Charlie Kirk Shot and Killed In Utah

Casey Pelous · Mar 23, 2026

Innula Zenovka said:
It will be interesting to see if "It wasn't me -- Charlie Kirk was killed by an assassin working on behalf of some sinister group of billionaires, I'm just the fall guy and Erika Kirk is somehow involved" forms part of Tyler Robinson's defence. Perhaps he'll even call her as a witness.

It will be even more interesting if he "mysteriously" meets his end before the trial.

The 'murikan way.

Innula Zenovka · Mar 23, 2026

Casey Pelous said:
It will be even more interesting if he "mysteriously" meets his end before the trial.

The 'murikan way.

True, though it might be argued that death while in custody is hardly a remarkable fate in the US

This is How People Are Dying in America’s Prisons and Jails

An analysis by The Marshall Project provides a window into what causes thousands of people to die in prisons and jails every year.

www.themarshallproject.org

Hundreds of deaths in US prisons linked to policy violations and failures – report

Cristiano · Mar 29, 2026

View attachment v12044gd0000d6hnugnog65pn6btivpg.mp4

Cristiano · Mar 31, 2026

Cristiano · Mar 31, 2026

Sheriff at Center of Charlie Kirk Suspect’s Capture Resigns

Cristiano · Mar 31, 2026

BIG twist in Charlie Kirk murder trial: Bullet used to kill him did NOT match rifle used by Tyler Robinson - Reports

In the killing of Charlie Kirk, defense lawyers for Tyler Robinson claim the bullet did not match the alleged rifle. They cite DNA complexities and incomplete forensic data while seeking delay, raising doubts over key prosecution evidence.

www.wionews.com

Innula Zenovka · Mar 31, 2026

Cristiano said:
BIG twist in Charlie Kirk murder trial: Bullet used to kill him did NOT match rifle used by Tyler Robinson - Reports

In the killing of Charlie Kirk, defense lawyers for Tyler Robinson claim the bullet did not match the alleged rifle. They cite DNA complexities and incomplete forensic data while seeking delay, raising doubts over key prosecution evidence.

www.wionews.com

What the report actually says is

In a new court filing on Tuesday (Mar 31), defence attorneys for Tyler Robinson, the accused who allegedly killed conservative influencer Charlie Kirk, have claimed that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) was unable to match the bullet recovered during the autopsy to the rifle allegedly used by Robinson.Stating that the recovered weapon was a Mauser Model 98 .30-06 caliber rifle, defence lawyers stated that the ATF analyst could not conclusively identify the bullet fragment found in Kirk’s body to that of the bullet fired

That is, "It could be from the bullet fired, but we can't be sure" rather than "It isn't, It's from a different bullet from a different gun". Certainly undermines the prosecution case, since they have to make the jury sure that Robinson is guilty, but it's by no means fatal.

GoblinCampFollower · Mar 31, 2026

Innula Zenovka said:
What the report actually says is

That is, "It could be from the bullet fired, but we can't be sure" rather than "It isn't, It's from a different bullet from a different gun". Certainly undermines the prosecution case, since they have to make the jury sure that Robinson is guilty, but it's by no means fatal.

Thanks. The headline was clickbat. I expect him to be convicted, but this is a minor embarrassment for the prosecution.

Soen Eber · Mar 31, 2026

If it was a fragmenting bullet round wouldn't that also up the charge or sentence? Those things are made to make sure someone or something is dead, what with the multiple wound channels.

Innula Zenovka · Mar 31, 2026

GoblinCampFollower said:
Thanks. The headline was clickbat. I expect him to be convicted, but this is a minor embarrassment for the prosecution.

One of the many differences between real-life criminal trials and fictional courtroom dramas, is the subtle but important one that, in real life, the prosecution's job isn't to tie up every loose end. It's to persuade the jury so that they are sure (as they say nowadays in English courts) that the defendant is guilty.

So long as the jurors conclude on the basis of the evidence they've heard that it's beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did it, they don't have decide on every other detail in the case or resolve all the unanswered questions.

Veritable Quandry · Mar 31, 2026

It is filed to introduce reasonable doubt. They know they can't get the bullet thrown out, but they will have experts on both sides at trial talking about ballistics. The prosecution witness will talk about probable matches that the bullet is consistent with the weapon recovered, and the defense will attack on that language to say they can't be 100% certain.

Innula Zenovka · Mar 31, 2026

Veritable Quandry said:
It is filed to introduce reasonable doubt. They know they can't get the bullet thrown out, but they will have experts on both sides at trial talking about ballistics. The prosecution witness will talk about probable matches that the bullet is consistent with the weapon recovered, and the defense will attack on that language to say they can't be 100% certain.

Yes, but if there's no credible evidence to suggest the bullet was fired from another weapon, the jury may, if it chooses, decide there's no reasonable doubt it was fired from the defendant's rifle.

It's important, and the defense are doing their job, but it's ultimately up to the jury to decide what evidence they accept and what significance they attribute to it.

Noodles · Mar 31, 2026

Innula Zenovka said:
One of the many differences between real-life criminal trials and fictional courtroom dramas, is the subtle but important one that, in real life, the prosecution's job isn't to tie up every loose end. It's to persuade the jury so that they are sure (as they say nowadays in English courts) that the defendant is guilty.

So long as the jurors conclude on the basis of the evidence they've heard that it's beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did it, they don't have decide on every other detail in the case or resolve all the unanswered questions.

Yeah, I sat as an alternate juror on a murder trial and its nowhere near as neat and tidy as depicted on TV.

As an alternate though I got dismissed before the deliberations. He was found guilty though. I kind of went back and forth a bit.

They did not have the weapon, which made it tricky, but there were witness accounts from others in the vehicle (it was a drive by). The witnesses also.had some vague inconsistencies on what they did that night.

The video and cell tracking evidence was goody too. Like here is a video, there is a person that was on the video, but its small and grainy. The cell tracking was basucally accurate withing a block, but not like, an exact dot.

The potential other killer was not present to testify because he was on trial elsewhere, for murder. The defense made some iffy arguments about lack of DNA evidence, after the lab tech and detective basically said "We don't do that because we don't have the resources."

Prosecution came off as young and a bit inexperienced, the defense came off as a bit incompetent and we (the jurors) all agreed he looked like Jerry Springer.

Granted, this was a small city thing, not a highprofile national event.

Veritable Quandry · Mar 31, 2026

Innula Zenovka said:
Yes, but if there's no credible evidence to suggest the bullet was fired from another weapon, the jury may, if it chooses, decide there's no reasonable doubt it was fired from the defendant's rifle.

It's important, and the defense are doing their job, but it's ultimately up to the jury to decide what evidence they accept and what significance they attribute to it.

In this case where the evidence appears to be strong, the best strategy is to chip away at everything and try to get the jurors to add up a bunch of small uncertainties to get a reasonable doubt about the bigger case.

The last time I was on a jury, it was a shooting. The defendant was a security guard in a low income housing complex with a high crime rate, and he chased a suspect through a crowded courtyard. The suspect stopped and fired on him, and he returned fire. That person was never found. The victim was hit in the arm in the crossfire. Initially no one, even the victim, testified. But four months later they filed charges (I suspect it was the hospital trying to get funds for crime victims to continue physical therapy, the guy had his elbow replaced). The victim's testimony was confused in no small part because he had surgery right after the shooting and the sedatives distort your sense of time, so he was giving a clearly impossible timeline of events. As the victim didn't press charges, the hospital never turned over a bullet to the investigating officer.

After the prosecution rested, there was a heated argument between the attorneys about a bullet that, from what we overheard, was turned over a few weeks later that had been found in the hospital. As far as I can surmise, the defense intended to present it as the bullet that struck the victim and that it was not the same caliber as the defendant's weapon. We never found out, as they sent us out of the room and a half hour later we were dismissed as the defendant changed his plea. I am fairly certain that the unknown suspect had fired the bullet that hit him based on the reconstruction of the scene, but I am also pretty sure that the jury instructions would have allowed him to be found guilty as he fired across a crowd, and if his shooting was not legally justified than both shooters would be equally responsible under Ohio law for any injury.

Innula Zenovka · Mar 31, 2026

Veritable Quandry said:
After the prosecution rested, there was a heated argument between the attorneys about a bullet that, from what we overheard, was turned over a few weeks later that had been found in the hospital. As far as I can surmise, the defense intended to present it as the bullet that struck the victim and that it was not the same caliber as the defendant's weapon. We never found out, as they sent us out of the room and a half hour later we were dismissed as the defendant changed his plea. I am fairly certain that the unknown suspect had fired the bullet that hit him based on the reconstruction of the scene, but I am also pretty sure that the jury instructions would have allowed him to be found guilty as he fired across a crowd, and if his shooting was not legally justified than both shooters would be equally responsible under Ohio law for any injury.

The mind boggles at how two attorneys engaged in an argument about evidence when the jury were still in the courtroom.

It also sounds a bit of a stretch to try to introduce a bullet that "was turned over a few weeks later that had been found in the hospital" without any supporting evidence to suggest it had any connection with the case.