Video of Charlie Kirk’s shooter now available HERE! TYLER ROBINSON NOT GUILTY!!! This writer is convinced this video shows an actual shooter. Was it the only shooter? Who knows? Was this a conspiracy? It sure smells like it! To what purpose? We’ll see!

What’s the F.B.I. got to say now? Why is this guy still walking around? Who paid him? Why’d he do it? Let’s put pressure on the powers that be! America is run by a crime syndicate HERE! 12/16/25 update HERE!

Picture of weapon below:

Additional thoughts:

1.      Withheld Exculpatory Evidence by Federal Authorities: Owens contends that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) deliberately suppressed surveillance footage depicting an unidentified woman in proximity to the perpetrator at the time of the incident, thereby obstructing a comprehensive investigation and facilitating the erroneous attribution of culpability to Robinson. This evidentiary omission, if substantiated, could constitute a due process violation under the Brady v. Maryland precedent, warranting the dismissal of charges.

2.      Indication of a Non-Lone Actor Perpetration: Drawing on eyewitness accounts and ancillary video documentation, Owens posits that the assassination involved collaborative elements inconsistent with a solitary assailant narrative, as evidenced by the presence of an accomplice. Such assertions challenge the prosecution’s lone-gunman theory, potentially introducing reasonable doubt regarding Robinson’s singular involvement and necessitating further forensic scrutiny.

3.      Fabrication of Incriminating Narratives: Owens alleges systemic orchestration by investigative entities to frame Robinson, corroborated by discrepancies in official timelines and media disclosures post-incident. This claim of manufactured evidence aligns with historical precedents of prosecutorial misconduct, providing grounds for a motion to suppress tainted materials and reevaluate the chain of custody.

4.      Anomalies in Suspect Identification Protocols: Referencing newly surfaced gas station surveillance, Owens highlights inconsistencies between Robinson’s documented movements and the assailant’s profile, suggesting misidentification or substitution. In a courtroom context, this could invoke principles of eyewitness reliability, as seen in cases like Manson v. Brathwaite, thereby undermining the probative value of identification testimony.

5.      Interference by External Investigative Figures: Owens references the deployment of personnel affiliated with Kash Patel to probe the assassination, implying biased external influences that may have prejudiced the preliminary inquiry against Robinson. This external meddling could be leveraged to argue institutional bias, invoking the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial tribunal and justifying a venue change or evidentiary hearing.

6.      Discrepancy in Ballistic Evidence Regarding Projectile Caliber: Owens asserts that forensic analysis reveals a mismatch between the caliber of the recovered projectile and the firearm purportedly wielded by Robinson, specifically noting that the wound trajectory and bullet characteristics are incompatible with a .30-06 rifle as alleged by prosecutors. This evidentiary inconsistency, if corroborated through independent ballistics testing, could invoke principles of scientific reliability under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, thereby eroding the prosecution’s foundational chain of forensic linkage and engendering reasonable doubt as to Robinson’s instrumental involvement.

Pensiamento Peligroso