daylight.
He has made his escape, and he has stashed his weapon.
He has changed clothes, and now he's trying to find
a clear spot to go and collect the gun because
in his mind's eye, the only thing linking him to
(24:03):
this crime is the weapon. You know, fingerprints on the weapon,
and that's his big concern is he's texting to Lance Twigs.
But Joe, at the end of all these text messages,
I'm not kidding you mentioned infantile. Tyler Robinson tells Lance
(24:23):
Twigs delete these messages.
Speaker 3 (24:26):
All right.
Speaker 2 (24:27):
I'm gonna tell you, friends, even an old guy like me,
deleting a message is not going to get rid of it.
Speaker 3 (24:36):
Really.
Speaker 2 (24:36):
I mean, in this day and age, you've grown up
with a computer in your hand, and you think a
simple deleting of a text message is going to remove
everything you've just confessed to not even a little bit.
But I want to mention something that you mentioned a
minute ago, and in case y'all did not watch any
(24:58):
of the hearing or follow up with it, you mentioned
a note a minute ago, Joe, all right. Early in
the text messaging between Tyler Robinson and Lance Twiggs, it
is after the assassination of Charlie Kirk and Lance is
asking Tyler you know about this? He doesn't know that
(25:20):
Tyler Robinson has allegedly killed Charlie Kirk. Lance Twigs does
not know that, and he is following along. Lance is
enough of the information in the news that he is saying, hey,
I heard they arrested the guy that did the shooting.
And Tyler is going, nah, it's just some more crazy guy.
And they arrested they detained another guy that looks like me.
(25:43):
But he says I did it okay, and he does
apologize to Lance Twiggs for doing this. But in these
text messages, Joe, Tyler Robinson tells Lance Twigs go look
under the keyboard. Now he's referencing Tyler Robinson's keyboard for
(26:04):
his computer. He's telling Lance to go look under the keyboard,
and Lance does. He goes in there and he finds
a note on yellow paper, and on that note that's
where Tyler Robinson has written I had I think it's
I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk. So
I did it. And this is the moment. The text
(26:27):
messages have already confirmed this. But now Lance Twiggs is
reading his boyfriend's handwriting his own writing on this yellow
piece of paper underneath Lance Tyler Robinson's keyboard.
Speaker 3 (26:39):
That I did it.
Speaker 2 (26:41):
Now Lance Twiggs does something Joe. He takes a picture
of the note and he places the note back on
the keyboard and walks away.
Speaker 3 (26:54):
But he took that picture, and.
Speaker 2 (26:57):
I'm thinking he took the picture because he knew that
if Tyler makes it back to this house, he's going
to destroy this note and I need to have proof.
Speaker 1 (27:08):
So I don't know. I mean, when I'm thinking about this,
and I'm thinking about the relationship, Okay, yeah, Now, if
you were in some kind of committed, trusting relationship where
you're trying to protect this person whom you love, you're
going to have to go in and take a photo
of it and place it in It's not just merely
(27:30):
the act of taking a photograph. It's the act of
taking a photograph and then placing it back right and again.
As an investigator, I think that that's going to give
them pause, you know, when they're working the case, and
they don't come out and expand on that in the
preliminary they just again, like you should in a preliminary hearing,
they just submit to facts now, so that our friends
(27:53):
understand when this does go to trial, the nature of
that will be explored.
Speaker 3 (27:59):
Now.
Speaker 1 (27:59):
I don't know how far they can go with exploring
the nature of it, the nature of what, you know,
some kind of underline meaning or something like that. If
they get a behavioral scientist up there that might testify
some of the stuff, it's going to be. You know,
it's going to be certainly a moment I think in
the trial when they begin to kind of understand the
(28:20):
relationship that these two individuals had with one another. I'm
not talking about their relationship from the perspective of let's
explore their relationship. I'm talking about their relationship. Let's explore
it how it relates to a homicide investigation. Okay, these
are two separate things, and I think that everybody should
be aware of that. So for me, the note in
(28:43):
and of itself is very compelling. I will tell you
this from an evident standpoint. I'm going to mention just
and this kind of segues into something else. That note,
the writing style on that note will go will have
(29:04):
gone to the handwriting analysis section probably at the FBI.
And guess what else they're going to analyze as well.
And people don't think this is possible. There's another bit
of there was something else that was discovered, okay at
that scene at that townhouse, and that's that dremal tool.
(29:25):
That dremal tool was used to engrave these cartridges. All right, now,
people that I know in court, they said they submitted
that dremal tool along with those And you have to understand,
you have live rounds that are in that in dwelling magazine. Okay,
it's not clip in the in dwelling magazine.
Speaker 3 (29:48):
And you have a magazine jo for those who don't.
Speaker 1 (29:51):
Know, people use the term clip all the time. A
magazine is something you can either have an external magazin
that is placed into a weapon, or you can have
an internal magazine where rounds are pressed down into it. Now,
World War two saw with the M one grand you
(30:12):
can get what's called granthum. And you see those bandoliers
that guys used to carry on their chest of m
those were clips. So they would press it down and
you know that metallic clink that you hear, well, that's
that backing on that thing that would eject. And German
(30:32):
soldiers used to know that when that thing ejected, that
our guys were out of rounds. It's an eight round clip,
that's what it is. It's not a magazine. So when
you're pressing into the magazine these rounds okay, and they're
in there. That's significant because on those in dwelling rounds,
as live rounds, these messages were engraved. Well, it is
(30:56):
being alleged that the dremal tool, which has a real
fine point on it. For those of y'all that have
never had a dromal tool, I've had them. You can
use them for all. They've got great utility. You know,
you can use it for a tiny drill, you can
use it as I think. There's even a miniature screwdriver
that comes with it. There's a grinding tool where you
can like shape shape edges. It's got like sandpaper, it's
(31:17):
got all.
Speaker 2 (31:17):
That's all I always think of when you mentioned drimble.
That's what I'm thinking. I'm think, Yeah, I'm thinking, because
I've got a drembal and I'm like, that's what I
would use it for.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
This was used as an engraving tool, and it's really good.
If you're really good, you can put scrolling on things.
I'm fascinated by people that can do this sort of thing.
It's it's way beyond anything.
Speaker 2 (31:37):
And this goes back to at what point in time
should Lance Twigs have felt compelled to reach out to police? Yeah,
you know, I mean Joe, we didn't have an arrest
that night. He knows where Tyler Robinson is. He knows
what Tyler Robinson has said he's done or alleged, and
we don't have an arrest Tyler Robinson. Is what point
(32:01):
does Lance Twigs have an obligation to pick up the
phone and call nine to one one, even if only
to say, my boyfriend claims x y Z and he
is still on campus trying to retrieve a gun. I
think you're obligated to sharing that information or you're a
party to the crime.
Speaker 1 (32:19):
I think that one of the things in a what
if scenario? Okay, and think the sweet Lord above this
didn't happen. What if it wasn't he didn't interdict it
in his own way by making dropping the dome as
they say initially, and this person had taken said weapon
(32:39):
and walked into a restaurant and started using it. Okay,
Because that's what you have to begin to think about.
If anybody was of a mind to prosecute on a
point like this, you know that's something that would be
taken into consideration. And you can't, you know, you can't
charge somebody with a crime that it was never it's
(32:59):
not even in coheate offense, which means in the midst
of that's all speculative. It probably wouldn't hold up in court.
But it's all of these things kind of twisted and
tied together with it's important to understand that it's not
just a matter of the handwriting, say, for instance, on
the note and to form the function of the handwriting,
(33:21):
or the fact that you find DNA on the casings
or the live rounds as well. It's fact that you
can take that drenal tool, for instance, and you can
actually appreciate the way his letters are formed, almost like
a pencil. And I don't think that people truly understand
that you say more than why is that important one?
(33:42):
It's specifically important because what you're trying to create is
a matrix of these central tie backs where you can
take this line and tie back to here in this
line and tie back to here. And the totality of
that from an evidentary standpoint, from an investigative standpoint, from
a prosecutorial standpoint, it you know it's going to point back,
(34:02):
you know, to an individual. And you begin to see this,
remember I use the analogy of the bucket well brother
right now at this point, it would appear that the
bucket is slopping over the sides. Dagie asked me a
(34:26):
few moments ago, what was something that was really caught
your attension about this? One of the investigators was given testimony.
You know, one of the things that kind of stands
out for me, do you recall scenes that CCTV imagery
of what is alleged to be Tyler Robinson's car pulling
up and trying to make a right hand turn and
(34:48):
the cops stops ing and the cop for that moment
time and this is the investigator testifying to this thought
that this was rather odd. And it's at that moment
time where where the officer got a partial plate off
of it, and when they ran the plate, that plate
(35:08):
came back to Robinson and I think his mother. And
that was one of those again, one of those little
tie backs those points. There was also and I don't
think this, there was some lady and forgive me, I
can't remember her, the neighbor who alleged that she saw
multiple guys in the car. And this is kind of
an aside for me. And one person was ball headed.
(35:33):
And I'm thinking what happened to the car and how
well was it processed? Because if that is a question
which a lot of people and rightly you should have
questions about this case. If that is the case, that car,
I'm hoping was thoroughly examined, because you know what, if
there were any other people in that car, our old
(35:56):
friend DNA, because you'll have touched in inside of the
car where you've got other people, it wouldn't just be
Tyler Robinson's DNA or Lance Twiggs DNA, or maybe some
familial DNA from Robinson's family, It would be the stranger
DNA that could be in there. I hope that they
found that car took samples on all of the surfaces.
(36:18):
I don't know if that's the case or not.
Speaker 2 (36:20):
Well, you know, Joe, I know that when it gets
right down to the nitty gritty of this case. The
text messages between Tyler Robinson and Lance Twiggs that to
me was explosive because it is a minute by minute
accounting of Tyler Robinson in the hours after the assassination,
(36:41):
when everything has been locked down tight as there he
is describing watching the investigation take place, watching as they're
looking for evidence, and Tyler Robinson was actually describing how
he was waiting for it to clear so he could
go back to get the gun he wrapped in a towel,
(37:01):
and he was saying, I've got to go back and
get it. And again he really Tyler Robinson, boggling the
mind here, thinks somehow that if he can just get
this gun, Joe, they will have no way of tying
him to the scene when we've already got so many
other things.
Speaker 3 (37:20):
At play here.
Speaker 2 (37:21):
Yeah, I thought one of the fascinating things on the
surveillance video that we saw was him, Tyler Robinson, as
he is walking with a decided limp, you know, and
which is where it is believed he has the gun
down his leg hiding it. And then after when he
(37:42):
gets after he gets rid of the gun, he's now
changed clothes and he's not walking with a limp anymore.
He is texting to Lance Twiggs that he's watching reels
like YouTube reels or Facebook or whatever. He's watching videos
just killing time, just waiting. It's like waiting to pick
up my kids trick or treating, you know that kind
of thing. He's just sitting there killing time until he
(38:03):
can go and get that gun. And by the way,
he did right, he went back to where he had
dropped it off and it wasn't there, and he's Tyler
was monitoring all the news and things that were going on,
and it was interesting, you know how he didn't realize
(38:24):
that law enforcement had found the gun. They were already
processing the gun before it ever became public knowledge, and.
Speaker 1 (38:33):
They were able to get that secured. Yeah, talking about guns.
One other salient point that came up is that one
of the investigators are I think it was the one
of the campus police that was there during those frenetic moments,
had noticed that there was a hulster on the ground. Yeah,
and that was not secured and collected and this is
(38:56):
going to open the door for a lot of people
that have suspicions. But it was a pistol holder, and
they go into great detail about this and how the
dynamicism of a say around fired from a pistol is
not going to have some characteristics. They say, one that's
fired from a rifle first off with a thirty out
six and we don't know what sized weapon was contained
(39:18):
or could have been contained in that pistol holster. All right,
so thirty out six round, it's very very distinctive, David.
You know when you see when you see first off,
the woundtrack that is created by that round as it
passes through the body, and also the elements of said
(39:40):
around they're left behind in the wound track. So that's
going to vary from whatever you know may have been
contained within that within that pistol. This is the other
thing that the shot is alleged to have taken place
from about one hundred and thirty yards. This is not
a TV show, you know, you don't have Mel Gibson
in lethal weapons shooting down helicopters with a non milimeters
(40:01):
pistol and they're working, all right, this is.
Speaker 3 (40:06):
Right? Could you modify.
Speaker 2 (40:08):
Is there a way to modify a smaller weapon that
could fit in the holster to fire ammunition used in
a thirty on six?
Speaker 3 (40:15):
No?
Speaker 1 (40:16):
No, okay, And there'll be somebody out there say no,
it's not something that. Yeah, we're talking about the holster.
Speaker 3 (40:24):
Yeah, because it's part of the defense strategy. Anything they
can do.
Speaker 2 (40:28):
So I understand that just because it's brought up doesn't
mean it's you made of the discussion. This holster was seen,
it was not picked up. And that is where the
defense is trying to run with that. And I understand
that they're going to do is everything they can.
Speaker 1 (40:42):
I mean, now bless them and God speed. That's what
That's where systems set up. I might need a good
defense attorney. You might need a good defense attorney if
you can find one. You know, you need a good one,
right and you want a good one, A good one
that's gonna, you know, go all in for you. And
they will bring this up. This is something that's going
to reappear. I think at the time of trial. They've
(41:03):
discussed it in the preliminary you know. With with coupling
that with the movements of Robinson, we have the CCTV,
as you had alluded to, you know, up up top
on the roof in that area which has been referred
to as a sniper pad, and there's no evidence of
(41:28):
a pad. I think that that's a bit confusing, because
you can have a pad that you can lay upon,
particularly if you've got a gravel surface, you know, which
would be very painful if you had to lay there
for a protracted period of time. And then you hear
the term sniper's nest, which is kind of a common thing.
It's in the vernacular. You hear that quite a bit.
Speaker 3 (41:49):
I heard that about Lee Harswald.
Speaker 1 (41:51):
Yeah you did. Yeah, the nest, you know, yeah, surrounded
by boxes and all that sort of stuff. So it's
a specific let's just get to the point though, there
is a specific area where you would go, and it's
up there that they found, you know, we found the
screwdriver that was up there too, that also had DNA
on it, which is very significant. Now what the purpose
of that screwdriver was it still remains to be seen
(42:16):
in my mind. I've heard people allude to the thought
that it could have been used as a pride bar
to get but there's no evidence that that door was
necessarily locked. H And again if it was, and I'm
sure that they went over the locking mechanism of that
door with a fine tooth combs, so they're going to
look for primarks on that door. They may have even
collected the lock for all I know, and that would
(42:38):
be submitted to the FBI, and that would be examined
just to look through it thoroughly. My suspicion is that
they didn't. They would just photograph it, you know, that
point of entrance infil xfil type of stuff. And then
of course you've got footprints, handprints, all these sort of
things that are in a specific location that would be
(42:58):
addressed and will be for further addressed, you know, when
when this thing finally does go to trial. And again
this is supposing it does. I believe that it will
because of the level or the nature of the evidence.
But to kind of, you know, change things up a
little bit, I are go in a different direction day,
(43:21):
you know me, I'm you know, I'm interested in the
medical legal aspects of this because there's been so much
made of the nature of the injury, of whether or
not there was an entrance or an exit with Charlie,
and it would appear that there wasn't it would appear
(43:44):
that there was not an exit. But we don't know
that completely in the sense that because this kind of
arose in the preliminary hearing, we did find out. I
think that it was on Friday, maybe it was late
Thursday Friday that the emm's report was submitted. Now here's
what's interesting about this, Dave. I'd love to hear your
(44:06):
thoughts about this. The EM's report was submitted, but it
was accepted into evidence and the was not compelled to appear.
And defense Defense actually objected to this because you know,
we have all of these other experts that are appearing there.
(44:26):
DNA analysts famously appeared. She's the one that's talking about
octilion and quintillion and all these sorts of things. She
was compelled to appear there. But yet the medical examiner,
who everybody has had questions about, you know, to this point,
about what they're what they were doing. Uh, they did not.
(44:47):
But the autopsy or the EMMY report was submitted into evidence.
Now of course we haven't seen it. Okay, we haven't
seen it. That has not come out, and I'm just wondering,
you know, why that they didn't appear. Also the surgeon
who was alleged to have made the comment about the
(45:08):
you know, spine of steel and taking down the moose
and all these sorts of things with the thirty out
to six. You know, these statements that have come out,
and I think that was per one of Kirk's colleagues
over tp TP USA had made that statement, you know,
kind of a hearsay kind of thing. Generally, you will
have a surgeon, you know, that will make a comment
(45:30):
and that might not come up until trial. Their surgical
notes will also be be present in that. But what
do you think about them not appearing day We talked
about a lot on the show.
Speaker 3 (45:39):
I was shocked.
Speaker 2 (45:40):
I was shocked that the medical examiner was not brought
in to testify. And you know, I mentioned how early
on that Charlie Kirk's wife, Erica, and his parents they
filed paperwork with the court challenging a number of things,
but mostly that evidence had been redacted. You know, that
(46:01):
they weren't seeing everything they were legally allowed to see.
And I think it comes down to this being part
of that. I don't know why, Joe, I don't know
why the medical examiner was not called in to testify.
It could be simply because it was a preliminary hearing
and there was you know, the medical examiner writes a
(46:22):
report and it goes into.
Speaker 3 (46:25):
The death right. I mean, I don't know how much
more they would need at a preliminary hearing.
Speaker 2 (46:32):
Now at trial they can call everything into question, and
they will if it ever gets that far.
Speaker 3 (46:37):
But I don't know why, Joe. I just know that
it didn't make sense.
Speaker 1 (46:42):
I see how the DNA analyst was placed on stand right, Okay,
I'm wondering if the medical legal evidence is going to
have as much weight as a DNA evidence. That's where
I'm born with that, Yeah, because yeah.
Speaker 2 (47:00):
Yeah, evidence is there to tie Tyler Robinson to the crime, Joe. Right,
that's the point of that. The actual death of Charlie Kirk,
the track of the gunshot, you know, that has nothing
to do with Tyler Robinson.
Speaker 1 (47:14):
You know, well yeah, well yeah, it was a terminal event.
But you know, there are they going to say, and
I'm just being Devil's advocate here, are they going to say, well,
that doesn't matter as much as a biological evidence that
was retrieved out of all of these points of contact.
(47:35):
We saw the images of those live rounds that had
the etching on them. They found other rounds at the townhouse.
There is the and so folks know this thirty out
six platform, this rifle that is alleged to have been used.
The thing has to be cycled in what that means.
(47:57):
It's not semi automatic, it's not gas operated. Where it
ejects the rounds by itself. You have to literally take it,
pull the bolt up or pull the bolt handle up,
pull it back. It ejects around and then you force
another live round into the chamber that had never been cycled,
so that round was still in there, and you know
it had the I can't remember the wording, but it
(48:18):
was something like, hey, fascists, catch this, you know, and
you know that was physically there, but you know, one
of the things that I was really fascinated about. And
they submitted this image and you know where I'm going
with this. There was an image that was captured in
the courtroom and it kind of confirmed some of the
things I was thinking about. This round. Now, we didn't
(48:38):
have the me testify, we didn't have the surgeon testify,
but what we did see was around the round that
was recovered, and I was fascinated by that because the
round is in it fragments into multiple pieces. I think
there's either, I think there's two, three. I'd have to
(49:01):
look at it again, but there were there were multiple
pieces that were retrieved and they would have been along
in the actual wound track. And just so that I
get this right and I don't want this edited, you
guys can see me going to my reference here. Yep. Okay,
So what we've got is actually we've actually got the
(49:27):
I think there's one, two, three, four, five, five fragmented
rounds here. It's kind of what I expected, and it
is the reason this is important is that they had
they had the folks talking about you know, why is
it that you cannot say that this round definitively from
(49:49):
a ballistic standpoint, came from that weapon. Just as I thought,
the round is mangled. It's mangled to the point where
you can't find the the rifling on the edge of
the round. And you see the base of the round
right here. Okay, this is actually a pistol round. But
(50:11):
you see the base of the round right here. You
can pull caliber off of that and you can determine
that it's point three to zero. But on the side.
You can't pull up the striations to match it back
with the weapon. So this cannot be excluded. All right,
they're saying that it doesn't match. But when you see
these images of this round that were retrieved, the same
fragmented all the helen back and it is it is such.
(50:38):
It has such a level of lethality to it because
it remains that energy remains contained in that wound and
impacting on the spine. You see this one point of
entry in the video, if we are to believe the video,
where the round came in and you've got a defect
that appears and you know, to revisit this and it's horrible,
(50:59):
but you can see the blood coming from the round
before Charlie drifts off to the left and he kind
of does this what's it called the neuro muscular response
thing where his hand kind of contracts, which we see
you know in like head injuries, you know, like when
we have concussive events in sports and that sort of thing.
You'll see people. And he kind of drifts off to
(51:21):
the left and he you know, he dies right there.
I think that he was I can't say dies, but
it was he was headed on that long black train.
At that point in time, that's almost an unrecoverable injury.
We'll hear more about that and that wound track. And
here's one more thing that I can tell you that
you're going to see it see at this trial. We've
(51:43):
got that the round that was recovered. We're going to
see x rays, Dave. We're going to see x rays
both in the ap the anatomical position where you know,
we get our X rays made. They have you put
your chin up on the thing you're looking. You'll have
a view of him like that, and then they're going
(52:04):
to do the lateral. They'll do the lateral from both
sides and you'll see the track you're also there's also
going to be autopsy photographs and guess what they're gonna have.
They will have a probe going into this wound before
they ever did the dissection. So you will have a
trajectory probe that will be placed into the wound and
(52:28):
they will step back and they will have snapped a photo. Now,
there will be a lot of photographs that will be excluded.
The defense is going to argue that because they're too prejudicial.
But I know this because I've done it thousands of
times in the morgue with gunshot wounds. They will have
a probe in place. If they didn't, I got questions,
(52:53):
they will have a probe in place and they will
take that in the lateral view. What does that mean?
Why do you need that? Morgan? I'll take you precisely
why you need it, because what they're doing is they're
trying to determine trajectory here, not just internal, but it
also gives you an idea because he was seated, he
was in a seated position like this. When he takes
it around, they're going to ask the scientific question, is
(53:16):
it plausible for a weapon to be fired at one
hundred and thirty one hundred and thirty yards roughly with
a scoped weapon, high velocity round, and you score a
shot right here? And this is the trajectory you're going
to get. Will that line if you were to seat
him back into this position, which they will do in
a three T in a three D recreation, mark my words,
(53:40):
and they will have that line going from here all
the way back up to that location. Now there'll be
people out there that they'll say, well they readjusted that.
Maybe they could. I can't answer that, but that will
be presented in court, and the court will view that
depend upon how it is presented. A scientific gospel day.
Speaker 3 (54:04):
You know.
Speaker 2 (54:05):
The shocking thing about all of this is five days
of a hearing to determine if there is evidence.
Speaker 3 (54:11):
To move forward with trial.
Speaker 2 (54:12):
I think beyond reasonable doubt, we saw that and there
will probably be a trial at some point. I was hoping, Joe,
that the preliminary hearing would stop some of the conspiracy talk.
Speaker 3 (54:28):
That is going on. Friends.
Speaker 2 (54:30):
Just because you see a video online that looks real
doesn't mean it's real. Just because a talking head with
a podcast says something doesn't make it a fact.
Speaker 3 (54:39):
And same thing with us.
Speaker 1 (54:40):
You know, don't believe. Don't believe me now.
Speaker 3 (54:44):
For yourself, just realize that.
Speaker 2 (54:48):
Having to break down these conspiracy theories, I think about
I think about those close to Charlie Kirk. I think
about his wife, and I think about his parents. I
think about the children. I think about those in his
inner that are impacted by the discussion surrounding this. Look man,
the assassination of Charlie Kirk was not taking out a
(55:09):
political figure. It was the murder of a husband and father,
a son, somebody that people cared about. Whether you'd like
what he said or not, goes beyond any rational discussion.
We live in the land of the Free and the
home of the brave, and we should be able to
have a discussion about anything and everything. And right now
(55:30):
we have devolved into a nation where if you don't
agree with somebody on conservative right, they can die, they
can be put to death, or that they do not
have their time anymore to talk. And I'm telling you, friends,
that is the fascism. That's the wrong lane to travel down.
(55:52):
We have to be able to talk about our differences.
That's the only thing that prevents violence.
Speaker 1 (55:58):
So yeah, no, that's all right, brother, at the because
I don't want to see anybody harmed, period, nobody, and
certainly not in to the extent that that harm that
you see committed. I've used an analogy and I'll use
it here right now about the kinetic energy that you
(56:22):
see transfer to Charlie Kirk's body at that moment in
time when his life started to go into his twilight.
There is a moment right after the round has made
entry into Charlie that we see where his shirt balloons out.
(56:43):
Let's transfer what's referred to as kinetic energy well, there's
another kind of dynamic energy that happens when you have
conspiratists and you have individuals that say false things just
to get your money out of your pocket into theirs.
And hold on to this. It's like throwing a stone
(57:04):
into a placid placid pond, the most beautiful pond you've
ever seen, and those ripples travel out, crawl long, long ways,
and they impact things above the surface and below the
surface that you may never be aware. I'm Joseph Scott
Morgan and this is body bags.
Quodybags with Joseph Scott Morgan. I come to you today,
my friends, with information information that as of just a
couple of days ago. It's the time of this taping
as hot off the press, as they used to say,
(00:24):
we've come to a conclusion or an end rather and
what has been referred to as the Tyler Robinson Preliminary
Hearing held out in Utah. Well, we've had some things
revealed to us that previously we didn't know about the
murder of Charlie Kirk, and today, as best we can,
(00:45):
we're going to dive into that and talk about a
few of the things that we discovered during this five
day prelim hearing. I'm Joseph Scott Morgan and this is
Body Back Brother Day. We you know, most of the time,
(01:05):
we we grab cases that we find interesting relative to
their forensic value, things that we see in the news,
or that many of our colleagues are talking about, or
even some some that are recommended to us by our
friends out there that faithfully to listen to us, and
we are so grateful for that. But here is a
(01:26):
case before us that I don't know we've been talking
about now for months. A lot of people have been
talking about it. Everybody has an opinion, and yeah, I know,
I know what you're going to insert there. We're not
going to do that. But what we're going to say,
we're going to say. We're going to say, well, we
have some information now.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
Yeah, Well, you and I were the day this happened, Okay.
You know, you and I were already in the studio
taping something, and as the assassination of Charlie Kirk happened,
we were called and they're like, you guys need to
go live, you know, you need to do this in
real time. And we're like, well, okay, but there's not
enough information to go on. I mean, you're talking about
(02:07):
We're not talking about the next day. We're talking about
the next hour, okay. And Joe and I were going
blind into this trying to find out what happened and
what was real what was not real. And both Joe
and I have lived in the time after the assassination
of John F. Kennedy, and we both know that there
(02:30):
were things said in the immediate hour after the assassination
about where he was, where the car was in Dealey Plaza,
where the shots came from, and we know the lies
that we're told and so with the assassination of Charlie Kirk,
I have to be honest, Joe. I came to it
from let's get the first people. Let's find out who saw,
(02:51):
who was there, where were they because what has happened
since then has been one humongous pack of lies. Yeah,
that are not based in any kind of fact. And
I'm gonna be honest with your friends. Some people are
very good with videos, editing video, and they can make
(03:12):
something look real. There are some suggestions that Charlie Kirk
was a hologram, and that's probably the biggest one, you know,
in terms of how far out people will go. Today
we're going to talk about the preliminary hearing. It was
(03:32):
five days long. The judge heard all the evidence. This
is not a trial. This is a preliminary hearing where
the judge listens to both sides. Okay, The prosecution gets
to present their facts, the defense gets to undermine those
facts or present their own, you know, and the judge
then decides is there enough information to move forward with
(03:56):
a trial? And you know, that is what this entire
five day testimony was. And I believe based on what
we saw, there's enough evidence to move forward with trial. Joe,
do you do you feel the same way?
Speaker 1 (04:12):
Yeah, yeah, if you if you come to this from
the perspective and let me give you a word picture
with an empty bucket, and you have to fill that
bucket up with information to determine whether or not you're
going our bucket overfloweth at this point in tom it
would seem to me because of all of the data
that was put forward in a trial and the judge
(04:34):
did not rule immediately. I've had I think three people
reach out to me, including some rather big podcasters that
that I'm friends with that don't know the guts of
the court, that sort of thing, and they're like, what's
he not? Is he not going to rulize? Like no September. Yeah,
he's assessing everything. Yeah, I mean, and it is you know, uh,
(04:56):
it is like you know, you know, like our friends
and says on a regular basis, like drinking from a
fire hydrant. Just let's just no, no, no, let's just
put ourselves in in the judge's shoes for a moment.
All right, You're talking about five days worth of data,
and most judges, most thoughtful judges, do not rely upon
(05:18):
anybody else to come and filter what they're going to
say to do their assessment. So let me tell you
how this is going to look in his chambers or
in his offices. Now he might have a clerk that
we'll be clerking with him, perhaps okay, and he has
a staff. But what's going to happen is if you
just imagine and this stuff is all digital. But in
(05:39):
the past, what he would do is he would have
reams of transcripts. Imagine how what a weighty thing this is.
This would be laid out all over the table. So
just envision a big table in your in your brain,
and everything is kind of compartmentalized. It's probably done day
by day. You know, each bit of data you know
that kind of passed for his eyes and through his ears.
(06:01):
Everybody that was sitting over in the in the dock,
you know where they're they're they're chatting or talking to
the court. One interesting thing that I saw, and I
hope our friends out there appreciate this, is that And
forgive me, I can't remember her name off the top
of my head, but one of the ladies, I think
it may have been the DNA person. And this is
(06:22):
something I used to do in court. She's being addressed
by the prosecutor, and she doesn't speak to the prosecutor.
Guess what she does my right hand right here, the
judge is to her right. She rotates in her chair
and looks at the judge and directly addresses the judge.
Now that's something that's a trick I used to do
(06:42):
with the jury as well.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
Jury.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
Yeah, because the attorneys wants all of the attention on them,
and it would be very frustrating. As a matter of fact,
I used to have attorneys that would move in front
of me to try to get get in between me
and the judge, which can't really with the judge or
me and the jury. So because trying to explain something,
you're asking me a question, I'm not explaining it to you,
I'm explaining it to the jury. You know, you don't matter,
(07:07):
and so prosecution of the defense and I would do it,
so anyway, it's probably not appropriate, but I would do it.
I never got censured for it or anything. But with this,
and this goes to the point that the judge where
the judge is okay, for those that have never testified
(07:29):
in court, I want I just want to make this
abundantly clear, particularly if you're an expert, and from an
expert's perspective, all right, when you go and you sit
and provide testimony, you have to obey the rules of
the court because it's not just about having a conversation.
(07:52):
It's not It is a skill set that you have
to develop. And I remember being so terrified the first
time I did it, because when you walk into a
court room, it's like you're walking onto an alien into
an alien planet, and if you disrespect that space, that's
one of the ways you'll get slapped down really quickly,
particularly an old school judge. They don't I've had, Dave.
(08:15):
I've actually had friends that were held in contempt. Back
during the day when people still had pagers, page went off,
I've had I've had friends that were sent home because
they didn't have a tie on. I always showed up
to court. Yeah, like I was gonna go visit Jesus.
You know, I'm gonna go to church. That's that was
(08:35):
my rule of thumb. And now much like church, you know,
you'll have people dressed in any manner of way, you
know when you walk into that environment. I've covered I've
covered cases, I've covered cases with people sitting in their pajamas,
you know, providing testimony. They might say, it's not it
looks like pajamas. So it's just it's a different world,
(08:57):
and this judge is having to drink all of this
stuff in lay it out so that he can make
sense of it brother day.
Speaker 2 (09:04):
But to be clear, though, the judge is the only
one that actually means anything in a preliminary hearing, because
like I said, it's the prosecution presenting the evidence, or
not all of it. They're presenting the evidence they believe
sufficiently shows that they can move forward with trial. They
have they have what they need, and the defense is
there to knock holes in those things that are being
(09:26):
presented in the hopes that the judge will go, well this,
there's two we can't do this, we cannot move forward.
And yet here we are five days later, and just
so you know, the judge will make his decision. I
think it's September the first, and that's when he will decide.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
So yeah, he will have had time he does, and
it will take I don't know what else he has
on his docket. And that's the list when you hear
term docket, that's the list that that judges use it's
dockett means what's upcoming. So I don't know if he
and I love this term too. I want my docket cleared,
and so if and if he has colleagues, If he
(10:07):
has colleagues, he might push other cases off to them,
and those judges will handle those cases. I don't know.
I don't know what the size of their judicial staff is.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
But what happened this week, Joe, what did you see
this week?
Speaker 2 (10:19):
What was was there a big aha revealed that you
didn't know about that popped up during the test line?
Speaker 1 (10:26):
Wow, a big aha moment. I probably let's see. I
think from my perspective, it's going to be the volume
of DNA evidence that they have because it you know,
I'm not dismissing the rest of the evidence, but what
I'm saying numerically, when when you hear them, and I'll
(10:52):
throw these numbers out to you when you hear them,
use terms like quintillion and octilion. Yeah, talk about putting
a fine point on the old pencil. It was, you know.
And then the multiple the multiple locations that they had
identified where they were able to harvest DNA, I think
(11:15):
was rather striking and the fact that I think on
the deposition on the towel with Robinson and Twigs, you
both have their DNA there.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
And by the way, Lance Twiggs is the roommate slash
boyfriend of Tyler Robinson. And during the testimony we actually
heard evidence. Now Lance Twiggs did not testify in court.
Video was played of an interview conducted with Twigs that
was recorded with police in April.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
April.
Speaker 2 (11:47):
Yeah, and I will tell you, Joe, I was surprised
at what we heard. But I think Lance Twiggs is
the first person that the media has said is transitioning
that has zero pictures online of transitioning. I don't ever
see him wearing makeup or dressed as a woman. I mean,
(12:08):
he's got long hair, but you know a lot of
people have long hair.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
Yeah, precisely. That makes me, that really makes me question
kind of the validation of all of this. And we
see that one image that floats around where he's dressed
in the costume and all that wasn't dressed like that.
You know, he had a coat, a shirt, and a tie,
specifically as I dressed earlier, relative to how you show
up to present yourself. And you know, if even the
(12:33):
old school judges back in the day, if you came
to court dress like that, despite if you've got long
hair not, they don't really care. They would say, this
young man is dressed dressed like you should be to
present yourself in court. So there was nothing, you know, like,
you know where you're thinking about what do I need?
You know, how am I going to address this person
or anything like that. Right, So that added a bit
(12:56):
of clarity, you know, just knowing that and then what
is being put forth by him. I got to tell
you a lot of that testimony, correct me if I'm wrong,
Brother Dave. A lot of his testimony is kind of redacted,
wasn't it. I mean there's like huge gaps of stuff
that is missing out of that interview that was conducted.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
This was an argument that Charlie Kirk's widow, Erica, and
Charlie's parents. They filed paperwork with the court because Utah
law allows for victim's families to see the evidence, and
the family argued that the judge allowing this to be
presented in such a heavily redacted manner was preventing them,
(13:40):
the family, from seeing all the evidence. And I don't
know where that will go, but that was an actual
point during the course of the five days of testimony.
Speaker 3 (13:49):
But the thing.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
Is, Joe, what we learned from Lance Twigg's interview, it
is I understand why they were redacted a bunch. Again,
it goes back to the prosecution at this stage, Joe,
they do not have to lay out everything they're going
(14:11):
to use a trial. They only have to layout enough
to show the judge this needs.
Speaker 3 (14:18):
To go to trial.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
And you know, they're not allowed to hold any evidence back.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
They're not allowed to do that. Prosecution.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
They have to everything is available, okay, but they're not
showing everything right off the top of the game here.
So there were a number of long blank spots in this,
but we still saw a lot. We found out that
they dated for two they were roommates for two months
before they began dating again. I challenged this whole idea
(14:48):
that Twigs is transitioning Joe just because he shows up
as a guy in April. We've heard this since day one,
that you know, Tyler Robinson was involved with a you know,
a that was transitioning And I don't see any anything
there that just goes back to the political nature of
all of this.
Speaker 3 (15:08):
We did see and I thought, the.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
Most important thing we'll get in this in a minute
the text messages that went between Tyler Robinson and Lance
Twiggs after the assassination. Because Tyler Robinson, Joe, he was
still there. He was he was watching as investigators were
(15:31):
looking for evidence, and he was texting to Lance Twigs.
The one thing that I questioned, at what time are
you and I responsible for calling police when we know
something we have information? Because Lance Twiggs knew based on
(15:53):
his text messages with his boyfriend that Tyler Robinson said
as he killed Charlie Kirk. We're talking the evening of
hours after this joke.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
I thought, yeah, I gave that some thought too. I
was talking to some friends this past weekend specifically about this.
You know, let's just say you have somebody on the
ground in front of you and they're bleeding out and
they're still alive. Okay, where does your obligation begin an
end at this point time? And I'm sure that prosecution
or counsel, let's just say counsel in general, anybody, let's
(16:30):
just say he was being represented, Okay, they would argue that,
you know, any kind of emergent thing had had passed,
they might argue that, but if you have knowledge of
somebody that's gone out and committed a murder, all right,
and then you add the extra spice to the fact
that it might be politically motivated, and that's where all
of the pundits start using the word assassination. You know,
(16:53):
I'm looking at it as a murder, just like I
do with JFK. You kick it up a notch. And
now you know, there's been people that have talked about
this from a federal level, that this has terrorism kind
of attached to it. Okay, all right, so you think
about that. You know, what kind of obligation do you have,
(17:16):
right and when do you start to get over into
the area of aiding and a betting right, and you know,
being a party to this, I find it really interesting too.
And I want to say this right now, he's got
limited immunity right now. I don't know how we define
(17:39):
those limitations there. But if you're saying limited limited has
to be defined very very specifically, and from a proscatorial standpoint,
do they have any other evidence from a forensic standpoint perhaps,
or circumstantial evidence that can be you know, filtered into
some kind of case. That would be because they're I've
(18:00):
seen it online. You know, there are people out there
they're saying he should be prosecuted as well. So that's
a big conundrum. And what tie backs do you have. Well,
from electronic forensics, you've got these communications that are going
back and forth. The letter that was found beneath the
keyboard and he snapped the image of it. I think
it's the same letter that the crime scene tech testified
(18:23):
to that was seen in the in the garbage that
was partially burned, and she alludes to her in her testimony.
You still see some handwriting on it, you know, So
you know there's there's certainly evidence there, But you know,
you think about it. You think about the relationship that
they had and what was happening. The relationship I'm worried about, though,
(18:51):
is Tyler Robinson's relationship to a thirty off set trifle.
My grandfather, uh I had old family property up in
(19:13):
southern Arkansas, and he had a bunch of brothers and
one of the things they used to do was they
would go hunting. But the difference was you think about
deer hunting, they didn't hunt deer in a tree stand.
This is a long long time ago. They used dogs
and uh.
Speaker 3 (19:32):
Dogs used dogs.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
Boy, that that southern comes out when you said that.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
Man, I love if you could see these dogs, write
about them, about them in my in my memoir. Uh
Clyde and Bernice were his two hunting dogs he used.
They were Catahoula curs, which were these big, big dogs,
and they used to hunt deer on horseback. And my
grandfather hunted with iron sides. He didn't have go so
(20:01):
the dogs will go in and flush deer, and you
know it was hell bent for leather. These brothers will
be on horseback killing deer and it was something to see.
But you know the reason I'm saying that is that
I never got that rifle. He had a lever action
Marlin thirty thirty rifle, and I would have given anything
(20:22):
to have possessed that and to have had it. In
this case involving Tyler Robinson, he does allegedly have the
weapon of his grandfather, Dave. That's correct, right.
Speaker 2 (20:38):
And you know it's interesting that we mentioned a minute
ago about the tax messages that went between Tyler Robinson
and Lance Twiggs after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and
in talking about the gun now again we didn't get
everything because there was a number of issues redacted, you know,
(21:01):
so we got parts of the text messages, we got
parts of the testimon or the interview. But there was
discussion about the gun and Tyler Robinson saying that it
was a gun, a thirty out six given to his grandfather,
and he was talking about he was wondering if it
would be that his dad, Okay, in talking again, now
(21:22):
you're dealing with Tyler Robinson has the thirty out six
from his grandfather. Tyler Robinson's father wondered if that gun,
the thirty out six that his grandfather had, would be
strong enough to hunt deer.
Speaker 3 (21:36):
He was it would still be strong enough.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
And I thought that was kind of interesting because I
wanted to ask you about the age of a weapon
and its ability to continue to fire at the level.
Speaker 3 (21:49):
That it did when it was newer.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
But anyway, that came out in these text messages back
and forth, and Tyler Robinson made a comment that well,
I guess, I guess.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
We know now basically it was strong enough.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
But the talk about the gun and the serial number
whether or not it existed. The thing was is that
Robinson made a comment saying he hopes that whoever it
was that gave it to his grandfather was gone, was dead,
you know, that the gun would be tracked back to
that person.
Speaker 3 (22:20):
You know, I thought that.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
Was fascinating that that is where his mind was going,
that this gun was came from somebody else to his grandfather.
His dad was curious, it was still strong enough to
hunt and here's Tyler who used it to allegedly murder
Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
That was just what an infantile way of thinking about things,
right relative to the world that we live in. That
you that, let's say that it came from a third party,
that somehow this is not going to be able to
be tracked in the world in which we existed, particularly
if you leave a weapon behind. Uh, they're going to
(23:03):
you know, the serial number of stuff alone is enough
to that we could have a cup of coffee over
for about an hour, you know, to kind of talk about,
you know, again using the word infantile, that you actually
believe that because somebody has passed on that may have
been the point of initiation with this weapon, that it
cannot be tracked or traced back. I don't I don't
(23:25):
know what planets you're living on, dude. But it's that's
in and of itself, it's just totally bizarre, you know
when you you know, when you take that out consideration.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
It kind of fit with something else that Tyler Robinson
wrote to Lance Twigs.
Speaker 3 (23:40):
Now, just set the stage here.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
Tyler Robinson has allegedly just killed Charlie Kirk in broad daylight.
He has made his escape, and he has stashed his weapon.
He has changed clothes, and now he's trying to find
a clear spot to go and collect the gun because
in his mind's eye, the only thing linking him to
(24:03):
this crime is the weapon. You know, fingerprints on the weapon,
and that's his big concern is he's texting to Lance Twigs.
But Joe, at the end of all these text messages,
I'm not kidding you mentioned infantile. Tyler Robinson tells Lance
(24:23):
Twigs delete these messages.
Speaker 3 (24:26):
All right.
Speaker 2 (24:27):
I'm gonna tell you, friends, even an old guy like me,
deleting a message is not going to get rid of it.
Speaker 3 (24:36):
Really.
Speaker 2 (24:36):
I mean, in this day and age, you've grown up
with a computer in your hand, and you think a
simple deleting of a text message is going to remove
everything you've just confessed to not even a little bit.
But I want to mention something that you mentioned a
minute ago, and in case y'all did not watch any
(24:58):
of the hearing or follow up with it, you mentioned
a note a minute ago, Joe, all right. Early in
the text messaging between Tyler Robinson and Lance Twiggs, it
is after the assassination of Charlie Kirk and Lance is
asking Tyler you know about this? He doesn't know that
(25:20):
Tyler Robinson has allegedly killed Charlie Kirk. Lance Twigs does
not know that, and he is following along. Lance is
enough of the information in the news that he is saying, hey,
I heard they arrested the guy that did the shooting.
And Tyler is going, nah, it's just some more crazy guy.
And they arrested they detained another guy that looks like me.
(25:43):
But he says I did it okay, and he does
apologize to Lance Twiggs for doing this. But in these
text messages, Joe, Tyler Robinson tells Lance Twigs go look
under the keyboard. Now he's referencing Tyler Robinson's keyboard for
(26:04):
his computer. He's telling Lance to go look under the keyboard,
and Lance does. He goes in there and he finds
a note on yellow paper, and on that note that's
where Tyler Robinson has written I had I think it's
I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk. So
I did it. And this is the moment. The text
(26:27):
messages have already confirmed this. But now Lance Twiggs is
reading his boyfriend's handwriting his own writing on this yellow
piece of paper underneath Lance Tyler Robinson's keyboard.
Speaker 3 (26:39):
That I did it.
Speaker 2 (26:41):
Now Lance Twiggs does something Joe. He takes a picture
of the note and he places the note back on
the keyboard and walks away.
Speaker 3 (26:54):
But he took that picture, and.
Speaker 2 (26:57):
I'm thinking he took the picture because he knew that
if Tyler makes it back to this house, he's going
to destroy this note and I need to have proof.
Speaker 1 (27:08):
So I don't know. I mean, when I'm thinking about this,
and I'm thinking about the relationship, Okay, yeah, Now, if
you were in some kind of committed, trusting relationship where
you're trying to protect this person whom you love, you're
going to have to go in and take a photo
of it and place it in It's not just merely
(27:30):
the act of taking a photograph. It's the act of
taking a photograph and then placing it back right and again.
As an investigator, I think that that's going to give
them pause, you know, when they're working the case, and
they don't come out and expand on that in the
preliminary they just again, like you should in a preliminary hearing,
they just submit to facts now, so that our friends
(27:53):
understand when this does go to trial, the nature of
that will be explored.
Speaker 3 (27:59):
Now.
Speaker 1 (27:59):
I don't know how far they can go with exploring
the nature of it, the nature of what, you know,
some kind of underline meaning or something like that. If
they get a behavioral scientist up there that might testify
some of the stuff, it's going to be. You know,
it's going to be certainly a moment I think in
the trial when they begin to kind of understand the
(28:20):
relationship that these two individuals had with one another. I'm
not talking about their relationship from the perspective of let's
explore their relationship. I'm talking about their relationship. Let's explore
it how it relates to a homicide investigation. Okay, these
are two separate things, and I think that everybody should
be aware of that. So for me, the note in
(28:43):
and of itself is very compelling. I will tell you
this from an evident standpoint. I'm going to mention just
and this kind of segues into something else. That note,
the writing style on that note will go will have
(29:04):
gone to the handwriting analysis section probably at the FBI.
And guess what else they're going to analyze as well.
And people don't think this is possible. There's another bit
of there was something else that was discovered, okay at
that scene at that townhouse, and that's that dremal tool.
(29:25):
That dremal tool was used to engrave these cartridges. All right, now,
people that I know in court, they said they submitted
that dremal tool along with those And you have to understand,
you have live rounds that are in that in dwelling magazine. Okay,
it's not clip in the in dwelling magazine.
Speaker 3 (29:48):
And you have a magazine jo for those who don't.
Speaker 1 (29:51):
Know, people use the term clip all the time. A
magazine is something you can either have an external magazin
that is placed into a weapon, or you can have
an internal magazine where rounds are pressed down into it. Now,
World War two saw with the M one grand you
(30:12):
can get what's called granthum. And you see those bandoliers
that guys used to carry on their chest of m
those were clips. So they would press it down and
you know that metallic clink that you hear, well, that's
that backing on that thing that would eject. And German
(30:32):
soldiers used to know that when that thing ejected, that
our guys were out of rounds. It's an eight round clip,
that's what it is. It's not a magazine. So when
you're pressing into the magazine these rounds okay, and they're
in there. That's significant because on those in dwelling rounds,
as live rounds, these messages were engraved. Well, it is
(30:56):
being alleged that the dremal tool, which has a real
fine point on it. For those of y'all that have
never had a dromal tool, I've had them. You can
use them for all. They've got great utility. You know,
you can use it for a tiny drill, you can
use it as I think. There's even a miniature screwdriver
that comes with it. There's a grinding tool where you
can like shape shape edges. It's got like sandpaper, it's
(31:17):
got all.
Speaker 2 (31:17):
That's all I always think of when you mentioned drimble.
That's what I'm thinking. I'm think, Yeah, I'm thinking, because
I've got a drembal and I'm like, that's what I
would use it for.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
This was used as an engraving tool, and it's really good.
If you're really good, you can put scrolling on things.
I'm fascinated by people that can do this sort of thing.
It's it's way beyond anything.
Speaker 2 (31:37):
And this goes back to at what point in time
should Lance Twigs have felt compelled to reach out to police? Yeah,
you know, I mean Joe, we didn't have an arrest
that night. He knows where Tyler Robinson is. He knows
what Tyler Robinson has said he's done or alleged, and
we don't have an arrest Tyler Robinson. Is what point
(32:01):
does Lance Twigs have an obligation to pick up the
phone and call nine to one one, even if only
to say, my boyfriend claims x y Z and he
is still on campus trying to retrieve a gun. I
think you're obligated to sharing that information or you're a
party to the crime.
Speaker 1 (32:19):
I think that one of the things in a what
if scenario? Okay, and think the sweet Lord above this
didn't happen. What if it wasn't he didn't interdict it
in his own way by making dropping the dome as
they say initially, and this person had taken said weapon
(32:39):
and walked into a restaurant and started using it. Okay,
Because that's what you have to begin to think about.
If anybody was of a mind to prosecute on a
point like this, you know that's something that would be
taken into consideration. And you can't, you know, you can't
charge somebody with a crime that it was never it's
(32:59):
not even in coheate offense, which means in the midst
of that's all speculative. It probably wouldn't hold up in court.
But it's all of these things kind of twisted and
tied together with it's important to understand that it's not
just a matter of the handwriting, say, for instance, on
the note and to form the function of the handwriting,
(33:21):
or the fact that you find DNA on the casings
or the live rounds as well. It's fact that you
can take that drenal tool, for instance, and you can
actually appreciate the way his letters are formed, almost like
a pencil. And I don't think that people truly understand
that you say more than why is that important one?
(33:42):
It's specifically important because what you're trying to create is
a matrix of these central tie backs where you can
take this line and tie back to here in this
line and tie back to here. And the totality of
that from an evidentary standpoint, from an investigative standpoint, from
a prosecutorial standpoint, it you know it's going to point back,
(34:02):
you know, to an individual. And you begin to see this,
remember I use the analogy of the bucket well brother
right now at this point, it would appear that the
bucket is slopping over the sides. Dagie asked me a
(34:26):
few moments ago, what was something that was really caught
your attension about this? One of the investigators was given testimony.
You know, one of the things that kind of stands
out for me, do you recall scenes that CCTV imagery
of what is alleged to be Tyler Robinson's car pulling
up and trying to make a right hand turn and
(34:48):
the cops stops ing and the cop for that moment
time and this is the investigator testifying to this thought
that this was rather odd. And it's at that moment
time where where the officer got a partial plate off
of it, and when they ran the plate, that plate
(35:08):
came back to Robinson and I think his mother. And
that was one of those again, one of those little
tie backs those points. There was also and I don't
think this, there was some lady and forgive me, I
can't remember her, the neighbor who alleged that she saw
multiple guys in the car. And this is kind of
an aside for me. And one person was ball headed.
(35:33):
And I'm thinking what happened to the car and how
well was it processed? Because if that is a question
which a lot of people and rightly you should have
questions about this case. If that is the case, that car,
I'm hoping was thoroughly examined, because you know what, if
there were any other people in that car, our old
(35:56):
friend DNA, because you'll have touched in inside of the
car where you've got other people, it wouldn't just be
Tyler Robinson's DNA or Lance Twiggs DNA, or maybe some
familial DNA from Robinson's family, It would be the stranger
DNA that could be in there. I hope that they
found that car took samples on all of the surfaces.
(36:18):
I don't know if that's the case or not.
Speaker 2 (36:20):
Well, you know, Joe, I know that when it gets
right down to the nitty gritty of this case. The
text messages between Tyler Robinson and Lance Twiggs that to
me was explosive because it is a minute by minute
accounting of Tyler Robinson in the hours after the assassination,
(36:41):
when everything has been locked down tight as there he
is describing watching the investigation take place, watching as they're
looking for evidence, and Tyler Robinson was actually describing how
he was waiting for it to clear so he could
go back to get the gun he wrapped in a towel,
(37:01):
and he was saying, I've got to go back and
get it. And again he really Tyler Robinson, boggling the
mind here, thinks somehow that if he can just get
this gun, Joe, they will have no way of tying
him to the scene when we've already got so many
other things.
Speaker 3 (37:20):
At play here.
Speaker 2 (37:21):
Yeah, I thought one of the fascinating things on the
surveillance video that we saw was him, Tyler Robinson, as
he is walking with a decided limp, you know, and
which is where it is believed he has the gun
down his leg hiding it. And then after when he
(37:42):
gets after he gets rid of the gun, he's now
changed clothes and he's not walking with a limp anymore.
He is texting to Lance Twiggs that he's watching reels
like YouTube reels or Facebook or whatever. He's watching videos
just killing time, just waiting. It's like waiting to pick
up my kids trick or treating, you know that kind
of thing. He's just sitting there killing time until he
(38:03):
can go and get that gun. And by the way,
he did right, he went back to where he had
dropped it off and it wasn't there, and he's Tyler
was monitoring all the news and things that were going on,
and it was interesting, you know how he didn't realize
(38:24):
that law enforcement had found the gun. They were already
processing the gun before it ever became public knowledge, and.
Speaker 1 (38:33):
They were able to get that secured. Yeah, talking about guns.
One other salient point that came up is that one
of the investigators are I think it was the one
of the campus police that was there during those frenetic moments,
had noticed that there was a hulster on the ground. Yeah,
and that was not secured and collected and this is
(38:56):
going to open the door for a lot of people
that have suspicions. But it was a pistol holder, and
they go into great detail about this and how the
dynamicism of a say around fired from a pistol is
not going to have some characteristics. They say, one that's
fired from a rifle first off with a thirty out
six and we don't know what sized weapon was contained
(39:18):
or could have been contained in that pistol holster. All right,
so thirty out six round, it's very very distinctive, David.
You know when you see when you see first off,
the woundtrack that is created by that round as it
passes through the body, and also the elements of said
(39:40):
around they're left behind in the wound track. So that's
going to vary from whatever you know may have been
contained within that within that pistol. This is the other
thing that the shot is alleged to have taken place
from about one hundred and thirty yards. This is not
a TV show, you know, you don't have Mel Gibson
in lethal weapons shooting down helicopters with a non milimeters
(40:01):
pistol and they're working, all right, this is.
Speaker 3 (40:06):
Right? Could you modify.
Speaker 2 (40:08):
Is there a way to modify a smaller weapon that
could fit in the holster to fire ammunition used in
a thirty on six?
Speaker 3 (40:15):
No?
Speaker 1 (40:16):
No, okay, And there'll be somebody out there say no,
it's not something that. Yeah, we're talking about the holster.
Speaker 3 (40:24):
Yeah, because it's part of the defense strategy. Anything they
can do.
Speaker 2 (40:28):
So I understand that just because it's brought up doesn't
mean it's you made of the discussion. This holster was seen,
it was not picked up. And that is where the
defense is trying to run with that. And I understand
that they're going to do is everything they can.
Speaker 1 (40:42):
I mean, now bless them and God speed. That's what
That's where systems set up. I might need a good
defense attorney. You might need a good defense attorney if
you can find one. You know, you need a good one,
right and you want a good one, A good one
that's gonna, you know, go all in for you. And
they will bring this up. This is something that's going
to reappear. I think at the time of trial. They've
(41:03):
discussed it in the preliminary you know. With with coupling
that with the movements of Robinson, we have the CCTV,
as you had alluded to, you know, up up top
on the roof in that area which has been referred
to as a sniper pad, and there's no evidence of
(41:28):
a pad. I think that that's a bit confusing, because
you can have a pad that you can lay upon,
particularly if you've got a gravel surface, you know, which
would be very painful if you had to lay there
for a protracted period of time. And then you hear
the term sniper's nest, which is kind of a common thing.
It's in the vernacular. You hear that quite a bit.
Speaker 3 (41:49):
I heard that about Lee Harswald.
Speaker 1 (41:51):
Yeah you did. Yeah, the nest, you know, yeah, surrounded
by boxes and all that sort of stuff. So it's
a specific let's just get to the point though, there
is a specific area where you would go, and it's
up there that they found, you know, we found the
screwdriver that was up there too, that also had DNA
on it, which is very significant. Now what the purpose
of that screwdriver was it still remains to be seen
(42:16):
in my mind. I've heard people allude to the thought
that it could have been used as a pride bar
to get but there's no evidence that that door was
necessarily locked. H And again if it was, and I'm
sure that they went over the locking mechanism of that
door with a fine tooth combs, so they're going to
look for primarks on that door. They may have even
collected the lock for all I know, and that would
(42:38):
be submitted to the FBI, and that would be examined
just to look through it thoroughly. My suspicion is that
they didn't. They would just photograph it, you know, that
point of entrance infil xfil type of stuff. And then
of course you've got footprints, handprints, all these sort of
things that are in a specific location that would be
(42:58):
addressed and will be for further addressed, you know, when
when this thing finally does go to trial. And again
this is supposing it does. I believe that it will
because of the level or the nature of the evidence.
But to kind of, you know, change things up a
little bit, I are go in a different direction day,
(43:21):
you know me, I'm you know, I'm interested in the
medical legal aspects of this because there's been so much
made of the nature of the injury, of whether or
not there was an entrance or an exit with Charlie,
and it would appear that there wasn't it would appear
(43:44):
that there was not an exit. But we don't know
that completely in the sense that because this kind of
arose in the preliminary hearing, we did find out. I
think that it was on Friday, maybe it was late
Thursday Friday that the emm's report was submitted. Now here's
what's interesting about this, Dave. I'd love to hear your
(44:06):
thoughts about this. The EM's report was submitted, but it
was accepted into evidence and the was not compelled to appear.
And defense Defense actually objected to this because you know,
we have all of these other experts that are appearing there.
(44:26):
DNA analysts famously appeared. She's the one that's talking about
octilion and quintillion and all these sorts of things. She
was compelled to appear there. But yet the medical examiner,
who everybody has had questions about, you know, to this point,
about what they're what they were doing. Uh, they did not.
(44:47):
But the autopsy or the EMMY report was submitted into evidence.
Now of course we haven't seen it. Okay, we haven't
seen it. That has not come out, and I'm just wondering,
you know, why that they didn't appear. Also the surgeon
who was alleged to have made the comment about the
(45:08):
you know, spine of steel and taking down the moose
and all these sorts of things with the thirty out
to six. You know, these statements that have come out,
and I think that was per one of Kirk's colleagues
over tp TP USA had made that statement, you know,
kind of a hearsay kind of thing. Generally, you will
have a surgeon, you know, that will make a comment
(45:30):
and that might not come up until trial. Their surgical
notes will also be be present in that. But what
do you think about them not appearing day We talked
about a lot on the show.
Speaker 3 (45:39):
I was shocked.
Speaker 2 (45:40):
I was shocked that the medical examiner was not brought
in to testify. And you know, I mentioned how early
on that Charlie Kirk's wife, Erica, and his parents they
filed paperwork with the court challenging a number of things,
but mostly that evidence had been redacted. You know, that
(46:01):
they weren't seeing everything they were legally allowed to see.
And I think it comes down to this being part
of that. I don't know why, Joe, I don't know
why the medical examiner was not called in to testify.
It could be simply because it was a preliminary hearing
and there was you know, the medical examiner writes a
(46:22):
report and it goes into.
Speaker 3 (46:25):
The death right. I mean, I don't know how much
more they would need at a preliminary hearing.
Speaker 2 (46:32):
Now at trial they can call everything into question, and
they will if it ever gets that far.
Speaker 3 (46:37):
But I don't know why, Joe. I just know that
it didn't make sense.
Speaker 1 (46:42):
I see how the DNA analyst was placed on stand right, Okay,
I'm wondering if the medical legal evidence is going to
have as much weight as a DNA evidence. That's where
I'm born with that, Yeah, because yeah.
Speaker 2 (47:00):
Yeah, evidence is there to tie Tyler Robinson to the crime, Joe. Right,
that's the point of that. The actual death of Charlie Kirk,
the track of the gunshot, you know, that has nothing
to do with Tyler Robinson.
Speaker 1 (47:14):
You know, well yeah, well yeah, it was a terminal event.
But you know, there are they going to say, and
I'm just being Devil's advocate here, are they going to say, well,
that doesn't matter as much as a biological evidence that
was retrieved out of all of these points of contact.
(47:35):
We saw the images of those live rounds that had
the etching on them. They found other rounds at the townhouse.
There is the and so folks know this thirty out
six platform, this rifle that is alleged to have been used.
The thing has to be cycled in what that means.
(47:57):
It's not semi automatic, it's not gas operated. Where it
ejects the rounds by itself. You have to literally take it,
pull the bolt up or pull the bolt handle up,
pull it back. It ejects around and then you force
another live round into the chamber that had never been cycled,
so that round was still in there, and you know
it had the I can't remember the wording, but it
(48:18):
was something like, hey, fascists, catch this, you know, and
you know that was physically there, but you know, one
of the things that I was really fascinated about. And
they submitted this image and you know where I'm going
with this. There was an image that was captured in
the courtroom and it kind of confirmed some of the
things I was thinking about. This round. Now, we didn't
(48:38):
have the me testify, we didn't have the surgeon testify,
but what we did see was around the round that
was recovered, and I was fascinated by that because the
round is in it fragments into multiple pieces. I think
there's either, I think there's two, three. I'd have to
(49:01):
look at it again, but there were there were multiple
pieces that were retrieved and they would have been along
in the actual wound track. And just so that I
get this right and I don't want this edited, you
guys can see me going to my reference here. Yep. Okay,
So what we've got is actually we've actually got the
(49:27):
I think there's one, two, three, four, five, five fragmented
rounds here. It's kind of what I expected, and it
is the reason this is important is that they had
they had the folks talking about you know, why is
it that you cannot say that this round definitively from
(49:49):
a ballistic standpoint, came from that weapon. Just as I thought,
the round is mangled. It's mangled to the point where
you can't find the the rifling on the edge of
the round. And you see the base of the round
right here. Okay, this is actually a pistol round. But
(50:11):
you see the base of the round right here. You
can pull caliber off of that and you can determine
that it's point three to zero. But on the side.
You can't pull up the striations to match it back
with the weapon. So this cannot be excluded. All right,
they're saying that it doesn't match. But when you see
these images of this round that were retrieved, the same
fragmented all the helen back and it is it is such.
(50:38):
It has such a level of lethality to it because
it remains that energy remains contained in that wound and
impacting on the spine. You see this one point of
entry in the video, if we are to believe the video,
where the round came in and you've got a defect
that appears and you know, to revisit this and it's horrible,
(50:59):
but you can see the blood coming from the round
before Charlie drifts off to the left and he kind
of does this what's it called the neuro muscular response
thing where his hand kind of contracts, which we see
you know in like head injuries, you know, like when
we have concussive events in sports and that sort of thing.
You'll see people. And he kind of drifts off to
(51:21):
the left and he you know, he dies right there.
I think that he was I can't say dies, but
it was he was headed on that long black train.
At that point in time, that's almost an unrecoverable injury.
We'll hear more about that and that wound track. And
here's one more thing that I can tell you that
you're going to see it see at this trial. We've
(51:43):
got that the round that was recovered. We're going to
see x rays, Dave. We're going to see x rays
both in the ap the anatomical position where you know,
we get our X rays made. They have you put
your chin up on the thing you're looking. You'll have
a view of him like that, and then they're going
(52:04):
to do the lateral. They'll do the lateral from both
sides and you'll see the track you're also there's also
going to be autopsy photographs and guess what they're gonna have.
They will have a probe going into this wound before
they ever did the dissection. So you will have a
trajectory probe that will be placed into the wound and
(52:28):
they will step back and they will have snapped a photo. Now,
there will be a lot of photographs that will be excluded.
The defense is going to argue that because they're too prejudicial.
But I know this because I've done it thousands of
times in the morgue with gunshot wounds. They will have
a probe in place. If they didn't, I got questions,
(52:53):
they will have a probe in place and they will
take that in the lateral view. What does that mean?
Why do you need that? Morgan? I'll take you precisely
why you need it, because what they're doing is they're
trying to determine trajectory here, not just internal, but it
also gives you an idea because he was seated, he
was in a seated position like this. When he takes
it around, they're going to ask the scientific question, is
(53:16):
it plausible for a weapon to be fired at one
hundred and thirty one hundred and thirty yards roughly with
a scoped weapon, high velocity round, and you score a
shot right here? And this is the trajectory you're going
to get. Will that line if you were to seat
him back into this position, which they will do in
a three T in a three D recreation, mark my words,
(53:40):
and they will have that line going from here all
the way back up to that location. Now there'll be
people out there that they'll say, well they readjusted that.
Maybe they could. I can't answer that, but that will
be presented in court, and the court will view that
depend upon how it is presented. A scientific gospel day.
Speaker 3 (54:04):
You know.
Speaker 2 (54:05):
The shocking thing about all of this is five days
of a hearing to determine if there is evidence.
Speaker 3 (54:11):
To move forward with trial.
Speaker 2 (54:12):
I think beyond reasonable doubt, we saw that and there
will probably be a trial at some point. I was hoping, Joe,
that the preliminary hearing would stop some of the conspiracy talk.
Speaker 3 (54:28):
That is going on. Friends.
Speaker 2 (54:30):
Just because you see a video online that looks real
doesn't mean it's real. Just because a talking head with
a podcast says something doesn't make it a fact.
Speaker 3 (54:39):
And same thing with us.
Speaker 1 (54:40):
You know, don't believe. Don't believe me now.
Speaker 3 (54:44):
For yourself, just realize that.
Speaker 2 (54:48):
Having to break down these conspiracy theories, I think about
I think about those close to Charlie Kirk. I think
about his wife, and I think about his parents. I
think about the children. I think about those in his
inner that are impacted by the discussion surrounding this. Look man,
the assassination of Charlie Kirk was not taking out a
(55:09):
political figure. It was the murder of a husband and father,
a son, somebody that people cared about. Whether you'd like
what he said or not, goes beyond any rational discussion.
We live in the land of the Free and the
home of the brave, and we should be able to
have a discussion about anything and everything. And right now
(55:30):
we have devolved into a nation where if you don't
agree with somebody on conservative right, they can die, they
can be put to death, or that they do not
have their time anymore to talk. And I'm telling you, friends,
that is the fascism. That's the wrong lane to travel down.
(55:52):
We have to be able to talk about our differences.
That's the only thing that prevents violence.
Speaker 1 (55:58):
So yeah, no, that's all right, brother, at the because
I don't want to see anybody harmed, period, nobody, and
certainly not in to the extent that that harm that
you see committed. I've used an analogy and I'll use
it here right now about the kinetic energy that you
(56:22):
see transfer to Charlie Kirk's body at that moment in
time when his life started to go into his twilight.
There is a moment right after the round has made
entry into Charlie that we see where his shirt balloons out.
(56:43):
Let's transfer what's referred to as kinetic energy well, there's
another kind of dynamic energy that happens when you have
conspiratists and you have individuals that say false things just
to get your money out of your pocket into theirs.
And hold on to this. It's like throwing a stone
(57:04):
into a placid placid pond, the most beautiful pond you've
ever seen, and those ripples travel out, crawl long, long ways,
and they impact things above the surface and below the
surface that you may never be aware. I'm Joseph Scott
Morgan and this is body bags.
Host
Joseph Scott Morgan
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.