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.

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.

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)

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.

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

and that the entire FBI evidence locker is fucked up from Kash Patel using it as a bachelor pad.

A concrete wall, for example.

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

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?

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.