Tyler Robinson Hearing Aftermath: Day 4

Summary

---

The Charlie Kirk Show — "Tyler Robinson Hearing Aftermath: Day 4"

Date: July 10, 2026
Host: Charlie Kirk
Guests: Graham Allen (commentator, in-court witness), Andrea Burkhart (legal commentator)

---

Overview

On Day 4 of the preliminary hearing in the State of Utah vs. Tyler Robinson—the high-profile case examining the assassination of political activist Charlie Kirk—the episode dives into a pivotal day packed with new evidence, high courtroom drama, and emotional moments. Key witnesses included Lance Twigs, a close acquaintance of Robinson, whose recorded testimony was central; significant forensic revelations; and powerful legal exchanges concerning evidence and victim’s rights. Legal analyst Andrea Burkhart joins to contextualize legal strategies and what’s next.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. A Game-Changing Day in Court

[01:17-02:47]

• Host Charlie Kirk and co-hosts break down how Day 4 was the "most jam-packed" thus far, with the introduction of substantial new evidence and previously unseen testimony.
• Key Witness: Lance Twigs (aka "Luna"), Tyler Robinson's roommate and confidant, appears in an extended recorded interview that includes admissions of guilt by Robinson.
• Forensics: DNA evidence connects Robinson to the rifle, cartridges, and Dremel tool used to engrave messages on bullets.

Quote (Charlie Kirk, 02:33):
“We found out that there was DNA recovered from the rifle, the cartridges, and Dremel tool—all positively matched to Tyler Robinson.”

2. Devastating Testimony: Lance Twigs' Video

[04:38-07:04]

• Graham Allen underscores the importance of the unredacted Twigs video, which the defense fought hard to censor, but Judge Graff permitted substantial portions to be seen.
• Twigs describes Robinson’s return home post-shooting, his remorse, and admission.

Quote (Lance Twigs, 05:44):
“...I just asked him in person if what he said was true the night before, and he said it was. I started crying a little bit and said he wishes he hadn’t done it and then kept going around and just doing stuff..."

• Panel reflects on the tragic senselessness and emotional toll of the crime.

Quote (Charlie Kirk, 06:07):
“The senselessness of this act of evil...how unnecessary it was...how this kid didn’t even feel after doing it like he was convinced that he should have done it.”

3. Courtroom Dynamics & Legal Tactics

[07:16–15:17]

• Graham Allen provides color from inside the court: high tension, overt emotional displays from both families, and a “head-kicking” day for the defense.
• Defense Attorney Michael Burt is heavily criticized for personal attacks against the Kirk family, especially widow Erica Kirk, during courtroom arguments.

Quote (Michael Burt, 11:08):
“Ms. Kirk has been very adept at holding press conferences...She has access to all the evidence...They're free to go out and hold press conferences...”

• Attorneys for the Kirk family respond, correcting misrepresentations and underscoring the family’s right to view evidence.

Quote (Kirk Family Attorney Jeff Nyman, 17:46):
“The family has not seen this video...This isn’t about educating anybody about anything. This is about allowing the family to see the evidence that’s been gathered after a 10 month investigation in which a father, a husband was assassinated.”

4. Timeline & Evidence Solidify Case

[19:35–24:08]

• Testimony and evidence confirm that Robinson left his residence very early on September 10 (approx. 4 AM), matching travel time to the crime scene.
• Twigs identifies Robinson from surveillance images released by the FBI.

Quote (Twigs, 23:16):
"I wouldn’t say with a hundred percent certainty just because of camera quality, but that looks like him...especially the bottom, the last two definitely do look like him. They do look like Tyler Robinson."

5. Forensic & Ballistics Revelations

[27:23–34:37]

• Twigs recounts Robinson’s interest and use of a Dremel to engrave bullets with political (e.g., “Bella Chow”) and mocking messages—key evidence for premeditation and motive.

Quote (Agent, 30:00):
"'Old Bella Chow, Chow Chow. If you read this, you are gay. Lmao.'"

Quote (Charlie Kirk, 30:07):
"...all of these have political messages, right? Bella Chow is a famous anti-fascist song from Italy...which sort of boggles the mind..."

• Forensic testimony highlights DNA matches:

Quote (Agent Fomena, 34:42):
“The DNA profiles are at least 1 trillion times more likely if they originated from Tyler Robinson...”

6. Defense Strategies & Judge’s Management

[33:33–36:05; 46:34–50:44]

• Panel and Andrea Burkhart critique the defense for focusing on obscure technicalities while conceding damning evidence; e.g., extended questioning on academic disputes about ballistics while the central facts remain unchallenged.
• Judge Graff is described as careful, transparent, and cautious in balancing the roles of process, transparency, and rights protection. The upcoming "bind-over" hearing, page counts for briefings, and timelines are discussed.

7. Legal Analysis – Jury Selection, Transparency, and Victim Rights

[39:37–59:57]

• Andrea Burkhart offers expert insight on why courts sometimes restrict public access to evidence (jury pool protection vs. conspiracy-theory vacuum).
• She explains legal processes specific to Utah and the rare, inappropriate attack on the victim’s family by defense counsel.

Quote (Andrea Burkhart, 56:46):
“I handle victims with kid gloves. It’s not in your interest, the overwhelming majority of the time to be aggressive with the victim...it can really, really backfire..."

• Discussion of legal safeguards for Erica Kirk and broader implications for transparency in high-profile cases.

---

Notable Quotes & Emotional Moments

• "[On Robinson's confession]":
  “He admitted it happened and he says he wished he hadn’t done it.”
  – Lance Twigs, 05:40

• "[On the defense’s tactics]":
  “This was evidence after evidence after evidence...the defense was getting their head kicked in during this case.”
  – Graham Allen, 08:25

• "[On engraved bullets]":
  “Hey, fascist. Catch...Old Bella Chow, Chow Chow. If you read this, you are gay. Lmao.”
  – Agent Fomena, 29:44–30:07

---

Key Timestamps for Important Segments

• 01:17—02:47: Episode top-line, new evidence overview
• 05:40—06:07: Twigs’s testimony, emotional confession from Robinson
• 11:08—12:49: Michael Burt’s attack on Erica Kirk
• 17:46—18:29: Kirk family attorney Jeff Nyman retort
• 22:14—23:49: Twig recognizes Robinson in FBI images
• 27:23—28:16: Bullet engraving evidence explained
• 30:00—30:07: "Bella Chow" and political bullet messages
• 34:42—35:10: FBI: DNA 1 trillion times more likely to be Robinson's
• 39:54—42:25: Andrea Burkhart analyzes the day; "bind over" process
• 56:46—58:47: Burkhart on the defense’s attack on the victim
• 60:03—60:33: Victims’ rights and judge’s authority to intervene

---

Final Thoughts

• Consensus: The day’s evidence—confession, forensic match, timeline, and motive—form an “overwhelming” case against Tyler Robinson. The defense is increasingly combative and procedural, while emotion in the courtroom runs high.
• Legal Outlook: Procedure moving toward a September 1st "bind-over" hearing and likely a lengthy trial, with courts balancing transparency, family rights, and the need for a fair jury trial.

---

End of Summary

Transcript

[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 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.

[B]

Use me.

[A]

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@noblegold investments.com that is noblegoldinvestments.com

[C]

all right, welcome to our daily recap episode. It was the fourth day of the preliminary hearing of the state of Utah versus Tyler Robinson. And it was a absolute doozy.

[D]

I think it was the most jam

[C]

packed day so far.

[B]

Oh, by a mile.

[D]

More.

[B]

More than the other days combined.

[C]

Yeah, we got.

[B]

There was a lot of times over. There's a lot. Way more. This is a lot of what we were building to the last few days. I guess on the first day we saw the footage four different times on campus. That was basically a new thing. But other than that, it was a lot of stuff we had seen before, a lot of stuff we knew at least was in the record. This is the first day, I feel, where we got a very large amount of new information. Either images of things that we'd only heard stated existed, or in the case of Lance Twigs, we got actual testimony from a person we had not heard from before. We didn't get all of it. There were a lot of redactions. The defense fought very hard to redact even more of it. Thankfully, a lot of that was dialed back by Judge Graff. And so we got a tremendous amount of information, stuff we did not know before. And we want to dive right into it.

[C]

So the top lines are just to summarize it and we'll go into depth on these things. We found out that there was DNA recovered from the rifle, the cartridges and

[D]

Dremel tool all positively matched to Tyler Robinson.

[C]

Okay, Twigs. Lance Twigs, referred to as Luna, I believe, by Tyler Robinson video testimony. And it was devastating, honestly, for the defense. It contains an admission of guilt and much, much more. Timelines established the defense attorney. What's his name?

[D]

Burt.

[B]

Michael Burt.

[C]

Who did you say he once.

[B]

He was once a defense attorney for far back in the day for the Lyle Menendez. That's the Menendez brothers, some of you older viewers may remember.

[C]

Yeah, they killed their parents. So that's his. People know him from that case.

[B]

And he successfully got a mistrial on the first go round of that case.

[C]

So this guy attacks, I mean, a completely inappropriate attack, targeting of the Kirk family for wanting to see the enhanced video of Tyler Robinson on campus. Remember, there was that back and forth in day two that bled into day three, and they wanted to see the enhanced version, and we call it the

[D]

John Madden style version where they zoom

[C]

in, they circle it, they want to see that. And then this Michael Burt guy just starts lobbing a bunch of misrepresentations about the Kirk family, about Erica. We're going to get into that. Jeff Nyman, total hero today, by the way. He successfully argued on behalf of the Kirk family to get the Twigs video. Much of it restored a pretty massive

[D]

reversal from the original ruling last night. The indication was that a lot of

[C]

it was going to be redacted. And then the judge went in our direction significantly. So massive, massive developments today. So let's get into it. We have some great clips. Then we've got Graham Allen, who's going to be joining us, and then once again, Andrea Burkhart in the second half of this hour. Where do you want to start, Blake? Which clip?

[B]

Oh, man, let's. I'd say this is the part that stood out to me the most. This. I hadn't seen it before. It provoked quite a reaction. They have Lance Twigs. He's talking about that Tyler Robinson returned to their shared home after the shooting. In fact, after he'd sent a message basically confessing, but he'd returned home.

[C]

It was an automated message, right? Yeah, the automated message saying, you know, go check.

[B]

Yes, right now. Then he said, is this real? And he actually, I don't think we'd seen that before in the transcript. He said, like, I thought I deleted this in all caps. And then they have an extended conversation which we'd seen a transcript of, but not all of it. There were a few quotes that were new. But anyway, they return and he speaks to him at their home where he confirms that it's real.

[E]

And.

[B]

And he says he admitted it happened and he says he wished he hadn't done it. Let's play clip 31.

[F]

Did he talk about what he had done?

[G]

Didn't go into detail. He just. I just asked him in person if what he said was true the night before, and he said it was. I started crying a little bit and said he wishes he hadn't done it and then kept going around and just doing stuff. I think to keep himself busy or distracted or something.

[C]

Yeah, that, that's a really, I think of all the clips today, I was in a really weird headspace after watching that crying. Wished he hadn't done it. And the senselessness of this act of evil, the just how unnecessary it was, how this kid didn't even feel after doing it, like he was convinced like that he should have done it. I mean, like you could at least.

[D]

So sociopathic.

[B]

It sounds bizarre, but if it had been a truly radical terrorist who said, I did it and I'm glad I did it and I don't regret, it'd be really evil.

[C]

But you'd at least understand that he was committed to.

[B]

He was committed to it. And instead it. You get this feeling that this was almost a fleeting obsession, a whim. And he immediately regretted it after he did it, either because he realized it was evil, we can hope, or just because he realized he'd thrown his life away.

[C]

We do have Graham Allen on the phone. Court got out a little bit later today, so we weren't able to rush him over in front of a zoom. Graham, welcome. Great to have you by phone.

[D]

We just played the clip of that

[C]

video recording from Lance Twigs talking about him crying. Wished he hadn't done it. For me, I don't, I'm never going to forget the first time I heard that recording. It's going to leave an impression for me the rest of my life. What, what was it like in the courtroom?

[E]

Yeah, so the courtroom today, completely different vibe and feel than it was yesterday. Yesterday was a very frustrating day. It was only a half day and the defense did a really good job yesterday of just kind of dragging it out to where nothing really got done, obviously over this Lance Twigs video. What we did see, I, you know, I heard the clip play. Yeah, that was a really bombshell clip there. I, I said it in my recap of my show this morning. The defense is obviously scared to death of this 35, 37 minute video of Lance Twigs, which is why they fought so hard to get so much of it to where even us in the courtroom, we couldn't See it, the defense was getting their head beat in all day. I mean, if I can just be honest about it, this was evidence after evidence after evidence after evidence. And. And you really felt that with the defense, this Michael Burke guy coming out of nowhere and attacking the victim. Erica. So look at this. Look, I realize that this is America and I realize that we are innocent until proven guilty in this country. I get that. But one person in this whole thing, there is no question about innocent or guilt and that's the fact that Charlie Kirk was brutally murdered and his widow is in, is in the courtroom. And this Michael Burt lawyer guy, because the defense is getting their head kicked in during this case, loses his composure and he throws direct attacks at the widow of Charlie Kerr. It was the craziest thing I've ever seen.

[D]

I want to talk to you about

[C]

an issue so many Americans face and that's health insurance.

[D]

There's an organization I really, really appreciate called Christian Healthcare Ministries. CHM is a faith based alternative to health insurance. And this is real stuff.

[C]

Folks like you gotta listen in.

[D]

With chm, you're not paying into a company's profit margin. You're investing in a community with less overhead than the competition. You get reliable support through the giving and prayer of fellow members. Members contribute every month to help pay for each other's medical bills, allowing believers to afford the care they need. Because they're not insurance. You get access to your preferred doctor or hospital without network restrictions. You heard that right. It's. If you want to see massive savings

[C]

in your healthcare budget.

[D]

CHM has four low cost programs for every stage of life starting at just $115 a month. Plus you can enroll or switch your program at any time. See why so many believers are taking a leap of faith. Start today by visiting chministries.org Charlie and use promo code Charlie for a 50% credit towards your first month. That's chministries.com and use promo code Charlie.

[C]

I don't know what I would have done. I mean you should have seen our text chain. I'm not proud to admit some of the words that I used in it when I saw that happen and the fact that it took, it took everything after the widow, I literally can't imagine. I thought it was so out of line. I thought it was so just egregious that he did that. And we're going to play the clip because you know, we're talking about it. SOT 29.

[H]

We're asking the court to keep focus on the purpose of this hearing and as the justice has said in the Estes case, the purpose of a trial is to determine the defendant's guilt. It's not to educate the public or the victim's family or the world on what evidence the government or the state has. At some point, I think the court has to return to the purpose of these hearings, which is to expeditiously hear the evidence and then determine probable cause. And I want to point out to the court, Ms. Kirk has been very adept at holding press conferences at which she has revealed evidence she has represented, that the state is her attorney. She has access to all the evidence that the state has publicized, and that the media and her own lawyer argues is already in the public domain. So they're perfectly free to go outside this courtroom under the court's protective order. They're free to go out and hold press conferences and announce to the world outside the courtroom what they think the evidence is. They have the availability of that evidence. But the court's role, I think, at some point is to exercise some control, move the case forward, especially when we have witness availability problems. And I'd ask the court, whatever the court does, if you're going to allow revisiting or replaying of evidence for the sole purpose of informing the world or Ms. Kirk or anybody else, that the court do it at the end of the process and not at this point where we will be deprived of our ability to call this witness because she has to be done today.

[C]

Okay, Mr. Burt, you just. I mean, what a, like, flurry of lies.

[D]

First of all.

[C]

Yeah, where's the.

[D]

Where's the press conferences?

[C]

Mr. Burt, what the hell are you even talking about? Actually, and I mean, Graham, please weigh in here, because so much of that was pure, just unadulterated misrepresentations of the facts.

[E]

Well, yeah, well, 100%. And I love that the. The. The Kirk family attorney Jeff, went up immediately after to set the record straight that everything that he said was a lie. That the state is not Erica Kirk's attorneys. They are the attorneys for the state. This is the state versus Tyler Robinson. And look, they give us a whole speech every time we go in there about the decorum and how we in the, you know, the audience are not allowed to make faces. We're not allowed to say anything. We're not allowed to do anything. And then for this. This attorney to come out there and take a person. Multiple personal shots, it seems like he's kind of drinking his own Kool Aid there. And I was. I was shocked that the judge didn't say anything during that moment. I'm not saying that the judge didn't rule correctly. In a lot of ways today. We had a lot of wins. But in that moment, I really feel like he. I really feel like that attorney stepped over the line and badgering. Been badgering the widow of the victim like that. She is the victim because the victim is no longer here.

[C]

Well, Erica is the victim in this. Yeah, exactly.

[E]

Correct. Correct.

[I]

She.

[E]

Yeah, exactly. And I. Here's the other thing that I will say about this that I can testify to that. I don't know if the cameras pick up or not. I don't know what, you know, the public sees. We were in the back this time around, so the front two rows alternate between families. So Paola Robinson's family was in the front row today. And what I will say is this. They were distraught through the entire thing. And it wasn't a distraught like, I can't believe this unfair thing is happening. It was more, in my opinion, it was for a. We cannot believe that. That our. That our son did this or our.

[C]

Do we lose him?

[B]

Did we lose him for a sec?

[C]

Oh, there he is.

[E]

Sorry, sorry. I'm traveling down the road. I was just saying that, you know, Tyler Robinson's family was in the front, and they were distraught throughout the whole process. And it wasn't a distraught like, this is egregious. It was a distraught like, we can't believe that our son or our family member did this. And so that was something that was really telling to me personally in the. In the audience.

[B]

I want to ask about that, Graham. At some point in. While the Lance Twigs video was playing, it did sound like you could hear a sob somewhere. I think it was actually quite close to the point where he says where Lance was narrating, he wished he hadn't done this. It was in the vicinity of that. Did you notice that in the court? Was that happening? And do you know what quarter it was coming from?

[E]

Well, it may have come from both sides. Erica and Charlie's mom were pretty emotional during. During that moment as well. So honestly, my attention kind of got drawn towards them in that moment. So it could have gone both ways. There was a lot of emotion in the courtroom from both. Both families.

[C]

Today we're gonna play Jeff Nyman's retort back to Mr. Michael Burt's egregious commentary. And that's what it was. I mean, he was pontificating. I mean, I think at some point, he got the judge interjected when he was, I guess, cross examining or examining the questioning the witness from the ATF and said, you're argumentative. And I was like, well, we could have used that a little while ago. Anyways, this a bit longer clip, Graham. Bear with me. It's a minute and a half long, but this is Jeff Nyman, 34. Thank you.

[J]

Briefly. And I say that because time is of the essence, not because I don't want to hear what you have to say.

[K]

I understand, but there was a lot that was just said that's just not true.

[J]

Well, so let me put this in the spot where we need to be. And I understand that there's opinions, but I have to keep this to the probable cause. I don't want this to go to a back and forth about issues that lie outside of probable cause. And I realize statements are made and as the victim's representative attorney, you want to address it. So I just, I will hear you, but we need to be brief. So if you can be succinct, I definitely want to hear what you have to say.

[K]

Your Honor, I most always, I am almost always brief, I promise you. The family has not seen this video. It hasn't. It doesn't have access to the evidence. The state has. The state is the state and Ms. Kirk and the family have their representatives. That is a completely distortion of reality that was just put forth. And this isn't about educating anybody about anything. This is about allowing the family to see the evidence that's been gathered after a 10 month investigation in which a father, a husband was assassinated. That's what this is about. So we ask you to please allow the family to view the video like the court has viewed in order to allow the family to process this moment.

[J]

Thank you.

[K]

Thank you.

[C]

Yeah, good for Jeff, by the way. I mean that it was funny.

[B]

The judge was like, I must implore

[E]

you to be quick.

[B]

And he goes on, I think, longer than Jeff did.

[C]

Yeah, I know, exactly.

[B]

There's a lot of that in this case.

[C]

Well, let's move on. I, I guess the judge is going to make a final determination about that tomorrow whether or not the family can see the John Madden style video that we're talking about, the enhanced zoom in with, you know, lines and circles and that sort of thing.

[D]

Let's talk.

[E]

Well, he did grant it. He did grant it.

[D]

Oh, did he grant it?

[E]

And so he did. He did. And so it was contingent upon, you know, they did this back and forth about, you know, oral arguments for binding and whatnot. And it looks like what's going to happen is it's going to end at noon like the defense had originally stated. Then we're going to get on to this, you know, briefings that they want to do. So it sounds like we are going to get to or, or the, the courtroom and the family is going to get to view that video. I don't think that the media gets to, but, but the family in the courtroom does. So he did grant that at the end there.

[C]

All right, let's get back to this Lance Twig stuff here. Graham. I think this was to me the most important stuff. This is Robinson leaving the apartment early on September 10.

[F]

Clip 8 let's jump to September 10. Did he spend the night in the apartment the night of September 9th into September 10th?

[G]

Yeah, he did, yes.

[F]

Do you know when he left the apartment on September 10th?

[G]

I don't know an exact time. I just know he left early. I heard him leaving and he just said he had a long drive to work that day. So he was leaving early.

[F]

So early. Any guess as to what when that was?

[G]

I don't know. I would have thought it was 5am because that's when like an early work day was for him. But it was probably more like four.

[C]

All right, so he confirms that he left super early.

[B]

He left very early, around 4. You can do the math. If it's between 4 and 5, you do the math. He got there, I want to say late in the 8 o' clock hour, around 9 is when he arrives on campus. You can go check it. It's about 3 hours and 45 minutes from St. George to Orem and you know, maybe stops for gas, stops for breakfast, something like that.

[D]

Good conversation is about respect. It's how we create a space where people are able to share their ideas and be heard. Charlie knew that. Turning Point still knows that. And TikTok has always strived to build the kind of place that thrives on respectful connection, where curiosity fuels connection and we can share what's on our minds and learn from each other. When ideas meet respect, good things happen. On TikTok, you can find a mechanic explaining the why behind a problem most of us wouldn't even know how to name or. Or a father sharing a lifetime of knowledge with his viewers. Viewers who listen, discuss, and then they respond. TikTok turns connection into community through small acts of understanding. You can feel it in the comments, in the thank you from a stranger halfway across the world. TikTok is a place where respect opens the door for discussion and discussion helps us build something real.

[C]

And then of course, we saw previously in the other days, the compilation video of him on campus. And then he's asked about surveillance still images taken from surveillance video. And I thought this was a really powerful part, Graham, where you hear Twig say, that looks like Tyler. He identifies him, recognizes the person in the images. 17.

[F]

Okay. Before he came home, had you seen the press, the press releases any of the media on this?

[G]

I'd seen one Instagram, like, link a friend of mine had sent in our group chat, but I hadn't really looked into it at all.

[F]

And had you seen the images that were released of the suspect?

[G]

I did the next day. I don't think I saw any. On the 10th.

[F]

Going to show you a couple of those images. I'm on the FBI's website. You can see the URL there at the top. This is a press release about this event. And here on the screen, you see these. There's looks like there's two rows of three images.

[E]

Mm.

[F]

Do you recognize the person in these images?

[G]

I wouldn't say with a hundred percent certainty just because of camera quality, but that looks like him. In terms of the shoes he's wearing, the sunglasses, I don't think I'd specifically seen him wearing that hat, but he was usually wearing a hat and then jeans. So it definitely. Especially the bottom, the last two definitely do look like him. They do look like Tyler Robinson.

[C]

Boom.

[B]

Definitely look like him.

[C]

Graham. I'm credibly been told by the Internets that in the social medias that none of these videos from the surveillance. Surveillance cameras on campus determined that it was. That it was actually Tyler Robinson on campus. I've been credibly informed, Graham.

[E]

Yeah, well, if you listen to the crazies on the Internet, they will say that every piece of evidence that the state has introduced has made the state look worse. And that's what we're dealing with right here. Look, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not an attorney. What we saw from the defense today is, look, that's. That's what happened in the parts that were allowed to be seen. I can't imagine what Lance Twig says reveals in the unredacted part that the court did submit into evidence and will be seen. Everything has lined up to Tyler Robinson. The timeframe, Blake. I just heard you talking about it, leaving super early. You do the math. Boom. He's right there on the UVU campus video. We had the testimony of the other SBI agent. Not the FBI. The s. FBI agent today. We had the ATF forensics person come in there. We've Got the DNA from earlier from the FBI, along with all of the DNA on the, you know, the, the cartridge, the gun, everything. We were wondering when they were going to bring the gun, the rifle in. Well, they brought it in today and it was one in a trillion type of odds. And, you know, again, innocent until proven guilty. Charlie believed in that. I believe in that. As frustrating as this judicial process is, I, I get it, but. But the, the evidence is truly becoming overwhelming. And like I said, you could really kind of feel a shift in the courtroom today where it really felt like the defense was. I mean, even when they went up and they called their witness, all the defense really did was just the same thing they did with the FBI. DNA testing was talking about, well, peer reviewed studies of flaws. Well, we've got just as many peer reviewed studies that are for it. Well, what about this and what about that? And then the state goes up and said, is this not used nationwide? Yes. Is your lab accredited? Yes. Is this, has this been used in court cases?

[D]

Was there a 2000.

[C]

Are you familiar with this 2009 study that poked holes in the, you know, it was like so painfully, excessively in depth for. In the. And by the way, this was again, our good buddy Michael Burt that got

[D]

chastised by Judge Graff multiple times, got corrected, continued on, and Graff had to

[C]

step in a second time.

[D]

Was not a good day. Was not a good day for Mr.

[C]

Michael Burt in that way. All right, guys, let's keep going through some of these clips.

[B]

I just.

[C]

Because we have the bullet and gray.

[B]

We just got so many things that line up with evidence we found at the scene. So, for example, when they later had the police officer on, she actually, we finally see the images of the engraved bullets. She's scanning through them. In fact. How about we show a few of those? Let me look at it here and get the number.

[C]

Why don't we have Lance describing this scene?

[B]

Do we want the description first? All right.

[D]

Yeah.

[F]

He asks you here. Remember how I was engraving bullets? Was he engraving bullets before this?

[G]

Yeah. I don't remember exactly when, but he had said he was planning to go hunting with his family. And he asked me for a. If we had like a Dremel, because he said he wanted to create messages on bullets. And I just told him where Dremel was and I told him to make sure he doesn't like, set off a bullet on accident in the house. But I didn't really think about it until then.

[F]

How long before September 10th was this that he asked about the Dremel, I

[G]

don't remember because he'd been talking about the hunting camping trip for a couple months, but I don't remember when he was specifically asking to engrave the bullets.

[F]

So are we talking like a year before?

[G]

Oh, no, not. Not that. Not that long. It would have been, I'd say at most a month before. This was when he was asking.

[B]

At most a month before he's asking about this tool to engrave on bullets. And then the next witness, we had this Famuina.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Not sure how you say it exactly, but she's. She's was really detailing all the stuff they found when they found the rifle, when they found the cartridges, what they found at his. At his home. And she goes through. She actually. We actually see her going through the rounds that they found, including the one that was fired.

[C]

Let's go.

[B]

Clip 22.

[F]

What are we looking at here in exhibit 19?

[I]

This is the cartridge case that was recovered from the gun.

[F]

And what position was this in in the gun?

[I]

This was the. Or this is what was in the chamber.

[F]

Do you notice an inscription or an etching on this cartridge case?

[I]

Yes, I do.

[F]

Will you read what that says?

[I]

Yes. Notices bulge.

[F]

Will you read what this says?

[I]

O, W, O. What's.

[F]

And to page three.

[I]

This.

[F]

And question mark, correct?

[I]

Yes, question mark.

[F]

Is this a photograph of one of the cartridges that was found in the gun?

[I]

Yes, it is. This is the head stamp of it and it says it is a. According to the head stamp, it is a Remington.30 06 Springfield.

[F]

Is that a different caliber than a.223 round?

[I]

Yes, it is.

[F]

Will you read the. The markings here?

[I]

Hey, fascist.

[F]

And page three, catch on page four.

[I]

Up arrow, right arrow down arrow, down arrow, down arrow.

[F]

Will you read the inscription here?

[I]

Old Bella Chow, Chow Chow. If you read this comma, you are gay. Lmao.

[C]

So I think this is really important, Graham, because all of these have political messages, right? Bella Chow is a famous anti fascist song from Italy or whatever.

[D]

Hey, Fascist. Catch all of this stuff, which sort

[C]

of boggles the mind because, remember, they went through that whole rigmarole with David Engelhardt's letter establishing that Charlie was a Christian and conservative, which we all know.

[D]

And then you have the bullets here that actually reinforce the fact, this enhancement charge, that it was essentially a politically motivated assassination.

[C]

Graham, your thoughts?

[E]

Yeah, No, I think it obviously is. You know, I may be mistaken about this, so do not hold me to this because again, I'm not a lawyer, but I think that that's going to be part of when they have these briefings that they're talking about, I think that the state said, because this was brought up like the religious thing and political thing. And I think that they're going to perhaps adjust maybe the wording a little bit. Like that's part of like this, this briefing thing that they want to do because the defense wants to challenge the counts and all this. So I think they're going to correct that because you're right, religion and politics has intersected for years, especially over the past 10 years. And it was, it was why Charlie was targeted, in my opinion, allegedly for legal purposes by Tyler Robinson. Charlie had open debate on political and religious matters specifically that were anti what Tyler Robinson's lifestyle was and what Tyler Robinson's lifestyle included. And even in those text messages to Lance Twiggs saying he couldn't deal with Charlie's hatred anymore. And some hate can't be. I can't remember the exact wording.

[C]

Can't be negotiated out.

[E]

Can't be negotiated out. Thank you very much. Yes,

[D]

hi, folks.

[C]

Andrew Colvett here.

[D]

I'd like to tell you about my

[C]

friends over at why Refi.

[D]

You've probably been hearing me talk about why Refi?

[C]

For some time now. We are all in with these guys.

[D]

If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take

[C]

my advice and give them a call.

[D]

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 Y. Refi 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 why refi.com and tell them your friend Andrew sent you.

[C]

Yeah, totally. Totally disgusting.

[D]

I just again, you know, all of

[C]

this from the defense is head scratcher because they. How long they take on the David Engelhardt letter?

[D]

Like an hour, two hours. And then they get this, the Bella Chow. All this stuff on the engravings, it proves the same point that this was politically or religiously motivated act, right? Crime, assassination. So I don't know.

[B]

Well, I spoke a friend of mine who's an attorney actually commented on that to me, that we did have the very extended attempt to keep this from getting introduced into the record. Too much of this visual evidence, too much of the Twigs interview. But once it was getting in, once they were playing the Twigs interview, where he's saying, I spoke to him and he confessed to this, they ask nothing. They want to get through it as quickly as possible. And instead they're going to have agonizingly long cross examination on stuff that is peripheral and. And boring, frankly, like the David Engelhardt letter or the arcana of this, of what type of bullet fragments were found. An analysis of that. And it's kind of. They want you dedicating more of your headspace to that confusing, difficult stuff and as little headspace as possible to Tyler Robinson confessed to this multiple times to multiple people.

[C]

It's such a transparent tactic. And I will just say, here, we're going to play this clip. This is Agent Fomena. She reads through the DNA evidence found on the rifle. Here you go.

[F]

SOT 25, exhibits 1.1 and 1.4. Do you know what that is referring to?

[I]

Yeah, they're referring to 1.1 is swabs of the stock and grips of the rifle, and then 1.4 is swabs of the bolt of the rifle with possible ridge detail and or smudging. The DNA profiles are at least 1 trillion times more likely if they originated from Tyler Robinson Exhibit 7.1 as a contributor to the major components and three unrelated unknown individuals than if they originated from four unrelated unknown individuals.

[C]

All right, so now I just wanted to play that because again, to Blake's

[D]

point, there's all these big top line items. DNA, confession, text messages, all this stuff. The timing lines up exactly right on all this stuff.

[C]

Okay, Graham, I want to address this because I'm part of this story whether I like it or not, but the

[D]

caliber of the round, the type of bullet. Right.

[C]

We know that they recovered fragments and that the bullet was badly damaged inside of Charlie. Okay, Right. So Phoenix Ammunition. I'm actually trying to book him for our show tomorrow during day five, but he put out a tweet and I just want to make sure we address it.

[D]

So he's looking at the photos shown in court of the type of bullets.

[C]

Okay.

[D]

He said Remington head stamp on the case. And despite the somewhat low resolution on

[C]

the photo, you can see the somewhat

[D]

blunted nature of the projectile's tip. This is a Remington core locked, soft point round core locked.

[C]

And I think we have an image of that brand. If you guys want to put it

[D]

up there specifically designed.

[C]

This is what he says.

[D]

So this guy's an expert in ballistics. He makes bullets for a living. He says it's specifically designed to deform, slow down and prevent an exit wound. Available at literally every single gun store and sporting goods store that sells ammunition.

[C]

He goes on, Graham.

[D]

He says, in fact, 16 out of the 173006 varieties manufactured by Remington use some type of expanding, deforming, or fragmenting bullet. Okay, 16 out of the 17. Graham, this is an important piece for the Internet of it all.

[C]

Maybe just reflect on that for a moment as we wrap up with you.

[E]

Yeah, I mean, yes, obviously they did not address any of that in the courtroom today. I saw the Internet when I finally got my phone back, but I noticed that as well. And there was a couple of us that are prior military, prior law enforcement. We all said the same thing. That doesn't look like a full metal jacket to us. And so that does eliminate a lot of everything. Everything that's been introduced by the state eliminates and, or totally, totally refutes the conspiracy theories by people that are acting in not good faith. They're only trying to go after innocent people. They're trying to destroy lives for the purposes of clicks. Clicks mean more views. Views means more money. That's all this is. And, and, and there's still a long way to go in all of this. This is going to lead again, in my opinion. I'm not a lawyer, so what does my opinion really matter? It's, it's, it's just a matter of when we go to trial now, at this point, in my opinion. And then we've got a long trial. Nobody is under any disillusions that if, if and when this goes to trial, that this isn't going to be a lengthy thing. But, but I keep saying justice is coming for Charlie Kirk. I truly believe that justice is coming. And the evidence against Tyler Robinson is overwhelming. It is, it is, it is. So much so, it's hard to fathom any, any other outcomes at this point.

[C]

Graham, thank you for joining us. Thank you for being by the family side inside the courtroom. I really appreciate you, man. And we'll, we'll talk to you soon. Get some rest. I know. So it's quite the scene there, so we appreciate you making the time, Graham.

[E]

Okay, guys, talk later.

[D]

Good conversation is about respect. It's how we create a space where people are able to share their ideas and be heard. Charlie knew that. Turning Point still knows that. And TikTok has always strived to build the kind of place that thrives on respectful connection, where curiosity fuels connection and we can share what's on our minds and learn from each other. When ideas meet respect, good things happen. On TikTok, you can find a mechanic explaining the why behind a problem most of us wouldn't even know how to name. Or a father sharing a lifetime of knowledge with his viewers. Viewers who listen, discuss, and then they respond. TikTok turns connection into community through small acts of understanding. You can feel it in the comments, in the thank you from a stranger halfway across the world. TikTok is a place where respect opens the door for discussion and discussion helps

[C]

us build something real. We have Andrea Burkhart who has been following this case extremely closely. And if you are following along with us, she was also on the show on Monday night after Day one. Welcome back to the show, Andrea.

[L]

Thanks so much for having me back.

[D]

You are a legal commentator, experienced trial and appellate litigator.

[C]

You can find her@Andreab.

[D]

Urkhart.substack.com this was a big day.

[C]

We were commenting earlier that this was

[D]

the most substantive day so far. I felt like they got through a

[C]

lot, that Lance Twigg's video recording testimony was really, really enormous in so many ways. What do you make of it? 30,000 foot view?

[L]

Oh, I couldn't agree with you more. I think up to today the evidence is building and the picture is becoming clearer, but it was today that really pulled all the pieces together and drew the most direct connections between the ballistics and the statements and so forth. We now have a way to tie this individual that we're seeing on the, on the camera and this firearm that was recovered with Tyler Robinson himself by virtue of this evidence today.

[C]

Yeah, I mean, the.

[D]

There was a lot of emotional parts

[C]

I think for today for us from our pov and so I'm going to try and like stay out of that because you're very good at being dispassionate. But I will just say one final point on that. The fact that Lance Twigs claims that he doesn't remember talking about Charlie with Tyler Robinson, I found horrifying to hear that. It was just, I think we said earlier, it feels like his description of it was almost like a whim. It was a passing, you know, fancy kind of thing. You know, he gets back.

[B]

It seems like a good idea at the time.

[D]

Yeah.

[C]

And he gets back and he, you know, he cries and wishes he wouldn't have done it. I mean, that's just, I don't know.

[L]

And so do we all.

[C]

Yeah. I mean, seriously, what can you. Let's fast forward to the end, because Blake and I were just talking about this, and I want to go back through some of the details of the

[D]

day, but at the end, they were

[C]

having this deliberation back and forth about timing and what they call it, a bond or a bind over.

[B]

It was they spent the last half hour discussing this, setting a hearing date, it seems, for September 1st. They had a very bizarre back and forth about should we have a page count cap on our briefs? And one proposed 31 proposed 40 pages. And Judge Graff in his Solomon, like wisdom, decreed 35 pages, even though it wasn't. He noted it was an odd number.

[C]

That is a very good description of Judge Graff. He's splitting the baby.

[B]

It was all very odd. And I guess I didn't know what they were talking about, so maybe you could explain some of that to us.

[L]

So bind over is the word that they use to describe the defendant being required to answer to a jury, to formally answer the charge through the trial process, which is what this preliminary hearing is about, the charge justified in moving forward to trial or not. And so that's what the bind over decision is. What I found interesting about today and that whole conversation is that in my experience anyway, although granted, we don't do these types of hearings in Washington, but I've watched a fair amount of court. It's not really that common to have extended briefing about probable cause. Probable cause is not a particularly difficult standard to meet, and there's just a lot of ways to get there in this particular case as well. In Utah, there's a lot of limitations to the judge's ability to question the evidence. He has to just kind of take it at face value at this stage, because it's for the jury to decide if they believe it, if the science is good, if somebody is credible, and all of those types of things. So it's not normally the type of thing that requires 35 pages of briefing, but here we are. It is a death penalty case. Of course they are going to be more cautious. Judge is again, giving them every opportunity to make the record that they see they need to. But having said that, I have a hard time myself just imagining what is going to take 35 pages for the defense to say about this case.

[C]

Yeah, I felt like all they basically did was try and obstruct the presentation of evidence. That seemed pretty straightforward to the layman's eyes out here. I want to know process here, Andrea. So they were talking about tomorrow, they think it's going to take a half day. And then there might be some stuff that draws it into the, I don't know, a couple hours after lunch break.

[D]

What happens then?

[C]

What happens when they wrap this? What does the judge do next?

[L]

So at this point, the case will simply adjourn and he will wait for the briefs. The case will continue to develop, I would expect, and probably has in terms of discovery is continuing to be produced and provided and so forth. They're not going to put the brakes on and wait for the court's decision. Wouldn't expect them to do that. So there's likely to be things going on in the background. We may see some litigation related to that type of thing if there are disputes that arise. But by and large, at this point we wait because it's not until he's found to, you know, probable causes is found and Mr. Robinson is bound over for trial that he even has to enter a plea to the case. So there's just this.

[C]

So painfully true, it's so painful.

[B]

We're likely to get past, since it sounds they'll have the hearing on September 1, but then they have to weigh it. We're likely to get past the one year mark before a plea is entered in this case.

[L]

Yeah, I think that's very possible. Now, the way around that, I think would be if Judge Graf did what would be extremely atypical for him, and that is rule on probable cause from the bench at this September 1st hearing. But he, like everyone, he's been very careful. He's taken the care to make sure that one, he is entertaining the arguments of the parties, but also that he is documenting his decisions and his thought process. So that that's in our record. It's available for review for everybody. And that takes time as well. So hard to imagine that happening before the one year deadline.

[D]

Andre.

[C]

So if, if he did rule from the bench, which apparently is at his discretion to do so, I don't see why that would be a problem given the, you know, breadth and depth of evidence that was just presented to him.

[D]

Does that sort of the reason he may not choose to do that is

[C]

to look impartial, to look fair, and to protect this case from appeal down the road.

[D]

Is that kind of the logic for not doing that?

[L]

Yeah, I think it's all of those things. I think that he has, although not he doesn't have a perfect record on transparency, but he has certainly, I should say maybe he's not a maximalist as I am, but he, he has certainly appreciated and recognized the importance of it. And so the thought process, being transparent about that, I think, is something that's important to him, to make sure, not just that we know what the ruling is, but why he reached that ruling. And so I think also, like you said, the fairness to the defense, so that they're on notice and if they take any issue with it, they can dispute it, they can appeal it, and then there's no concern about somebody's rights being trampled.

[C]

All right, so I think then my questions now, Andrea, go to this back and forth, and you saw Kirk family Representative Jeffrey Nyman get in the mix here. This balancing, this tension between transparency. You said you called yourself a maximalist. I think it's fair to say that the Kirk family and the state have been more on the transparency side. The defense has been arguing to keep certain exhibits from the public. How do courts weigh this question of transparency when it comes to the evidence and bias for a potential jury or tainting a jury pool?

[D]

I saw you posting about, I believe

[C]

it's Estes, and then they kept referencing the French name. You probably know it. Andrea? Yeah. What is the, what is the, I

[D]

guess predicates or precedents rather for this,

[C]

and what is Judge Graff trying to balance here?

[L]

Well, it's a very large question. The issue with Estes and Rideau goes to televising and the presence of the cameras. And these are rather old precedents from the US Supreme Court in the early days of television itself, where they were quite hostile to the intrusion of the cameras. And so that reasoning and those decisions have have largely been overridden by subsequent developments in the law. But that said, it always remains a concern about if jurors are exposed to too much information, particularly information that's of the kind that's likely to have a real big impact, the kind of thing that's hard to ignore. Then it's hard not to prejudge the case. And then it just becomes that much more difficult to find impartial jurors. What we've seen in the case law developing since these early decisions and the hostility to television, first off, a recognition that this is universal, this doesn't depend on TVs. This is going to be an issue with newspaper coverage as well. It's about information and access to it. So there's no real reason to be hostile to the television per se. It's not adding any kind of problem like that. But we've also seen a growing acceptance of this idea that the time to sort out those issues is in jury selection, it's easy to lose perspective or to, I guess, project our interests and our viewpoints on the rest of the world and assume that everybody is paying attention to what we are and with the same degree of focus that we are. But the reality is that those of us watching all of these intricate details of this case, we are the minority. And so that's jury selection recognizes that. And that, yes, there almost certainly will be people showing up, asked to try the case, who will know too much, will have too firm opinions. But that's what the process is for, is to sort those people out so that we can find the ones who have spent the last week looking into the Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce wedding instead.

[C]

Right. Right.

[D]

Independence Day is the perfect time to talk about something we all care about, and that's freedom. And yes, that includes medical freedom. Our good friends and sponsors, all Family Pharmacy, they're running one of their biggest sales of the year from July 1st through July 7th.

[C]

It's buy one, get one free on

[D]

ivermectin capsules, Ivermectin cream, and others. If you believe in being prepared, this is a great opportunity to stock up and save. They make the process super simple. Everything's handled online. They only run sales like this few times a year. So don't miss it. Go to allfamilypharmacy.com Kirk Before July 7th, I mean, and by the way, there

[C]

is this mutual tension because in a

[D]

case this high profile, you have a

[C]

whole cottage industry of conspiracists that have

[D]

invented all of this stuff. And so I have the same concern. Right.

[C]

So if the defense is going to raise the concern that this could unduly

[D]

bias a potential jury, I have the same concern, but the inverse of it, that if we don't get these facts transparently made available to the public, that there will leave a void, a chasm that will be filled by conspiracies. And if that happens, then we could taint the jury in the other direction.

[L]

Absolutely. I think that's very legitimate. We had the evidentiary hearing on the defense's motion to ban the cameras. They had done a public opinion survey. It was done by the same guy, actually, who did a public opinion survey for Brian Kohberger over in Moscow, Idaho. And so that was. That was fresh in my mind when we watched him testify here. And the disconnect between those two cases, the disparity in the public opinion, it's hard to overstate how significant it was. In Brian Coburger's case, there was something like 98% of the community knew about it, overwhelming opinions of guilt. And we're not seeing that in this particular case. It was more like 50, 50 in terms of. In terms of prejudgment of guilt. And so I think. I think that the alternative theories are a big reason why, because from my perspective, if I were to put these probable cause affidavits side by side, the amount of evidence we're dealing with here is overwhelms what was available in Bryan Kohberger's case at the same time in the process.

[C]

Well, I think we all understand where some of that's coming from, which is why what Jeffrey Nyman said when he was arguing on behalf of transparency, he said, judge, you have tools at your disposal to deal with that. And I believe you mean during jury selection. So we kind of dealt with this with Jolene as well, who's a jury consultant. She did O.J. and she did Joellen.

[B]

Joellen Demetrius?

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

What did I say?

[B]

You said Jolene. Jolene, like the Dolly Parton song.

[D]

Yeah.

[C]

No, Jo Ellen, sorry. Joellen Demetrius. She did the O.J.

[D]

simpson trial. She did Enron.

[C]

She's done a bunch of big, high profile cases. Daniel Penney, Daniel Penny, she was saying, you know, kind of floating out some options that the judge would have at his disposal to sort of sort through the jury selection process.

[D]

So putting that hat on.

[C]

Andrea, what would be at the judge's disposal, as you see it?

[L]

Well, these can be challenging issues. There's really no question about it, because what you're trying to do is sort out bias. But the problem is that bias isn't. We aren't always aware of it, and so it isn't always something we can disclose and talk about. That said, it's been extensively studied. I'm sure that your jury consultant has done a massive amount of that type of thing. And so there have been techniques developed to kind of be able to suss out things that might lead you to conclude that a person has prejudged a case, even if they aren't necessarily aware of it. But generally speaking, the tools are you expand the jury pool. If you Normally call in 100 people for your jury veneer, we already know it's going to need to be more than that for this case. Just because Charlie Kirk is so high profile, the case is so high profile. But say you Normally call in 100, then maybe you call in 200 so that you, you know that you can get rid of more and still have enough remaining to come up with a jury. You do pre, pre jury questionnaires. You expand the questioning. You allow extended questioning about what they've been exposed to and what their thoughts are and, and their opinions. You do individual questioning behind closed doors. If you need to get into specifics, meaning closed doors, just meaning away from the other jurors. So you're not, you know, tainting them with, with extraneous information, but to talk to them real specifically about maybe what they have seen, what they have read, details that they picked up and things like that. And so just getting the largest number of people available and getting as much information from them as you can is going to increase the likelihood that you'll be able to find 12 to maybe 16, you know, for the alternates that are going to be ignorant enough about the case or just open enough about the case that they'll be able to judge it fairly based on what they see in the courtroom.

[B]

We can only hope. Andrea, we have a few more minutes here. So a thing that really stood out to all of us here, of course, is near the end of the hearing where Michael Burt, one of the defense attorneys, he, while they're discussing whether they're going to see this John Madden style video of things he tears into Erica Kirk specifically by name, talks about her holding these press conferences, which never happens.

[J]

Which.

[B]

Yeah, exactly, doesn't happen, treating the prosecutors like they're her personal attorneys. It's a really quite personal attack. We were talking about that with Graham as well. And I guess what I'm wondering for you is, first of all, have you seen something like this before? It seemed very unusual. What's the strategic reasoning of this? Just what do you make of this, that it happened? Is it as appalling to you as it is to us? And it's okay if you say this is more common than you think?

[L]

No, actually, I was very surprised. I was quite taken aback myself because I handle victims with kid gloves. It's not in your interest, the overwhelming majority of the time to be aggressive with the victim. People are naturally sympathetic to victims of crime. And this is a woman who lost her husband, her children have lost their father. And so it's hard not to have a massive amount of sympathy for that. And so it can really, really backfire among the people who are more inclined to appreciate what Erica has gone through, to see her being attacked like this, I have a hard time really seeing what the strategy is.

[C]

Well, I think it was a mask off moment, Andrea. I think he just forgot himself for a moment. I mean, he's an elderly man and he was probably getting frustrated. He was probably focusing on this really, this mundane minutiae for so long that he just. I mean, it was egregious to me watching it. I was very upset.

[B]

That's charitable. I am worried that his strategy is, as you said, that apparently in the local area, people are more 50, 50. I'm worried he is, in fact, pandering, too. There's basically a cottage industry. People have made entire careers as podcasters and whatnot. Basically turning Erica into this, like, soap opera villain.

[D]

Well, and by the way, to do

[C]

it without any factual basis. There was no press conferences accusing the Kirk family of treating the state as their personal, you know, lawyers was just. That's not true. They don't have access to the state evidence.

[D]

This is why they're asking for the ability to see this video that they haven't seen yet. So the whole thing was just absurd.

[C]

This guy. That's him. And he was Lyle Menendez's lawyer. But, Andrew, you're saying this was very unusual.

[L]

I can't say it's unusual in the sense that no lawyers do this. There are lawyers that do this. But I would have to say I don't expect good lawyers to do this. I don't expect lawyers with his kind of experience to take this kind of approach with a victim if he has complaints, and he may very well. I mean, yes, Erica has made some statements. They're not press conferences. I think the characterization of it that is so particularly nasty. And that's. That's the revealing part. You do have to sometimes talk about difficult facts with victims. This is very common to have to talk about difficult facts with victims. But the way to do that respectfully and in a way that is just less likely to hit us like this has, is to keep it factual, to keep it accurate, to not color it with accusatory types of tones and characterizations and stuff. So, yeah, I was very taken back.

[C]

It felt very passive aggressive and like a bullying tactic. So is there any way that if

[D]

this happens again, I mean, I would

[C]

be in favor of somebody lodging a complaint to the judge and if this happens again, for there to be potential sanctions? I don't know. Is there anything like that at the judge's disposal?

[L]

I don't see why not. Under the constitutional victims rights that are afforded to her, that includes the right to be treated with respect and dignity. And so if she feels that that's not being met, seems to me that she would have the right under the. Under the Utah Constitution to bring that to the judge's. Attention.

[C]

Good to know. Andrea Burkhart, thank you for joining us again. We're coming up at the end of the hour and we're trying to keep these things tight. Final minute here. Anything that we missed that you think was significant today that you want to draw our attention to?

[L]

Well, I mean, there really was a massive amount of evidence. Like I said, this is, this is really where the links were being made, the connections. What I would say, I guess, is that my optimism out of today came from the fact that when we left court last night, we had a much lower expectation of what we were going to see today, particularly as it, as it relates to that interview from, from Mr. Twigs. And so the fact that we were able to make it through today and, and we actually got to see something at all, like leaving yesterday. We weren't going to see anything. We were just going to have audio recordings. This suggests to me, it's just I am an optimist. But it does suggest to me that the judge is trying to course correct. He's recognizing not always going to be perfect, but he's also not so grounded in his ego that he's just going to dig in to a decision that he's made whether it's right or not.

[C]

I agree. I think seeing him change course was really encouraging.

[D]

Andrea Burkhart, check her out on subsequent

[C]

stack on X and YouTube. Thank you so much. We appreciate it.

[J]

For more on many of these stories

[D]

and news you can Trust, go to charliekirk.com.