Judge Graf Shows ZERO Confidence Despite MOUNTAINS of Evidence in Tyler Robinson Hearing, Lance Twiggs DOWNPLAYS His "Trans" Identity, w/ Aronberg, Frei, Eiglarsh, Murphy & Spilbor | Ep. 1357

28:23That answer wasn't even a categoric statement to be disbelieved. It was a wishy-washy passing of the buck. And right now, despite all of that evidence of people with advanced knowledge, we've got nothing in terms of anyone else who may have been involved. mm-hmm dave your thoughts yeah i mean when you're talking about lance twigs he had that relationship with tyler robinson that was romantic and very close and it's hard to believe that they didn't talk about gender issues lgbtq rights i mean it's that is hard i'm just trying to figure out why he wouldn't fess up to that why would he lie about that the only thing i could think of is perhaps to try to minimize his role and his knowledge in advance.

29:05That's the only thing. But I don't think it moves the needle on who did it here. I do think that Lance Swiggs' testimony, from what I saw, was credible. I do think it's possible that he knows more than he lets on. But to me, the testimony is credible that we've got the guy who did it. The evidence is overwhelming. And there's no other outside actors involved. Dave, what do you make of this ridiculousness over showing the letter for two seconds?

29:33Dave Aronberg:I'm going to show you what we're arguing over. Okay. This is Sergeant Jen Fawmwina, who's on the stand and they're showing us, you know, some exhibits can be shown to the general public and some cannot. And for two seconds, the actual letter from Tyler to Lance was shown. Here it is. Sat 59. The part that I'm pointing out is the paper that you can still see the lines in them, as well as some handwriting as well to the edge, the left edge of that piece of paper. All right.

30:11Have you also observed the image of a note that was recovered from last week's phone? Yes. and i'd like to show you um side by side exhibit 24

30:31and there on the left you see exhibit how is it there on the left we see exhibit 24 do you see that yes i do and on the right you see excuse me on the right is 24 on the left it's 16 let me stop you mr mcbride i'm not sure is this being broadcast let's let's take that down

30:50Dave Aronberg:the horror so i know obviously what the prosecutor was trying to do is show here's the burned remnants of the letter that you found in the kitchen trash can and here's the original letter the contents of which are not private and in fact have been made public in their entirety prior to this in an earlier filing the only thing that was added dave was we saw the handwriting heavens to betsy we saw the handwriting i mean you know with my background as a prosecutor how I'm going to feel about this. I mean, big deal. At worst, it's what you said. Harmless error. It shouldn't have any impact. And I know the defense is going to scream about it because they said this is prejudicing the future jury pool here.

31:29Well, OK. I mean, you're going to be able to ask them questions to ferret out people who have already drawn a conclusion. And also, future jurors are not expected to be blank slates or empty vessels. They're going to hear about it. They're going to know about it. They just have to be able to say that they're going to put aside everything they've heard and know and just follow the evidence in the law. This is much to do about nothing. They're already allowed to discuss the confessions. And by the way, there's like been like five confessions by Tyler Robinson. Yes. Right. They're allowed to discuss literally.

31:57So they showed a couple seconds of his actual handwriting with one of his confessions. OK, not a big deal.

32:02Dave Aronberg:Well, it was literally five confessions. We talked about this yesterday. One via text to Lance Twiggs, one in the letter to Lance Twiggs, one in person to Lance Twiggs, as Lance Twiggs testified to all three of those yesterday. One to his parents before he got turned in. And there was a discord, the discord, the discord. And then one on discord. Exactly. The hour before he turned himself in. Go ahead, Viva, because right now the defense is arguing that the consequence as a result of this two second showing of the thing that whose contents we already knew about should be that the media should be kicked out and there should be no more public airing of any exhibits or anything inside of this.

32:46Well, look, defense is going to defense and lawyers are going to lawyer. And there's a reason why people hate lawyers, because they will make a mountain out of a molehill. Two seconds, let's be honest, is an eternity on the Internet. it's out there forever for an eternity it's never being stuffed back in the uh in the in the toothpaste not just what's the prejudice there's a prejudice in not publicly showing it because what you're going to have are people out there if they don't believe tyler robinson did it are going to say they're not showing it to us because we will be able to see that it's not his handwriting and that therefore they can't disclose it to us because we as internet sleuths would determine that it's a fake note written by somebody else because it doesn't match tyler robinson's handwriting.

33:25There is zero prejudicial impact that this could possibly have on Tyler Robinson. If anything, the defense should want it to be released so the internet can go have at it and say, oh, that's not his handwriting. He dots his eyes in another way on another letter here. That's what the defense would want to do ordinarily. But they will also certainly want to make the biggest issue they can out of this mistake as innocuous as it was, because that's their job here. But no, I say again, the judge is not doing a service to the public by blocking certain things. We know what was in the letter. Do we care about a Tyler Robinson's handwriting?

33:59Only if you think it's not his handwriting. Right.

34:02Dave Aronberg:Which I haven't heard the defense assert or anybody assert. You know what this is reminding me of you guys? I'm sure you guys have been watching some of the World Cup, as have we, even though I'm not really a sports person, but it's fun to watch these games. And when they the fake injuries are so beyond where they roll and they're like, oh, my God. And they all completely overplay their alleged injury. And then literally two seconds later, they're up and they're smiling and they're running when nobody pays attention to them. The way we all do with like our three-year-old who's overplaying a fake injury.

34:31Dave Aronberg:You know, you're like, you ignore, ignore, don't reinforce this bad behavior. And then they're back up and they're playing and they're totally fine. We all know they were just faking, hoping to get somebody else in trouble. That's what the defense is doing here. Oh, the alleged, oh, the outrage, the injury to our client. It's beyond the pale. Well, and what I really want as a remedy is the thing I've been begging you for all along, which is to remove all media access to these hearings, including he's arguing the camera should go. He wants all the cameras to go. He does not want this to be broadcast at all.

34:59Dave Aronberg:Why is that, Dave? Why doesn't the defense lawyer want cameras in there? Because conspiracy theories help the defense. All the people talking garbage on the Internet, that works to the benefit of the defense. You just get one of those jurors who's been influenced by the conspiracy theories on the internet in the jury pool. And that's a hung jury. You get 12 and that's an acquittal. That's why they don't want cameras in the courtroom. They don't want transparency. But let's go back to let's go back to Duke, Duke lacrosse, 2006, the the fakest of the fake allegations to hit in recent history. And those three boys were actually accused and actually charged with raping Crystal Mangum, the accuser who was a stripper in Durham, North Carolina, who accused these three Duke lacrosse players with completely baselessly.

35:41Dave Aronberg:Those three boys would have loved, loved cameras in the courtroom, Viva. At every turn, they made the defensive evidence they had public through reporters like me. I was there. They wanted as much sunlight on that case as possible because they knew that the more evidence came out, the more it would benefit them. It's very telling to me that this defense lawyer is so afraid of the public seeing one minute of these proceedings? It's the old, you know, the three things can not long be hidden, the truth, the sun, the moon and the truth, the innocent love exposure and the guilty love concealment. It's just a rule of nature because the innocent have nothing to hide and the guilty do have something to hide.

36:26It should have been it should be broadcast in its entirety, saving except for like, you know, social security numbers, addresses. But if this were not broadcast to the public, what you would have is you have a conspiracy theorist's delight. It would be the best thing ever for the defense. For example, today, you would have people running around saying, I heard the bullets were full metal jackets, and those should have gone through Charlie, and it makes no sense that it didn't. Whereas because you have internet sleuths out there who look at the bullets and say, oh, these look like soft point Remingtons, which are designed to expand on impact.

36:59And we wouldn't have that, but for the fact that this has been televised and scrutinized by the aggregate knowledge of the internet. But it's obvious, you know, not televised under the dead of night in the darkness benefits the guilty. It benefits those with something to hide. And these are supposed to be public court proceedings. This is among the most monumental, politically relevant prosecutions in recent history, if not in history. It needs to be broadcast to the fullest extent possible.

37:25Dave Aronberg:And now we have a ruling from the judge who, you know, I must have consulted with a more senior jurist behind the stage and come up with a ruling. This is what he's ruled. This is per Nate Eaton, a reporter who's been covering this with. Let's see with I don't he's got his own independent news coverage and he's been covering this trial. East Idaho News. OK, I don't know what that is, but if that's his or not. But in any event, this is what he reports that Judge Graff says his order prohibiting broadcast of the exhibit by media cameras was violated. Everyone agreed it was. He denies the defense's request to remove cameras, but says the cameras cannot capture any exhibits today during the hearing.

38:09Dave Aronberg:This is ridiculous. And then he refused to make a decision on cameras for the September 1st hearing where they're going to be arguing closings. Dave. this is judge graff he likes to give each side a little something remember when the defense said the prosecutors spoke out they released a statement to tmz about the ballistics sanctioned them and i was like no way they're going to be sanctioned for that and the judge said yes i'm going to hold them in contempt but really there's no penalty we're not going to take the death penalty off the table so he likes to split the baby and i think that's what he's doing here, but he shouldn't even even pretend to be open to do removing cameras in the courtroom at the later hearing.

38:50That only helps conspiracy theorists. You do not want to do something that's going to make people believe that up is down and down is up.

38:59Dave Aronberg:You know, Viva, the rule in Utah is you have to get permission for cameras in the courtroom, but there is a presumption that they belong. There's a presumption that the public is entitled to watch these proceedings take place. for it all to be aired, you know, consistent with the sunlight being the best disinfectant theory. And this judge even indulging the fiction that two seconds of seeing Tyler Robinson's actual handwriting result should result in a penalty to the public. We're the ones who are about to be punished as well as the prosecution, because showing the exhibits helps them. Maybe today it hurts the defense, too, because it's their witness who's going to be on testifying.

39:41Dave Aronberg:Is it to engage in nuttery. This is nuttery. Well, it's convenient. So now today we won't, the public won't get to view the exhibits. Whereas had that been the case yesterday, hypothetically, we did not see the video of Lance Twiggs testifying. Well, it certainly put into perspective the he, she, Luna debate. I had never heard Lance speak until that video. And looking at a guy with a voice deeper than mine, in the context of all the hoopla that had been made around his gender identity, it put things in perspective. The bullet is another example. If the public doesn't see that bullet, they are going to be misled by people out there referring to it falsely as a full metal jacket, whatever.

40:22But, you know, people are going to take issue with the fact that it will say it hurts Erica Kirk, this process, you know, they're going to deny justice to Charlie, you know, as if to say Tyler's guilty. And so therefore his rights don't matter. It's going to prejudice everybody, including Tyler, including the defendant, because it It prejudices the process itself. And when people don't have faith in the legitimacy and validity of the process, defense or prosecution, it does an injustice to everybody as a whole. The idea to change the rules midstream now for the last day. What are we not going to see today?

40:54What conspiracy theories is it going to create? Who's going to think that it was acted against their interests and rights? Everybody. So it's an idiotic ruling. When you split the baby, you kill the baby. So congrats, Judge. You killed the baby.

41:07Dave Aronberg:Mm hmm. Yeah, exactly. Now, speaking of Erica Kirk, there was an outrageous moment yesterday, which escaped our notice where one of the defense lawyers, his name, his last name is Bert. First name, Michael, Michael Bert. This is the guy who represented Lyle Menendez, one of the Menendez brothers during the 1993 trial in which the jury deadlocked on whether Lyle was guilty of murder for killing his parents. He also represented the man known as the Olympic Park Park bomber, Eric Robert Rudolph, who was convicted of killing one person and injuring over 100 others by planting a pipe bomb at the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, among many others.

41:45Dave Aronberg:He worked for the San Francisco Public Defender's Office for 24 years. Okay. San Francisco Public Defender. My goodness. Okay. This guy is on Tyler Robinson's court-appointed defense team. and he got up there because Erica and not just Erica, the Kirk family have a representative. They have a lawyer in there to stand up for their rights as the victim because Utah has specifically written a law protecting the victim's rights and affording them the right to be present at all proceedings, among other rights. And they were arguing that the unwillingness to show the evidence that was being displayed in court to the family members, to Charlie's mother, to Charlie's widow, and so on, was violating their right to be present for the proceedings.

42:35Dave Aronberg:What does it mean to be present if you can't see the evidence being shown? So they got up and they made an argument. And then this guy, this Michael Burke, sorry, Bert, like Bert and Ernie, gets up there and launches an attack on Erica Kirk, which was completely, by the way, unsupported by the facts. But here he is. As the court knows, we have witnessed availability problems. We spent the bulk of today and yesterday arguing about nothing to do with the evidence in the case, but with rights of third parties. And it's appropriate for the court to consider that. But at some point, I think the court has to return to the purpose of these hearings, which is to expeditiously hear the evidence and then determine probable cause.

43:25And I want to point out to the court, Ms. Kirk has been very adept at holding press conferences at which she has revealed evidence. She has represented that the state is her attorney. She has access to all the evidence that the state has publicized and that the media and her own lawyer argues is already in the public domain. So they're perfectly free to go outside this courtroom under the court's protective order. They're free to go out and hold press conferences and announce to the world outside the courtroom what they think the evidence is.

44:04Dave Aronberg:Unbelievable. bowl. Erica Kirk has not held any press conferences. She's made certain media appearances on podcasts and so on. Maybe that's what he's referring to, but she has not held a press conference. And not that I recall, not that my team could find either. And she's revealed evidence. No, she hasn't. She's talked about the evidence that's already in the public domain at times, just like we all have. She hasn't revealed. He's trying to make it sound like, oh, she was trusted once and she blew it, you judge like she got out there and she lifted the dress up. That's bullshit. She's talked here and there, I think, about the evidence against Tyler Robinson, Dave, but not revealed evidence.

44:46Dave Aronberg:She has all the evidence that the prosecution has. He says that's not true either. Her her their family lawyer got up there immediately after and said that isn't true. The prosecution has not shared all of its evidence with us. These are lies. So what's up with this defense attorney launching an attack on the widow of the victim? This is strategy, Megan, because Erica Kirk and the Kirk family, they're advocating for transparency, for open access to evidence because they fear the conspiracy theories and they want the world to see the reality of the crime. And so what the defense is trying to do is to spin that into improper tainting of the jury pool as trying to prejudice the future jury pool.

45:27So they're trying to go after not just the Kirks, but transparency as a whole, saying transparency harms our class right to a fair trial. And they can't really say that transparency is bad because everyone likes transparency. So they're doing it in a way by saying Erica Kirk and the other side and the prosecutors, they're doing something untoward and improper. It's strategy, and I don't think it's working.

45:52Dave Aronberg:I don't Viva. Look, I understand Erica has become a controversial figure in America. Okay. For all sorts of reasons. I have my own theory on why I realized that there is different factions who just don't like her. Um, my, my own belief is forget who's attacking her here, there, or on what basis. I think it's at base Erica's problem with the PR to me is she's not Charlie. She's taken over Charlie's organization. She didn't want to. This was not her goal. She would much rather have her husband, but she's not Charlie. And there's like an underlying resentment from people, whether they are conscious of the fact that they're blaming her for not being Charlie or not, you know, like they want Charlie.

46:37Dave Aronberg:And whoever had stepped into the role of CEO of Turning Point was going to face high levels of resentment because no one can be Charlie, you know, and Erica then tried to honor his book tour commitments and so on and put herself out there at a time when she was grieving. But people thought it showed an absence of heart around her husband's death. And so I'm like, I get it all. I understand exactly how this went down. But my point is simply, it is different when you have defense counsel for the man accused of murdering her husband, stand up in court and try to make her the villain to the judge.

47:13Well, let's preface this by saying he would be right if what he said were to be true. So if all of the facts that he alleged that they're going out there and themselves poisoning the jury pool, if he's right on the facts, then he's right on the conclusion. It would be improper. her. The only problem is, and I, you know, I did my best to see what she said. Did she talk about any evidence that was not disclosed to the public? I've never heard a thing about it. So he's wrong on the premises and therefore the conclusion to which he came is equally wrong. The only thing is, you know, you go back to Joseph Goebbels' propaganda techniques, accuse your adversaries of doing what you are doing so as to create confusion.

47:47The only people misrepresenting evidence to the general public is the defense, you know, in respect of the bullet not matching or the fragment not matching the casing, which was matter of fact, false, that required the prosecution to go out and clarify. The only people doing what that guy accused Erica Kirk of doing is the defense itself. So again, par for the course, there's a reason why people hate lawyers and there's a reason why lawyers are hated. And that is part and parcel, at least one of the reasons.

48:17Dave Aronberg:Lowest, lowest of the low. You guys remember when you first went to law school, maybe you thought as I did, I was like, people are going to have to respect me if I become a lawyer. What an idiot. Anyway, I want to show you one substantive moment yesterday that was good for team defense. They called Samantha Karner, C-A-R-N-E-R, to talk about the forensic evidence that had been submitted by the prosecution and including the bullet fragments in autopsy. Listen to what she said. Could you specify which of those possibilities exists in this case? Was this a case where you had microscopic dissimilarity, but in your opinion, it was insufficient to form a conclusion of source exclusion?

49:03No, my conclusion is inconclusive. Just as it says in the appendix, there is a lack of sufficient agreement and sufficient disagreement, so I'm unable to say one way or another. Okay, but I guess my question is, were there points of dissimilarity between the question and the known bullets. Again, there was sufficient agreement and sufficient, there was not sufficient agreement or sufficient disagreement. So yes, there was times that I saw agreement in the striations and the landing group impressions, also seeing disagreement, but there was also a lot of lack of microscopic marks of value to see at all.

49:39So because of this lack of quality and quantity of marks to be able to see, it never reached the threshold of sufficient agreement nor sufficient disagreement. So an identification or exclusion could not be rendered.

49:52Dave Aronberg:So she was an ATF examiner and like a firearm and tool mark examiner with about seven years of experience. And what she was saying was that she examined the rifle, the four cartridges, the autopsy bullet fragments. She authored Exhibit 32 after examining the rifle, the four cartridges and autopsy bullet fragments and agreed that the DOJ reporting standards do not permit claims of uniqueness. infallibility or statistical certainty. She's calling into question whether the bullet that was found in Charlie could ever be matched to what they believe was the murder weapon. What did you make of it, Viva?

50:31Well, to the extent that we understand, more often than not, you can't trace the bullet to the cartridge or definitively, if it doesn't leave fingerprints on the projectile. Again, I'm not an expert in any of this. my understanding is that more often than not the bullet you know the piece that hits you is fragmented otherwise you can't trace it to the actual cartridge itself okay so it's nothing out of the ordinary to the extent and again probable cause we're trying to determine what the likely cause of of death was to the extent they've identified it as a bullet tip i mean okay fine defense will raise and we don't know where it came from so therefore that's your reasonable doubt but at the probable cause again to the extent we've now concluded it was a bullet that killed charlie It was fragmented into a number of pieces, can't do a definitive trace back to the frame.

51:17OK, that's a reasonable doubt. That's not the probable cause. We have everything else that we need to get to the probable cause where we've got, you know, tenfold over what we need to be.

51:25Dave Aronberg:Mm hmm. It is a preview of where the defense is going when this case gets to trial, which is you can't conclusively prove that the bullet that was found in Charlie matched Tyler Robinson's gun. They like that fact a lot for obvious reasons. It has not been able to be proved to not be from that gun, but they couldn't affirmatively connect it. And if I were the defense lawyer, I'd be hitting that too. Guys, thank you. Have a great weekend. Thanks for all your hard work for us this week. We'll be right back with more. Running a business means you're always reachable until you're not. And we all know that the exact second you miss a call, a text, or a follow-up, a competitor is waiting right there to pick it up.

52:07Dave Aronberg:That's why I want to tell you about Quo. It's spelled Q-U-O. and it's the business phone system built so you never miss an opportunity. All your calls, texts, and voicemails into one single place. That means anyone on your team can jump into a conversation, see the full history, and respond fast. You can set it up in minutes on any device, keep your existing number, and add teammates as you grow. Plus, they have a built-in AI agent that handles your after-hours calls. So even when your team is completely offline, you are still capturing leads. It also integrates seamlessly with the tools you're probably already using, like HubSpot and Claude, which saves you a ton of time and keeps you from constantly chasing information.

52:51Dave Aronberg:Money's on the line. Say hello with Quo. Try Quo for free, plus get 20 % off your first six months when you go to quo.com slash mk. That's q-u-o dot com slash mk. Ever notice how life's best stories don't happen in your living room? They happen on the open road, out on the water, or parked under the stars. At Progressive, they get that you want to focus on the experience, not worry about the what-ifs. That's why they offer quality insurance designed for your ride, whether that's a boat, RV, or motorcycle. Adventure with confidence. Visit Progressive.com and see how easy it is to protect your favorite way to get away.

53:30Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Not available in D.C. Prices vary based on how you buy. Since my mom was diagnosed with advanced endometrial cancer, it's been hard for her. There's so much she needs to understand. What are her treatment options? How can she talk about them with her care team? Learning about an available treatment option at advancedendometriocancer.com can help her feel ready to have an informed conversation with her doctor. The doctor will see you now. That's us, Mom. You too can visit advancedendometriocancer.com and learn more about a treatment option.

54:08Dave Aronberg:Day five of the Tyler Robinson hearing is underway, trying to determine whether there is probable cause to hold him over for trial. We're going to bring in our panel in a minute, but first, I want to just dip into the live court proceedings right now, where the defense has put its third of three forensic expert on the stand. And she is testifying now, we believe, about, well, actually, I don't know what she's testifying about. I just know she's a defense witness from the ATF. Let's listen. Do you agree with that? Yes. Explain that because that's a little above my pay grade in terms of understanding.

54:43Dave Aronberg:So a likelihood ratio statistic compares the probability of the DNA profile of the evidence given two competing hypotheses or two competing scenarios. Typically the first is that the person of interest is included, and then the exclusionary hypothesis would be that the person of interest is excluded, so there's a random unknown unrelated individual contributing. And when they're elaborating on that point, they say a likelihood ratio indicates if and to what extent the DNA analysis results support one proposition over another, it is not possible on this basis alone to determine which is the most probable proposition.

55:29Do you agree with that? Yes. Okay. And then the next limitation they suggest you convey is that convey that DNA statistics cannot imply uniqueness within a population. Do you agree that that's a legitimate limitation? Yes. And explain what that means. Does that go back to the issue of source? You can't assign a source to a DNA sample? Correct. Okay. uh it says you should delineate the meaning of a verbal qualifier but you didn't use one in this

56:06Dave Aronberg:case right correct okay we'll continue to monitor it but clearly what the defense is trying to do is poke some holes in the dna evidence that was offered by the prosecution this week where they had testimony that it was tyler robinson's 95 and lance twig's five percent dna on i believe those of the percentages, but it was overwhelmingly Tyler's with a much smaller single digit percent belonging to Lance Twiggs DNA on the towel that was wrapped around the firearm, which they found in the woods, as well as on the, um, screwdriver that was found on top of the roof, uh, the low C center from which the shot was taken, say prosecutors.

56:49Dave Aronberg:And then they also, you know, swabbed Tyler and Lance for that matter, but they swabbed Tyler and there was testimony that his, his DNA was everywhere. It was all over the gun. It was all over the bullet casings and so on. So, I mean, they, in addition to all the confessions and so on, they have his DNA all over what they say was the murder weapon, the murder cartridges and so on. Now they do have to close that loop by proving those are the murder weapons and bullet casings that were used in this crime. So there's that, but this is par for the course to have the defense lawyer come up there and chip away at how DNA is not an exact science and you can never really know.

57:29Dave Aronberg:And maybe the prosecution didn't do it quite right. And all of that will be fleshed out at trial and it will actually be very interesting to see what the defense does, but it's not going to make any difference. There's way more evidence than they need to find probable cause here. So it's mildly interesting, but it's not critical. In any event, let's bring in our panel, Matt Murphy, who is co-host of In the Well, as well as Mark Eiglarsh and Jonna Spillabor. They are co-hosts of Positively Legal. Those are all shows on our MK Media Podcast Network. You find it, just search up MK True Crime as a podcast, and you'll get access to all of these shows.

58:02Dave Aronberg:You should definitely be listening, especially as things heat up this week legally. Guys, thank you all for being here. So Matt, you've done more of these than anybody. The DNA testimony, this is how it's done, right? Just chip away. I mean, I'm thinking of OJ, right? That's when DNA analysis was still pretty knew. I was in law school and I remember watching the OJ trial and was it Barry Sheck who got up there and he was responsible. That's that's your this is your jurisdiction out there in L.A. where you used to be. It's just about chipping away, just the confidence in it and the reliability of it, which is now in 2026, a much tougher task than it was back in 1994.

58:43That's right. There's been so many advances, Megan, back when OJ, they did what's called the RFLP, which were the old gel, the gel trays that was like first generation. We were all learning about forensic DNA. Now they use these things called co-filer and profiler kits where they basically, it comes out on a graph and it's totally different. In this case, there is, at least on the towel and screwdriver, it's known as a genetic mixture. I don't know, Mark and John, if you guys have ever seen them do this, I've never seen them put a percentage on major and minor contributors before like that. I've done triple DNA mixtures.

59:22And I had an old live, one of our lab supervisors, her name was Mary Hong. She used to say, Megan, it's a dirty world. And in the modern era, everything is so sensitive, the equipment they use, that you get a DNA mixture on just about every swab. It's almost becoming rare that you'll have a single source DNA unless they get it isolated from a sperm fraction or something really like one source of blood. But other than that, it's very common to see this. And you're exactly right. He's using the parlance like they can't exclude a person. That's what the FBI protocols allow them to say. And crime labs will allow them to say this person can't be excluded, even if it's one in 17 quadrillion population frequency, which for our purposes means he did it.

1:00:10And the prosecutor can say it's a match. The forensic scientists won't. So this is performative. I don't know who this guy's talking to, really, because this is just a prelim. The judge knows all this already.

1:00:22Dave Aronberg:So, yeah, the judge is a former prosecutor, so he really knows it. So basically what she's trying to say is you, Matt Murphy, cannot be excluded. Mark, Mark, I glarsh cannot be excluded. John and I, maybe, I don't know if they can do, um, female versus male more easily, but that's basically what he said. Like, could it, could have been anybody. That's what they're trying to say. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, uh, we'll see how effective that is. I do want to play you the sound bite. Uh, this is Amanda Baker breaking down the Robinson and twigs DNA on the towel and the screwdriver that we were just referencing SOT7.

1:00:54You stated, I believe that the minor sample, the minor contributor was less than 20%. and that it was actually 5%, the ratio was 5 % to 95 %? For one of the samples, yes. Do you remember that? Yes. Does that mean the 5 % was from twigs and the 95%, that 95 % is assumed from the defendant, the Robinson? When I calculate the statistic, twigs' DNA profile aligned with the 5 % contributor and Mr. Robinson's DNA profile aligned better with the 95 % contributor. Okay. Same question with regard to eight. I think you said the ratio is 11 % from the minor and 89 % from the major. Is that twigs being the 11 % and Robinson being the 89 %?

1:01:46Yes. Twigs better aligned with that 11 % contributor and Mr. Robinson better aligned with that 79 % contributor. Okay.

1:01:56Dave Aronberg:So I actually believe that that was a defense witness, but she's given it up that, yes, there was another person's DNA on the towel and the screwdriver, Mark. But that other person contributed just a small amount. I mean, I don't maybe this gets Lance Twiggs in some sort of trouble or makes him more interesting to law enforcement when they're investigating this crime. But 95 percent, all the prosecution is trying to prove is that Tyler Robinson's DNA was on there. And they're able to prove it. The vast majority of it is his DNA. Right. And to Matt Murphy's point, why is this happening right now?

1:02:27This is a PC hearing. So I'll answer the question. Why is it happening? It shouldn't be happening. This is not what we do. So what's happening is they're clearly speaking to the conspiracy theorists who now can grab onto this and say, aha, so even the DNA isn't 100 percent. There's problems with that, too. That's the only reason. Wait, can I interrupt you for one second, Mark?

1:02:49Dave Aronberg:Because some of the conspiracy theorists or whatever you were calling them, believe that Lance may actually be... Like either the killer himself set Tyler Robinson to take the fall or that maybe Lance is a fed. Yeah. Who was kind of sent in there to lead Tyler down this lane. Right. Just so people know what you're talking about. Yeah. You know what? My bad. I wasn't opened to those theories. And thank you for letting me know that sarcasm added. I'm trying to avoid them. Trust me. I also want to know then, along with that theory, name me the officers who are risking their own liberty, their future, the lives of their families, essentially, because they'll go to prison if they can be proven to have sacrificed Tyler Robinson for no reason why they picked him.

1:03:38Oh, yeah, except he looks like the guy on the video, you know, the one that we see who's been identified as Tyler Robinson. They're on the scene scouting everything out there that that the confession matches to. So the whole thing not only frustrates me, but it annoys me and offends me because there's no lying in what I'm seeing in this prosecution. It's a mere probable cause hearing. Save it for the trial that he will lose. and try to work this case out to life. That's what I keep saying.

1:04:11Dave Aronberg:I don't know why I'm not that bothered, John, by the conspiracy theories. I guess I just feel like I've been in news a long time. Forget my legal career. I've been in news a long time. And there are so many conspiracy theorists out there. Like I've seen this happen so many times in my career where you're like, what? And then you find out that a lot of people believe this stuff. A lot of them are very smart. They're well-educated. They're well-off. They're sophisticated. I like, this is America. They're allowed to have their beliefs about stuff like this, especially in 2026 America. There's a lot of reasons to distrust formal government narratives.

1:04:53Dave Aronberg:Maybe I am naive and I will be proven totally wrong on this, but I still believe in the legal process. I just still kind of believe they're going to do what they do. People like you guys who are still in active practice are going to do what you do, like like really talented people inside the courtroom who have to abide by the rules of evidence, which were set up long ago for very good reasons. And they tend to work pretty damn well. They're not perfect, but they tend to work pretty damn well in keeping most of this stuff out. Voidier will be used, Jonna, to screen away jurors who are completely like bought in on this stuff.

1:05:25Dave Aronberg:And lawyers can be very clever with their jury consultants on Voidier to like ferret out somebody with that kind of thinking. I guess I again, maybe I'm just naive, but I still trust the system to work based on evidence that gets submitted in a courtroom. Am I nuts? You're not that nuts. We all want to believe that, especially, you know, that she's right. Only slightly. But yeah, I mean, the job now, like we we never had to worry about, I think, years ago, keeping the tinfoil hat wearers off a jury. And we didn't have to worry so much about the conspiracy theorists because they didn't have a keyboard in front of them.

1:06:06They didn't spend their time on social media. They weren't, you know, trying to knock down Phil Holloway's theories and being social media warriors. They get to do that now. And it gives people meaning. It gives them something to do. And it gives them a space in the in the atmosphere, in the in the relevant atmosphere. So that's why part of it, I think, happens. The job, our job is to make sure those people don't end up on the jury. And even that has gotten harder because you have people who think they're going to get their 15 minutes of fame. They're going to get their book deal. They're going to make whatever statement they want to make by being a nullified juror or whatever they want to do or convicting or not convicting.

1:06:45And so that part of what we do is really hard, which is why I said you're not that nuts, but you might be a little nuts because this is the the world in which we live now. Megan, she said it perfectly. You know, I'm all in favor of people's First Amendment rights. And if they're just, you know, and they're saying stupid stuff, that's OK. We've been down that road. But like, John, I think just perfectly articulated, the more that it's out there, the more people want to believe in these alternative theories. And these people can speak to those who can potentially be on the jury. And there's nothing perfect about jury selection.

1:07:20Most judges barely give you that much time and you don't know who's actually going on the jury. I've had ones that you find out things after the fact that blow your mind. So yes, it does frighten me because it, it jeopardizes the integrity of the system when such false information is being disseminated out there.

1:07:39Dave Aronberg:I don't know. You go, Matt, because you've been in the courtroom for your all, all of your adult life. I guess this is a relatively new phenomenon that it's so pointed and millions of Americans are buying in. You know, we're definitely seeing that on the Charlie narrative. There's no stopping it. Like the answer, of course, to all of this, if you want to even win in the battle of public opinion, is to just put out what's real. This is my own view. Just keep putting out what's real. But like, trust me, I have been dealing with this since 2010 actively in my journalism profession. I've had specific, specific conspiracy theories thrown right at me.

1:08:20Dave Aronberg:I mean, let's not forget that one of the biggest of all times, which was that the Sandy Hook mass murder was made up, that it was an op to institute gun control by our government and that the parents were participants in it. and I interviewed almost, I don't know, two thirds of those parents myself, including Neil Hesslin, who I love and adore, who held his dead son in his arms in a body bag. And then of course went down a road with Alex Jones that would become infamous. But my point is simply the answer is not to like necessarily battle it out tit for tat. It's just to stick to what we know can be proven and appeal, Matt, to people who are not swept up in like, I don't know what you'd call that.

1:09:13The, the romance.

1:09:14Dave Aronberg:I got a few words. Knowing. Well, do you know what I'm saying though? But like, I'm trying to be generous. So like the excitement of like, no, no, no. I think we need to be careful not to do that. Don't, don't be pejorative of them because I know a lot of these people. And I don't think they're nasty. I mean, like I know them in my life. They're not nasty. They, they, they would tell you that they care about Charlie Kirk too. And they really want answers about what happened to Charlie Kirk, but they don't trust government and they don't trust the narrative. And the only way we can speak to those people and maybe, and if they're true conspiracy theorists, they're not gettable, but there are some percentage, there's a percentage who we can convince.

1:09:54Dave Aronberg:They're not going to listen to you're a fucking nutcase by I know better. Like we need to actually talk to them about why we're so convinced. If they want to be spoken to. Yeah. You know, the people I know do. So on most on most cases, Megan, and and I'm with you, I think we've we've just got to let the process sort itself out. You know, it exists for a reason. And step by step, we'll get closer to the trial. There's some interesting procedural stuff going on. Like he's going to make a ruling in September. That's what we just learned, which is a long time to wait. But we talked about this yesterday.

1:10:32He's being careful.

1:10:33Dave Aronberg:And I was right. Are you ready to tell me I was right now? I was right. And you and Garagos were wrong. Well, no, you were right in that he was he's he's being I can't criticize you for your opinion that he's being over overly cautious. I my view is he's taking he's playing the long game and he wants to ensure that he indulges everything the defense raises to ensure the integrity of the conviction during the appellate process. That's that's what I'm saying. What you're saying is I was right. I understand your flowery qualifiers, but the bottom line. Did we talk about this on Positively Legal? When I know I'm right, I would like to be told that I'm right.

1:11:13Dave Aronberg:I know I was right here. Give up, Matt. Just give up. OK, yeah. Look, my problem with the conspiracy theory is on this one. OK, and this is there are different things about this case, Megan. And there's a lot of emotion around it, which I think is to be understood. And I agree with you all the way up to the point where they start hurting victims' families, you know, like the Sandy Hook example you just gave. You know, a conspiracy theory is one thing, but when it makes it worse. You know, I was in homicide for 17 years. And the first thing I would do is always after I filed charges, I would sit down with the family and my team so they could put a face to the people that were working with them.

1:11:54And the death of a loved one and you're personally experiencing it in this case, Megan, you know, it is the worst thing somebody can go through. And my heart just goes out to his family. And so like people coming up, challenging the government, wanting to see the evidence. I have zero problem with that. That's our process. That's why courtrooms are have to be open to the public at all times. So people can come in and see the process. So there's yes, there's faith in it and integrity. But I have a problem with the people when they when they're hurting Erica Kirk and I don't know her. I've never met her.

1:12:29That's where I draw the line personally. And that's where I personally want to push back. You heard me do that yesterday. That's that's as the kids on the street would say today. that's triggering to me.

1:12:41Dave Aronberg:When you sign your insurance policy for some brokers, that's the finish line, handshake, they get their commission, and then they're kind of done with you. You may not hear from them again until it's time for renewal, in which case, once again, they're your best friend. That's annoying. But your business runs all year, and so do the gaps and the risk, and things happen. And this is why I want to tell you about SuperSure. If your company has more than 25 employees, whether you're the owner, the CFO, or the HR manager, it can be too complex to just buy a policy online. SuperSure is the super agency built just for you.

1:13:13Dave Aronberg:It's licensed in every state for your business insurance and employee benefits with year round support for you and your team. At SuperSure.com, you can access tools like fine print facts, which translates your current policy into plain English. So you see what's covered and what's not plus a business value calculator so that you can estimate what your business is worth and know what actually needs protecting. Go to supersure.com slash Megan, one super agency, one powerful platform, all your policies in one place. Supersure.com slash Megan, paid for by Supersure Insurance Agency, LLC, a licensed insurance agency.

1:13:51Dave Aronberg:Every season change seems to come with the same realization, a closet full of clothes and absolutely nothing to wear. Haven't you been there? Between work, travel, your family commitments and everything else. You might not have the time or frankly, the desire to spend hours shopping. Or maybe you are like me where I do have the desire, but I don't have the skill. Like left to my own devices, I really don't have a lot of style. So I rely on other people to help me. And this is why I'm so excited to tell you about Daily Look. It is the number one highest rated premium personal styling service for women.

1:14:29Dave Aronberg:With Daily Look, you get your own dedicated personal stylist, a real person, not an algorithm, who curates a box based on your body shape, preferences, and lifestyle. And you get the same stylist every time. So she gets to know you and your preferences and what's already in your closet. You can try up to 12 premium pieces at home, keep what you love, and send back the rest with free shipping both ways. It's time to get your own personal stylist with Daily Look. Head to dailylook.com to take your style quiz and use code Megan for 50 % off your first order. But let me tell you something, with or without the 50%, you should try this because it pays for itself.

1:15:09Dave Aronberg:You buy a couple of like nice outfits that once you get home, don't look good or you never wear and you've wasted your money. And for this, the low, low price of using the folks at dailylook.com, you can avoid those costs and get stuff you actually love and will wear all the time. All right. So that's dailylook.com for 50 % off and make sure you use our promo code Megan, which will ensure you get your discount. All right. And then they'll know we sent you. Hey everyone. It's me, Megan Kelly. I've got some exciting news. I now have my very own channel on Sirius XM. It's called the Megyn Kelly Channel, and it is where you will hear the truth unfiltered, with no agenda, and no apologies.

1:15:53Dave Aronberg:Along with the Megyn Kelly Show, you're going to hear from people like Mark Halperin, Link Lauren, Maureen Callahan, Emily Jashinsky, Jesse Kelly, Real Clear Politics, and many more. It's bold, no BS news. Only on the Megyn Kelly Channel, Sirius XM 111, and on the Sirius XM app.

1:16:13Dave Aronberg:I think blaming Erica for anything having to do with Charlie's death is completely unfounded and deeply wrong. And I've objected to it multiple times. Criticizing Erica or not liking Erica for, you know, her behavior publicly over the past 11 months or however long it's been. I don't like it and I don't agree with it. But that is fair game because she took over Turning Point. She's the CEO of Turning Point. And there's just that's going to happen. She became an overnight superstar in the public eye because she took on that role and also because she's a grieving widow. And like saying that she's immune from criticism, given that she wears this hat as the chief of one of our largest political organizations in America, is just not going to fly.

1:17:00Dave Aronberg:She's not going to be insulated from from attacks because she wears that hat. She and I have talked about this many times over the past year. She's aware. She knows that. I, as her friend, would love for her not to be doing that role. I really would. I would love for her to just be a grieving widow so that she would take herself out of the line of fire. Forgive the euphemism given this case. But you know what I mean? So that she could just focus on her personal life. But she is very, very committed to saving Turning Point. And I think she genuinely believes she's needed. You know, she's needed for Charlie's vision.

1:17:33Dave Aronberg:She was his love, his wife, the mother of his kids. She's the one with the journals on how he wanted it done. I just she she loves her husband. She misses him. She thinks this is a way of honoring him. And I don't question it for a minute. But as her friend, I see. It's made her that piece of her fair game for criticism. You cannot take on a role like that and say, you can't criticize me now. You can criticize her. Sorry. It doesn't work like that. Yeah. People can criticize her for her role in in Turning Point. And there's you know, it seems like half the country has a different political position these days.

1:18:06Right. Or a little less than half based in the last election. But saying there's a big difference in my mind between criticizing her for a role in an organization like Turning Point and saying she murdered her husband. And here are all the reasons why. And let me tell you how the – she flew in on an Israeli jet and parachuted in with all her co-conspirators and all the insanity that we've heard. Those are different things in my mind. And I think there is a too far on that because it makes her pain worse in my view. But unfortunately, we're never going to be able to stop.

1:18:41Dave Aronberg:Never agreed with or wanted the criticism of Erica as a potential participant. Sure. In anything having to do with Charlie's death. That didn't happen. So we're not going to be able to stop these people who are blaming her for things. But one thing that could be controlled with her as the victim in this case is the judge not waiting till September to do what we all know he can do right now. And that is find probable cause. So to Matt's point, and I love the way he said it, made me feel a little bit less angry about it, that the judge is just taking his time to ensure that the defense's rights are protected and that he can consider everything.

1:19:21He can do that in a much shorter period of time, though. OK, I'm going to give everybody another week to brief this and send it to me. But to keep Charlie Kirk's widow and anyone else who has an interest in this case sitting around till September sends almost the wrong message to the public like this is some close call. I need to take my time on this because it's so difficult. Two months. I'm a fan of this judge. Hold on. I don't I'm not jumping on the Megyn Kelly. Listen to me. I like a lot of things this judge is doing, but it's almost like when someone's so compassionate, they could be compassionate to a fault.

1:19:56And in this case, this judge is so caring, but almost to a fault that he's waiting till September.

1:20:02Dave Aronberg:Oh, caring? That is caring. I think the only moment this judge had is when he winced when watching the video. That showed his humanity, and I appreciated it. Megan, he's a decent judge. Everything else has been absurd. No, Megan. Whatever. Megan. That's your opinion. I don't share it at all. I criticized him inside of a courtroom. It may not be 30, but 10 years in front of federal judges, state judges. I've tried cases. I've argued appellate arguments. This is a feckless weakling. Jonna, your thoughts? She's looking for support. No, I can. No, I completely agree. This makes absolutely no sense to me.

1:20:35I don't I can't think of a time where I ever had a judge want oral argument after a prelim. Every single prelim that I've ever been involved in. And we don't do many in New York. We did much more in California. The decision was made before you walked out of the courtroom after it was over, after the conclusion of the evidence. You didn't get two months to brief. And then like that doesn't happen. Why is it happening here? And Mark is claiming, well, it's happening because he wants to be extra careful. OK, it's a death penalty case. But I have to call bullshit on that. And here's why. This is just one step in the process.

1:21:09bind this guy over for trial because there's ample evidence to do that the defense will have plenty of opportunity to file motions to suppress evidence to do whatever they want to bring in other experts to do all that then you have the trial which this was a dress rehearsal for and then you have the appeal like we don't need to solve all the world's problems at the end of this prelim that's why i like her i love her passion it's great it's great great co-host positive you've been trying to get this out of me for two days my game on on this point you were right okay and and so are so sorry john and 24 07 yeah we do do a lot of prelims in california i've done for over 50 murder prelims i think and uh never wait a few months or absolutely spot on on that never what's that you never waited a few months for a ruling i've never waited a few days for ruling you guys are spot on on that the and and look my gun on this point you're right you've got a guy who he's he is newly appointed i think i still think he's doing a fine job however a more experienced jurist would probably make the call today that's what i that's what we're all expecting um and because that's what happens in prelims they hear it they go okay argument for the people and you never argue by the way um and argue argument for the defense and they'll say some stuff so that they can check the boxes and then the court finds them over and that's what happens.

1:22:36I've never seen a month long recess on a on a prelim, but two months. Yes. Right. Two months. You saw my math skills in play. I can't defend this. But I will say this.

1:22:48Dave Aronberg:Judge Murphy would have said, right, I understand where I'm issuing my ruling. I would have. I would have. However, it's not you know, we've got the public side of it. We have the family side of it. And And it's not going to prejudice the prosecution's case either. It doesn't have anything to do with the sides. It has to do with testicles. You either have them or you don't. And I'm sorry, this judge is missing something underneath that road. OK, what I'm hoping for, as my as one of my old buddies, Howard Gundy, used to say the unit is he grows a sack when we get to trial. OK, and that, you know, but but but look, these are also cheap gimmies.

1:23:32and every single one of these things will be appealed to the umpteenth. And this is an opportunity for him to throw the defense a bunch of bones and listen to a bunch of nonsense and make the ruling in the safest way that he sees possible. You know, I don't think it's going to hurt the case long run. But on that point, you guys are right.

1:23:54Dave Aronberg:It's not going to hurt the case long run. But it's just annoying because we all know that this is unnecessary and it's like a fiction. It's like a legal fiction. I was saying it in the first hour, the defense getting up there and being like, showing that note for two seconds of the handwriting reminds me of the performances in the World Cup where the guys are riding on the field and we all know where they're fakers. It's like, you're fine. Get up. Like two seconds after that, they're running down the full soccer field scoring goals. Like, so that was all an act. That's, that's what we're watching.

1:24:23Dave Aronberg:We're watching acting inside this courtroom right now. All right. I want to keep going because I want to talk about a couple of items that actually happened that mattered in court. There has been a question out there about whether Tyler Robinson actually turned himself in. There was testimony that he did. Lance Twiggs said Tyler told him he was going to go turn himself in. The criminal information said that he went to his parents and they convinced him to turn himself in through the help of a deputy sheriff, former deputy sheriff friend. And then they actually submitted video of Tyler Robinson in custody.

1:25:03Dave Aronberg:Here it is with along with a soundbite from agent Brian Davis in SOT. Well, it's SOT 2 here. All right. Yeah, you guys. State's exhibit 15 may be played.

1:25:15And agent Davis, who are we seeing here? That's Tyler Robinson. And although we are watching it on video, what is he wearing at this time? He's wearing a dark-colored baseball cap with a, it has like a, I believe it's like maybe the Hurley symbol on it, like a white symbol on front. It's a burgundy short-sleeved shirt with no graphics. It's blue jeans and gray and white tennis shoes, I believe they're Converse-style tennis shoes. Thank you. Was Mr. Robinson, you stated that he was arrested in the early hours of September 12th. Is that right? Yes, that's correct. Did he remain in Washington County Sheriff's Office or was he taken somewhere else?

1:25:59No, he was transported from there to the Utah County Jail.

1:26:05Dave Aronberg:Okay, so that's, all these little building blocks are there to support what we see in the confession of the texts and the testimony of Lance Twiggs. and so on, just little building blocks that add support to the overall narrative. And I have one more for you. This is sort of a weird one, but bear with me. The more fully revealed text messages have a reference from Tyler to Lance in the Twigs on the night of the murder, sorry, from Tyler to Lance Twigs on the night of the murder, where he's describing waiting for the cops to leave so he can get his gun back from that wooded area. And he makes a reference to how loud the crickets are around him.

1:26:50Dave Aronberg:Listen here. It's SOT 70. He continues, the squad car was moved further away enough that I should be able to move in. I backed off because I thought I heard footsteps, maybe a foot patrol, but the crickets here are so fucking loud. Okay. There actually are loud crickets heard on video from the ring cam that was introduced at this hearing. Uh, there was a woman whose ring cam captured Tyler Robinson when he stopped his car and she, or the detective somehow got to her and found it on her ring camera. And, um, you can't really see much of the car. I'm sure they zoomed in and were able to identify the car somehow because it was Tyler Robinson's, we're told.

1:27:36Dave Aronberg:But listen, just listen to the video that they introduced here in SOT 71. Is there any sound associated with this? There is judge, but it's night sounds. It's crickets chirping. Okay, I just wanted to see if there was sound or not. Okay. All right. You may play the video.

1:28:16Dave Aronberg:Okay, you get the picture. You can hear the crickets right where he stopped his car, loud and clear. And then last but not least, and this is obviously in its own category of evidence, you heard, you read Tyler Robinson texting Lance Twiggs about engraving the bullets. Remember when I was engraving the bullets? Then you heard Lance Twiggs testify about seeing him engrave the bullets, allegedly for a family hunting trip that he, Tyler Robinson, was going on. And then yesterday, we saw with our own eyes for the first time the bullet casings, which was just chilling. I mean, it's one thing to, again, hear about what he allegedly wrote on the bullet casings that were there as he killed our friend.

1:29:01Dave Aronberg:And it is another to actually see it on the bullet casings. We've enhanced them so that the audience can see the writing more clearly. But first, I'm just going to play you this soundbite. We read the one of the bullet that was used, the bullet casing to kill Charlie that read, Notice his bulge, O-W-O, what's this? And here is Sergeant Jennifer Fowl-Moina discussing the engravings on the other bullets. Sop 54. Is this a photograph of one of the cartridges that was found in the gun? Yes, it is. And what are we looking at here in this view of page one on exhibit 20? This is the head stamp of it.

1:29:42And it says it is a, according to the head stamp, it is a Remington 30-06 Springfield. Is that a different caliber than a.223 round? Yes, it is.

1:29:56Will you look at page two of Exhibit 20? Will you read the markings here? A fascist. And page three.

1:30:12Catch. And page four. Up arrow, right arrow, down arrow, down arrow, down arrow. All right, let's go to Exhibit 21.

1:30:43And was this another round that was found in the gun? Yes. Will you read the inscription here? Old Bella Chow. Page two. Chow Chow. All right, let's go to Exhibit 22.

1:31:05Another round that was found from the gun, correct? Yes. Will you please read the letters here? If you read? Page 2.

1:31:17This, your, or correction, this, you are? Page 3. Gay. and page four lmao

1:31:31Dave Aronberg:so there it is lmao laughing my ass off the arrow sequence up arrow side arrow down down down widely recognized as the stratagem input for the 500 kilogram bomb in the video game hell divers 2 he was a very online guy obviously but you know back to kind of our earlier discussion on the conspiracy theories, one of the biggest downsides of spending so much time discussing them is we're not focused on what clearly was this guy's actual motivation. And that the trans stuff, the notices bulges on the cartridge of the bullet that was used to actually kill Charlie, hey fascist catch oh bella chow a fascist anthem is not getting these are leftist narratives about what's wrong with our country about what's wrong with the right wing there was testimonials early at the work testimonials early on from the mother to the cops reportedly saying he had grown more and more left wing in his thinking since he got pulled into this trans furry world Now you have Lance Twiggs trying to play down his trans affiliation.

1:32:47Dave Aronberg:Sure, sure, Luna. And this clearly was a motivation, Matt, as we've seen now in countless cases, that this world is subversive and dangerous and can really do a mind meld on people who are weak. Yeah, I mean, this is the tragedy of modern America, in my view, Megan. I mean, from a prosecutor's standpoint, this is motive. This is what we call motive. But it's also you run the risk in modern America that you more so than the conspiracy theorists. What I'd be worried about in jury selection in this is people that come in that align politically and can't put those those ideas aside. You know, that's I think that's the real danger.

1:33:36it's not so much the cuckoos with the tinfoil hat. It's the people that that believe in their hearts that this that murder is somehow OK, that they've rejected 3000 years of Western philosophical and religious tradition that the ends don't justify the means and and think it's all right. That's what I would be worried about in jury selection personally.

1:34:01Dave Aronberg:and social murder. They were calling it just recently the Luigi murder, social murder. Like it's it's disturbing. You know, like it's OK if you put that label on it to take somebody out, because as Tyler Robbins said, some hate can't be negotiated out. And there is a faction of the left that believes this. They do. And who's next on the list, Megan, is what I want to know. Who's the next health care CEO that that is OK to kill? You know what I mean? It's like the the media landscape. If we're going to start killing people that want to engage in dialogue, who's next? You know, Mark, you, me. Like it's it never that list never ends.

1:34:42And we've seen that with Pol Pot and Stalin and Mao. And, you know, we could go back through political movements, going back to ancient Rome on that. And I don't know if it's the people who forget history or doomed to repeat it or if there's these people are so wrapped up in their own self-righteousness that they've decided that if they do it and their intentions are pure, therefore murder, the worst thing that any human being can do throughout history is somehow OK. And I still haven't wrapped my head around it. I'm still working on getting through the Luigi Mangione stuff for the same reason.

1:35:13But you're right, Megan. This is one of the other things about the conspiracy stuff that bothers me is that it's distracting from the real discussion that I think we need to be having as a country. And that is this can't be our future.

1:35:26Dave Aronberg:and we all need to agree that we railed for months we in the right wing and independent media about how the fbi joe biden's fbi would not release the so-called manifesto of that nashville tennessee trans shooter um this is a it was this is at a school her name was audrey hale and um we railed for months that they wouldn't release this person's manifesto about why they did it And what was it? It was like it was laden with trans references and mania from the trans stuff. This is kind of the same thing. This is a everything beyond what he's said on these bullet casings, what everybody who knows him has said, what he's made clear was his motivation and anything beyond that.

1:36:12Dave Aronberg:Look, you can spend time on it, but it amounts to the FBI cover up of what the real motivation was in Nashville. Like we have very good evidence of what the motivation was by Tyler Robinson. Very good. It's on the bullets, John. and you know we ignore it at our peril we've been ignoring so many of these murders at our peril because there are people on the left and the right who think the whole transmania thing is just sort of a like whatever that's not one of our real problems oh yes it is right and we're just mean we're just mean when we talk about it in that sense but i'm gonna at the risk of beginning my own mini conspiracy theory on your show.

1:36:52I don't think the engravings on the bullet casings only show motivation. Clearly, they do show motivation. I think when you look at the casings and you look at the very detailed text messages, in my mind, Tyler Robinson wanted to be caught. You do not leave a trail of breadcrumbs that large and that unmistakable unless at some point you want to get caught. You know, his attorneys are sitting there fighting over, well, you know what? The bullet information, the bullet fragments are inconclusive. Well, you know what? The bullet casings are not inconclusive. And so when you leave a digital trail, we talked about this on your show the other day, when you leave a digital trail with those messages you know is he is he writing a memoir oh the crickets oh they're so loud but every single excruciating detail to his you know furry lover when you know darn well you know darn well they're gonna get found and you take the time to carve these engravings telling your furry lover that you're going hunting who the deer can't read like come on people this guy on some level wanted to be caught that's my mini conspiracy theory i'll leave it right there and but what i

1:38:07Dave Aronberg:I mean, I don't disagree with you because look within. 24 hours, he was confessing to everybody, to his lover, to his parents, to the deputy sheriff friend, to discord. It's one thing to confess your lover and say, delete these texts and you believe he will and maybe you won't. But like getting on discord and telling everybody by this point, he had already agreed, Mark, to turn himself in. So I'm sure he's thinking, I don't care. You know, I'm he was reportedly suicidal. You know, the parents are trying to talk him out of taking his own life, according to the criminal information. And I guess it just given it up.

1:38:42Dave Aronberg:But like there's been no examination of really what happened to Tyler Robinson. Right. What happened to him where he went from this kid who had a four point oh, according to his mom and got a scholarship to this decent university that he did not finish at to to this. You're going to hear about it. You know when you'll hear about it? In the penalty phase, and it'll come from the defense, there's somebody right now dedicated to just that focus, who's handling the second chair, as we call it, who's looking for everyone who ever said, God bless you to any good deed he's ever done. And they'll throw in there things like he surrendered.

1:39:23He allegedly felt sorry for what he had done and wished he didn't do it. And I know you think it's crap, but those facts in that environment may fuel one juror in believing, well, OK, then the scales tip in favor towards mitigation. I'll let them live. And that, to me, is the challenge for prosecutors, because anything other than death, people will deem this a failure.

1:39:48Dave Aronberg:I mean, I don't I don't know that I think it's crap. He felt sad that he did it and regretted it. I just don't care. You know who will care? Jurors. They're going to listen to it. They're going to hear it. And I mean, you put that on the neck of the woods, Mark Iglars. But in Utah, they're more like me. Maybe. But you never know. Death is different. Everyone has their own particular feelings as to what warrants the death penalty. And no reason Utah has the death penalty. If there was some revolt against it, Utah would be California where they have the death penalty, but they just won't enforce it.

1:40:24Dave Aronberg:It just, it's like what it was either Garagos or you, Matt, who called it like the soft death penalty, uh, the other day, like Utah, Utah's different. Utah's full of Christians, Mormons, they're law abiding. There are a lot of red state voters there. And I just think that's our best chance because I don't think they're going to be moved by the, you know, sob story. Tyler Robinson had it rough, you know, he was a good kid. And I realized I said this yesterday. He didn't have a lifetime of crime, but the death penalty takes into consideration that, but also how horrific this crime was. Does it not?

1:41:02Dave Aronberg:Matt Murphy literally wrote a book called The Book of Murder and has done, has tried death penalty cases. The one, just the one is enough to get you the death penalty if it's horrific enough, if it's deemed worthy. Yeah. So the way it works, Megan and you, Mark, are both right here. It's aggravating versus mitigating factors. And in California, we call it K-factor evidence. I don't know what number it comes down to in Utah, but it's essentially a catch-all. With a jury, before somebody is sentenced to death, they're entitled to the individual vote of each juror. So it's a little bit different than the guilt or penalty.

1:41:43And they're instructed that individually, they must make up their own mind, essentially. And they're allowed to consider anything that ameliorates or somehow lessens the severity of what they did, which goes to Mark's point. And that is they're they're basically given. It's like an e-ticket ride in Disneyland. The defense has a catch all that they can put in all kinds of different evidence. Like if you ever if he was a Boy Scout, if he walked an old lady across the street, every picture, Megan, every death penalty case I did. And I did eight of them that were we actually tried them. I think every single one of those had a picture of the defendant as a kid holding a puppy.

1:42:22All of that stuff comes in. And, you know.

1:42:26Dave Aronberg:Let me ask you this, Matt. Let me ask you this. As a prosecutor who is on the opposite side of all this, trying to overcome those pictures, wouldn't you, if I were the prosecutor in this case, I think I'd get up there and I would play the video of Charlie's neck exploding. and a Vesuvius of blood coming out of it instantaneously. And then I show a picture of his two kids, his babies, his two babies, not to mention his mom and his dad and his wife and his sister. Like that's the argument for death. That's it. That's the argument. Forget Charlie's massive role in society, his obvious future status as a probable president and all that, his status as a Christian faith revival, And I know that is relevant because if he was murdered for his political views, that can be an aggravated factor on some of these crimes.

1:43:23But you see that video, Matt. That video is incredibly compelling.

1:43:29Dave Aronberg:It's very emotional. It's truly horrific, so bad that most of us don't want to ever see it again. And most people who have seen it won't look at it a second time. And most people who haven't seen it have zero desire to see it because they understand it's a before and after moment. Well, the circumstances of the offense, and you're right, Megan, the circumstances of the offense include victim impact testimony. So some of the most powerful stuff we're going to see are going to come from Erica Kirk and Charlie Kirk's loved ones. And they're going to come in and they get to testify about the impact that the murder has had on them, on their lives.

1:44:05You know, and we used to ask three questions. Describe your relationship with the murder victim. where were you when you learned about it and her story she's right there right um and how has it impacted your life those are the three questions you and you just you let them talk and it is that is the most powerful um evidence i've ever seen in a courtroom and it is and the jury gets to hear all that and then they get to assign a weight to that and then they compare that weight against whatever was presented in mitigation, the picture of the puppy, the fact that maybe he turned himself in, the fact that maybe he cried.

1:44:44They have to if and the standard is if the jury finds that the aggravating circumstances substantially outweigh any circumstances in mitigation, that's when they can but are not required to return a birth of death. And I think and and

1:44:59Dave Aronberg:in most in the vast majority of murder cases, you don't have videotape of the moment of death. You don't have videotape of the actual crime in the moment of death, which we do have here. Megan, I want to bring up a point. To your point, it is absolutely abhorrent, that video. We thought we had the same thing here in South Florida when Nicholas Cruz went through Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and shot up students. The video, the photos were horrible. They found him. Three people thought he should live. So you never know what's going to happen. Apologies, but I got to wrap. Okay, great to see you all.

1:45:36Dave Aronberg:Thank you. We'll be back with new shows next week. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.

1:46:06Let their story unfold and gain a competitive advantage because hiring managers who start with skills are 60 % more likely to find a successful hire. Hire skills first. Learn why at tearthepaperceiling.org. Brought to you by Opportunity at Work and the Ad Council.