I'll wait for independent evidence or for the trial before assuming that this is 100% true.

shocked shocked she said

😐


✌🏻

will we ever learn the truth.

No doubt about it. Who is really behind it?

Lord love a duck !
Are our brains really that far up our butts .. ?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

recreations and computer simulations and all the other evidence against Oswald (and lack of any evidence to the contrary). But I have no patience to argue with "believers" anymore, bring the facts or leave me be.

you are saying the bullet that was shot from this gun really did kill Charlie Kirk? And you are calling others conspiracy theorists? The science of ballistics don't match in this case. You don't believe in Ballistics testing?

of this from a much more reliable source than The Daily Mail, then I might become a believer.

merely that it could not be conclusively 'matched' to that gun. (as many fired rounds are not capable of being - and as forensic scientists and prosecutors will be very quick to point out to a jury) And the fact that so many people (up and down this thread, and elsewhere ) are not capable of this rather basic level of understanding and reason ... Is a major factor in why 'schlock reporting' and conspiracy nonsense runs rampant in our current social milieu.

The evidence for this man having committed the crime is - both abundant, and near to overwhelming.

But, play your little 'shadow government conspiracies' and 'police can't be trusted' games if you wish. It's just that it would play out so much better - if you would chose a target that was even marginally tenable/believable. And this one clearly is not.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Maybe listening to other people and not knee jerking at an attempt to demean, degrade and belittle other people because they are questioning things.

Not even a case where you can blame the cops for coercing a confession. Yes he deserves a trial and has the right to present a defense, but nothing in this is even remotely suggestive that he didn't do it no matter how much people try to jump from ballistic testing can't confirm the bullet was fired from his gun to ballistic testing proved it wasn't his gun.

done to completion in the plethora of damning evidence that this nod-cock left trailing in his wake.

Questioning has never been the problem. The lunacy arises in that people are choosing THIS addled case (with the mountainous evidence already in place) - as a great place to hop the conspiracy theory choo-choo. That points to an absolute inability to discern and differentiate between those things that are perhaps deserving of a question mark or asterisk - and a case such as this offering no such reason or rationale. There is virtually nothing here to justify ...

Find a different hill to die on. This one represents all that is silly and sad .....

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

That means he was shot from the front.

He had to have been shot from the front.

the bullet that hit Kennedy traveled sideways, went upside down, turned around and hit Connally then did another u-turn and then hit Kennedy?

That's not really the path the bullet traveled but I think you get the point. One bullet traveled a very convoluted path and struck two men? Really. And you think those who don't believe the "official" story are the conspiracy theorists?

We will never know the truth.

who said the back of Kennedy's head was blown off, meaning the bullet came from in FRONT of the car, are wrong?

That was post Warren Commission.

He took the shot. He had a good rifle to do it and he had a lot of experience with guns.

The angle does seem odd to me.

The DNA thing could mean that anyone from him to his grandfather to his roommate touched then. There was open discussion in card games about killing somebody?

He was definitely a Groyper - devotee of Nick Fuentes - and those were warring factions.

Elmer Fudd! I hate Bugs Bunny!



(ok, I'm lying about the part about hating Bugs Bunny)

Last edited Wed Apr 1, 2026, 12:21 AM - Edit history (1)

with his own family turning him in for the deed.

on this suspect? Did someone see him do it? Did he confess?

while fleeing the building used - c) was turned in by his own family members (after confessing to them ?)
Shall we go on .. ?

nt

All of a sudden these prosecutors will be a lot less interested in or respectful of the scientism offered by forensic experts' testimony than they were a few months ago.

Funny how that works.

The defense will always say that that means it wasn't a bullet from the gun, while the prosecution will say that the bullet was simply too damaged.

Not being able to match a bullet to a gun is not the same as ruling out the gun as the source of the bullet.

"ruled out" the possibility that the bullet came from that gun. That would be a little more convincing.

My understanding is the round may have struck something Kirk was wearing and it ricocchet up. If that was true, whatever it hit would have been powerful enough to absorb the impact and force the round up. So whatever it struck would have damaged the round.
For me, Charlie Kirk is gone. That's where the story begins and ends

Facts and logic have no defense against those who thrive on conspiracy theories.

more courts are recognizing, which is that firearms forensics is increasingly seen as inaccurate and unreliable.

We got sold a bill of goods on this stuff from the 1960s to the 2000s.

There is so, so much bunk which has been used to wrongfully convict people.

Notoriously bad evidence.

Truly, we've created a whole industry of Kid Detective forensics that sends people to prison. It's incredible.

They did not say the calibre was a mismatch.
They did not say the bullet could not have come from that gun.

They simply said that the lab test was inconclusive. That often happens when the bullet hits a bone or other hard object.

I doubt the prosecution relies on this match anyway.

But it would be notable if it was impossible for the bullet to work with the gun.

Multiple DNA is probably law enforcement contamination.

The conspiracy people including Candace Owens will go wild with this info

A concrete wall, for example.

And then the bullet mushroomed and/or fragmented, making positive ID impossible.

He was hit by a .30-06, a powerful cartridge well known to punch through both sides of a white tail deer when shot broadside. The blood seen spurting out of his neck was the exit wound.

Someone fired a gun.
A bullet hit its intended target.
Target died.

Simple!

It could have been done with a squib, the gun loaded with blanks and they planted a bullet to make it look like he was shot
The shooter was paid to confess and promised the case would get tossed.
Kirk is in hiding somewhere

If we are going with crazy theories, let's go all-in

It was Erika Kirk.

If you were married to Charlie Kirk what would you do?

Because that's not an improvement in my circumstances.

This was no trickle of blood like Trump's ear. Nobody can survive with their blood being pumped out like a firehose.

He is dead and the killer is in custody with the gun he used.

But since it's CT week apparently, I'm looking at other possibilities.
Like did they test the blood? It could have been a really big squib...

This entire fiasco from Butler PA to Charlie Kirk's murder has been completely fabricated.

I mean no one has profited more handsomely from his death than she has with all the TV appearances, speaking gigs, book deals, and Fox News interviews.

Unable to match the bullet to the gun does not mean recovered bullet was not fired from the rifle in question.

I’m glad someone responded to this seemingly non-exculpatory evidence without the need to browbeat OP for considering possibilities. I like most others have no firsthand knowledge of this case and am not exactly trusting of either our FBI or DOJ, but still think it’s unlikely he’s the shooter. I’m not fond of conspiracy theories but without them conspiracies would never be discovered. I’m surprised at the number of people who think everyone should share the same epistemic standards, especially when they don’t fully understand their own.

But I am no good at searching court filings unless they show up in general search.

I put a caveat into the OP.

It looks like a lot of outlets, not just the usual right wing sites, have picked it up.

That doesn't instill much trust. Who is checking?

He's just bringing into question ballistics evidence. Bullet too damaged to say what gun it came from. Mostly meaningless when you have a shooter who confessed. Now if the caliber was different, we'd have a big story.

I still think that's a really hard shot for anyone to make. Not hitting a target at 200 yards, but hitting a person at 200 yards, two totally different things.

I don't know if they recovered more unspent rounds with the weapon. Further analysis can id the metallic composition characteristics.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/31/charlie-kirk-bullet-rifle]

Thank you.
Not being able to match a bullet to a weapon doesn't mean the bullet is excluded. their findings can just be inconclusive. Full disclosure, I didn't read any follow up beyond "unable to identify the bullet recovered at autopsy to the rifle allegedly tied to Mr Robinson..." I'm just not that concerned.

his father. Seems like lawyers creating doubt to a) stall for time and b) potentially taint a jury pool.

There has never been a merrier widow than Erika, the merriest widow ever.

Other than KIRK’s kids, I don’t give a fuck about any of these people.

Can’t wait for Hair-On-Fire-Palooza.

They were the very first to mention Tyler Robinson’s trans roommate.

I’ve seen other narratives arrive there before everyone else.

USA Today claims to have additional information

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/03/31/tyler-robinson-link-charlie-kirk-bullet-match/89399761007/

I think the basic story stands, despite the early repeaters of the DailyMail story.

The text of the article does not say that the bullet doesn’t match the rifle. It says they have been unable to match it which is different. The bullet may be so damaged as to prevent it being matched to any gun

Edit: I did find this Forbes article

“Federal firearms experts haven’t been able to conclusively match bullet fragments from the killing of Charlie Kirk to the rifle found at the scene of his murder, court documents indicate—but there’s also no evidence to suggest it’s not a match, despite online conspiracy theorists misusing the information to fuel wild theories about the murder.“

If true, the defense is going to have a very hard time convincing a jury that the bullet fragments did not come from the rifle in question especially when taking in all the other evidence against the accused.

What are the odds they screwed up?

By first recruiting potential patsies, egging on in social media. Then making sure they get on a roof without being seen. Then either switch to blanks or f with their sites.

Then they also have their own marksman somewhere else, who shoots exactly where they want it. And for Trump, it was a careful shot close that set off a blood bag so he could claim injury as well. Perhaps the shooter whom they shot was the one who hit the person in the crowd.

Yes, this is all a conspiracy theory. But with this regime, I think they'll do anything to retain power.

Last edited Tue Mar 31, 2026, 09:58 PM - Edit history (1)

1. It's all a simulation.

2. Just one of countless parallel universes.

I keep these in mind as I go to put dishes in the dishwasher.

One thing keeps hope alive for me.

In one of those countless parallel universes, Trump gets his due, in the stew.

the roof.