The bullet that killed conservative commentator Charlie Kirk did not match the rifle used by his alleged murderer, Tyler Robinson, according to an incredible new claim from his lawyers.
The 22-year-old Robinson is facing multiple charges, which are eligible for the death penalty, over Kirk’s murder at Utah Valley University late last year.
But his defence attorneys have argued that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (AFT) had been “unable to identify the bullet recovered at autopsy to the rifle allegedly tied to Mr Robinson”.
What a misleading headline. The match was inconclusive which doesn’t at all mean the bullet wasn’t fired from the gun.
It means there wasn’t enough detail on the fragment to say one way or the other.
taking a presumption of innocence into account, this would basicaly mean it doesn’t match.
Wait, so they’re saying Robinson was at the event shooting his gun, but someone else shot Kirk because forensics can’t positively id the bullet?
Or are they saying the round doesn’t match the gun and the gun wasn’t there?
When asked about the defense’s characterization of the ATF report, Christopher D. Ballard, a spokesperson for the Utah County Attorney’s Office, told USA TODAY ethical rules prohibit him from speaking publicly about forensic testing and test results.
“But I can say generally that when the results of a bullet fragment analysis come back as inconclusive, that means only that the fragment did not contain enough detail for the examiner to determine whether the characteristics on the fragment were consistent with having been fired by a particular firearm,” Ballard said.
Per USA Today article on the same topic
People kill bears with 30-06 yet Charlie Kirk’s neck stopped the bullet. That never made sense.
From what I had read, the bullet missed a direct hit and only a fragment of the round hit Kirk.
