We Probably Shouldn’t Execute Tyler Robinson for a Crime He Didn’t Commit

Somebody killed Charlie Kirk. It wasn’t Tyler Robinson.

Here is my most radical, extreme political position. We should not put people to death when they are innocent.

Last month the public was invited to watch preliminary hearings in the State of Utah v. Tyler Robinson. These hearings were to determine if the case should proceed to a full trial in September. It was the job of the state to demonstrate what evidence it has that Tyler Robinson murdered Charlie Kirk. What evidence did the state produce? Nothing.

The state has shown no witness, picture, or video that puts Tyler Robinson on the Utah Valley University campus. Not just on the day of the murder, nobody can put him there ever. There is nothing to demonstrate he even held, much less fired, a rifle that day. This entire prosecution rests on the “testimony” of Lance Twiggs, Robinson’s roommate and alleged gay furry lover. Twiggs is a liar who is more implicated in the crime than Tyler is, but at least he puts on a wolf costume and dry humps people.

What does Lance Twiggs say? Well he speaks to us from a video interview recorded two months before the hearings. Apparently this is the new standard for murder trials: if a witness says something they aren’t supposed to then prosecutors can simply edit it out like slurs on a podcast. Judge Tony Graf overruled defense objections and allowed this tape to be played with some added cuts for sections he deemed irrelevant.

Twiggs states that Robinson never mentioned Charlie Kirk, never mentioned LGBTQ issues (there goes your motive), and didn’t really talk politics except for, well:

Lance Twiggs: “Usually if [Robinson] did talk about politics stuff it was relating to Trump or current like policies being like issued or voted on I think but yeah.”

[long cut…]

Attorney: “Ok, so before that you had been?”

Twiggs: “Mhmm. For a short time yes.”

Very helpful, thanks.

Of course prosecutors say that Tyler Robinson was on campus that day and they’ve produced videos and images of people on campus that day. They found cops and prosecutors willing to testify to these images being Tyler Robinson but they didn’t manage to find any human beings willing to say so. Not even their star witness can go that far.

Attorney: “Do you recognize the person in these images?”

Lance Twiggs: “I wouldn’t say it with 100% 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…”

Some lover! Yeah I’m not sure if that’s the love of my life but he does also wear jeans and hats. No big deal, they’re only gonna execute him by firing squad for this.

Even when testifying via edited video Lance Twiggs managed to perjure himself within seven minutes:

Attorney: “When did you first hear from [Tyler Robinson] on September 10th?”

Lance Twiggs: “It was at 11 o’clock with that like automated message.”

Attorney: “Ok. 11 PM?”

Twiggs: “Yeah.”

Police claim to have photographs of Lance Twiggs’ phone that show text messages between Twiggs and Tyler Robinson.

Notably the top left corner of Twiggs’ phone has been damaged so we have no idea at what time these photographs were taken. But in them Tyler Robinson allegedly has the following exchange with Lance Twiggs before 11 PM:

Tyler Robinson (9/10/26, 4:33 PM): “I love you! mwah mwah”

Lance Twiggs (9/10/26, 4:33 PM): “I love you moresies mwah mwah mwah”

I should remind you that in a trial if a witness perjures themselves once their entire testimony must be disregarded. But I guess that was under the old rules before we allowed Zoom meetings to count as testimony.

Seeing as prosecutors have had almost a year to get their story straight it’s surprising how sloppy this all is. Helpfully for them if you didn’t watch the hearings and just followed the mainstream media coverage you wouldn’t know. CNN, Fox News, BBC, the New York Times, the New York Post, even the left wing outlets, all of them are in lockstep carrying water for this travesty.

The BBC headlined its report by saying that “devastating” evidence had been laid out against Tyler Robinson in court. Who did they get that quote from? The prosecutor! They mention that the defense “questioned the credibility of experts, DNA and ballistics reports” but hell if they’ll tell you how. Did you know that the bullet fragments recovered from Charlie Kirk don’t match the rifle they found? If you read the BBC you didn’t.

There are no witnesses that put Tyler Robinson on campus the day of the murder. There are two witnesses and a debit card receipt that put Tyler Robinson at a steak restaurant in Panguitch, Utah that night. This is a three hour drive from the campus and it’s where his grandmother lives. It also destroys the timeline of when he was supposedly texting his “confessions” to Lance Twiggs.

We’re told that at 11 PM Tyler texts an automated confession to Lance Twiggs telling him to look under his keyboard where another handwritten confession note is found. Lance Twiggs photographs this note, it is later burnt to a crisp by persons unknown (aw what bad luck, now it can’t be tested for DNA and fingerprints). The two then have a text exchange about how Tyler is lurking around campus trying to recover his rifle. Tyler would’ve had to have driven flat out at 90-100 mph the entire way to make it back to campus in time to have this exchange.

Tyler Robinson also “confesses” in a series of Discord messages but big problem, these Discord posts were made September 11th at 7:57 PM. Tyler Robinson turned himself in to the Washington County Sheriff’s office and had his phone taken away at 6:25 PM that day.

A rifle with Tyler Robinson’s (and Lance Twiggs’) DNA on it was found in a wooded area near campus. It had not been fired that day, which we know because there was “debris and dust” in the gun barrel and because a trained K9 unit searched the area and did not alert for gunshot residue. Again, the bullet fragments in Kirk do not match this rifle. This is understandable because a .30-06 would have nearly blown Kirk’s head off his shoulders if it hit him in the neck instead of making no exit wound as whatever actually killed him did.

This is, quite literally, the entire case. I’m not even going to get into the screwdriver with Lance and Tyler’s DNA on it that was originally found by the rifle but then moved up to the rooftop. The officer who found it had his body camera conveniently stop working at the moment of discovery. Officer Christopher Bagley “thinks” the battery on his camera died and he can’t remember who was up there on the roof with him. Let’s put the needle in Tyler I’m convinced.

Occasionally I try to talk to left-liberal minded people in New York about all this and they look at me like I have five heads. Political tribalism has sorted Americans into separate news cycle buckets, few on the left paid much attention to these hearings. I suppose that’s what Charlie Kirk’s murderers are relying on: negative polarization. Socialist writer Nathan Robinson wrote a typically verbose “takedown” of Candace Owens where, because Owens has said a lot of batty things, he simply took Tyler Robinson’s guilt as a given.

“Kirk’s alleged shooter was apparently upset over Kirk’s anti-LGBTQ bigotry. Kirk’s killer being a liberal also makes sense: Kirk said incredibly inflammatory and bigoted things, those things made a lot of people angry, angry people in America have easy access to guns (as Charlie Kirk believed they should), and in a polarized country, it is likely that at least some of the angry people with the guns are going to attempt murder.”

Again we have no basis to believe that Tyler Robinson is a liberal or cares about LGBTQ issues because there is no evidence of him ever expressing either viewpoint but even if he had that is not evidence of murder. Nathan Robinson is a liberal who cares about LGBTQ issues. Does that mean he killed Charlie Kirk? Did the feds get the wrong Robinson?

Candace Owens being wrong about the genitalia on the President of France’s wife does not mean she is wrong about the fact that Tyler Robinson did not pull the trigger. And honestly, I trust her motivations on this. I would trust the motivations of any woman investigating the murder of her gay bestie.

More important than Candace Owens is the existence of a real grassroots community of open source citizen investigators who have completely torn apart the government’s case. They congregate and compare notes on platforms like Twitter/X. For example an Australian man who goes by the handle @MuppetMasher has dedicated himself to identifying every person on the scene of the Charlie Kirk murder. Officer Bagley might have forgotten who was on the roof with him but thanks to these people we know it was officer Alan Robertson.

It can be difficult to get people on the left to care about all this. Charlie Kirk said some reprehensible things. It’s easy enough to chalk his death up to karma and leave it at that. On the micro level I would ask you to think of Tyler Robinson, an innocent man facing death for a crime he did not do. Socialists still oppose the death penalty, right?

On the macro level we see in Charlie Kirk’s murder the operation of a part of our state that must be expunged. We cannot stop the wars and we cannot deliver economic justice until this machine of corrupt cops, corrupt prosecutors, and the dark money that funds them is exposed and extirpated. If Americans could set aside their tribalism we might, for once, hold these people to account. Nobody on the grassroots right believes the story the government is telling and nobody on the left would believe it either if they took the time to look for themselves.

There is a modus operandi to this type of U.S. state violence. An assassination conspiracy is carried out, a designated patsy is blamed, and mockingbird media assets are sent to tell the public what to believe. More than a decade before the public saw the Zapruder film Dan Rather went on TV, claimed to have watched it, and lied about how JFK’s head moved “violently forward” after the fatal shot. Naval Intelligence Officer turned journalist Jack Posbiec similarly lied when he said that on the last day of the preliminary hearings clear footage with timestamps was shown of Tyler Robinson assembling the rifle and taking the shot.

In death Charlie Kirk has become a bit of a meme. I was at a beach in Cape Cod for the 4th of July when a group of white 20 somethings decided to ironically play “We Are Charlie Kirk” from their bluetooth speaker. It would be a mistake not to take this whole thing seriously. The assassination was what prompted Trump to label “antifa” a domestic terrorist organization and to issue National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) 7. The White House already got their Reichstag fire moment.

In June we saw a major test case for these new powers when a group of nine Anti-ICE protestors in Texas were sentenced to between 30 and 100 years in prison after prosecutors identified them as an “antifa cell.” One person who was not even at the protest received a 30 year prison sentence. Ghislaine Maxwell got 20!

My great frustration with the left in America has been watching our civil liberties disappear one after another while supposed dissidents accept and repeat the government’s fake story of the catalyzing events. It is silly to talk about America “deserving” 9/11 just like it’s silly to talk about Germany “deserving” the Reichstag fire. These were false flag attacks carried out in order to consolidate power in the hands of anti-democratic forces in their respective countries! Let’s start with the government’s entire narrative of them being a lie.

Charlie Kirk’s murderers are relying on our apathy. I do not believe any jury would convict Tyler Robinson based on the evidence presented. If the conspirators cannot get him to plead guilty it is likely that they will attempt to have him killed in circumstances staged as suicide. Our focus and attention on this case might save not only his life. It might also save our own.