Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing: Day 4

00:00:03 Speaker 1: 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'll end up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You got to stop sending your kids to college. 00:00:27 Speaker 2: You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible. 00:00:31 Speaker 3: Go start at turning point. 00:00:32 Speaker 2: You would say college chapter. 00:00:33 Speaker 1: Go start at turning point, yould say high school chapter. 00:00:35 Speaker 2: Go find out how your church can get involved. 00:00:37 Speaker 3: Sign up and become an activist. I gave my. 00:00:39 Speaker 1: 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. 00:00:48 Speaker 3: Buckle up, everybody, Here we go. 00:00:56 Speaker 2: Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of the Charlie Kirkshaw, a company that specializes in gold I rays and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegold investments dot Com. That is Noblegoldinvestments dot Com. 00:01:17 Speaker 4: All right, welcome back, everybody. We've been watching day four, the preliminary hearing, and there is a lot of back and forth going on about this video interview of Lance Twigs. Remember there was a lot of back and forth whether or not he should be subpoenad to be in the courtroom. The judge ruled against that, so they were allowed to use this video recording. Now there's reactions. They're taking a quick break and apparently I think when we get back, we're going to see the video. 00:01:47 Speaker 5: We're going to finally see some video and we're going to see I guess we're going to find out are there any text messages they got that aren't what was already actually seen by the public ten months ago we saw a lot of French warfare back and forth. Yes, over this it feels remarkable to me, Andrew, like, I feel you could reduce all the arguments they make to a couple paragraphs and you take read it and then but it takes hours of back and forth. 00:02:13 Speaker 4: I'm here to help us unpack some of the legal maneuvering. Here is Wendy Patrick, attorney and partner Sam and Ash LLP. She has been all over the Real America's Voice airways covering this extensively. We're honored to have her here. Wendy, Welcome to the show. What do you make of this back and forth? I mean we're getting there's this case Rideau or whatever. You know, My French is terrible too. Actually so there's also they're mentioning estes. It looks like, so please unpack what the details are being argued about here. 00:02:46 Speaker 6: Definitely, I'll do so as a prosecutor for former defense attorney. I appreciate the promotion. I've been making a lot more money if I were with a bird. But you know, your question is one that's on the minds of anybody who's watching. Why is it taking so long to show us the evidence? Here's that's the answer. You heard different cases being cited by different sides, but factual dissimilarity carries the day under facts like this. This is not a case where something came out of the prison. It's not a case that is detailing a confession under different circumstances that maybe in one or both of those cases. This is factually distinct. It's the logic and the rationale that that judge had to consider. I'll bet he was up all night thinking about this. Both lawyers probably were as well. But this is the result that at least most people hope for in terms of transparency, because we are going to get to see the video now. We're also going to have some redactions, but not nearly the extent that we were worried we're going to be imposed yesterday. Remember that was the big frustrating day where everybody went home thinking, when are we going to get to actually see what Tyler Robinson said to the roommate, what he said on social media. And part of what the judge addressed today is how much have they already seen? Because if it's already out there, to say well now we're not going to actually let it become evidence defeats the purpose. The purpose is to ensure the defendant gets a fair trial, making sure that when we get to trial, as we will, this is going to be a bind over. When we get to trial, the jury can only decide the defendant's guilt or innocence based on admissible evidence, not based on what they read online or heard commentators discussing. As soon as we get back, we're going to actually make this part of the public record so that everybody will be able to use it come time for trial. 00:04:29 Speaker 4: So what was actually agreed that it was going to be redacted here, Wendy, I got lost in the weeds trying to understand the arguments back and forth. But it seems like, as you mentioned, we're going to get more than we thought we might write that. There was a I think a portion yesterday as I was reading it was extensive. It was like those It was like about half of it. What did you hear from that final argument? Are that final ruling from the judge? 00:04:58 Speaker 6: The final ruling from the judge here to focus on private information of other people? When you redact something, and we've been doing this for thirty years in criminal law, you redact the personal information of people that were on the scene, victims, families. Sometimes we even redact the names of victims there Jane, no John Doe. But in this particular document, apparently online, there was some reference to somebody else, including personal identifying information. There is no problem with redacting that, and there didn't appear to be an argument about that. What I found stunning is that between today and yesterday, as you mentioned, there appears to be less redactions asked for, and that's going to satisfy everyone, most importantly Erica Kirk and the Kirk family. You know, one of the lawyers said, just now in court, why are we here if we're not going to get to see the evidence. And it appears that the judge overnight did read his case law, did his due diligence, and is prepared to admit evidence. Remember that must have been on his mind when he ruled these proceedings could not only be public, but live streamed. So this is in the vein of transparency. 00:06:03 Speaker 3: Good. 00:06:03 Speaker 4: So the judge ruled more in our favor. What now? So okay, I'm just trying to make sense of this, Wendy hear because essentially the as of today, the like this morning, the reactions that the judge was suggesting were from timestamps six fifty six to twenty twenty seven, twenty seven point in eighteen seconds to twenty seven and twenty five seconds, twenty eight and eleven to twenty eight and eighteen, and then thirty two fifty five to thirty five forty eight. I know it's a lot of numbers, but there was big chunks that he was taking out. Am I understanding you right that he put a lot of that back in. 00:06:40 Speaker 6: That I don't know because I don't know the text of the document. That's why we're all here. We want to now you know, what does it say? What does the footage show? What is it? What can we see? What can we hear? The problem is we don't understand what's in those sections. If we understood what was in those sections, as opposed to the page with the personal identifying information of the other person, would be in a lot better position to assess whether we think is ruling was right or wrong. But we don't know what's there, and that characterizes the frustration inherent in a criminal trial where you have friends, loved ones, people that were victimized, people that are being re traumatized in the core room honestly not having any idea what is redacted, because that's the point of a redaction. But another good point has been raised in court this morning that lit up social media yesterday is what are they hiding now? The answer, the easy answer to that legally would not be so much it's being hidden, but being excluded in order to protect the integrity of a conviction. If you have a conviction that's based on evidence, that a higher court rule should not have come into evidence. It gets reversed and you have to do the whole thing over again, and that means victims supporters being re traumatized all over again. So we don't know exactly what's in all the portions that are going to be redacted. It does seem, and I, like you, have been trying to follow numbers and pages. It does seem that perhaps there might be a more of an inclination to show more of it after the extended case law discussion than yesterday. But I even want to watch and make sure that's true when this finally comes to light after the break. 00:08:14 Speaker 4: We've all been told to eat fruits and vegetables forever, but nobody really explained why. What if I told you that plants have their own nutrition and that it might be better for you than a lot of processed stuff. We've added If nutrition feels overwhelming, it helps to take a step back and zoom out. 00:08:31 Speaker 3: When you eat. 00:08:31 Speaker 4: Whole foods, you're getting what's called phyto nutrients, natural compounds your body uses to adjust, repair and to respond every single day. Stresses balance of nature, takes real produce and runs it through a tailored vacuum cold process that stabilizes that phyto nutrition. Their whole health system combines fruits and vegetables and fibers and spice, giving you forty seven whole fruit ingredients, and their Fhyto nutrition is one simple routine. Their new freeze dries snacks go through a similar process, so your snacks can be whole based, whole food based instead of just empty calories. Whole food Phyto nutrition plus Balance of Nature helps you fight the good fight. Save over thirty percent when you subscribe at balanced nature dot com, join hundreds of thousands of customers in one simple routine that's changing the world. You can get an additional ten percent off your order just by using the discount code Charlie. When you purchase at Balance of nature dot com, that's discount code Charlie for ten percent off your order. Yeah, so it's a little bit unclear what we're actually gonna see. It does sound like it's. 00:09:38 Speaker 5: A lot of back and forth. They He really emphasized the difference between the video which they obtained after the arrest had been made versus these text messages and notes and such. He's pointing. He pointed out, these are evidence. They accumulated in the initial phase. They are supposed communications from the defendant himself rather than the testimony a against him. It sounds like there's literally Supreme Court cases distinguishing between video and text. 00:10:06 Speaker 7: It just seems like a nightmare. It makes me glad I'm not a lawyer. 00:10:09 Speaker 4: Yeah, I exactly if. On that note, I have a tweet from Richard Grenell here that I think is interesting. He goes, I'm proudly not a lawyer. No offense. But it's a pathetic commentary on our justice system. When a lawyer for a killer alleged can even make an argument to a judge to keep out text messages admitting to a killing because it quote prejudice, prejudice is my client. The judge should have said no immediately and then shame the phony lawyer for wasting the public's time and money. Justice should be swift. I can't say that, as somebody personally connected this, that I disagree. Obviously. I understand that this judge has to balance things. He's probably balancing a potential appeals. He's making sure that he doesn't trip up on any technicality that the defense is trying to throw in front of him. That Novak guy, by the way, apparently is some big hot shot from southern California that they've brought in and it's getting a lot of money for this, which is interesting. I'm just finding this out this morning. That's what I've seen. I don't know much about him, but that's what the defense. 00:11:15 Speaker 5: Every person has a right to a trial and tire an attorney, So I don't want to fuss that too much, but it does feel like a slow motion version you ever see the Jim Carrey comedy Liar, Liar, I object your honor on what grounds? 00:11:27 Speaker 7: It's devastating to my case? 00:11:28 Speaker 4: Yeah, exactly, that's a difference. 00:11:31 Speaker 6: Being prejudicial is the nature of evidence in a criminal case. 00:11:34 Speaker 3: It's all prejudice. Exactly. 00:11:36 Speaker 6: Here's the argument, undo prejudice, unduly prejudiced, prejudicial. In other words, the enormous prejudice outweighs the probate of value. That's the legal standard, not is it prejudicial, or we wouldn't have trials, nothing would be admitted. So that is why you had this back and forth, extended back and forth about case law and under what circumstances and under what factual scenarios is that bird met. That's what they were arguing about. And that's as you mentioned something that the general public wouldn't know. There's no way you would know that's evidence code. It's in the weeds. But you can understand why you'd have a legal test like that, and that's what the judge was grappling with. I only wish he made a clearer record so that everybody watching would have a better understanding as to why he makes the decisions he did. Thank God, we are going to get to see a lot of it today, I have no doubt. On the other side, we'll be breaking down what we wish we would have seen, but what we think about what was admissible now. Also, this is not the end of the line. This is a probable cost hearing between now and trial. My guess is both sides will continue to litigate this. Maybe even more will be admissible in trial. 00:12:43 Speaker 4: Wow, it's difficult to exactly. I mean, we just don't We just kind of don't know. And that's how much we're going to get. Let's go ahead and play some clips here, Wendy, and just make sure we're all on the same page here. First, I'm going to put Kirk family representative Jeffrey Nyman. He's asking for a transparency. I thought it was well said. Top three. 00:13:07 Speaker 8: Good morning, your honor Jeffrey ninma On behalf of the Kirk family, and we appreciate the court is trying to balance here. But the Kirk family's waited ten months for this hearing and they have a right to be here, and they have a right to hear the evidence. They have a right to see and feel what's going on in this courtroom, just like and they want to understand, judge what you were viewing. They want to see the evidence, and we understand you have to balance, but at a minimum, this courtroom needs to be open for the evidence to be displayed openly in this courtroom, for them to see it. The Utah Constitution gives them the right to be here and to be here and not to see the evidence, what's the point of being here. We ask you to let the evidence be seen in the courtroom. Please, thank you for your time. 00:13:57 Speaker 3: Thank you counseling. 00:13:58 Speaker 5: It really is an import statement he's giving there, and it's good to remind ourselves we're in a particularly important case. Almost it feels unprecedented to me. There have been high profile criminal cases. There have been criminal cases where there's debates about guilt or innocence. But I don't think I've ever seen a case that has this much injection of conspiracy theory fervor before it. 00:14:26 Speaker 4: Goes to trial in social media. 00:14:28 Speaker 5: First first big assassination since RFK fifty years ago. And as a result, we also saw that in the text pleading that they also filed with the court overnight, they're just saying, we actually have a desperate need for transparency in this case that goes beyond almost any other case we've seen, because the ways they're running wild with stuff that it turned out is totally groundless. We've got we had all those claims Tyler's wasn't even on campus, and so they have to trot out Actually, here's all this footage where he is on campus. They're trotting out. Actually he never turned himself in, so we need them to trot out. Yes, actually he was in custody nine pm. We sent this police officer down. Stuff that you would never feel needed to be emphasized in most criminal cases really needs to be put on display for the publish. It's such a good point. 00:15:21 Speaker 4: Couldn't you make the argument, Wendy that it's prejudicial not to sort of fill these voids, these vacuums that have been created by this ten month waiting process. Isn't it prejudicial to a potential jury pool to not give them the facts of why he's being charged and why they're seeking the death penalty. 00:15:39 Speaker 7: In this case. 00:15:40 Speaker 6: Yeah, And that's what freedoms are for. And that's what a trial is going to be about. It's going to be about the evidence, not conspiracy theories. All of this would have been trotted out anyway, because all of it is relevant to prove the case. And it's interesting, I've read the same theories you have sometimes people email them to me. There's no evidence back in those theories. What happens in court is evidence, unlike the court of public opinion. So you had yesterday and even the beginning of the week. We had ballistics, we had DNA, we had video footage, We had you know, him turning himself in in the same clothes he was wearing in one of the pieces of video footage. We have a very calm presentation, although we just saw it from behind, of what it was like when he was arrested. There wasn't any bullying, There wasn't any you know, a flickering light. All of that is geared towards establishing that he committed this crime, and that's going to be what today is about as well, and as far as the conspiracy theories, one of the things that Judge is going to do in VWA Dyer when we get to trial is ensure that anybody that is selected for the jury can be fair. That means this is going to be asked about. He's not going to publish the theories, but he's going to ask those jurors, you know, what have you seen, what have you heard? You have any preconceived notions about this case designed to get to exactly what both of you are pointing out. That this case cannot be tried by what's happening and what's being stated in the court of public public opinion, only what's introduced in a court of law. That's what we're doing in this probable cost hearing, That's what we'll be doing at Shrop. Those are great points. 00:17:05 Speaker 4: Yeah, and I just go back to the fact that by refusing to admit certain evidence which the defense is pushing for, even in a preliminary hearing, you could make the argument that that is prejudicial against the victim's rights here because again, the conspiracies in the Internet are filling all the voids when the court refuses to fill them. So this is a portion from the brief that was filed by I believe Jeffrey Nyman who just saw on that. So the victims family's position is simple. At a minimum, every exhibit entered into evidence during the preliminary hearing must be visible to every person lawfully present in the courtroom. To receive evidence in a matter shielded from those seated in the courtroom, has happened today is not transparency. And in the absence of transparency, speculation and conspiracy theories related to the tragic assassination of mister Kirk will continue to proliferate in the public domain, breading doubt and distry trust in the judicial system. This is not what anyone should want. So Jeffrey Nyman is hitting that point exactly right, especially this you know, you know, and the absence of transparency, speculation and conspiracies will proliferate. That's the key, and Judge has been persuaded, at least in part. 00:18:20 Speaker 6: You can't argue with that. It is true. Anytime we say, well, you know, in this very charged environment, this emotionally charged environment, where we have all these theories out there. To say that we're not going to release evidence is necessarily and definitely going to feel those theories, you know. And it is also true that victims have a significant amount of rights, and it's true emotionally nobody can argue that. Why, you know, in a perfect world, everybody would get to see all the evidence, and especially the Kirk family and friends and the beloved supporters that are there. I want to tie that in with one thing that both of you agreed on earlier. We haven't seen a proved them like this. You have the assassination of an absolutely beloved icon, just somebody that could have been President of the United States. It's a case that transcends so many different fact patterns under similar crime statues. It's just different every way you think about it. And in that environment, to have evidence that is not admitted, to have evidence that is redacted is going to be scrutinized far more seriously, which is why I have to imagine that between the probable costs here and whatever the rulings end up being, whatever is redacted, and the trial that the prosecution and the media lawyers will probably continue to push for that transparency. Remember that this sort of came up at the eleventh hour. Shouldn't have. I mean that it always happened, it shouldn't have, But we may be continuing to press for that. 00:19:47 Speaker 4: Wendy, that was great stuff. Thank you so much for being on standby for this break. It sounds like the court is coming back in session, so we're going to tune right in. All right, Wendy. It seems like they're really taking their time here bringing the public in. We did check the transcription enter. 00:20:04 Speaker 5: In the courtroom as slowly as we've gone through everything else in this preliminary Yeah, so just preview for the audience though, Wendy, what is about to happen. 00:20:13 Speaker 6: What's about to happen is we're finally going to see several pieces of evidence that contain statements that are attributed directly to Tyler Robinson. It's going to be the first time we've actually seen that in a court of law. We're going to see that in different formats. We're going to talk about text messages, We're going to hopefully hear from the roommate. After that, we'll no doubt also hears some argument about how much more, if any, we can see. And I have to say the reason I'm glad we're finally getting started is the judgement clear. This is over tomorrow at five pm. 00:20:42 Speaker 4: Yeah, Wendy, it looks like finally finally had the public filtering. But that was actually a really key point right there at the end. So thank you, Wendy, thank you for standing by with us this morning. Let's go back to the courtroom. Hi, folks, Andrew Cole here, I'd like to tell you about my friends over at y REFI. You've probably been hearing me talk about y 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. Why ref I 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. Why ref I can help. Just go to y refi dot com. That's the letter, Why then refi dot com And remember why REFI doesn't care what your credit score is. Just go to yrefi dot com and tell them your friend Andrews sent you. 00:21:57 Speaker 9: Uh. 00:21:57 Speaker 4: We have Robert Barnes now he's joining us. He's been all over social media trying to add facts and logic and actually some experience of what it means to do actual law. Robert, thank you so much. Barnes Law, LLP and co host of Viva and Barnes, thank you for joining us. Robert, What do you make of what just happened? I don't know if you were watching the hearing just there. Jack Pisobic who's in the courtroom or at least around it. He said that huge reversal that the judge is not going to admit more of this Lance Twigs video recording. Is that how you read what we just saw? 00:22:36 Speaker 3: Yeah? 00:22:37 Speaker 10: And I think what the judge is trying to balance is the defendant's rights to an impartial jury, which is influenced by pre trial prejudicial publicity against the victims' rights to substantially participate and to observe all meaningful hearings under Utah constitutional and state law, as well as the US and state constitutional rights of the media to have access to public court proceedings, and the public's right to have open access to the courts under the First Amendments rights to petition the government for redressive grievances in which that constitutional right encompasses that. So he's balancing those two. I think courts usually make the mistake of favoring secrecy and favoring sealing proceedings over public transparency because they're more worried about the defendant's pre trial publicity prejudice than they are the prejudice to not allowing full, complete open access to particularly high profile cases where it is really necessary for the public to have confidence in whatever outcome is procured through that judicial process. And I think you for a very young judge, he's actually doing a better job than is normal. Honestly, for judges of that type, the usually their lack of age, they default to, Hey, let's keep things secret, let's keep things sealed because that's what the defendant wants, and overreaching in that capacity because there's an easy way to resolve the pre trial publicity issue because that's only about the jury selection and the impartiality of the jury. You can use jury selection questioning to make sure there's nobody on that jury who has undue pre trial publicity prejudice. This is particularly true when it's evidence that is likely to be admitted at trial, Like your concern for pre trial publicity is evidence that is not likely to be introduced at trial, that has a limited purpose, say in a preliminary hearing context, could get out to the jury in ways when it won't be admitted into evidence at trial. 00:24:35 Speaker 3: When you're talking about evidence. 00:24:36 Speaker 10: That the jury's going to see anyway, there's no reason for be concerned about that prejudice in the jury. 00:24:42 Speaker 4: But is there a difference though, because in the actual trial, twigs would presumably be called in person and this is a video recording of it. Does that distinction factor into the judge's decision here, because yeah, it will be seen at trial, but it'll be cross examined, correct. 00:24:59 Speaker 10: And that's part of the defence's argument. The defense's argument is that some of this evidence may may be sufficient to meet the preliminary hearing admissibility evidentiary standard, but not the trial evidentiary standard. So that that's the defense has a plausible claim as to why they want to exclude this. The I think their main motivation may be different, but the the I think the they. 00:25:23 Speaker 3: Do have a plausible basis for this. 00:25:24 Speaker 10: I saw Rick Renell and some other people complaining about the defense They're just doing their job and their advocacy constitutionally, which we want them to do because we want. 00:25:33 Speaker 3: To have confidence in the outcome of the case. 00:25:34 Speaker 10: We want the defense to be very robust, to be to to have full capability and confidence that they Yeah, I exact agree, Robert, I completely agree. 00:25:43 Speaker 4: But aren't they sort of conceding, Like, isn't the defense conceding that they believe that this evidence is really damning damning by by constantly throwing up objections and fighting full transparency. Isn't that kind of the the subtext here? 00:25:58 Speaker 3: Yeah, I think so. 00:25:59 Speaker 10: I mean, there is a possibility there may be some evidentiary vulnerability in some of this evidence that they truly think they'll be able to exclude from the trial presentation. But the and some of this is definitely for the cameras because they have a standing objection. When you have a standing objection, you don't have to repeat your objection during the hearing. And they're repeating their objections. So they're doing this because they know they're defending him in the court of public opinion as well as the court of law, which in a high profile case, that's part of a defense council's job. The so and I get to people unhappy with that, but that's we want that to be the case. 00:26:31 Speaker 3: We want to believe the defense lawyer defended him every. 00:26:33 Speaker 10: Which way they possibly could, so that we can have confidence when I think this case will ultimately secure as a conviction, they've already met their preliminary hearing standard with ease for probable cause purposes. I see a lot of incorrect, confusing, mistaken views out there that this is the trial. 00:26:49 Speaker 3: It's not. This is an EVIDENTI your hearing. It's not. 00:26:52 Speaker 10: Tyler Robinson is being afforded more due process than ninety nine point nine percent of all criminal defendants across the country and around the world. The most criminal and it's in the federal system, never get a preliminary hearing. Even the ones they get it at a state level typically get far less discovery, far fewer witnesses testifying, don't get to see the underlying exhibits themselves, don't get to see audio and video in this capacity, don't get to test it in front of the public, in front of the whole world and the court of public opinion, not just the court of law. They don't get a sneak peak preview about what these witnesses credibility would look like, though, So this is extraordinary. This court has gone out of its way to afford Tyler Robinson more due process, more discovery, more evidentiary capability to be able to explore and develop their defenses than almost any criminal defendant in the country gets. 00:27:38 Speaker 5: So there's a lot of Robert I'm wondering about that. We've noticed this as well. It's gotten it's taken so long's there's been so much process. What's the primary driver of this is that? Is that it's a capital case? Is this the judge's call? Is this something where this could, in theory happen in any murder case, but usually the attorneys don't really feel like maxing it out. What's the key driver of why this has been able to go as long as it has. 00:28:06 Speaker 7: Who's making the decisions that decide that. 00:28:08 Speaker 10: So the primary mover of delaying this through this entire process, the primary mover of trying to withhold documents and information from the public is both the Defense Council, and it's in the Defense Council's interest to do so when that evidence is damaging. As to your point, Andrew, it's implicitly very damaging for them. 00:28:26 Speaker 4: Because sounds like we're coming back, Robert Barnes, thank you so much. Stand by, We're hopefully going to see the Lance Twigs video. Now, if you could go back in time and buy oil before the world relied on it, would you? Of course you would, anybody would, So why aren't you buying silver right now? The people who recognized oil early didn't just make money, They got ahead of one of the biggest economic shifts in history, and today a similar opportunity is unfolding with silver. Silver is more than a precious metal. It's a critical resource used in solar panels, electric vehicles, defenses, systems, AI infrastructure, in the massive data centers powering that digital world. While demand keeps growing, it's still affordable enough that the average American can start accumulating it right now. That's why investors are turning to silver to protect against inflation and to own one of the world's most important strategic resources. Don't be the person who looks back in ten years and says I saw it coming, I just didn't act. Visit Noble Gold Investments dot com slash kirk and learn how easy it is to own physical silver. That's Noble Goold Investments dot com slash kirk own the metal the future depends on. 00:29:35 Speaker 5: It took us two days practically, it seems of back and forth endlessly over what would be presented, but we finally got what a lot of us I think we're really waiting for this preliminary hearing for which because we'd seen we knew some of the stuff evidence from campus, We knew a lot of the accounts of what had happened. But what we had not seen was the videotape test simony from Lance Twigg's, the roommate alleged boyfriend of Tyler Robinson, who has taken an immunity deal to provide testimony. We finally got not all but large chunks of his interview with police that was conducted this spring. He talked about he confirmed that he'd seen Tyler engraving bullets. He confirmed that Tyler had sent him text messages confessing to the shooting. He described reconfirming that in person with him. 00:30:36 Speaker 7: The following day. 00:30:38 Speaker 5: The words that are going to haunt me, haunt Andrew, haunt a lot of people. 00:30:41 Speaker 7: I think. 00:30:42 Speaker 5: He says that Tyler Robinson told him he wished he hadn't done it. 00:30:48 Speaker 4: He was crying. 00:30:49 Speaker 5: He was crying, and that's going to stick with all of us, I think a very long time. And then after they presented that, they went back to the witness and they went through They showed photos of Lance Twiggs's phone, his iPhone, his communication it reconfirmed exchanged. We saw really just in the first week after the shooting, they released a lot of the text messages between Tyler and Lance, but this confirmed it. We got to see the actual image of the phone exchange where we'd seen only a transcript before, and we saw a few pieces that had been left out before. They occasionally jumped through it before. One that stood out to me. He was saying, if I'm not able to retrieve this gun. This is allegedly Tyler was saying this, I'm not able to retrieve this gun. I don't know how I could replace it. My grandpa had done some modifications, some work on it, and gets to another one of the conspiracy theories we've seen, which is that it couldn't have been this Mauser ninety eight rifle because the Mauser ninety eight rifle has a type of safety on it that's difficult to use with a scope. 00:32:00 Speaker 7: But some of our friends have looked into this. 00:32:03 Speaker 5: Those ballistics experts, gun experts, I've looked into this Mauser and ideas a popular rifle. There are a lot of modifications you can get on that to get around that so you can use a scope on it. So we see text message exchanges that are confirming that specific point. 00:32:19 Speaker 4: But we do have this video that I think is also important, and I believe Jay Town has just called in, So Jay, are you there. I'm sure, yes, Hey, Jay, I'm going to play this video because one of the things that I've been seeing online is, you know, the people are alleging that the images of Tyler Robinson from the surveillance footage that compilation video yesterday, we're not Tyler Robinson. And we had a very relevant exchange between the investigator and Twigs in this video recording where they talk about just this. Go ahead and play st seventeen. I'll get your reaction. Jay Tot seventeen. 00:33:04 Speaker 11: Okay, before he came home. Had you seen the press, the press releases, any of the media on this. 00:33:12 Speaker 9: I'd seen one Instagram like link a friend of mine had sent in our group CHET, but I hadn't really looked into it at all. 00:33:23 Speaker 11: And had you seen the images that were released of the suspect. 00:33:28 Speaker 9: I did the next day. I don't think I saw any on the tent. I'm going to show you a couple of those images. Hey, I'm on the FBI's website. You can see that you are out there at the top. This is a press release about this event. 00:33:55 Speaker 11: And here on the screen you see these there's looks like they're two rows of three images. Do you recognize the person in these images? 00:34:07 Speaker 9: I wouldn't say with one 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 she and so it definitely, especially the bottom the last two definitely do look like him. Oh, they do look like Tyler Robinson. 00:34:39 Speaker 4: Jay speak to this from a legal perspective, what's the significance I guess, both from a probable cause standpoint and looking forward to understanding that he's going to be cross examined if this thing goes to full trial. 00:34:56 Speaker 12: Yeah, and it's going a full trial, I can. I can promise you that the people who know him best recognized him. It's as simple as that, right is his living roommate lover thinks that's him. His parents recognized him from the from the videos. Uh, you know that day right when they were put out saying there's a be on a lookout for for this individual, and they're like, hey, that looks like our son and he look. I mean, it's incredibly important when the people who know him best say that's him. Now, look that that just gets. 00:35:30 Speaker 13: Him in that area. 00:35:31 Speaker 12: It's it's you know, the conspiracy theorists don't have that wiggle anymore. The biggest thing, though, honestly, are the admissions with Twigs that I mean, you know, you don't admit to murder, you don't. 00:35:43 Speaker 13: You don't confess. 00:35:44 Speaker 12: Why you did it, You don't confess. I mean, he knew an awful lot about where the gun was, that there was a scope on that rifle on the mouser, and that he might have fingerprints on it. Of course we know he had DNA on it. 00:35:57 Speaker 4: Uh. 00:35:57 Speaker 12: And right where he's talking about the area where exactly where they found that murder weapon. I mean, that is just damning evidence and admissions are absolutely the best evidence a prosecutor can hope for. I have prosecuted or investigated hundreds of homicides in my career. 00:36:16 Speaker 13: And death penalty cases as well. 00:36:19 Speaker 12: I can tell you the evidence in this case is as strong as I have seen. 00:36:24 Speaker 13: And there is no mental health defense. 00:36:26 Speaker 12: Here that they that the defense is trying to put forward. If there was, then they would just concede it all and say, yeah, but he was crazy. No, they're fighting tooth and nail about every single item because they know the more that happens, the more the public knows, more the future jury pool knows. 00:36:42 Speaker 13: This is no cases. 00:36:43 Speaker 12: A layup, No cases are slam dunk. But this is as good as it's going to get for any state, for any prosecution in a homicide case. 00:36:53 Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, I think that's pretty that's a pretty definitive statement. Jay Hi folks. Andrew Colvett here, I'd like to tell you about my friends over at y Refi. You've probably been hearing me talk about y 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. Why ref I 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. Why ref I can help. Just go to y refi dot com. That's the letter why then refi dot com. And remember why Refi doesn't care what your credit score is. Just go to yrefi dot com and tell them your friend Andrews sent you. I am curious about out this limited immunity for lance twigs. You know I would you know, just full transparency reading some of that stuff where he's talking about, hey, drive safe, you know, after he's just you know, confess to a murder, you know, and they're kind of going back and forth, you know the fact that I don't know. It's just it was infuriating to watch that portion of it. It does seem like hours went by where Lance Twigs was aware what happened and he did nothing about it. So can you break down what that limited immunity would be? Does he have any exposure here? 00:38:37 Speaker 12: Well, the only exposure you would have is if. 00:38:39 Speaker 13: He suddenly has different testimony than what he has. 00:38:44 Speaker 12: Given already in those in those take interviews, right, So suddenly he changes and says something that is exculpatory to Tyler Robinson, then then he could be stripped of that immunity and be prosecuted for any crimes to include perjury. Now, look, that's not going to happen. He knows he's never going to see Tyler Robinson again. Tyler Robinson was counting on Twigs being able to keep this secret with him for the rest of his life. That's why he left the note, That's why he told him that it was him and admitted it all to him and didn't realize that Twiggs would immediately go to police and say, yeah, this is him and this is what he told me. 00:39:27 Speaker 13: It was disgusting though. 00:39:28 Speaker 12: When you as you pointed out the well drive safely, it was almost sort of just a matter of fact, it was it you. 00:39:34 Speaker 13: Yeah, it was me, Oh, why did you do it? 00:39:36 Speaker 12: And he's like, man, I really I hate the fact that I'm going to lose that two thousand dollars scope that's on that mouser. 00:39:42 Speaker 13: My dad's really going to be mad. That's what's going through. 00:39:45 Speaker 12: Your mind at the moment, right, husband, a father, a national leader. 00:39:51 Speaker 13: It really is. It's disgusting and it is going. 00:39:54 Speaker 12: To infuriate his great argument in a jury trial when you are advocating for death. And by the way, there's a lot in those messages to Twigs from Robinson about why he did it, and it was all because the spreading hate and the political messages of Charlie Kirk. Well, that is the death aggravator at issue here, not that he's a Christian, not that you know, he's a father. It was that he was spreading hate by doing what by doing what Charlie Kirk did, which is go to campus and talk about politics and a very open session with students and adults, And it was that politics that drove Tyler Robinson to do what he did. That's exactly the death aggravator that the state is seeking the death penalty upon. 00:40:39 Speaker 5: We mentioned whether he's telling the full truth. The part of that testimony that stood out to a lot of people is he Twiggs says that they didn't talk about politics much, that he'd never heard Tyler bring up Charlie Kirk specifically by name before. And it gets me wondering, first of all, is that fully true, or if it is true, then are we still looking for that nexus that was driving Tyler to actually do this? Was there is there another discord group that we don't know about. 00:41:14 Speaker 4: Yeah, he did mention that he when he talked about politics, Tyler is usually talking about Trump, so that maybe that nexus is enough. 00:41:21 Speaker 5: Could be that for But you and I both said we really, we badly want everyone who was involved in this beforehand to be brought to justice. And that gets back to if he was in another discord group that they haven't found yet, perhaps maybe that's where he was getting nudged towards this violent act. If it wasn't really coming from his roommate. 00:41:44 Speaker 12: It could be. I mean, look, they're going to keep looking cash for telling. The FBI are going to use every tool they can to determine if there was a second sort of discord swinging or spring or any other type of application that that or he was on and he was being sort of radicalized. But I actually think the simplest explanation is the truth here ThReD you no reader, I'll confess to murder to you, but I won't confess about this second you know, string or thread on a different app It seems to me that he was you know, I believe that he didn't discuss Charlie much at all with him simply because Trump was enough. Right, this is exactly what trump arrangement says to syndrome, does to people that those closest to him are just as big a targets. And who's closer than Charlie Kirk, right, I mean, Charlie Kirk had everything to do with Trump getting back into office, everything to do with it. And you know I had the opportunity to take Charlie Kirk out, meaning Charlie was in Utah at a university just a few hours away from Tyler Robinson, and so he took it, blaming Trump, blaming Kirk, blaming all of us for the sport of the President that it could just be that that simple. 00:42:56 Speaker 4: Guys, Hey, thanks for joining us, man, I think I know candidly need to take a break to thank you for jumping on and being sort of available for us today. Any final thoughts, Blake, Jay, Yeah. 00:43:16 Speaker 12: And I just and this is important, Andrew, this is important. Look, this is very personal for you guys to sit and watch this, as it is for Erica and the family and so many people that love Charlie. But it takes a lot of courage, takes guts to sit there and have to watch it and be objective still because. 00:43:35 Speaker 13: You have every right to be angry. So I appreciate what you guys are doing by watching the whole thing, reporting. 00:43:40 Speaker 12: It back, being as objective as you can, and bringing the truth out the best you can. 00:43:45 Speaker 13: You know the truth, We know the truth, and we're with you. 00:43:47 Speaker 4: Thanks for saying that, Ja, I appreciate it. For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to Charliekirk dot com.