Loading summary
Transcript129 lines
- [00:04]
A
My name is Charlie Kirk. I run the largest pro American student organization in the country, fighting for the future of our republic. My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth. If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're gonna end up miserable. But if the most important thing is doing good, you will end up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You gotta stop sending your kids to college. You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible. Go start a Turning Point USA College chapter. Go start a Turning Point USA High School chapter. Go find out how your church can get involved. Sign up and become an activist. I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade. Most important decision I ever made in my life. And I encourage you to do the same. Here I am, Lord. Use me. Buckle up, everybody. Here we go. Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of the Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble gold investments@noblegoldinvestments.com that is noblegoldinvestments.com
- [01:17]
B
all right, welcome everybody. We are live here for Our special Day 2 of the State of Utah vs Tyler Robinson Preliminary hearing. We've got so much to get to. We've got myself, obviously, Blake, Brandon Tatum, Officer Brandon Tatum, and Joe Bob all there. You can see him right there. Gentlemen, thank you so much for coming and joining us. Brandon, I know you were in the courthouse all today. I can't wait to dive in and get your pov. I want to set this up just really quickly for our audience before we get into it. The day two was, I think, an absolute bombshell of a day. There was multiple aspects of today that were critically important for the state to establish probable cause, which again is the standard in a preliminary hearing to take it to a full trial. Okay. The morning started off huge and gentlemen, this is where we're going to start. We left off last night where there's. They were trying to submit this. The state was trying to submit this video compilation and they had sort of a John Madden style version of it that they were not allowed to do. But this morning they got the compilation in. It was more of the raw footage version of it, but it was huge, huge, huge, huge. There was. Now we've established that Tyler Robinson was on campus, the UVU campus, four times, twice in, in the morning, then during the actual shooting, and then once in the evening that actually bled into the early hours of September 11th. Officer Tatum, I want to Start with you, sir. What was that like watching that footage and hearing for the first time four times on the campus of uvu?
- [03:04]
C
Yeah, I could say thanks for having me on. I could say it was an incredible relief that we can match up common sense with evidence and get it presented in court as a probable cause, you know, effort and because a lot of people are saying that. Not a lot of people, I think people without a connected brainstem are saying that Tyler Robinson wasn't even on the campus whatsoever. And obviously we see him on camera, verified he was even stopped by law enforcement at 12:30am on the 11th, where they identified the vehicle and they identified him as a person driving the vehicle. Then they come, they compile that and compared that to some of the videos that they had from previous days in it and. Or the previous day. And it's clear that Tyler Roberts was the one driving the car on campus. Even though he's not a student on campus, he has no reason to be there. He lived probably 200 miles away. So it was damning evidence for the. For the defense team.
- [03:56]
D
Yeah, and, and which they themselves were aware of.
- [03:59]
B
Yeah, this is, this. That's the other part here.
- [04:01]
D
The first hour of today was back and forth where they basically were. Again, we're arguing, can we please not show this sequence of video, even the unedited version. Can we not show it? Because there is a realistic likelihood of prejudice to Mr. Robinson's right to a fair trial, that basically this video getting out there would be so viral, so widely seen, it would just make it. It would make it too difficult for Robinson to have an untainted jury someday.
- [04:30]
B
Yeah, well, that. I mean, as soon as this went out, it went viral all over. Joe. Bob, what did you see from your perch? As soon as that video evidence was made public and was actually broadcast, too, to Judge Tony Graff's credit.
- [04:46]
E
Yeah. So to back up to the kind of. The procedural part of it, there was obviously arguing over whether or not this should be shown. And it was interesting to see. I think he's an attorney representing the media side of it, saying, hey, what? Well, if Judge Graff is going to make a decision on whether this is going to proceed to trial, everybody needs to see what he sees. Unless, of course, obviously, it's graphic that way. So they. If he makes an assessment, when he makes an assessment, people can believe that assessment, which is an interesting dynamic in the, in the courtroom. Obviously, we're all grateful that this footage is now out in public. In terms of the Internet reaction, it was. It was Huge. Like, everybody I knew shared at least some version of one of the several videos that came out, and the normal people reacted like, yeah, this kind of seems like something we knew. Something we knew was coming. And. And now it's here. And then you've got, you know, 2% of the population who then decided to take it and run a different direction. Well, but, but, but, but, but, like, okay, well, there's nothing you can do to please those people. But overall, this, as Brandon was saying, kind of put to bed a lot of the. I don't even know what to call it. The craziness that was out there. Tyler Robinson wasn't even on the campus. Okay. Thankfully, we finally have footage now to make sure that gets put to rest.
- [06:15]
B
All right, so I totally agree. They're still going to be, you know, theories that emerge that are, you know, I would say, divergent from what the state is posting. We're seeing those online. Brandon, what was it like in the courtroom when that was happening? It felt like. There's been a couple instances where I've seen Judge Graff actually get a little bit. You can see his patience is wearing thin. He's very good at keeping a deadpan presentation. But you could see there was a couple moments, and then finally he rules on this. What was it like in the. Inside the courtroom when that was happening?
- [06:53]
C
Well, for me, it was an incredible relief. I think I can echo the sentiment of most people there's. On the Charlie Kirk team. Charlie Kirk side is that initially it was questionable whether or not they were going to get this amount of evidence or this type of evidence into the trial. But towards the end of the day yesterday, we kind of knew that if we prepared it right, the evidence would be admissible. But it was. It was a sigh of relief. And especially because we were able to. You know, I think it was a give or take because it was a sigh of relief because you were able to get the information in. Therefore, the world can see that Tyler Robbins was. It's evidence that he was on campus. But. But the thing that was a little disappointing in part was that there was the other variation of the video that had some circles and zooms and blurs on it that I think would have been more appropriate for the audience at large. You know, people in the courtroom, we. We could see what was going on. We knew what we were looking at. I mean, it's pretty obvious, but to the public being displayed the way it was, it's not very easy to see unless you zoom in. So the video that the Judge allowed to be admissible in court but not viewed by the public was a video that I think would have been a lot easier for people to digest online. And. But overall I think it was incredibly powerful and I think it was a sigh of relief that we were. Things were going in the right direction for the, for the Charlie Kirk team.
- [08:12]
B
I saw that you posted some kind of selfie videos, Brandon. I don't know if those are on break or whatever during today in the middle of the different breaks in the action. But you were talking about this theory of the patsy theory and you were talking about could other people have been involved and that we're still kind of dealing with this notion of. And I think, you know, this is coming from Candace that, you know, she doesn't even believe that he was on campus that day and she doesn't believe that this guy was the right height or whatever. Let's go ahead and play this clip and I'll have you respond 34.
- [08:50]
F
What do you think is behind this? I don't think Tyler Robinson was there.
- [08:54]
C
You don't think he was there?
- [08:56]
F
I think he's a total patsy. I think they get look alikes and they got everybody wearing the same outfit. I think he played a role and I believe that what he did was he picked up clothes and he dumped them behind the Dairy Queen. I think he had a role.
- [09:14]
B
What do you make of that?
- [09:17]
C
Well, I think people should be able to digest this information and say if a person is going to say he wasn't even there, he was a patsy and there's no evidence whatsoever presented to back that claim up, then you should probably question what a person is, get where the person is getting their information from. It is clear as the noonday son he was on campus four times and for him being a body double or something like that, even the defense isn't arguing this. This. The thing that people need to understand is that if how are somebody, how is somebody who's not associated with the case, has no investigative skills, is not investigating anything, you know, any substantive thing going to argue something that defense isn't even arguing. They're not arguing that Tyler Robinson wasn't. Wasn't on campus. They're not arguing against that. You know the funny thing that I
- [10:03]
B
found in this trial, Brandon, that's such
- [10:07]
C
another thing is as well is that the prosecution is saying Tyler Robinson is here. Tyler Robinson did this. This is Tyler Robinson on campus. And the defense isn't even objecting to it because you would think that the defense will object to it. Because there's still a probable cause hearing. They haven't determined that they have probable cause to believe yet that Tyler Robinson is in fact that suspect. But the defense isn't even objecting to the prosecution claiming this is Tyler Robinson. He did this, he did that, he walked here. And I'll tell you something else that the defense messed up on because they're, you know, they, they're not doing an adequate job when it comes to this, is that she tried to be impartial. When she said a suspect jumps off of the roof, then she says, and then he did this. It's like, well, wait a minute, I thought you were articulating that this is a common and impartial person. How do you know if it's a male or female? None of these things have been presented yet. Why are you saying he. It's because they know for a fact that it was Tyler Robinson. And at least I think they believe it was Tyler Robinson. And those things are being brought up in court. I encourage people to look at the evidence. Quit listening to people online, especially those who do not have law enforcement experience or experience doing investigations, or those who won't even interview people with experience. You have to put those things together. So listen to what's going on in the hearing, make the determination on your own. But if you. It has to be rooted in facts and it has to be rooted in evidence.
- [11:30]
D
I think what we'll see, we've seen it the last few days and we will see it in the weeks, months, potentially years to come, is that people who are committed to this line of reasoning, that Robinson is a patsy, that Robinson wasn't there, that Robinson, that no one fired a shot from the top of that building. I don't think they're really motivated by believing a particular source. I think they're motivated, frankly, by malice. They want to believe a certain line and they genuinely don't care what the evidence is. But fortunately, I think most people aren't going in that direction.
- [12:07]
B
Something that's on everyone's mind right now is the housing market. Whether you're looking to buy your first home, purchase your dream home, wondering if your current mortgage is still the best fit for you, or you're considering using your equity to pay off other high interest debt with double digit rates, the wait and see approach may actually be costing you money. That's where Andrew and Todd with Union Home Mortgage come in. These guys aren't just lenders, they're strategists. The market shifts every single day and there are more opportunities than ever to make your mortgage work for you instead of against you. Right now, Andrew and Todd are offering a completely free mortgage review. No pressure, no obligation. You can do it and review it and say, hey, not right now. Or they can help you. Just a professional review of your current situation to see whether you may be able to lower your payment, improve cash flow, consolidate debt, or better, leverage your home equity. Don't leave your biggest investment to chance. Go to andrewandtod.com that's andrewandtod.com or call 888-81172. That's 888-88-1172. Get your plan in motion. Go to andrewandtodd.com today,
- [13:15]
D
I wanted to flag another thing that was very strong besides the four times on campus. I think this gets at the crux of why we can be so confident in this case that they actually asked investigator Hull, did you guys have a suspect in this case until you got news that someone had turned himself in? And he said the answer is no. In fact, I think we didn't get a chance to play that earlier. Let's play it now. They're asking about this. This is clip 17.
- [13:43]
F
And isn't it fair to say that as of the moment that Tyler Robinson voluntarily surrendered to authorities in Washington county, as of that moment, you all did not know who the shooter was? Is that right?
- [13:58]
G
We had identified a person of interest, but we did not specifically know who the shooter was at that time.
- [14:03]
H
Okay,
- [14:08]
F
And you became aware that Mr. Robinson was voluntarily surrendering. How. How did you become aware of that?
- [14:15]
G
That information came originally, I believe, from the Washington county sheriff to the administration at the, the control center at the university on the evening of the investigation. Well, the second evening of the investigation.
- [14:30]
D
So that just lays it out. They did not. This. He didn't get arrested because they'd identified him through a story. We've already heard that his parents became suspicious. They brought in a friend, I believe they said it was a scoutmaster of his who had a law enforcement former, something like that. They loop him in into the part of the process, and he turns himself in.
- [14:52]
B
He calls and said, hey, if we bring, if, you know, if he turns himself in peacefully, can we do it that way? They agreed. He goes and turns himself in.
- [15:00]
D
And they didn't. They had these. Their command center at the university did not know they. They had a person of interest. Presumably they'd identified this person they'd seen on cameras. So they were leasing photos. But I think my interpretation of that was they did not have a Name.
- [15:14]
B
They didn't have a name.
- [15:15]
D
They didn't have a particular person they were on a manhunt for. And then they learned that he had voluntarily turned himself in. And that's the defense. The defense attorney saying that Tyler Robinson turned himself in. And that's another thing that these people online have tried to deny ever happened.
- [15:31]
C
Yeah, this is. This is incredibly damning to the defense when you have no idea who the person is. Why would a person that had nothing to do with this voluntarily turn himself in? It's not like they had his name right. It's not like they said, tyler Robinson did it. We're looking for this guy. And then he said, okay, okay, y' all got me gonna turn myself in without incident. No, this person voluntarily said, I am surrendering, taking responsibility for killing Charlie Kirk. Like, I don't understand how anybody's still questioning whether or not this. This boy is involved in this. He voluntarily did it.
- [16:10]
H
This is.
- [16:10]
C
This. This flies in the face of the. Of the. Of the theory that he's somehow being used by somebody else. If somebody turned him in, meaning somebody snitched and said, hey, it was him, and. And they went and picked him up, and it happened that way. Then I could see somebody saying he's a patsy or something. But why would your parents, who love you, presumably, I see them in the courtroom and they go, I'm just going to make this up. I'm going to act like my son did this heinous crime that's going to put him in a bad light for the rest of his life. It's going to go down in history if he's found guilty that he killed one of the most incredible men to ever live in the United States of America. And you telling me just parents just turn him in because one day they just got a wild hair and thought it'd be cool to turn their son in for this, and he could be put to death over this. I think it. I think the case is closed on that.
- [16:59]
B
Absolutely. Joe, Bob, I want to work you in here in just a second. But what. What we're talking about, I think, is a really important vein, and that is what the defense has already just sort of admitted to, that Tyler Robinson turned himself in. You know, it's like they. It's the dog that didn't bark kind of thing. You know, this is what's interesting. There was an analyst on Fox News who said it was a Mount Everest amount of evidence presented against Tyler Robinson. And these are people that know prosecutions that no criminal defense and Prosecution. But it's crazy, cuz, like, what else is the defense not saying, right? They're not saying anything about exploding mics. They're not saying anything about Egyptian planes. They're not saying anything about Mossad. They're not saying anything about regicide. They're not saying anything about any of that stuff. So I just like, to our point here, kind of like keeping us focused on what the evidence actually is saying to us. Now, I think I have more I want to say, but I was gonna work in Joe Bob here. Joe Bob.
- [18:05]
E
Well, I don't want to jump ahead too far in the day, but there's the commentary that I saw was when they got to the DNA portion of it, and the examiner there wouldn't say, well, definitive this, definitive that, when actuality, it's US DOJ policy that examiners don't use definitive language when presenting DNA evidence. And specifically in a pretrial. And to that point, on the crazy side, if the word show trial has been thrown around, if this were a show trial, why would any of the evidence be inconclusive? Okay? Wouldn't all of that be tied up? And also, if it's all a lie, if all of this stuff is made up, then you can't use it as your argument. You can't use the perceived inconclusivity as part of your argument. So the whole thing crumbles in the conspiratorial mind. And, you know, I pulled up a Bible verse here that's I'm sure been referenced a number of times. This is second Timothy three. Beware of the worms who gain control over gullible women who are loaded down with sins and swayed by all kinds of evil desires. Always learning, but never able to come into a knowledge of the truth. And isn't that exactly what we are seeing in real time? Just, oh, nothing is ever enough. Okay, so the DNA evidence, the video evidence, the admission of guilt, all of these things, it's all fake.
- [19:43]
B
I love that you brought this up, Joe Bob. I love that you brought this up. And Officer Tatum, I'm gonna appeal to your experience as a police officer here. A lot has been made about this ring camera footage that shows Tyler Robinson's car going in front of it. And I guess the owner of the house remembers somebody bald with three people driving the car and with three people in it, or something to that effect. So everybody's saying, oh, see, it wasn't Tyler, you know, driving it or whatever. But the ring camera shows what actually happened, and that's that the car was driving by the house. So explain the difference between witness eyewitness testimony, recollections, you know, the human frailty of memory versus the video evidence pulled from that ring camera.
- [20:29]
C
Well, thank you for going to me with this one. But I think that people have to understand that they're looking at the totality of evidence. And in a actual trial it's beyond a reasonable doubt. So there is a burden that you have to prove that's beyond a reasonable doubt. So you put all the evidence together and this is why they don't just talk to the people that live in the house and get their written statements. That's why they have a video. Because sometimes people in a haste or people could be misidentifying certain things. That's why you can't go on their testimony alone either. You have to look at the video and say, okay, now we get what they have said. This is their ring camera. But what do we actually see? There are people that can look at, we can all, all of us can look at the same person and we may get their height different. You go, hey man, I think they do the six, three. Somebody say six one, somebody say five, ten. You take the, the totality of evidence and you put it together and build a testimony of what happens. And you don't take little parts here, parts there and try to make a whole case on it. They're going to look at the vehicle as one element of placing him on campus. But they have a plethora of other evidentiary points where they see him here physically getting in and out of the car. The traffic stopped to happen at, at 12:30 on, on the 11th where they, where a police officer identified the vehicle and him driving the vehicle around the same time that he's been, you know, seen on the, on the ring camera. So they're going to put all of this stuff together and they're going to be able to present that before jury and they're going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Now I want people to be very clear on this because you can't put the cart before the horse. This pre trial is a probable cause hearing. So all of the evidence that's being presented now is not, does not have to be tested against other experts and scrutinized and cross examined. It just needs to be presented and eligible to be presented in a pretrial. So the win here would be probable cause being established to go to trial. Now here's the other thing that could happen in this that I think people need to consider because Tyler Robinson's team and the defense haven't put put in a plea. So it could be a very likely scenario where if probable cause is established, they're not gonna. I just don't see them having a chance in the court of law. And therefore, they may even plead guilty at the end of this probable cause hearing. So that's why sometimes it's referenced in the court that there may not be a trial. And that is because if the evidence is overwhelming, they may plead guilty.
- [22:56]
B
That's a fascinating, fascinating interest. It's a fascinating idea. I hadn't considered yet. Hi, folks. Andrew Colvett here. I'd like to tell you about my friends over at why Refi. You've probably been hearing me talk about why Refi? For some time now. We are all, all in with these guys. If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take my advice and give them a call. Maybe you're behind on your payments. Maybe you're even in default. You don't have to live in this nightmare anymore. Why Refi will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to pay. They tailor each loan individually. They can save you thousands of dollars, and you can get your life back. We go to campuses all over America and we see student after student who's drowning in. In private student loan debt. Many of them don't even know how much they owe. Yrefi can help. Just go to yrefi.com that's the letter Y. Then refi.com and remember why Refi doesn't care what your credit score is. Just go to yrefi.com and tell them your friend Andrew sent you. Here's one other thing that I want to get your take on, because I saw this going around on social media as well. And this is again, when the examination of Officer Hull was ongoing, the defense brought up the fact that there was another bullet found on site. Let's go ahead and get this. And I want to get your take on it. 32, the unfired bullet that you referred to. It's your understanding that that bullet was accounted for?
- [24:31]
G
That's my recollection, yes.
- [24:33]
B
And it possibly belonged to an officer that could have maybe been clearing his weapon.
- [24:39]
G
Yes, that was. That was. That's what I recall being told about that particular item, yes.
- [24:44]
B
When you said that it was possible that that round was from an officer clearing his weapon.
- [24:50]
F
What.
- [24:50]
B
What exactly do you mean by that?
- [24:54]
G
Our standard practice in our department is to carry a rifle cruiser ready. I'm sorry. We carry our rifles in A situation which is called cruiser ready.
- [25:03]
B
What does that mean?
- [25:04]
G
Means we don't have a round chambered. So if an officer deployed with his rifle, he would chamber a round. Once he had done whatever task it was that he was doing in order to put that weapon back, he would eject the magazine and eject the round. Sometimes in doing so, rounds are dropped or not accounted for.
- [25:25]
B
So I don't know if you've ever been part of a cruiser ready team, Brandon, or if you have any experience with this, but explain clearing the chamber, what this means. Have you ever encountered an instance in your professional career where a bullet went missing? Explain all of that to me. And how do you account for how many, you know, how much ammo you have as a police officer, etc.
- [25:47]
C
Yeah, perfect. I think every police officer in America probably go by these standards. They call it cruiser ready. So you don't want to have a round in the chamber while you're driving around with your rifle in the car. Because if something goes wrong, it depends, but more than likely you don't want to have it that way because a lot of people carry their rifles in a bag in the trunk. And so you don't want something to happen where you get into a crash or something, hit the trigger and a round goes off from the back of your car. So you, you ride with no round in the chamber. Normally the boat is, is, is. You don't want to have the boat locked either because then you can drop around in if you hit a bump. So you, you normally have the chamber to boat forward with no round in the chamber. Now when you get out the car, because it's time to get busy, you got a chamber one. And so a lot of times they'll rack one and put it in the chamber. And now if you don't get into a shooting anything, you got to get the gun back ready to put back into your vehicle. So a lot of times what you do is you drop the magazine out and you, and you, you know, you hit the round and it comes out. Now, in a campus situation where there's an active shooter, potentially I could see an officer getting their rifle ready and leaving around because they don't have time to stick around and wait for it. A lot of times what I would do is pick my round up, right, because you have to be accountable for every round that's in the magazine. So it is a possibility that an officer could have done that where they ejected around because they were getting ready to make their rifle ready to put back in the Car. Now another scenario that could have happened that I think that the detective or the investigator alluded to was there are some times where in the heat of the moment you may not know if you have a round in the chamber or not. And so you're going to make sure that there's one chamber. So you may rack it in order to make sure there's one in the chamber, but there's already one in the chamber so you accidentally eject the round out. Now if you're doing that in a heated situation, you're not going to go back and grab the round, you're going to go and you're going to go wherever you need to go with your rifle loaded. So that could have been the case. But nonetheless we all know what the autopsy has alluded to, at least the evidence that have been presented that it was a 30 caliber round that was found in Charlie Kirk's body. So the, the round that was found on the ground on the other rooftop was a 556223. That's not consistent with the caliber round that was found in Charlie's body. So that is not applicable whatsoever. Anyway. So I think that if somebody wanted to question that they should, they should divert to what the detective said or, or the investigator said on the stand as this, this could be the possibility of that round ending up where it said. Plus he was told that that was the case in the first place.
- [28:17]
B
Yeah, I, I, I think that was a great explanation honestly. And your personal experience with this is invaluable and it would make sense. By the way, I believe the round was found on another rooftop and I'm sure that that was kind of the first place these guys were going to go check anyways. Right.
- [28:37]
C
So, or they may have already been on a rooftop or some to some degree and that could have been the reason why they ejected around right there on the turf.
- [28:48]
B
No, but it was a great explanation actually. So the, we have a couple other, we have a couple other clips on that, but I think we've kind of dealt with that. I wanted to get to this point in the proceeding where it was David Engelhardt's letter and it was kind of a purpose of the org and Charlie's faith. And man, that took so long, so much back and forth. I think it was the lawyer's name was Novak for the defense. And that was another moment where I saw the judge get visibly sort of his patience was wearing thin. Joe Bob, were you watching that? And I mean as a non legal expert who is a Christian who Knows Charlie's, how his faith was so intermixed with him, with what he did, his campus debates. What was going through your mind in that moment?
- [29:47]
E
Yeah, getting pulled a lot of different directions. One is probably similar to what Judge Graff is feeling. It was like this is, this is a lot for this to my understanding, again, not a lawyer. It would, would have been some sort of enhancement to the charge being that Charlie was an outspoken Christian. There's obviously a cultural angle of the organization. And did Tyler Robinson act on Charlie's faith or the cultural presence of the organization, which is obviously why they would include the letter. I think there's, there's a part of me that wonders, you know, okay, there's a lot, obviously there's a lot of evidence. There is this super necessary, especially with how long that took. But then there's another, another side of me that thinks, you know, so often there are instances where something happens to a. Some sort of, I don't know, racial minority or ideological minority. And that's the only thing that matters. It was a Muslim person here who's the victim of something or a gay person here is a victim of something. And almost never, never is it brought up. Okay, well, the victim was an outspoken, devout Christian, as was the case in Charlie's case. And so while I, you know, there's not going to be an enhancement that's going to be at least again to my non lawyer understanding, that's going to be higher than aggravated murder. It is good to put it out there and be public about it. Hey, this was at least part of the decision that a chart chart that Tyler Robinson allegedly made to kill Charlie. And Charlie was motivated purely by his faith.
- [31:30]
B
Yeah. And you know, he's in a gay relationship with a trans identifying person, Lance Twigs, obviously. And by the way, I recommend anybody out there, I think I'm gonna tweet this out soon just to kind of help get it back out there. But the Turkey Tom video, I've been told has been authenticated. Turkey Tom is a YouTuber who interviewed extensively one of their roommates or friends that kind of lived and kind of hung out with these guys and can give a very first person experience of what it was like to be around their relationship. And I mean, it's a very depraved Lance Twigs nesting. Nesting. The audible sexual relations upstairs, the manic depression, the drug use where everyone kept speculating.
- [32:17]
D
Oh, my love, he's actually. That is how they talk to each other.
- [32:20]
B
Yeah, that is how they talk. And by the way, throw this up Here, to your point, throw this up. This is the 143. This is what investigators say they found these text messages between them. And to your point, Joe Bob, this enhancement that Charlie was killed for his political and religious beliefs. I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out. Ironically, here in the same text, though, by the way, it explains why we might have seen Tyler Robinson on campus that night. Right. Because he goes, if I am able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence. Evidence. Going to attempt to retrieve it again. Hopefully they have moved on. I haven't seen anything about them finding it yet. So that might actually kind of be that full circle from why he went back on campus late in the evening on September 10th into the wee hours of September 11th. But that first part is establishing motive. And that was what that letter was all about. And you're right, you're not a lawyer, but I've. I've been talking to lawyers all day, and I'm sure Brandon understands this. Well, the death penalty has to be. You have to establish these enhancements which would be killed for religious, political beliefs. Right. So the defense is trying to undermine this argument and take the death penalty off. Which makes me think, Brandon, kind of about what you're talking about with this potential plea deal if he's gonna plead at the end of this. Right. Because if they could establish, if they could get the enhancements off by Judge Graff and get the death penalty off the table, they might be more motivated to take this thing to full trial. But if they know they're staring at a death penalty trial, you know, that might factor into their calculus. What do you think?
- [34:06]
C
Yeah, I think they have to utilize some tactics here because I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming. And when they finish putting all the evidence together, I think it's going to be very clear to anybody who's willing to listen. But they. They do have to. The prosecution does have to prove probable cause for 10 different charges. So you have 10 charges, they're going to have to methodically go through and say, this is our probable cause statement. That a person who observed this evidence would reasonably believe that Taylor. I mean, that Tyler Robinson did this. They got to go through every element. And one of the elements is the enhancement. And the enhancement is very clear that Tyler Robinson opposed Charlie Kirk's religious beliefs. He proposed. Oppose his political beliefs. And here's one thing that they were trying to differentiate, which I think the judge caught. The defense wanted to make a difference between political and faith. And these two things overlap. Charlie Kirk's religious beliefs or his political beliefs stemmed from his faith. And so Tyler Robinson's hatred towards Charlie Kirk was political. But Charlie's political statements were faith driven statements. So his lifestyle that he lived, Taylor Robinson lived, some of the reasons why he hated Charlie was all coupled with his political beliefs and faith. Now this is the reason why this is very important that they're going to have to prove later on in, in this hearing is that they charged him with a enhancement based on political beliefs. And so the defense is trying to say these, trying to say these two things are different. So the prosecution didn't meet the burden of identifying that this is political inside of this statement from Echoes. I think Engelhardt Angleheart, Engelhardt Anglehart, because Engelhardt's document was, was mainly religious. But I think the prosecution to be able to identify that there is no separation between these two things. They're virtually the same. And that Tyler Robinson's lifestyle was antithetical to what Charlie was saying, which is why he wrote those things and then eventually shot and killed Charlie.
- [36:14]
B
Angel Studios has a new feature film that is a must see and I really, really mean it. This film tells the untold story of George Washington before he was a general or a president. At just 20 years old, Washington faced crushing failures, near death experiences and pivotal moments that forged the courage, the character and the leadership that would one day shape the United States. Angel Studios and Wonder Project have joined forces to bring you a high quality production that doesn't erase the values that made George Washington who he was. It's not some woke film directed by John Irwin who did Jesus Revolution. I can only imagine. American underdog House of David. This epic film brings history to life with authenticity, scale and truth. With these incredible people behind it. You know it's going to be good. Starring legends like Andy Serkis, Ben Kingsley and Kelsey Grammer, Young Washington arrives in theaters this Independence Day, right on the 250th anniversary of America's founding. Angel tells the stories America was built on. No apologies or rewriting, just the truth of who we are. Their curated library of films and shows honors this country instead of tearing it down. This is an awoke version of history. It's bold, it's authentic and it's true to who George Washington really was. The biggest blockbuster of the summer timed perfectly with America's 250th anniversary where you can become a premium angel member for only $15 a month or $135 for an annual membership. You need to see this on the big screen. By becoming a premium member of Angel. Not only can you get tickets to see Young Washington, but you'll get access to their whole library of content where you can stream other patriotic films and shows like Green and Gold, Mike Rose, Something to Stand For, Homestead and the Last Rodeo, Stories of freedom, sacrifice and the people who made this country what it is. Join the Angel Guild today. Go to Angel.com Kirk take advantage of our special offer and become a premium member for the lowest price of the season. You'll get two free tickets to see Young Washington in theaters this Independence Day and be a part of making this film the number one movie in America for our nation's 250th birthday. I want to get to two more things here. I want to get through the DNA, which was a really, really laborious thing. I mean, I don't know. I see you shaking your head. I mean, it was hours. Hours. You can tell that they brought this, this attorney on to the defense team specifically for forensic cross examination because this guy was asking very much in the weeds. And eventually the judge did basically try and rein it in because it was dragging.
- [38:48]
D
It was going and going. I just want to make sure we play this because we did. It came after our last segment, just where they're asking. They had items that had intermingled DNA of Lance Twigs and Tyler Robinson, and they were laying out the odds that this was anyone other than Tyler Robinson on this object. Let's do clip 31.
- [39:10]
H
Male DNA was obtained from item 7, sub 1. Item 7, sub 1 was interpreted as originating from tuned two individuals, one of whom is twigs. The DNA results from item 7, sub 1 are 1.7 octillion times more likely if Twigs and T. Robinson are contributors than if Twigs and an unknown unrelated person are contributors. Male DNA was obtained from item 8, sub 1. Item 8, sub 1 was interpreted as originating from two individuals, one of whom is twigs. The DNA results from item 8, sub 1 are 30 quintillion times more likely if Twigs and T. Robinson are contributors than if Twigs and an unknown unrelated person are contributors.
- [39:55]
B
Do you know if Lance Twigs's DNA was obtained for the. For comparison in this test?
- [40:01]
H
Yes, it was.
- [40:02]
B
And how was that DNA obtained?
- [40:04]
H
It was obtained by law enforcement officers.
- [40:07]
B
Okay, so Quintilian, I don't even know what that is.
- [40:10]
D
That's after a trillion.
- [40:12]
B
That's a lot. I don't know. I'm not good at the maths, but I can tell that's, that's a lot.
- [40:17]
D
And the first one I think was 1.7 octillion, 8 times Ilion.
- [40:24]
B
And so that's. So I want to. I want to make a point here, because I've seen the Internet running wild with this one, too. So Lance Twig's DNA was also found on the tau, and a lot of it, actually. And I don't want to get, like, down some weird, you know, rated R kind of thing, but it's. These were two men that were living together, and who knows where that towel came from? I'm just gonna leave it at that. Okay.
- [40:49]
D
Some people have been running with that. It had. Apparently had more of Twigs's DNA than Robinson. Same with the screwdriver. I wouldn't be surprised if the obvious explanation is that Robinson just took those items from Twigs.
- [41:02]
B
From Twigs. Yeah.
- [41:03]
C
So.
- [41:03]
B
But here's. Let me just make this clear as a reminder. Twigs is believed to be cooperating with the prosecution and maybe receiving a limited immunity in exchange. Now, of course, and I think, Tatum, you said this on one of your videos. If it comes out that he actively participated in the murder, that immunity would presumably go away. And I would be totally in support of that. Okay. As I would be in support of if it comes out and is revealed that other people had foreknowledge, other people radicalized him, other people were involved. That's not what this case is about. This case is about, did Tyler Robinson kill Charlie? Okay. So I just want to make that extraordinarily clear. Do I still have questions about how did he get radicalized, who influenced him? How did he get to that point? A thousand billion percent. And I have questions about Lance Twiggs, a lot of questions about Lance Twiggs. But for this purpose, he is a state witness against Tyler Robinson. Officer Tatum, do you have anything specifically you want to say about that?
- [42:18]
C
Yeah, I think the kind of sum up this DNA question mark is I think that the purpose of the questioning by the defense was to just prolong and draw the thing out. Yeah, they never got to any foundational conclusion. I don't understand how the judge allowed them to do this for three hours. This is a probable cause hearing. The only burden that the state needs to prove is that is this admissible and is the. The documentation reliable? Because the source is reliable. That's it. And it should be admissible in court. They drugged this thing on, and the judge said several times, reminding both counsel that this is a probable cause hearing. So I think that this was just a tactic by the defense to draw this thing on so that the defense or the prosecution couldn't cross Examine the witness and get the facts out the way they should have been presented. Also, the Lance Twigs thing, the limited immunity, the reason why you would give somebody limited immunity is that they are involved to a point where the things that they say could get them in trouble. And so you say, I'm going to give you immunity up until the testimony that you give. And you could give us the testimony and you won't go to jail over this. Now, if we find out later through other investigative methods that you are involved, you're still going to go to jail for that. But the testimony that you give, because it could be incriminating to you, and obviously it probably was, that's why they gave him limited immunity. You can feel free to tell us everything you know and how you were potentially involved in this. Now, the DNA aspect of it is that I think they were trying to prove that the items couldn't have been something that wasn't associated to Tyler Robinson, because if the towel was just found in the bushes, it could be anybody's towel. The towel could have been, you know, placed there by somebody else. But because Lance Twigs and Tyler Robinson's DNA are on the items, it draw it. It draws the connection to Tyler Robinson because they live in the same place. And the items must have come from his house. And so when you have the gun, you have, I mean, at least a screwdriver and the towel, both of those things associating the two individuals together would indicate that this couldn't have been external. This couldn't have been somebody planting it on Tyler Robinson and putting his DNA on there. Mysteriously, it had to have been something that came from a domain or dwelling that they both shared. And I think Lance Twigs may have prepped some of this stuff for him, which is probably how he got the partial immunity. And then they're gonna. He going to testify against Tyler Robinson in court.
- [44:54]
B
One other thing here real quick. And then I want to throw to Joe Bob with this story that came out from inside the court and Erica, but, you know, I see people saying that, you know, is there any footage of the shooting? And the prosecution saying, no, you guys have probably seen this. A lot of people are running with this on social media. They'll run with anything that is not what happened, what actually happened. And this is about the compilation video. They're asking basically, was there anything visible about the shooting in that video? And they said no. In that specific exhibit, they were asking, is there footage of the. Of the shooting in it? They said no.
- [45:32]
D
But even then, even then, we don't need to go that far down it, because we have footage of the same person showing up on campus repeatedly. Him going into the position where our ballistics evidence and our video evidence suggests the bullet came from. He's there at the time the shooting happens. He's running away after. You don't need a video of someone firing a gun if you have every single piece of surrounding evidence supporting the idea that someone went there and shot a gun.
- [46:01]
B
So to be clear, let me know. The prosecution did not say there's no footage of the shooting. The prosecution said the exhibit, which contains a compilation of surveillance footage of Robinson moving around on campus, didn't contain graphic footage of the shooting. That was relevant. By the way, Erica needs to know that stuff, too. The victims sitting in the courtroom need to be aware of that. Go ahead, Mr. Tate.
- [46:23]
C
Yeah, Andrew, I think you made an incredible point that I think if people weren't sitting in the. In the courtroom, they wouldn't have understood this, the purpose of the clarification. And the prosecutor actually came back and clarified that there is video of the suspect getting on the roof, going to a prom position, and the shot is believed to be fired during that position. But they wanted to clarify so that Erica didn't have to be in the courtroom witnessing Charlie getting shot. So they were saying that it's not graphic in nature. So you're gonna see the. The suspect get on a rooftop. He's going to get into a prone position in this area. We believe the shot happened. It's not very clear and conclusive, you know, that the shot happened. But you can use defensive reasoning. But time stamp everything else.
- [47:07]
B
23. When he's sitting in the prone position, which is exactly when Charlie was shot,
- [47:12]
C
and he also admitted to it. Right. So you got. You got a ton of people that heard that the shots happened. You have him on the roof at the time that the shot happened, and then you got him turning himself in as a person responsible for shooting Charlie Kirk. So, I mean, this. This is why they put the totality of evidence together. And they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And I think that with the evidence that we see, it's gonna be. It's not going to be a challenge for them to prove to a juror, to a jury, to say, do you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that there's no reasonable doubt that Tyler Robinson did this? When they put all the evidence together and it's going to be clear. You don't have a video of a guy who was identified by his parents going up the stairwell Getting into a prone position, admitting that he took the shot. The shot is being heard by multiple people at the same time. They even look back at the direction where the shot came from with a clear, clear line of sight. I mean you don't get all of that and people have a doubt. It's going to be very clear with the totality of evidence, in my opinion, that he was 100% the one. And Lance Twiggs is going to be the key in this case. And I think that as the pre trial continues, his testimony is going to get brought up and I cannot wait to hear what he has to say. And I wouldn't imagine that if he's a witness for the state, he must be giving incriminating evidence that points to toleratis.
- [48:33]
A
Correct.
- [48:34]
B
And reminder, everybody, the cop from yesterday said, I heard a rifle shot. I identified as a rifle. The medical examiner report identifies the cause of death as a gunshot wound, you know, to the neck. So there's, I mean there's all kinds of stuff that when you talk about this totality of evidence. Officer Tatum, Joe, Bob, you wanted to bring this up. This. So apparently, Erica, there was a story, you know, they're going to claim that I planted this story. I had no idea about this. I don't even know what AL.com was. But anyways, go ahead, please tell everybody.
- [49:08]
E
No, it was so during the, during the trial you're watching on screen, but there's obviously a lot of lulls and boring moments for lack of a better term. And so I sometimes take the time and scroll through some of the live feeds on different newspaper websites. The New York Times has a live updated feed. The Associated Press also does too. So scrolling through the Associated Press and during the lunch break. I don't know if this is on video, but it's in print. The Associated Press reporter asked one of the people who was inside what the experience was like and I think we have a graphic of it. This is a woman attending the hearing. Says it's been emotional. Denae Branch, this is again, I'm reading from the Associated Press who had lined up with friends at midnight to get some of the few public seats in the courtroom. Said she teared up during the hearing and Erica Kirk reached over and offered her a tissue. I'm quoting from Branch here. She says she doesn't know if I'm Team Erica or not yet. She handed me a tissue and I lost it. Branch said during the lunch recess she didn't know if I was a friend or not. And she showed love And I, in the midst of all of this, in trying to sort through all of the. The stuff going on in the actual court, I. I couldn't help but just like, isn't that Erica? Like, isn't that just like typical, classic Erica. And one for those of us who know her.
- [50:31]
B
Yeah, it is, Joe Bob. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But, yeah, yeah, yeah.
- [50:34]
C
Everybody that got this normal. That know Erica, we're not shocked, you know.
- [50:39]
E
Yeah.
- [50:40]
C
What she does, it's.
- [50:41]
E
That's just so. The, the first time that I saw Erica, you know, kind of face to face after all of this happened was backstage at a big event in Phoenix. And I, you know, I, I didn't. I don't know what to say.
- [50:55]
H
Like, what.
- [50:56]
E
What do you say? I mean, obviously I've talked to her before, but, like, what do you say? And she's walking down the hall and goes out of her way. I think, Andrew, you were there. Breaks kind of the, the big pack that she's in, comes over and gives me a hug and says, good to see you. And I, like, I, I lost it. But also that's. That's just the person that she is. Like, it's showing kindness and love to anybody in the vicinity who's willing to accept it. That's just Erica. And when I was scrolling through this, I was like, yeah, like that. That tracks, you know, amid all of this stuff. Of course. Yeah, this, this is. This is classic Eric.
- [51:32]
B
Well, Officer Tatum, Joe, Bob, thank you guys so much for joining us. We are going to be joined by next by an expert on juries. And she's got a CV that'll blow you away. Hi, folks. Andrew Colvett here. I'd like to tell you about my friends over at yrefi. You've probably been hearing me talk about why refi for some time now. We are all in with these guys. If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take my advice and give them a call. Maybe you're behind on your payments. Maybe you're even in default. You don't have to live in this nightmare anymore. YREFI will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to pay. They tailor each loan individually. They can save you thousands of dollars and you can get your life back. We go to campuses all over America and we see student after student who's drowning in private student loan debt. Many of them don't even know how much they owe. YREFI can help. Just go to whyrefi.com that's the letter Y. Then refi.com. and remember why Refi doesn't care what your credit score is. Just go to yrefi.com and tell them your friend Andrew sent you. We are now joined by our next guest, who is a jury consultant.
- [52:49]
D
She's a jury consultant, which I think
- [52:50]
B
is really important in this instance. And you want to bring her in?
- [52:53]
D
Yes, yes.
- [52:54]
C
We.
- [52:55]
D
She's actually a local in this area, so we were hoping to have her in, but she had something pop up with her work. And so we're having her by Zoom. We're joined by Joellen Demetrius. And correct me if I got any of this wrong, but you have quite the CV as a jury consultant. For those who are not familiar with her, she helped out with the O.J. simpson defense team with their jury selection, which a lot of people regard as quite the feat of jury selection. More recently, you advised Daniel Penney's defense team, the Kyle Rittenhouse defense team. So involved in three of the most high profile, high profile trials that we've had. And we wanted to have you in because we're already looking ahead. This is a preliminary hearing, but we're looking ahead to the trial that we know will eventually be coming and what sorts of strategies even now the prosecution and the defense might be looking towards because we know this is.
- [53:53]
H
Yeah.
- [53:53]
B
And my main interest, Jo Ellen, is just because this is the first high profile public assassination of a political figure in the social media era. And how does that change everything with all the conspiracies and stuff? So welcome to the show. Thank you for joining us.
- [54:10]
F
Well, first of all, Andrew and Blake, thank you so much. And I'm sorry I couldn't be there in person, but I'll definitely take a rain check. I would love to be there in person. What a lot of people don't know about my background is that actually probably the first eight years of my career I did capital cases in California. So I am intimately familiar with what is not only happening now in the preliminary hearing, but what will happen at trial. And as you know, and you probably had guests that have shared right now, the responsibility is up to the judge that the prosecution has to show probable cause, that the judge would then say, okay, I've seen enough probable cause. We'll move on to the trial. And of course, the trial is a whole different standard, the standard being reasonable doubt. So you're right. I think, Andrew, in talking about social media and the impact that that is going to have and is already having on the jury population in the state of Utah, you know, so many things are being said from both sides, all sides of the spectrum. And, you know, depending, I think, upon where you rest politically, you know, people are picking up on those things that tend to support what their political views are. You know, in a preliminary hearing. What's unusual certainly is that the defense does not have to put on any witnesses. They only have the ability to, to cross examine the witnesses. What to me is fascinating at this point is that the prosecution, I think very adroitly has indicated, pursuant to a Rule 1102 in Utah, that they're going to be putting on Tyler's roommate via the, the video that he took while he was, he was being investigated so that the defense will not have that opportunity to cross examine him. Everything now is going to be viewed through that fine tooth comb called the camera in the courtroom. And I can certainly speak to cameras in the courtroom, certainly based on what we saw in O.J. how, you know, my goodness, we had witnesses that were impacted by other witnesses and their testimony and reactions to the testimony. And now it's certainly just ballooned because of social media. So what's happening right now in the jury pool? You know, I think to some degree we all want to think this is captivating everybody's attention. I think it certainly is an important component of what's happening in our society right now. But we tend to forget that, you know, the average person who isn't really up on what's happening in courtrooms and they're just concerned about how much they're paying for their gas or where their next meal is going to come from. They're not necessarily going to be glued to social media about this. Well, that said,
- [57:37]
B
I want to go
- [57:37]
D
at that a bit, Joellen, which is when we get to jury selection, what level of selection are they going to have here in terms of are they going to be trying to find people who are really oblivious, who maybe can't remember who Charlie Kirk even is?
- [57:52]
B
I have a question on that, too. Like, are. Are they able to say who do you follow on social media? Can they actually, like, review, like, who they follow and who they engage with? Is that level of granularity available to the prosecution defense?
- [58:07]
F
Absolutely. And I would certainly, and I say this to my clients, I think there's a level of perhaps misconduct by attorneys who don't use social media searches. What, what I'm worried about as a consultant, and I think any consultant who may be working on this case or weighing in about the case is that someone who may have an agenda, a hidden agenda, you know, they may choose to, if they find out they're being summoned for jury selection, they may sadly scrub their social media if it has something that is favorable to Charlie or something that's favorable to Robinson. And that's where so much is going to go into both the teams on both sides about a juror questionnaire, to ask specific questions about knowledge about the case, to look at their social media, what their, what their Internet collection may be, and then judging all of that by what the oral responses are during the Voir Dyer process. What's interesting about a capital case is that there's two phases. The first is the guilt phase. The second is what we call the punishment phase. And that would be, hypothetically, if the prosecution goes ahead and charges the death penalty, they would be questioned about their views about the death penalty. So there's a lot of layers to jury selection that will occur, you know, if the judge sends this to trial. And certainly social media is a huge component of that for both sides.
- [60:04]
B
Joelle. So I'm just curious, kind of the sequence of events here. So a person gets a jury summons in the mail. They have to show up for, you know, to the court or whatever, at what point is, say, the state, in this instance, the prosecutors aware of their jury pool that they have, and would they be aware that that person is going to be brought to, in this instance, the Tyler Robinson trial, before the juror does? So I'm getting to the point of would the juror even know they have time to scrub their social media account? Because they're thinking, oh, I'm going to get called for the Tyler Robinson trial.
- [60:43]
F
You know, great question, Andrew. And every judge is different. I can share with you that when I worked on the Enron case, obviously that's not capital punishment, but the summons were sent out to jurors. I want to say, like, gosh, two months, a month and a half before the actual trial. The questionnaires were then sent out by the court to the jurors, and we, the teams were able then to review the questionnaires prior to ever seeing the jurors. So your, your question as to when both sides would know who these people are is really going to be contingent upon the judge in this case and how he's going to proceed with the process. And I'm sure there will be motions on both sides about how that process should exist. Should it be that those people that are summoned, they receive a questionnaire in the mail or in other cases? That hasn't happened until the jurors have actually showed up in the courtroom. Needless to say, I think the judge is very solemnly looking at all of these things and ultimately determining what is going to give the best information without being too invasive, I guess, to a juror's privacy, which in a death penalty case, I don't see how you can be somewhat invasive.
- [62:24]
B
Yeah. And Joel, and I think you answered the question that the judge does have at his disposal different mechanisms to sort of kind of make sure that the potential jurors don't even know what case it is that they're answering the questionnaire for, or the timing of it, because that does seem like a concern. If I'm the defense, I'm probably gonna want certain people to be following certain people on social media. If I'm the prosecution, I would want the opposite. So continue on. Joellen, I didn't mean to cut you off there, but.
- [62:54]
F
No, that's okay.
- [62:55]
B
Yeah. But it's good to hear. There's both the defense and the state can file motions to the judge to determine the process for jury selection. That's a huge, huge insight. So thank you.
- [63:05]
F
Well, you know, the other part of this, Andrew and Blake, is that I suspect, I don't know for sure, but the defense may file what's known as a change of venue motion. And in a change of venue motion, you're saying to the court and to the prosecution, we cannot get a fair trial here. We've conducted a survey. We found that 80% of the people in the county in which the case will be held think that our client is guilty. What happens in that situation? Obviously, there's a hearing, and whomever does the survey is brought in to testify. Should a judge decide that, in fact there is enough evidence for a change of venue, the judge then has the discretion about where to move it to. It's very rare, very, very rare to have it moved out of state. What more traditionally happens is the trial would be moved to probably a contiguous county. The county that it's in right now, the judge may say, well, we're going to move it to such and such a county which is contiguous, because you don't want to create a lot of problems for witnesses that would be coming in to testify.
- [64:29]
B
Would the judge. The judge would stay put, though, on the. On the trial. Right. That wouldn't mean, like a new judge gets appointed or something?
- [64:36]
F
No, that a good question. No, the judge generally, generally goes with. And that's one of the reasons that they choose contiguous counties. Because, you know, if you were to go from, I don't know, a county in northern Utah to You know, something like down in St. George, you know, that might be problematic for the judge as well. So everybody's, you know, everybody who's participating, all the witnesses, the lawyers, you know, all of that would be a factor, I think in the judge's ultimate determination.
- [65:10]
B
Alliance Defending Freedom knows that freedom belongs to those who fight for it. Americans have carried that legacy for 250 years and now we must do so again. Censorship is rising, threatening your free speech in every sphere from classrooms to counselors offices and even online. Unborn babies are dying as abortion drugs continue flooding states nationwide. Parents are being cut out of kids, critical decisions for their lives. Your best gift by June 30 will help defend courageous Americans like Frank Canepa, a counselor facing nearly $90,000 in fines and just for sharing his Catholic faith. Rosalie Markazich, a young woman whose former boyfriend coerced her to take mail order abortion drugs, killing her unborn baby. And Dan and Jennifer Mead, parents whose 13 year old daughter was socially transitioned in secret at School. Every dollar you give today will be doubled by a $1 million matching grant. Only while funds last. So go to joinadf.com Charlie that's joinadf for Alliance Defending Freedom. Joinadf.com Charlie or text Charlie to 83848 that's Charlie to 83848 Please give your best gift now to defend the next two hundred and fifty years of freedom. That's joinadf.com Charlie or Text Charlie to 83848
- [66:32]
D
so there's a, there's a big elephant in the room with this case that we're all thinking about, which is besides the more direct questions of guilt or evidence with Tyler Robinson, we know there's been a lot of really weird conspiracy theories surrounding this case. People have been pushing them for the past year. People have been still pushing them as hard as ever over the past few days. And we've noted the defense lawyers don't seem to have made many gestures in the direction of that. They did ask one of the witnesses if he was involved in the decision to pave over the site of the shooting, which there's been some discussion about. But there's not too much about exploding lapel pins, anything of that nature. And so I was wondering if you have thoughts, first of all, even if the defense aren't talking about that, is it possible that they'll be making maneuvers when we get to jury selection to make it possible for one of those people to get on a jury, someone who's not going to care about evidence Someone who's going to believe really delusional things. Something who, someone who might have that agenda you mentioned.
- [67:38]
B
Let me just get me on the
- [67:39]
D
jury and I'll do what I feel.
- [67:40]
B
And let me just boil it down. I mean, the people that are kind of part of this, I mean, it is, it's almost cult like in the way that they sort of believe the opposite of the facts. Right. It doesn't matter what the fact says. You cannot convince them that, that there's anything to them, that it's all fed slop, it's all narrative. Right. Even though there's like DNA and fingerprints
- [68:00]
D
and so three things that I guess I'd get at, which is one, is the defense thinking about this? Is there strategies they would do? Two, are there strategies the prosecution can do to get ahead of this? And I guess three. Biggest picture of all, how can the judge handle this case to. How do you handle it if there's, if there's a cult out there that could potentially taint your jury pool?
- [68:26]
F
Great. All great questions. And suffice it to say, number one, yes, the defense is looking at all of these aspects. Aspects. They have to, they have to look at, you know, the, the crazy components that are out there and the not so crazy components that are out there. I mean, goodness, like in O.J. we've been, remember, hearing about the Colombian necklace, you know, during some of our meetings. So suffice it to say, they are definitely looking at that. And I think that the prosecution is, too. There's so many different issue areas that, you know, were, were I working with either side, I'd be looking at that. I'd be looking at people's personal use and understanding of guns. I'd be looking at their views of law enforcement. I'd be looking at their views of First Amendment free speech. Oh, my goodness, political views. And I think, and I don't know this to be the case, but I think that the defense has utilized a consultant in the past. I don't know the individual's name or the company name, but my guess would be that they're probably already taking a look at some of those issues, whether it's in surveys or focus groups. Certainly, I think both sides could certainly gain a lot of knowledge from that type of research.
- [69:57]
B
Yeah, you kind of wonder, to Blake's point, when they brought up the paving over of the crime scene, which again, something we learned about on the news, just like the witness that was testifying today, you sort of wonder, I don't know, just how much that has crept in to the psyche of the, of the jury pool. And, you know, how do you. How do you find anybody in a case this high profile that is kind of dispassionately removed from it and is able to look at something objectively? I will tell you to something that you said. We're so close to this. This is sort of all consuming all day. It's what we do today, it's what we did yesterday, so we're gonna do this week. But when I go out in, you know, in the real world and I talk with, you know, me and my wife are hanging out with friends or whatever, they have no idea that I'm in a Twitter feud or something like that. They have no idea about so much. And it's actually really relieving. So I do sort of understand what you're saying that there's a lot of people out there that are not tuning into this 24 7, getting the full TikTok of it every day. So let's hope that there's still enough untainted potential jurors out there.
- [71:12]
F
Well, you know, in. For both sides perspective, really, the only thing that you can hope for is, you know, people will, will know about this. You hope and you pray during the process of jury selection and the trial that those 12 people ultimately that you do select are able to listen and only focus and only make their determination on the evidence that they've heard in the courtroom. And, you know, sadly, you know, we learn about bizarre things that happen all the time, like Alex Murdaugh and what happened with the, the court clerk in that case influencing verdict. But I, I think hopefully that's the rarity and, and I do believe that people take jury service seriously and, and they want to do the right thing. But now there's so many other factors that are out there. The one thing I can tell you for sure, though, is that this judge will very much protect the identity of those jurors and that jury panel when they come in. And how is that done? Well, first of all, you know, the media is never allowed to take photos or video of jurors. Secondly, if a questionnaire is used, only the number of the juror will be used. And sometimes a judge, if they release the completed questionnaires, they will, excuse me, they will black out elements that might in some way identify them, like where they work, how many kids they have, something like that. So I can assure you, just based on what I've read about this judge, he will be very, very protective of these jurors. And you Just hope that there isn't somebody that has a hidden agenda for, you know, for either side that ends up coming in on this jury panel.
- [73:15]
D
You're an expert on jury profiling, I think was it you created the perfect juror that the OJ Team wanted to look for? What would we you say? What's the ideal type of juror that you maybe might anticipate for the prosecution in this case and I suppose for the defense, if you're willing to speculate on that. I don't want to put you on the spot.
- [73:37]
F
That's okay. I get put on the spot all the time. So traditionally in this kind of case, you would want to be from the prosecution's perspective. You know, clearly you want somebody who's law and order, somebody who doesn't necessarily believes in the credibility of the police, doesn't necessarily discount what their testimony may be. I suspect you would probably want somebody who is from. Has familiarity with weapons, rifles in particular. You, you know, you're generally, I think, looking for older individuals. What's interesting here in, in Utah is, is the religiosity component of this case. And by that I refer to the large number of LDs individuals who live in Utah. You know, there I actually kind of was looking at this the other day. The, from what I understand, the LDS Church does not have any public statement about the death penalty. They kind of leave it up to the individual, their individual congregation as to what would, you know, make up their mind. But clearly the prosecution is going to want somebody if, in fact they do charge Tyler with, with the death penalty, they want somebody who's going to be supportive of that. On the other side, on the defense side, you're going to be looking for those individuals who, you know, opposite don't necessarily have the trust for the police. You're looking for individuals who don't have experience utilizing weapons that can be, you know, perhaps led by an expert in any way that they can. Also, I think politically you're looking for people who are more liberal. Traditionally in, in capital cases, that's what you're looking for, people who would have a difficult time themselves applying the death penalty. I mean, for me in this case and what I know about this case, you know, I think from a defense perspective, they would be looking towards that second phase in terms of who are the people they're going to want to eliminate, who are the dangerous people to them, and who are the people that might be favorable to them. So just as a very general proposition, I think those are areas that both sides would be looking at.
- [76:23]
B
I think that's really smart. This has been amazing, Joel. We want to respect your time and the time of our audience. We try and keep the, the nightly recaps on the tighter side. So I think we're going to close out here. But thank you so, so much. Really incredible insight, especially on how the judge can kind of protect the jury pool from knowing which case they're going to be a juror on and the social media scrubbing. That was really fascinating. So thank you. And we're going to have you on again soon, if you're willing, if you'll come back on with us.
- [76:52]
D
So we need to have her here.
- [76:53]
H
Absolutely.
- [76:54]
F
I'd love to. This has been a treat. Thank you.
- [76:57]
B
Awesome. Great. We'll have a great night. And God bless you and thank you so much. And that concludes our night two of day two of the preliminary hearing in the state of Utah versus Tyler Robinson. Please let us know if you have any other questions. Sends us emails@freedom charliekirk.com freedom@charliekirk.com if you have questions, that means we should probably be trying to provide answers. So please send us those questions and we'll get right on it until tomorrow. God bless you. We'll talk to you then.
- [77:28]
D
For more on many of these stories and news you can Trust, go to charliekirk.com.