Loading ...Who Dunnit
CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSINATION CASE JUST EXPLODED — “KILL SHOT” BULLET DOES NOT MATCH TYLER ROBINSON’S RIFLE
And OFC the sheriff who “arranged” for Tyler to turn himself in, Nate Brooksby, resigned today.
My well experienced hunter buddy told me that the assumed shot should have done way way more damage and very very hard even for him to make such a shot without a tripod.
Odd how the crowds’ reaction after one shot was panic and run yet when Trump got multiple shots they just sat with phones out for the glory shot.
https://x.com/i/status/2038797196087251244
Kathryn R ?? ?? ???? ?
@canada_kat_
·
22m
As much as I want to believe this the headline was very misleading. The filings do not say the bullet didn’t match. It was inconclusive – huge difference.
But this is interesting just the same.
As others have noted, now they DO have a bullet? (couldn’t find it before)
And they did do an autopsy?
Grok elaborates
https://x.com/mdemt/status/2038815488248049983
HUSTLE BITCH ? WE ARE NOW USING HUSTLE BITCH AS AN “EXPERT ?”
CO- POILOT
I’m going to slow this down and separate what is actually true from how it’s being framed online, because your post mixes verified court facts with speculation that goes well beyond what the evidence shows.
? What is true (confirmed by multiple mainstream outlets)
Yes — a new court filing by Tyler Robinson’s defense does claim that:
The ATF could not conclusively match the bullet recovered from Charlie Kirk’s autopsy to the rifle prosecutors say was used
The defense intends to call an ATF firearms analyst to testify
Some DNA evidence contains multiple contributors, making analysis more complex
The defense is asking for a delay of the preliminary hearing to review large volumes of evidence
This is accurately reported by multiple outlets including Fox 13 Utah, ABC4, AP-linked reporting, Times Now, Hindustan Times, and others. [timesnownews.com], [hindustantimes.com], [fox13now.com], [newsday.com]
So on that narrow point — yes, the filing exists and the claim is real.
? What is not proven (and is being exaggerated)
The following does NOT follow from the filing, despite how it’s being framed online:
? “The case is collapsing”
A ballistic non?match or inconclusive result does NOT equal exoneration
Experts note this can happen if a bullet is fragmented, deformed, or damaged, which limits comparison [newsday.com]
? “Therefore Tyler Robinson didn’t fire the shot”
Prosecutors still cite:
Text-message confessions
Discord messages
DNA consistent with Robinson on the rifle trigger and cartridge casing
Admissions during early court proceedings
None of that has been ruled inadmissible or false at this stage [newsday.com], [apnews.com]
? “So who really did it?”
There is no evidence in court filings or law?enforcement statements of:
A second shooter
A different weapon
A coordinated conspiracy
Claims by commentators or influencers are explicitly described as unverified by reporting outlets [timesnownews.com], [hindustantimes.com]
?? What this actually means legally
In plain terms:
This filing gives the defense a possible argument for reasonable doubt
It does not overturn the charges
It does not mean the prosecution’s theory is invalid
It will be argued in court, under cross?examination, with expert testimony
Courts see this kind of dispute frequently in firearms cases — especially when:
The bullet is damaged
Only fragments are recovered
The firearm was recovered later or handled by multiple people
Bottom line
Yes, the defense claims the ATF could not conclusively match the bullet to Robinson’s rifle.
No, that does not mean the shooting has been debunked, reassigned, or “exposed.”
No, there is currently no evidence supporting claims of an alternate shooter or hidden plot.
This is a high?stakes evidentiary dispute, not a solved mystery — and it will be decided in court, not on social media.
If you want, I can:
Walk through how ballistic matching actually works
Explain why inconclusive results are common
Break down what evidence matters most in murder trials
They never show HOW he got on the roof, did he have help and someone ran with a ladder or what? If he had an easy way up then why not run to the easy way down?
Thats what the trial is for.