Honey, I Shrunk The Footage! More Exclusive TPUSA Shenanigans. | Ep 379

Candace - Candace Owens

Candace Owens confronts Turning Point USA (TPUSA) over alleged evidence tampering involving footage from the Charlie Kirk incident, accusing

Key takeaways

Terrell Farnsworth accessed and potentially altered footage from a crime scene within minutes of Charlie Kirk being hit.
The failure to hand over the original SD card to investigators raises serious legal concerns under Utah law regarding evidence tampering.

Main topics

Evidence tampering allegations involving Terrell Farnsworth
Chain-of-evidence integrity at the Charlie Kirk incident

Notable quotes

"He never provided the SD card... which would indicate that there's a possibility of evidence tampering."

"It seems like they knew they were okay. Again, this is within 10 minutes of Charlie going down."

Conclusion

Candace Owens concludes the episode by condemning TPUSA's leadership for prioritizing image over truth, accusing them

Transcript preview

Speaker 8 (0:04) The Speaker 5 (0:05) city moves fast, but your vibe, that's different. Sharper, smoother, more alive. Speaker 8 (0:15) The new Speaker 5 (0:20) Honda City isn't just made to drive, it's made to feel. The new Honda City, all new vibe. Speaker 7 (0:29) All right, you guys, happy Thursday. Last show before we go on a break for a week. I have a Speaker 1 (0:35) lot to say, a lot to share. I'm just over here reflecting on everything that Turning Point USA has put me through in the last 11 months. How completely unacceptable it is. I don't know, it's because I'm getting fatter, more pregnant. I do get a little bit angrier when I'm growing a boy. Speaker 7 (0:49) But it's just the lies, the attacks, the full-time influencer, the ring of influencers that are going after my family, journalists. working with them to insert stories about me implying that I'm the true assassin of Charlie Kirk. It just can't stand, at least not today. Speaker 1 (1:07) Andrew Colvett, by the way, is lying so badly. He brought on Andrew Wilson, who I debated last Friday, onto their Beavis and Butthead platform. And he tries to smear me. Speaker 7 (1:19) I'm talking about Andrew Colvett, not Andrew Wilson. He tries to smear me as a Hitler lover. And the smear was so bad, him and Blake are like, this is what they do, that Andrew Wilson actually interjects. Yes, the person that I just debated was the one who interjects and is like, okay, to be fair, that's not really what happened. I have to show you that. It's just unbelievable and really demonstrates what this organization has become and how they just regularly engage in smears and in lies. It's just, we'll get into it. But first, the purpose of these lies we know are just... to distract us from the investigation. They don't want to discuss any of the footage that we've been presenting on the show. They don't want to answer any relevant questions that we've been raising. So that signals to me that we need to stay Speaker 1 (2:05) focused, that they are coming undone, and we need to keep the heat up. Let's do that today. I've got some footage for you. Welcome back to Candice. Speaker 7 (2:27) Okay, I'm feeling spicy today. I'm just going to launch a hand grenade right at the top. I should have been wearing my second favorite shirt, but I'm not. Speaker 1 (2:35) Ready? Terrell Farnsworth, let's jump right back into this. Again, what I am showing to you is within approximately 10 minutes of Charlie getting hit. And we just showed you that Terrell takes his laptop. It looks... Very much like he inserts an SD card into it, an SD card that he just happened to take out of a camera. It appears that he is accessing that footage. What I'm going to show you is that he even seemingly consults with Philip Goldsberry. Now, you may remember we mentioned Philip Goldsberry. We did a whole episode. He is the guy who miked Charlie for that final time. And he was working with Terrell Farnsworth, working under Terrell Farnsworth at Visual Impulse. I Speaker 7 (3:26) just want you Speaker 1 (3:27) guys to see this footage. We're going to watch it here. Nice hand grenade. All right. What do we got here? We'll point there. Keep your eye there. Gets up and he shows something on his laptop to Philip Goldsberry. He sits there and he just gets busy on his laptop. Looks like he's putting in actually, looks like he may be putting something else in there. Maybe a second SD card? Not exactly sure. I'm just letting you guys watch this so that you can see. We were told by Andrew Colvett that he was worried about people stealing hats. I don't, I'm not getting that sense. Doesn't seem to be a priority. Keep your eyes there so you can see he's just on his laptop. Still on that laptop. Moving those hands. Tip-tapping away. Checking back. Make sure nobody is looking. That is important. Man, if I thought there was a sniper running around, I'd probably maybe go into a car to do this. Somewhere safer to do this. I'm always amazed. It seems like they knew they were okay. Again, this is within 10 minutes of Charlie going down. You know, yesterday I joined Anna Kasparian on her program for an interview, and she asked a question that is on a lot of people's minds regarding all of this. Take a listen. Speaker 8 (4:52) I don't want it to be lost on our audience, so I want to reiterate. He never provided, and this is based on the testimony that you can hear for yourselves during the preliminary hearing. He never provided the SD card, the original, you know, SD card to the, you know, investigation. He just provided the Google links and a flash drive, which would indicate that there's a possibility of evidence tampering, no? Speaker 1 (5:19) That's actually a fair question, and it becomes an even more fair question as we demonstrate to you that he went onto his laptop. And the truth is, from what I've researched, Speaker 7 (5:30) it could be a legal gray area, but maybe not really. I'll just tell you what I found, okay? Speaker 1 (5:35) Broadly speaking, yes, everything that we saw Terrell do in terms of violating the crime scene, using Charlie's chair to climb up and remove the camera that was behind Charlie's head. and then taking that SD card and inserting it into his pocket, potentially altering it, could indeed register as a very serious legal offense. In the state of Utah, he could be charged with a felony for tampering with evidence, just as he suggests, which is defined under the Utah Code as altering, destroying, concealing, or removing a thing or item with the purpose of impairing. its ferocity or availability of the thing or item in the proceeding or investigation. Now, I want to try to understand that in terms of what we saw. Again, what we are doing here is looking at the evidence of our eyes under the Utah 1102 rule. We're doing what Erica's prosecution did, her prosecution team did at the preliminary hearing, looking at the videos and inferring upon what we believe we see. What is not in dispute is that Terrell did, in fact, remove a physical object from the crime scene, okay? That's not in dispute. He then immediately goes behind the tent, puts it in his pocket. Would that count as concealing? I'm not sure. I'm not sure. But let us be charitable and accept Andrew Colvette's excuse that his Speaker 7 (7:02) intent, which does actually matter, his intent was not to steal, but rather to protect Speaker 1 (7:07) because he really was just trying to secure the SD card from the evil people who were stealing hats. Speaker 1 (7:16) But then what he does next, in my opinion, goes beyond that measure, beyond that predicament. Because with the SD card now safe and sound in his pocket, what was his impetus to then take it out and insert it into what I presume to be his personal computer? This, of course, is very crucial, right? Because it would disrupt the chain of evidence. That's a crucial chain, right? Who touched everything as it went along? Because it presents a real opportunity for the files to have been altered. Now, did he zoom into the shot on that camera altogether? Did he take the footage? Zoom in. and then take that zoomed in footage and send a Google link over to SBI? We don't know. What we can say for certain is that he had zoomed in by the time he presented it to me nine days later. Speaker 1 (8:16) What we also know, according to the testimony of David Hull, the lead investigator, is just as Anna Kasparian stated, is that he did not hand over that physical object that he took from the crime scene, the SD card, over to the lead investigators who were on the scene, who arrived on the scene around 1.30, I believe he said. Again, that was demonstrated in court, so... They received a flash drive, never accounted for SD cards. Now, as for what could be the gray area here, a question that might arise would be surrounding his intent again. Did Terrell know that it was a crime scene? Well, Terrell himself was the first to suggest that Speaker 7 (9:02) it was. Actually, he declared, you'll recall in a selfie video, that Charlie was dead. Specifically, he said, He's dead. Within two minutes, within two minutes approximately of Charlie getting hit, Terrell knew that Charlie Speaker 1 (9:17) was dead. Speaker 7 (9:18) So Speaker 1 (9:19) I would argue on the basis of a selfie video that it would be hard to suggest that he was not aware that it was a crime scene or that a crime had taken place. We're left then with the possibility that Terrell was texting someone who had authority, who told him within three to four minutes to secure the footage. But I struggle to understand who would have had that authority plus Terrell's number to do that so quickly. And I also want to remind you guys that Tyler Boyer a while ago claimed on X that it was police that told Terrell to grab the footage. Remember, he tweeted this Speaker 7 (9:57) when people were asking, hey, why is Terrell tampering, appear to be tampering with evidence? He replied, and he said this, dude did not tamper with anything. Speaker 1 (10:05) Law enforcement officers asked them to turn them over immediately so they didn't get lost in the commotion before they took everyone into lockdown. My message is... directly pointed at people like you who are promoting completely made-up theories and therefore putting targets on these guys. Knock it off. Now, I replied to this on my show at the time because I said that's not what Terrell told me. Speaker 1 (10:28) I asked him explicitly. He never, ever once claimed that that was true. And I also want to say that as our timeline grows tighter, it's hardly possible that law enforcement officers on the scene told him to secure the footage because Terrell's video, which he sent me, recording himself as metadata. And Terrell was filming himself until just after 1226. So Charlie gets hit at 1223 and Terrell is filming himself until... 12, 26, and 16 milliseconds. Speaker 1 (11:02) It's around almost precisely 1228 that he begins taking the camera down. That's like a minute and a half for someone on the law enforcement to tell him, hey, could you secure that footage? And I think we can safely rule out Alan Robertson because you have to go, okay, well, what law enforcement officers were around who could have done that? Did he come right up and say, and Alan said, get the footage? We can safely rule out Alan Robertson for having told him to do that because Alan would have no idea who Terrell is. He would have had no idea that it was Terrell's cameras, that Speaker 7 (11:34) it was his setup. In that short time frame, remember, Allen Robertson, we determined, was just visiting from Utah State University. He was undercover because he was there to check out the protesters ahead of the event. He was upstairs when Charlie went down. He was not speaking to any TPUSA people before this event. He didn't know who he was from a hole in the wall. And I was told, and I will say allegedly here, but actually Terrell was told to do the exact opposite. He ignored instructions like, hey, you should not disturb the crime scene. But he may have done so anyway out of nerves. People do make honest mistakes in a crazy situation if they're under pressure, so there's that. But this narrative Speaker 1 (12:14) of the police Speaker 7 (12:17) told him to do that, Terrell himself never Speaker 1 (12:20) made that claim. So what is out of whack here is that has only come from Tyler Boyer, and I explicitly asked him that. I said, why did you do this? He did not tell me he spoke with police. The only person you will recall, if you go back to my episode, I don't know if that was in October when we started speaking about this, but Terrell only told me that he spoke with Erica. He did not specifically say when he spoke to Erica, so I want to be clear, I'm not suggesting that she was directing him to take the cameras Speaker 7 (12:47) down. I'm just asserting that factually the only person that he mentioned to me that he spoke to was Erica, and he also offered that as his excuse and reason for jumping immediately to grab the footage. Speaker 1 (12:57) My understanding... was that it was out of his own volition because he did not want Erica to have to see Charlie die in 4K. And then I pushed back and I said, what are you talking about? The whole world saw him die in 4K. Why would this back footage somehow save her from that? And that's why I thought things were weird because everybody was saying something different. You had Tyler saying the police said it. You had Terrell saying that he did it out of his own volition to protect Erica. And you had Andrew Colvette saying to the public that this was because he was fearful that people were going to steal hats. It was suspicious. The most crucial question, however, is whether or not he altered the footage, whether or not he zoomed in on that back footage. What is he showing Philip Goldsberry, by the way? Speaker 7 (13:43) What is there to show Philip Goldsberry approximately 10 minutes after your founder was murdered on your laptop? Was he playing Wordle? Was he showing him his score? These are all fair questions that deserve answers because I truly, when I sit down here and I say, let Speaker 1 (14:00) me play devil's advocate. And to be clear, when you play devil's advocate, you are advocating for the devil. But we will do this as a theoretical exercise. What could make sense that he is showing Philip Goldsberry on his laptop? within 10 minutes after his founder was killed. He's registered. I knew Charlie was dead right away. Okay, so you know that he was just murdered. What's on the laptop? Tell me how. Actually, I want to hear your suggestions. Like maybe there's something I'm like, hey, no, Candace, like there was this one time that that happened and I was a part of something and I decided to go on my laptop. Minutes. Make it make sense. I truly can't think of anything. Speaker 1 (14:45) Now on to another point. One of the stranger things that has happened throughout the course of me presenting evidence, I feel like the evidence is positive. I don't know, is it positive, negative evidence? Is people keep accusing me of lying. It's just unbelievable. The people that are lying are accusing me of lying as they grow angrier and angrier that they are getting exposed as absolute shills. And, you know, last week we presented and obviously it went viral. an image of the maroon guy, which was presented at court. The influencers were shown Speaker 7 (15:22) this 4K clear footage, and they failed to mention what I would have mentioned if I saw it, which Speaker 1 (15:30) is that this guy looks to be wider, a lot wider than Tyler Robinson. I go online, and I have that unhinged Canadian... lawyer claiming that I used Speaker 7 (15:42) AI, claiming that I'm lying, that I'm essentially committing a type of fraud, Speaker 1 (15:47) right? To try to win what? All I want to win is finding out what actually happened on that day. Who killed Charlie Kirk? Were more people involved? And it was nonsense. I mean, influencers came out and said that I was tricked, Speaker 7 (16:02) that somebody who gave me this is lying. And obviously people looked at their eyes and they said, no, the cars are clearly... completely squished in the footage that the court showed. It's very obvious that something happened here and it wasn't Candace. Candace looks like she corrected the measure. They're like, oh, well, she used AI to do that. Well, that's Speaker 1 (16:23) not true. And I should, by the way, correct that I got an email informing me that the correct way to describe this, what was done to the footage, is not to say that it was compressed. You should say that the aspect ratio was decreased to make everything look squeezed. It's more technically correct to say the aspect ratio was decreased rather than saying compressed. Okay, we all know no one's ever accused me of being a tech genius, but the point is it was squished, okay? The footage that you saw in court, that I saw in court, was in effect modified. A government source confirmed that. People online, like I said, accused me of AI. So... Speaker 1 (17:06) I don't know. I'm feeling like we should show you the footage now in video form so you can see that I did not do that and they lied as always. Take a look at this. There you go. And we will show you this in slow motion so that there is no confusion that we did not edit anything. Here it is in slow-mo. Speaker 8 (17:38) The Speaker 5 (17:38) city moves fast, but your vibe, that's different. Sharper, smoother, more alive. Speaker 8 (17:49) The new Speaker 5 (17:53) Honda City isn't just made to drive, it's made to feel. The new Honda City, all Speaker 8 (17:59) new vibe. Okay. Speaker 1 (18:19) I'm waiting for everybody now to move on to the next lie that you're Speaker 8 (18:24) going Speaker 1 (18:24) to tell. I can't even believe this. It's just it's so crazy to me that they need this to be Tyler Robinson and they are not open to examining this case, which has so many flaws in it. And it really does seem like they're trying to just pin it on this guy. Now, there are a few things that I want to say because many people assumed and even myself in some ways, even though I didn't express it. that the court was behind this, that the court somehow edited the footage. But actually, I received an email from someone who would know, clarifying that it is highly, highly, highly, highly, highly unlikely that it was the court that did this. They wrote, I am a blank that works in a federal court. Please do not mention my name or identity in any way. But I can tell you categorically that in every federal court that I have worked in, video and photo evidence is never altered in any way. as it would be considered prejudiced to present it to the jury if it has been modified in any way. I just wanted to let you know this. Best of luck with your continued investigation. Speaker 1 (19:24) So after receiving that, I went back through the preliminary hearing and was trying to establish this chain of custody and actually realized that we were told, we were informed of the chain of custody from Agent David Hull, the lead investigator on the case who did not receive the SD cards. He told us that on that very first day on September 10th, Sergeant Mark Bricker of the SBI was put in charge of gathering all of the surveillance on campus at UVU. And when he later on addressed, right before they presented the 20-minute sizzle reel, which has the adjusted aspect ratio, he testified that it was the Utah County's attorney's office that created it. So when we saw that 20 minutes. That was put together by the Utah County's attorney's office. Take a listen to him saying that. Speaker 8 (20:19) I asked you this question yesterday, but did you prepare that video compilation? I Speaker 2 (20:23) did not. Speaker 8 (20:24)