I asked the paranoids in the Candace Owens News Facebook group whether any of them would admit that Candace Owens and Diligent Denizen are lying about the receipt and about confirming the matter with the restaurant owner. Of course not. So I did. Here’s what I told them.
The owner told Andrew Wilson of the Crucible podcast, in a publicly shared audio recording (which Wilson has the owner’s permission to publish), that there is no evidence Tyler Robinson was in his restaurant that day. That means that Owens lied when she said the owner told her it was Robinson. The owner said the server who served the customer was unsure. The server who did not serve the customer thought it was him.
The employee who did not serve the customer that day is the person Diligent Denizen (published on his X account) interviewed. The server was wrong. Memory is a bitch. Eyewitness claims are notoriously problematic. We have known this for a long time (see Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer’s 1974, “Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction: An Example of the Interaction Between Language and Memory,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13(5): 585–589).
The FBI was informed of the claim and never followed up. Why? Because there is no evidence to follow up on. Besides, Robinson could not have been at the restaurant, since we know he was somewhere else that day. He was busy murdering Charlie Kirk, trying to hide evidence, and texting his boyfriend Lance (aka Luna) Twiggs about it in real time. Authorities have Robinson on multiple surveillance cameras at Utah Valley University campus. Authorities have the gun Robinson used to kill Kirk and other evidence (DNA, fingerprints) definitively tying Robinson to the murder. He could not have been at the steak house miles away.
Wilson pointed out something else that everybody should consider. Why is it that everybody Owens believes are her enemies are the conspirators behind Charlie Kirk’s assassination—the ones she claims set up Robinson as a patsy? Erika Kirk, TPUSA, the Jews, The Daily Wire, and so on—they happen to be her enemies?
Here’s the reality of Owens’ shenanigans: The “investigation” is a joint project of Owens and the far-right, in collusion with the far-left (woke progressivism), to undermine the one youth organization that has the power and scope to keep the MAGA movement going.
Why does this coalition want to bring down TPUSA? Both the far right and the left are anti-Israel. Antisemitism (however cloaked in the rhetoric of “anti-Zionism,” which is almost always antisemitic in substance) infects both the far-left and the far-right. MAGA and TPUSA are pro-Israel. If Robinson didn’t kill Kirk for his trans lover (which he did, since he confesses not only the crime but the motive behind it), then the Jews and TPUSA must be behind the assassination. It is an entirely illogical conclusion. The inference doesn’t follow, even if we accept Robinson is a patsy.
You have to be stupid or crazy to believe such nonsense. Owens is cooked. Her conspiracy, obviously irrational from the start, has collapsed. If a man keeps believing the conspiracy Owens and her allies advance, he is doubling down on stupidity or madness. Yes, antisemitism is a form of madness. It is also stupidity. These people are too dumb and insane to know how dumb and insane they are.
As I argued on August 18, in Candace Owens Fans: Useful Idiots for the Red-Green Alliance, if any good were to come from the tragedy, Kirk’s murder presented the nation with a real chance to deal with left-wing violence in America. Folks on the right and the left were increasingly concerned with trans violence. But Candace Owens and her crew of conspiratorial misfits, desperate to attach this to their Jewish cabal fantasies, derailed all that. Kirk went from Christian martyr to a Zionist collaborator who had crossed Israel. The antifa/trans violence that actually murdered Kirk was pushed to the margins, and the conversation shifted to how nutty Owens is.
In the balance of this essay, I review the evidence the State of Utah provided at Tyler Robinson’s preliminary hearing. The judge in that case, Judge Tony Graf, will hand down his verdict soon on whether to take the case to trial. I will also comment further on the recent debate between Owens and Wilson (for my previous comments concerning the matter, see I’m Embarrassed for Other People, and Sometimes Stating the Obvious Feels Cruel, but Here Goes).
The first paragraph of the State’s most recent filing is damning: “Defendant does not challenge the substance of the evidence demonstrating that he was the person who crawled to the sniper’s perch on the Losee Building rooftop, fired the fatal shot that killed Mr. Charlie Kirk, hid the rifle in a wooded area, got rid of some of the clothing he was wearing, and told his roommate to delete their texts about the shooting.” The filing concludes by saying that Robinson is guilty of “at least murder,” before listing other charges.
The prosecution isn’t saying Robinson has formally admitted guilt in court. It is saying that, in his response to the State’s arguments, Robinson’s attorneys do not dispute the underlying evidentiary case identifying Robinson as the shooter and describing his immediate actions afterward. Defense counsel directs its challenges at the admissibility/interpretation of some evidence and especially the aggravating circumstance necessary for the death penalty. Defense counsel has shifted from whether Robinson is the shooter, which they concede, to an attempt to save its client’s life.
Besides arguing that the conspiracies derailed an opportunity to confront trans violence with a broad consensus, the point of my X post (shared above) was to emphasize that the prosecution’s case was considerably broader than any single piece of evidence. The totality of the evidence is the combination of surveillance footage, the rifle and associated physical evidence, DNA, Robinson’s communications and his confessions, and testimony from his roommate, Lance Twiggs.
I watched the preliminary hearing and have reviewed the evidence in its totality. I am teaching the course Criminal Justice Process this fall, and the Robinson preliminary hearing provided a unique opportunity to walk my students through the process in a case they are likely familiar with. I will be able to show them that, taken together, the evidence identifies Robinson as the person who traveled to UVU, reached the rooftop, fired the shot, concealed the rifle, and then attempted to conceal what he had done.
The prosecution has characterized the evidence as “overwhelming.” The evidence is indeed overwhelming—as overwhelming as I have seen in any murder case. Perhaps Wilson gave the case 75-85 percent confidence in his debate with Owens because he is waiting for the trial before expressing greater confidence. He is showing prudence. I don’t have to wait. Based on the totality of the evidence and the absence of evidence for any compelling alternative explanation, my confidence that Robinson murdered Kirk is 100 percent metaphysical certitude.
Is it possible that this was a conspiracy in which a network of trans activists chose Robinson as the assassin? While that is possible (and it’s the only plausible conspiracy angle), I have seen no evidence of a conspiracy. It’s more possible that he was radicalized by Antifa/Queer rhetoric. His actions, stated motive, and the bullets’ etchings align too precisely for Robinson to have come about all this on his own. But a conspiracy does not change the material fact that Robinson is the assassin.
This is what makes Candace Owens’ claim that she has zero confidence that Robinson was the killer so crazy. Against the totality of the evidence that I present in this article, Owens has zero evidence that the evidence is manufactured, which would involve a conspiracy so massive as to be implausible, and, more than this, she has presented no evidence for any of the alternative theories she has formulated. Nor has anyone in this far-right space presented an alternative theory with any evidence supporting it.
The so-called lay “investigators” are not investigators at all but grifters. But some of them are more than that. As Wilson has documented, operatives of a progressive project determined to obscure the role Queer politics played in Kirk’s demise affiliate with Owens and her crowd. This includes spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories, which both the far left and the far-right advance. Jew-hatred is the glue beneath the convergence among Islamists, far-right influencers, and far-left influencers who are “on the case.” The claims about Zionists and all the rest of it have no facts in support of them. This works in their favor. Not having to present facts, moreover, facts not mattering at all in the worldview, allows them to endlessly spin conspiracies.
Wilson has also argued convincingly that the purpose of calling their endeavors an “investigation” is a strategy to give far-right activists license to violate Internet protocol. This is a particularly insightful observation. When somebody challenges them, they accuse them of being a party to the conspiracy and dox them, which exposes them and their families to danger. Their history of condemning the very behavior they are engaged in requires a special rationale: They’re just “trying to get to the bottom of this.” Those critical of them are trying to thwart them in their “pursuit of the truth.” In their worldview, Zionism must be the reason behind the criticism of Owens. For what other reason would anybody not believe in a grand conspiracy? They must be shilling for the Jews.
Why is my confidence level 100 percent metaphysical certitude? An objective review of the evidence makes anything less than that either charitable hedging (as in Wilson’s case) or willful denial.
Investigators showed video from Utah Valley University depicting a person prosecutors identified as Robinson arriving on campus and making his way toward and onto the Losee Building rooftop—the location from which the fatal shot was fired, a bullet from a 30-06 that struck Kirk in the neck (see The Myth of a Rigged Mic: Helping Folks Find Their Way Out of Madness). Twiggs, Robinson’s roommate, told investigators that he recognized Robinson in the surveillance imagery. Detectives confirmed that the man in the videos is Robinson. The surveillance evidence therefore supplies a physical timeline connecting Robinson to the campus, the building and the sniper’s position.
The rifle evidence connects the rooftop shooting to Robinson. Investigators recovered a bolt-action rifle (which belonged to Robinson’s grandfather) wrapped in a towel in a wooded area near the campus, along with ammunition. The rifle was consistent with the weapon used in the shooting, and it contained a spent cartridge. Investigators also recovered a screwdriver from the rooftop. Detectives recovered the targets Robinson used to sight the rifle. The timeline even shows the progressive accuracy during sighting.
Investigators testified that Robinson’s DNA was found on the rifle/towel evidence and on the screwdriver. DNA from Twiggs was also present. The odds that the DNA on these items belonged to both Robinson and Twiggs, rather than to other individuals, were estimated to be in the range of trillions. One must deny DNA science to rationalize these findings. All the noise about degradation does not change the conclusion. It is Robinson’s DNA.
The defense challenged the reliability and interpretation of the DNA testing, but it did not produce an alternative explanation that could have disassociated Robinson from the rifle. If they had an alternative explanation, they would have presented it in court. The entire point of a preliminary hearing is to determine whether the case should go to trial. No competent defense risks a murder trial if it has exculpatory evidence that might prevent a probable cause ruling.
There was physical evidence concerning Robinson’s movements immediately after the shooting. Prosecutors say Robinson abandoned the rifle in the wooded area, discarded some of the clothing he had been wearing, and subsequently returned home. Those facts fit the prosecution’s theory that Robinson concealed the weapon and his identity. Robinson even told Twiggs he had concealed the weapon. The State’s final brief specifically identifies hiding the rifle and disposing of clothing as facts the defense does not substantively dispute. How could they?
Perhaps the most powerful evidence is the series of statements and messages attributed to Robinson himself. He didn’t only tell Twiggs that he concealed the evidence. Prosecutors introduced numerous communications in which Robinson acknowledges his responsibility. The State produced at least eleven separate written admissions. Among them were messages acknowledging that he was the person shown in the surveillance photographs, saying that he had been at UVU, and telling Twiggs that he had taken the opportunity to kill Kirk.
Prosecutors also introduced Robinson’s explanation to Twiggs that he had “had enough” of Kirk’s “hatred.” The State not only has Robinson’s admission of guilt but also acknowledgement of motive. More on that in a moment. I want to punctuate the existence of multiple confessions. Robinson not only confessed in text messages. He left Twiggs a handwritten note under his computer keyboard explaining that he had had the opportunity to “take out” Kirk and had done so.
“Luna [Twiggs’ feminine name—so much for Twiggs having only flirted with trans identification],
If you are reading this per my text [Robinson instructed Twiggs in a text message to go and find the note], then I am so sorry. I left the house this morning on a mission, and set an auto text. I am likely dead, or facing a lengthy prison sentence. I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I took it. I don’t know if I will/have succeeded, but I had hoped to make it home to you.
I wish we could have lived in a world where this did not feel necessary. I wish I could have stayed for you and lived our lives together. I lack the words to express how much I love you, and how very much you mean to me. Please try and find joy in this life.
I love you, always,
–Tyler”
Twiggs subsequently gave investigators an account of Robinson’s statements and behavior following the shooting. In a recorded interview played during the hearing, Twiggs said Robinson expressed regret after the killing and discussed turning himself in. Twiggs testified that Robinson had told him he was responsible. Those denying Robinson’s guilt argue that this is hearsay. But Twiggs is repeating what Robinson said in text and a written note—all of which have been verified as having originated with Robinson.
The post-shooting effort to destroy evidence is important because it isn’t simply circumstantial evidence of presence at the crime scene. Prosecutors say Robinson instructed Twiggs to delete their text messages and not discuss what had happened. That conduct forms the basis of the obstruction/witness-tampering allegations. Owens herself knows this because she either memorized the charges for her attempted gotcha moment with Wilson or had them fed to her through her earpiece during the debate (her stalling and pauses suggest she was being fed information, but I cannot confirm that). The prosecution’s most recent brief specifically points to this instruction as one of the facts the defense does not challenge substantively.
Returning now to motive (as if it’s not clear enough from the foregoing), prosecutors presented evidence bearing on the circumstances making the murder potentially capital. These are the aggravators, and it’s more than motive; endangering other lives is also an aggravator, which I will come to.
The State argues Robinson deliberately targeted Kirk because of his political views, pointing to Robinson’s statement about having had enough of Kirk’s “hatred,” and the contrast prosecutors draw between Kirk’s political positions and Robinson’s. The State produced ammunition bearing the inscription “Hey Fascist! CATCH!” My first article on this subject, penned the day after the shooting, concerned this (see Charlie Kirk’s Killer is in Custody and the Specter of Antifa). We know that Robinson borrowed Twigg’s Dremel to inscribe the bullet casings. The level of detail in this case is remarkable.
One may find the motive evidence to be more contestable than the evidence identifying Robinson as the shooter (which is not rationally contestable). Twiggs told investigators that Robinson had not previously talked much about Kirk or LGBTQ issues. However, it is reasonable to assume that Twiggs would have cause to downplay this angle since it might implicate him. It is moreover plausible that the written and text messages were designed to exculpate Twiggs. At any rate, that distinction matters because the defense is attacking the political-motive aggravator rather than offering an alternative shooter. Again, defense counsel is now trying to save Robinson’s life. (Given Twiggs’s affect, it appears that he has washed his hands of Robinson.) This is why the State says, “at least murder.” Neither side disputes that this is murder. The question revolves around the aggravators.
Wilson’s answer to Owens when she demanded that he name one of the charges wasn’t the gotcha moment Owens’ sycophants claim it is. Wilson concedes that he should have memorized the charges, a tactic he often uses to appear charitable. Sometimes Wilson’s dedication to dialectics is too much. I have criticized him on X for not rebutting others who pin their verdict on the debate entirely on this point. For the record, Wilson said “murder.” What does the State say? It says, “at least murder.” Aggravated murder is murder. Strong-arm robbery is robbery. Etcetera. One should not concede a fact about which they are correct. For her part, Owens said that aggravated murder is “literally not murder.”
In a nutshell, Robinson is seen going to the building → he reaches the rooftop from which the shot was fired → the rifle is abandoned nearby → Robinson’s DNA is associated with the rifle/towel and the rooftop screwdriver → his own messages and statements acknowledge that he killed Kirk → he leaves a confession for Twiggs → he tells Twiggs to destroy their communications → he subsequently turns himself in.
None of these facts is disputed. This is an open-and-shut case of murder. The only question now is the aggravating circumstances. If defense counsel can persuade a jury that there were none, then it will secure a simple murder conviction, and Robinson will spend the rest of his life in prison. Queer activists will lose their martyr (unless life in prison is good enough); however, they can find satisfaction knowing that, with the help of Candace Owens and other far-right conspiracy characters, Kirk’s martyrdom will have been cancelled. Owens is working for the other side.
I don’t believe that Robinson’s counsel really thinks they can persuade a jury that this was not aggravated murder. It is not just that Robinson’s trans activism is obvious, but he knowingly fired into a densely populated crowd. That crowd included children, and they are visible on video near Kirk’s stage. The bullet’s trajectory passed very close to several other people near Kirk. One family attending the event had children with them, including a 12-year-old girl and a 14-year-old girl, and they had moved toward the front to see Kirk. When the shot was fired, some of the children were separated from their families in the ensuing panic.
The prosecution will dwell on this. The crack of the rifle, Kirk’s reactions, and the presence of children are damning. Expect the prosecution to show these videos to the jury multiple times, each time dwelling on specific facts of the scene.
I am highly confident that, after Judge Graf hands down his ruling with specifics, Robinson’s defense will attempt to avoid trial by negotiating a plea deal. They are waiting to see the ruling to determine how to plea.
Here’s the bottom line: the prosecution is essentially telling Judge Graf that the defense is conceding the fundamental identification case. The contest has shifted from “Was Tyler Robinson the shooter?” to questions such as what evidence can legally be considered at the preliminary-hearing stage, whether facts and reason support specific charges, and whether the alleged endangerment of other people satisfies Utah’s capital-murder aggravating circumstance statute. The defense has conceded that Tyler Robinson murdered Charlie Kirk. The case is over, but for the formalities. Those denying the facts have no evidence that Robinson was a patsy or that the Zionists were behind the assassination.
It’s time for Owens and her allies to save face. If that is even possible. I don’t think it is. But that won’t matter to her rabid fans.
freedom and reason 