Charlie Kirk Murder and TPUSA Insider Gossip

[admin]

Part 2 of 5

You've heard me talk about my dad and the wall he hit in his 50s with his energy. Suddenly, the same workouts he had always been doing lost their edge. His recovery sucked, and he woke up feeling tired every morning. None of it made sense.

He was doing everything right, but his body just wasn't working like it used to. Most guys think these are all separate problems. But the truth is, they're all linked to the same issue, high cortisol. Cortisol is your body's stress hormone.

It's supposed to spike when you're under pressure and then come back down. But modern life, the screens, work deadlines, finances, keeps your cortisol jacked up 24/7. And when your cortisol is high, your body actually prioritizes stress hormones over testosterone production. There it is.

Essentially, you're so stressed that your body is creating less testosterone. And that's why your energy, focus, sleep, and physical recovery suck. Which is why my dad started using Marsmen. Most products only focus on one side of the equation.

Marsmen is different though because it uses natural ingredients to support healthy testosterone production while also helping your body manage cortisol levels. And Marsmen has no weird stimulants and no synthetic hormones. And the quality is legit. It's made in the USA, third party tested and now available at GNC nationwide.

When my dad started using Marsmen, he noticed his workouts immediately kicked back up. His recovery was significantly better and his energy was great throughout the day. And with their 90-day money back guarantee, there's no risk trying Marsmen. But over 91% of Marsmen users report higher energy levels.

com. That link is in my description below. com. Link in my description below for 50% off and three free gifts when you check out.

After you purchase, they're going to ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them I sent you. And they're going to say, "Well, can you please describe for the court what you mean by that? And then he's going to, you know, pivot in his chair.

He's going to look at the jury and he's going to say something like, "Okay, so this is how it works. If someone," and you'll get var you you'll have variable uh numbers that come along with this. " Okay? Unburned powder.

Unburned powder. Anything comes out of the muzzle is going to tattoo the skin. It'll, you know, like this and it'll kind of surround that area. All right.

Unburned powder, you can get smoke. You can get all kinds of stuff. And that could be from different things. Yeah.

And we're talking about we're talking about a close range close range, you know, round like this. And then the further you move away, it's like a the best way to describe it so that folks really understand, it's like having a a water hose with a nozzle on it. So as you move further and further away, the spray kind of distributes like that. Okay?

And based upon the number that you can come up with, the kind of the uh diameter of the deposition of the powder and all of that stuff, you get an idea of range. That's how they determine range of fire with a firearm. But there's a point where it's it's generally between about see people will say between 18 and 36 in away. Okay?

And it's a lot of this is dependent upon the type of weapon it is, what type of ammo is being fired, what kind of load it is. as you move further and further away. Well, anything coming out of the muzzle of that weapon that is not a lead core projectile has no has very limited um or inadequate aerodynamic u characteristics. So, it's almost like talcum powder at one point in time where it just kind of showers to the ground.

You're not going to have anything. You move further and further back. So, this round that's being fired allegedly from yards is what they say. Yeah.

You're talking about no evidence of deposition. But here's the cool thing about it is that with a distance round, if you have something that is fired at a distance, there's two things we look for. There's going to be an abrasion. And this abrasion um is Baron.

Can I see your wrist real quick? Okay. So, this is what it's going to look like. Yeah.

Hold it. You remember remember when we were kids? And I'm not going to do this. You could.

So remember, [laughter] you remember when we were kids and someone would grab your wrist like this and they would twist like this and like this opposite, right? And you get this burning feeling circumferentially all around here. Okay. Well, now burn.

You said that. I wasn't going to say it, but you can't say that now. Come on. You're not allowed to say that.

Hang on. Hush, everybody. I hear knocking at the door right now. That [laughter] Jesus culturally appropriated wrist injuries.

I'm a college professor. I have to do this. I have to be careful. [laughter] Anyway, so imagine this round that's traveling down range that is spinning at this incredible, incredible speed.

And when it hits the skin, guess what happens? It literally corkcrews into the skin. So you get this little abrasion ring right there. We look for that and that's evidence that a bullet passed through.

Okay. Now, the other thing that we look for is something called u uh grease wipe or bullet wipe. And unfortunately, we don't have any rounds around here, but if you see a casing on uh a fully intact uh live round where the neck of the round is right here, um and the projectile is actually seated down into the neck or seated down into the neck. There's a little bit of grease that they put on this thing and then they crimp it like that and that holes around and that's lubricated so that when it comes out, when that firing pin initiates through the little flash holes, it hits the propellant and then drives this thing out.

It's being held in there by the crimping. Okay, that holds it in place and but you want it lubricated to a certain degree so it's going to begin to spin out uh in an effective manner. Well, you get a little bit of grease in there, too. So, you'll see not only the little collar, it's actually called a collar abrasion where the skin is twisted.

You'll also see a little grease ring. And if the weapon is dirty, you can actually see or the rounds are dirty, you can actually see dirt deposit, particularly microscopically, if they go in and take a section of of the actual entry point, which in this case, I hope they did. Matter of fact, I hope they excised the entire wound and took it out. Excised it.

Yeah, just cut it all out and saved it. I'm hoping they did. Saved it. Oh, hell yeah.

There's I've got so many things I want them to have saved in this case. 39 minutesI want them They've got to save all this stuff through the termination of his legal proceedings. So, in a death case, that's until they put the needle in his arm. Yeah.

All this stuff has to be saved. Has to be retained. Yeah. The other thing I'm hoping that they saved are all the structures of the neck.

Everything. I'm talking about the larynx, the ferinex, the tongue. Can I ask you a question? What what if they didn't?

What would that tell you? If they didn't, then they feel very comfortable. I hope they feel comfortable with it because if you don't retain it and save it, then you can't go back and, you know, like you were just, you know, pointing out, Darren, you know, retention is the watch word with any people always flee away from this. I don't know why it is, but people always flee flee away from the idea of stating that a human body is evidence.

It's the biggest piece of evidence that we have, right? You know, why would you go and send it back to the funeral home? You know, we're doing the Nolan Wells thing. Talked about that um few moments off camera and people are losing their minds over Nolan Wells because the state of Mississippi retained all of the structures in his neck as they're supposed to.

as they're supposed to yet like I I've not followed that. Was he strangled or what was they don't know I mean they haven't released it yet. They're thinking drowning. They don't know but they the state me in Mississippi felt as though that need to save that.

So when the second autopsy was performed by uh somebody retained by the family in DC matter of fact it was done by the guy that was the former chief medical examiner for DC. Great guy, very thorough. He we've already seen his report. He says, you know, I can't I can't look at the hyoid where we heard the hyoid before.

Can't see the hyoid because they still have it, you know, at the ME's office. Well, how how much more so with this case, we're not talking obviously about anial case. We're talking about a gunfire. But these organ structures, the structures of the neck, and we do refer to them as the organs of the neck, those should have been retained.

And here's one more if you like that one. The vertebrae should have been retained. So, I would I would go and I've done this before. Uh I would go as high as I I I've removed C1 through C6.

Can we put that on the screen, Dave, just so people And can I ask you a question while you're while we're pulling it up? Yeah. If they if they had taken those out and retained them, would that be something really evident to the um to the funeral home director or whoever prepped the body? Would he immediately upon examining the body or prepping the body?

I would make a comment about it. Yeah, I if if they had seen it absent because there's certain things. Yeah, there you go. So, the atlas is C1.

Julian, I think we talked about that before. That's like atlas, you know, supporting the earth and supporting the head. So, that's top end. Uh, that's a superior position.

So I, you know, I'd probably, you know, if it were me, um, I would advise the forensic pathologist to probably keep the line share of the cervical vertebra intact. And here's another reason. Um, if, and I assume, I don't know who they've retained at this point, Tyler Robinson, you know, that is the accused. I'm assuming his team is going to retain the services of uh of a forensic pathologist, somebody that will be retained on his behalf that can review this stuff.

[clears throat] Review obviously the review, the autopsy report, the mic microscopy relative or the hisytologology, the little tissues that they took, uh tox all that stuff. But the dynamics here are very important. Um [snorts] because you want to see this and you also want to see see the spinal cord because one of the things that you saw in that or at least I did um is you see this kind of reactive event where he you know kind of clutches his his thumb like this and list over to the left and that's that's like you know any kind of event where you see like you know you watch football you know on the weekends you see these guys get head injuries, right? And that's, you know, that concussive thing that happens that's impacting the He actually was he actually was more flexed at the elbow and was clenching his fist.

So, what would that tell you injury-wise? Well, I mean, it it would indicate to me at least if I was viewing that, I'd say, you know, there's some kind of neurological thing going on here. Something was impacted that that's disrupting the electrical impulses. But is he getting impulses from his brain to his muscles?

Hard to know. Um, hard to know. And I don't know. they might call in a a neuropathologist to talk about that and I I would because they have released a few lines of the examiner's report and I don't know if you've seen them um as far as saving the cervical vertebrae I don't I don't know whether they were able to do that in the report they described a complete obliteration of the left side from C2 to C7 and then they said the spinal cord the cervical spinal cord was traumatically absent from C2 to C7.

So I don't know that there's anything traumatically absent. Traumatically absent. So I don't know that there's anything to save. Um no there is because what you can do by saving the physical structures of it is you can go back and you can demonstrate it.

Okay. So if there is a defect in the bony structure is you don't want any you don't want any unanswered questions here. Yeah. But knowing that now do you think it's more likely they would have saved it?

I would think so. And what would it tell you if they didn't? They felt very comfortable with their findings that they What do you mean by that? that the assessment that they did in what we refer to as being in Syu, which means fancy word for in place, they felt comfortable enough with their assessment in siteu with the cervical um cervical vertebra and the disc and spinal cord that they left it in place and they didn't take it out.

So any kind of documentation they would have had to have done. We talked the other day um before they would and I can promise you they did this pretty sure. Um before they ever broke out the cold steel in the autopsy room, they would have gone into that defect with um oh the green uh with probes. Yeah.

And they would have taken images in profile um with the sticks like in place. Yeah. Yeah. that would have happened.

" And a lot of this is going to be procector dependent. Okay. Chapter 5: "Brian Harpole Claims He Cut It Off" & Why JSM Says ‘This’ is Below Standard How comfortable does the forensic pathologist feel with their skill level? And also some tend to be a bit more uh how can I say this politely fidious about things that they're going to retain and hold on to.

So what at a bare minimum what do you think they were just in order to even keep the standard? What do you think they retained? Well hopefully at minimum I'm hoping they retain the cerv uh the spinal cord. Okay.

Which you would have to trim out. And you think it would fall below the standard if they didn't? For me it would. Okay.

And what else? particularly where God I hate to say this because it it elevates this case above all other homicides and I don't believe in that you know I think that the standard should be the standard no matter who it is all right but you do have cases where you will have pathologists that will take extra measures because of they're aware trust me they're aware of the static oh yeah in the air And they'll do things to the point now they can they can do it to a fall too because as you know legally as you know if they I'm just I'm nitpicking here but they can get them on the stand and said we've never done this in any other case. Why'd you choose to do it in this case? You know and that's that's the kind of thing.

So the cervical cord Yeah. The spinal cord. Spinal cord. You think to meet the standard you have to say what other things what other structures?

The the cerebral the the cervical vertebrae I would think. And you're saying C2 to C7? Yeah, that's what the report said. Yeah.

And so to meet the standard, you think if they they go to trial and they say we didn't keep this, you say they fell below the standard. Yeah. In my opinion, and anything else they would have kept. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Anything else that would in order to meet the stand? 48 minutesYeah.

The external that's that's why I was saying like this injury right here. Okay. So those but those three things, vertebrae, spinal cord, and and the wound itself. And anything else is any other trauma related.

Well, they they said all this was destroyed as well. Yeah. Well, destroyed is relative. And I don't know to what degree that destroyed is not a medical term.

No, no, no. I understand [laughter] disrupted is disrupted is a great great You could pull it up. It's in one of the filings. It's anatomically disrupted.

You know, I actually wanted to ask so we obviously can't put this on the screen, thief, but can you actually get the video the the main one that everyone Well, he's pulling Can I ask you one more question about the shirt, please? Absolutely. So, different angles of the event seem to show some of the angles seem to show that there might have been a hole punctured in the shirt. Um, I can't tell if that's like a little drop of blood that came out, you know, or if it's, you know, like a little drop of blood came out of the wound and fell 49 minuteson the exterior of the shirt, or when the shirt came up and did that kind of violent display up into the wound, did it touch it and make a little red that came through?

If there's a hole in the shirt, what would that tell you? Well, if there's a hole in the shirt, scientifically, you would have to put forth the idea that something passed through it. I mean, that's kind of an obvious statement, but does it does it marry up? And one of where you're going with this I think I don't want to put words in your mouth but where you're going with this is if this is married up and that because you know clothing is very dynamic you know when we it's so weird guys when you if you have somebody that's wearing like loose- fitting clothing.

Oh I'm sorry. Um when you're wearing loose fitting clothing you're trying to assess defects in a clothing and trying to match them up with like defects in the skin. It's a kind of a treacherous journey sometimes because the two things just don't meet. You you think about Trayvon Martin for instance, I've talked about him extensively.

Um when he was shot, Trayvon Martin was shot, George Zimmerman, when he discharged that weapon, Trevan Martin's hoodie, the infamous hoodie fell away from the body. Well, when the firearms examiner examined the hoodie, his assessment was this was a contact gunshot wound. When the forensic pathologist examined Trayvon Martin's body, and you can actually go and read the autopsy report, that body arrived at the at the facility nude, that [clears throat] clothing had already been removed. And so when the forensic pathologists looked at that and they did their assessment, you know what he said?

Indeterminant range. Just like I was talking about the distance thing. So to try to going to clothing, if you have like a defect in it, a hole in the clothing itself, on the collar, wherever it is, I want to see the shirt. That's why, you know, nothing is left a chance.

And I don't think it's clear what it is. But it's it's a dot that appears. And yeah, I I I remember day one or two, I looked at that and thought, how how did a gunshot wound that arrives at his neck make a It could It could be It could be blood. And blood blood's interesting relative to distribution and kind of how it it ebs forth from from a defect like this.

You know, we saw this kind of I think the question is at what point in time and the videography is is difficult to kind of assess without it being super enhanced and whoever enhances it and all that stuff. So at what point in time did this I don't know anomaly or whatever you want to call it where at what point in time did it appear right I think that that's that's a a silent question there was something I was thinking when you were describing Baron the what was the word they said traumatically destroyed traumatically absent traumatically absent okay so you and I had also talked about how and I think it was related to that but correct me if I'm This would suggest that the spinal cord was completely detached from the brain, which means that there would be no signaling hypothetically coming from the brain. [snorts] You talked with a neurosurgeon, I believe, about this, right? Yeah.

Okay. So, we obviously can't play this on the screen, De, but for us in the room right here where we can see this, let's make that full screen for a second, De. So, all we're doing, people off cameras, we're watching the video that unfortunately everyone saw last year where you see the shooting. So just let that play for one sec, Dave.

Okay. So he gets hit and he still fences. His body comes up the the muscles tense in the elbow and everything. And what you were saying, Baron, that I think is pretty fascinating is that hypothetically if your brain was completely disconnected upon the shot from your system, how did you describe it?

Your body just completely goes. He said it would go flaccid. He said you have about a tenth to a tenth and a half a second. a tenth to a tenth and a half of a second of motor control and then you'll lose all muscle tone, everything will go flaccid.

Well, and then I went back and timed this and it's well over a second that he's holding on to that microphone. So I asked him, I said, could he have, you know, just held on to the microphone? He said, "No, the hand would have just opened. " So if we watch, that's just one man's opinion.

Yeah. Well, if we it's it I mean it's a neurosurgeon as well, so I mean he deals with this stuff. If we see this again just in real time. So he's hit and he's still there's still muscular action.

It's still up all the way to the ground. That's about I'm eyeballing it. That's two and a half seconds or so right there. So that would be far more than what was it a tenth of a second to a tenth and a half of a second.

Yeah. Does that is that interesting to you? Yeah, it kind of is also u going to the mic. You can see the mic kind of fall away there.

Uh, and if I can just address this for a second. Uh, like you're saying like in here we can't like in there fall away. The the lapel mic or the SM58 he's holding the the one he's holding. Yeah.

There. That that's what I was referring to. He just, you know, eventually it falls away from his hand. And I don't know how exacting that is as far as but I I'll tell you this we um in our world in the medical legal world u we we handle far more see how I can use this so it didn't get edited out um we handle far more selfharm arm firearm related events.

Um, and I thank thanks for helping the to thanks for not to bombing the podcast. Jesus, these people, man. I tell you what. [laughter] God, I was sitting here like, where's he I know it makes me want to drive my head through brick walls and high.

Anyway, [laughter] anyway, [snorts] people always believe that when there is a self- afflicted of in inflicted event to the head that automatically individuals drop a handgun. They don't I I come across as many people that are still holding handguns um [snorts] as you know as we're not. I mean you people will continue to hold them you know after death after this and I've seen everything from intraoral to I've seen you know obviously temporal shots frontal I've seen people do occipital shots inverted weapons like this beneath the chin everything and so they don't necessarily drop an item you know you don't your hands just don't necessarily go like that but in that but in that situation you're 56 minutesstill you still have the connection from the brain to the body you Uh, and that's an excellent point. Um, see, I don't think I've ever had, to the best of my knowledge, I've never had a case where somebody self inflicted in the neck.

I've had center mass in the chest. That happens a lot. Sternal, you know, sternal area like that, but that's not necessarily going to impact the Yeah. Uh, impact the spinal spinal cord.

Chapter 6: ATF Testing, First Responder Failures & How to Determine Gunshot vs Something Else Okay. So, that's certainly something that's going to have to get cleared up at trial, like what the timeline of that was. For sure. I got a question.

I'm just I I'd love to know. Have you have you heard anything about the status of the clothing? I mean, is that something that has been discussed or cuz I got, you know, just watching this right now. Um I I would love to know what happened to that freedom shirt.

Yeah, we all would. 57 minutesYeah. And I mean what the status of it is. U So the only thing we heard about the freedom shirt was Brian Harpole alleges that he cut it off.

He did. Brian Harpole said on I think it was Shawn Ryan that he wheels him into the emergency room, finds a a stretcher right to the left, he puts him on the stretcher, they put him in a room, he jumps on top, he cuts the shirt off because he wants to prepare the uh for a defibrillator. Now, I don't believe any of that. I think that's totally security guy.

Yeah. Yeah. That's that's his cl I mean that Brian, don't sue me. I know you're suing people.

Don't don't sue [laughter] me. Um, but I I think I'm accurately representing what he said. Okay. On Shawn Ryan.

Wow. And at that point, that's the last we've heard of the Freedom Shoot. Is that Does that strike you as odd to have a security guy take control of a body when it's in a emergency room and do anything with the clothing? Secret Service were some of the biggest [ __ ] on the face of the planet when it came to Kennedy now, weren't they?

Yeah. And they were quite odd. Yeah. You know, they're putting, you know, Dr.

Rose against the wall, threatening to arrest him. We're taking the body with us. Oh, right. Yeah.

You know, so, uh, I don't know. Wouldn't happen in my world, but, you know, a lot of a lot of medical professionals have weighed in and said they don't they don't believe that story. Yeah. I've never seen that happen.

[snorts] Um, it's possible. I guess it's possible. Imagine you're a doctor that walks in there and you see a civilian in in his case just looking at him for the first time cutting on the body you're about to work on. Like that's wild to me.

But I I'm glad you brought it back to the shirt cuz I wanted to ask you about this earlier. You were talking about the things all the evidence you'd be looking for on the shirt and you mentioned you know where the mic was all that. What like medically speaking or I should say scientifically speaking what kinds of tests are you performing on the shirt? What are you are you using products on it?

Like for all of us out there that have no idea how this works. So there there are specific specific uh explosive residue tests that can be done. Uh and I got to tell you guys, if if it were me, um State Crime Lab, I'm sure, is fantastic in Utah. That shirt for me, I would want that in the hands of ATF because that is where they dance, baby.

And I would want them to check that thing from stem to stern. You know, we've [clears throat] Is this just a microscopic examination or are they adding chemical? There's there can Yeah, there is actually there's two two ways of testing it. First off, we do what's called a gross examination, which the gross examination is literally as it sounds.

You you are physically looking at the scene. you're using hand lenses and you're also using scopes that have a certain mag magnification and you can look over the surface of it and this is kind of the multi-step process that it that it goes through [sighs] uh and it's at that point once they have cleared it and they and I wanted to point this out as well um just so you guys know um and we can get this get to this with DNA as well later because I think a lot of people wonder about how the samples are taken that shirt would be broken down into little grids. Okay? So, if you've got it laid out, for instance, we do this with uh what are called tape lifts.

Tape lifts like if you take tape and you lift off of off of the surface of a shirt, say it's the right arm. Well, this is going to be the right anterior arm of the shirt. Okay? That tape lift is set aside.

And this is designated like A1. A2 would be the left anterior aspect and then B1 B2 on the back. And so you're breaking so it's controlled. You you you know you're just not like randomly searching it.

And just as you search it, you would break an item up like that into grid so that you can go back and identify it. Say I examined grid such and such and in here I found nothing grossly. Then you go back with um whatever kind of chemical testing they're going to be doing. Um and they're going to look for a wide variety of things.

And anything they collect also microscopically is not necessarily it's not purely a chemical test as much as it is. you have um you're going to uh use spectrometry where certain chemicals bend light in a particular way. And so um they're going to look at it from that perspective microscopically. They would run this thing through through the mill uh very very thoroughly.

That's why So is this the medical examiner or is this that's going to be the state of me? But the does the medical examiner take custody of the Yeah, temporarily you do. and what hap and a lot of people don't understand this. I'm glad I got a chance to kind of explain it.

So, if a body comes into the morg and it's fully clothed, um the best practice is to in fact have a crime scene investigator physically there from whoever the law enforcement agency is that is working the case. Okay? Um and those items generally are turned over to that subject. Okay?

Um that's in charge of it. Now there are certain cases where like a shirt like that is going to be super saturated. Obviously you can see it you know that's it's going to be really really wet and gunky. Okay.

Um we have what are referred to as evidence dryers. Now they're not like a tumble dryer. It's like uh a big box that you literally place something on a hanger and you hang it inside the thing and there's no humidity in it and it dries this thing out in place so that it becomes so that any evidence that's on there is manageable and you're not going to lose it. And that's not the medical examiner either.

It all depends on the department. Like if you go to LA, they've got an in-house forensics department there. Okay? So it might have to go somewhere else and it's going to pass through a lot of hands.

So not even state to state, it could be different cities, city, town to town. Absolutely. And it all depends on, you know, what kind of resources. Again, you're talking about bureaucrats, right?

Right. You know, so it all depends on, you don't know what their funding is. You don't know, you know, there's a lot of unknowns relative to that. Okay.

So they would put that in the grid section so they have that back to refer to. Now, when you're looking at just uh take it on the whole rather than focusing on each part of the grid. when you're looking at it, what types of things would you be looking at right 4 minutesaway to determine gunshot or something else? Well, for me, in a gross examination, if if we go back to the idea that that there was an explosive event, okay, explosive events look completely different than firearms events.

So, you'll actually see like bits of charring, you know, around an area. I've seen cases where things have exploded on people and clothing is like singed, burned. There's a certain element of heat, like really intense heat that arises from that in in the immediate area. So, you're not necessarily saying that that happened, but [snorts] it has to be taken into consideration.

If it's a question that has been asked, you want to try to be able to facilitate answering that question either in the negative or the positive. We don't see any evidence of that or hey, you know, this might be evidence of it. So in the gross examination, that's kind of what you would be looking for. Also with clothing that where you have a an explosive event.

Um uh you'll get you'll get this kind of fragmentation thing that takes place. So you'll see like little bitty defects in there. you know, uh if if it's if you've got some item that is blowing apart, Chapter 7: Video of Responders After Fatality & Blood Pour Out Examined you'll see little defects that are not they're they're not necessarily uniform, but you'll see the clothing kind of frayed and torn and that sort of thing. Okay.

Now, when you once he was actually shot and you see the security team go around it, let's bring the video back in now because we do have video. I had said earlier, let's pretend we didn't have video. How do you look at it? You bet.

What are the first things that a good well-trained first responding security team should be looking to do handling a body like that on the spot that has been hit with something that traumatic in stem the bleeding immediately. I mean, pressure has to be applied, but you can't This is a This is a difficult area, man. I mean, it's difficult. You don't want to choke them out.

6 minutesNo, [laughter] you don't. like you know because you know one of the things I mean you know it's like again when dinosaurs were on the earth when I went through the army you know when I went through army basic training all those years 1924 it was man we had those Springfield rifles man muzzle loaders um you you you know they teach you to apply direct pressure they do that in any kind of first aid course the neck in particular is very difficult um you know how much how much pressure do you apply in that specific area but look if you If you can't stem the bleeding, all is lost, man. I mean, it you're going to have to stem it. And with an injury or an insult like that, what what would you use to stem the bleeding?

Your hand direct pressure. Yeah. And if you have I would assume that if you had somebody that had some baseline medical training, they may try to take a 4x4, which is, you know, the 4x4 uh, you know, kind of bandage thing that you see, and try to plug the hole perhaps it mean desperate times, desperate measures. But, you know, even if you had even if you had a team of surgeons that were standing by with that shot or with that defect, that trauma, they would have a difficult time under those circumstances, even right on the spot.

Yeah, I think they would. Yeah. So, we have video of them responding. Um, it it's difficult to tell what they're doing back there.

What would it look like if if you couldn't see him and them? What would they be doing to stem the bleeding that you would be able to tell from above the table? Would you be see them reaching, repositioning him? What are they doing?

Probably because they're they're seeing what you're seeing is because his heart's maybe still beating at this point. Don't know. All right. Might have agonal agonal respirations, which is just kind of, you know, that kind of shallow thing that's going on.

Life is ebbing away. When you see that what appears to be blood issuing forth from the defect, that's not going to last very long if the heart is still bumping pumping because these are major major vessels in here and they have a tremendous amount of pressure particularly the corateed uh if it clip the corateed with the heart you know pumping away like this it's you know and we see this with like um blood stain analysis you know like Um, we call it arterial spray. For instance, like if you have somebody that has their throat cut and it clips clips an artery, you'll see it. It's Did you see spray in that video?

No. So, saw kind of a flow at that point, but it's it's really hard to make out. Looks like someone just poked a hole in the bottom of a gallon jug. Yeah.

And it almost it almost looks It almost looks like Venus blood. So, what does that tell you? What I'm sorry. Venus like the jugular vein, you know, not the planet, right?

I mean, that's [laughter] where my head was going. New Jersey. Yeah. So, so but what does that tell you that it just it looked like it more just dumped out?

Yeah. And you might have multiple vessel and you have to in this area because it's so it's so complex in here. Brother, you're going to have multiple multiple structures that are clipped in here because it's so tight. It's like if you ever go into a building and I'm going to get in trouble for this, but you see like cable that's being run through the wall, you know, and you get into if you if you kind of compare that to vessel structures like that, um you go into one, you're going to clip other things and it's so very delicate.

And if we have a fragmenting round, even more so on particularly when you get because not only do you have these vessels here, you actually have a blood supply that's very delicate as well. [snorts] There is a vertebral artery back here too that is deadly. I very very deadly. Like when people have some kind of neck injury, it's not just the spinal cord that'll be damaged if they if this is if you fracture a vertebral body back here.

That bone becomes um it's a I've cut myself on bone before uh in the autopsy room. It pass right through your gloves. Done it a number of times and um it's sharp. I mean, you know, our ancestors made weapons out of them and so it'll it'll actually that vessel could be clipped as well, but but the fact that it just poured instead of spurted.

Yeah. What do you what conclusion you have? Well, just again viewing viewing this image and it's limited. It's very very limited.

It's not like we got a tight high depth shot. Um it looks like Venus flow to me. It just does because it just comes out in the it's not like doing this. So talk to me about the anatomy um of where those two are located.

Is one in front of the other as as you as you face the say you're standing external the well you have the external corateed that's right here and that's the arterial one. Yeah that's the arterial bone. So are they laying like this? Kind of kind of opposing like this and so but is one in front of the other as the as the Yeah.

And so which one's in front? It it's the corateed is right here. And so it's going to pass through pass through and clip and it can clip both of them. Uh it'll create a defect in both of those.

Not to mention all the other little arterial and venus supplies that are branching off of it. So tracking down of course the corateed splits down and goes into like the subclave right here uh which runs right beneath the collar bone and it branches off. um very highly complex um and again that's why I was saying there's so much damage that can be done in this particular area um so much damage that can be done in this particular area that even if you had a team of surgeons standing there it would be very very different but when you say you see what you perceive as primarily venus blood Yeah. Um, [clears throat] is it is it possible the Venus blood is of of a higher volume relative to the the total or is it that you think it may not have arterial blood at all?

Why does it look that way to you? I don't know. I couldn't say. I couldn't say.

So, just going off what we can see here, obviously, we have the main story they've told us, like we said at the beginning, 138 yards away, , Tyler Robinson shoots it. When you see a wound like this though, could you see something like that occurring from something that's not a bullet? I don't know. I'd have to I would have to have an idea of what that would be.

I mean, is it something that's propelled through the air and driven that creates that? And again, I say shape. I can't fully appreciate the shape because it's at such a grand distance. I know that it's not a massive opened area like this.

It's not like something has exploded in the sense of like I hate keep going back to Kennedy, but with Well, that's your case. So, go back there. [snorts] Um I wish it had been my case. Yeah, it would have been handled like you'd be dead, but [laughter] I probably would be, you know, um you don't have this explosive event like that.

This is this is a concentrated area. So, I if you're asking me to speculate on what else could cause this, I I really couldn't. It has to be something that's dense enough that would maintain its physical characteristics in order to create a defect that you're going to have blood pouring from it. Is it it initially when people watched it, they all assumed it was an exit wound?

" Because it was so big. M 14 minutesum when you first see it before the blood starts pouring out you see a I mean it's hard to tell on a two-dimensional video but it looks like it's the size of a nickel or or larger uh which is a lot larger than a typical entry wound. Is it possible that that is blood coming out and nothing had gone in meaning there's some action on his body that caused it to erupt through the skin? I can't in to my way think nothing comes to mind right now that would explain that's where I am.

Yeah. [laughter] I mean, I just figured I'd ask you the expert. No, no, no, no. I mean, and nothing, you know, nothing comes to mind that, you know, where I'm thinking about that it could be you could have something that would produce that kind of insult.

And I'm sure that there are a lot of people that have speculation about that. So, Martinsson's original thought where he was talking about it was it was a shot from somewhere else. In that situation, to go back what you were saying, just to set the standard here, if [snorts] it is another type of weapon like another type of gun that fired around, you'd still would it matter what kind of bullet or what kind of gun to be able to see that same kind of spinning cycle you were describing with the bullet to be able to examine the wound and figure out the entry point? No, no, no, no, no.

That the uh abrasion collar that I was referred to earlier, it's going to look you you'll still see it. Okay. Would you see that you two with a 22 round? I guess I guess it would depend what another kind of weapon would be.

But are there other things that aren't guns where you would see a similar behavior cylindrically? I that's not a word, but you know what I mean. No, I know what you're saying. Yeah.

That would cavitate through that area and create that. Not that I could think of that's not You're talking about something I just so that I'm clear. You're talking about something that is being projected, right? Sure.

Okay. So, I know that's kind of obvious, but I I just have to ask that question. So, you're talking about something is being projected. Um, not not in my experience that I've seen.

Uh, um, you know, if you're thinking some kind of air driven thing or something else that's been discharged through the air that could stay on that trajectory and strike and be lethal, nothing comes to mind for me. No. Okay. Real quick, I have to go to the bathroom, but this is a good point.

Def when we're while we're away, can we get video of the immediate aftermath, like the crowd right there? Video uh the video of the guy removing the camera cartridges as well, the SD cards, and then also video of them carrying his body to the truck. And we'll have that Chapter 8: Witness Said "It Came From Down There" & Absent Space Sound Theory queued up, ready to roll, and we'll go through the next steps of it. All right.

All right. We'll be right back. All right, we're back. So Baron, you were just saying something off air to go back around to some of the sound conversation, the dynamics of that that [snorts] we were talking about earlier.

Yeah. When he was talking about sound, he said one of the first things he would do as an investigator is show up and ask people what they heard. And we ran a whole montage of people uh witnesses. He wants you to slide that way a little bit.

Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. Um, he ran a whole We ran a whole montage of witnesses that were on camera and they all said they heard a firework or a firecracker or a pop. I talked to a student at UVU the other day and I asked him the same question.

What did you hear? What did it sound like? And he said it honestly sound like a balloon popped. And I was like, well, where were you?

And he said, I was 10t to Charlie's left. He said I was like two or three rows up, maybe 15 feet. " He was to Charlie's left. To our right.

Yeah. Yeah. To our to our right. Okay.

To our right. Looking at him. " You know, like some you'll hear a if you're downrange, you'll hear the crack and then you'll hear the boom behind it. And he said, "No, there was no second sound.

" Um, and all the different people that said they thought someone was shooting off a firework or a firecracker. Is that what you would expect with a 300 6? Yeah. Oh, okay.

With a 300 6. Well, again, it all depends on where you're positioned relative to it. Okay. And where the shooter if it is someone shooting a 300 six, where they are positioned relative to the rest of the crowd.

I I'm I'd be very curious if a um because you know there there have been cases out there where they have uh audio people that actually come in and do audio mapping you know of cases like this. Feds have done it before. You know what could you hear? And other thing that there's so many there's so many dynamics that can impact the way you hear things at a scene.

In this case, if you got somebody that's in an elevated position, how is that sound uh going to disperse into the air uh as opposed to being flat on a flat range if you're firing a rifle um where you can hear the concussion of it, you know, kind of traveling out at that moment in time. So, it's it and this is such an odd setup. again got to tell y'all if um if I was and I'm not never want to be but just you know and everybody can Monday morning quarterback this is not the position I would want my guy in um because it is a bowl I mean it's a death trap you know down there looking up at the at the watch tower. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. And it's it's a it's a horrible horrible circumstance to be in. You're not alone in that because most of his people that have gone on the record said when he walked in they were like I don't like all these roofs up here.

No. And why in the hell they you don't have people up there, you know, walking about and doing and of course these questions have come up in other cases, you know, relative to Butler and all these sorts of things. And uh well, speaking of direction of sound, he has a video. This this is a video.

You can see the people still running away and dispersing. So this was seconds afterwards. Okay. These people the one you sent him.

Yeah. This is the one I just sent him. These people are standing just to position you. Um, this way a little bit, sir.

Just to position you. These people are standing between the Losi center and the tent. Gotcha. They are on the on the on the ledge directly in front of it.

So if if if the shot was 138 yards, these people are maybe 20 yards in front of the alleged shot. And so, all right, let's play down there. The shot came from down there. Shot came from down there.

That's insane. I deleted it. Yeah. So, the the shot, the alleged shot would have come from behind the perspective of this camera.

They're pointing down towards the tent and saying the shot came from down there. Mhm. Um, you know, I I again, there's no one single piece of evidence I look at and say that was not a 30 odd six from the roof, but I see something like that and those are eyewitnesses immediately. Immediately.

I mean, these are basically excited utterances and they're saying the shot came from down there. Is there a way that I'm really unfamiliar with the science of sound and what it can bounce off of in a situation like this? Is there a way that because of the buildings around there and the nature of the fishbowl atmosphere that the sound could have traveled? So again, you're not you don't know it's coming either, so you're reacting to it.

So you have to try to remember it afterwards, but they are instantly recording this, which is great because it's their instant memory. Is there a way that sound could have traveled in such a way that it reflects off some sort of walling or building that could make it appear like it went from somewhere else? It's certainly, you know, it's certainly something that's uh you have to entertain. Um, again, I keep going back to Kennedy and you think about there and the buildings of course there in Dy Plaza that are surrounding that area or a lot higher and that's going to impact the way that sound is dispersed in this environment, but you still have structures.

It's not like you're out on the open prairie here. Okay? So yeah, all of that has to be factored in. Even even the people have to be factored in because I submit to you that if you have a fixed point of an origin of sound, if you've got nobody down there and you've got 3,000 people down there, even the presence of human bodies is going to impact the way the sound is going to travel dependent upon where the point of origin is.

If it's down on the ground, okay, it's going to disperse differently than if it's, you know, superior to everybody else in my opinion. But yeah, what do I know? I'm not a sound engineer. When we brought that up in the break, you also mentioned though like the laser and their pager operation referring referring to MSAD and like how that would have worked from like I think you were referring to it.

Was that from a sound perspective? You were talking about that? No, I was just No, I was I was talking about how savage it is like when just the the pagers, you know, um when you see and the one that stands out in my mind is the guy. I I think he's he's he looks like he's in a grocery store.

I think he's adjacent to like a fruit, you know, like fruit bins and all that sort of stuff. When this thing detonates, it's very violent. Tremendous amount of smoke and all this sort of thing. Um, yeah, we can't show that, Die, but we can watch it in here.

Okay, so they're in the store. I don't know. I don't want to watch it. Oh, they cut away.

Oh, did they cut away before? Well, no, because it gave me a warning before the video, so it should have. They may have clipped it out anyway. Yeah, they took it out.

Good thing we didn't show it. Yeah, for the best. Okay, but you were saying, Joseph, yeah, it's just, you know, that just referring to that itself. uh you know nothing relative to audio.

I was just merely talking about what a violent violent event that was and you can see everybody in that space and it's a very tight space. Um you know reacting to that. Um and you'll have that kind of concussive event that goes forward in a contained area like that. You know you know in the whatever that is a bed or whatever whatever the hell that is when this thing detonates.

Um, and it's it's very impressive, you know, to see it. Uh, just physically viewing it, you can kind of see that cloud and that burst like that. And that guy reacts very violently. That's the the victim right there.

[sighs] Yeah. Okay. Yeah, you can see him totally. Even the hat, you know, the hat flies off, all these sorts of things.

I just thought of this actually cuz we we pulled up a bunch of videos that we're going to be referring to in a few minutes here on the break. There's another one though, the side profile of Charlie that shows the back of his shirt. Yeah, you know what I'm talking about. And I believe there's a chain back there as well.

That lifts up as well. Can we get that from a from a timing perspective? And while you're doing that, let's talk about one other thing. Baron, you have discussed publicly a picture that you are in possession of that you had a chance to show Joseph as well, which I'll let you describe past this, but it at least shows Charlie's body sometime shortly after this.

And on the shirt, there is I think what you described as dead space, meaning like there's blood and then a bunch of space where there's not blood about right, can you do camera one for this? Right here. So, there's a bunch of space about right here where there's not blood. [clears throat] Mhm.

And then blood up here and blood down here. Right. And you were and I was too. What what appears to be blood.

What appear That's [laughter] right. He's learning. He's learning. There you go.

Gold storm. Yeah. What appears to be blood. But that that struck me as weird and it struck you as weird.

What about you? No. Well, going back to my example of the self harm people, you know, with firearms unaliving. Thank you.

um when and I'm just talking about from that perspective what we see relative to blood deposition and and you know one of the areas that we kind of dance in in forensics is is blood deposition blood splatter you know that sort of thing so um when you'll have somebody that's in a position and I'm not referring to Charlie here I'm referring in general all right so you can have absent space and it's a good pickup because it's a question I've actually got an image that I show in my class of a guy that was in this position. He's got blood down his legs. He's got blood around his collar and then but he laid back on a bed and then there's nothing here. And this is he bled profusely.

[admin]

Part 3 of 5

All right. But there's that initial blast where it kind of poured, you know, poured onto his legs, poured onto but this area was was protected. It had specific margins to it 27 minutesand you can appreciate that sometimes with blood deposition and that explains it. It all depends on the attitude, physical attitude of the subject that you're talking about where they were positioned.

And again, people don't think about this. Your clothes move independent of your body. They do not move um they do not move in concert with your Chapter 9: Necklace Was Never Collected & Erika Kirk Wearing Repaired Version body to the degree that they're like a a second skin on your body. they they're going to arrange dependent upon how they're physically constructed, how they're uh how you're dressed, are they is it tucked in, is it out?

You know, all these kind of dynamics play into it. So, it might move in the same direction, but the timing may be off. Yeah, it's going to be completely different because you've got your body's rotating on one axis and the shirt is is not keeping up with it. So, okay, Steve, do we have that video?

The side profile one. Okay. So again, this is not something we can show on screen, but you guys, if you follow the case, you've probably seen this online. But let's just play this real quick just for us.

And here, so this is at the point of impact. You can see obviously the back of his head where his hair meets the neck totally shifts position on the shock of entry. The shirt almost in concert on the frame. Mhm.

Changes positions too, but it changes at the top. So, like if I'm looking at the back, yes, there's movement in where the shirt is on the upper back, but when I look up at where the trap meets the neck, it moves profusely right there in I'm going to say eyeballing at about a 25 degree upwards direction. So, seeing as the bullet is fired from technically above him at 138 yards as they say, is that strange that it would that the neck and shirt are moving almost like in an upward direction like that as opposed to online? Yeah, I couldn't say uh because because of the dynamicism of this and that shirt is also anchored in the back where he's leaning back like this.

Do you see that? So, it's anchored. It's kind of held in that position. It really doesn't change position there.

So, how is that energy going to transfer about or how is it going to translate in appearance to the cloth or the fabric of the shirt as as this round is allegedly striking the body? I find this shot particularly uh let me rephrase that. I find this imagery particularly fascinating because of what you're seeing relative to the anatomical changes. U anatomical changes.

Yeah. Well, you can see the neck actually protrudes a bit there. Not a bit significantly. It pulls away posteriorly.

Posterior, right? You can see even the hairline changes there. How does that not have an exit wound if it changes that profusely? I have no idea.

the energy transfer if it if it did in fact you know um as 30 minutesBaron had pointed out earlier which is fascinating relative to what they're saying about C2 through C7 I yeah um an incredible level of violence internal violence there um and it the skin is reacting to that wave of energy that's going through there and Lord only knows I I would love to know to what degree. Well, first off, specifically what was what vertebral body was actually impacted like specifically because you can get this kind of peripheral fracturing that takes place because of a concussive event, you know, where you'll get these little hairline fractures and all that. But which vertebral body did it actually slam into? if that's what they're saying, you know, with C2 through C C7 and how is that um how is that affecting externally the skin there and and the the hair itself standing up?

Yeah, that's it looks like it's being blown. It does. It really does. Like it looks like a rush of air is driving the back of his hair up.

Yes, it does. Yes, it does. And um the and the skin actually billows as well. You can see it.

The what what do you mean by billow? Well, the diameter of the of the neck of the neck if you go inferior to the right ear. Okay. And then posterior downward like this.

The elasticity the elasticity of skin has always fascinated me relative to things I've seen happen [snorts] to human bodies. um how it'll extend and then it'll uh uh retract again after this has happened. You've got a lot of things that are going on internally. All of the muscular structures that are in there, the fascia that even connects the skin to the muscle.

If you don't know what fascia is, if you've ever um had a pork roast, um it's that thin white membrane, you 32 minutesknow, it's on the surface of of uh of you know, like a pork roast or beef roast or whatever it is that you know, you kind of have to strip it off, that sort of thing. The fascia is even impacted and affected and it anchors, you know, it anchors our skin in place right over the surface. You know, you've got the dermis and then you've got subq fat and then the fascia is beneath that. It kind of lays over the musculature back there.

You were talking about his traps right there, right? Yeah. Anything else there, Baron? You want to clarify?

The necklace does that does a necklace snapping? Brother, I'm sorry. I cannot My eyes are so bad I cannot even see. Is there any way def is there any way you could expand that for me because I I can't appreciate.

Yeah. So, you'll see a flash right above his shirt over his right trap. right there. Okay.

Yeah, that so his necklace it's got a wave in it. Well, it snapped. It snapped. It's a very hardy Yeah, right in there.

Yeah, it's it [clears throat] you can kind of see it right over the front of his neck, but um like between his neck and his between his collar and his his chin. You can see the neck and the necklace then wraps in the succeeding frames all the way around. So, it it obviously broke. Yeah.

Um is that something you see consistently with people wearing necklaces? they're shot in the neck and it it has again it all depends on the caliber of the necklace. I've I've had I've had a lot of cases involving people wearing very heavy chains over the course of my career. Um and the the narrower the diameter or the caliber of the metal um they become more more fragile or more susceptible to an impact.

Most of the time when I see them though, when I've seen them, um the thing is bent and twisted and that's because a round passed through the necklace as opposed to or maybe a fragment of round or um if if if a round is passing through like what we refer to as a um an intermediate target. Like if you have rounds that come through a wall, which happens frequently, you know, with particularly with high powered weapons, you know, AK-47s, those things, those sorts of things that have this tremendous muzzle velocity, you can still retain enough energy that, you know, you'll have necklaces broken. I've seen that happen. But from a direct impact.

Yeah. Generally from a direct I've never seen it like in a concussive. I'm not saying it couldn't happen. It's very well possible, but from a concussive event, you know, I don't think I've ever seen one snap.

Yeah, it looks like it snapped down by, you know, it had a charm on it that was hanging down by his sternum. Baron's pointing at right, camera one. Let me do Baron's pointing right here. It's just below where his camera is.

So, I just want to point that out. You're pointing right here. Right there. Yeah.

So, he had a a a cross charm that was hanging there and it looks like that's where it broke. " So, I figured I'd ask you since I had you here. Did uh do we know that? I'm assuming they collected that necklace.

They did not Eric Kirk is currently wearing it, a repaired version of it. Lovely. They did not collect it. That was actually in the Brian Harpole Shawn Ryan interview.

Or no, maybe that was Frank Turk that talked about finding it. Is that the pastor guy? Yeah. Erica apparently was calling asking about the necklace.

Nobody knew why. No, no, nobody I knew identified a necklace with Charlie is that was like the identifying characteristic of Charlie. Um maybe a microphone but not a necklace. And that's that's one of the major problems I have with high-profile cases is that and again I'll go back and return to what I said earlier.

When you start to treat when you start to treat cases differently than other cases, that's problematic. Yeah. Because from an evidentary standpoint, the necklace has value. Um because if it broke, guess who I want to take a look at it?

I want toolmark people to take a look at it. I want the tool mark people with the crime crime lab. I want them to see it. I want them I want them to see how'd this thing fracture.

Give me your opinion. Yeah. Because again, ruling in, ruling out, you know. No, I'm not going to give a necklace back to somebody that was around the neck of an individual that has been publicly executed.

No. Are you out of your mind? How about the mic? She's got the mic.

She's got the mic in a in a like like like a [ __ ] Lombardi trophy in some glass box that she takes to events that you pay 10,000 bucks a [ __ ] plate to donate. And And it's still got the blood on it, by the way. But like, don't you think that should probably be in the chain? Every everything there.

Thank you. Thanks for has evidentary. You You're going to get me spun up now. Everything there.

Everything there has evidentary value. That chair is particularly has particular value. Oh, I didn't even think of that. You talking about the chair that Terrell Farnsworth stood in to get the camera?

Well, I mean, people are going to do what they do in the immediate. Yeah. I don't necess what's the evidentiary value of the chair. Oh, well, I'll tell you specifically, Joseph, not to direct you a little bit, but when you're talking just a little bit more on an angle just so people here can kind of see it.

That's better. Is that better? Okay, that's perfect. I'm sorry.

I've got to You're doing great. I've got to direct my eyes. I'm going to look at you. All right.

Okay. No, no. I want you to look at Baron, but just like keep it where you're kind of like in between us. That kind of thing.

[laughter] I want to tell you I love your haircut. I love your haircut, by the way, too. It looks good, man. You got a haircut since yesterday, didn't you?

No. No. I just thought that yesterday I forgot to talk about how my ears have. It's okay.

It's a bad word. Okay. So, market [laughter] he's learning. Uh, so that chair has specific value.

Do you know why? No. Okay. Think about how we're sitting right now.

Everybody at home, think about how you're sitting. Okay. the elevation that you're talking about the position of the body of his body comes into play here. And that's significant because the platform on which that chair is positioned should have been assessed without him in it in that position or wherever they found it because you can never like let's say the chair got kicked aside or kicked away.

It did. you cannot go back and place it in the exact position. However, there's an accounting that has to take place with that specific chair because even if that chair came off the line at the manufacturer with a 100 other chairs, Chapter 10: JSM Confirms Baron’s Suspicions & Strange Issue with Cameras that chair is unique to itself, the measurement from the rear of the legs to the back back here. And how does his body fit into that chair?

What position is he in? Because you know we're talking here one of the big questions here is trajectory right you know we're talking about is it a flat trajectory is it an elevated position whatever it is that chair has significant value and it can have evidence on it as well blood deposition these sorts of we don't know what's on the chair you know for all I know somebody's I don't know where it is now I have no idea I don't know if it's been you know if you go to a university I can go to my university and we've got stacks of chairs everywhere they just take the chair and stack it back up or did the state police or whoever it was, did they collect that chair? That's his chair. Okay.

Well, and his platform. Yeah. And did they collect it and did they hold on to it or did it go back into the rotation or be thrown away? Yeah.

And that's a problem. That's a That's So, who would that fall on? Would that fall on the police? Oh, hell yeah.

The people actually examining the crime scene. Yeah. Once once people are absent the scene, get your ass out of there. And I'm referring to any civilians that are 40 minutesaround there because if you're not part of the investigative team, you're a civilian.

Period. End of paragraph. All of that stuff should have been secured at that particular time. And this is not me Monday morning quarterbacking.

This is baseline stuff. This is like ground. Like this is something that you would teach a freshman class in forensic science 101. So, what would it tell you if there was no chair and no platform and everything had been removed?

Well, it's going to tell me that any kind of measurements that you take where you're trying to pull trajectories, your data is potentially skewed. Yeah. Yeah, you're good. I I have coffee for you right there, De.

Got it. Look at that. He's on it, man. He just floats in and out of Man, that's it.

So, all right. So, chair is a problem. Also, this is not an adjustable chair as far as I can tell. This is Looks like a wireframe kind of Right.

So, it's a static chair. Imagine if they put that back in rotation. Jesus Christ, that would be insane. 41 minutesI think it's more likely it was thrown away, but maybe the police have it.

I don't know. We don't know. No, I hope they do. And all of the surface area there.

Uh D, is there any way you can There's one. Yeah, hold it right there if you can. If you don't mind, just freeze it right there. Actually, we can put that on screen, too, because there's no bullet right now.

YouTube, there's no bullet, no blood, no anything. We're in concert. He's not pressing play on the video. Thank you.

Okay. So, do you see the um and um forgive me, Baron, I'm I'm because I I don't know what's the composition of the surface that that this thing is contained on. Carpeted, indoor, outdoor kind of. So, it was it was a grass base and then there was a platform, an elevated platform that was um that's what I'm referring to right here.

This the surface of this platform. What does that mean? It was a it was a plastic platform with a I believe a metal exterior around it and the metal legs that went down. Yeah.

So all of that surface surrounding that chair moving to his left forward any of that area right there has value to it because you've got blood deposition there. Now you say why is that important? was very important because you want to demonstrate you want to retain that from an evidentary standpoint to you can like you cannot go people ask this question frequently when you have like a a really u bloody scene they want to know if you can uh approximate the volume of blood that was spilled you can't that's an empirical impossibility but you can demonstrate it visually to show where the deposition is and this is not this is not a sightseeing tour this is something that you hold on to and you want to hold on to everything. This is something significant.

This is where a homicide and we can all agree it's a homicide. This is where a homicide took place. All right. If it was on a carpeted surface in an apartment, I want that section of carpet.

43 minutesYeah. Um I've gone into places where we've completely pulled up lenolum. All right. I I know I have colleagues that have pulled up ceramic tile before and held on to it.

It's pretty significant piece of information here that you're retaining. And so that in and of itself is important, but also the structure of this platform along with the chair, the height of the platform, the underlying ground, the topography of it. Well, they dug that up and paved it, right? Yeah.

And so, [clears throat] no, I'm just saying that I wasn't even going there yet, but No, no, no. Forgive me. But I No, I'm just saying that in totality in totality when they started working the scene, they didn't have anybody hooked up on charges yet. Everything there has value to it.

Yeah. Every single thing. I'm not saying that you go out and you need to keep those the railing that's keeping everybody back. Uh you don't you don't want that.

But I tell you, I want the closest radius. I want the top. I want that that canopy. I want to see this.

I want to know if you want to see there. I want to know if there's blood deposition up there. I want to know if I've got anything above him. Could that rule out?

Could all of that that you just described rule out the explosive microphone theory or any of the other theories? Because, you know, if you said the shirt you might be able to test rule out, what about the chair? What about the platform he's sitting on? What about the tent?

Yeah, I I suppose that could because with an explosive event, you're going to have residue that and um you know, when an explosive event takes place, it you know how I talked about the the powder a little while ago, the it acts like talcum powder. It's a very violent event in the in the immediate, but you've got this particulate matter that kind of showers down on everything. It's not it's because a lot of stuff is it has no aerodynamic uh characteristics or uh not no but it li Thank you very much. It has limited aerodynamic uh characteristics and so gravity you know it's just going to fall and it's going to settle and so you want to test these areas.

If you look at, you know, even, you know, even overseas when there's been explosive events, you know, uh, just with our troopers that have been, you know, deployed all over the world, uh, when they, you know, they have teams that go out there and they do post blast assessments relative to all this, uh, you had it with Boston Marathon, you know, all these things. You can go out and you can do these samplings of everything. Well, that's something that people are thinking about, and I don't know that they were thinking about this at the time. Um, you could either rule it in, rule it out.

Uh, certainly, but for my purposes, just from the deposition that appears to be gunshot related. Um, I'm going to want to know about the impact, the surrounding area, how blood is deposited. I'm going to want to see that chair, his clothes, and not just the shirt. I want to see the pants as well, his shoes, his socks, anything that's on him.

So would it, and again I asked this earlier, would it fall below the standard in your opinion if the chair, the platform, and all this isn't preserved and it was just cleaned off and thrown away or put back in rotation? Yeah. Way below the standard. Yes.

And where would it be stored? Just from a layman's perspective, evidence room somewhere. And again, it all depends on who's processing. So, anything you identify, anything you identify as evidence, you don't think should have been turned back over to TUSA to store?

Hell no. Okay. No. Are they an investigative agency?

Do they have prosecutorial powers? You know, because we're talking about it again. Let's all kind of come back. I'm not being smartass.

I'm saying let's all come back. Center mass here. It's a homicide investigation. It should not be treated any differently than any other homicide investigation out there.

Period. End of paragraph. Now, here's one thing about this, and we mentioned this earlier, but now you're really bringing into context when you talk about all the different pieces here and things you would have wanted in a perfect world, preserved or not touched at the time. A lot of homicide, most homicides that occur, you know, it's in a more secluded place, a lot of them, or at the very least, it's not in front of 2,000 people.

Yeah. You don't have an audience. You don't have an audience like that. So, in this case, you have a public event, a major speaker, chaos immediately ensuing.

So naturally, there's going to be some things that are not treated perfectly well right away just because of the cascading effect of so many people there. That said, once his body, and I'll come back to that video with carry into the truck def in a little bit, but once his body is taken out of there and people begin to disperse a little bit and leave, let's start with the video of that we have def of the camera guy removing the camera SD cards that were behind Charlie right here. Is this the kind of situation where there should be cops trained to be way closer to the perimeter? Number one, and number two, not letting anyone get into a space like this in an ideal world.

Yeah. But if you're talking about campus police that are there that have limited manpower, I would imagine at this point and um Baron, correct me please if I'm wrong here. Um, I'm assuming that there are no other law enforcement assets around this area other than campus police. So, not exactly.

The the guy in the blue shirt in the background and there's another guy in a red hat that keep ducking in and out. Yep. Those are uh officers from other agencies. So, we're playing this guy back there in the far back.

So, for them, they understand at this point. Now, I'm thinking about crowd control and all this stuff. Um, like your boy that just walked into frame there that's pouring water over the back of his neck or whatever the hell he was doing. He doesn't need to be in that space.

Period. And I don't I don't know whether he's law enforcement. I know for a fact the other two are. This is later by the way.

Yeah. He doesn't need to be there. Period. Yeah.

That guy doesn't Nobody needs to be within that area because I can The thing about Okay, here's the thing about crime scenes and we teach this over and over again. You can always set your perimeter up at a very distal uh distal point. Okay? All the way around.

Right? You can first off you can do that. And then you can contract it where you're bringing it back to center. However, so get back, get back, get back as far you want as many people away.

And you're going to cordin that entire area off. What when you run into trouble is when you only focus on that and you you know you set your tape up or whatever it is you create this this boundary in that little area. Well, you know as an attorney if I go back and I move that tape guess what happens? You can say well this was not controlled out here.

This has been contaminated you know at this point in time. So you always start big and then you contract after that. So even though they weren't UVU police, the fact that they're uniform, not plain clothes officers carrying badges and guns, they know that this crime scene should be sort of sacrosanked in this moment. Yeah.

I teach at the state police academy in Alabama. That's basic training for academy graduates that if they if they're, you know, post-certified police officers in the state of Utah, which I'm again, I'm assuming they are, they know that that's a critical area right there. You don't want to let anybody into that area specifically. Those people up on that amphitheater area in the back in the back.

And I'm just throwing this out there just for consideration. In an ideal world, and again, giving them a little bit of grace because they ain't got a lot of manpower. All right? I think that we can both we can all acknowledge that, okay?

Because there's some things that are just it's an it's not possible to facilitate. However, the stands up Chapter 11: Crime Scene Errors & How JSM Would Have Handled This there, you see, I don't care if you left your book bag, your phone, whatever it is, you ain't getting back in [clears throat] there. Period. because I don't know what value any of that stuff, nobody knows what value it has at that critical moment in time, right?

You're pushing everybody back. You're locking it down and you're going to keep it locked down. And [sighs] uh so you think having an employee milling around the area, the immediate adjacent area uh in Terrell Farms was his name. But you think that falls below the standard?

Yes, it does. Okay. Yeah, they should. you know, you get out of here.

Unless unless he is a principal witness at that point in time and they need to speak with him, he still shouldn't be right there. You come here. You stand right here. Do not move from this spot.

Yeah. Don't walk around. Don't pour water. Don't [snorts] pour water on the surface, please.

The crime scene. I beg you. That's That's a no-go. So you don't you don't want to because you're introducing something into this now p and understand how I'm using this word.

This is a pristine crime scene at this point in time or should be. It's pristine in the sense that it's untouched at this point. It has not been processed. You want to take any element that you possibly can away from this.

It's going to impact how any of those structures are set up or were left behind or whatever the case might be. Well, I'll profer that the guy walking around talking to those two cops grabbed the chair, set it up under the camera, took the cameras down, moved them, set them on the table, uh, removed some object from it. We believe it's the SD card. That's his story.

Removed something from the camera, and then walks off. Is that Does that fall below the standard to allow that to happen? [laughter] 53 minutesCan I play that on a loop? Yeah, that's I just wanted that on the record.

Yeah, that's on low. Oh my god. [laughter] Yeah. Uh yeah, that that would be below record.

The below the standard. Yeah. Is there any if if you were the responding official on this scene and you got here right now, this is afterwards and it's still somewhat pristine minus water boy over there. When once you begin to examine all the things you just walked us through, the chair, the the ceiling, the canopy above him, the splatter, the area around it, and and let's say someone also shows you the video, so you've now seen that, and you know the shot came from up there.

As you are looking out from the vantage point of Charlie, what are you most looking for at that time? Like, what are what are the key elements that you want to take note of to try to solve where this may have come from? I'm going to start concentrically and then work eccentrically. So, I'm going to look at I'm going to look at those things in my immediate area and then 54 minutesextend out my field of vision um incrementally.

Um and again, [snorts] in a perfect in a perfect world, if if I were like the sole guy that was there, I'd be saying, "Send every postcertified officer that you have available to my location. " Matter of fact, if there is currently a uh a police academy class in session with cadetses, send them out here. We'll direct them to set up a perimeter and face outward and don't let anybody through. Was there ever a point where something like that happened too late, you know, later or something like that?

They did establish a pretty good perimeter around the the top of the amphitheater, like the last concrete step. It's a great spot to have it, but it was 20 plus minutes. Well, again, going to playing devil. I don't know if I'm playing devil's advocate.

It's just uh practicality. I've been, you know, I've I've been out on cases before where I'm sorry, guys. There's some kind of cord or something here. There we go.

Um hope I didn't unplug anything. um [snorts] where we we just we didn't have the ability, you know, to cover and you know, who nobody anticipates. You can go through all of the um you know, through all of the emergency management stuff that they send you through where you have critical critical events and you have mass casualty events and you can, you know, tabletop it. It's what they call.

you know, you go in and you tabletop all this stuff, but until it actually happens, you don't know how it's going to h, you know, how can you plan for this scenario? Well, you always try to plan for the very worst that you possibly can. It's almost like, you know, containment where you you can always contract it. But if you if you ain't got the warm bodies, you ain't got the warm bodies.

Do you consider the SUV they took him out in as a crime scene? Probably. Is there valuable information you could glean from accessing that SUV? Again, back to Kennedy, [clears throat] it's not the same as a Kennedy limousine because that's where a violent act took place.

Um, it has value to me in that uh if I'm a law enforcement um or crime scene person, I don't know any of these people in his group. I don't know them. and and uh if I'm, you know, working the scene, if I'm involved in this, my name's going on the report, I'd want to hold on to it until, you know, let me see the vehicle. You know, what did what did you do?

What did you do? What did you do? Where were you seated? Where were you seated?

What did you say? What were your actions? Did you remove anything? Is there anything we should be looking for in here?

Now's the time to tell me right now because I don't want to get this thing and find something on the floor that you you didn't tell us about. So there's a come to Jesus moment, you know, where you're talking to everybody, tell us what you did, and then it's at that point in time that they can either choose to retain it or, you know, release it. But I'd have to there's going to be photos taken. There's going to be photos taken of the sink to document it if they if they cut it loose and send it back to from whence it came at that point in time.

You document document doc. You're never going to go wrong if you document everything. So we we mentioned the necklace. you thought should have been retained.

What about that lapel mic he was wearing? Yes, lapel mic should be an evidence. Anything on his body? Okay.

It's a corpus delecti, man. I mean, it's the body of the crime. It it is how in the hell they don't have that mic, I don't know. And why they don't have that necklace, I don't know.

I'm I need it. Yeah. I'm sorry for your loss. I need it.

I mean, they're 100 bucks. Go buy another one. I couldn't remember. I couldn't remember yesterday.

Was it Parkland you were talking about where the jury got to go back and visit and they had preserved the area so Yeah. Parkland High School, not Parkland Hospital. Right. Right.

Right. [laughter] Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Oh, that's funny. That's a similar That's a little It is, isn't it? Wow. Wow.

Yeah. It's not 33 years later at least, but still. No. Yeah.

Uh, and that and look guys, I know again back to practicality here, okay? Parkland High School, right? For those that don't remember, please look it up because it was a huge just tragic event, mass mass killing in that school. [sighs] That's a standalone structure where those events in that place were contained.

Okay? You know, you ask anybody that works in forensics crime scene, most of them are going to say I would I I take, you know, 10 outdoor I mean indoor scenes as opposed to one outdoor scene because outdoor scenes are almost impossible to secure for a protracted period of time. Um, but [clears throat] with Parkland, going back to that, and again, Idaho comes in here too because I've I've had my detractors on this, I don't really care. Um, because, you know, with Idaho, I was so averse to them tearing down Coer.

Coer. Um, how long did they leave it up before they tore it down? Couple months, I think, right? Yeah, a few months.

and the university bought it and it was hurting people's feelings. So, they had to take it down even before the thing had gone to trial. He's upset about two months or three months though as opposed to two days. You know, they paved over the crime scene here in 5 days, right?

Yeah. Yeah. That would that would really um Does that fall below the standard? [laughter] Ask and answer.

Uh yeah. Yeah. Actually, for me, and again, we can get into this. 2 hoursI I have an idea as to how they probably documented the scene out there.

How would they do it? Uh well, I think that probably a pharaoh system f a o is going to be in play here, which is a a device that has been used uh with great success. It's you know whereas in the past we would have taken hundreds of you know images right from various perspectives you just kind of follow the compass and you take macro and intermediate range and you take micro and all the sorts of things. We can't even begin to touch as mere mortals what a pharaoh system can do.

Thousands and thousands of images. You've got this thing that's set up on a uh on a stand. It's spinning. It's got a mirror that's spinning in an opposite direction.

It's just snapping perspectives all over the place. I mean, just voluminous. Chapter 12: FARO Is a Game Changer & Video of Charlie Being Carried to His Car Um you think they do you think every state would have had that technology? Yeah, I think that every state police agency has that technology now.

And you can you'd be surprised. There you go. Uh you'd be surprised how quickly they can document they can pull trajectories with this. this now you know um we used to use years ago they used to use something called total station and total station it kind of arose out of the need to document um motor vehicle accidents actually and um because it's so dynamic right and you want all pharaoh now is is a gamecher relative to documenting the scene and all the different perspectives the like for instance if you've u one of the examples that's cited for instance is that You can take like a trajectory rod if you have a bullet hole and a wall and it's got these uh you can take the trajectory rod and it's got these two balls on it, right?

You insert it into the into the wall, right? Where the defect, the bullet defect is. This thing's taking pictures. It's pulling trajectories from all these different perspectives all over the place and it turns it into this huge 3D model so that when you take this thing into court, you're kind of, you know, looking, right?

Yeah. And so going back to the chair, chair's not in place, right? Don't know where the chair is. Platform's gone or it's been altered in some way.

And if you have to go back out and do something else and you've taken just so I get this figure right. I don't want to misspeak. 10 inches of soil. That's that's what I hear.

8 to 10 is the general. Then you're going to pave over it or put pavers down. Uh and then put big planters on top of the pavers. Yeah.

So, you've changed the topography of the Oh, yeah. And I'm so glad you used the term topography there because you tr people don't appreciate the the roll, you know, like if you're out in your yard, you know, most people don't think about well, you know, they look at their lawn, they might think it's flat. It's really not, right? It's, you know, it's rolling.

You know, it really is. and the slightest little and plus when you're talking about pulling a trajectory on a shot that is allegedly at this distance um the slightest the slightest deviation from that at all is going to skew your data. So I hope that they got this out there. Uh one other thing I'm I apologize.

I don't mean to be all overboard. You guys kind of got my wheels turning here. This is good. No, no, no.

I'm just um if I could go back to and we haven't Well, I guess we kind of have, but when you think about the dimensions of Charlie Kirk as a person, right? So, I'm talking about physical dimensions. So, um if he's in a seated position, one of the measurements I'm going to want um at autopsy is I'm going to want from the top of his head, from the crown, all the way down to his buttocks. Okay.

So we think about how we're positioned in chairs right now, right? Well, this is kind of this is our height right now, right? Our height is not as we're standing. Our height is this position.

So yeah, exactly. And then I have to account for these metal legs also. How much do you weigh? So if you look at that chair, that chair is not like uh it's got a little flex.

It does. So it's going to it's not tubular. I guess it's tubular. I don't really know how to describe it.

That's not my Bailey wick, but the chair is going to bend some. So, I'm going to want to try to understand that as well. And you're saying like a tenth of a degree could put someone Yeah. 20 ft higher in the air or lower or something?

Yeah. Yeah. I'm not I'm not a sailor, but if you've got a compass that's not if you're off one degree, you're going to wind up thousand miles in another direction. That's over the top example, but you know what I'm saying.

No, it's it's actually even I would say when you're taking into account a bullet and how far it could have been coming from, it's even more of a degree of difference because you're also trying to account for where it hit him, how it hit him, whether or not, you know, how [snorts] how it went in, how it did or didn't come out. So, I think yeah, the compass is actually even less maybe. Yeah. And I'm just guys, look, I mean, um, I'm not, you know, trying to skewer anybody here or, uh, skewer, uh, anybody here or, you know, diminish anybody by their efforts because the police can only do what the police can do at that moment in time.

Um, and I don't know how long it was before they had um robust uh resources on site, you know, where they're locking everything down and processing the scene. And this scene would take it's a scene that would take some time to process. Um, but we we do things a lot quicker here in the US. Like I I I travel abroad.

I, you know, speak to people in England and, uh, done instruction over there and that sort of thing. And, you know, like I've got friends that formerly worked at at Scotland Yard and they would take like a homicide scene and the uh, the Brits would they hold they'd lock down a homicide scene for three or four days and take that much time to process. We don't work like that. We're a microwave.

We're a microwave group of people, man. And is it because we have better technology or they're just more thorough? Uh, no. Well, I think and again, it all depends on where you are, too.

If you're in a if you're in a metropolitan area like this, you know, ain't no balls grown on me. I'm I'm going to have to go to the next case, right? Um but if you have the time and you can lock it down, what's the harm in locking it down? Not a lot of murders in Oram, Utah.

Yeah. You know, for a protracted period of time, what's what's it going to harm, you know, at all? [clears throat] Is it because people are getting offended by seeing a site, you know, on the ground, uh, where something took place? I don't care.

I I don't care if you're offended by it. I don't care if it hurts your feelings. You got to work the scene and you got to hang on to it. Can we pull up the video we have of them carrying the body to [snorts] the truck?

We just can't show it on the screen, obviously, but people out there, you probably seen it on Twitter. There [snorts] was a We couldn't find it. De and I were looking off camera for a while. There used to be a farther shot that showed like in 60 frames a second from an iPhone like the full carry out where they're doing it.

But this is at least something in slow-mo. So, we'll play it for us in here so you can see it. Again, since you as an investigator would have access to camera angles for something very public like this to review afterwards, what would you be most looking for on how they handled his body to see how it may have changed any of the injuries or affected, I don't know, a wound site. I'm getting a little above my pay grade here, but you know what I mean.

No, no, you're not. No, you're not. Um, well, first off, I I'd want to see what they're doing with the body relative to is treatment going on or an attempt at treatment or they just is it is it a moment of conveyance, relocation effort? Yeah.

And that's and and also has anything been taken away? Do I have visual evidence of somebody taking clothes off, removing anything, making adjustments? And I know this is kind of morbid. Um, I'd want to see if if he and I don't see it here, but I want to see if he was dropped because that does happen lots of times.

Uh, I want to see if if I have a good perspective. I want to see if he's banged into anything. His head was I can remember the other video, which we can't see right here right now, but his head was hanging and bouncing around like in the air. It didn't as far as I could tell.

So that's not as troubling to me as say for instance if when you're and this just happens like I don't know that people realize this but you know u individuals bodies they get banged against things. Uh well he did fall out of the chair. Yeah. Yeah he did.

But I'm saying in the removal process itself and getting getting him into the vehicle. I want to 9 minutesknow what they did with him during that period of time. How did you get him secured? And also, [sighs] who got into that space physically with him?

Was was his head cradled in somebody's lap like this on the other side of the vehicle? Was somebody elevating his feet? And what would all that tell you? Um well it would give me an indication as to um were they making an attempt to stem bleeding and to make this a survivable in their in their mind at this point in time because you know you can't really predict how anybody's going to react in a situation like this.

Nobody. I don't care how many deployments you've had or how many dead bodies you stood over. If you're engaged with somebody like this, you personally know them. You don't know how they're going to react at any m moment in time to take some kind of heroic measures that could skew your data or could make it give a separate appearance from what you're seeing when you're standing over the body.

You know, one of the one of the things Brian Harpole mentioned on one of the podcasts was opening the wound to stick stuff in it. Does that change the forensics examination at the medical examiner's office or the ability to preserve evidence in a way that we can What in the hell did he stick in there? Was it his dirty little finger? Or was it a probe?

Was it a pin? Um, well, he claims gauze, but I'm assuming he's sticking the gauze in with his finger. Yeah. So, if you're applying If you're applying gauze in there, again, I'd mentioned the 4x4 a little while ago, you're kind of packing the injury, which, you know, medical people do that themselves.

They're generally more they have a a great grasp of the anatomy there, and they also know how bodies react to specific types of trauma. You got to do what you got to do. So, I'd want to know what steps he had taken. What was it he had packed the area with?

Was the packing left in place. Was it removed when you got him to the hospital? I can only imagine that anything that was stuck in there would now have been removed by the person doing the assessment because you cannot do an assessment through whatever the packing element is. That would have to be removed.

Was there anything from the packing that was left into the defect at all? Um, and what happened to the packing? You know, where where did that go? Did you guys just throw it on the floor or is it in discarded in the parking lot or would you want that as evidence?

Yeah, I'd want it. Yeah, I'm I'm pretty much going to You can box check me here. Anything. Was it touching him?

I'm going to want it. So, just to Yeah. Go ahead. Get it on the record.

It falls below the standard if they don't have it. [laughter] Ask an answer. Feel like that's the 15th time today. Yeah.

No, it's okay. Can you actually walk Joseph through Baron the what what the story is that Harpole and Turk have described. I think maybe another guy in the car described it as well, but what the consensus story has been of what allegedly happened once they got him into the car to see if there's anything there that could be problematic. Yeah.

So, it starts at the scene itself. He falls and Brian says he's trying to stem the bleeding there. Uh Brian Harple. Uh then they pick him up.

Nobody's got a hand on the wound. Nobody's His wound is actually down. So he's he's he's injured on the left side. And as they're carrying off carrying him off, it's it's it's [clears throat] actually no, it's right side down.

But they're carrying him off. They don't have any support on his head. They're not they're not supporting his neck in any way. No one's applying pressure.

There's nothing visible in the pictures that's that's packed in there. Then they carry him to the car. I believe Rick Cutler ran to the other door and got in to be kind of the receiving figure. So that would have put his head at least on that side of the SUV.

They claim that his feet he's too long. They couldn't close the door. Um and so they drove off with the door open. While they're in the car, Brian says he puts 36 ft of gauze into Charlie.

Um 30 36 feet feet. That's what he I don't know if he knows what he's saying, but that's what he says. Um you [laughter] Yeah. I mean, I'm just Forgive me.

I'm I'm doing my best rendition, Brian. Please, again, no lawsuits. Uh I'm I'm trying to pure respect. Pure spec.

It's not speculation. I'm trying to be faithful to his story. Okay. Uh but he's packing packing packing wrapping applying what?

No, no, let me Okay, just as a little caveat here. If it's if he's absorbing a lot of blood, I can understand 36 36 feet is robust. Okay. Yeah.

Um, but if he if it's not stemming the bleeding, okay, which if we've already talked about the vascular structures in there, uh, if it's not stemming the bleeding, this thing's going to be super saturated. So, yeah, you might I don't know the nature of this packing, but you might have to tear it, cast that aside, grab more, repack it. It's going to continue to absorb blood. Yeah.

Um, and the further you have to go [laughter] in this vehicle transporting him, the more time is ticking off the clock. Um, but I'm thinking about it relative to your description of the I can't remember how you said it, the circumferential Chapter 13: Every Security Person Will Be Called to Trial & Spinal Cord Question ring around it, uh, the abrasion you compared to an burn, the potential grease. Um, it's not going to affect it. Okay.

So, that'll lost not to step on you, but now even if they have to open it up to get it in there, yeah, you could still appreciate it. Um, now hang on. I I need you to clarify open up for me though. Are they these these people open in it or is this a surgeon or a physician that's open in it?

I believe I'm accurate saying his assessment, Brian Harpole, the security guy in the car, said that he was having to open it up to access it to get more in there. Okay. Yeah. And again, is he because to me, if he's absent any kind of tool, um, this is this would be him bluntly dissecting this this out, literally using his fingers to spread it apart.

" So, is he hyperextending? Because you can if you want to observe a wound in a neck in the morg for instance there's a hyperextension you can do. You can pitch the head this way that way backwards like this and you can apply pressure and you know you want to kind of hyperextend. It's like what we do with bodies on autopsy tables.

We put the if everybody's seen the the block that we use beneath the shoulder blades at autopsies before we open the body. We do that to hyperextend the body so you can see all of the organs if he's hyperextending. I just want to I just want to try to understand was this bluntly, you know, are you talking about taking a finger and running it through there? That's what it sounded like to me.

Maybe he was cutting with a knife or a a scissors. I don't know. Um but that's one of the things they said. There was some debate or dispute over whether CPR was attempted towards the end of the the car ride.

Um if if it was it was the guy in the far back leaning over leaning over. Yeah. Yeah. So um but but I I find much of their discussion to be less than credible.

So who knows what actually happened in there. Yeah. And I don't you know I don't know that anybody I don't know. We'll see what happens when they get caught.

Would that affect the trajectory analysis though? If they are shoving 36 feet of gauze in there and opening the wound, would you still be able to do like you described the wound track? Um, let me go back now. If when we're talking about when we're talking about the the collar abrasion that I was referring to earlier, you know, the Okay.

Yeah. [laughter] Um, and also the bullet wipe. Remember we talked about the grease right off of the U or dirt. um that when that happens, when you have a round impact like that that is traveling at such a such a rate that's kind of imprinted in there, okay, you can still appreciate it.

It'd be better, you know, if you had it, you know, completely intact, but you know, uh wishes in one hand and something else in the other. See which one fills up first. So you it is what it is. You you just deal with it.

And but the critical part to this and this is where people in the medical legal field come in. Those questions have to be asked and answered. Come here. What did you do to the body?

You know, what heroic measures did you take to save your employer, your friend, or whatever your relationship is. What heroic and tell me precisely what you did. I don't want to hear it in a secondary interview off of a media outlet somewhere. I want face-toface deposition.

I want you to tell me what you did. And that'll be recorded by an investigator. Yes. Which means that they would present that hypothetically if they did that correctly.

All these guys right here, they're going to be called as witnesses, right? Every single one of them. And any depositions or statements they took would be presented at trial. Yep.

Okay. Every single one of them. I wouldn't go that far. Their out of court statements might will not be presented at trial.

Yeah, I don't know anything. They might they might be brought in for impeachment purposes, but they're not going to introduce them as evidence. Okay. Why wouldn't [snorts] they do that?

I'm not a lawyer. Because they're they're an out of court statement uh for the truth of the matter asserted. Now, they could they could find some some hearsay objection uh a hearsay exception to that, but generally speaking, a written statement out of court's not going to come in. Okay.

All right. So obviously once they take Charlie's body to the hospital, we actually covered on both of our podcasts together the whole like miracle bullet and all that [ __ ] So I won't go through that again. But he is pronounced dead. Is that the correct term?

There you go. By the doctor. Okay. How long do you think that would have taken?

19 minutesHow long do you think that would have taken? Not long. Uh because this assessment if if what my eyes are telling me right here, not based upon anything else. If what I'm seeing right here, this would not have lasted very long once you got to the emergency room if it did in fact last that long.

And I'm talking about from [sighs] because again, time of death is different than time of pronouncement. Time pronouncement's a a government comment. All right. So, when did he physically cease to live?

And they're going to determine that in an autopsy based on they could uh or no you will never be able to specifically determine that contrary to what you see on all these television shows. Damn it. I know right. Failure.

Um what the doctor will do is because an attorney will ask them so if they so choose to ask this um so doc how given given this injury that you're describing here um how long how long would he have lived you know and the doctor will throw out a number to them based upon and you know what a lot of this is going to be based upon u this is kind of interesting little point when we when we get into doing autopsies. Did you know that there are cases where um um we have someone, here's another $10 word for you, extanguinates, which means bleed out. Do you know if there are times when we have cases of extanguination where we have a hard time drawing blood? H Yeah.

Like you because there's not enough pressure on the system, right? Well, no. There's just no longer because there's no pressure at all. You don't have enough blood.

it we don't have any blood because normally you either go directly into the heart or you go into the aorta which arches right here. So you go directly in there and draw draw blood from there and there's many times where you can't draw any blood and the doctor sometimes doctors will draw a conclusion based upon not being able to draw blood. They'll say, "Yeah, they extanginated. " What the term that they love to use is the the volume of blood loss is incompatible with life is generally what they will say.

" Now, you can go to peripheral areas like we'll draw it from the fmeral artery many times. Um, where else have we drawn it from? Um, I've done some axillary draws before, but looking at this, you think he you think when he arrived the hospital, the doctor looked at him and like, "Guys," Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Probably. So, and if if we are to believe what we're hearing about the the uh cervical u trauma that he sustained and I thanks for bringing this up about the spinal cord u that I think that just came out Wednesday or Thursday, so you haven't missed anything. Yeah, the spinal cord obliteration.

Yeah. Um and that really gives you an idea of the extent of the trauma. Um the spinal cord is fascinating in the sense that it's one of the most difficult anatomical sites to get to. Um I've been present where we do an entire spinal cord dissection where we remove the entire length.

It is one of the most laborious things that you will ever do. What makes it that way? because it's encased in the spine and it's very difficult to get to uh because again I hate to keep using this term but I have no better term the vertebral bodies are so robust and they're so odd out of all the other bony structures in the in the body they're they have a very unique form to them you have to be very careful if they're talking about that you've got spinal what is it spinal they said the uh obliterated vertebrae right and then uh traumatically abs absent traumatically absent which means that if I'm to interpret that what I'm hearing um that means that um the actual cortex which looks a lot like the cortex of the brain because you know if you think about you know spinal cord looks like a big tail if you take the brain out and the spinal cord at the same time it looks like a big tail looks like an alien creature you know um that means that the cortex of the spinal cord would be gone. And also um also the dura which is the the case that surrounds the spinal cord.

It's that it um if you ever the brain has a dura kind of floats around this sack with it's washed in cerebral spinal fluid. [sighs] That would have to be gone as well. So Chapter 14: Body Immediately Embalmed & Chain of Custody Problems that's that's a tremendous amount of trauma. I don't know where I was going with that but sorry.

Well, thanks for the visual. Yeah. Oh, I was asking how long do you think it took the doctor to make the call? Not long.

Not long. Minutes, hours? No. Minutes?

No, it would be minutes. Okay. Yeah. All right.

So, whenever Doc makes this call dead, as you've said many times, now the body now becomes the most important. I mean, it from the beginning it was the most important piece of evidence, but now he's officially dead. It is officially evidence. Yep.

Yep. m. local time on a Wednesday. m.

local time the next day. And within a couple days of the assassination, Erica had posted that very odd post of her over the embombed body of Charlie as they told us. And I remember at the time, because I remember this phone call with you, once they had once the news reports had reported like when the family had had time to be with the body and all that, we were able to determine that she was taking that Instagram video somewhere midday on Thursday, meaning approximately in the 24hour period after Charlie had been killed. And I immediately called you.

Yeah. " later when you need to do the whole autopsy, have, you know, the body transported to where the autopsy needs to happen. This is all like probably an overnight kind of thing and then it has to get to that local funeral parlor to be prepared for the family. And again, I I called you as someone who knows nothing about the timing of all these things, but you're 26 minutessomeone who does.

And Baron, you've raised a lot of great questions about this, [snorts] about like what the [ __ ] is going on here. So, let's go through this in its entirety. and Baron, maybe you can step in and say the the first spots that are a cause of concern to you as to how this could have happened so quickly and and turn around like that. m.

news footage of him leaving the hospital. Gotcha. Heading to Taylor'sville, which is where the state medical examination is, which is how far away? Uh 30 to .

Yeah. It's traffic. Yeah. You you're taking a line of cars.

I don't know how fast they drove. Right. Right. Um did did he leave?

Did do you know if the body left with an escort? Yes. Like police escort. Police escort.

Um uh the medical examiner, the transport company, everybody left at the same time. Yeah. Okay. Gotcha.

Um and so I don't know how fast they were going. Um it would have been, you know, , . We could probably guess when it shows up in Taylor'sville. That's assuming now they never made an announcement that that is when Charlie's leaving.

It's just that's when the motorcade left. Yeah. Yeah. I guess it's possible he left earlier.

I don't know. So my question is, let's assume eight's right. He he's dead. The doctor pronounces him inside an hour, right?

So he he arrives at the hospital no later than . Let's say , , he's pronounced dead. No doubt. What's happening to his body?

Because um after that, because Erica Kirk says that he was still warm when she viewed the body and she didn't get there till . So what's happening in that couple of three hours? So, where did she visualize the body in the hospital? Which room?

Yeah. Was he still being held in a treatment room at that point in time? I don't know that that's ever been stated, but she said he was still warm. So, it's highly irregular to hold a body in a treatment room for after.

Where else would he be if not a treat? And that would be cold. Yeah. They wouldn't just leave him out on the side.

Yeah. And again, unless they're making a special exception here. Okay. So, but that's something that you would want to know the answer to.

Oh, yeah. I'd want to know what's happened to the body. As a matter of fact, if I'm with the ME, um I don't want any of the staff members. I don't want anybody touching the body, and I'm I'm rather cold that way.

[admin]

Part 4 of 5

Well, we know the Em's van or truck showed up at uh like 450. We have news footage of it rolling in. Y um it's possible someone from the Emy's office came in advance of that Emmy vehicle, but we know no later than 450. Let me stop you right there real quick.

Do we know if this Emmy van is this a contract [snorts] delivery service or is this an official state medical examiner vehicle? That vehicle is an official vehicle, but the body was transported by a contractor, a delivery service that is contracted by the state to do this. And that's very common. So, um, the here's one of the problems that you run into with hospitals many times is that they put a body in a morg pack, which is like a well, they can either use a plastic wrapping, which I hate, uh, to wrap a body in, that's called a morg pack, or they can have their own body bags that they'll use.

Generally in hospitals they're white most of the time and then they take them back to their cool room or if they actually have a morg. Some hospitals don't have morgs they have what are called cool rooms and they pull the temperature down in there and just for short periods of time they'll hold the body there. Um, I I don't feel particularly comfortable with the fact that they would call would pronounce death and then leave his body in there for a protracted period of time [gasps] because anybody that studied biology, you know that the longer you leave a body out, the body begins to turn. Um 30 minutesand u uh that they held the remains out um because and I don't know who else is coming in contact with the body.

You see like a chain of custody issue. Yeah. That's a major problem, man. Um you know who's uh you know all it takes is some person in the hallway say hey guess what Charlie Kirk's in there.

Right. This is reminiscent to me like when you think about the length of time between, you know, 12:40 maybe when he's or I'm sorry, like 1:40 when he's pronounced dead and 7:57 when the body actually leaves. I keep thinking Princess Diana in my head because Princess Diana, they left her body in there and had people coming in and out for hours and hours and hours and then I think like the Prince Charles flew in and eventually they then took possession of the body and we know there's a lot of sketchy questions about like what the [ __ ] what was the people talk about like that small partner heart is actually what caused the death but was there other information we could have gleaned? Did anyone [ __ ] with the body?

Like same kind of thing. It just seems like again you said earlier you want to treat every case at the same standard. Every life is supposed to every single time is supposed to be treated in a perfect way so that nothing is [ __ ] with. But especially when it's something like this, you would think chain of custody and the speed and efficiency of that would be top of mind because of how public this was.

Yes. Yeah. And you would you would it would be palpable, right? like you would understand what you're in the middle of and that any delay that you take um is going to be viewed poorly if if you have redirected your path from whatever your standard operating procedure is.

Now I don't know what their standard because everybody's is different. All right, but I know with the national standard uh which I was one of the people that helped create you know the national standard for medical legal death investigator. Yeah, I was part of the original Milwaukee task force. Yeah.

Flex right there. [snorts] Yeah, boy. 30 will give me a cup of coffee at a Waffle House. Um, so you want you want to be as timely as possible.

Get control over those remains as soon as you can. And people s think think that it sounds very cold and callous because well, aren't you going to let the family see the body? No, I'm not. Is it unusual to let the family see the body that quickly?

Well, the problem is is that before the medical examiner gets there, many times the social workers at the hospital get involved and you have to have your grieving moment. Well, the grieving moment is not going to help you when you're trying to process evidence, right? And the grieving moment is always trumped by evidentary value. Period.

So is it unusual or just not desirable? It's not desirable. It's not desirable at all. It would be I'd have a conversation with somebody if I was a supervisor.

o let's take her at her word. Let's assume I don't know how safe that is to take Erica Kirk at her word, but let's assume she's being accurate that the body was still warm or at least not on ice when uh when she saw him around . We know the body then didn't leave the hospital before . Uh the earliest it could have left is sometime after that, but then we see the procession at 8:00 and most people assume that's when the body left.

Um if the if the if it arrives at the medical examiner's office, well, let's let's go back one step further. Sure. So after she sees the body at 4, if it doesn't leave to 8, where does it go from then? Is there a medical examiner examining on site?

Yeah, there could be. I've gone into emergency rooms as an investigator for years and conducted my initial examination in the emergency room and I actually kind of treat the little treatment area as kind of a tertiary scene I guess where I will photograph the body on the on the gurnie uh or on the the the stretcher that they have in there because most of these emergency room you're going to run a code in there. It's not like a regular stretcher. It's, you know, a treatment treatment bed.

Um, and I'm going to make my observations. As a matter of fact, I'm going to bring my own bags to bag the hands. And how long does that take? As long as I want it to take or as long as Well, I don't have to do it anymore, but as long as my colleagues find deem necessary.

And what would be the maximum amount of time something like that might take? If you It all depends on your travel time from point A to point B. Okay. Uh, I've always practiced in um big metropolitan areas.

Well, we know they were there no long no later than five. Like we know by five they were there. Yeah. You should once the once you're notified and it would be the charge nurse at the emergency room that would call the ME, the on duty whoever it is at the M's office say, "Look," and this is the way the conversation generally goes.

Uh yeah, we've the this emergency room at such and such hospital. We have a homicide victim we need to tell you about. And generally if I hear homicide, Chapter 15: Events before pronounced Dead & Why Police Have Different Case Numbers I'm saying uh say no more. Let me grab my my bag.

I'm getting in my vehicle and I'm beating feet there. I'm getting there as quickly as I possibly can. Um and I will expressly say don't let anybody near that body. Period.

And I will probably if it's a homicide, I am going to call the investigators that will be assigned to that case because you know who's coming up next in the rotation. So you got the ME, the ME and the police investigator converging on that one spot and you begin to coordinate and have a conversation with one another and which is cool because if if you've got anybody in the hospital that's on staff and they're trying to get cakey with you in any way about anything regarding what needs to be done with the body, that conversation is going to end really, really quickly. Um, and again, it goes back to control over the remains. Um, and you know, my old standby was, you want to see, look, I'm sorry for your loss, you want to see your loved ones remains, go ahead and make funeral arrangements, but at this point in time, we cannot allow you to have access to the body.

Because I've seen, you would not believe the things I've seen families do with bodies when they're standing over bodies, hugging, grabbing, pulling, taking, taking things off of and screaming and pulling their hair out and everything else. And that's a normal it's a normal reaction to understand that. But from an evidentiary standpoint, it's a nightmare. That's right.

So, let's say they let's let's just follow the timeline. It's . The body is still warm because she said it was warm at 4. So, we assume it's still warm at 5.

We see the train leave at 8. So, we can assume perhaps the medical examiner did some sort of cursory examination at the scene. Took a hour or two, maybe three. Pack the body up, get it ready to go and get it out of there.

Um, it arrives in Taylor'sville at 8:30 or , we're guessing. Do you start cooling the body at that point? What do you do? No, I've No, you don't have to cool the body at all.

Uh, you're already in a controlled environment. I'm making phone calls at this point. Who you calling? If I'm I'm calling the autopsy technician that's on duty.

Um, and if it's a senior if they have a senior morg supervisor, I'm calling that person. Look, we've got to get this done. We got to get it done now. And I say I what I'm saying is the chief medical examiner is probably been notified for the state.

Whoever the pro sector that is the deputy medical examiner that's on duty, they're rushing there to to their facility and they're getting suited up. They're going to rock and roll right then. If you've got a separate X-ray tech calling them, I'm coordinating with the police. You got detectives.

We're gonna start in an hour. Have your representative here, then get there now. And is that the rush on any homicide or is that just because it's Charlie? That would be Charlie Kirk.

Okay. And because I've done I've done cases on high-profile cases, [sighs] uh 2:00 in the morning. Okay. You know, and but not not Jim Bob down the road.

He waits till now. Um like one case in particular comes to mind uh was a serial homicide event and we suspected that that that case that we had. That's there's been others as well. And particularly if you get a mass fatality event, you don't dict dictate what time it's happening.

The event dictates the time to you. And if they're being pressured in any way whatsoever, they'll respond not by saying something to somebody. They're 39 minutesgoing to say, "We need to go ahead and get on this and get everything collected. we need to get and go through the entire procedure as expeditiously as we possibly can.

So if he let's say he arrives at , best best case scenario for the timeline. Y um at what point do you think it it starts? What what time are we and and by starts I mean you tell me what's the first step but what time does that first step take place? Yeah.

So, first step you're going to do is you're going to take um first off the body will be in it'll go into intake and it will be assigned an assession number which is that listed number that you're given. Everybody's given an assession number that comes through the medical examiner at the corner's office. [sighs] So, that number becomes the name. The name becomes the number.

So, that's how you're going to be identified. And that's essential because every bit of evidence that's collected off the body is going to be tracked by the medical examiner assession number. The police will have a separate case number. All right.

So we have it's because we handle the medical legal community handles 10 times more deaths than police do. And they're doing other stuff like burglaries and all that stuff. And they have individual case numbers for that. We deal only with dead.

So, we've got naturals, self harm, accidents, unexplained deaths, other homicides. Okay. And each one of those gets a unique number that is unique to that individual. So, it goes to intake and can get the number.

How long does that take? Not long. It it'll it'll roll right up. It'll And now in the digital world and they'll begin to print out labels.

It'll Well, how long does it take to get them from the car that's arrived at 8:30 onto the table to get the number? As quick as you can get it through the door. You're just rolling it in. Mhm.

Okay. And here's one other thing that I forgot to mention that is part and parc is there's three things that we do in the medical legal world. We determine manner of death. There are five.

We've talked about that before. The cause of death. We also determine ID. So, and it seems kind of a p kind of thing, but it's important to understand because you have to document how you got this individual ID.

" Okay, cool. I'm glad that is. How did we get him identified? And there will have to be and when you look at documentation from a medical examiner's office, it there is a place on there where it says how was this individual identified.

So who who specifically identified him? And you'll have a name that that correlates wife or something. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. It'll say wife and it'll specifically name or it could be, you know, one of the people on the security team. They positively identify them. um you know and so that's that's part of the process that has to be documented.

There'll also be fingerprints that are done. Now many cases it all depends upon the office. If if his hands are bagged, which I hope they were, that would follow the autopsy. So you roll prints after that.

Everybody gets a print rolled that comes that comes through that comes through the medical examiner's office. I don't care if it's an 80 year old uh granny, it doesn't matter. They're going to have a print role. But I digress.

So once the number has been given and assigned, the next thing you're going to do is you're going to take what's called a snapshot, which is where there will be an identifying photograph that will where you'll take some medical examiners will have a camera in the ceiling and you take the gurnie and you push it beneath the camera and you'll see a television screen. and get it lined up like that and they'll take a facial shot. All right. Um, then the next step is going to be going to whatever X-ray apparatus you have, right?

That's going to be essential because you if doing an autopsy, we've learned, particularly one that involves firearms, uh if you don't do X-rays, it's like taking a trip without a map and you don't know where you're going. So, the X-ray is paramount. You have to get X-ray shot. They'll do APS and they'll do laterals just like they do on us, you know, when we go to the hospital.

But you you have to manipulate the you have to hold everything for the film and um but it gives you some sort of a three-dimensional understanding of where stuff is. You develop that really quickly and that way you can put it up on a lightboard and see it. Now some some facilities actually have uh access to even more robust um god I love that word for some reason. Um um you know CTS for instance they can you know and this has happened I think they did like Gabby Patito the little girl that was they CTED her body.

Uh so it all depends on what your department has access to and every everything that you document before you ever start the procedure itself is is is key. Baron and are you taking pictures all along the way here of each step? Yeah. Yeah.

And so there'll be a morg photographer and you'll also have um a crime scene person that comes from the the police department that will take their photographs as well. How long is everything you've been describing so far? What kind of timeline are we talking about if we do all of it? It all depends on how many injuries you have and it also understand that the the physician that is in the suite in the autopsy suite they are the master and commander in there.

So whatever they want they're going to get. And if they want a thousand images or 10, that's what they're going to get. And they're going to do it from various various depths like um let's well let's just say we've got a gunshot one of the neck. Okay.

So you would take uh an image without scale that will kind of give you the perspective of the neck. Okay? And then you'll take one with scale. Then you'll come in at an inter intermediate range.

All right? Where you still have like if you're doing it in profile, if people will feel where their Adam's apple is and it's positioned like this, you still want to have this visualized in there. So if you've got a jury, they can say, "Oh, okay. " Then you take with scale without scale and then you come in to do a micro shot where you're going to do with scale without scale and you'll do it from a couple of perspectives.

You'll do it straight on. And this is such in an if we're talking about a wound that's right here. You'll get it from this perspective. Then you'll step over here and take another one from this perspective, you know, and u and maybe even lean over the body like this going north and south and taking it here, here, and here so that you have these three points of view.

Okay. It all depends on, you know, what what the medical examiner is asking for. And then you've got all these camera people that are kind of bouncing around. Yeah.

who that that's another thing cuz I think you started to say this and we definitely talked about this when you were in here for 4 for 448 but like who's in the room in Utah like Charlie Kirk's body comes in it's delivered whoever delivered it and doesn't need to be there leaves who's all there uh so you're going to have obviously the procector the forensic pathologist will be there the autopsy technician or the path assistant is going to be at their side. Um, and you will have, depending upon the office, you will have a Chapter 16: Personnel in the Room With Charlie's Body & What Happens at 10:30 PM u a morg photographer that'll physically be there. Then the police will be there in the case of a homicide, or they should be. We always encourage police to attend autopsies.

You'd be surprised how many choose not to. U, and that is the detective. But most of the time, the investigating department is going to send their own crime scene technician that will be assigned to do nothing but take photographs. And this is not going to be the same person that's at the scene working the scene.

That's a different kettle of fish. When you say the that jurisdiction, the like Utah County. Yeah. Yeah.

Whatever they have available or if they've spun up the state police at this point in time, you might have a state police. You might even have, if this has been sent out to the state PD, you might because this is a state medical examiner. This is not a county, this not a county entity. So, they're plugged into the state police.

They might call their their own call in whoever's up. You know, you you remember that old show Homicide Life on the Street and they had the [snorts] board where the next investigator would loop up. That's the way it actually works. You know, you're up next and so you you're on call.

I was going to say, you know, you're carrying the pager boy. Oh, Lord. I remember I remember back in the day. So, that person [snorts] would be that person would be on deck next and they're going to they're going to catch this case.

They would want to physically come to the autopsy or have one of their colleagues. Utah's a big place. They might have somebody that is in the Oram area that's not going to be the lead, but they're going to be the representative for the state police as an investigator at that autopsy. And they might even send their own crime scene people there, too.

So, you're looking what, eight or 10 people? Yeah, potentially. Again, it goes down to re it comes down to resources and what your needs are going to be. Um cuz you know you can have as we've talked about with JFK too many people in the room and [snorts] many times you got the you might have you might have eight to 10 people in the room but are they the right people to have in the room?

You just don't want anybody in the room cuz you don't know. I can't imagine why they would have somebody there that was just there for their amusement. But human nature, you know, you want to make sure that everybody that is there in fact does have a purpose. Well, let's say he arrives at .

They roll him in, they intake him, they assemble the team. Yeah. Let's say the team's all there because he died ago, ago. We know we know we're going to do this tonight.

[clears throat] Or at least we had a couple hours of lead time. Go ahead and get in here. He's on the way. Yeah.

Um what time do they start? I mean, within a minute, within , within , as soon as that as soon as all those initial photographs are done, [sighs] uh the doctor will walk around traditionally with a clipboard in their hand. And you've seen autopsy diagrams where you've got like the um you know uh and they'll start doing their renderings, right? They'll abrasion left knee.

Yeah, exactly. And they'll have a ruler. They're walking around with an ABFO ruler. If you've ever seen one, 90 degree ruler.

It's got a grayscale on it. And they're placing this there. They're doing the measurements. " and they're still taking notes and doing everything that they have to do as that's visually being captured.

Okay. Because once they move on from that, they're going to the next thing. And it can be anything. You you could have But the autopsy doesn't start until that process is done.

Yeah. The autopsy. So we call it it's actually referred to as the external and then the internal exam. So the external exam can actually be a bit more tedious than the internal exam.

Why is that? Uh because there's so much of the body surface you have to examine and you're also examining clothing. And do they they roll them over and look at his back? Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. You're going to look stem to stern soles of the feet, the back, like inside the folds of everything every inch of the body. You're looking behind the ears.

You're doing an oral examination which is particularly difficult if you have somebody with Ryer that sitting. You have to break the ryer in the jaw. They're also checking for 51 minutesthe How long does all that start to take place? the the ryer setting in depends on temperature most of the time.

So the warmer something is the quicker ryer sets in. So you'll first you first appreciate it in a in the smaller muscle groups it's happening everywhere like you won't see it in the thighs right immediately but you'll see it it happens in the eyelids happens in the jaw in particular sets in really because these muscle groups are smaller. So, [sighs] you assess a level of rigidity and they're going to make note of post-mortem deposition of like if you're laying in a uh a supine position like this, they'll roll the body over and they'll say if the postmortem levidia is blanchable or not blanchable, if you take your thumb and press it into your skin, those of us that are living, it'll blanch because you're, you know, you're uh you're stemming blood flow into that area. The dead can't stem.

So if pointing right here, by the way, just right there like that. So right here. Yeah. And I It's just an example.

Somebody has uh levidity on their back for instance, and it's it's literally livid liidity. It's purple. If you depress it, right, and it doesn't blanch, there's a time frame that that takes to set in. Okay.

And but just the the rigor setting in on the the initial phases, is it an hour, two hours, ? And you'll first see you'll begin I um you'll first be able to see rigor begin to rigor ryer. People say it in different ways. Say I'm probably mispronouncing it.

Not a medical. No, there is no correct way. There is a no correct way. Um you whatever blows your hair back.

Um, so, um, depending upon the temperature, the hotter the body is, the hotter the environmental temperature, it speeds it up. So, if you're you're going to see the first signs of it, probably within about 2 to four hours. That's about and that's one of the it's one of the elements that we use to determine time of death. So, eight hours into this, he's probably got it.

He's got rigidity already setting in. You're going to already [snorts] be able to appreciate in the fingers, maybe the elbows. You're going to check flexation in the knees, the hips, the feet, all that sort of does. Do they flex or do they not?

So, he does the external examination that takes , an hour. Depends on the person. In a case like this, it could take up to an hour. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. That's realistic. Yeah.

So, what are we at? Maybe like 10:00 now. He gets in there at . They do a half hour to do pictures and all that.

Get everyone ready. That sound about right? Yeah. Okay.

Now, what do we do? Well, [snorts] you're going to go back since we're talking about a defect in the neck. " And they're going to look for any kind of radio opaque um fragments that are there. because they're trying to see if there is what we refer to many times as a lead storm.

So, if you've got a round that has passed through, you don't just look for the core of the round itself. You're going to look for any kind of little bits of fragments and they'll be you'll see them, you know, they'll be all over the place. Sometimes you can appreciate kind of the cavitated area that it creates. There'll be some disruption.

And it all depends on how good the X-ray is. But you're looking for those little fragments. And you're going to look at them, like I said, in the lateral sense and in, you know, straight on like this, AP and lateral. So you're looking through here.

You're trying to determine and they're coordinating about how they're going to approach this. One thing I forgot, we had mentioned it previously, you're going to put in the trajectory rods before this, before you ever break out the the scalpel. And those photographs are going to be done. So, you're going to take um they look like dowel like dowel rods.

Yeah. De, can we pull that up again for people? We found that last time just so they can see it. But go ahead, Joseph.

They look like dowel rods. Is that a quick process? Few minutes. It's a delicate process.

You have to be very careful because if you're What are they called, Joseph? I'm sorry. Trajectory rods. Trajectory rods.

Yeah. Um and they're static. It's not like you're It's not like you're using lasers or something like that. This is not that lasers aren't static, but you know what I'm saying.

It's something that the doctor is going to place this in there. And generally, they're going to be pretty thin. We used to use these kind of I've seen people use metal. Yeah, that's a dowel rod there.

Right there. Those are Which one's the best one to show? Uh, let's see. Oh, with the cop holding it like that.

No, I like the one you got up there with the body. I'd love to see what that one looks like. Okay. Can you expand that at all or No.

You are a human. There you go. Okay. You may not.

Yeah. Show that. That's what I'm saying. I don't know.

But I just Yeah. For purposes of orientation, you see what I'm talking about, though. And you can see the pitch on it and that sort of thing. You have to be very delicate when you place this in there because you can disrupt structures.

And also, if there's a projectile in there, can you move it? Yeah. I've seen physicians that'll get, you know, uh, and they Yeah. And you can One of the worst things you ever want to hear is that metal tink.

Yeah. Yeah. If since we're not showing it just so I can describe it to people, I want you to imagine and you can Google this as well, but if if Charlie's wound is here, it is a long, very thin rod that would be put in at approximately what they would determine the trajectory to be based on where the wound is. So maybe like that, maybe like that.

And it just sticks out. And Joseph saying they would do it obviously slowly and carefully to try not to the area. You do not want you as the examiner do not do not want 57 minutesto dictate the position of the rod. You want the defect to dictate the position of the rod.

That's kind of, you know, it's kind of elemental, but it's essential here because um any deviation off of this, you know, it's going to skew data. And we you you remember how we talking about the chair just a moment ago? This is this is an essential component here to see if what we're seeing in the morg if it is within acceptable parameters to marry up to what we're seeing that happened or allegedly happened you know from what they're saying from the roof down to here is it plausible you know that's that's one of the questions that we that we would have but on a on a time basis is this a few minutes is it pretty time consuming yeah I hate to keep walk it's it's it all depends on the skill of the pro sector how fidious they are. Um, and some of them I've been around a lot of them that just like to blow and go.

58 minutesThey'll go go and then other people they're like a deer in the headlights. Sometimes you're wondering if they're even actually thinking. Sometimes they'll just stand there, you know, trying to you can see the, you know, the wheels kind of turning and they're thinking what where do I go now? You know, and it all depends on the skill level of the individual, I would imagine.

[sighs] [gasps] You're not going to want to throw a newbie out there, right? And you don't know this guy, Guarder. You know a lot of these people, so that's what I'm asking. Nope.

Okay. Chapter 17: Opening the Body Up & Damage to the Top of the Heart Significance He's now the medical examiner of Duchess County, New York. He's been Oh, okay. Yeah, they they're uh uh forensic pathologists are kind of transient.

Um, and that happens with some frequency. They'll move around because there's so few of them. If they get a better gig somewhere, they'll take it. Yeah.

So whether it takes a few minutes or a long time, this is done. And then now it's time to open up and and take a look inside. 59 minutesMhm. Yeah.

And it's going to start with and again, it's it's proceed uh dependent. You've got to do a standard Y incision, which everybody's seen. starts here, [snorts] the apex of the shoulders, comes down over the sternum. You make that initial [sighs and gasps] incision and then down to the pubis, the midline, and you can open the body up.

Uh, do they have to open the sternum or they just open? Uh, they Yeah, they create flaps. Okay. And they're triangular.

It's like a slice of pizza right here. So, and you have to what's called reflecting. You reflect this back. Remember I was talking about the the fascia, the connective tissue.

You're reflecting this back back and flips over the face. Then you go down the midline, open up here. And then either you're going to use uh bone um bone shears, limb shears, which most offices use limb shears like you clip a limb with or they use a strike striker is a brand name like Kleenex, but you're going to use a an agitating saw that looks like a cast saw. You're going to remove the breastplate at that point in time.

And then you go through all of the organ systems. There's one of two ways to do it. either you do an organ by organ dissection or you do what's called on block. Uh on block means that everything comes out in one big block.

In a case like this, you would probably do organ by organ because you're trying to be delicate with each organ. I'm just kind of walking you guys through a standard autopsy here, right? So, um hearts heart's probably going to come out first. You're going to weigh the heart, see what it weighs.

The technician is taking the heart out. The doctor is not taking the heart out. So, you open up the paricardial sack. It's kind of like, you know, I talked about the brain has a sack, heart has a sack.

You're going to open it. It's going to have you're going to say it's got straw colored fluid in it, which the paricardial fluid is straw colored. You'll open it up, look at the heart externally. You'll hand it to doc, put it in scale, you weigh it, and then you go lung by lung, you know, lung by lung, dissect out the diaphragm, examine the liver in place, check the gallbladder in place, if it's got stones, um, remove the liver, look at the spleen.

Spleen's kind of connected to the pancreas. You're going to go organ by organ, posterior, the adrenal, the adrenal glands on top of the kidneys, and you're going to take the kidneys out. You're going to weigh each one of those and then you're going to do the bowel dissection which is lengthy and it's done on every autopsy. What do you mean by lengthy?

It just takes a while because you have to do what's called running the bowel. And so you go through every inch of the bowel and you're looking for any kind of lesions that's in there. And that's just standard. Again, you don't want to deviate.

You don't want to make exceptions. I'm not a big fan of partial autopsies either because some people they will do cases I know of cases where people will have a gunshot wound and they only go in and they only dissect the the trauma that's created by the gunshot. Do you think that would fall below the standard in this case if they did that? Yes, it would.

You're going to really get yourself into a lot of trouble with that. And that's another question too. Again, you want to treat every single thing the same. Yeah.

But when you had really high-profile cases that you were doing, would it be maybe human nature normal in your seat sometimes to maybe take your time a little more even with a process like that Oregon by Oregon? Uh, no. No, no, no, no. Um, no.

for in in cases that I've been in involved in over the years. Um we really weren't respectctors of persons in in there. You know, uh I I'm you know, I'm not having a big kumbaya moment here. It's just that you have to treat each case, you know, the same in the sense of you don't want to do less for somebody or more for somebody.

There are certain cases that are dictated where uh you have to do more. Like anybody that dies in custody, that dissection takes forever because you're actually dissecting the back, the backs of the legs, soles of the feet, palms of the hands, the whole nine yards because you're looking for any trauma that an institution could have done, right? Um that's and there are different procedures that you do. The on block is referred to as rogatansky and it's a rogotansky uh dissection or on block and you just lay everything out.

Um but when you're talking about trauma that's not really a good way because you want to keep everything contained. I don't know how far down right that trauma extend. You could had lead fragments coming down. Well, not.

Yeah. And and areas of impact or if this thing fragmented like you know they're they're showing those the images from the preliminary hearing of this thing. I don't know where those wound up. Yeah.

So to your point and those create those cavitate in their own little way because those are once it fragments it becomes its own little projectile. Well and they they did mention in the the recent filing that there was damage to the top of the heart for example. So yeah, there's probably kind of a contused area there. And again, that goes to u [sighs and gasps] if I had I'm Did they say anything about the lungs that there was like at the top of the lungs that there was uh any kind?

I say I can pull it up and send it to because many times if you if you see you know that kind of again that kind of kinetic effect you'll you can get contusions on multiple surfaces depend upon the the velocity transfer of the energy and how far out it extends from there. Yeah. Chapter 18: Reading the Medical Examiner's Report All right. Let's take a quick bathroom break and we'll pull that up and come back with that right away.

Sounds good. All right, we're back. So, we just left off after we went through all the process of what you would take out internally, the lungs, weighing, all that, and our timeline. Where were we at with the timeline now, Baron?

I think we I think we thought around 10:00 the Y cut would start, give or take, based on the timeline. Not holding anyone to it, but just guessing, right? Okay. Ballpark .

Now, what? Yeah. So at this point um you're after you're done with [snorts] the thorax essentially um all the organs of the chest, the abdomen are removed and weighed um each organ is dissected. Okay?

And you'll they're going to take samples of every organ and it's going to go into preservatives. So they've held everything. They've got sections of bowel, uh, reproductive organs, bladder, the whole nine yards. Uh, heart, lungs, 6 minutesliver, everything.

Uh, now comes the really detailed part. Okay? Because all you have left are the head and neck. And in this case, this is you're in the sweet spot here.

So, before we get to head and neck, how long's the abdomen take? Oh, the abdomen itself. Um, I don't know. Um, I've been involved in autopsies.

I've been involved in autopsies that u the autopsy itself, you know, and I'm talking about the actual the actual prosection of of remains. Um, once you get in, and this is after you've got up and running and you're working, right? Less than an hour. And that's an hour.

Yeah. And again, this is all dependent upon all dependent upon how what type of trauma you're talking about. So, if you're if you're going in, you've got somebody that's got multiple gunshot wounds all over their body, it ain't going to take you an hour. It's going to take you hours, okay?

Because you're going to have to track every one of those wounds. And you're going to do trajectories through all of those wounds. And you have to make note of what organ systems and what vessels are impacted by each one of those wounds. And that's just kind of an over-the-top example.

Uh motor vehicle accidents take a long time many times because you got so much trauma. But if you're talking about a single I let's just say the the abdomen there's no trauma. There's no trauma in the chest. You'd mentioned the heart.

You know, I'd like to know if the lungs were contused at all. So, if you go to the bottom of this page, and I guess Steve can pull it up, that last that paragraph there, and it'll spill over onto the top of page three, that that's the descriptions from the medical examination. What document is this, Baron, that we have? This is the state's um summation of the preliminary hearing.

Okay. Gotcha. Gotcha. Um, all right.

So, this bottom paragraph is what you're talking about. Yeah. And it rolls over on the top of page. Okay.

So, it says, "The bullet, or at least parts of it, quote, sequentially perforated the anterior left side of Mr. Kirk's neck strap muscles of the left side of the neck and the left common carttoid or keratid and left internal and external jugular veins unquote states examination 11 ST3. The bullet also quote obliterated the left side of the C2 to7 vertebrae and transsected the cervical spinal cord unquote ID. The medical examiner observed that quote a significant portion of Mr.

Kirk's cervical spinal cord was traumatically absent unquote ID at 34. Mr. Kirk suffered other severe injuries including quote bilateral apical and posterial intercostal hemorrhages, pulmonary apical hemorrhages/hematas and multiple disruptions of the thyroid, crycoid and tracheal cartilagages. Idea unquote idea three.

The medical examiner also observed hemorrhaging around Mr. Kirk's heart hemoparicardium. both of his lungs quote left and right hemoththorax unquote and the subaricoid space around the quote cerebellar vermis and the parietal regions unquote of Mr. Kirk's brain ID at 34.

Wow. Okay. So, the last part's pretty impressive because you're talking about uh um the uh the cerebellum um which is the base back here. You've kind of got um the base of the brain uh he's talking about the vermis there and the parietal region.

So parietal is lateral. So these are your this is your temporal area. Okay. Parietal some people call it parietal is right here.

Okay. So you've got hemorrhage that's extending up into here. And you've also got, let me see, didn't say anything about the occiput, which the occiput is probably going to involve the u the cerebellum. So back here.

Okay. So all of this is impacted again. When you say impacted, what do you mean? Well, it's impacted by this concussive event, you know, where you've got the concussion of this round.

Unless you know because what we don't see here is any further any further they're just using the term well for there they're using the term disruptions the medical examiner also observed hammer around hemoparicardium [sighs] so hemoparicardium means that he had blood um blood surrounding the heart people might think well of course you have no you don't you blood inside the heart. So this kind of traumatic event both lungs left and right. What does thatorax if it was surrounding the heart? What does that suggest?

That means that this could be as a result of heroic measures that were being done. Sorry. By being doing compressions perhaps hemothorax. You got blood in the chest.

Uh you've got subacoid space. Yeah. So yeah, this there's a lot going on here that we and again they don't because they didn't have the me come up to the stand the in the preliminary. Correct.

You know, which was strange. Yeah, kind of was. I would have prefer and from my perspective because that's kind of the area that I dance in, you know, the medical legal area I wanted, but they just kind of um what do you guys call it? Admitted admitted the admitted the autopsy report without further comment.

The only evidence we had it of a dead body was a cop reading the conclusion of the emy's report. Yeah. So, um, is there a reason why they might hold back their hand completely in this case? Well, I don't know.

I think I got to thinking about this the other day um tooling around and I was [snorts] thinking why didn't they call the me and they you know there were those multiple stoppages along the way when they were you know they were not they would either shut the thing down or you know of course they had sidebars and whatnot but there are certain things that they wouldn't show and talk about everything that the Emmy is going to talk about is going to be considered to be um prejuditial I think from a traumatic standpoint. Not in a preliminary hearing. Yeah, I know. But if if there was any kind of if and again this is not my area.

All right. I'm just saying I'm thinking trying to think like the judge. If there's anything prejuditial that's going to impact the pool at all, the pool of potential jurors. And I I again I'm just kind of spitballing.

I've covered enough trials though, live coverage on Court TV and law and crime where we do and I've seen I've seen them hold stuff back relative to memes before because they view it. But again, we have to contextualize this and say this is a preliminary hearing. But I'm just I'm trying to think ahead and think why would the judge not compel them to have you know the ME come to the stand, you know, um which I find, you know, fascinating. So yeah, nobody testified who saw a dead body.

Yeah. Yeah. Not one person. Yeah.

So again, I don't know if that just goes to prejudice, and I mean prejudice in the sense of the pool. Hard to have a murder without a dead body. Yeah. Corpus delecti.

There you go. So I love saying that, by the way. Makes me feel very lawyerly even though I'm not. Feels very It feels very high brow.

It does. [laughter] Um so um back to our dissection. Yeah. Okay.

So lot of injuries there. Uh, and this is even further evidence of, in my opinion, this is where they would have spent the most time. Okay, so they're going to be doing what's referred to as a layer dissection. I mean, layer by layer before they ever begin to remove anything.

So, all of the structures in the neck, they're going to gently kind of reflect reflect all of these surfaces down. You know, they talked about the strap muscles, for instance. If you don't know what strap muscles are, it's something we examine. [clears throat] We pay particularly close attention to these in cases of aixia like strangulation.

They're kind of these crisscross muscle structures that are in here and like when somebody is grabbed um they um you'll see focal areas of hemorrhage in there. Can you roll back up the strap muscles? I I thought that I' seen them mentioned. I wasn't sure where he says the common carid left and yeah corateed.

Sorry. internal external judgment. Yeah. So that top line strap muscles.

Okay. So the bullet or at least parts of it uh sequentially perforated the anterior left side of the neck and strap muscles. So yeah, so right through here and then it passes through these muscular structures on the left aspect. So they're seeing focal areas of hemorrhage in here and you would have hemorrhage because we're still blood's still public, right?

Coursing. So, it's going to bleed out into those little soft soft bodies in there. Um, again, going back to what I had said earlier, um, I'm hoping that when I'm sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself. As they're going through this layer dissection, they're stopping for photographs.

You're going to have No question. No question. Okay. You have to, man.

You have to do it. Again, the word incite you. And you'll hear forensic pathologists use that term all the time. I want this.

And like the strap muscles as once you get through every layer, a as you go through each layer and you're kind of pulling these back and you'll see the dissection of like the strap muscles, they'll be laid to the side, you'll see them actually kind of laid out like this. And they'll take an anterior shot and then the underside of it too. You'll see the you'll see a photograph there. So they're going to have those photographic images.

Now, Chapter 19: What Comes After the Preliminary Hearing & Standards in Organ Photography whether or not they'll actually use them if this thing goes to trial, they haven't even produced them. Okay. " Um there are still like other hearings that are going to take place relative to admission of evidence. I've talked about extensively about just testifying to photographs over the years, you know, and it's tedious.

And so they'll have to decide what the you have to state in clear terms why are you why are you showing this photograph? What does this demonstrate? Because you cannot just throw up photographs to throw up photographs. Hey, we took a thousand photographs or a thousand images.

You you have to state a reason and it has to be a good reason why you're showing this in court. Now, you could have there could be hundreds [snorts] and hundreds of other photographs that are never seen in any case. Trust me, this happens, right? You want the ones that are going to best demonstrate the point that you're trying to make as as the prosecution.

Now, I'll be curious to see if defense gets access to all the photographs. I would assume that they would in discovery. They'll be able to review everything and they'll be able to make an argument and they'll talk about, you know, we need this, they don't need this. We want our experts to see everything because they're going to retain somebody, I guess.

Um I still don't they've indicated they're going to Yeah. So, and it makes sense that they would, [sighs] but at the beginning when you're in the autopsy, the the attitude is you'd rather be looking at it than looking. I'd rather be drowning in photographs than not have any at all. So, you're going to have multiple photographs from multiple perspectives and it can be down to the tiniest little hemorrhage pin prick hemorrhage that you'll see.

They're going to photograph that thing and they'll do it again pulling back mid-range micro. So, over and over and over again. So, and I hate to keep asking the question, but the reason I do is because I want to know is this your opinion of the way it should be done or is this the standard? So, would it be substandard?

Would it be below the standard to not have photographed each step? Definitely, Baron. It would be below the standard not to photographically document every single thing here. And you're talking hundreds potentially.

Yeah. Or more. Well, hundreds. I think that's a reasonable number.

Um, and you've kind of got a concentrated area, don't you? So, how many photographs can you take of one specific area, right? you know, over and over and over. But like as they're taking the organs out and and documenting the injury to the the heart and the lungs, are they photographing that before they remove it?

Then as they would have and then they're going to take when they put um when they put an organ when the technician hands the organ to the doctor, um the organ actually goes onto a dissecting board. Um sometimes they're cork. They look like they're about that thick. They sit on a dissecting tray.

The corkboard is up here and the physician has all of their instruments here. So, what they will do is they'll take the organ and they'll either photograph it on the on the dissecting board or they'll take a Have you ever seen a a blue surgery drape? It's It's kind of a brilliant I don't I don't know what to tell you guys. It's kind of a baby blue color, I guess.

Oh, it shines people. Yeah. Yeah. And it it kind of contrasts.

So you would take like with a heart. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

That's exactly right. So you would have a there are drapes not like you're doing surgery, but you lay it out flat. And so you'll you'll take the organ and you'll rotate it, you know, left left aspect, right aspect, straight on, posterior, and you're taking scales with each one of those. So you're popping all those.

And then I'm just thinking heart here. As you're dissecting the heart, you're cutting is h you're doing what's called bread loafing. So you're taking the big dissecting knife and you're slicing it and you can flip through it like a book or like a loaf of bread, right? And you look for trauma or you look for any kind of natural disease pathology through each organ.

Now you're talking about this kind of hemoparicardium and also the hemothorax. And if the the lungs are demonstrating any kind of focal areas of hemorrhage there and the heart as well, um that will be particularly of particular interest traumatically where each one of those elements will be not just in the sense that you're taking an overall shot, you're going to take very specific shots. And here's one other thing. They're going to take sections of that and they're going to retain the sections and that would be that's standard practice.

Would those injuries let's say it was those injuries relative to a you know heroic life-saving measures CPR whatever. Right. Right. Right.

Yeah. Would those injuries be consistent with a post death, you know, a guy's been dead 10 and then we start doing it or would that uh No. you're going to have to have at least some kind of like agonal respirations where you know you're in kind of there's three stages relative to the status of of the dead. You've got anti-mortem that people hear about before death, right?

[admin]

Part 5 of 5

Like uh going into a pyramid and you go in the anti-chamber, right? You hear that term and you have postmortem after death, right? Well, there's that stage called permortem and it's kind of that milky twilight area and you can still get focal areas of hemorrhage during that period of time. you know, the lights are kind of going out at But in order for him to experience those injuries, it would have to be some evidence of life.

Yeah. Yeah, they would. The dead don't hemorrhage. So, if he's dead at the scene like they claim and then they did CPR in the car just for the heck of it.

Uh yeah, but again, that's a period state. So, if you're doing chest compressions on somebody and they're in that period state and you traumatize this area, it's going to demonstrate. Now, if we But if he's missing his C-spine, Mhm. He's dead.

Uh yeah, or at least he is in the in the process of dying. It all depends on when this was initiated. Well, they're saying it was like 10 later, how rigorous this was, you know, when they're doing this. Yeah.

Um and it will present and again, I don't know if these presentations that we're talking about because I don't know what the ribs look like many, but if he's missing his C2 to C7 spinal cord, he's not breathing. I wouldn't think that he would be. No. [laughter] Uhuh.

So that's that's part of that's that has impacted the autonomic nervous system because it because and if that happened simultaneous with the injury and that's all traumatically absent. They say that's what he's saying. And transected. Yeah.

He wouldn't be breathing. Yeah. The lights have gone off. Yeah.

There's no more breathing. Yeah. So maybe he caught it in the last breath and there's a little hemorrhage. There might be.

And again, you don't know. Again, back to this because that's what I was going to say about, you know, lots of times with um and medical professionals can testify to this. You'll see I've seen fractured sternums, you know, relative to, you know, this. You'll see this fractured I've seen fractured ribs, um all sorts of things.

I've actually seen punctured lungs as a result of heroic measures. But he'd have to have some measure of life. Yeah, there would be something pumping through his system. That's why I'm very interested in kind of again back to this idea of the kinetic transfer of the energy.

How much of this is impacted this area? Is this too far out? But we see how you know going to your idea about the robust nature that's word again of the of the 30 out six. Mhm.

Um how far out did that kinetic energy extend? And if we're talking about this and we're talking about this, you know, how's it impacting the viscra, the underlying viscra? And that that's going to be a question that again, back to testimony that the the medical examiner will answer. I imagine that whoever whoever the emergency room doc was in there um is going to be called as well and maybe the nurses, too.

So, you're going to get a real sense about what his status was in in all of that. And so, timing, knowing these injuries, what what how do long do you think the thorax took? I think that um I don't mean to point at you. No, no, you No, I'm just saying I think that these structures in here and given the level of trauma, uh I could see this this area alone probably taking up to an hour perhaps, you know, with with the dissection here and trying to document everything because we don't know what systems and what structures were impacted.

Um, and if this thing fragmented, you can have separate little satellite injuries in all of the vessels as well. And all of those are going to be annotated. And then that, so they they do that takes about an hour. Now, how do they how do they determine the injuries to the brain?

Yeah. So, well, back to the neck real quick. This is going to be completely removed. When I say completely, the tongue is coming out.

Okay. Okay. So, tongue comes out, you dissect posteriorly, and this is all laid out. And that's the standard.

That is the standard, brother. And so they're going to take all of this. [snorts] I'm hoping that they have retained all of this. I would, but that's what you would do in that scenario.

That's what a good I'd retain. Well, I think that a forensic pathologist would retain this area because it is it's demonstrative of of this fatal trauma. But but could they meet the standard? playing devil's advocate, but could they meet the standard by saying, "Well, we documented it really well, so we didn't think it needed to stay.

" Or would it would it require keeping it to meet the standard? I think that it it would probably require to meet the standard because all the little vessels that are passing through here, you want to hold on to that. I can't imagine. I'm trying not to be I'm trying to be as respectful as possible, but you know, when you do an autopsy, people think that the organs all go back into the same place.

They don't. They go into a bag and they're comingled with everything else, including the brain. Yeah. Um and it's all been dissected.

So, you've got this big mass in a bag. Um, I can't imagine any circumstance where you would take the organs of the neck and just after this kind of event and just toss them into a bag and send them to the funeral home to probably be destroyed more than likely. Yeah. I was just going to ask a really stupid question.

I haven't thought of this though. Was he an organ donor and does that have any impact on that? Yeah. [laughter] Yeah.

That's the only thing that you could harvest um off of a body in the state would be skin and bone. Okay. Chapter 20: Opening the Skull, Brain Stem & Probably Finish Around 1:30 AM 27 minutesAnd that does happen. And also um eye nucleation.

You can get corneas. But yeah, that that's and this is a homicide case. I can't imagine even if you are an organ donor, the ME would be well advised not to give permission to do that. And they're they trump that decision relative to organ donation.

Got it. So we have the timeline now. Um, just I want to make sure I'm about right here. Maybe it's about 11:30 based on everything we've talked about.

, . And as you've laid out, Joseph, you would have been going over the top to make sure all the proper photos are taken and everything is done correctly. And they really focused on obviously the area of the most trauma. We discussed way earlier the fact that you want to know where the [ __ ] that shirt is and what they would have done there.

And you already laid out how you would have gritted that out. [snorts] Yes. And so what else would there would there be to do at this point? You got to open the head.

That that's oh that's the big part here. Um and not just open it. When we do the dissection of the head again reflection um u the incision is made from behind the ear. It goes from ear to ear like this.

and the scalp is pulled forward. Uh it's pulled forward or pulled back posteriorly. And you're going to, if you'll place your fingers right here, uh you feel all these uh uh attachments and musculature, this back here with an injury like this. We're going to dissect all the way down.

I mean, really, really get into this very, very deep. And we're going to look for any kind of focal areas of hemorrhage on the back side. Well, first we're going to examine the the backside of the neck. We saw what happened with the the ballooning.

Remember, we were seeing that. Um and of course they're not going to know that at the time of the autopsy that videography came, you know, was presented well after days later. Yeah. Days later.

So, but there's a question. Since this was public though, would the medical examiner be requesting access to any and all video that we already have in the public domain or that the investigators may have? Yeah. I mean, I don't I don't think there's any it would here's here's the rub, and this is more of a legal legal thing.

So, how do you if he's if the ME is using the videography to make a scientific uh determination? How do you validate the source of the videography? And that would be a question I think the prosecutor and both defense would ask uh because you know how does that how does that play into play into say for instance the decision that the ME is going to make u and they might even ask well you saw the video how does that influence your you know your you know your your uh your findings here so I think that that's very important to try to understand so do they extract the how do they get into the brain Yeah. So pull the skin but you got to Yeah.

So we after you have reflected anterly and then posterly um you have to now remove the temporal muscles which on either side um of the skull and um after and again you have to examine all of the musculature back here. Are you taking pictures this whole way? All the way. Yeah.

There'll be tons and tons of pictures of the head. Um, very interesting to me, by the way, everything that you would have preserved. You've been talking about that throughout the day, but you just laid it out a couple minutes ago as well, because if we find out at trial that any of that was not preserved, it hurts the case potentially evidence. Yeah, I think that it does.

And um, again, going back to the vertebral bodies, maybe they don't take C2 through C7, but you I think that it's incumbent to take those bodies that are specifically uh impacted u by this round or whatever this was and you have to demonstrate you know this this piece that you've you've uh uh Baron that you've you've talked about relative to the obliteration of the spinal cord. You have to demonstrate an absence of the spinal cord, right? or the remnant the sheath that the spinal cord goes up through um or you know is encased in rather as poorly stated um you have to you have to demonstrate that and the retention of those of those vertebral bodies I think is essential here um you know uh any kind of uh cosmetic things that you're thinking about relative to funeral practices and all that that's all secondary you know because you can always close the casket. Well, you can always close the casket.

And plus, uh, mortuary science people do incredible things. I mean, they really, really, it's amazing what they do. I couldn't do it. I wouldn't want to do it, but it's amazing what they can do.

So, um, you have to open you're going to have to open the skull, the cranial vault, and carefully remove the brain. And first off, you're going to have to do once you get the calvarium off, which is the skull cap itself. Um, once you remove the calvarium, you're going to look at it looks like a bowl. Okay?

And then the brain will be here. It'll be interesting to see if he noted any kind of swelling in the brain because that's a reaction. You get a reaction to trauma. U, you'll have to weigh the brain.

By the way, all these organs are being weighed and there's a standard that you look for and it's bracketed. you know, no no two people are the same. So these weights are bracketed for an individual at this age, his body weight, all these sorts of things. And so they're going to weigh, they're going to examine the brain in place.

They're going to make note if it appears swollen or not. Uh if the if the vessels in the brain are dilated, if they see any kind of evidence of congestion in the brain. Again, that's a reactive kind of thing because you're talking about cerebral spinal trauma, right? So, you have to make note of that.

It would not surprise me at all if they got a consult from a neuropathologist in this case as well. Um, somebody that they would reach out to that is probably on contract. Trust me, medical examiners have contracts with neuropathologist because neuro stuff is neurot trauma is something you deal with. " No, they bring them in physically, right?

Bring them in or you hold the brain. You retain the brain. Yeah. And the brain is preserved.

And I'd be interested to know if the brain was dissected that day or if they fix the brain, which means that you set the brain up in a solution because the brain is is um it's kind of like a heavy wet sponge. It's hard to dissect in the 34 minutesin the u in the immediate. So you fix the brain in formulin not formaldahhide but it's called formulin it's akin to formaldahhide and then after it has fixed you wait days later and then you do the bread loafing on the brain um and you can get a neuro consult they'll come in and take a look at it uh you might even I've been involved in cases where we've had neuropathologists that have come in and they've actually done the dissection with the forensic pathologist right there I'm not saying that's what happened here but there's so much neuro potential neuropathology here involved in this and you're going to want to get that brain stem. Uh you have to collect it and preserve it.

Yeah. Yeah. Most definitely. Um what does it tell you?

Well, brain stem is therein rest the the autonomic nervous system, right? And so that's lights out right there. So any kind of trauma if it was impacted any way um at all again I hate to keep aying this better to have it you know and not have it um and hold on to it. Um, when do you [sighs] suspect, and if I skip something here, could bring us back, but doing it all correctly by the book, if that is how it was done and saying maybe they started at , when do you think this would have been done?

And when it is done, what is the process right there of custody of the body and what is that time? I'm thinking, again, I'm spitballing here, just based on my personal experience, um, with something like this. Um, 1ish, ish, probably, I would imagine, if you get started at that exact time, exactly at 8:30 or whatever. Yeah, you're you're going to need that kind of cushion here.

And again, it all depends on first off how well the the medical ex the pathologist works with their technician and the photog, you know, getting that because it's like a dance. It it's kind of weird, right? You've got these people that are moving about the body doing photography and any kind of technicians that are there that are doing and everybody has their role to play. How smoothly, how welloiled is this?

And so I I would think that if you started at , um 1:30 might be an outer marker, I think. So they would document the start time and finish time. Oh, yeah. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. As a matter of fact, that's going to be in the the kind of um this is what it'll read like it'll be and you check it yourself. It's gold.

It there there's that little preamble in the beginning of an autopsy report and it generally states something like um u uh this procector was met at the morg by technician so so and so officer so and so down the line. So it literally enumerates everybody that's present in there. This autopsy was started at uh 20 20 on this date. Um and then they're going to go into and are they are they dictating as they go or is someone taking most of the time they're taking notes?

[clears throat] Little interesting aside, how I got to work in the morg, this is how I started. I worked as a scribe. Oh where you were writing? I was Yeah.

And I had to learn on the on the fly. So I would work with a forensic pathologist because you don't they're not they don't have the microphone. There's too much noise. You can't do it.

And so I would sit there and just feverishly take notes. And I'm having to learn as I'm going. And I learned this as a young man. I was 20 years old just sitting there on a stool listening to everything that he said.

And by God, you better not get it wrong. Chapter 21: Chain of Custody Post Autopsy & Police Should Have “This” Key Evidence And having to having to take down measurements and all that. So wait a minute. Cuz he's dirty and you're not.

Your hands are are clean. So they they will walk over and write and they'll write on a grease board, but if they're asking for specific notes, you're writing down for them. So there's nothing that happens where like when I'm in a doctor's office, I'll see my doctor lean over after I tell him what's wrong with my ankle or something like that and he'll make vocal notes of it and say like patient reports, right? There's nothing like that that happens most of the time.

not and again variable uh but in my experience most will wait until they delved wash their hands uh so they will do it after they can okay uh and depending upon their case load um I've seen doctors sit down with all of their notes and they might sit down I've seen doctors dictate eight cases in one day and it's I don't see how they remember some of the stuff yeah it's It's mindblowing to me. But with this case, with with those injuries, you're going to step too. I mean, I I can't state what this person did. I have no idea.

But I know that you would want to do it while your memories were fresh. Um, and um, you know, and that's a question that defense attorneys never ask doctors, which is kind of interesting. They never say, "When did you dictate this? And how many other cases were you doing that day?

Yeah. Um I remember sitting down and having um lunch one day with a guy Dr. Gold who did the autopsy on Nicole Brown Simpson and and Ronald Goldman and um I just asked him straight out. I was like and we were at a an affiliate meeting in St.

Louis as a matter of fact and I'd never met anybody from LA County Corner. I'd seen Dr. from the Gucci Speak. " You know, like when you go into the shop, you know, how many autopsies are you doing?

He's telling me some days he'll do 12 and 13 autopsies in one day. And they were really short staffed at that period of time. This is before the OJ Simpson thing. So I was sitting there and I was having a conversation with him.

It's like a dog groomer. Oh, and then you you know in the meantime you're spending the next day you're not on you're not on duty the next day and oh by the by yeah you got to go testify. You imagine in LA County how many autopsies I mean how many cases you have to testify in. So anyway the volume sometimes I wouldn't think their volume would be like that.

I'm just stating that you know it's kind of wild and you think about everything they have to retain at that moment in time. So, what happens if they finish honor about ? Emmy goes into dictate and all that. Where's the body?

What might be a decent timeline for the body to be taken possession of to go to the funeral, the local funeral? Almost immediately. I've I've been present for autopsies where we sew the body up sometimes. How long does that take?

Yeah. At most. Yeah. Um, sometimes funeral homes don't want you to sew the body up because every time you do a baseball stitch like this and every time you pull a needle through, that's another hole they have to patch.

They're trying to preserve the body. So, sometimes they will just say leave it like it is, you know, like that. And I've I've pulled bodies directly off of tables in a bag. you know, we put them back in a body bag or will we do the autopsy in the body bag, pull them over onto the funeral director's gurnie, and out the door they go.

Let me ask you one final question before we go back to timeline. Anything on the back of the body? Mhm. So, we we did the Y, we did the neck, we did the head.

Yeah. You're going to um they're going to dissect the There'll be a a a muscle dissection back here, too. All these mus Yeah. Yeah.

They'll be and all that stuff's going to be visualized. And you know, you know how you asked me just a few moments ago about uh they're taking a look at the back. Well, you have to take a look at the back again because when you saw the back initially, this wasn't dissected. And so, you literally have to reorient the body again with this being demonstrated back here to take the shot back here to say again either it's present or it's absent.

And so that you can So the doc can not only see it for their own personal reference, but it can be demonstrated in court because that's going to be a question. Certainly in this case, and it would it would obviously fall below the standard to not do that to the back. Oh yeah. Okay.

Yeah. You you got to do it. You you've got to do this dissection back here. Snap the photos.

Um you know, and then also if you do see evidence of hemorrhage, again, back to this idea of the the macro uh intermediate and micro photographs, you're going to dictate. And it look fellas, I know it gets it gets it's very tedious, but if if you're looking to do something quick and dirty in forensic pathology, you're in the wrong field. It's like it's like working on watches. You know, it's sometimes it's like some days it's really really easy, but you get something that's very very detailed.

It takes a while. Takes a while. Okay. So going back to timeline , you said it can happen quickly with the funeral, local funeral home taking possession of the body.

And also at some point here, I remember you explained this to me in that first phone call we had shortly after his death when I called you about all this that I was referencing earlier, how funeral homes will work like Flores because obviously he was then flown to a different funeral home in Arizona, which means they would have been in touch with the one in Utah saying what they wanted done with the body for it to get there. So maybe you can explain that, but like what is the what what does the custody of the body look like after ? And how reasonable is it for it to be in front of Erica Kirk and family at 12:30 or 1:00 that day, local time? I don't I don't think that's an unreasonable amount of to me.

It's not uh given and I here's the thing about it, y'all. I I don't know what kind of preceding prep they done before the body is transported from the local funeral home. I'm not talking about from the medical exam. The medical examiner will, you know, clean the body, will wash the body after this.

All right? To a certain degree, but not to the degree the funeral home will. Okay? So, the funeral home would take possession of the body.

They have to sign. There's a release document that you have to sign. And also, here's an interesting thing, too. There's a personal effects log.

Okay? So like typically if an individual came in with a wallet, rings, you know, like wedding rings, that sort of stuff, that would be turned over. However, you know, you think, you know, we were talking about the necklace a little while ago. Well, how did she, if this is the way it happened, how'd she get her hands on the necklace?

Did it come from the Emy's office or did it come from another individual? If Frank Turk can be believed, it came from him. He gave it to someone she knows who gave it to her. Yeah.

So, he took it off the body at some point before it was ever Emmy. Apparently, the police searched the SUV and then he went back out to the SUV to grab his bag and the necklace was there. He grabbed the necklace. 45 minutesThis is how this conversation is supposed to go.

The conversation is supposed to go, "Oh, I found a necklace back here. It's got blood on it and it's torn apart. Can you guys send somebody else back out here? " and then it's none of my business at this point.

And I'm talking about the finder. The police collect that. They take it into evidence. Yeah.

That's how that conversation goes. It doesn't go any other way. Period. Um and again, I don't know what's real and what's memorex here.

So I I have no idea. So that would be that would be the way I would view it. Anything. And so everything any kind of effects that they that don't have evidentary value uh would be released along with the body like wedding ring.

What about a cell phone? I got to tell you, if I'm an investigator, I want a cell phone. He's a murder victim, right? Someone might have texted him, sent him a message.

Yeah. I mean, cell phones are the new crime scene. I mean, that's the world that we're in now. Every cell phone plays some role.

Do you think it falls below the standard to hand the phone to the wife? Uh if you're in law enforcement, yeah, I do. Yeah. I mean, the ME shouldn't have anything to do with the cell phone.

I mean, it the body comes in with a cell phone. Um I a case like this, I Hey, you know, you guys need to get back over here. We got a cell phone. Gotcha.

We'd like for you to But you think the police should have retained possession of the cell phone? Yes. period. Yeah, absolutely.

Is there anything in the timeline here in this , Baron, that you need more clearance on as far as what Joseph's laid out? No, I mean, I think it's I think you've done an excellent job out genuinely. Thank you. Yeah.

Um it it was enlightening because I've never been to an autopsy. I've never seen the results of an autopsy. I've seen pictures. I've seen read, you know, passages, but I've never seen it front to back like that.

That was interesting. Well, um it's fascinating to me, you know, just on an aside, uh to be able to participate in this. So, thank you all. I I'm Oh, we still got some more here.

Yeah, I know. But I'm just saying from to be able No, no, no. Just to lay this out though because my preference is for everybody should understand how the process works. And we and for years and years people have always been so guarded, you know, about what goes on in the morg, how it's processed because either people are offended by it or they they just don't want to hear about it, but you need to know how this works, right?

And that's that's an important this is a key to this. I also do want to say, Baron, I really really appreciate you doing this second one today as well because to be honest with you, I I really felt sick to my stomach after the last podcast because I'm not the expert on this case. And frankly, I accidentally hung Joseph out to dry with a couple things on the case. [laughter] I'm dead serious.

And I it made me really sick to my stomach and the blame was going at you publicly and it should have been going at me. And so to be able to do this with like the preeminent litigator like public litigator on the case in this way is extremely helpful. And this is in my opinion I hope people out there agree this is going great with laying out the details. So you can blame me for the last one there.

But now we can actually go through everything. So timeline there set up. Obviously once he's taken Arizona and it's a whole funeral situation now at this point the evidence process is finished. Whatever has been [ __ ] up has been [ __ ] up.

Well, it's been it's been collected is certainly not finished. We're we're just so collection meaning like using his body as a piece of evidence to get everything you're going to need for any later testing or stuff like that has been done. Yep. Yep.

Yep. You're on target with that. Yes, it is. And and uh that's that's the key here.

Uh because once the body's gone out the Chapter 22: Rooftop Video Oddities, GATE Analysis & "Few Hands on This Weapon as Possible" door, body's gone out the door. You know, you can't unring the bell at that point. Okay? So you have to make sure that everything you're going to collect, everything that you need, you have acquired at that point in time.

So yes, the next thing we've now gotten cuz again, there's a lot of things that were leading up to Charlie being killed that Baron obviously looks into heavily. That's not your space. We're talking about it from the investigation standpoint here. So that stuff obviously refer to Baron's channel as usual everybody.

But when we're talking about this rooftop video that I know you've had a chance to see now that got released I guess last week by Candace and and you've broken it down on your show Baron if we have this ready to go. Right. So what had happened was they played a video in court that then was misrepresented by certain people in court coming outside of the preliminary hearing. We've already been through this Joseph.

And now Candace Owens has released a video that I believe Baron she got from law enforcement. Is that correct? I have no idea where she got it. Okay, don't hold me to that.

I want to say that's what she said in this episode, but people in the comments help out here. That is basically like a closer rendering of this video to where we can actually see the figure on the rooftop at at in a in a better range, if you will. It's still foggy in the sense that you can't see their actual face, but we'll play the video right now. What you can observe on it, and Baron, you and I had a chance to go through this on the last episode, but what you can observe is that the person on the rooftop, whether it's Tyler Robinson or not, does not appear to have a limp as Tyler Robinson did.

Does not appear to be hiding. What is it? A three-foot gun in three and a half. Should be longer.

Yeah, it's longer than three and a half foot gun in his pants. He's moving carefully. He also then, this individual is able to do, if I may say, what appears to be a pretty perfectly executed military crawl once he gets down onto the ground and then is able to get into some sort of position where we cannot see him maneuver a 3 and 1/2 ft gun quickly onto the ground and then is doing a signal as well. We see like a bright flash.

Again, we're going to look at this in a second. And we also see that there's no evidence that a three and a half foot gun is whipped around for him to get up and then run off of the actual roof. And we do not see evidence of an actual trigger pull as well. Maybe it happened, but you cannot tell on this video.

So, let's let's let it play for people. And then Baron, if you want to add in any commentary as this is playing of like what you were seeing, that that might be helpful as well. Go ahead, Dave. So, he's going down into position.

That's I think this flash we're about to see, I think people have pretty demonstrabably figured out it's a windshield. A windshield car. Yeah. Okay.

So, that wouldn't be coming from him. That's coming from somewhere else. All right. So, that's the military crawl right there.

And on the way to this, he was not limping. But here's the military crawl demonstration. But see how he's holding the gun out to the side when he's crawling the guy on the right. Yeah.

I don't see that in the guy on the left. I don't see that either. 52 minutesAnd that's the windshield you're talking about right there. Yeah, I think I I think people have because they saw it sequentially coming towards that person and the timing adds up.

I I I don't know definitively. There's the military belly crawl and some sort of a flipping out of something. I don't know what that is. Looks like a looks to me like a mat or something he crawls up on, but I don't I honestly don't know.

Okay. Um, but I still don't see a gun. And he lies down in the prone position. And then we don't see that I can tell another movement until he gets up to run.

And this is all in real time. I mean, and they're not skipping any frames here or anything. This is just straight through. So, he's lying down.

Maybe he's been still for , give or take. Yeah. I don't. And it's hard to tell, but like again, I don't see an enormous weapon being maneuvered right there.

Yeah. I think the the absence of the weapon really comes out when you see him get up and run. Mhm. And that's going to be in a second right here.

Those are all cars obviously moving in the background right there. That's below. Yeah. There he gets up to go.

And I just don't see a gun. I don't see it either. Like I saw a bag or a towel or a mat or something flapping around. Three and a half foot gun.

I don't I mean 306 is a big gun. It's robust. I I [laughter] took a bunch of rifles out into my front yard and tried to recreate that crawl. Yeah.

Um to begin with my neighbors video. Do we have video of that? [laughter] Not not released. Nor will you see it.

No, we're getting that video. But it's it was it was it was a feat. I mean, it's not something you're going to do with a with a 30 six on the first try, I don't think. Yeah.

Um and I'm not the most unathletic person I've ever encountered. Uh Tyler looks significantly less athletic than I than I think I am. Um but it's it you hold you have to hold it out to kind of counterbalance as you go. But most time in the military if you I can't recall I don't this weapon wasn't equipped with a sling was it?

Didn't have a sling. It didn't have it in the pictures. Okay. So if he if it had a sling devil's advocate you'd hook your you'd hook your index finger through the sling with military even with like low crawling like this.

They teach you to hook your finger and you're, you know, you turn your head from the side, you know, like this. And the the side crawl thing, I've never seen anybody do that. I'm assuming they do it. I've never seen anyone do this.

Yeah, I haven't. Hey, let me ask you something because from a forensic standpoint, one of the things I'd be very interested in this and we've I've talked about this in a couple of other cases that it's come into play now in the digital world. If they if they have this this video, there's a couple things I'm interested in. Uh, first off, when we have those facial shots of, you know, where he's uh, allegedly coming up and down the stairwell or whatever it is, I wonder if they did biomet biometrics on those.

If FBI has applied biometrics to this with this in particular, I'd be very interested if they're going to do forensic gate analysis here, which is something that gate that we see with like where we have CCTV like there's a couple of cases I covered where somebody came into somebody's apartment, killed them. Um, I've covered them body bags extensively and uh and then they just kind of vanish and you can actually see them in profile walking uh comes to mind case up in Ohio uh where the dentist traveled to Ohio. I think it was a dentist and killed uh killed the husband and wife in their home and you can see him walking down the alley and you know gate analysis was they were talking about that so how you move right and so FBI does gate analysis um and it's something that's been used in medical circles for a long time because they do uh you know occupational therapy physical the you know how are you moving up against a gritted wall gives you an idea of movement you can see if the individual when we talk about footprint We talk about pronate, supenate, all those sorts of things. The stride distance.

Um, and those are things that might be measurable here. I don't know. But if they got their hands on the video, that'd be a question. If there's any question about identity here, I think that's something that they I never considered that.

Yeah. So, yeah, it's just gate analysis. You can, you know, and it's not my ba wick, but I'm just saying I'm aware of it. And then what about the gun?

So, the gun he abandoned in the woods. Was it right by there? That's the official narrative. That's the official.

He jumps off the roof with a a rifle, runs across the street, turns right, goes, I don't know if he goes into the trees immediately or down the road, but then dumps it, I don't know, 6 8 10 ft off the road or Yeah. something. And like a rookie cop or something found it. Yeah.

Okay. From an evidence standpoint of the gun, what what do you what do you what's the custody you want there? And then what are you most looking for to be able to access hands on this weapon as possible? Um, whoever found it, um, they secure it where it is, photographs it in place.

Um, period. Like you call out crime scene, you cordon off that area. We found a weapon. We don't know if it is the weapon.

you photograph it there because I probably whoever found the weapon, they may have, and I don't mean this in a negative way, okay? Don't misread what I'm saying, they may have manipulated the covering in some way just to verify, like they may have picked it up and moved it. So, if they if they moved it, if they moved the the towel that this thing was wrapped in, um, you have to note that. So, the finder, which would be this officer, the finder, did you touch the towel?

Did you touch the web? Did you touch the surface of the weapon any way? Did you touch the shrubs and anything [clears throat] around it? Uh, you'd be looking and even depending upon how um I don't know um soft this area is.

Did you disrupt anything here? Uh as far as like potential footprints, is there mulch nearby where there's impressions 58 minutesinto the surrounding area? Um yeah. So, I'm just thinking right now out loud.

Um, what what types of things are you going to be looking for that could be connected to the weapon and the space that it occupies? Um, and even like would that be documented that they they ask those questions? Yeah. And it should be documented photographically because let's just say we have a weapon here in the middle of the table laid out before us.

Um, again, one of the reasons we follow the points of the compass, I want to know points of ingress and egress. like if you're putting it here, how did you get to that point? What's the most uh obvious path that you would have taken? I want to take a photograph, you know, showing that.

I might even put somebody in the photograph for scale perhaps. I don't know. Um just and certainly a marker, you know, those yellow markers that we use, you've got one that is clearly marked with an N on it that demonstrates north, right? So, you take a photograph of that and it gives you kind of an orientation.

So, I'd want to document it in place u and really handle this thing very gingerly. Um [sighs] package it uh [gasps] very carefully. I don't I don't think I would want to remove the towel until I got it to a very secured area. I would just want to gently lift it up, place it into probably a gun box more secured area meaning not at the crime, not at the scene.

I want to Yeah. I don't want to remove it. I don't want to change or alter anything in it uh on it. And but by this time they already know you're talking about a firearm related death, right?

I mean, how many times you walking through the woods? Oh, look, there's a 30 out six rifle laying on there. You you can kind of make this kind of logical connection. So, you want to touch this thing.

You want to handle like it's radioactive, right? You don't want to disrupt it in any way. You want to preserve it, photograph, document, measure it. You want to measure it from all different points 4 hoursand then secure it and then be able have very specific accountability to who is in this chain of custody and where did it go?

Did it go to an evidence room or did they drive it directly to the state crime lab and hand it off to a technician? So the the testimony Yeah. was that it was unwrapped at the scene. It was made safe at the scene, meaning they pulled the bolt.

Yep. um uh unloaded it and then photographed it. No, that's when they photographed it. I understand the making safe thing because you know, you don't know um but those procedures or those steps would have to be specifically annotated.

I'd have to know who made it safe. I'd have to know what their experience is with this weapon or weapon platform. Um, what areas of the weapon did talking to the person that made it secure? Um, where did you touch this weapon?

You Chapter 23: 7 Apparent Bullet Fragments and Only 4 Given Up Question know, how many how many points of contact are there on the surface from your hands to this? Were you gloved when you handled it? Now, I'm assuming that they would have been gloved. Okay, that's a big assumption.

And I'm not talking about the gloves that you wear that a beat cop would wear, the leather gloves that kind of protect their hands, you know. I'm talking about did you latex up? Okay. Do you have actual gloves on?

Um who else touched it? Did other people come over and inspect it? Because there's a problem with looks many times with other police officers. Hey, let me Well, one of those one of the interesting things I noticed about it was there were two sets of well there were two photographs that were released of it.

One was in the dark and it was bolt side up or bolt handle side up and the other was in the light and it was handle side down. So, is that even remotely normal that it would be outside in an evidence box at the scene in daylight and at night and when you're flipping over? Yeah, that's a good that's a that's a good point, Baron. Um, I think that it all depends on how long it took them relative to available daylight.

How long it took them to process the scene and collect this? You know how well they found it like two hours before sunset. Yeah. So, how long did it take them to process it and remove it from the scene?

But the most when I say process it, I'm not talking about like checking for DNA or dusting or anything like that stuff. I'm just talking about processing it. it more accurately. How long did it take them to document it?

Like the position of it, orientation to spatial orientation, directional orientation, all these sorts of things that you have to consider. And then the surrounding area, and then where did you clear this weapon? Did you clear it physically where you recovered it from? Did you walk back to your squad car and clear it there?

How many people watched you clear it? Um, if you cycle that round out of there, which, you know, we've been told that the the spent round was the casing was still uh in place. Um, and I have to know this because if you have ejected this round, now you've created new marks on the on the surface of of the casing, you have uh ejector and extractor marks. So that when you cycle that bolt, every time it those it grabs the base of that, it pulls it back.

So it drags it drags alongside of [clears throat] of the the uh um the casing itself. And then when you cleared it, did you eject it up into the air and it dropped to the ground or did you carefully cycle the boat very carefully and then physically remove it like this very carefully? And would that have been documented every step of the way? Oh, with photographs.

I would hope that Oh, would photographs good question because I think it would be easy if you're framing someone. " Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Uh rather than, "Oh, look, there's a gun, and here's it in the box, and here's the towel unrolling, and here's the bolt opening. Oh, look, we saw this. " It's one guy in the book depository building. Yeah, precise.

There's that classic I always I was just thinking about this. There's that classic video of the guy holding the cano over his head like this, and he doesn't have gloves. And this is the weapon we recovered. Yeah.

You know, and he's holding it. Did they have fingerprint technology back then? Yeah. Yeah, they did.

Well, yeah. Yeah, they did. And of course, they they didn't have DNA, though. No.

No, we we knew about DNA, but we didn't it didn't have forensic utility, but you know, they they claimed that they, you know, they had Oswald's palm print, I think, on the surface of that weapon. You know what I think I we forgot to bring up was because we skipped over it because we'd already done the Covette tweet in both of your podcasts, but if it is to be believed that there was a bullet, you know, pulled from him, it was the surgeon that pulled out the bullet or claims he pulled out the bullet, who take who's supposed to take possession of that? And is that sent along if if that's the case? Is is any bullet remains sent along with the ME so they can examine it next to the body?

If if a round is extracted by a surgeon, the police department will go directly there to take possession of that um take possession of of a uh a projectile and any kind of fragments that they were if there was a surgical procedure done um with a surgeon, you know, digging around in there. Um yeah, that that's something that the police would have taken possession of. Now, that doesn't mean that forensic pathologists do not see recovered weapons or ammo because they do. I've had any number of cases involving like hammer attacks, knives where the police will have collected these items and they'll bring them to the and we do it for comparison sake like if we have a hammer injury as a claw hammer, you got the claw marks and you know we'll reflect the scalp and everything if there's damage.

There's a classic photograph that floats around, but we do this where you kind of show the show the business end of the hammer compared to like a depressed skull fracture, but what's the ME going to learn from a fragmented round? Nothing. Okay. That has been removed from the body by somebody else.

I'm very specific here. Um, now the ME, if they're removing the round or the fragments of the round going back to the to the X-ray, if they recovered that, uh, they're going to lay each each individual fragment out in the morg on that blue the blue sheet and they will take photographs of that along the way. And then it's then taken and submitted either to a police officer that's there present in the morg or the me personnel will package that and their investigators will take it and submit it directly to the state crime lab. Now what the state crime lab does with that I don't know.

They could in this case I think that it's been kicked up to two federal agencies. I've heard the FBI and the ATF. I don't know why it was in that order because I prefer ATF than FBI because alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. And um so what did the state do with it?

What did the people do with it that colle or with it? I'm referring to all of the fragments. Um you know, how did that chain of custody work? I don't I don't know.

Well, maybe you have insight into that, but that would be something that would be collected, you know, at autopsy and those would be submitted and packaged, I would imagine, because you're not going to want them clanking around with one another. So, if you get if you get one fragment, that's that's they would label it as projectile or they might call it bullet. I hate using the term bullet, but bullet frag one, bullet frag two, bullet frag three, and it's also going to have the the deedence assession number on there as well. So, each one of those would be submitted.

She said she got it uh the federal lady that testified said she got it in a manila envelope and that there were seven fragments extracted from the body, but she only got four and she doesn't know what happened to the other three. Lovely. Is that unusual? Well, if they're saying that there are seven fragments extricated, my question is where are the other three fragments?

That's u that's a reasonable question to ask, right? I think so. and trying to understand, you know, what those fragments look like, uh, what state it is, and also their total weight. Yeah.

Because one of the things that we're curious about here is, um, how much in grains did did this projectile if, you know, I'm thinking about, let's just I'm just pulling a number out here because I don't know how many grains these weigh, but let's just say it's 150 150 grain. So, if it's if you have the the point of origin where X um X box of ammo, these rounds, the projectiles are supposed to weigh 150 grains. Well, if I got fragments that in total come up to 19, I have to ask the question, where's the rest of that mass? You know, where where does it exist?

Okay. Some of it could be dust distributed in the body. It could be fragmented. Would that be an appreciable quantity that would add up to per perhaps?

And it would be really hard to quantify, I think. U because you know how I talked about this is why X-rays are so important because if the thing shatters and you get the lead storm like I referred to um I I'll go ahead and tell you right now that you're not going to recover every single one of those fragments because some of them will be kind of caught up in the tissue. um they could you you might not be able to physically you know uh observe them to to retrieve them. So yeah, some of that stuff can be left in the body and I've seen it left in the body.

Have you ever been in a situation, whether it was a high-profile case or one that maybe you didn't think at first was a high-profile case, where you felt unduly pressured by anyone else involved in the investigation, whether that be law enforcement or anyone involved in the chain of custody to hurry things along when you did not want to have it hurried along or, you know, even in worst case scenario, come to a desired result because that's what happened here. [clears throat] [snorts] the latter. Yes, I've had that feeling before. I've never the former I've never really in my experience, this is just I'm just one little slice of the pie, you know.

So, um I've never felt necessarily rushed. Um I I've had friends, colleagues across the country, you know, depending upon what political interest is and all that sort of stuff. And because, you know, we're in the medical legal world, we're we're politically agnostic. We're supposed to be, you know, we're swallow like medical examiners as opposed to thinking about corners that are elected officials.

They're not dependent upon who's going to come to the polls and who's going to vote them in and that sort of thing. You kind of that becomes nil at at some point in time. So, you're supposed to play it right down the middle. And um I have I have been in, you know, where Chapter 24: They Oughta Be Very Generous With Evidence it's like we think it's this, you know, it's like cool, I'm glad you do.

[laughter] Yeah. I mean, and I I try to be more diplomatic than that and [laughter] but there are You got to remember I've heard the off camerara stories, so I don't know about that. [laughter] Well, no. I mean, it's it's uh you know, it's an it's an interesting position to be in, particularly when you're talking about a death investigation.

Um and um [clears throat] automatically, you know, your default position is what the hell is your motivation? What difference does it make to you? You know, well, you know, you're trying to make a case or they're trying to make a case or whatever whatever the case case might be. That's redundant.

But you you just sally forth and you know try to understand what the body is telling you and what the evidence is revealing to you. And you know as they say let the hide come with the hair. You know I've never heard anyone say that. I've never heard that either.

But I was that's another papism. My grandpa used to say that. Let the hide come with the hair. So there you go.

What are we missing here, Baron? I don't know man. I thought I think he was thorough. I really do.

Um I I genuinely appreciate you sitting down. Of course, man. I enjoyed this. This is a blast.

I can't think of anything else that we hadn't talked about. There's a lot of things, though. I'm thinking about replaying some things you asked today that it's like, well, that burden of proof better be met. Yeah, that's why I kept asking about the standard.

I wasn't trying to put you in a seat of judgment. I'm just genuinely curious. What is the medical standard here? Yeah.

I'm just, you know, I think the um the retention of the bone I think is is a big deal because as you've well stated, you know, this we're talking about a massive destructive event here, your photographs are fine. That's all cool. Um good for you. But do you still possess physical evidence of this?

And um and one other thing we cannot forget and I I well I can't I got to remain mindful of this. This is not going to trial. This guy is not convicted. And in the world in which regardless of how you feel if if there was evidence to be collected and he has a team of experts, they have just as much right to see this evidence as anybody else.

I would rather see the powers that be go over the top and be generous to the in in the sense of because a lack of cooperation and generosity can get a case overturned in the future. If that's your goal as a prosecutor, my door's open, man. Discovery and get what you want. Uh the ME should say you have access to me.

He doesn't they don't have a dog in a fight. They're just they're not trying to prosecute anybody. they're just presenting their results. Um, and come talk.

Let's have a conversation about it. If the uh if the defense's expert wants to come in and chat with the forensic pathologist from the state, yeah, sure, come on down. That happens. That does happen.

Come on down. You know, you're a colleague. Come on in. Let's have a conversation.

Doesn't mean, you know, they're not going to start throwing down or anything. Um they have their view of it and they you know and prosecution has their view. Um uh as you know Baron pointed out and rightly so um you can you can take a bit of science and you can have multiple views of it. Mhm.

Right. Yeah. And it's all about probability. Is this possible that this could have happened this way?

Yes. But here's another possibility. So there you go. The jury has to make a call.

Chapter 25: Baron Coleman & JSM’s Work Yes, they do. It's on them. God bless them wherever they are, whatever they're doing. Well, I know you're going to keep covering it each step of the way.

So, everyone check out Baron's live streams, by the way, doing that live and like just right off the cuff. Three and a half hours every time, hour and a half, all by yourself and then rolling with people. Very, very impressive. So, it's been a great couple days having you in here.

Thank you so much for doing it again. Thank you for having me. It's been fun. Of course.

Of course. And Joseph, thank you for coming in town so quickly again. Thanks for bringing me up. It's been been a treat to meet Baron and hang out.

Yeah, this was great. I mean, this this went I knew it was going to go well when we talked on the Zoom call, but like holy [ __ ] you guys knocked this out of the park today. So, everyone can check out Baron's channel. You can subscribe down below to follow along with the entire case and other things that Baron talks about as well.

And if you'd like to check out Joseph channel and his show body bags on there, that will also be linked down below. So, as always, give it a thought. Get back to me. Peace.

What's up, guys? Thanks so much for watching the video. If you have not subscribed, please hit that subscribe button before you leave, as well as leaving a like on the video. It's a huge, huge help.

You can join my Patreon via the link in the description, and you can also join my clipping community via the Discord link down below. See you for the next episode. it. Sync to video time

[admin]

EXCLUSIVE: Never Before Seen Photos Of “Tyler Robinson” On Campus. More On George Zinn... | Ep 374
Candace Owens
Aug 10, 2026

We have exclusive never before seen photos of "Tyler Robinson" on campus, a Daily Wire super fan account turns out to be a 45-year-old drunk who needs someone who loves her to take her phone away, and I have updates on my weekend long negotiations with Andrew Wilson for this Friday's debate.

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

Kathryn N. Nester (13967)
NESTER LEWIS PLLC
40 S 600 E
Salt Lake City, UT 84102
Telephone: (801) 535-4375
Email: [email protected]

Richard G. Novak, pro hac vice
RICHARD G. NOVAK, APLC
65 North Raymond Avenue, Suite 320
Pasadena, CA 91103
Telephone: 626-578-1175

Michael N. Burt, pro hac vice
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL BURT PC
1000 Brannan Street Suite 400
San Francisco, California 94103
Telephone: 415-522-1508

Staci Visser (14358)
BROWN, BRADSHAW & MOFFAT
422 N 300 W
Salt Lake City, UT 84103
Telephone: 801-532-5297

Attorneys for Tyler James Robinson

IN THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PROVO DEPARTMENT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF UTAH, STATE OF UTAH

STATE OF UTAH,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TYLER JAMES ROBINSON,
Defendant.

DEFENDANT TYLER JAMES ROBINSON’S PRELIMINARY HEARING BRIEFING

Case No. 251403576

Honorable Tony F. Graf, Jr.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 2
The State Has Not Met Its Burden to Show Probable Cause by Relying on Hearsay Deemed Reliable by Rule in Violation of Mr. Robinson’s Constitutional Rights and Separation of Powers Principles.
I. As a Matter of Law, the State Has Not Established and Cannot Establish Probable Cause to Support the Aggravator That the Shooting Knowingly Created a “High Probability” of Death to Another Individual From the Single Shot From a High-Powered, Scoped Rifle From a Rooftop Vantage That Hit the Intended Target. ..................................................... 2
a. The United States Constitution and the Utah Constitution Both Require Courts to Construe Alleged Aggravators Narrowly. ...................................................................... 3
b. Utah Supreme Court Decisions Narrowly Construing the KGRD Aggravator Require This Court to Strike It Here. ........................................................................................... 5
c. The Evidence Presented by the State Fails to Establish Probable Cause as to the KGRD Aggravator. ................................................................................................................... 10
d. This Court Must Reject the State’s Asserted Theories as to How It Has Established Facts Supporting the KGRD Aggravator Because It Has Failed to Establish the Facts That Are Constitutionally Required. ............................................................................ 15
i. Line of Sight. ............................................................................................................ 16
ii. The State’s “Anyone Near” Argument Similarly Fails Both Factually and as a Matter of Law. .................................................................................................................. 19
1. Knowledge ............................................................................................................ 20
2. Presence Alone Is Insufficient as a Matter of Law to Show KGRD. ................... 23
e. A Plenary of Jurisdictions Support Utah’s Narrow Construction of KGRD. ............... 24
II. Count Six Must Be Stricken Because the Evidence Does Not Establish That Mr. Robinson’s Statement to Mr. Twiggs to “Ask for a Lawyer and Stay Silent” was Intended to Obstruct an Investigation. ............................................................................................. 27
III. Count Seven Must Be Stricken Because the Evidence Does Not Establish That Mr. Robinson Had Knowledge That a Child Under the Age of 14 Was Present and Would See or Hear the Commission of the Charged Homicide. ......................................................... 29
ii
a. The “Violent Offense Committed in the Presence of a Child” Aggravating Factor Must Be Stricken for the Same Reason—There Is No Evidence That Mr. Robinson Had the Requisite Knowledge. .................................................................................................. 30
b. The State’s Backup Position, That Sentencing Enhancements Are Not Subject to Proof at a Preliminary Hearing, Is Inconsistent with Well-Established Constitutional Law. 30
IV. The State Has Failed to Produce Reliable Evidence That the “Victim Targeting Enhancement” Applies Here. ............................................................................................ 31
CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………..33

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Alvord v. State, 322 So. 2d 553 (1975) ........................................................................................... 3
Apprendi v. New Jersey 530 U.S. 466 (1980) ......................................................................... 30, 31
Brecheen v. Reynolds, 41 F.3d 1343 (10th Cir. 1994) .................................................................. 25
Chenault v. State, 215 S.E.2d 223 (Ga. 1975) ............................................................................ 3, 6
Commonwealth v. Buck, 709 A.2d 892 (Pa. 1998) ....................................................................... 18
Commonwealth v. Ly, 599 A.2d 613 (Pa. 1991) ........................................................................... 23
Commonwealth v. Reid, 626 A.2d 118 (Pa. 1993) .................................................................. 17, 18
Commonwealth v. Rios, 684 A.2d 1025 (Pa. 1996) ................................................................ 22, 23
Commonwealth v. Smith, 540 A.2d 246 (Pa. 1988) ...................................................................... 23
Commonwealth v. Watson, 565 A.2d 132 (Pa. 1989) ................................................................... 17
Commonwealth v. Wright, 961 A.2d 119 (Pa. 2008) .................................................................... 23
Engberg v. State, 668 P.2d 541 (Wyo. 1984) ............................................................................... 25
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) ..................................................................................... 3, 5
Jarrell v. State, 216 S.E.2d 258 (Ga. 1975) .................................................................................... 3
Johnson v. State, 38 S.W.3d 52 (Tenn. 2001)............................................................................... 26
Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 774 (1990) ..................................................................................... 4
Littlejohn v. State, 989 P.2d 901 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998) .................................................... 24, 25
Lockett v. Trammel, 711 F.3d 1218 (10th Cir. 2013) ................................................................... 24
Lucas v. State, 376 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 1979) ................................................................................... 4
Olsen v. State, 2003 WY 46, 67 P.3d 536..................................................................................... 25
Porter v. State, 732 So. 2d 899 (Miss.1999) ................................................................................. 26
Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976) ................................................................................. 3, 4, 5
Salt Lake City v. Carrera, 2015 UT 73, 358 P.3d 1067 ............................................................... 10
Salt Lake City v. Gallegos, 2015 UT App 78, 347 P.3d 842 ........................................................ 22
Silvia v. State, 60 So. 3d 959 (Fla. 2011) ...................................................................................... 17
State v. Carver, 356 S.E.2d 349 (N.C. 1987)................................................................................ 26
State v. Cristobal, 2010 UT App 228, 238 P.3d 1096 ............................................................ 10, 21
State v. Culberth, 390 So. 2d 847 (La.1980) .................................................................................. 7
State v. Doss, 568 P.2d 1054 (Ariz. 1977) .................................................................................. 6, 7
State v. Hazelton, 985 P.2d 698 (Kan. 1999) ................................................................................ 26
iv
State v. Johnson, 284 S.W.3d 561 (Mo. 2009) ............................................................................. 26
State v. Johnson, 740 P.2d 1264 (Utah 1987) ....................................................... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 24
State v. McMurtrey III, 664 P.2d 637 (Ariz. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 858 (1983) ............. 6, 7
State v. Monroe, 397 So. 2d 1258 (La.1981) .................................................................................. 7
State v. Murphy, 2026 UT App 38, .......................................................................... 2, 3, 10, 29, 30
State v. Pierre, 572 P.2d 1338 (Utah 1977) .................................................................. 4, 5, 8, 9, 24
State v. Price, 478 A.2d 1249 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law. Div. 1984) .................................................... 9
State v. Prisbrey, 2020 UT App 172, 479 P.3d 1126................................................................ 2, 10
State v. Ramirez, 2012 UT 59, 289 P.3d 444 .................................................................................. 2
State v. Sandoval, 788 N.W.2d 172 (Neb. 2010) .......................................................................... 26
State v. Sonnier, 402 So. 2d 650 (La. 1981), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1229 (1983) ...................... 6, 7
State v. Sosa-Hurtado (Sosa-Hurtado I), 2018 UT App 35, 424 P.3d 948 .................................... 8
State v. Sosa-Hurtado (Sosa-Hurtado II), 2019 UT 65, 455 P.3d 63 ............... 4, 5, 8, 9, 15, 18, 24
State v. Wood, 648 P.2d 71 (Utah 1982) ......................................................................................... 3
State v. Wood, 881 P.2d 1158 (Ariz. 1994) .................................................................................. 18
United States v. Bin Laden, 126 F. Supp. 2d 290 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) .............................................. 26
United States v. McVeigh, 944 F. Supp. 1478 (D. Colo. 1996) .................................................... 26
United States v. Peterson, 385 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2004) ............................................................... 27
Valdez v. State, 900 P.2d 363 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995) ............................................................... 24
White v. State, 587 So. 2d 1218 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990) .............................................................. 25

Statutes

18 U.S.C. § 3592(c)(5) .................................................................................................................. 25
A.R.S. § 13-751(G)(4) .................................................................................................................... 7
Utah Code § 6-3-203.14 ................................................................................................................ 30
Utah Code § 76-3-203(14) ............................................................................................................ 31
Utah Code § 76-3-203(14)(1)(k) ................................................................................................... 31
Utah Code § 76-3-203.9 .......................................................................................................... 29, 30
Utah Code § 76-3-203-10(2) ................................................................................................... 28, 29
Utah Code § 76-5-202(1)(c)............................................................................................................ 6
Utah Code § 76-5-202(2)(a)(iii).................................................................................................. 1, 2
Utah Code § 76-8-508 ................................................................................................................... 27

Other Authorities

Ariz. 54th Leg., S.B. 1314 (2019)................................................................................................... 7
v

Rules

Utah R. Crim. P. 7B(b) ................................................................................................................... 2
Utah R. Evid. 1102.................................................................................................................... 1, 31
Utah R. Jud. Admin. 4-202.02(4)(N) ............................................................................................ 11

Constitutional Provisions

U.S. Const. amend. V.............................................................................................................. 27, 28
U.S. Const. amend. VI…………………………………………………………………………….2
U.S. Const. amend. VIII............................................................................................ 3, 4, 15, 19, 25
U.S. Const. amend. XIV ................................................................................................. 3, 4, 15, 19
Utah Const. art. I, § 1……………………………………………………………………………...2
Utah Const. art. I, § 9…………………………………………………………………………….15

INTRODUCTION

On September 16, 2025, the State charged Tyler Robinson with the capital offense of aggravated murder, and other lesser offenses. The State had over ten months to investigate the shooting death of Charlie Kirk and to develop legally sufficient evidence that Mr. Robinson “knowingly created a great risk of death to another other than Charlie Kirk and the defendant,” the sole aggravator alleged in the Information which in theory exposes Mr. Robinson to the potential punishment of death. Utah Code § 76-5-202(2)(a)(iii).

The State’s presentation of its evidence as to this alleged circumstance in aggravation at the preliminary hearing in July 2026 wholly fails to carry its burden of proof. The State’s failure cannot in any manner be attributed to any orders by this Court limiting its presentation, nor does it fall within Rule 1102(c)(1) because the State’s presentation in support of this aggravating factor was not based upon hearsay evidence. Nor did this Court exclude any proffered expert testimony. In fact, the Court did not exclude any evidence on this subject, and it did not limit the amount of time available to the State to present its case.

Yet, the State has failed to establish probable cause that the shooter “knowingly created a great risk of death to another other than Charlie Kirk” and himself. The State is required, as a matter of law, to show more than a “possibility” that someone else may be killed by defendant’s conduct, rather that there was a “high probability” of that result and that the defendant knew of that high probability. And where the State has overwhelmingly failed to make this showing, it asks this Court to expand Utah’s narrow construction of the “great risk of death” aggravator using decades old cases from another state jurisdiction. Binding constitutional precedent both under Utah law and the United States Constitution demonstrate the State’s failure here and why this Court may not impermissibly broaden the scope of “knowingly created a great risk of death.” The facts and the law require this Court to strike the sole aggravating factor.

ARGUMENT

The State Has Not Met Its Burden to Show Probable Cause by Relying on Hearsay Deemed Reliable by Rule in Violation of Mr. Robinson’s Constitutional Rights and Separation of Powers Principles.

As briefed and argued extensively prior to the preliminary hearing, and as raised as a continuing objection throughout the preliminary hearing itself, the State’s extensive use of hearsay deemed reliable by Rule of Criminal Procedure 1102 violates Mr. Robinson’s constitutional rights and separation of powers principles. See U.S. Const. amends VI, VIII, XIV; Utah Const. art. I, § 1. See also Docs. 525, 570, 631, 678. This Court may not bind over Mr. Robinson based upon the State’s evidence consisting primarily of hearsay that has not been assessed for reliability.

This is particularly true as it relates to the evidence cited by the State to establish identity for all of the charged counts. See StBr:9-10. This evidence consists largely of alleged communications between Mr. Robinson and Mr. Twiggs, alleged communications between Mr. Robinson and other individuals on the application Discord, and an identification of Mr. Robinson from UVU surveillance footage. See StEx 16.1, 16.2. This evidence came from, or became presumptively admissible through, a recorded interview between the Utah County Attorney’s Office and witness Lance Twiggs, St.Ex. 16, a witness the Court would not allow Mr. Robinson to seek to subpoena from another state to testify at the preliminary hearing. See Doc. 625.

The State has failed to prove probable cause by reliable evidence that satisfies each element of each of the charged evidence. This Court must decline bind over on all charges.

I. As a Matter of Law, the State Has Not Established and Cannot Establish Probable Cause to Support the Aggravator That the Shooting Knowingly Created a “High Probability” of Death to Another Individual From the Single Shot From a High-Powered, Scoped Rifle From a Rooftop Vantage That Hit the Intended Target.

Mr. Robinson is charged with aggravated murder pursuant to Utah Code § 76-5-202(2)(a)(iii), which requires the State to prove that “the actor intentionally or knowingly
cause[d] the death of another individual” under circumstances where “the actor knowingly created a great risk of death to another individual other than the deceased individual and the actor[.]” Id. The State has not shown and cannot show probable cause to support this single alleged aggravator.1

A defendant may only be bound over for trial “if the prosecution produces evidence sufficient to demonstrate probable cause that the charged crimes were committed” and the defendant committed them. State v. Murphy, 2026 UT App 38, ¶ 8, 588 P.3d 1039 (quoting State v. Ramirez, 2012 UT 59, ¶ 8, 289 P.3d 444 (cleaned up)); see also Utah R. Crim. P. 7B(b). This threshold requirement is intended to “ferret[ ] out groundless and improvident prosecutions, relieving the accused from the substantial degradation and expense incident to a modern criminal trial when the charges against him are unwarranted or the evidence insufficient.” Id. (quoting Ramirez, 2012 UT 59, ¶ 8 (cleaned up)).

As discussed further herein, the State’s burden requires them to provide evidence to support a “reasonable belief” and “when the evidence, considered under the totality of the circumstances, is wholly lacking and incapable of reasonable inference to prove some issue which supports the prosecutor’s claim” this Court must decline bindover. Id. ¶ 10 (quoting State v. Prisbrey, 2020 UT App 172, ¶ 22, 479 P.3d 1126 (cleaned up)). The Court is empowered to make reasonable inferences from the evidence presented; however, the Court may not engage in speculation. Id.

a. The United States Constitution and the Utah Constitution Both Require Courts to Construe Alleged Aggravators Narrowly.

“The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution do not permit imposition of the death penalty in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” State v. Wood, 648 P.2d 71, 77 (Utah 1982). “The objective of the law is to require that the discretion of a sentencing body in a capital case be carefully channeled by standards designed and applied to insure that there is a reasonable distinction between those murder cases in which the death penalty is imposed and those in which it is not.” Id. (citing numerous United States Supreme Court holdings to this effect).

1 For brevity, Mr. Robinson refers to the aggravator as “KGRD” throughout.

In order to bring meaning to this long-standing principle, the United States Supreme Court has explained that the Constitution requires courts to narrowly construe aggravating factors in order to avoid “overly broad interpretation[s]” that violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. See, e.g., Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 202 (1976).

The United States Supreme Court has twice examined the “KGRD” aggravator at issue here. In Gregg, the Court upheld the inclusion of KGRD as a statutory aggravating circumstance:

While such a phrase might be susceptible of an overly broad interpretation, the Supreme Court of Georgia has not so construed it. The only case in which the court upheld a conviction in reliance on this aggravating circumstance involved a man who stood up in a church and fired a gun indiscriminately into the audience. See Chenault v. State, [215 S.E.2d 223 (Ga. 1975)]. On the other hand, the court expressly reversed a finding of great risk when the victim was simply kidnaped in a parking lot. See Jarrell v. State, [216 S.E.2d 258, 269 (Ga. 1975)].

428 U.S. at 202-03. The same year, in Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242, 255 (1976), the Court upheld the use of KGRD as an aggravator based upon the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Alvord v. State, 322 So. 2d 553 (1975) which also construed KGRD narrowly. In Alvord, KGRD was “obvious[ ]” because the defendant “murdered two of the victims in order to avoid a surviving witness to the (first) murder.” Proffitt, 428 U.S. at 256.2

In each of these cases, the Court considered whether the statutory aggravating circumstance was too vague and overbroad to pass Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment muster and in each, the Court upheld the aggravator because the States’ highest courts had narrowly construed them.

The principle that the death penalty may not be “wantonly and freakishly imposed” “requires a state to channel the sentencer’s discretion by ‘clear and objective standards’ that provide ‘specific and detailed guidance[.]” Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 774 (1990) (citation
omitted). As a result, a state’s “definitions of its aggravating circumstances—those circumstances that make a criminal defendant ‘eligible’ for the death penalty—therefore play a significant role in channeling the sentencer’s discretion.” Id. Thus, this Court must narrowly construe KGRD, consistent with Utah Supreme Court guidance, and strike the aggravator.

2 Lucas v. State, 376 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 1979) is another Florida case in which that State’s Supreme Court upheld a KGRD judgment where the defendant had engaged in a “raging gun battle”. Id. at 1153.

b. Utah Supreme Court Decisions Narrowly Construing the KGRD Aggravator Require This Court to Strike It Here.

Over the course of the past 50 years, the Utah Supreme Court has had at least three opportunities to carefully consider the KGRD aggravator. In doing so, it has identified a minimum set of factual circumstances which must be present in order for the aggravator to be applied in a constitutionally valid manner. Mr. Robinson addresses here the three decisions by this State’s highest court which, when applied to the facts presented here, compel this Court to strike the alleged aggravator because those constitutionally required factors are not present.

Those Utah Supreme Court cases are its decisions in State v. Sosa-Hurtado, 2019 UT 65, 455 P.3d 63 (“Sosa-Hurtado II”), and two long-standing decisions in State v. Johnson, 740 P.2d 1264, 1265-66 (Utah 1987) and State v. Pierre, 572 P.2d 1338, 1342 (Utah 1977). They are addressed below in chronological order so that this Court can see how the doctrine which this Court must apply in this case has evolved to require, as a factual matter, that where one or more firearm is used in a homicide, the defendant actually discharges multiple rounds, hitting and/or killing individual(s) other than the murder victim in series of events. These actions are the “concatenating series of events” which the Utah Supreme Court first referred to in its 1997 decision in State v. Pierre and then reaffirmed in its decision in Sosa-Hurtado II that may lead the Court to conclude that the conduct alleged created a “high probability” that someone other than the victim and defendant would be killed.

One year after the United States Supreme Court decisions in Gregg and Proffitt, the Utah Supreme Court considered the application of KGRD in State v. Pierre, 572 P.2d at 1342. In Pierre, the defendant was convicted of three counts of capital murder. Pierre and two codefendants tied up five individuals in a business establishment and forced them to drink liquid Drano. Id. at 1343. Pierre eventually shot each of the five victims in the head. Two of the victims survived; three did not. Id. In upholding the application of Utah’s KGRD aggravator, the Utah Supreme Court found that “[t]he evidence fully sustains that the killing of the three victims and the creation of a setting of great risk of death to the two surviving victims occurred within a brief span of time in which were formed a concatenating series of events.” Id. at 1355 (emphasis added).

A decade later, in State v. Johnson, the Utah Supreme Court held that the KGRD aggravator did not apply to the circumstance where the defendant attacked a husband and wife with a shovel, killing the man. State v. Johnson, 740 P.2d at 1265-66. When the defendant delivered the injuries to the man, he was on the other side of a warehouse from his wife, and there were shelves between them. Id. The court noted that KGRD “properly applies to situations in which the defendant kills his victim in a manner by which he knows he is gravely endangering others.” Id. at 1266. The Johnson Court also held that “[t]he State produced no evidence indicating that [wife] was placed at grave risk of death by defendant’s battery of [husband], nor did it produce evidence indicating that defendant knew that his conduct towards [husband] placed [wife] at great risk.” Id. at 1267. In Johnson, the Utah Supreme Court further explained how the KGRD aggravator is applied. It wrote:

Section 76-5-202(1)(c) properly applies to situations in which the defendant kills his victim in a manner by which he knows he is gravely endangering others. See Chenault v. State, [215 S.E.2d 223 (Ga. 1975)] (defendant was convicted under a statute similar to section 76-5-202(1)(c), but which also includes language concerning killings in public places, when he assassinated his victim by opening fire in a crowded church); [State v. McMurtrey III, 664 P.2d 637 (Ariz. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 858 (1983)] (defendant shot his intended victims in a crowded bar); State v. Sonnier, 402 So.2d 650 (La. 1981), cert. denied, [463 U.S. 1229 (1983)] (defendant made his victims lie on the ground and shot them with rapid fire from a rifle); State v. Doss, [568 P.2d 1054 (Ariz. 1977)] (defendant shot victim in a crowded auditorium).

740 P.2d at 1266-67. A closer look at the cases referenced by the Utah Supreme Court in Johnson demonstrates that the fact patterns which it views as authorizing the KGRD aggravator do not exist here.

In Chenault v. State, the defendant was convicted of aggravated murder after shooting multiple individuals inside a church. 215 S.E.2d at 224 (Ga. 1975). There, the defendant fired multiple shots from two pistols, killing two individuals and injuring another, and “randomly shoot[ing] into the congregation.” Id. The jury recommended the death penalty, finding the aggravating factor of “knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person in a public place by means of a weapon or a device which would normally be hazardous to the lives of more than one person.” Id. at 229. The Georgia Supreme Court found the evidence supported the jury’s finding. Id. at 230.

In State v. McMurtrey III, the Arizona Supreme Court issued a remand for resentencing because the trial court did not adequately consider mitigating evidence in the course of imposing a sentence of death. 664 P.2d at 646. The facts underlying the conviction were that after McMurtrey and three victims engaged in “loud discussions” in a bar, he went to the parking lot, retrieved a gun, and then returned to the inside of the bar where he shot three victims, killing two and wounding a third. Id. at 639. During sentencing, the trial court found that the defendant knowingly created a grave risk of death to persons other than the murder victims. The Arizona Supreme Court agreed because “[t]he evidence at the trial established that the Ranch House Bar was crowded the night of the killings and that there were from five to nine other people in the immediate area of the victims when they were shot. When he emptied his gun at the victims, appellant created a grave risk of death to those other people.” Id. at 645 (citing Doss, 568 P.2d at 1054).

The other Arizona Supreme Court decision cited by the Utah Supreme Court in Johnson is State v. Doss, 568 P.2d 1054 (Ariz. 1977). In Doss, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the application of the KGRD aggravating factor where “[t]he defendant shot the victim in a place crowded with college students, and one of the defendant’s shots did in fact wound one of those
students.” Id. at 1061. In the course of conduct, the defendant “emptied his revolver[.]” Id. at 1056.3 Under these facts, there was “no question” KGRD applied. Id. at 1061.

The last out of state case cited by the Utah Supreme Court in Johnson is a 1981 decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Sonnier, 402 So. 2d at 650. In Sonnier, the jury found to be true the aggravating circumstance that the defendant “knowingly created a risk of death or great bodily harm to more than one person” Id. at 658. The Louisiana Supreme Court had previously determined that this aggravator “is established when the defendant by a single and consecutive course of conduct contemplates and causes a great risk to more than one person.” Id. (citing its prior decisions in State v. Monroe, 397 So. 2d 1258 (La.1981) and State v. Culberth, 390 So. 2d 847 (La.1980)). In Sonnier, the Supreme Court found that “the execution of two victims lying side by side with six rapid rifle shots clearly amounts to a single consecutive course of conduct by which defendant contemplated a great risk to more than one person.” Id.

In each of these cases relied upon by the Utah Supreme Court in Johnson, the defendant filed multiple shots from a firearm in close temporal and spatial proximity to other individuals and in each of these cases, individuals other than the murder victim(s) were, in fact, injured.

In 2019, the Utah Supreme Court revisited the standards for imposition of the KGRD aggravator in Sosa-Hurtado II, 2019 UT 65. In Sosa-Hurtado II, the defendant was charged and convicted of aggravated murder for shooting and killing Stephen. Id. ¶ 8. Just prior to shooting Stephen, the defendant fired his weapon at a second individual, Isabel, which resulted in injuries to Isabel. Id. The shooting occurred inside a smoke shop. Id. ¶ 6. Sosa-Hurtado entered the smoke shop and pulled an assault rifle from his jacket. Id. ¶ 7. Sosa-Hurtado first fired a shot at Isabel that missed but shattered a glass case causing injuries to Isabel. Id. After he shot at Isabel,
Sosa-Hurtado “turned towards Stephen” and fired a shot, hitting Stephen’s hand; Stephen fell to the floor. Id. ¶ 8. Sosa-Hurtado then shot Stephen two more times, killing him. Id.

3 Arizona eliminated its KGRD aggravator in 2019. See Ariz. 54th Leg., S.B. 1314, “Amending Section 13-751, Ariz. Rev. St.; Relating to the Death Penalty” (2019), available at https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/71934. The lack of KGRD is now a mitigating factor in Arizona, that is, it is mitigating if the “defendant could not reasonably have foreseen that his conduct in the course of the commission of the offense for which the defendant was convicted would cause, or would create a grave risk of causing, death to another person.” A.R.S. § 13-751(G)(4).

The Utah Court of Appeals had, below, examined the sufficiency of the evidence supporting KGRD. State v. Sosa-Hurtado, 2018 UT App 35, 424 P.3d 948 (“Sosa-Hurtado I”). Reviewing Utah case law, specifically State v. Pierre, and State v. Johnson, and “persuasive authority from other jurisdictions”, the Utah Court of Appeals determined that:

[J]udicial decisions about whether this aggravator applies are often influenced by three main factors: (1) the temporal (or chronological) relationship between any actions the defendant may have taken towards the third party and the acts constituting the murder; (2) the spatial relationship, or proximity, between the third party, the murder victim, and the defendant at the time of the acts constituting the murder; and (3) whether and to what extent the third party was actually threatened by the assailant, either by direct threats or by indirect means such as the risk of stray or ricocheting bullets.

Sosa-Hurtado I, 2018 UT App 35, ¶ 31. The Utah Supreme Court endorsed these factors. Sosa-Hurtado II, 2019 UT 65, ¶¶ 2, 28, 39. In its own analysis, the Utah Supreme Court embraced principles from a KGRD decision in New Jersey4, State v. Price, 478 A.2d 1249, 1260 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law. Div. 1984). In Price, the New Jersey Court found the following to be necessary in order to support a KGRD finding:

[T]he relevant ‘facts’ to be considered ‘must include a knowing or purposeful state of mind vis-à-vis the creation of a great risk of death, that there be a likelihood or high probability of great risk of death created, not just a mere possibility… and that there be at least another person within the ‘zone of danger’ created by defendant’s conduct.’

Sosa-Hurtado II, 2019 UT 65, ¶ 38 (quoting Johnson, 740 P.2d at 1267 (quoting Price, 478 A.2d at 1260)) (emphasis added).

In upholding the jury’s verdict and the Utah Court of Appeals’ decision affirming the verdict, the Utah Supreme Court found that “a reasonable jury could easily find” that the “identified factors” “support the conclusion that Sosa-Hurtado caused a great risk of death to Isabel during the murder of Stephen: Sosa-Hurtado fired at Isabel seconds before shooting -Stephen, he shot at Stephen when Isabel was close by, and he specifically acted with the intent to harm or kill Isabel.” Sosa-Hurtado II, 2019 UT 65, ¶ 40. In so doing, the Utah Supreme Court endorsed the “concatenating series of events” formulation it first identified in Pierre. Id. ¶¶ 47-52. In order to satisfy the aggravator, there must be acts in a “series” that are “linked together in a meaningful way.” Id. ¶ 48.

4 New Jersey abolished the death penalty in 2007. Prior to abolition, New Jersey’s version of the aggravator required, “In the commission of the murder, the defendant purposely or knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person in addition to the victim[.]” NJ St 2C:11-3c(4)(b).

Such a link between acts may be “established based on the defendant’s intent and knowledge of the risk and the endangered person’s proximity in time and place to the murder.” Id. (quotation omitted). The Supreme Court found the shot at Isabel alone to be “powerful evidence of Sosa-Hurtado’s state of mind toward Isabel.” Id. ¶ 49. Next, there “was a close causal connection” between the shot at Isabel and the shots at Stephen because the evidence “could reasonably sustain the conclusion that Sosa-Hurtado shot at Isabel to get him out of the way[.]” Id. ¶ 50. Finally, the shootings took place in a small area and the victims were within “a couple of feet” when Stephen was shot. Id. ¶ 52. These facts led the Utah Supreme Court to conclude that “the killing and the initial shot at Isabel were part of a series of ‘concatenating events’… or in other words that Isabel was within the ‘zone of danger’ when Sosa-Hurtado killed Stephen.” Id.

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

c. The Evidence Presented by the State Fails to Establish Probable Cause as to the KGRD Aggravator.

Preliminarily, Mr. Robinson must alert this Court to a significant problem presented by the State’s argument as to the facts established at the preliminary hearing. The State makes little effort to distinguish between the evidence it presented and inferences it asks this Court to make based upon that evidence. Rather, the State pursues an unconstitutional expansion of the KGRD aggravator to this case and fails to distinguish reasonable inferences from speculation. As the Utah Court of Appeals explained earlier this year in State v. Murphy:

[A] magistrate may deny bindover “when the evidence, considered under the totality of the circumstances, is wholly lacking and incapable of reasonable inference to prove some issue which supports the prosecution’s claim.” State v. Prisbrey, 2020 UT App 172, ¶ 22, 479 P.3d 1126 (cleaned up). In other words, “a magistrate may properly deny bindover where the facts presented by the prosecution provide no more than a basis for speculation.” Id. (cleaned up). While “the line separating speculation from reasonable inference can at times be faint,” the two are distinct. Id. ¶ 23 (cleaned up). “An inference is a conclusion reached by considering other facts and deducing a logical consequence from them,” and speculation entails “the act or practice of theorizing about matters over which there is no certain knowledge at hand.” Id. (cleaned up). “In short, the difference between an inference and speculation depends on whether the underlying facts support the conclusion.” Salt Lake City v. Carrera, 2015 UT 73, ¶ 12, 358 P.3d 1067.

2026 UT App 38, ¶ 10. Furthermore, it is not appropriate to stack inference upon inference to satisfy an element of the offense. “While inferences drawn from facts in evidence are appropriate, inferences drawn from inferences are not.” State v. Cristobal, 2010 UT App 228, ¶ 16, 238 P.3d 1096. And, when “evidence supports more than one possible conclusion, none more likely than the other, the choice of one possibility over another can be no more than speculation.” Id.

The following is a recitation of the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing specific to this Court’s determination on the aggravator, and the State’s arguments regarding the aggravator, without drawing inference upon inference as the State asks this Court to do.

The afternoon of September 10, 2025, “several thousand” people gathered in and around an amphitheater on the UVU campus to watch and listen to guest speaker, Charlie Kirk. PH1:65, 68; see StEx 1. At 12:23:28 PM, Mr. Kirk was struck by a projectile on the left side of his neck and the injury resulted in his death. See StEx 115; PH1:67 (shot fired at 12:23 PM). The best evidence of the events on September 10, 2025 on the Utah Valley University campus are the videos.

5 The State quoted liberally from the medical examiner’s report admitted as State’s Exhibit 11 in its public filing, despite the exhibit not being published and medical records being categorically private under Utah Rule of Judicial Administration 4-202.02(4)(N). See StBr:2-3. This appears to be another example of the State publicizing private information in contravention to the rules guiding record classification. It would have been a simple matter for the State to redact this private information. See also PH1:204 (Mr. Sturgill: “This is a document that does contain very sensitive information and that information that Mr. Kirk’s family would appreciate it not being published… we’d ask that it not be published here in the courtroom or [to the camera.]”).

State’s Exhibits 12.1 6 and 12.4 are compilations of UVU surveillance footage from September 10, 2025. At 05:33 of 12.1 and 12.4, the surveillance depicts the roof of the Losee building7 and the walkway between the Losee building and the computer science building, beginning at 12:15:20pm. At 06:18 of 12.4, the shooter is seen going over the railing separating the walkway from the Losee roof. See PH1:46-47 (Bagley: “a little guardrail probably about a couple feet high”). Each of the videos then jump to 12:22:12 PM when a figure is seen running West across the Losee roof. At 12:22:25 PM the figure drops to the roof and begins to crawl to the western edge of the roof, going both south and west. The shooter reaches the edge of the roof at approximately 12:22:44 PM although additional body positioning on the ground is visible until approximately 12:22:56 PM; see also PH1:90-91, 94 (describing evidence of “prone position” in gravel on rooftop); StEx 5; PH2:67 (Agent Hull testifying the shooter was prone for 15 to 30 seconds). At 12:23:28 PM, the figure gets up and begins running to the northeast corner of the roof and drops off the Losee building roof to the ground. PH1:98-99 (Officer Bagley observed shoe print in grass where individual observed jumping from roof); PH2:36-37.

Exhibits 12.1 and 12.4 show the shooter was in position on the southwest corner of the Losee Center roof for approximately 35-44 seconds. Officer Bagley testified that “there is a clear line of sight between the tent and the top of the Losee Center.” PH1:53-54, 117; StExs 3.2, 4.

Exhibit 7 depicts the shooting of Mr. Kirk from behind the individual asking him questions (“questioner”) immediately prior to the shooting. The questioner is separated from Mr. Kirk by a barrier, a patch of grass of unknown dimensions, a table, and the space behind the table in front of Mr. Kirk. Mr. Kirk is sitting in a chair on an elevated platform that is centered in the backdrop. StEx 7; see also PH2:69-70. The shot occurs at 00:32 of this video. There is one
individual seen to Mr. Kirk’s right and behind Mr. Kirk under the tent.8 This individual is on the opposite side of where the bullet struck Mr. Kirk. See StEx 7, at 00:32. The video has no timestamps.

6 State’s Exhibit 12.1 shows “zoomed in” portions of State’s Exhibit 12.4. PH2:46. 12.1 was received into evidence and played in the courtroom but not published to the cameras in the courtroom. PH2:47.

7 Officer Bagley testified that the Losee Center has four or five levels with level one being courtyard level and the top level has an atrium on top of it. PH1:52.

State’s Exhibit 8, begins with Mr. Kirk in the courtyard throwing hats to members of the crowd. The video has no timestamps. Beginning at 00:32, State’s Exhibit 8 depicts Mr. Kirk seated at the table under the pop-up tent with the same questioner visible in front of Mr. Kirk. There are what appear to be two security personnel in front and diagonal to Mr. Kirk, standing in the grass area by the barrier seen in Exhibit 7. The camera recording Mr. Kirk is visible above and behind Mr. Kirk in State’s Exhibit 7, meaning the camera is angled downward. The shot occurs at 00:48 in this video. One of Mr. Kirk’s security guards comes into frame from the right of Mr. Kirk three seconds after the shot.

State’s Exhibit 9 is UVU surveillance footage from behind the pop-up tent that begins at 12:21:14 PM. The moment of the shot occurs at 02:13 in the video. Confirmed in testimony from Agent Hull, no one is immediately behind the center of the “American Comeback” pop-up tent when the shot occurred. PH2:69. It is also self-evident from this video and State’s Exhibit 7 that no one can “see through” the back of the pop-up tent. See PH2:84-85 (Agent Hull: “You would not be able to see through it.”). Agent Hull testified that he “can’t answer” what would have been visible to the shooter on the Losee Center roof. PH2:68.

Finally, State’s Exhibit 6 depicts twenty-two seconds of the event from the perspective of witness AW. There is no timestamp on the video but based on the content, it appears to be taken close in time to when Mr. Kirk initially sat on the elevated platform under the pop-up tent.

The State’s forensic investigator, Agent Jennifer Faumuina testified that the distance of the slope between the rooftop vantage and the pop-up tent was “approximately 415 feet.” PH4:91. Agent Faumuina also testified that the elevation difference between the bottom of the amphitheater and the Losee roof was “approximately 68 feet.” PH4:92; see also PH1:25 (Officer Bagley description of the amphitheater). Finally, Agent Faumuina testified that the distance without consideration of the slope between the two points was 410 feet. Id.

8 The State claims in its brief that “[a]t least two individuals were standing under the tent where Mr. Kirk was seated[.]” StBr:16. This claim is contrary to the evidence and is indicative of the State’s reckless recitation of the evidence in its brief. See, e.g., StEx 7; StEx 8 at 00:40.

A Mauser model 98 rifle was recovered in a wooded area across the street from the northeast corner of the Losee Center where the individual ran after jumping from the roof. See PH2:126; PH4:96-97; StEx 32. The rifle was a 30.06 caliber with a scope. StExs 10.3, 32; PH2:126. The rifle was a bolt action rifle. PH2:126. In order to “load it, lock it, as well as extract anything that’s in” the rifle, the user has to manipulate the bolt. PH2:102. When law enforcement manipulated the bolt, the rifle had a “fired cartridge case” inside and three unfired cartridges.” Id.; see also StExs 19-22. The fired cartridge case was still in the chamber of the rifle. PH4:106; see also PH4:130-31 (cartridge fired from recovered weapon).

State’s Exhibits 12.1 and 12.4 also contain video of an individual the State’s witnesses identified as Mr. Robinson entering and exiting campus parking structures “four times” on September 10, 2025—twice before the shooting, once at the time of the shooting, and once after the shooting a vehicle is seen matching Mr. Robinson’s on campus. PH1:212-13. The first entry was at approximately 8:30am with an individual State’s witnesses identified as Mr. Robinson returning to his vehicle at approximately 9:25 AM. PH2:29-30. Agent Hull testified that during this initial visit, Mr. Robinson went to the amphitheater area and spoke to “some representatives from TPUSA.” PH2:29. The second entry was at approximately 10:00 AM and Agent Hull testified that Mr. Robinson went to a Chick-fil-A in the Sorenson Center, walked to a wooded area across Campus Drive, and appears at the railing on the walkway between the computer science building and Losee Center roof. PH2:31-32.9 Mr. Robinson left campus the second time “just prior to 11:00am.” PH2:32.

The individual identified as Mr. Robinson is next seen returning to campus in different clothing and walking with “[a] limp” at 11:53:05 AM. See StEx 12.4 at 03:25; TR2:33-35.

9 The State did not show footage of the individual identified as Mr. Robinson’s movements in and around campus during the hearing, only the footage from the parking structures.

According to Agent Hull, the individual he identifies as Mr. Robinson is seen walking in a parking structure, in front of the Losee Center, and then on the walkway between the Computer Science Building and Losee Center at approximately 12:15 PM. TR2:34-35. None of the footage shows the individual identified as Mr. Robinson passing by or near individuals that are clearly minors. See StExs 12.1, 12.4.

A search was later conducted of the residence Mr. Robinson shared with Lance Twiggs in St. George, Utah. PH3:35. In the closet on the first floor of the apartment, law enforcement found “some shooting targets [with] perforations on it[.]” PH4:113; StEx 25. Agent Faumuina testified that the perforations were consistent with bullet holes. PH4:115-16. The targets show perforations outside the target, closer to the target, and then even closer with a perforation in the center. PH4:116.

The communications the State admitted between Mr. Robinson and Mr. Twiggs indicate Mr. Robinson’s intention to kill Charlie Kirk. See StEx 16.3 (“I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I took it.”). There is no mention of any threat or intended harm to any other individual(s).

d. This Court Must Reject the State’s Asserted Theories as to How It Has Established Facts Supporting the KGRD Aggravator Because It Has Failed to Establish the Facts That Are Constitutionally Required.

The State offers two interrelated theories of KGRD that fail to conform to the criteria established by the Utah Supreme Court, criteria which if not met render application of the KGRD aggravator violative of U.S. Const. amend. VIII, XIV and Utah Const. art. I, § 9. Each is deconstructed here.

First, the State has propounded a “line of sight” theory which is based upon out-of-state authority that has never been adopted in Utah. It is primarily based upon the decisions of courts in Pennsylvania before that state enacted a moratorium.10 Moreover, the State’s reliance on this authority fails to support the application of a “line of sight” formulation to the facts it presented at the preliminary hearing. The State’s “line of sight” theory as applied to the “questioner” to the East and below Mr. Kirk fails based upon the facts the State presented to this Court and no further reasonable inferences based upon those facts can support that basis for the aggravator.

10 For over a decade, Pennsylvania has had a moratorium on the death penalty.

The second theory is an “everyone near” argument, which relies upon only one of the three factors identified in Sosa-Hurtado II, and ignores the other two factors which are not present here. Moreover, the State asks the Court to speculate about the shooter’s knowledge. Even assuming that one can infer a knowledge of some risk to the shooter, the State has failed to show that the actual conduct created a “high probability” that someone other than Mr. Kirk would be killed and, thus, this theory fails as a matter of law. Where there were people in some proximity to a discharge of a single projectile from a precision firearm with a high-powered scope which the evidence establishes hit its intended target, the single factor of proximity fails to permit an inference of a subjective knowledge of the shooter of a high probability of risk of death to others. Where no other person was injured in a manner creating a great risk of death, and no other shots were fired, the allegation of a KGRD aggravator cannot be sustained.

i. Line of Sight.

The State broadly argues that certain individuals were in the shooter’s “line of fire.” There are two fatal flaws in the State’s argument—one is factual, and the other is legal.

Factually, the “line of fire” assertion as to the questioner defies logic. The evidence established that there was one shooter on the roof of the Losee Center. Mr. Kirk was seated under a pop-up tent in the center of a courtyard to the southwest of where the shooter was positioned on the roof. See PH1:27 (Losee directly east of amphitheater). The single shot fired travelled from east to west at a downward slope into the bottom of the “bowl” where the tent was located. See StEx 8, at 00:35 (showing crowd at increasing elevation to the East of the pop-up tent); see also StEx 3. State’s Exhibit 7 shows the vantage behind the questioner prior to and at 12:23:28 PM. The questioner is in front of Mr. Kirk—to the East. If the questioner had been in the “line of fire” from a bullet moving towards Mr. Kirk, the questioner would have been struck by the bullet as it travelled. In fact, the State’s evidence shows exactly why the questioner was not in the line of fire—the single bullet came from above. The video evidence shows that Mr. Kirk was seated on an elevated platform and separated from the questioner by a security barrier, a grassy area, and then tables that surrounded Mr. Kirk on three sides. StEx 8, at 00:35. The bullet traveled at a downward angle and hit Mr. Kirk in the left side of his neck. See PH4:91-92; StEx 11. Where Mr. Kirk’s head/neck area was elevated and an unidentified distance away from the questioner (certainly more than a “few feet” away 11), the only evidence presented supports that the bullet travelled above, not through, the crowd.

This Court must also reject the legal theory behind the State’s factual argument. The State asks this Court to adopt its interpretation of out-of-state authority on a “line of fire” theory. However, a thorough examination of the cases which construct a “line of fire” theory are not as the State suggests and support that this Court should not expand Utah’s KGRD application.

In Commonwealth v. Watson, 565 A.2d 132, 134 (Pa. 1989), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered the application of Pennsylvania’s “grave risk” aggravator to a case in which Watson fired three shots into an occupied car, striking an individual twice. Watson then shot the lock off the door of a home, pulled his ex-girlfriend from the closet where she was hiding with her two children, and shot her twice. Id. He then reloaded, left the room, returned, and then shot her again and then shot himself. Id. One of the shots lodged in the door frame around the closet where the children were hiding but did not hit them. Id. Under these facts, the Pennsylvania court affirmed a jury’s finding as to the KGRD aggravating factor because the children in the closet were endangered by his conduct. Id.

11 The State calls this “a few feet” in its brief but there was no evidence of the distance submitted to the Court. StBr:12. The video from behind the questioner, State’s Exhibit 7, shows the distance and speaks for itself.

In Silvia v. State, 60 So. 3d 959, 971-73 (Fla. 2011), the defendant argued that there “was not competent, substantial evidence” to support KGRD because the gunfire was intended only for one person. Id. at 971. The Florida Supreme Court disagreed because Silvia engaged in
“indiscriminate shooting in the direction of at least four persons other than [the intended victim] who were not only put in an immediate and present risk of death but were also in the line of fire.” Id. at 972. One of the other individuals was shot and the defendant “pumped the shotgun” and aimed it at two others. Id. The Court explained:

We therefore conclude there was competent, substantial evidence that Silvia’s actions created a great risk of death to many persons. He approached the house while pumping shells into his shotgun. Pellets hit one of the cars in the carport, different locations in the carport, and the door from the carport to the house. Pellets were found inside the house in the kitchen, dining room, and bedroom. There were six unarmed people in the carport and house when Silvia approached, shooting and pointing the gun at people.

Id.

In Commonwealth v. Reid, 626 A.2d 118, 123 (Pa. 1993), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found sufficient evidence to uphold the “grave risk” aggravating circumstance. Reid had fired multiple gunshots at fleeing children after chasing them in his vehicle. Id. at 119. One of the shots hit a young man in the back, killing him. Id. Less than a week later, Reid killed another individual with the same weapon. Id. The Court noted that “twelve to fourteen others were in the line of fire” when Reid “chased the boys while driving his car” and “gunfire flashed from the windows of Reid’s car” killing the first victim. Id. n.3.

In Commonwealth v. Buck, 709 A.2d 892 (Pa. 1998), the court considered whether the Commonwealth’s notice to the defendant of the aggravating circumstance was sufficient and if the Commonwealth abused its discretion in proceeding on three aggravators, one of them “grave risk.” Id. at 897-98. In finding the Commonwealth did not abuse its discretion in alleging “grave risk,” the Buck Court found that evidence raised a factual question for the jury because, while only one individual was shot and killed, the potentially endangered person stood behind the decedent in a bathroom and, importantly, because the endangered person wrestled with the defendant over the gun after the shot was fired. Id.

In State v. Wood, 881 P.2d 1158 (Ariz. 1994), Wood challenged the application of KGRD in a double-murder case where he did not shoot any persons other than the victims and there were no bystanders in the line of fire. Id. at 69. The court found that although the defendant’s
argument had merit, the interpretation of KGRD proposed was too narrow “under the unusual facts” of the case. Id. The Wood Court found “no single factor is dispositive” of KGRD and the inquiry turns on “whether, during the court of the killing, the defendant knowingly engaged in conduct that created a real and substantial likelihood that a specific person might suffer fatal injury.” Id. Thus, the several factors “in combination” supported KGRD. Id. (emphasis in original). There was the presence of others, the defendant turned to another and it appeared as if he was going to shoot a third individual, another employee fought defendant over the gun, and there was evidence the defendant “knowingly prepared the gun to fire when he assumed a shooting stance toward one employee and when he grappled with another.” Id.

None of these cases support the State’s position here. Each involves conduct directed at the endangered person, consistent with the Utah Supreme Court’s endorsement of the three “zone of danger” factors in Sosa-Hurtado II. In determining if KGRD applies, as a matter of law, this Court must consider if any conduct constituting a great risk of death was directed at any individuals other than the victim. Here, there is none.

Utah has never adopted an interpretation of KGRD that would permit its application where the firing of a single shot at an intended victim that hit only the intended victim, merely because other people were in the vicinity. Nor does the State’s reliance on out of state authorities in which personas other than the decedent are targeted and/or injured support this proposition. As a matter of law, the Court cannot bind Mr. Robinson over on this theory of the KGRD aggravator based on the facts presented by the State.

ii. The State’s “Anyone Near” Argument Similarly Fails Both Factually and as a Matter of Law.

The State’s second argument in support of the KGRD aggravator is that the shooter knowingly “created a great risk of death to everyone near Mr. Kirk” when a single shot was fired. StBr:14. The State’s argument here also fails because it requires the Court to speculate in the absence of evidence that would otherwise permit reasonable inferences. Moreover, the State’s argument fails again, as a matter of law, because the conduct here fails to satisfy any of the three
factors the Utah Supreme Court has held must be present in order for the KGRD aggravator to be pursued in a manner which does not violate a defendant’s constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

1. Knowledge.

The State asks this Court to make a finding that the shooter knowingly created a “high probability of a grave risk of death” based upon speculation that is not supported by the evidence. The State speculates, and asks this Court to speculate:

a) That the shooter actually observed security personnel standing an unknown distance from Mr. Kirk;

b) That the shooter may have known that there were people behind the pop-up tent when the single shot was fired, although the State’s evidence actually shows otherwise.

c) That the shooter knew that they may strike someone other than the intended target because there were four cartridges found in the rifle.

d) That the shooter knew that they may strike someone other than the intended target because targets with bullet holes in them were recovered from Mr. Robinson’s shared apartment.

e) That the shooter knew they may strike someone other than the intended target because the rifle may have been taken apart and put back together.

These assertions are not reasonable inferences from the evidence actually presented and, in one instance, are actually inconsistent with the evidence before the Court. The evidence does not support that the shooter acted knowingly, that is, that the shooter was aware that there was a high probability that someone else may die from his single gunshot that hit the intended victim.

As to a), the State’s evidence shows that the presumed shooter was on the Losee Center roof, in a “prone” position, for approximately 35-44 seconds before firing their weapon once. See StEx 12.4. According to the State’s evidence, this means that the shooter had approximately forty seconds after coming to rest to ready their rifle, acquire the target with the scope on the rifle, steady their breathing, and fire the weapon. The State asks the Court to speculate about what the shooter saw through the scope during this limited window of time while focusing on these tasks. However, one of the State’s case agents, Agent Hull, testified that he could not testify as to what the shooter saw. PH2:68. Indeed, the only reasonable inference from this limited time window and the fact that Mr. Kirk was shot, was that the shooter observed Mr. Kirk through his scope.

As to b), the State’s assertion that the shooter would have known that there were individuals behind the pop-up tent is not a reasonable inference supported by its own evidence. In fact, State’s Exhibit 9 shows no one directly behind where Mr. Kirk was located when the single shot was fired. PH2:70 (“There’s no one stood in the middle behind the tent”). Moreover, the shooter could not, of course, see through the tent and, again, was on the rooftop vantage for only 35-44 seconds before taking a single shot with a high-powered rifle with a precision scope attached to it, and then immediately fleeing to the back of the rooftop area.

The State relies on surveillance footage from earlier in the day on September 10, 2025 to suggest that the shooter had knowledge that there would be people behind the pop-up tent during the event. The State’s evidence is that Mr. Robinson was on campus at 8:30 AM and went to the amphitheater at that time, three and a half hours before the event began. See StEx 12.4. The State asks the Court to speculate that the amphitheater, and the people around it, looked to the shooter at that time just as it did four hours later when the shot was fired, as depicted in State’s Exhibits 6, 7, 8 and 9. There is no evidence from which the Court can make such an inference and, again, the evidence is that the shooter had an extremely narrow window of time to observe the intended target through the scope of the rifle. The only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that the shooter saw the intended target.

As to c), the State asks the Court to speculate about the shooter’s “knowledge” that he was creating a high probability that someone else could be killed because the recovered Mauser 98 had more than one round of ammunition in it. This is a circumstance in which the State cannot prove one inference is more likely than any other and is thus asking this Court to speculate. See Cristobal, 2010 UT App 228, ¶ 16. It is just as likely that the shooter did not believe he would miss as it is that the shooter believed as the State speculates. Having a loaded weapon does not mean that the individual believes there is a high probability of missing and killing someone else. It only means that they have the ability to fire more than one round. The facts here are that the shooter did not miss his intended target and did not chamber another round, leaving the spent cartridge in the rifle. See PH4:106, 130-31.

As to d), the State argues that targets taken from Mr. Robinson’s apartment support an inference that Mr. Robinson used the targets in connection with the shooting at UVU and therefore knew of a high probability of a risk of death to others. However, this Court cannot reasonably infer that Mr. Robinson’s alleged use of the targets at some point in time in the past with some unknown weapon led to such knowledge on his part. The State presented no evidence of when the targets were used, what weapon was used with the targets, the conditions under which the targets were used, or even that Mr. Robinson was alone in shooting at the targets (i.e. that all of the target shots were fired by him). Without any evidence tying the targets to the seized weapon, the relevant timeframe, and the conditions under which the targets were used, the targets are not a basis for any reasonable inference about the shooter’s state of mind.

As to e), the State also asks this Court to speculate that after scoping the rifle, it was taken apart and put back together prior to the shooting, and that therefore the shooter knew that a lack of accuracy created a high probability of risk of death to others. StBr:11. The State presented no evidence to support any inference that rifle was in pieces at any time. The video evidence shows Mr. Robinson walking up and down stairs at UVU with a gait impaired by something long in his pant leg—the reasonable inference from the evidence provided is that it was a fully assembled rifle. See StEx 12.4 at 03:25. The presence of a screwdriver on the roof does not establish that the rifle was taken apart and put back together any more than it establishes that the screwdriver was intended to take the rifle apart after the shooting.12 The State did not present any evidence as to how the screwdriver could have been used to disassemble and reassemble this weapon in the period of time at issue. Even if the Court draws the inference that there is a connection between the rifle and the screwdriver, the Court cannot then reasonably infer from that inference that a rifle deconstructed and then reconstructed would be less accurate, let alone that the shooter knew of that risk. See Salt Lake City v. Gallegos, 2015 UT App 78, ¶ 10, 347 P.3d 842.

12 The State cites to PH1:72-73 to support this assertion. The testimony from Officer Bagley here is “a red and black screwdriver” was observed “10 or 15 feet in from the other side of the guardrail in the gravel.” There is no development of the State’s theory in this testimony.

2. Presence Alone Is Insufficient as a Matter of Law to Show KGRD.

Even assuming arguendo that the shooter had knowledge that there were other individuals near Mr. Kirk, this fact alone does not satisfy that there was great risk of death to another. The State relies on cases from Pennsylvania for the assertion that “a zone of danger encompasses everyone near a shooting victim.” StBr:16-17. As noted above, Utah has never adopted a formulation of KGRD under which a single gunshot fired at a specifically identified target who was near others is sufficient to establish KGRD. Moreover, the cases cited by the State from Pennsylvania, again, do not support its position, as explained below.

In Commonwealth v. Rios, 684 A.2d 1025 (Pa. 1996), three assailants entered a home to commit a robbery. The residence was occupied by four individuals. Two of the individuals were beaten and multiple firearms were involved. All four of the victims were forced to lay down either on a bed or on the floor in a single bedroom, and one of them was shot and killed. Id. at 1028. The court found that the facts presented at trial supported the KGRD finding because the fatal bullet was fired “while the victim lay on the floor of an enclosed bedroom” with one individual “on the floor close to the victim” and the others on the bed nearby. Id. at 1037.

In Commonwealth v. Ly, 599 A.2d 613, 622 (Pa. 1991), the court upheld the finding of “grave risk” when three assailants with multiple firearms shot one individual in the head inside the kitchen of a restaurant while the murder victim’s sister was “standing directly next to” her.

In Commonwealth v. Smith, 540 A.2d 246, 248 (Pa. 1988), the Commonwealth presented “medical and forensic evidence” to demonstrate “grave risk of death to another person[.]” The evidence demonstrated that four shots were fired by the defendant. Id. The first shot fired hit the victim, who fell but then tried to get up. Id. Thereafter, the defendant fired three more shots at the victim—three of the rounds lodged in the victim while a fourth passed through. One of the bullets fired at the victim ricocheted off of a solid surface before hitting the victim. Id. at 248.
There were several people on the porch in “very close proximity” to the murder victim. Id. at 260. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the finding by the jury on these facts. Id.

In Commonwealth v. Wright, 961 A.2d 119, 146 (Pa. 2008), the evidence supporting “grave risk” was that Wright “broke into a small bedroom while swinging his loaded gun in all directions” then put his gun to the victim’s wife’s head. Once finding the victim, Wright “fired five shots at him, three of which went through him and one of which was never located.” Id. The victim was “only a few feet from the bed on which the child was lying, and shell casings were found all over the bedroom.” Id. The Pennsylvania court determined that under these circumstances, it was proper to leave “the grave risk of danger determination to the jury.” Id.

The significant factual differences between these cases and the case before this Court are plain. The bullet that struck and killed Mr. Kirk was not fired in an enclosed bedroom or space but rather, an open-air arena with what the State’s witnesses termed, “a clear line of sight.” There were no threats to others in the course of conduct. There was no one “directly” next to Mr. Kirk when he was shot, and there was no one under the tent on the side that Mr. Kirk was struck or behind him in the breezeway. Multiple shots were not fired. There were no ricocheting bullets.

These cases, from a state with a moratorium on its own death penalty, are not Utah law and do not support the State’s call for this Court to adopt out of state authority that vastly expands Utah’s KGRD aggravator beyond its constitutionally narrow application, as explained in Sosa-Hurtado II, Johnson, and Pierre. Utah law requires this Court to look at more than mere presence and to determine there is a “high probability,” not a “mere possibility” that another would be killed by the shooter’s conduct and that the shooter knew of that high probability.

e. A Plenary of Jurisdictions Support Utah’s Narrow Construction of KGRD.

Many other jurisdictions have interpreted KGRD as the Utah Supreme Court has—a multifactor analysis that examines the course of conduct of the defendant and actions toward the “another” in determining both the defendant’s knowledge and the probability of risk.

For example, Oklahoma has determined that evidence is sufficient to support KGRD where “the defendant created a great risk of death in close proximity in terms of time, location,
and intent to the killing, or threatened the life of another and had the apparent ability and means of taking that person’s life.” Lockett v. Trammel, 711 F.3d 1218, 1243 (10th Cir. 2013) (internal citations omitted) (cleaned up). In the rare instances where the person at risk was not actually injured, “the defendants in those cases seriously considered killing people other than the actual victims.” Valdez v. State, 900 P.2d 363, 383 & n.97 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995).

In the Oklahoma case of Littlejohn v. State, 989 P.2d 901 (Okla. Crim. App. 1998), the court considered the sufficiency of the evidence supporting KGRD. The court found the evidence was insufficient to support KGRD aggravating factor where the prosecution presented no evidence that defendant “considered injuring anyone other than the actual victim.” Id. at 912. Although defendant pointed a gun at a clerk when he asked for the store’s money, this act was driven by defendant’s intent to rob. Id. Additionally, only a single shot was fired and it hit its intended victim, rather than endangering anyone else present in the store. Id. As summarized:

This is not a case where the defendant shot wildly into a store or a crowd. Only one shot was fired. This shot hit its intended victim. This single shot did not endanger anyone else present in the store. Consequently, under the specific circumstances of this case, we find the evidence was insufficient to prove Littlejohn knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person.

Id. See also Brecheen v. Reynolds, 41 F.3d 1343, 1361 (10th Cir. 1994) (rejecting Eighth Amendment vagueness challenge to KGRD because reviewing Oklahoma case law, “Oklahoma courts provided consistent guidance to the jury so as to limit its discretion”).

The Wyoming Supreme Court upheld KGRD in Engberg v. State, 668 P.2d 541 (Wyo. 1984), concluding: “In shooting errantly at persons in parked vehicles in the lot, Engberg manifested an utter disregard for lives of innocent persons. This evidence demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Engberg knowingly created a great risk of death to two or more persons.” Id. at 557 (emphasis added). Later, Olsen v. State, 2003 WY 46, 67 P.3d 536, addressed another “bystander” case. The Olsen Court noted the State failed to produce evidence or suggest “that there were other bystanders involved who were threatened with grave harm as Olsen shot his intended victims.” Id. ¶ 121. Thus, “[s]trictly construing the Wyoming statute” the Olsen Court found “the use of the terms ‘risk’ and ‘persons’ was given its proper application in Engberg’s
factual situation of placing bystanders in a parking lot at great risk of death by errant shooting.” Id. ¶ 123.

In the Alabama case of White v. State, 587 So. 2d 1218, 1232 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990), the appellate court upheld the finding of KGRD where, “the defendant indiscriminately fired a shotgun into an occupied dwelling containing not only the victim but two other people” and “the defendant fired the pistol out in the front yard in a residential neighborhood where many other people were present.” The Court found “the defendant’s conduct in the indiscriminate firing of these weapons did, in fact, create a great risk of death to many other people.” Id.

Finally, there is also an almost identical federal statutory aggravator. See 18 U.S.C. § 3592(c)(5) (“defendant, in the commission of the offense, or in escaping apprehension for the violation of the offense, knowingly created a grave risk of death to 1 or more persons in addition to the victim of the offense.”). In United States v. McVeigh, 944 F. Supp. 1478, 1490 (D. Colo. 1996), the Oklahoma City bombing case, the district court found the inclusion of KGRD in the indictment was proper where “[t]he government intend[ed] to prove that the truck bomb was of such force as to create a risk to persons who were not physically affected by the explosion.” Similarly, in United States v. Bin Laden, 126 F. Supp. 2d 290, 300 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), another bombing case, the district court sanctioned the inclusion of KGRD as an aggravator noting KGRD “relates to Defendants’ mental state with respect to persons who were not the intended victims of the bombings.” The Bin Laden Court noted, there may be “a qualitative difference between a defendant who carefully targets an intended victim or victims without endangering others, and one who acts with indifference to ‘additional persons.’” Id. n.15.

These examples are non-exhaustive13 but illustrate how other jurisdictions have interpreted KGRD consistently with the Utah Supreme Court. These jurisdictions all require a
close examination of the defendant’s course of conduct and the mental state of the defendant relative to the “other” individuals.

13 See also State v. Johnson, 284 S.W.3d 561, 577 (Mo. 2009) (upheld the jury’s finding of KGRD where the defendant shot a law enforcement officer multiple times “and a bullet struck a juvenile standing next to the patrol car.”); State v. Hazelton, 985 P.2d 698 (Kan. 1999) (upholding KGRD where defendant lured two victims to the woods, intended to shoot both, shot one victim, and shortly thereafter shot the other victim—demonstrating a “course of conduct”); State v. Carver, 356 S.E.2d 349 (N.C. 1987) (trial court did not err in finding KGRD
where defendant fired multiple shots in a crowd of people with a semi-automatic rifle capable of firing eight bullets without being reloaded); Johnson v. State, 38 S.W.3d 52 (Tenn. 2001) (“we decline to adopt a per se rule that would automatically allow this aggravating circumstance in all felony murder cases where the defendant is armed with a pistol and others are present. Such a per se rule would not adequately provide for individualized sentencing, and it would unnecessarily broaden [KGRD] to a point that it would fail in its essential function of narrowing the death-eligible class.”); Porter v. State, 732 So. 2d 899 (Miss. 1999) (evidentiary basis insufficient where a defendant, hired to kill the victim, hid outside the doorway of the victim’s home and shot him when he came to the door, fleeing afterwards despite the fact that there were other persons in the house); State v. Sandoval, 788 N.W.2d 172, 219 (Neb. 2010) (three men with semiautomatic handguns entered bank full of people and fired at the people in the bank; the three survivors “were within range of Sandoval’s weapon at all times and he unquestionably placed them at a great risk of death”).

II. Count Six Must Be Stricken Because the Evidence Does Not Establish That Mr. Robinson’s Statement to Mr. Twiggs to “Ask for a Lawyer and Stay Silent” was Intended to Obstruct an Investigation.

Count Six charges Mr. Robinson with “tampering with a witness” in violation of Utah Code § 76-8-508. The Information alleges that Mr. Robinson committed this offense by “directing his roommate to stay silent if police questioned the roommate.” Information at 3. The State alleges that by telling Mr. Twiggs to exercise his right under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution to ask for counsel and to remain silent, Mr. Robinson “attempted to induce or otherwise cause his roommate to ... withhold testimony or information” with the “inten[t] to prevent an official proceeding or investigation.”

Count Six must be stricken because Mr. Robinson’s advice to Mr. Twiggs is consistent with the long-standing constitutional principle that every person in this country has “the right to remain silent” in the face of government interrogation, and because the context in which the allegedly improper statement was made demonstrates that it was “purely altruistic” and for Mr. Twiggs’ benefit, rather than for the purpose of obstructing an investigation.

“Where the inducer’s motive in advising [another] to remain silent is to impede the investigation against him, rather than to give purely altruistic advice, he is obstructing justice.” United States v. Peterson, 385 F.3d 127, 142 (2d Cir. 2004). The inverse is therefore true. Where the advice is purely altruistic, one is not obstructing justice.

Mr. Robinson’s advice to Mr. Twiggs was as follows:

If any police ask you questions, ask for a lawyer and stay silent. My lawyer should be Doug Terry, I’ll see if he can reach out to you. And make sure the police follow the right procedures, proper warrants and stuff, but be polite and respectful of course.

StEx 16.1.

Whether an individual who is under investigation is obstructing that investigation or providing “truly altruistic” advice to another requires a context-specific analysis. Here, the conversation between Mr. Twiggs and Mr. Robinson demonstrates that Mr. Robinson’s focus was on protecting Mr. Twiggs from any fallout from the events which had transpired, and not on inducing him to obstruct an investigation. He says to Mr. Twiggs:

Im gonna turn myself in willingly, one of my neighbors here is a deputy for the sheriff. We hope to keep things sorta quiet here. I only hope they let you visit.
…
I’m gonna miss you too. Please be good for me. If you need anything at all both of my parents are willing to help you. Please go to them. … leave the room alone. The feds will search it top to bottom for certain, then work with my family to sort it out, what goes where and such
…
In response to Mr. Twiggs’ question, “is there any way you don’t go to prison?”

Mr. Robinson responded:

I highly doubt it. I will update you as much as I can. If you need a place to stay im sure my family would have you in my old room.
…
You are all I worry about love
…
Don’t talk to any media please. don’t take any interviews or make comments.
…
I will always love you too. I will write to you as often as possible.
…
If any police ask you questions ask for a lawyer and stay silent… make sure the police follow the right procedures, proper warrants and stuff, be polite and respectful of course

StEx 16.1.

These statements by Mr. Robinson contextualize his altruistic advice to Mr. Twiggs to exercise his rights under the Fifth Amendment, “to ask for a lawyer and stay silent” The facts do not support the State’s allegation that this statement by Mr. Robinson was made with an intent to prevent an official proceeding or investigation. Count Six must be stricken.

III. Count Seven Must Be Stricken Because the Evidence Does Not Establish That Mr. Robinson Had Knowledge That a Child Under the Age of 14 Was Present and Would See or Hear the Commission of the Charged Homicide.

The Information charges Mr. Robinson, in Count Seven, with the substantive offense of knowingly exposing a child under the age of 14 to the charged homicide, in violation of Utah Code § 76-3-203-10(2).

This section of Utah law requires that the State prove that a violent offense occurred “in the physical presence of a child younger than 14 years old” with the defendant “having knowledge that the child is present and may see or hear the commission of a violent criminal offense.” Utah Code § 76-3-203-10(2).

The State has failed to present sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that Mr. Robinson did in fact have the requisite knowledge. While the State presented a video which shows two children, in fact, present at the TPUSA rally at UVU on September 10, 2025, the State presented no evidence that the shooter was aware of this child’s presence, nor that he was aware of the presence of any other child under the age of 14. See StEx 6.

Without any evidentiary support, the State invites this Court to speculate that Mr. Robinson, from approximately 400 feet away and during a 35-44 second period, came to be aware of the presence of children under the age of 14, relying upon Mr. Robinson’s alleged walking tour of the campus several hours before the TPUSA rally began. There was no evidence that Mr. Robinson was anywhere near the crowd that formed prior to the rally, or that he observed children or families with children making their way to the space where the rally occurred. Indeed, the path Mr. Robinson travelled as visible in State’s Exhibits 12.1 and 12.4 suggests Mr. Robinson did not even pass anyone that could be identified as under 14 years old.

The reasonable inferences might differ if the location of the incident were not a college campus. If a defendant were to engage in crimes of violence at an obviously occupied elementary school or a day care facility, it might be reasonable to infer the knowledge required under Count Seven. With the evidence as it is, this is not a reasonable inference.

a. The “Violent Offense Committed in the Presence of a Child” Aggravating Factor Must Be Stricken for the Same Reason—There Is No Evidence That Mr. Robinson Had the Requisite Knowledge.

Separate and apart from Count Seven, the State has alleged the identical aggravating factor in connection with Counts One and Two, pursuant to Utah Code section 76-3-203.9. The analysis is no different. There is no evidence that Mr. Robinson had the requisite knowledge and the State improperly invites the Court to speculate. See Murphy, 2026 UT App 38, ¶ 10 (“An inference is a conclusion reached by considering other facts and deducing a logical consequence from them,” and speculation entails “the act or practice of theorizing about matters over which there is no certain knowledge at hand.” (citation omitted)). Id.

b. The State’s Backup Position, That Sentencing Enhancements Are Not Subject to Proof at a Preliminary Hearing, Is Inconsistent with Well-Established Constitutional Law.

The State asserts that the enhancements alleged in the Information are not subject to this Court’s review in a preliminary hearing. The State is incorrect about this important matter and relies on an invalidated distinction between “elements” and “sentencing factors”. While the Utah Supreme Court did so hold in cases in the 1970s and 1980s, in the year 2000 the United States Supreme Court squarely held that any fact which increases the potential punishment in a case, other than criminal history facts, are elements of the offense which must be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Apprendi v. New Jersey 530 U.S. 466 (1980). In fact, the Court wrote, “It is unconstitutional for a legislature to remove from the jury the assessment of facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed. It is equally clear that such facts must be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 490.

Here, the State has charged Mr. Robinson, in an Information subject to a probable cause determination, with two separate sentencing enhancements, each of which carries the possibility of increasing Mr. Robinson’s punishment. Utah Code § 76-3-203.9 requires the sentencing court or the Board of Pardons and Parole to consider whether “the knowing presence of a child” enhancement has been proven in the course of exercising their authority over sentencing and release decisions. Utah Code § 6-3-203.14 is a “victim targeting enhancement” which makes “one classification higher” the offense for which the defendant was convicted. Therefore, it too is subject to Apprendi.

Where the State has elected not to proceed by way of grand jury but instead elects to present the evidence in support of its Information to a magistrate, the defendant’s constitutional right not to be tried on any of the charged offenses absent an initial finding of probable cause extends to enhancements that increase the potential punishment. This is a logical consequence of Apprendi, which eliminated, with exceptions not applicable here, the distinction between elements of an offense and sentencing factors which increase the maximum punishment.

The State must prove each of the enhancements to this Court, sitting as a Magistrate, by probable cause. As to the “violent offense committed in the presence of a child” Mr. Robinson has explained above why the State has failed to meet its burden of proof. Mr. Robinson now turns to the second enhancement alleged in the Information, the allegation that Mr. Robinson selected Mr. Kirk based upon Mr. Robinson’s views of Mr. Kirk’s political expression.

IV. The State Has Failed to Produce Reliable Evidence That the “Victim Targeting Enhancement” Applies Here.

The “victim targeting enhancement” set forth in Utah Code section 76-3-203(14) is focused on the defendant’s perception concerning a “personal attribute” of the victim. The single “personal attribute” alleged in the Information is Mr. Kirk’s “political expression” (§ 76-3-203(14)(1)(k)) without any further specificity in the charging document. In support of this enhancement, the State proffers two disconnected sets of facts which fail to establish probable cause.

One set is Exhibit 5.1, a Rule 1102 witness statement of David Englehardt, a pastor. Pastor Englehardt’s statement contains no information concerning Mr. Robinson’s state of mind
as to Mr. Kirk’s political expressions. While it purports to present this Court with information as to what Charlie Kirk believed “as all theologically-orthodox-Christians believe” about gender identity and sexuality, it does not identity any specific statements made by Mr. Kirk on these topics prior to September 10, 2025. It also identifies subject matters that Mr. Kirk would debate and discuss at various events, but it does not identify a specific political expression of Mr. Kirk on such topics, let alone statements of Mr. Kirk that were both known to and motivated Mr. Robinson.

Therefore, Mr. Englehardt’s written sermon as to what “all theologically-orthodox-Christians” including Mr. Kirk “believe” does not establish that Mr. Robinson “intentionally” selected “the victim of the criminal offense because of the defendant’s belief or perception regarding the victim’s personal attribute or a personal attribute of another individual or group of individuals with whom the victim has a relationship.”

The only other “fact” is Mr. Robinson’s statement to Mr. Twiggs, “I had enough of his hatred.” StEx 16.1. Mr. Robinson does not tell Mr. Twiggs in this text exchange, nor was there, according to Mr. Twiggs, any prior communication between them concerning Mr. Kirk, nor that Mr. Robinson targeted Mr. Kirk because of his religious beliefs or his political beliefs or any other category of beliefs. He refers to “hatred” and nothing more.

Ironically, it is the State that argues that because Mr. Robinson and Mr. Twiggs are two men who love each other and/or, it speculates, because Mr. Twiggs (and not Mr. Robinson) was at least intermittently identifying as a female to his close friends, it is Mr. Kirk’s views on these topics which are the “hatred” Mr. Robinson was referring to.

These circumstances are not sufficient to establish, even by probable cause which if any political expression of Mr. Kirk motivated Mr. Robinson to select Mr. Kirk for an act of violence. There is no evidence of specific political expressions of Mr. Kirk which, if any, Mr. Robinson may have been aware of or focused on. There are no writings attributed to Mr. Robinson on this topic. There are no other statements by Mr. Robinson to third parties which address Mr. Kirk or his political viewpoints and Mr. Robinson’s perception of them. After searching his residence, his parents’ residence, his computers, his telephone, Mr. Twiggs’ telephone, and hundreds of law enforcement interviews, there is nothing to base this sentencing enhancement upon other than that single criticism of Mr. Kirk’s “hatred”.

In the face of the absence of evidence, the State focuses on Mr. Robinson’s sexuality and Mr. Twiggs’ gender identity, if only because those are two topics on which Mr. Kirk was, in fact, widely viewed as expressing hatred and intolerance. However, that is not an evidentiary substitute for proof that Mr. Robinson targeted Mr. Kirk because of those expressions. It is the State’s speculation that he did so.

The victim targeting enhancement must be stricken.

CONCLUSION

In relying largely on hearsay deemed reliable by rule, the State has failed to prove probable cause by reliable evidence that satisfies each element of each of the charged evidence. For this reason alone, this Court must decline bindover. In addition, the State has not provided this Court with sufficient evidence, as a matter of law, to satisfy the sole alleged aggravator in the Information. Under controlling constitutional law and Utah Supreme Court interpretation, the Court cannot find based on the State’s evidence that the circumstances presented a great risk of death to another other than Charlie Kirk and himself, and that the shooter knew of this “high probability” of death of another. Finally, the Court should decline to bindover on the State’s alleged aggravators and Counts 6 and 7 where the State requires this Court to speculate in the absence of evidence to establish essential elements.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 11th day of August, 2026.

/s/ Kathryn N. Nester
Kathryn N. Nester

/s/ Michael N. Burt
Michael N. Burt

/s/ Richard G. Novak
Richard G. Novak

/s/ Staci Visser
Staci Visser

Attorneys for Defendant, Tyler James Robinson

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via the Court’s electronic filing system on the 11th day of August, 2026, thereby serving all attorneys of record.

/s/ Staci Visser

[admin]

I noticed something huge about Erika Kirk’s Make heaven crowded Tour
NissCee.Social
Aug 13, 2026

Greg Laurie Video: • The Truth About Erika Kirk's Charity Work ...



Transcript

Chapter 1: The Curious Case of Erika Kirk The amazing Erica Kirk, a woman who was born on both November 20th and November 22nd because she's just that amazing. Erica, who at the age of only 5 years old was coached at the YMCA by Charles Barkley, who at the time was at the peak of his NBA career, but still managed to find time to coach her. My I started playing basketball when I was five. My first coach, he was Charles Barkley of all people, which is amazing to have as your five-year-old YMCA coach.

Sure, Jan. Erica Kirk, or as I like to call her, the little teapot because she just loves to pour into people. I poured into him. Pour into each other this weekend.

Just being able to pour into each other. You can still pour into it, but you have your babies. Thank you for taking the time to pour into my husband. People around you that will pour into that where they can be poured into and priests pour into me.

pouring into your family and so you pouring into each other, you know, pour into her into the situation is probably like the best thing just to have someone locally. Chapter 2: Questionable Ideas and Controversial Tours Not only does she enjoy pouring into people, but she is a woman full of great ideas like recreating the crime scene of her deceased husband and allowing fans to take pictures in it or wearing this outfit to be taken more seriously. All of those were such great ideas, but Erica's greatest idea of all was the Make Heaven Crowded tour. Not only was it a poor choice of words after the death of her husband, but it also insinuates that God didn't create heaven with enough space for all of his children.

But still, great idea. Amazing idea to choose that name for the tour. And on top of that, the tour has been going amazing. There have been cancelled tour stops.

Erica has chosen not to appear at some of the stops that she was scheduled to appear at. And while looking into some of the controversies surrounding the tour, I stumbled across an amazing detail that doesn't raise any suspicion at all. And for those of you who are not wellversed in sarcasm, I stumbled across some shadyit and I want to talk about it. Hello everyone.

If you're a new viewer, welcome. If you're a returning viewer, welcome back. If this is your second, third, or fourth time watching one of my videos and you are not yet subscribed, we already go together. Okay, make it official and hit that subscribe button.

Before I get into Chapter 3: A Quick Giveaway Update today's video, there is an important matter that I need to address. Last month, I did announce a giveaway of this beautiful diamond infinity necklace from Anna Lucia Beltran Diamonds. Analucia Beltran Diamonds is one of my sponsors. I am wearing a necklace from her line as well as this ring because I absolutely love her jewelry.

Analucia's diamonds are real diamonds for real women. They are lab grown diamonds, so they are chemically and optically the same as natural diamonds. The only difference is that they weren't mined, so they are 100% cruelty-free. Also, the diamonds are VS Clarity F color, which means they are top of the line.

And above all else, they're very affordable. Now, Anna Lucia was kind enough to give me two diamond necklaces to give away to two viewers. And the first winner is Shelby 726. So, congratulations to her.

But there's still a second necklace up for grabs, and I will announce that winner in September. To be eligible to win, all you have to do is be subscribed to my channel, like this video, and leave a comment telling me something that you enjoyed about this video or learned while watching it. Also, make sure you have your notifications on so you don't miss when I select a winner. And of course, there can only be one winner of the giveaway, but I do have something to offer everyone else, and that is 20% off your purchase, which is a very generous discount.

So, make sure to take advantage of it while it's still available. To save 20% off your order, use my code Nissi at checkout. And as always, the link is in the description box down below. A special thanks to Ann Lucia Beltran Diamonds for sponsoring this video.

So, let's talk about the Make Heaven Crowded tour. Now, if you've Chapter 4: The Rocky Start of the Revival Tour been watching my channel, then you're probably already aware of the fact that on the very first tour stop, they went to Harvest Church in Riverside, California, and Greg Lori was a guest speaker. Now, Greg Lori has deep ties to the Calvary Chapel Association, which is a network of megaurches across America, and that's going to become relevant later because we're going to revisit the Calvary Chapel. But as far as the decision to have Greg Lorie speak at that very first stop on the Make Heaven Crowded tour, it was very controversial.

And the reason that it was so controversial is because at the time and even as I'm making this video today, there are at least 22 victims who are suing Greg Lorie, his church, and his associates for allegedly being complicit in child traff. I spoke about that more in depth in this video and I will link it down below as well as include it in the end card so you can check it out after this. But that's how the Make Heaven Crowded tour got kicked off with this big controversy back in January of 2026. Then in February of 2026, more controversy.

The Make Heaven Crowded tour was scheduled to speak at Orlando First Baptist Church on February 25th. However, the stop was cancelled due to backlash. " The Florida Mega Church is one of 32 stops on the revival tour that mixes Christian nationalism with Christian evangelism. TPUSA was founded by the late Charlie Kirk and is now led by his widow, Erica Kirk.

The nationwide tour has been roundly criticized for using churches to promote mega politics. So, there was a ton of push back at this church and ultimately the tour stop was cancelled and TPUSA removed all mention of it from their website. Although the Wayback Machine never forgets. Fast forward to April and Erica Kirk made an appearance at the Pastor Summit in Grapevine, Texas.

This wasn't a part of the Make Heaven Crowded tour. It was a separate event hosted by TPUSA Faith and Erica did make a speech at this event. However, you wouldn't be able to tell that by looking at the TPUSA Faith YouTube channel because they included literally everyone else but her. On the TPUSA Faith YouTube channel, I couldn't find Erica Kirk's entire speech.

Why? Why? Why? Why?

Why? It seems as though they have strategically excluded clips from Erica's speech from their YouTube channel. And they probably did this because the clips that were circulating on social media, they weren't wellreceived. Like this one where she tells the audience a real story that really happened to her, yet has to read it all off of a sheet of paper while angrily telling the audience to count it all joy.

Count it all joy. Being persecuted and lied about, count it all joy. You're being slandered, count it all joy. You're being lied about, count it all joy.

Your church is being persecuted. Count it all joy. There's graffiti all over it now. Count it all joy.

You have people coming in and out of your congregation. Count it all joy. Count it all joy. Like I said, this event wasn't a part of the Make Heaven Crowded tour, but I mention it because Erica's speech just wasn't wellreceived.

People rightfully pointed out that she speaks in word salads and nonsequiters. She makes these very scary glares while speaking and she just keeps feigning being relatable. And I was eating cereal. It was like 10:00 at night.

That's a mom dinner. So, a week later on April 29th, 2026, when she was supposed to speak at a Make Heaven Crowded Tour event at Preston Baptist Church in Texas, this happened. Hey everyone, I'm sorry I'm not able to physically be with you tonight. I am taking some time to be with my family.

But I wanted to at least send you a video to just really let you know how grateful I am for all of you and for your support with our TPSA Faith Make Heaven Crowded Tour. We are so blessed to have such a phenomenal team and and you all are so blessed to have Jack Graham as your pastor. Um but there's a lot going on right now um in this world. The noise at this point is palpable.

And after Charlie's murder, I like many of you feel like a revival broke out. And since then, the enemy, the devil himself, I feel as if he's unleashed all the demons all over the place to hijack this revival. " I mean, obviously he's awful, but the the context of that really put it into perspective. And you know, I find myself quite often just saying out loud, even to the enemy, what God has spoken, hell cannot and will not silence.

And we are promised that if God has commanded it, no force of darkness can ever stop it. You can war against it. You can mock it. You can try to bury it, but if God said it, good luck.

And that's the sentiment that I think all of us should have at this point. But I can promise you, the revival will continue to rise. Erica didn't show up. Now, to be clear, Erica is not scheduled to be a guest speaker at every stop on the Make Heaven Crowded tour, but many of the stops that she was scheduled to speak at, she is cancelled.

She also didn't show up to the event on July 7th, 2026 at Livingston's church, nor the event at Dream City Church on August 5th, 2026. Chapter 5: Is This Video Actually AI? Instead of getting to see Erica, the audience got to see a pre-recorded video. And there has been an online debate about whether or not this pre-recorded video is AI.

Take a look. Hello everyone. I wish I could be there with you tonight. I'm really grateful that you came out to be a part of the Make Heaven Crowded tour.

This night is about one thing, lifting up the name of Jesus and creating space for people to hear the gospel clearly. And across the country, we are seeing churches gather with a shared purpose. And it is amazing. It's to proclaim the truth of God's word, to call people to repentance and faith, and to believe again that Jesus Christ is still transforming lives today.

And even though I could not be there with you tonight, you all are in great hands with the team that is with you. They're phenomenal. We are so blessed to have them. And my prayer is simple.

That the Lord would move in a powerful way tonight and that hearts would be open to the gospel and that many people would leave this room forever changed by Jesus Christ. Thank you for being a part of Make Heaven Crowded Tour. God bless you all. What do you guys think?

Do you think that video is AI? My first impression of the video is that it is likely AI. Like I don't know for sure, but when you compare it to Erica's other teleprompter speeches, this one just looks off. Erica usually has a cold death stare, and this video, ironically, in my opinion, doesn't have that.

There's actually warmth behind her eyes, and that's exactly why I don't think it's her. I think it's I think it's AI because I'm just so used to Erica being very robotic and very scary in the face. Do you guys think that video is AI? I genuinely want to know your thoughts.

let me know in the comment section down below. But I want to move on to something a little bit more serious. Okay, there is something that I noticed when I was going through all of the individual tour dates on the Make Heaven Crowded tour, looking up the churches, looking at the people that were speaking at these events, and I noticed something that I want to bring to your guys attention. And do you guys remember how when the memorial for Charlie Kirk happened, there were questions on how they managed to secure such a large venue on short notice and pulled together this whole pyrochnic fililled political rally, I mean memorial.

And there were suspicions and rumors about the event space having been secured in advance, implying fornowledge of Charlie's death. And I don't believe that that theory has ever been proven or disproven. But I do have that same question when it comes to the Make Heaven Crowded tour. We have been told that this tour came together after Charlie's death pretty much as a result of Charlie's death.

The narrative is that his widow, Erica Kirk, decided not to be angry at the death of her husband and instead use that opportunity to spread the word. Isn't it amazing that she sees her husband brutally murdered and she doesn't start a riot? She doesn't start a protest. She doesn't somehow try and tear down other people or tear down the government.

What she does is she starts a series of worship services because she knows eternity is more important than anything that goes on here right now. and she wants people to know that the way you get to heaven is to trust in what Christ has done because he lived the perfect life in our place. o that's what the official narrative has been and maybe it's true. Okay, like what do I know?

But look, I noticed something. Okay, and just just on a quick side note, there's an account on X that recently posted that Nissy be noticing and it's true. Nissy do be noticing. I do be noticing things.

Okay, I think [laughter] I think I need to put that on a shirt. Okay, but look, I do be noticing, okay? Chapter 6: Connecting the Dots on Event Planning And here's what I noticed. Now, it could be a coincidence.

I'm open to that, but just let me explain. On August 27th, 2025, TPUSA announced that the American Comeback Tour was making their first stop at UVU. This also happens to be the same date that Brad Parcale drafted this FAR filing to do Hasbbor on behalf of a particular country. And August 27th also happens to be the same day that a pastor from Calvary Chapel Church, Greater Portland, decided that he wanted to arrange an outreach program and his name is Travis Kerry.

Now, there was controversy surrounding this and here is a snippet of Travis Kerry addressing the situation. Hey, good morning. I just wanted to speak into the controversy that sadly has really been circulating and been getting a lot of steam. uh the term that is continuously being used as an allegation against both the city of Portland and us as a church uh concerning this make heaven crowded tour event on May 15th.

The term you keep hearing is bait and switch that there was some sort of guise uh that it was only going to be on the surface a chai chapel event but all the while we had this uh intent of being deceitful and it really being a TPUSA faith gathering all along. It seems the best way we can do that is to share the timeline. You know, I was always told uh and I think it is true that clarity is charity. Let's just let's just look at the timeline of what happened.

So, a few emails that went back and forth that began in August. And it was in August when the Lord really moved upon my heart in a time of prayer and fasting for our city that God would do a mighty work to the the lost and the hurting and the addicted. And in August, I reached out to the the city of Portland. So, I'm going to read the original email that I sent to a a nice lady who's in that department.

I said, "Good morning. I just spoke with a nice lady in your office. She gave me your email address. I left a voicemail yesterday as well, just trying to seek what steps are involved in renting out your space for one night outreach in the community.

I serve as a senior pastor and of this non-denominational church in Westbrook, and we have seen our community grow quite fast over the last few years. Both myself and my wife are former heroin addicts. We currently lead an addiction ministry at our church. Our hope would be to offer a night of praise and worship and be a source of hope and encouragement to the city of Portland community.

We'd love to do live music, offer food, be available for prayer for anyone who would attend, all with a free admission. My first thought was Fitzpatrick Stadium. However, I know this may be a tall order based on availability. This fall would be ideal.

16 minutesI wrote especially around the Halloween holiday. However, we're open to suggestions. If you could follow up with me concerning this proposal, I'd be greatly appreciative. Thank you for your consideration.

Grace and peace. So again, you take note that email was on the 27th of August, 2 weeks before Charlie Kirk was murdered, long before we as a church partnered with TPUSA faith for our monthly gatherings and almost 4 months before the Make Heaven Crowd was even officially birthed and launched to the public. Uh, you know, I also had this exchange later on as me and this lady went back and forth and we really begin to to zero in on a date uh on the 26th of September. I had reached out.

I said, "Just want to let you know that Friday, May 15th, seems to be the best option for our team here at Calvary Chapel. No need to hold the Saturday option any further. We're very excited to host this one night gospel outreach and live music and free food. I said chips, cookies, sodas for those who join us.

talk soon. o, just for clarification, Pastor Travis Kerry decided that he wanted to do this outreach program. And so, on August 27th, 2025, he emailed the city of Portland to get the ball rolling on planning this event. And there are a few things that stood out to me in this video where Pastor Travis Kerry was addressing the situation.

First of all, Travis says that the church is non-denominational, but he himself is a senior pastor at this church and he himself espouses evangelical beliefs. The greatest threat to the nation state of Israel is losing favor with the evangelical church of America. We have big names Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens who are really speaking out against church folk who are suddenly questioning Israel. So there is this reality that God says it is part of my redemptive plan.

So that was the first thing that stood out to me. Now the second thing that stood out to me was the nature of the event that he was planning and the 18 minutestiming of it. The event that Travis Kerry was planning was originally intended to happen in the fall around Halloween as he said in the email that he sent on August 27th, 2025. But by September 26, 2025, he and his team at Calvary Chapel Church had settled on May 15th, 2026.

So 8 months into the future, as of the date of that email, he went from trying to schedule an event 2 months into the future, he changed his mind and decided to schedule the event 8 months into the future. Now, what type of event was he trying to plan for May 15th, 2026? Well, according to the email that he sent to the city of Portland, it was a gospel outreach event with live music and free food, including chips, cookies, and sodas. Now, what I want to know is why couldn't he just hold this event in his church?

I mean, look at the size of it. It's a large twostory building with a huge parking lot. If the goal is simply community outreach, why wasn't the church sufficient? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Instead of using his church to host this event, he contacted the city of Portland and secured an event space at the Portland Expo Center, which is a very large venue. Now, do you notice what I notice? Because what I notice is a very large venue that is disproportionate to the intended event, this big old venue for some chips and cookies and sodas. And fate would have it that that's not what the venue ended up being used for because Calvary Chapel then ended up partnering with TPUSA to host this Make Heaven Crowded tour event.

So that's why people were accusing them of doing a bait and switch. And how convenient that they had already booked a large venue to facilitate this, a process that they began on August 27th, 2025, 2 weeks before Charlie Kirk was killed. 20 minutesMaybe it's a coincidence and TPUSA Faith got lucky that this large event space had been secured months in advance for some chips and cookies. Okay, maybe it's all a coincidence, but in the words of Miss Erica Kirk, I don't believe in coincidences.

One last thing that I noticed, Pastor Travis Kerry is a former Marine. There's just always a military tie. Anyways, that is all I have for this video. Don't forget that if you want to be eligible for the giveaway, you need to leave a comment.

You need to like the video and you need to be subscribed to the channel. Don't forget to turn your notifications so that you'll know if I leave a comment under your post and I select you to be the winner of the giveaway. And if you would like to check out Anna Lucia Beltran Diamonds jewelry, the link is in the description box down below. And don't forget to use code Nissy to save 20% off your orders.

That's a huge discount, so make sure to take advantage of it while it's still available. If you liked this video and you would like to see more like it, I will have two more videos for you in the end cards. I will see you guys next time. Take care.

Bye. Do you think that was a coincidence? I don't believe in coincidences.

[admin]

Candace Owens vs Andrew Wilson: The Great Debate.
Candace Owens
Streamed live 5 hours ago Candace Owens
Patrick Bet-David hosts a debate between Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson over whether there is overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson shot and killed Charlie Kirk, or whether there is overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson did not kill Charlie Kirk and is being set up as a patsy.