The Murder of Charlie Kirk: The Case of Tyler James Robinson: Everything You Need to Know About the Preliminary Hearing

[00:00:00] [SPEAKER_02] I'm Kevin and I've spent this week watching the preliminary hearing in the Charlie Kirk murder case where, of course, Tyler Robinson is facing charges related to that crime. I've been watching it all week. I'm going to tell you all about it in just a few minutes.

[00:00:16] [SPEAKER_00] Content warning. This episode contains discussion of murder and violence. I think before we want to, you know, get into what happened and Kevin, you've been a trooper who has been just slogging through a days long hearing all week. And I really appreciate you for doing that.

[00:00:33] [SPEAKER_00] I want to recap. So Tyler Robinson is accused, is alleged to have murdered conservative media personality and activist Charlie Kirk or Charlie Kirk on September 10th, 2025 at a sort of outdoor speaking event. So that is the central crime that we're looking into and that Robinson has been accused of. And what was this hearing today?

[00:01:02] [SPEAKER_00] Well, the hearing over the last week.

[00:01:05] [SPEAKER_02] The hearing over the last week is a preliminary hearing. And in a minute, we'll tell you some of the things that happened. I guess the obvious question is, well, Kevin, what's a preliminary hearing? So the idea is that these preliminary hearings offer the state a chance to demonstrate to the court, to the judge, we're not just charging a person with his

[00:01:31] [SPEAKER_02] serious crime. We have something to back it up with. They don't necessarily in these preliminary hearings have to prove that someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They don't have that high of a standard. What they do need to do is prove we have solid reason to bring this case. We're not abusing the governmental power and just charging a citizen because we don't like him.

[00:01:58] [SPEAKER_02] So that's the purpose of this. Witnesses come in. Evidence is offered with the intent of the state proving there is good reason for this case. And ultimately, the judge who hears all of this will make the decision. Yes, this case should go forward or no, it shouldn't go forward.

[00:02:18] [SPEAKER_00] Well said. So we'll get into it. My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist.

[00:02:24] [SPEAKER_02] And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. And this is The Murder Sheet. We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep dives into murder cases.

[00:02:35] [SPEAKER_00] We're The Murder Sheet.

[00:02:36] [SPEAKER_02] And this is The Murder of Charlie Kirk. The case of Tyler James Robinson. Everything you need to know about the preliminary hearing.

[00:02:45] [SPEAKER_02] Let me start, Anya, by making an obvious point.

[00:03:33] [SPEAKER_02] I'm good at making obvious points. It's one of my specialties. And that point is real life is different from what we see on fictional television programs. When we watch law and order or programs like that, the trial itself, the criminal proceedings are distilled down to their most dramatic moments. And there are dramatic moments in court all the time. That's part of the process.

[00:04:01] [SPEAKER_02] But in real life, there's also an awful lot of stuff that's not as interesting, frankly. And a good deal of what happened this week was not super interesting, at least not on the surface. I think one thing that I saw a lot of this week is I saw a lot of arguments about whether or not evidence in this case should be made public.

[00:04:30] [SPEAKER_02] Now, the presumption is evidence and exhibits in a case should be made public. And there was a very good reason for that. Namely, the government has the power to take away our liberties. The government has the power to charge us with crimes. And if we're convicted of those crimes, it has the power to incarcerate us or even to execute us. That is a tremendous and a mighty power.

[00:04:59] [SPEAKER_02] And it is important that we, the people, have the right to investigate and understand how the government is using that power. And so because of that, because we want to understand how the government, how the responsible parties are making these decisions, it is important to know and to see and to be able to evaluate the evidence they use in reaching those decisions. Does that make sense, Sonia?

[00:05:27] [SPEAKER_00] Makes perfect sense.

[00:05:28] [SPEAKER_02] So that is why this evidence is presumed to be made public in these hearings. And in fact, Mr. Kirk's family attended this hearing with the expectation that they'd be able to, after all these months, to see the evidence against Mr. Robinson. Now, what is interesting is, of course, defense attorneys are going to be defense attorneys. They have a very important role to play.

[00:05:58] [SPEAKER_02] And in this particular proceeding, they're saying, well, we have cameras in the courtroom. If we reveal, if we allow to be revealed some of the evidence against Mr. Robinson, it's going to make him look bad.

[00:06:12] [SPEAKER_00] Well, I mean, yeah.

[00:06:15] [SPEAKER_02] It's going to prejudice potential jurors against him. I understand why they're making that argument. Maybe if I was in their position, I would make it too. It's important to argue to protect the rights of your client. But let's be honest, Anya, that's not a good position to be in. If you're a defense attorney, that's the argument you're making, which you're saying, well, if people found out the evidence against my client, boy, would he be in trouble?

[00:06:45] [SPEAKER_00] I mean, that's kind of how evidence usually works. And I mean, I don't like what do they want? So we're just basically supposed to have a secret trial because of that?

[00:06:58] [SPEAKER_02] So what they're saying, the argument they're making is potential jurors are going to be watching this on YouTube or Court TV or what have you. They're going to be going on Twitter and reading about it. They're going to see pictures of it in articles.

[00:07:18] [SPEAKER_02] And they're going to see this evidence and it's going to cause them to come to a judgment about the case and about Mr. Robinson's guilt before they even step into the courtroom and become potentially jurors.

[00:07:36] [SPEAKER_00] Does this defense team have access to some kind of jury consultant who's a psychic who can tell them what exactly everyone who sees this evidence on TV will think? Is that how this works? Apparently. Wow, that's good for them. I mean, I'm being facetious here. I understand. And I certainly sympathize with the defense team trying to mitigate the situation for themselves as well as possible. But I feel like we have a fundamental right for access.

[00:08:05] [SPEAKER_00] And I'm biased in favor of that.

[00:08:07] [SPEAKER_02] I'm certainly biased in favor of access myself. And it's not like this is the first time in all of recorded history where there was a serious crime that a lot of people were interested in. It happens all the time. And there are processes in place to deal with that. Namely, let's have a very serious examination process.

[00:08:34] [SPEAKER_02] Let's have a very vigorous examination of the potential jurors. And to find out that way if they have been prejudiced by things they saw in the media. One point I think worth making, and it's one you and I certainly made repeatedly during our coverage of the Delphi case, is that we live in kind of a fragmented media world now.

[00:09:01] [SPEAKER_02] Well, if you are in a particular part of the media bubble with people who share your interests and your perceptions, you're going to have a perception. You're going to have the idea that everybody in the world knows about this particular event and has information about it. And that's just not the case.

[00:09:21] [SPEAKER_00] Actually, the victim being a media figure, I think we heard from a lot of people where like that was someone they're deeply familiar with who felt negatively or positively about Charlie Kirk. You and I were in a situation where we were aware of who he was, but we were not inundated with that content because we our algorithms are different. Right. And we're getting something else.

[00:09:45] [SPEAKER_00] And so that's a good where it's like that's a very important figure for some people, but for others, it's not. True crime is very like that. You know, exactly.

[00:09:55] [SPEAKER_02] And the example we used to use, I don't know if we can use it anymore because you've become a football fanatic, but we used to say.

[00:10:02] [SPEAKER_00] I'm not a football fanatic. Don't do that to me.

[00:10:05] [SPEAKER_02] We used to say that we don't follow football. We don't know what's going on in the world of football. We live in the Indianapolis area. Let's say something big happens to the Indianapolis football team, the Colts. You can't say what everybody in Indianapolis knows about it. I and I are in Indianapolis. We'd have no idea.

[00:10:25] [SPEAKER_00] I humiliatingly, by the way, the other day referred to the Colts as the Pacers to somebody who then presumably thought I was a dummy and embarrassed myself in conversation. But I will say, you know, go IU. But yeah, we wouldn't necessarily be super familiar.

[00:10:43] [SPEAKER_02] So this is my long winded way of saying, yes, there are people out there following this case intently. And there are also people out there who are seeing information about this case via the service formerly known as Twitter or what have you and have some awareness of it. These are people who probably shouldn't be on a jury. There are lots of many reasons.

[00:11:07] [SPEAKER_02] There are lots of other people out there, intelligence Americans, who are living their own lives and have no interest in this case.

[00:11:15] [SPEAKER_00] They're called well-adjusted.

[00:11:17] [SPEAKER_02] And they have limited or no knowledge of it. And through the jury selection process, you can find those people.

[00:11:23] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, I mean, you'd be surprised by how many people do not care about true crime and actively don't want to get into it and find it upsetting and disturbing. And they don't want to be upset and disturbed. And they find their entertainment and their information from other sources. And that's good. You know, it takes all kinds of people, you know. And I think there's a huge contingent of that. And there's also a huge contingent of people who might be aware of the case. Maybe they even follow it a bit. Oh, what's going on?

[00:11:53] [SPEAKER_00] But they're not locked in in the way that some kind of Internet sleuth who's mapping everything is locked in. It's just it's a different thing. And to me, it's like if the evidence is that bad against your client, like that's kind of the situation you're in. And certainly I don't think that the state should be able to violate anyone's constitutional rights by, like, putting stuff out there that shouldn't be out there or, you know, doing things in a proper way. I don't agree with that.

[00:12:20] [SPEAKER_00] But at some point you have the case you have. And if the facts are bad, that's the hand you've been dealt. And saying that we need to be secretive about an important trial when I think a trial like this behooves us to seek clarity and seek the truth is it's an understandable thing. And I certainly do not at all criticize or really condemn the defense for opting for that because I understand their logic. But for the rest of us, it's not something I support personally.

[00:12:51] [SPEAKER_02] So this is also my way of saying that not all of the evidence ended up being shared with the public. And we can presume that the evidence that the defense was most interested in keeping from the public gaze was the information that most clearly indicated Mr. Robertson's potential guilt. Because obviously if there was like neutral evidence or, well, here's some evidence that he's innocent.

[00:13:20] [SPEAKER_02] They're not the defense is not going to fight to keep that out. So keep that in mind that when we talk about the evidence in this case, number one, we're not talking about everything because not everything was shared. And number two, the stuff that wasn't shared is probably bad for Mr. Robinson.

[00:13:38] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah.

[00:13:39] [SPEAKER_02] Does that make sense?

[00:13:40] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, that does make sense.

[00:13:42] [SPEAKER_02] So with that said, the evidence presented this week, I would respectfully suggest is extraordinarily bad for Mr. Robinson. We have several videos putting him at or near the scene of the crime on this campus.

[00:14:04] [SPEAKER_02] Some of these videos, he's walking with an awkward gait with a stiff leg, which would be consistent with him having the murder weapon, this rifle stuck down his pants. When this rifle is discovered, it's wrapped in a blanket.

[00:14:24] [SPEAKER_02] DNA expert says the DNA on that blanket, probably a combination of Mr. Robinson and his roommate, Mr. Twig. Lance Twiggs.

[00:14:36] [SPEAKER_00] Wow. Okay.

[00:14:37] [SPEAKER_02] In addition to that, this weapon has pretty definitive ties to Mr. Robinson's grandfather, Mr. Robinson. Robinson made several, I don't know how, if you would classify them, all of them as out and out confessions, but he made several confessions and or incriminating statements via text messages.

[00:14:59] [SPEAKER_00] This message is sponsored by Greenlight.

[00:15:01] [SPEAKER_02] There are scammers everywhere looking to rip you and your family off. Sometimes it can feel like all of us are getting inundated with these scams constantly. It's overwhelming.

[00:15:11] [SPEAKER_00] Families lost $12.5 billion to fraud last year. And as true crime podcasters, we can tell you that fraudsters and scammers are always looking to prey on the vulnerable.

[00:15:21] [SPEAKER_02] But with Greenlight Family Shield, you can keep your family from becoming a statistic. You can fight back against these scammers.

[00:15:28] [SPEAKER_00] Greenlight Family Shield is an app that keeps your whole family safe from scams and fraud. It recognizes that what impacts one family member impacts a whole family. So you can shield your grandparents, your kids, your spouse, yourself, everybody.

[00:15:42] [SPEAKER_02] Greenlight Family Shield keeps your family safe with financial account monitoring, credit locking, and real-time alerts that start whenever potential fraud is detected. Oh, and they also offer up to a million dollars of identity theft coverage.

[00:15:56] [SPEAKER_00] Take charge of your family's safety, financial security, and well-being today. Set up Greenlight Family Shield in just minutes. We have. We absolutely love the peace of mind we get from checking in on our app and knowing that Greenlight Family Shield is monitoring all of our financial accounts. If something goes wrong, we know they'll have our backs.

[00:16:15] [SPEAKER_02] We use Greenlight, and you should too.

[00:16:18] [SPEAKER_00] Scammers aren't waiting, neither should you. Go to greenlight.com slash msheet right now to get started. That's greenlight.com slash msheet. Greenlight.com slash msheet.

[00:16:31] [SPEAKER_02] This summer, we're wearing Quince. Shop Quince today and get a great deal on clothing that'll leave you feeling fancy and good about yourself without breaking the bank.

[00:16:41] [SPEAKER_00] Quince offers products that are easy and relaxed while also being well-made essentials that'll become a key part of your wardrobe this summer. Think pants and shirts in 100% European linen, starting at just $34. These are well-made and breathable in the heat. Or try their incredibly soft t-shirts that feel great and look amazing.

[00:16:59] [SPEAKER_02] I've been enjoying my 100% European linen relaxed short-sleeved shirt in Martini Olive. I've also got new pants, the Comfort Stretch Traveler 5 Pocket Pants, athletic tapered, in dark charcoal. I'm a guy that probably prizes comfort above all else in clothing. And here is a testament to how comfortable these pieces are. I wore them when I traveled to Las Vegas for CrimeCon. They were soft and breathable enough to navigate the strip.

[00:17:29] [SPEAKER_02] Plus, I liked the way they made me look.

[00:17:31] [SPEAKER_00] With Quince, you're getting high-quality luxury goods for less. Their products are priced 50% to 80% less than similar brands. And they last. We use all of our Quince clothes again and again because they don't go out of style.

[00:17:43] [SPEAKER_02] Make your summer wardrobe easier. Go to quince.com slash msheet for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada, too. That's quince.com slash msheet for free shipping and 365-day returns. Quince.com slash msheet. Quince.com slash msheet.

[00:18:07] [SPEAKER_02] He made them in a discord in a handwritten letter where he says, you know, I had a chance basically to kill Charlie Kirk. I decided to take it. He's admitting his guilt in text messages to his roommate, Mr. Lance Twigg. He comes home on the night of the murder and Lance Twigg says he was crying and said he wished he hadn't committed this murder.

[00:18:38] [SPEAKER_02] This is a very strong case against this man. Wouldn't you agree?

[00:18:43] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, that sounds... I can understand why the defense is behaving the way they are. They're not behaving that way because they have a strong chance here. They're behaving that way because they're in a... I mean, these facts put them in a very bad position and they sound very bad for Mr. Robinson.

[00:19:00] [SPEAKER_02] We're not even hearing all the evidence.

[00:19:02] [SPEAKER_00] No, this is just an appetizer. Yeah. I mean, I don't know how much more they need. I think that's pretty bad as it is.

[00:19:10] [SPEAKER_02] It's very, very bad for Mr. Robinson. I would not be surprised if this did not go to trial, if it ended up getting resolved on some sort of plea deal. Certainly, I would expect the judge isn't going to make his ruling as to whether or not there's enough evidence here for a trial, I think, until sometime in September.

[00:19:34] [SPEAKER_02] But I think we can clearly say he's going to find enough evidence here for this charge.

[00:19:41] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, because the bar is also pretty low, right? Like, there's not a huge standard that he has to clear in order to find this in the first place. So, I mean, it's definitely going forward and it doesn't look good for Robinson.

[00:19:57] [SPEAKER_02] This is one of the stronger cases I've seen in the true crime space.

[00:20:04] [SPEAKER_00] Well, wow.

[00:20:05] [SPEAKER_02] What do you think?

[00:20:06] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, that sounds really bad. I mean, that sounds like you have to explain a lot. I'm sure. I mean, I'd like that. We don't have to do it now. I don't want to interrupt your flow. But I feel like we should talk about. I think some people will react to this and they'll say, well, that just means the cover up that's framing Robinson is just really good. And I think we should address that in a nice way.

[00:20:28] [SPEAKER_02] This wasn't what I was going to do, but let's go ahead and do it now.

[00:20:30] [SPEAKER_00] No, no, no. We can wait. No, no, no, no, no. Save for the finale.

[00:20:33] [SPEAKER_02] No, I think people love our flow. So let's jump the gun. I think one point that's worth making is if you have a case where everybody is saying Zig and you believe Zach. And the only thing you have to do is say, well, people believe Zig when it's actually Zach because, well, I think this witness is mistaken or something like that. Okay.

[00:21:00] [SPEAKER_00] That's realistic.

[00:21:01] [SPEAKER_02] But if you're trying to convince people to change their minds on something and there's such overwhelming evidence that supports a position opposite from yours that you have to posit a huge conspiracy that you're in a weak place. Would you agree?

[00:21:22] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah. And I think we have to live in a shared reality. I know I say this a lot in the show. We have to live in a shared reality. And it's like at some point, are we saying that everyone's in on a conspiracy here or that powerful shadowy groups are so powerful that they can go in and orchestrate all of this? And without leaving a trace and without having some scrappy defense attorneys not going after them for it or not having the client be like, I didn't send these texts. Okay, let's look into it. Let's look at the digital footprint.

[00:21:52] [SPEAKER_00] Like at some point, and to their credit, these defense attorneys at no time that I've seen have trumpeted any sort of conspiracy theories on this case. And again, I think if you're a defense attorney and you get a whiff of that, you're going to want to go with it because then, you know, then you're the hero in a 1970s thriller, right? You're like on the run. You know, you're doing all this.

[00:22:13] [SPEAKER_02] If the only way you can prove your case, if the only way you can prove your clients innocent and overcome a mountain of evidence against them is to imagine some huge conspiracy. Oh, the CIA, FBI, Israel. You're going to lose.

[00:22:30] [SPEAKER_00] I just want to say, though, I think in our post-literate, as the Atlantic calls it, society, people are increasingly drawn to demagogues and conspiracy theories because that makes sense of things that basically we want to be different. And that allows us to kind of say, well, this continues to check all my prior, my confirmation bias, whatnot, because, you know, it just must be a cover up.

[00:22:56] [SPEAKER_00] And at some point, you know, in order to be intellectually honest, even if we have a feeling about a case or think, oh, there must be more to this, if the evidence isn't there, we have to set that aside, even if we come into it with that initial bias. It's OK to come into something and have your own confirmation bias and have things. But at some point, we become intellectually dishonest when we start trying to squeeze the facts into fitting our personal narrative. And that's not a good way to think.

[00:23:26] [SPEAKER_00] It's not a good way to be a citizen in a democracy. I just would encourage people. Well, we all do this sometimes. I've done it. I'm sure all of us have done it at some time or another. We're like, well, I bet there's more to it. Or like, and like, at some point, we got to let that go.

[00:23:41] [SPEAKER_02] And I want to jump back to something you said a moment ago. I think it is fair to say that Mr. Robinson's defense attorneys know a lot more about this case than you or I do. I think it's fair to say they know a lot more about this case than the people commenting about this case on the Internet.

[00:24:04] [SPEAKER_02] I think it's fair to assume they've really studied this case and know all of the details of this case in a way I would expect any good attorney to know their case. Never once have I seen these defense attorneys start waving their hands and saying, oh, it's a conspiracy. It's a conspiracy.

[00:24:28] [SPEAKER_02] That really strongly suggests to me is if I needed an additional suggestion, that there's not a conspiracy. If there was a conspiracy claim to be made, even if it was a weak conspiracy case, I would expect the defense attorney to try to offer that. And I haven't seen that. And I think that's important to stress. What do you think?

[00:24:54] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, I think, you know, we say on the show a lot, the boring answer is usually right. And that's not always the case. Sometimes you can have the interesting answer be right or you might have something where there is a conspiracy. And you got to be open to that. You can't just dismiss that. But if there's no evidence for it, at some point you can dismiss it.

[00:25:15] [SPEAKER_02] And you should.

[00:25:16] [SPEAKER_00] And you should. And certainly if you could blow up the state's case at a preliminary hearing and get your client out of there and have all this stuff ready to go, like, that would be the time to do it. You wouldn't drag it on. Like, there's no, there's no, like, Perry Mason moment here. That's not how trials work. You want to get stuff dismissed.

[00:25:34] [SPEAKER_02] If I'm a defense attorney and I have evidence of a conspiracy, I would, at the preliminary hearing, say they don't have good evidence against my client because, look, it's a conspiracy. And, in fact, what I've seen this week is a lot of people online who seem to have previously entertained conspiracy theories.

[00:25:59] [SPEAKER_02] Maybe they didn't marry the conspiracy theories or they were having them over for dinner and enjoying cocktails with them. A lot of those people are saying, oh, look at all this strong evidence. These conspiracy theories are wrong. And sunlight really is the best disinfected.

[00:26:19] [SPEAKER_02] At one point this week, the attorney representing Erica Kirk was arguing before the judge saying there's been these conspiracy theories. These conspiracy theories. Some of you hate Erica Kirk. Some of you love Erica Kirk.

[00:26:38] [SPEAKER_00] And who is that for people who are totally unfamiliar?

[00:26:40] [SPEAKER_02] This is the wife of Charlie Kirk, who's the man that is murdered. All you need to know at this point, whatever your personal feelings about her, it's her husband that was killed. And a number of online commentators have tried to present conspiracy theories indicating that she was somehow complicit in this murder of her husband. Which I know very little about Erica Kirk, but I imagine that such things would be very, very painful to her.

[00:27:10] [SPEAKER_02] And this attorney for her said that this all is a reason to make all of this public. Because if the actual evidence in this case becomes public and if people become aware of it, if people understand it and digest it, a lot of these conspiracy theories go away.

[00:27:32] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, that tends to be what happens.

[00:27:34] [SPEAKER_02] And I don't think the family of a murder victim, no matter who that victim is, no matter who the family is, they don't deserve to have to deal with false charges that they were in on it.

[00:27:49] [SPEAKER_00] No, I think that's regardless of who it is or how anyone feels about anything. I don't think that's right. And again, I don't think it's intellectually honest. I think it's silly, frankly. And I think, you know, I mean, everything I've seen about that has just been unserious, frankly. So, yeah, I think the conspiracy side of this, you know, again, when it's a high profile person, I understand the view of like, let's get conspiratorial.

[00:28:15] [SPEAKER_00] But I think, you know, at some point you can entertain them, but yeah, don't marry them.

[00:28:21] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah, have them over for dinner. Have cocktails with them.

[00:28:24] [SPEAKER_00] Or maybe don't. Maybe just have a phone call with them. Like kind of keep your distance a little bit. Like I think when people entertain them, they're very seductive, they're very alluring. And one thing happens, one thing leads to another. And I think it's better to have your distance and know what the conspiracy theories are, which are things that are ultimately corrosive if they're lies. And most of them are lies. Most of them.

[00:28:48] [SPEAKER_02] Most of them are lies.

[00:28:49] [SPEAKER_00] There are conspiracies that do happen, though. So I'm not saying never, ever suspect that. I'm just saying, like, be very careful with how you and make sure that at some point you're not just trying to twist the facts to fit, you know, the theory versus, you know, vice versa.

[00:29:03] [SPEAKER_02] Then I don't want to get too far ahead of myself here. But when you're discussing these conspiracy theories and how people come up with them and how they spread, you might wonder where, well, in this case, how did some of these conspiracy theories happen? How did people come up with them? What made them communicate with them to the world and to their audience? And there is a way for us to get kind of a behind-the-scenes look at that.

[00:29:29] [SPEAKER_02] And I think we're going to be covering that in a couple episodes pretty soon because I find it interesting. And I think you do, too, don't you, Ms. Kane?

[00:29:38] [SPEAKER_00] I do, Mr. Greenlee.

[00:29:40] [SPEAKER_02] So a minute ago, I was talking about that if these defense attorneys believed there was a conspiracy, they would say so. So I wanted to say watching this hearing this week, I generally felt that the attorneys on both sides were good attorneys.

[00:30:00] [SPEAKER_00] Yes. Yes. Yeah, I heard you complimenting them. I wasn't able to do as deep dive as you into the whole hearing, but I did hear snippets. And I was very impressed with the defense team. I was impressed by the state.

[00:30:14] [SPEAKER_02] And then I also wanted to say that I felt it wasn't just the lawyers who did a good job. I frankly didn't agree with all the decisions the judge in this case made. This is Judge Tony Graff.

[00:30:28] [SPEAKER_02] But when you looked at him and saw him trying to absorb all of these arguments people were making, he seemed to me like he was really engaging with the arguments and was really trying hard to balance the different interests out there. Because you have the interests, obviously, Tyler Robinson, he's the defendant.

[00:30:56] [SPEAKER_02] We want him to have a fair trial. He deserves a fair trial. His rights need to be protected. We also had attorneys occasionally speaking at this hearing representing Erica Kirk. Of course, Ms. Kirk has an interest in this evidence becoming as public as possible. We had attorneys representing the media.

[00:31:18] [SPEAKER_02] They want it to be as public as possible to protect our rights as citizens, as we say, to be able to examine the materials that judges use to make these very weighty decisions. And of course, we also had the state. They also have an interest in seeing this information be made public. And there's a lot of different interests there.

[00:31:46] [SPEAKER_02] And trying to walk a fine line on that teeter-totter of all these interests and try to find a way that everybody's interest is served as much as possible without negatively affecting anyone else's interests too much is a very, very difficult job.

[00:32:05] [SPEAKER_02] And obviously, in the back of this judge's mind, he has to be aware if I make a decision, if I lean too far away from Tyler Robinson's interests and I do something that infringes his rights, there is the possibility that everything gets thrown out. We have to start all over.

[00:32:30] [SPEAKER_02] So I saw him really taking his job very seriously and really engaging with this and doing the best he could.

[00:32:41] [SPEAKER_00] Right. What did you disagree with him about?

[00:32:44] [SPEAKER_02] I think more of this information should be made public. For me, one of the things this week that I was most interested in seeing was this taped interview with Mr. Robinson's roommate, Lance Twiggs.

[00:33:05] [SPEAKER_02] And that's also an interesting thing with the conspiracy theorists, because one of the conspiracy theorists said, oh, the police never talked to him, you know, and we saw a tape this week of him talking to the police.

[00:33:15] [SPEAKER_00] Why, like, say stuff like that that's inevitably going to be proven wrong? Like, but they just don't care because, like, their audience won't care.

[00:33:23] [SPEAKER_02] People have short memories.

[00:33:26] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah. It's disgusting to me.

[00:33:28] [SPEAKER_02] I was really looking forward to seeing this interview and hearing what Lance Twigg had to say.

[00:33:38] [SPEAKER_00] It's Twiggs, right? Not Twiggs.

[00:33:39] [SPEAKER_02] Twiggs, yeah. And it was, in fact, very interesting, but big chunks of this interview were cut out and not played for the public because the judge was concerned that it would somehow adversely affect Mr. Tyler Robinson's rights. And I think more of this information should have been shared with the public. I would like more of these conspiracy theories to be put to rest.

[00:34:07] [SPEAKER_02] I would like more people to be aware of the actual evidence and the actual process used. I also disagreed with him. At one point, the judge said that a particular piece of evidence should not be shown on camera.

[00:34:25] [SPEAKER_02] And this particular piece of evidence was an incriminating note that Mr. Robinson left Mr. Twiggs to find in which Mr. Robinson announced his intention to kill Charlie Kirk. And the judge said, no, don't show that. And it was accidentally shown for two seconds.

[00:34:47] [SPEAKER_02] And, of course, in this digital world, if something is shown for you in a fraction of a second, that's all you need because someone is going to screenshot it and spread it all over the digital landscape. And because of this accident, you know, he's restricting even more some of the camera activities in the courtroom. And I think it's important to stress. Yeah, if he didn't want it to be shown, sure, it shouldn't have been shown. It was a mistake. That's a shame. But it's important to stress.

[00:35:15] [SPEAKER_02] It's important to remember that the public had earlier read the contents of that note. We hadn't seen the note, but we read what was in it. So that doesn't really seem to me like a particularly egregious mistake.

[00:35:34] [SPEAKER_00] No, it doesn't matter. I mean, like the end result doesn't matter. It's certainly something that's unfortunate and shouldn't be encouraged. I mean, but I mean, the net effect of it really doesn't seem terribly important.

[00:35:49] [SPEAKER_02] Let's close by talking about the attorneys on all sides of this. For the prosecution, it's Chad Grenander, Ryan McBride, David Sturgill and Lauren Hunt. The defense team is led by Catherine Nestor and also includes Richard Novak and Michael Burke. The representative for Erica Kirk, actually, I think to be more specific, I should say this attorney also just generally represents the Kirk family as a whole, which obviously includes Erica Kirk.

[00:36:19] [SPEAKER_02] That's Jeffrey Neiman. He also sometimes spoke on behalf of the media. Also, at different times, we have seen another attorney named Mike Judd speak for behalf of the media.

[00:36:29] [SPEAKER_00] I will say I was very impressed with Mr. Novak. I believe I heard a snippet where he was discussing a mishunt for the state. I thought they both handled themselves very well and were well-spoken. I thought, I believe I heard also Erica Kirk's attorney or the Kirk family attorney speak as well. I thought he, you know, what he had to say made sense. And the media, I thought, I mean, I'm on the media side here, folks. I want there to be more access. So, I mean, I definitely had a bias toward them as well.

[00:36:58] [SPEAKER_02] But you'd agree with me. There were good attorneys on both sides.

[00:37:00] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, I thought everything was, you know.

[00:37:02] [SPEAKER_02] I say both sides. I guess technically there's three or four sides.

[00:37:05] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, no, I thought they were doing very well. And they made some really good points. And they were well-spoken. And I didn't really hear a lot of histrionics from anybody. And, you know, there was passion. But I think there was, it was respectful and it was professional. And I was impressed with what I saw.

[00:37:23] [SPEAKER_02] I'm curious, would you agree with me that you expect Judge Graff to find that there is a cause to continue this trial?

[00:37:30] [SPEAKER_00] Yes.

[00:37:31] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah.

[00:37:32] [SPEAKER_00] I, I'm, can I tell you my opinion?

[00:37:35] [SPEAKER_02] No, absolutely not. No, go ahead.

[00:37:37] [SPEAKER_00] Robinson's goose is cooked. The best he will get at this point is having some conspiracy theorists sneak onto the jury. Which can always happen. The other thing is that I think people are increasingly, juries are increasingly getting weird on us. And I think there's a possibility that, like, as we go forward in our sort of video-saturated society, some people are just going to get to the point where it's like, well, I need

[00:38:03] [SPEAKER_00] to see it happening on camera and then have him turn to the camera, Jim from the office style and say, I'm Tyler Robinson. You know? And even then, we got to, you know, also have DNA corroborating that. Like, I think that's his best hope. And that's not, I don't think that's a great place to be here with all of the evidence pointing to him. I think that's a bad place to be for him. I think there's a decent chance, as you said, that this could go to a plea deal. Death penalty off the table.

[00:38:33] [SPEAKER_00] Life in prison. I don't think there's any reason to, you know, do, you know, give him some kind of cushy plea deal. But I mean, he could, he could deal for getting out of the death penalty.

[00:38:46] [SPEAKER_02] Because, yeah, if you wanted to believe he was not guilty of this offense, you'd have such a hard time overcoming all of this evidence. And you'd really, it would require a belief in a huge conspiracy full of people falsifying evidence. And yeah, it's unbelievable.

[00:39:06] [SPEAKER_00] Speaking of believing, speaking of beliefs of dreams, I think there was something you wanted to say that's a pop culture reference that I think reminds you of some of the people who are sort of doing this conspiracy theorizing or conspiracy theory adjacent discussions around this case that you wanted to mention.

[00:39:27] [SPEAKER_02] Oh, yeah. Yeah, I, in private life, I often mention to Anya, oh, this person is doing the If I Can Dream trick. If I Can Dream is a song that Elvis Presley did on his 1968 comeback special. And it is a song that was supposed to be designed to evoke the spirit of the times.

[00:39:55] [SPEAKER_02] And so it's a song that is designed, it's a good song. And it's designed to make you think of like 60s protest type songs. And it has that vibe. But when you actually listen to it, it doesn't really say anything. It's the sort of song that no matter what your political persuasion is, you could listen to and think, yeah, this guy gets me. It's a song that pleases everybody by ultimately saying nothing.

[00:40:22] [SPEAKER_02] And there's certainly like in the Charlie Kirk case, there's people who love Mr. Kirk and love his family. There's people who hate him and hate his family. And I think both of these groups could listen to this so-called political song that Elvis did and applaud it because it says nothing. And I think there was a lot of people out there in the online space who, if I can dream it.

[00:40:45] [SPEAKER_02] And by that, I mean, they say things that are designed to have a vibe to make you think, oh, he's on my side. He's saying a few key words that he wants me to hear. He's on my side. But if you actually listen to it carefully and scrutinize it, that person is saying nothing. And if the winds switch, he can truthfully say, well, I didn't say anything offensive. Look.

[00:41:15] [SPEAKER_00] So basically, you have people who are not willing to, you know, put it all on red or put it all in conspiracy. They're hanging back. But they're trying to make conspiratorial noises to trick people into thinking that they agree with them. Is that what you're saying?

[00:41:33] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah. You expressed it more eloquently and more concisely.

[00:41:36] [SPEAKER_00] No, I like the way you expressed it. I thought it was a funny thing. And now every time I hear that song, I think of people, you know, doing kind of shady discourse in true crime.

[00:41:47] [SPEAKER_02] But people would hear that song at the time. They go, he's singing about like Vietnam or something. He's on my side. But if you like supported Vietnam, you could hear that song and they go, he's singing about something else. You can't get mad at that song because it doesn't come down on any side on anything.

[00:42:04] [SPEAKER_00] And it's so apt because the song is basically don't be mad at Elvis. You still like Elvis, right? He's still relevant. And that's exactly all these creators care about. Like you can not like our takes, but we're going to tell you what we think. You know, I mean, we're not going to do some nonsense where we're, you know, trying to signal something so that you like us. I mean, you can disagree. You can get mad. You can throw your film in across the room. But at least you're hearing something that is like, this is what we think.

[00:42:30] [SPEAKER_00] And, you know, we're trying to base it off of, I don't know, logic and reason.

[00:42:37] [SPEAKER_02] If I was going to, if I can dream it, I can say something to Anya like, you know, Anya, when I look at the papers and watch TV these days, it really feels to me like a lot of people have lost a sense of what it really means to be an American. And that's something, if you are a conservative, you could hear me say that and think, oh, he means this. He's on my side. And if you're a liberal and you hear me say this, you could think, oh, he agrees with me. He's on my side.

[00:43:05] [SPEAKER_02] But in reality, I'm saying nothing.

[00:43:07] [SPEAKER_00] Here's the thing. We don't really usually, I mean, there's probably something you probably figured it out, but we don't really try to get too much into our personal politics, especially in a case like this, because it's irrelevant. A man was murdered. A man was brutally murdered. And we've got to figure out what happened. And that's kind of fundamentally what a case like this means to me. And we can certainly talk about the political ramifications or the political elements of it.

[00:43:32] [SPEAKER_00] But you don't need to hear Anya and Kevin standing up and being like, well, here's where we are, you know, because I just don't find that terribly relevant. And I find it kind of offensive at some point where we're if we're like shoehorning it into that degree. Now, listen, we're human beings. We have political opinions. We let stuff slip. We have opinions that may signal that we're on one side or another. But at the end of the day, I just don't think that belongs here. And I think it kind of warps coverage sometimes.

[00:44:01] [SPEAKER_00] And I think it's more interesting from a true crime perspective. Why don't we just cover it cleanly and not do this if I had a dream or whatever nonsense? What was it? If I can dream. I mean, we don't do that milk toast. I mean, I just I don't know. But I mean, I guess I said it wasn't a good song. It is an OK song. It's not my favorite Elvis song.

[00:44:22] [SPEAKER_02] With all that said, you probably have figured it out that Anya is actually a pretty proud and strident member of the Whig Party.

[00:44:38] [SPEAKER_00] How dare you? I'm a staunched Federalist.

[00:44:52] [SPEAKER_02] I think that's about it.

[00:44:54] [SPEAKER_00] As long as you don't call me and know nothing.

[00:44:56] [SPEAKER_02] I think that's about it. I think the big takeaway is the evidence presented this week, the DNA, the surveillance footage, the statements Mr. Robinson made to Lance Twiggs, his online statements, all of this, the rifle. I think the big takeaway is the evidence against this man is overwhelming.

[00:45:23] [SPEAKER_02] A lot of people who flirted with conspiracy theories are backing away from it because they are beginning to understand the seriousness of the case against Mr. Robinson. And I think that's where that's the big takeaway. It's a very, very strong case against this man.

[00:45:41] [SPEAKER_00] And don't flirt with conspiracy theories. Don't they'll ruin your life. OK. OK. That's my tip for everybody. Don't do it.

[00:45:51] [SPEAKER_02] You should prepare one of those old time posters like they did during World War II when they were trying to tell people not to flirt with ladies of ill repute.

[00:46:02] [SPEAKER_00] Yes.

[00:46:02] [SPEAKER_02] You're going to do that. And the lady of ill repute is going to be a conspiracy theory.

[00:46:06] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, it is. I think it's the same thing. It's bad for your soul. It's bad for your mind. And it's bad for democracy.

[00:46:13] [SPEAKER_02] But you know, fellas, you can have fun if you just flirt with them sometimes.

[00:46:17] [SPEAKER_00] I think you can acknowledge them, acknowledge that they exist. And you can even say, I'm interested in learning more about this situation. Interesting learning more about you. That can be a respectful and platonic discussion. And that does not lead to a flirtation. You know, keep it above board, folks.

[00:46:33] [SPEAKER_02] So no flirtation, no consummation in your mind.

[00:46:37] [SPEAKER_00] No. Yeah.

[00:46:38] [SPEAKER_02] I think you can take a conspiracy theory out to dinner. Have a little bit of fun.

[00:46:43] [SPEAKER_00] The two genders are at play here, right? I'm just kidding.

[00:46:47] [SPEAKER_02] I was speaking as someone. I spent a lot of time in my life reading about conspiracy theories. I've talked on this program how interested I've been in things like the Kennedy assassination theory. And I think ultimately indulging myself to that extent and learning all about conspiracy theories and how they change and how people present them, I feel ultimately that sharpened my critical thinking skills.

[00:47:12] [SPEAKER_00] For every Kevin who emerges from the cauldron having better critical thinking skills, I'm sure like a hundred people are lost forever down some very dark places. And that is my concern with the flirtation.

[00:47:26] [SPEAKER_02] The two genders.

[00:47:29] [SPEAKER_00] You're like, maybe I can marry a conspiracy theory. Is that why you married me? You think I'm a conspiracy theory? Will a conspiracy theory come to life? Yeah. No, I just think I, you know, I think it's this whole thing is it's hopefully it is an indicative though, because, you know, hopefully people can see that people are sort of backing away. You got dead enders who are going to stay on it. But it's it's something where just I don't know.

[00:47:57] [SPEAKER_00] Listen, in my heart, I'm a dramatic person. I'd love for there to really to be a conspiracy. That's like real. You know, give me that. And I think there are ones that are real. Like there are ones that I'm like, yeah, OK, like there's water game. Yeah. I mean, something happened. It's not you know, you can't go and be like, well, you know, it's a conspiracy theory to say that President Nixon was doing all this. I was like, well, you know, I mean, yeah. But there are there are other instances where I think there are at least the possibility.

[00:48:25] [SPEAKER_00] But I think what I see with what troubles me is not people saying, well, I wonder if there's something more to this. It's often people saying, no, I know there has to be something more to this. That's the difference. To me, if you're doing the first one, that's fine. That's actually just being, I think, a critical thinker and stress testing all the theories. The second one is where it gets dangerous, I think, for people and where it gets like illogical because it's like now you're emotionally invested in a specific outcome. And that's not good.

[00:48:51] [SPEAKER_02] I think it's time to go. I know Anya and I are going to I think we usually spend our Fridays her lecturing me about the need for internal improvements. And that's what the Whigs believe. I make it an obscure historical reference here. I'm not a wig.

[00:49:07] [SPEAKER_00] I'm not a wig. I'm not. But, you know, but I'm not going to tell you what I am. We'll leave it at that. Well, thanks, everyone, for listening.

[00:49:18] [SPEAKER_02] Thanks so much for listening to The Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheet at gmail dot com. If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[00:49:39] [SPEAKER_00] If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[00:50:02] [SPEAKER_02] Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for The Murder Sheet, and who you can find on the web at kevintg.com.

[00:50:12] [SPEAKER_00] If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.