That's So Criminal – "The Trial of Tyler Robinson: The Ballistics Report"

Host: Lynden Blake (The Daily Wire)
Guest: Joshua Wright, Expert Witness in Forensic Ballistics
Release Date: April 1, 2026

Episode Overview

This episode centers on the upcoming trial of Tyler Robinson, accused of murdering Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University. With attention focused on a crucial recent court filing, investigative reporter Lynden Blake seeks to clarify the bombshell ballistics report that the bullet recovered at autopsy couldn’t be matched to the alleged murder weapon. Guest expert Joshua Wright—a highly experienced forensic ballistics witness—joins to dissect what “no match” really means, why such results are common, and what implications this holds for the defense, prosecution, and public understanding.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Setting the Stage: The Ballistics Controversy

• Opening Context: Tyler Robinson is accused of shooting Charlie Kirk with a single rifle shot during a public event. Following a manhunt, Robinson turned himself in. Now, his defense claims the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) could not identify the bullet found at autopsy as being fired from Robinson’s rifle.
• Why This Matters: Inconclusive ballistics results are being leveraged by the defense, causing confusion and sparking headlines.

2. Ballistics 101: How Forensic Identification Works

• Commonality of Inconclusive Matches:

  • Joshua Wright [02:44]: "So when you have bullets that are flying at a high rate of speed, hitting something, a lot of times they'll fragment or they will become damaged by hitting bone... this can affect the rifling marks that are used to make an identification."
  • Damage or fragmentation can obscure the unique "land impressions" that allow for firearm identification.

• Testing Methods:

  • Firearms examiners “test fire” the questioned firearm with matching ammunition, examining the resulting bullets for comparison.
  • Identification requires matching both class characteristics (caliber, number of lands and grooves, twist direction) AND microscopic individual characteristics (unique marks left by the specific firearm).
  • Joshua Wright [04:04]: "...if you only have one or two land impressions, then you're not... You don't have a whole lot of information. You're just hoping that there's enough unique individual characteristics within that one or two land impressions to give you a good id."

• Possible Conclusions in Ballistics:

  • Match/Identification: Bullet came from the specific gun.
  • Inconclusive: Can neither determine nor eliminate a match due to insufficient information.
  • Elimination: Bullet definitively did not come from gun.
  • No Value: Bullet fragment too small or damaged for any conclusion.

3. The Headlines vs. Reality: Clarifying the Report

• Host Commentary [07:28]: "The headline language that the Daily Mail used was different than the language in the court filing... 'unable to identify' is different than 'doesn't match or not from the gun,' which is what the headline said."
• Expert Perspective:
  • Joshua Wright [08:22]: "It's really hard to say. Bullets will do unpredictable things."
  • Damage or fragmentation at such high velocity (nearly 3,000 ft/s for a .30-06) is unpredictable, making inconclusive results understandable.

4. Defense Strategy: Weighing the Filing

• Defense Leverage:

  • Joshua Wright [10:06]: "They're making that claim and it's having the effect that they want it to have... to the layman, what that means... is, 'oh, this bullet didn't come from this gun,' but that's not what it means."
  • An "inconclusive" finding should not be equated to an elimination; it simply means there’s not enough evidence for any certain conclusion.

• Legal & Investigation Implications:

  • Defense benefits from ambiguity—if ballistics cannot affirmatively link the bullet to the accused’s rifle, it introduces reasonable doubt but is not exculpatory evidence.

5. What Would “Elimination” Mean?

• Joshua Wright [15:29]: "That's exactly what it would mean. It would mean that the bullet came from a completely different rifle, not the rifle that Tyler Robinson was using."
• Clear Outcome: Only an "elimination" would firmly exonerate Robinson regarding the firearm.

6. Distinguishing Individual Firearms—A Technical Explain

• Even with identical rifles and ammunition, each firearm leaves unique marks.
• Joshua Wright [17:18]: "You would have individual characteristics that could set those two apart..."
• Differences in rifling (lands & grooves, twist direction/width) further assist in elimination or identification.

7. Independent Ballistics Expertise

• If the ATF had declared a "match," the defense would likely hire its own expert to review or contest the finding.
• Joshua Wright [14:05]: "I've had cases where the states called it an identification. And I've come back and said... you can't make the id."

Notable Quotes & Moments (with Timestamps)

• Joshua Wright, on inconclusive results:
  • "There's just not enough individual characteristics, not enough information on the rifling marks on that bullet to make an identification." [02:57]
• On manipulation of scientific language by defense:
  • "They want everybody to think that the bullet didn't come from that gun. Really, all that means is that they can neither determine or they can neither identify nor eliminate whether the bullet came from that gun." [10:27]
• On unpredictability of bullets:
  • "Bullets will do unpredictable things. And so... that's part of the hard parts of doing forensic ballistics is guessing what would happen." [08:22]
• Host Lynden Blake, reflecting public concern:
  • "I'm slicing and dicing this every single way I can. So these questions may come off not very smart. But back to that point..." [16:37]

Important Timestamps

• [01:30] – Episode introduction & ballistics context
• [02:42] – Expert joins; initial explanation of inconclusive matches
• [04:04] – Detailed breakdown of forensic bullet testing
• [07:28] – Media headlines versus court filing nuance
• [10:06] – Implications of the defense’s claims for the investigation
• [14:05] – How independent ballistics experts review evidence
• [15:29] – What “elimination” means in firearms analysis
• [17:18] – Technical differentiation between same-caliber firearms
• [18:57] – Wrap-up of expert interview

Closing Notes & Next Steps

• Case Interest Continues: The next hearing is set for April 17th, centering on the defense motion to ban courtroom cameras—a point of contention between defense and the victim’s widow, Erica Kirk.
• Ongoing Coverage: Lynden Blake affirms that the podcast will closely follow developments.

Summary Takeaway:
This episode demystifies a hot-button ballistics report in a high-profile case, making clear that "cannot identify" is a common, non-decisive forensic outcome—not a dramatic exoneration for the accused. Expert Joshua Wright provides essential clarity on the nuances of firearms identification, exposing both the scientific limitations and the strategic maneuvers behind courtroom headlines.