#433 - "Wasn't A Gun" Charlie Kirk Autopsy & the Hidden Detail Everyone Missed | Baron Coleman

Danny Jones Podcast

Baron Coleman and Danny Jones engage in a deep dive into the investigation surrounding the death of Charlie Kirk, highlighting significant d

Key takeaways

• Baron Coleman has documented the Charlie Kirk case through over 175 investigative videos.
• Ballistic analysis suggests the wound pattern does not align with a high-powered .30-06 round due to the lack of an exit wound and the direction of impact.

Main topics

• Charlie Kirk assassination investigation
• Ballistic wound analysis

Notable quotes

That wound doesn't look like a 30-06 to me.

Conclusion

The episode provides a critical examination of forensic and digital ev

Transcript preview

Speaker 2 (0:06) Starting about a year ago, you've done over 150 to 200 videos. I think we did number 175 this week. 175. 175 streams on this Charlie Kirk case. Speaker 1 (0:17) Yeah. Yeah. I mean, mostly. I cover some other stuff, but yeah, I mean, I would say 80 % of it. At what point during that whole thing did you start to realize that Speaker 2 (0:27) something just feels off? Speaker 1 (0:29) Pretty soon. Pretty soon. You know, it's... If you just look at it at the actual moment of impact, that wound doesn't look like a 30-06 to me. And I think pretty much everybody universally agreed with that initially, even the people who are now massively in the camp that 100 % they believe Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk with a 30-06 on the low-seat center roof. Very early on, most of the people thought, I'm just not sure about that. That story doesn't seem right. Or the .30-06 doesn't seem right. Maybe he used a different round. Maybe it deflected off of body armor. People were really having trouble coming to terms with the fact that that wound could be created by a .30-06. And Speaker 2 (1:09) so I'd say pretty early on. Yeah, I started to notice something was off. I didn't really, I didn't get skeptical of anything that was happening until that Eric Kirk video came out. which was not too long after it happened. I don't remember. And then shortly after that, I think not even 90 days after that, when I saw her get up in front of those people, that audience wearing that glittering pantsuit with the pyrotechnics and the sparklers and trying to tell everyone that J.D. Vance needs to be the next president, that's when all my red flags went off. And I was like, something is not right. Speaker 1 (1:43) You know, I actually was pretty easy on her for a long time. So much so that I would have, I could do a whole montage of people in my audience writing chats in saying, dude, she's guilty. She did it. And I'm like, I don't know, guys. And they're like, she's acting too weird. And I'm thinking, well, I don't know how I would act. I've never lost a spouse. You know, I've got a wife and eight kids. I have no idea what I would be like if something happened. And, you know, I would say about that time, December. is when I start thinking, oh man, this just doesn't seem right. Something's off here. I Speaker 2 (2:13) don't know what it is. And then maybe she's just a weirdo, but something's off. Yeah, people are weirdos. And everyone, they say everyone grieves differently, but this is just a particular odd strain of grieving I've never seen before. I've never seen this strain of grievance in Speaker 1 (2:26) my life. I haven't either. I haven't either. It's not just the grieving. It's the attacks. It's the... And leaning into political positions Charlie was leaning away from. I mean, there's a long line. And then you start looking into her past. And that's when things really start to unravel for me with her. You start looking into her past and you listen to podcasts she'd done. And she was a nobody. I mean, nobody knew who she was. But when you start looking into the things she had said publicly, the things she had produced publicly, and you start comparing it to reality, it doesn't add up. And so you think, okay, well. Maybe she's like a lot of people. She pads her resume or she pulls back on things that she's not particularly proud of. Just own it. Just say, yeah, okay, I shaded the truth a little bit on that. I didn't want people to know I'd been in six pageants. I kind of thought two was enough. So I said two. It was a mistake. I'm sorry. I've grown a lot since then. But no, I mean, it's like attack, attack, attack, attack, attack. Speaker 2 (3:20) Right. And Speaker 1 (3:20) that's not really something we see a lot in people. We don't see that attack mode in... people who are truly just grieving and want to be left alone. Right. Speaker 2 (3:30) Right. It's like, it's okay to be less famous. You know, right now is a good time for you to just take a beat, step away, take some time away, you know, come out during, you know, come out in 12 months and do some sort of public talk or whatever. Like you don't automatically need to become the CEO of the company, start running everything, doing all these crazy, fantastical, you know, WrestleMania events and stuff like that. It just makes it, it makes it look more. weird and it makes that like from a pr perspective it's just the worst thing you could do in my opinion and maybe they didn't think that through but i mean yeah and then the candace thing too like a lot of people are calling her a nut but you know if it wasn't for candace kind of like going full speed full bore and covering this thing to the nth degree like she's been doing, I don't think that anyone would have followed suit. I don't think that... I think it's possible if she never did any of the things that she's doing that it could have been case closed. It seems like a certain group of people want it to be case closed. The TPUSA people. Speaker 1 (4:35) Well, I agree. I think there are two things that could have made it case closed. One is, even if... Take Candace doing what she's doing now. Had Erica just gone away, had Erica just said, oh my gosh, I'm in shock, released a statement, maybe done one interview with somebody, but really taking the Jackie Kennedy approach and just saying, I've got to raise my kids. Thankfully, my husband left me with a boatload of money. We'll never want for anything. Please respect our privacy. Had she done that, Candace would look completely unhinged. The investigation would have had no steam. Everything would have died. Immediately. Within two weeks, everybody would have moved on. Speaker 2 (5:11) It Speaker 1 (5:11) would have been memory hold. So that would have ended it. The second thing that could have ended it was Candace not catching fire on the way she has. She has kind of spearheaded the decentralized investigation and in many ways kept it alive. And it's not through coordination. It's not anybody looks and says, oh, Candace Owens is talking about this. I should talk about this. It's just she's such a magnanimous figure. She's such a big media figure. that when she's covering something, people are going to talk about it and other people are going to be interested in it and other people are going to look for different angles. And it sort of coalesces into a really big outfit, a really big investigation. Either one of those two things had been different. The Charlie Kirk story would have been a seven to 10 day news cycle story and it had gone away. Speaker 2 (5:58) And there was something that just came out. I was actually watching on her channel this morning. This was from about 12 days ago. She was showing this text message that when Andrew Wilson debated her, he started off his whole debate opening argument or whatever, talking about this text message that he had saying that Charlie Kirk was worried about the left trying to kill him. And he was texting like his head of security about that or whatever. And he never showed the text during the podcast because he said he wanted to do it on his own podcast. And then it finally just got released from what I've heard. And she showed it. And... She showed it right next to a clip of Erica Kirk saying on an interview that there was no text like that. That she had said, no, this never happened. I would have known that because I had his phone. So she is Speaker 1 (6:45) pointing out so many holes in the story. Yeah. That text message in the string, you just attributed it to the head of security. They never actually told us who got that text message from Charlie. Who he was sending those to? Yeah. Oh, really? TPSA has not owned that text message for one. They've never said, yes, that is legitimate. Oh, Speaker 2 (7:04) Andrew Wilson just released Speaker 1 (7:05) it. Andrew Wilson released it. Everybody assumed it was legitimate. Andrew said he got it from TPSA. Everybody just kind of accepted that. You know, my take on their PR, they have the worst PR in America. I've never seen as bad a PR in my life as TPSA. But my take on that is start releasing things through your own official channels. You know, start being radically transparent and stop attacking people. And see if this thing doesn't turn around for you. See if TPUSA doesn't start to mend fences with people who really there are a lot of people who are sitting back who might otherwise support TPUSA. But the constant weirdness, they sit back and think, no, I'm not going to support that. You know, this is not the organization Charlie built. Speaker 2 (7:44) Right. So at what point did this whole investigation that you've been doing start taking off? Speaker 1 (7:51) I just did the one year anniversary of the first episode I did on it. That was on September 14th. Oh, no way. Yeah. So my first show was four days afterwards. Literally two days ago to the year. Yeah. Yeah. A year and two days ago. Right. That's wild. So, yeah. And I had for days leading up to that September 14th, between September, I guess, 11th and 14th, I had tried to get other podcasters to cover it. The Google Trend stuff that I kind of. put the show on the map. Speaker 2 (8:21) I Speaker 1 (8:21) had sent it to Ian Carroll. I'd sent it to Candace Owens. I'd sent it to three or four other podcasters. And at first I was like, why is nobody responding to this? This stuff's brilliant. Why would nobody get back to me? But the reality is now being on the receiving end of all those types of emails, I understand why. You can't possibly respond to everybody. And so I thought, all right, well, I've got a small podcast. There were 45 people listening live. At the time I did that podcast, I went back and pulled the stats. There were 45 max concurrent viewers on that show. I think 200 and something total views on that show in the first 48 hours. And that was four days afterwards. And so it's really been from the beginning that something's looked off in the entire thing. Speaker 2 (9:07) And then how are you doing your investigative research on this? What were you looking at? What were you... Were you talking to other people on the internet? Like what kind of sources were you using to look into this stuff? I mean, Speaker 1 (9:20) the first six or eight episodes was mostly Google Trends analysis, just looking at the Google Trends tool. And what made you want to do that? So I had worked on a team that did some consulting for a grocery chain about 15 years ago. Speaker 1 (9:38) One of the tools we use, we use a lot of tools. One of the tools we use is Google Trends. And it could kind of pick up the next big thing. You know, you could see what people were searching for before it was available on grocery store shelves. And it was a way to pick up on trends. It's a really powerful tool. Along the way, I'd kind of thought, you know, if this is picking up, because they're real searches. If this is picking up real searches on... you know, Nalgene water bottles, what else could it be picking up? And so I started looking anytime there's a mass shooting or anytime there was a school shooting, I would kind of search the guy's name. Was there anybody looking for this guy ahead of time? Oh boy. And more than half the time, maybe half the time or a little more than half the time, you would notice weird blips on that name a day or two, sometimes a week before the event in weird locations like Washington, D.C. And you're like, why in Washington, D.C. are they searching this shooter's name by his three full names three days before the school shooting in Arizona or Colorado or Minnesota. And so I, in the back of my head, always kind of done this. And I was talking to somebody at work about it. And I was like, you know, I found this thing. It's really weird. And I kind of use it internally to clock which of these are real and which of them may be fake. So after the Charlie Kirk thing the next day, he said, did you do that Google Trends thing on this shooter? And I was like, no. He's like, you should. I'm like, Speaker 2 (10:58) all right. So I kind of started running it and I immediately Speaker 1 (11:00) saw so much weirdness. I thought, oh my gosh, this is like the biggest signal I'd ever gotten on any one of these shootings ever. Speaker 1 (11:09) I mean, 8 o'clock the night before in Washington, D.C., people searching Thomas James Robinson or Tyler James Robinson, excuse me. The night before? Oh, yeah. Yeah, you should go back and watch some of those early shows. They are wild, the searches. And you're doing this all live? I was prepping during the day and then doing a live show at night, yeah. Got it. But at the time, I was only doing a show a week. prep all week. I was still working full time. So I'd prep all week in between things at work or at nights, evenings, weekends, whatever. And then I would do a Sunday night show on it. So the first one was pretty basic. It was just Tyler James Robinson, a few other names, really just looking in Utah, Washington, DC, a few other places. And then part of the analysis is you have to rule out that this isn't a common name that's searched all over the place. So you'd look in New York and Texas and California. And is it showing up everywhere? Because if not, now you might have something. Speaker 1 (12:07) But man, the second or third show, I can't remember what it was. I started looking overseas, certain Middle Eastern countries, and I started seeing just every single name that I was plugging in was pinging over there. And they were all in a very tight window of June and July right before the September event. What names Speaker 2 (12:28) were you searching? Speaker 1 (12:29) The medical examiner, the chief of public safety, the... The judge, the surgeons, the defense attorneys, the roommate. I mean, everybody. Everybody involved in it seemed to be popping up in this area. And that's when it took a really weird turn. Because I'd seen where Ian Carroll said, oh, Israel must have done it or other people were saying that. And so I thought, I wonder if they were searching. And when I started seeing the bing, bing, bing, bing, I mean, just over and over and over. And the one that weirded me out the most, and Speaker 2 (12:57) I Speaker 1 (12:57) thought, all right, maybe I'll just give this whole thing up and stop. So Speaker 2 (13:00) it'll show you exactly what country those searches are coming from. Speaker 1 (13:02) Yeah, yeah. I mean, you can't say for certain who is sitting at the computer terminal searching. Right. You just know that there's somebody in this geographic boundary that an IP address originating in that boundary. So if I set my... Speaker 1 (13:17) my VPN to Qatar, it's going to come out as if I'm searching from over there. But most people don't do that. Like if you're searching, you just pick up your phone and punch it in and look. Oh, okay, that's right. And what it made me wonder is, and what I kind of wondered during the school shooters and mass shooters, is there some group of people that are sitting behind waiting to see, you know, what is out there on this person? What are people going to see when this news breaks? What are they going to find? What do we need to get out ahead of? What do we need to maybe mop up a little bit? Speaker 2 (13:46) You think they would do that more than Speaker 1 (13:47) 24 hours in advance? Well, I mean, but, you know, sometimes it's just a final. Has he done anything this week, stupid? I don't know. Yeah, I guess. But it, man, Tim, I'm telling you, it was a wild series. And that kind of landed on a few people's radars, and the show sort of picked up from there. That's fucking bananas, dude. Speaker 2 (14:05) Yeah. And so what country specifically overseas? It was Israel. Was there any other countries? Egypt Speaker 1 (14:12) hit quite a bit. Yeah. And then in Europe, there would be occasional blips here and there, but nothing too remarkable. Speaker 2 (14:23) That Speaker 1 (14:23) blows my mind. Speaker 2 (14:25) So if this was some crazy conspiracy conducted by like a rogue military faction of some government or some foreign country or even our country, you would think that like the CIA or the Mossad would have the wherewithal to foresee that people are going to search Google Trends for this and find out or like at least use a fucking VPN and make it. point to like Australia or something or North Korea. Speaker 1 (14:50) Yeah. I think a lot of people didn't know the power of the tool. Didn't know people used it. Didn't know that searches were getting stored in this tool. No one had publicly, Speaker 2 (14:59) I guess there, there had been no one publicly online pointing out the connection between Google trend searches and like mass shootings or like, no, no, that had never happened. No one had ever made that. No, Speaker 1 (15:13) I've never seen anyone make that connection before this case. Speaker 1 (15:17) I had never even seen Google Trends covered in the news in any way. So I think most people either were totally unaware of the tool itself, didn't understand how it worked, that there were actual real searches being populated in at random into this tool, or just never considered that somebody would ever... do it. Look at that tool. I mean, you know, if you're planning, if you're going to dinner, you're not thinking, oh, well, is somebody one day going to look and see that I looked up, you know, Bob's Seafood Shack down the road? Right. You know, but it's in there. Speaker 2 (15:51) We've talked about red light therapy on this show many times before, and I've already used iRestore's Elite device. So when they came out with their new Sculpt LED belt, I was genuinely curious. Body sculpting and recovery treatments usually mean appointments, lots of money, and another thing that you have to put on your schedule. This is something you can just use at home. Wrap it around your waist, thighs, hips, back, shoulders, knees, and let it run while you're working, watching TV, or winding down. It uses triple wave LED technology and 1260 medical grade LEDs to support body contouring, firmer and smoother looking skin, circulation, muscle relaxation, and post-workout recovery. I recently sprained my finger, so I've been wrapping it around my hand for 20 minutes a night before bed to help speed up the recovery of the tendons. My wife steals it from me from time to time to use on her stomach, and she said she's noticing her skin is a lot smoother, so she's super happy with it. Don't add another appointment to your already busy schedule. iRestore is offering huge discounts on their new Sculpt LED Belt. Bring body-focused light therapy into your routine. Support a more sculpted look and feel more confident in your skin, all from the comfort of your home. Just head to iRestore.com and use the code DJP. That's DJP at iRestore Speaker 1 (17:05) .com. And please support our show by telling them we sent you. Speaker 2 (17:08) And did you look up the Google Trends for the Thomas Matthew Crooks guy? What Speaker 1 (17:14) did you find there? Yeah, he was searched in D.C., I don't know, six months or so before. I did a whole—I didn't do a show on that, but yeah, I did a whole thing on that. That's Speaker 2 (17:25) another really fucking weird one. Speaker 1 (17:27) Yeah, yeah. That one's too weird. I always told my audience after everything I looked at on that, I'm not going to cover that one. People aren't covering it. Yeah, I'm not either. Speaker 2 (17:35) Why? I don't want, you know. Why don't you think people are covering it in general? It's very odd that Trump won't talk about it, you know? Yeah. You'd imagine if that was, if it was what we saw, that he'd be posting about it every fucking day. Speaker 1 (17:50) Yeah, I mean, maybe he doesn't want to encourage others to do it. You know, that's the kind of innocent explanation. Maybe he doesn't want to, you know. Tell people, hey, you can take a crack at me anytime you want. My security's inept. But it's also possible that you look into it and you start to see patterns and you don't want to investigate it. You don't want to go down that road. You know, what kind of patterns? I mean, if you're the president of the United States and you think the government may have taken a crack at you, is that something you want to draw attention to? I mean, your security detail is the government of the United States. Your military is the government of the United States. And if you're the head of the government of the United States, do you want to draw attention to the fact that they may have taken a pot shot at you? I don't know. Speaker 1 (18:37) It's a weird position to be in. Speaker 2 (18:40) Yeah, but why cover Charlie Kirk and not that one? Speaker 1 (18:43) Who, me? Speaker 2 (18:44) If you're any journalist. Speaker 1 (18:49) I don't know. Speaker 2 (18:50) It does seem like more people are dubious of talking about and going deep into that one. Speaker 1 (18:55) Yeah, it does. It does. Now, the Charlie Kirk thing has what I think a sexier media angle in that he died. Right. You know, run with the blood. That's kind of the media's mantra. And so there's a sexier media angle to that than somebody's ear got. got hit. Now there was somebody who died at the Butler event. I'm not making light of that, but it wasn't a national media figure. Right. Speaker 2 (19:21) Yeah. There were so many things that were strange about that. I just recently learned something new about it the other day was that when Ken Silva was in here, he was explaining to me how when you listen to all those shots go off, when Trump's up on the podium, you hear like, I think six, five or six shots go off. Then he gets down, they jump on top of him, and then there's like six or seven seconds go by before the sniper takes out Crooks. Because there was a guy on the ground right in front of that building Crooks was on top of that shot like a handgun at him or something. And apparently hit him or grazed him or took out his rifle. But that's what stopped him from firing. I had no idea until like last week. Speaker 1 (19:59) Yeah, I know that's been a real... Point of contention, whether or not the local guy hit him. And where did the Secret Service shot really come from? There were some people early on saying it was from 400-something feet away, and then all of a sudden they tried to change it to 100-something feet. So there's a lot of... Speaker 1 (20:20) A lot of weirdness with even what happened. Then you have the Secret Service snipers on the barn. I don't know what it was behind them. Some sort of sniper nest up there. They have a deposition where they said they thought they were taking fire. That they thought they could hear the bullets whizzing by their head. Really? Yeah. And they thought it might be suppressed fire coming at them. Speaker 2 (20:41) What? Yeah. Speaker 1 (20:42) So there's a lot of weirdness to this story. Speaker 2 (20:44) Yeah, Speaker 1 (20:44) man. Speaker 2 (20:44) And the sniper, apparently. There's something weird with one of the snipers that came out. Trump always talks about him. I forget the guy's name. Ken Silva will tell us about that one sniper. But apparently he won't come out in public and say anything. People have accused him of weird things. Yeah, he's been very secretive. Yeah, that one's very spooky. Did you see Tucker Carlson's documentary on it? Mm-hmm. It's pretty good. All the Google Drive stuff that he had, the videos that he had on there, and all the people he was talking to on YouTube comments and stuff like that. It's like, if you're the NSA, that's low-hanging fruit. Right. You know? Speaker 1 (21:15) Well, and this gets to the biggest issue. The government comes out and says something, and you can't believe them. Because they come out and say, no social media footprint. The guy wasn't really doing anything. He came out of nowhere. And you realize, no, he's online being radicalized. We can watch it in real time. If Tucker Carlson can find it, you guys know it. So why haven't you told us about it? Speaker 2 (21:34) Right. Speaker 1 (21:34) And there's a lot in the Charlie Kirk case that way. Speaker 2 (21:37) Yeah. You Speaker 1 (21:37) know, there's an angle to this case that is so intriguing to me, and I cannot wrap my head around it. It is this weirdness that everyone involved in this case seems to be somehow associated with, I don't know what words you use on your show, but transportation of minors. It is. Unbelievable. In the Charlie Kirk case? Yes. Yes. It is the judge. That's all he prosecuted. The cop that executed the first six search warrants, including for Tyler's phone, his computers and all that. That's the type of crimes that he investigated. I mean, I don't want to start naming names, but I mean, you go down the list. It is pervasive in this case. Absolutely pervasive. So when you start to ask, if Tyler was a patsy, where would he have come from? To me, there's your angle. He came from doing something online that he shouldn't have been doing or somebody close to him did. And it would have made an obvious entree to patsydom. Speaker 2 (22:45) Yeah. And then also the deposition of his furry boyfriend. What's his name again? Twigs? Twigs. There's a video of him doing a Skype call deposition, and he looks like he detransitioned. Speaker 1 (22:59) Like, he's talking like this. Speaker 2 (23:01) He looks manlier than most men I know. He looks manly. He looks like a Speaker 1 (23:03) frat Speaker 2 (23:04) dude or something like that. Speaker 1 (23:05) And then there was a media outfit out of Britain that got photos of him at a gas station or something, or maybe walking. I can't remember where he was. Apparently, he's living in Texas. Wow. Some outfit got pictures. I can't remember which one. Daily Mail or Telegraph. One of those British regs. And they got pictures of who supposedly is Lance Twiggs. There's nothing feminine about him. He looks like a grown man. It's Speaker 2 (23:29) wild. See, if Speaker 1 (23:30) you Speaker 2 (23:30) find a photo. Find an updated photo of Lance Twiggs. It's insane. See if you Speaker 1 (23:32) can find the photos of him. I think it's at a gas station. Speaker 2 (23:35) Gas station? Lance Twiggs gas station? Punch in on it. Speaker 1 (23:38) He looks like a normal human. He looks like a normal guy. Speaker 2 (23:41) He looks creepy, though. Yeah, he does, doesn't he? Yeah, he looks... I Speaker 1 (23:46) mean, to me, he's... He either Speaker 2 (23:47) looks like a serial killer or like, you know, the lead guitarist in a metal band. Speaker 1 (23:53) You know, but why limit yourself to one category? Oh, that's weird. Yeah. I mean, he's the most mysterious figure in the entire thing. Yeah. You know, I've heard different things from sources about the investigation into him. and things he was told by the FBI that he was and wasn't allowed to do. So it leads me to believe there's some Lance Twiggs angle to this story that we're not being told. Speaker 2 (24:23) And another thing, we never really heard anything from Tyler Robinson's parents, right? Yeah. We got the story from, I don't remember where we got the story, but I remember hearing it early on that they turned him in. Speaker 1 (24:34) And Speaker 2 (24:34) they basically said, or they got like a friend of the family to talk to him and then he confessed to his parents. Do Speaker 1 (24:40) we know Speaker 2 (24:42) anything more Speaker 1 (24:42) about that? No, because they haven't said anything else. The parents haven't said anything. No, there was one search warrant that came out, I don't know, in the last few months. You know, they do these search warrants and they seal them for six or nine months. And this one finally got unsealed and released. And... Speaker 1 (24:59) The family friend, I think the guy's last name is Mitchell. He's a former law enforcement officer. I think he lived in the area, somehow knew the family. And they talk about him coming over there, and he says that Tyler told X, Y, and Z to the parents. I don't know that the parents ever said to the law enforcement that Tyler told them anything. There's all this attribution to the parents in the different search warrants and the probable cause statement and the probable cause affidavit. But there's no quote from them. And there's no, the parents told us this. Yeah, wouldn't they use that in court? Slam dunk. Slam dunk. You don't need text messages. You don't need a gun. There's no trial if you have that, right? Well, you might have a trial, but in terms of the probable cause hearing, you didn't need five days. Just put mom up there. Right. And have mom say, yeah, he told me he did it. It's over. Right. Now we're going to trial. This is like as reliable of an eyewitness as you can get. No mom walks in here and voluntarily throws their son under the bus. I wonder if anyone's talked to them. You mean investigative? The parents. No, Speaker 2 (26:00) I don't know. Like friends of anyone who came out and said anything. I just imagine that like if that's my kid and this whole thing is happening, like everyone, you got a Candace doing this. You got people debating. It's getting tens of millions of views online. I got to imagine it would be hard to stay silent unless I knew I had a gun to my head. Speaker 1 (26:21) Maybe. I hear that a lot. I don't agree with that. And here's why. Let's say Tyler was involved in this thing and his role is going to land him life in prison without parole anyway. He was the getaway driver. He supplied the gun, whatever it was. And the parents know this. Let's just assume they know this. And I'm not stating anything as fact. I'm not hinting at something Speaker 2 (26:47) they've said. Speaker 1 (26:48) Pure speculation. I'm just giving you a pretty believable scenario of why they would remain silent. If they're aware that he was involved in some capacity that could net him a life without sentence anyway, what advantage do you get coming out and saying he didn't do it? because if you come out and say he didn't do it, and they start investigating and they realize, oh, you're right, he didn't do it, but he did do this other thing, Speaker 2 (27:12) and Speaker 1 (27:12) this other thing is now what we're going to charge him. He's not charged with being an accessory. He's not charged with being a getaway driver. He's not charged with just supplying the gun. He's charged with disposing of evidence. That's not a life without parole. He's not charged with, you know, being, aiding in some capacity. He's charged with doing it, and if you know he didn't do it, what a great opportunity to keep your mouth shut. let it go to trial, let Jeopardy attach, and then prove he didn't do it. Right. And then, or let the prosecution fail to prove he did it. That's a Speaker 2 (27:40) good Speaker 1 (27:40) point. And now he walks home. Whereas if you come out and you make a spectacle. You're adding more charges Speaker 2 (27:46) to it, right? You're adding more potential charges. Yeah, if Speaker 1 (27:49) you encourage them, hey, you should be looking at someone else. Well, that someone else may lead them back to a life without sentence for Tyler. Speaker 2 (27:55) Might Speaker 1 (27:55) as well just sit back and say, we know he didn't do it. So we trust the jury's not going to be able to figure out he did. Speaker 1 (28:03) And that's kind of my thinking is that he might have told them, hey, look, here's what I did. And they're like, all right, shut up. You don't say a word. We don't say a word. Everybody shuts up. Speaker 2 (28:14) Didn't he hire lawyers in like a Speaker 1 (28:16) different county or something? I think he tried to. Okay. I don't know whether he ever got in touch with that person. Speaker 1 (28:23) I don't remember what filing it was. There was some filing that came out, and he had told the local law enforcement that he intended to hire this lawyer back in his home county. But I don't know if he ever got in touch with that guy or not. Speaker 2 (28:35) Yeah, I remember there was a big thing. There was a big confusion over the date or something that he went to go to hire a lawyer. Speaker 1 (28:44) Yeah, Speaker 2 (28:44) that's still not settled. Yeah, Speaker 1 (28:44) it's still not settled. And that seems to me to be something very easy to settle. There are tapes of him turning himself in. What time was that? Just release a still that has the time in the window. Show us what time he turned himself in. You notice when they had the preliminary hearing, they did release a little clip, a five or six second clip of him in the Washington County Sheriff's Office, but it didn't have a timestamp on it. Speaker 2 (29:07) Yeah. So Speaker 1 (29:08) it doesn't go towards... They like Speaker 2 (29:09) zoomed in past the timestamp or something? Yeah. Speaker 1 (29:12) Yeah. Almost like you're... It looks to me, or I would say this, that's something you would do if you were trying to hide what time he turned himself in. Right. You know? Speaker 2 (29:21) As you get older, you start to realize that life insurance is one of those things you shouldn't keep putting off. Nobody wants to think about the worst case scenario, but if your family depends on you, having coverage in place is one of the more responsible things you can do. And that's where Ethos makes the whole process super simple. Through Ethos, you can get a life insurance quote in seconds, apply in minutes, and get same-day coverage all 100 % online. There's no medical exam, just answer a few simple health questions online. You can get up to $3 million in coverage, and some policies are as low as $30 a month. Ethos helps provide financial security by connecting you with coverage through its network of trusted carriers. It's something that only takes minutes of your time now, but can really matter to those who need it down the road. Take 10 minutes to get covered today with life insurance through Ethos. Get your free quote at ethos.com slash Danny. That's spelled E-T-H-O-S dot com slash Danny. Application times may vary and rates Speaker 1 (30:15) may vary. I don't want to like tell you to jump to Speaker 2 (30:17) conclusions, but like what is your, you've been putting a lot of different pieces together with this puzzle and trying to fill in the gaps the best you possibly can with your knowledge and your background and the legal system and all that. But like what is your, Speaker 2 (30:35) best guess as to what happened to Charlie that day? Speaker 1 (30:39) Well, I can eliminate things that I think didn't happen. So I don't think he was shot with a gun from the low seat center. If he was, he was not shot with a .30-06. I think I can safely eliminate that. Was he shot with a low-powered round or a different type of round from another location? That's probably the next best option once you've eliminated .30-06 from the low seat center roof. Speaker 2 (31:03) Next best available thing is he was shot from a smaller weapon with a lower caliber bullet. Speaker 1 (31:08) But again, a lot of the things that rule out the .30-06 rule out all gunshots because it's the shirt. I mean, his necklace flies up into his neck. His microphone's pulled over. His body doesn't go backwards. It comes forward. I mean, there's a lot. There's a lot that when you look at that, it doesn't look like a gunshot. And I probably to my eternal harm to my soul have watched a lot of people get shot as Speaker 2 (31:34) a result of this. As like doing research? Yes. Speaker 1 (31:38) I want to know what people look like when they get shot. None of them look like that. Nobody. You shoot somebody with a high-powered round, they go backwards. They don't go forwards. I mean, it only makes sense. Something arrives with 3,000 pounds of pressure or 2,000 pounds of force. you're not going to lean into it. It's going to knock you backwards. Right. You go... And you usually see an explosion out the back. A lot of times there's an exit wound. Particularly if they get... winged in some sort of soft tissue, like the soft muscle of the shoulder, the neck. Speaker 2 (32:06) There's usually Speaker 1 (32:07) some, or even like the belly. A lot of times there's an exit wound. Now, one Speaker 2 (32:10) great example of a great comparison would be the Matthew Crooks guy. Yeah. Right. Because he was shot with like a something wind mag or something. 300 Speaker 1 (32:17) wind mag. Which is very similar to a 30-06. It's a little more powerful, but similar. It's a 308 round. So similar in diameter. Flies maybe 10 % faster. So, but very similar round. Speaker 2 (32:28) And that thing went in and that had multiple entry and exit wounds with him. It Speaker 1 (32:32) came in, I don't know if it came in his nostril, it came in somewhere in his face, exited kind of the lower part of his head, came back in, I think, his shoulder, and then went down into his torso. I mean, it, you know, 16, 18 inches of penetration. Speaker 2 (32:45) Right. And Speaker 1 (32:46) we're told Charlie got a couple inches of penetration, which Speaker 2 (32:50) is... And didn't come out. And that was about the same distance? Speaker 1 (32:55) Roughly. Speaker 2 (32:56) Roughly the same distance. Yeah. I mean, Speaker 1 (32:57) within 20, 30 % of the same distance. Yeah. Speaker 2 (33:01) That's one of the weirdest things for sure. And I have seen some of those videos on YouTube of those guys like shooting things with 30 out of sixes like watermelons and, you know, other things. Speaker 1 (33:09) Or cast iron skillets. I mean, things way harder. I mean, you can do this with your neck. It's soft. Right. It's only, you know, three, four inches. Right. It's not. It's not six cast iron skillets. And so I think that rules out some other gunshots as well. And then you get to some of the, I don't want to call them weird or more far out there, but people are stretching trying to figure out what could possibly cause this. The exploding mic theory comes up a lot. Could he have had something rigged? And I use that kind of broadly. Could there have been something on his body rigged? Was Speaker 2 (33:45) he wearing a vest, a bulletproof vest or a plate or something? I Speaker 1 (33:49) think the official story is no. Speaker 2 (33:50) Okay. Speaker 1 (33:51) Whether that's true, I don't know. But I think the official story is no, he was not. Speaker 2 (33:55) Okay. Because it did look like something was weird with his shirt when he was sitting down. It looked like a, I don't know. Yeah, Speaker 1 (34:01) I Speaker 2 (34:01) don't know. Because I remember seeing a clip of him when he was throwing the hats. You could like see his. torso through his shirt, like his belly and his chest. Speaker 1 (34:08) Oh yeah. You could see his belly when he, when his shirt lifted up, you could see his nipples through his shirt. Exactly. Speaker 2 (34:13) Yeah. But, um, yeah. So like, how would he have a chance to put any kind of vest on before that? He Speaker 1 (34:20) wouldn't because Speaker 2 (34:20) he wouldn't turn around and walk right into the tent. And it was like 16 or 17 minutes from the time he arrived to the time he was shot. Speaker 1 (34:27) Yeah. Yeah. But a lot of people have gone to Exploding Mike. You know, was there something rigged under his shirt or on his body that caused the injury? I think that's more believable than a .30-06 from the Losey Center. I don't know that I entirely believe that. What about Speaker 2 (34:44) the Speaker 1 (34:44) drone? Well, a drone's a gunshot. You know, it's kind of ruled out for the same reason all the other gunshots are ruled out. Speaker 2 (34:50) It reminded me of one of those things they kill cows with. You know, they shoot it in their neck. Or they shoot in their head. Oh, those titanium rods? The titanium rods. Yeah. Speaker 1 (34:58) That's what it reminded me of. Yeah. I mean, maybe. You know, there are a lot of people who... Because it just pours out. The blood just pours out. Yeah. I'll be interesting. There's a couple of people that have not been mentioned at all in the investigation that I'm curious if they'll be contacted by the defense or testify at trial as to the condition of the body. Obviously, the medical examiner's office will have a representative there, probably the Guajardo, the guy who did the medical examination. I'm curious if the funeral home director will show up because, you know, they go back through the body and they prep the body and they, you know, get it all ready to go. You know, it'd be interesting to hear from him. Did you notice anything on the neck? Did it feel like he was missing C2 to C7? You know, I mean, he deals with dead bodies all day. Does it feel normal? Right. Did it look normal? You know, what was the nature of the wound? Did it look deep enough? Did it look... like a superficial cut? You know, what was that thing? And so I'd be interested to hear from that guy. I'd be interested to hear from other people in the hospital, not just the surgeon. I'm sure we're going to hear from Dr. Trotter. But what about the people standing around in that room with him? What did they see? What did they experience? So other people who had contact with the body, access to the body, who were not just the surgeon, not just the medical examiner. There's going to be a dozen or more people. that I think had access to the body. And if the question comes down to, was he shot with a gunshot? I think other people would be able to weigh in on that. I don't think you have to just rely on the medical examiner's report. Speaker 2 (36:35) What shocked you particularly? Was there your podcast that you did with Joseph Scott Morgan with Julian Dory was fantastic. It felt like you were kind of, it felt like you were in the courtroom kind of grilling him at one point, which was great. But like, you know, with his background and, you know, being a forensic examiner and all that. What was your biggest takeaway from talking to him? Because you guys went really deep into the injuries, the procedures on a crime scene when somebody's murdered, and you guys covered it from A to Z. But was there anything that really stuck out to you? Speaker 1 (37:13) Yeah. How much the crime scene preservation should have been paramount in the moment and wasn't. Speaker 1 (37:27) You know, one of the things he kept coming back to, and I'm sure he kept getting annoyed by me asking, you know, did that fall below the standard? Speaker 2 (37:32) Yeah. Speaker 1 (37:33) But what I wanted to do, I mean, I had an expert. I had a chance to basically depose an expert witness. And, you know, a fact witness is going to testify what they saw, heard, smelled, felt, you know, sensed. An expert witness is going to tell you more hypothetically the way things could have been or should have been. And this is a guy who would absolutely be allowed to be an expert witness in any courtroom on a forensic examination. I mean, he teaches it. He's testified before. He is a professor in that. He teaches the classes to police officers. He absolutely is qualified to do that. So what I wanted to get out of the interview was each step of the way, what did they do and what should have been done? Starting with Charlie goes down. In that first five seconds, what should they have done? What should the security team have done under the table? Okay, now they're carrying him off. Should they have done that? What should they have done? But as soon as he's in the SUV and he's leaving, now we have a crime scene. Charlie's no longer there. The security team's no longer there. No longer are we worried about saving someone's life or tending to wounds. So at that point, what should happen? And it was really interesting how he would have approached it or how he thinks the officers there should have approached it versus what happened and how far below the standard that fell. I mean, you have people walking through the crime scene. They're moving chairs. They're moving tables. They're pulling stuff off the tent. They're, I mean, pouring water out. They ripped the cameras Speaker 2 (39:01) down and pulled the SD cards out immediately. Speaker 1 (39:04) Yeah, yeah. And then now you go to the hospital. Speaker 1 (39:08) At the hospital, from a crime scene investigation perspective, what should have been done? What items on Charlie's body should have been preserved? Okay, well, and I thought his answer was great. Anything that was on his body when he got shot or when whatever happened to him. Okay, so the microphone he's holding, the microphone on his shirt, his shirt, his underwear, his jeans, his socks, his shoes, you know, anything. Anything in his possession, in his, you know, immediate domain around him should have been preserved. Now, we will find out how much of that was preserved. We know that even the chair, even the chair, even the stand that the chair was on, the table around the chair, all that should be in evidence somewhere. The tent, that should be in evidence somewhere. You know, and it'll be interesting to me as the investigation unfolds, as we get through trial, is that stuff available? And one of the things he said is you can't go back and recreate it because they've paved over it. They've changed the topography of the soil. it's no longer the same facility it was the second he was there. So even if you go back and you put the same tables, the same chair, the same stand, you're going to get a different angle. So Speaker 2 (40:13) this is a common thing that they do is try to recreate the crime scene. Yeah, and Speaker 1 (40:17) you can't. Speaker 2 (40:18) And now it's impossible. It's impossible. Why did they do that to the soil there? Oh, I don't know. They put pavers on top? Speaker 1 (40:23) Yeah. They removed, I think, eight or ten inches of soil, they said, and then put... I guess one foot by one foot concrete pavers. Yeah. It looks like maybe 15 or 20 feet. Did they give a reason for that? No. Did Speaker 2 (40:37) they have to explain it? Speaker 1 (40:38) No. Speaker 2 (40:39) No. Speaker 1 (40:39) No. I Speaker 2 (40:40) mean, they've Speaker 1 (40:41) not given a reason I've seen. Yeah. Other than... And we're just changing the, we're changing it. And you can come up with reasons why they might have. Perhaps it's a biohazard. You've got a man's blood all over the place. You're going to have students walking around. Maybe they'd always wanted to change it, but never had it in the budget or never had a reason to do it. There was no impetus to change it. But it's an outdoor amphitheater. It makes more sense to me to have concrete down than have people walking around on grass if you're setting up some sort of an event. There's any number of reasons they could have done it. But the reality is once he was taken down in that facility, until the investigation is complete, and maybe the investigation was complete, and that's a possibility. Maybe the police had said, well, we've done everything we can do here. We brought in our tools. We measured everything. We've got all the pictures we need. Back over to you guys. Do whatever you want. But it seems weird. I mean, if you're looking for a conspiratorial angle, literally— Literally covering up the crime scene is a massive conspiracy. Speaker 2 (41:41) Yeah. I mean, Speaker 1 (41:41) it's where we get the term cover-up. It's a cover-up. They covered up the crime scene. Right. And what about all the other Speaker 2 (41:47) camera angles? What about them? Because didn't they have a bunch of other camera angles that have never been released? Speaker 1 (41:52) Yeah. So do they Speaker 2 (41:53) give that to the court Speaker 1 (41:54) or