Document text
Tyler Robinson, Charlie Kirk & the Missing Tape: Sheriff Brooksby Has Some Explaining To Do
YouTube video by Baron Coleman Clips (@BaronColemanClips) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9d9EE8xmi4). OPINION COMMENTARY by Baron Coleman (Baron Coleman Clips (@BaronColemanClips)) — one commentator's contested analysis of the Charlie Kirk assassination and the State v. Tyler Robinson prosecution. These are his own assertions and theories, NOT the court record, NOT established fact, and NOT endorsed by profoundd; some make unverified allegations about named individuals. Archived here, attributed and lane-separated as commentary, so the claims can be weighed against the primary record — the tyler-robinson-trial hearings and filings in this same collection. Inclusion in this archive is not evidence of truth.
I want to take you back in time to uh something that frankly is so shocking to the conscience I cannot believe it happened. Uh but it did. >> [music] >> This is a headline from November 19, 2025. 2 News Investigates Discovers Possible Missing Evidence in Charlie Kirk Murder Case. Headline, Salt Lake City. 2 News Investigates Uncovered Possible Missing Surveillance Video of Tyler Robinson turning himself in to the Washington County Sheriff's Office just days after allegedly shooting and killing Charlie Kirk. "Our job was not to interview. Our job was just to get him here." said disgraced Washington Well, I added the disgraced. He wasn't disgraced at the time, but he is now, so I'll put it in there. Said disgraced Washington County Sheriff Nate Brooksby on September 17. "Within the hour, my friend drove Tyler and his parents to my office where he was greeted by plainclothes detectives." 2 News filed a public records request with the Washington County Sheriff's Office for video showing Robinson entering the Washington County Jail holding area and video of Robinson in a holding room. "Quote, we do not have any records responsive to this portion of the request as Tyler Robinson did not go to or enter the jail area." Uh to put it more simply, nana nana boo boo, you did not use the magic words. This is what happens when people did get too cute in these requests. Stop trying to use big words. Stop trying to act like you understand the system. Be very broad. And then offer that they can they can narrow your request for you should they choose. So, you say, "I want all video of Tyler Robinson on the premises from the moment he exited his car until the moment he is whisked away by Utah County officials." Nevertheless, if some of those are not statutorily available due to restrictions on investigatory materials, please give me what you're able to give me, including anything in the parking lot, anything of him walking in the door, anything in public areas. Why is that so hard? Why do you have to be so cute? Anyway, they did not get it. They did not use the magic words. But, Washington County was on notice that First Amendment protected news organizations were wanting this information. Two News filed a uh oh, sorry. I already read that part. Few weeks later, Two News re-upped the request in a more generalized fashion. Oh, okay. You should have done that the first time. Inquiring for surveillance video showing Tyler Robinson walking into the Washington County Sheriff's Office. Now, was that hard? Was that hard? Our office does not Here's the response they got, quote, "Our office does not have any applicable records sponsors request as the surveillance footage is no longer available after the 30-day retention period." What does that tell you? It tells me that it was deleted. It's no longer available. They had a retention period. It's no longer retained. I'm starting to wonder if that's true. I think they might have lied. I think disgraced Sheriff Brooksby's office might have just lied to their face. Now, we're getting this, which indicates everything they just said was a lie. And this is the problem with this investigation. There is deep dishonesty, deep deep deep dishonesty. I found this on X, a guy named Steve Cameron, PR1, put this up. Here is how it sounds. Now, let me set up it Let me set the recording up. This is an appeal from the news organization. This is the lawyer for the news organization. And the indication is this stuff does in fact exist. They're just not turning it over. We'll look at it a little more closely in a second, but if they're right and this stuff does actually exist and it's just not being turned over, the obvious question is why? There's no danger in upsetting the investigation by watching Tyler Robinson walk into a parking lot. And when he shows up in court, we all know he's been arrested. We all know he's been charged. We all know he's been indicted or or however they do it over there. We all know he's gone through the process. Part of the process is going to the custody of the police. And apparently he just walked through the parking lot with his folks. So there's no there's no in my opinion, there's no uh a danger of prejudicing the jury pool. But here is the way it was described on this hearing. >> Thank you, Director, for taking the time to to hear our appeal. Uh good morning. I'm an attorney for CBS News and I'm presenting this argument on behalf of Evan Cohen, an editor for CBS News, who is appealing the county's decision in this matter. You have the request and the procedural history for you, but the substance of the request is as follows. A copy of the surveillance video from the lobby of the Washington County Sheriff's Office in Hurricane, Utah from 6:00 p.m. Mountain Time on September 11th, 2025 to 1:00 a.m. Mountain Time on September 12th, 2025. In addition to any surveillance video of Tyler Robinson waiting with his parents and any interaction in the interrogation room. Washington County denied the request preliminarily and upheld that denial, stating that the release of the records could reasonably interfere with the ongoing investigation, could reasonably interfere with criminal enforcement proceedings and the criminal prosecution of the subject, and would create a danger of depriving the subject to a fair trial or impartial hearing. >> Okay, two parts of this. Two parts of this I want to cover. Number one, number one, sounds like the video exists. Sounds like the video exists. Does that mean the government lied to hide key evidence in this investigation? When News 2 asked for that exact same footage and they said it does not exist because of the department's 30-day retention period? Sounds like it exists. Second key fact, second key fact, this goes to something we've been reporting and been insisting on that we believe is accurate. They asked for footage from 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. We know by 1:00 a.m. he was gone. Why 6:00 p.m.? If he didn't turn himself in till 9:00 or 10:00 p.m., why are we asking for footage from 6:00 p.m.? CBS News has people on the ground. They have people who've interviewed people in Washington County. They know what we know, frankly, which is everybody in town was under the impression by 6:30 or 7:00, Tyler Robinson had already turned himself in. This was just accepted as fact around town. If you talk to people in St. George, they'll tell you that. It's just fact. He was turned himself in by 6:30 or 7:00. We know the defense referenced him being Mirandized at 6:25 p.m. on the evening of his arrest. Which was September 11th. He was arrested on September 11th. 6:25 p.m. on the evening of his arrest would be 6:25 p.m. on September 11th. And we know that Washington County does not want to turn the footage over. They are hiding it with everything they've got. They're refusing to give it. The lawyers are appealing appealing. They do not want to turn this footage over. Why? I think it shows him walking in before 7:00, probably before 6:25, if I had to guess. I can't think of any other reason they wouldn't just say, "Fine, here it is. Here's your footage. It shows him walking in the parking lot when we said he did, around 9:30 or 10:00. Have fun with it." Uh no, friends, they're not doing that. They're not doing that. They're forcing an appeal. They're going before a judge. They're hoping to find some sympathetic judge that will keep them from having to turn that over. This one is the defense's motion for the judge to issue an order that would prohibit any alteration of the evidence of the bullet fragment, the bullet jacket fragment, that allegedly was recovered from inside of Charlie Kirk. So, I want to slide down. This is just This is just normal stuff. They're saying, "Hey, they're going to break it." Like they're going to use pliers on this thing. They've already conducted an evaluation. In conducting the evaluation already on this, apparently they've altered the evidence in some way by using pliers or using some sort of tool on this bullet jacket fragment. The defense is saying, "Please, stop taking metal tools to a bullet jacket fragment that is key evidence that might go towards guilt or reasonable doubt." And we could go through that part, but if you're if you're interested Andrea Burkhart has all these on her on her page. You can go look at it. What I want to slide down to is the actual ATF report itself. I found something interesting on here today. See if I can make this a little bigger. Yeah, a little bigger. I found something interesting on this today. So, we have six pieces of evidence. We have the gun. Oh, I can't do that. I can't I was going to highlight these one at a time, but I can't. They get nothing. Item number one, here's the gun. The gun itself. Serial number 8863 with an optical accessory. Now, your humble host did a little research cuz I found that serial number odd. I instantly went through guns in my house and thought, "What are the serial numbers on those?" And I found 8863 an a a an awfully low serial number. So, then I did a little research and I found out when the different Mauser manufacturers started issuing serial numbers with five digits. Every single one of them I could find by 1944 had been issuing serial numbers with five digits. They started with one, all of them, 0001, and then they went up to 9,999. And around 1943 or 1944 there were so many Mausers being ordered that they rolled over to 10,000, which would put this gun with serial number 8863 earlier vintage than 1944, maybe earlier than 1943. So, hold on to that in your Put that feather in the back of your cap. We'll come back to it. Then we have the spent case. This is item number two here. This is the spent case. Then we have three cartridges that were not spent. Um and then so those there's four total cartridges. One is just the case. Three of the cartridges with the bullets, meaning it's a of of the gun holds four bullets, one of them was fired. Now, was one of them fired on the day afternoon of September 10th at the UVU campus? Well, we can't know we can't know from this, obviously. But, one of them had been spent, meaning it had no bullet in it. The other three had the bullet still in it. Now, we get down to number six here, one bullet jacket fragment and four lead fragments. this is a problem for the fed sloppers. They're going to try to gaslight us into saying this is a problem for us. It is not. This is not a problem for us. This is a good this it if if you're looking for reasonable doubt, this is a favorable report. Here's why. One of the problems that initially got people looking into this looking into this at all was the fact that no one could believe a .30-06 caliber rifle stopped in 3 in of neck tissue. Anyone has ever fired one, and I have, they're like firing a cannon. They're very powerful round. Very powerful round. It's it's obnoxiously loud. It has a tremendous kick to it. I mean, it kicks like a donkey. And and it and and when you hit something with it, it just destroys it. You hit the side of an elk, it's through and through through 2 ft of elk. And if an elk is standing immediately behind that, it's through and maybe through and through that one, at least through it. It's just impossible to believe that a .30-06 caliber rifle stopped in the neck. You you can give me any kind of slop you want. I'm not eating that. You can put it on the plate. I'm not I'm not going to take a bite. I will not I will not indulge your fed slop. That is fed slop. Well, now we know it was a commercially available .30-06 round Springfield ammo Springfield Springfield ammo because they found the boxes of it allegedly back at his house. And it was just a a full metal jacket lead bullet. Probably 150 to 220 grain round. And it would have arrived at Tyler's neck, I mean with at Charlie's neck with like 2,500 plus pounds of force. And it would have poked a hole through it like a a hole punch does through a piece of notebook paper. It would have been ghastly, too. It would have been ghastly. I mean it the hole coming out the back would have been just horrific. The expansion of his neck might just might just exploded on all sides. I mean it would have been horrific. So I think you look at this ATF report and you think, well that we obviously know that wasn't it. 100% sure. But but it's the serial number that gets me, that 8863 serial number. Because here is the original image that was released by the New York Post of this rifle. And you tell me, does this look like a pre-1944 .30-06? That looks like a synthetic stock to me. Maybe it's just wood that's been painted black with like Rust-Oleum or something. But are you going to take a gun like that, take it apart, paint the stock with Rust-Oleum? I don't know. Forensics discovered a weapon. It was in just north of lot Mike 20, M20, uh northeast of the Loews Cineplex building. It was a rifle of some sort wrapped in a towel. Now a lot has been made of the towel and the DNA on the towel and the DNA on the rifle. Again, I've said this a thousand times, I don't I imagine the defense would say something like this at trial, but why would your DNA not be on your rifle? If someone removed your rifle from your house and put it at the scene of a crime, your DNA is going to be on that rifle. Does that mean you committed a crime? Is that beyond reasonable doubt? No, of course not. Um that will never rise to beyond reasonable doubt. You have to prove the guy fired the weapon. You have to prove he fired the weapon. Your weapon, yeah, I mean it goes to weight and not sufficiency, obviously. The the the gets in, but but how hard is it to say, "Well, of course his DNA's on his own weapon. What Why would it not be? I mean, he fired the weapon 6 months ago. He fired the weapon 10 years ago or whatever. His DNA's on it. Big deal." Um it's interesting to note that I think five or six other people's DNA also was on the weapon. So, that's you know, raises the the issue that someone else could have fired that weapon, but I don't think that weapon was the the kill shot. Uh the towel also. Well, his DNA was on the towel. Again, if someone's setting him up, you grab a towel out of my hamper, guess who's DNA's on it? Your humble host. Your humble host. It's hair DNA, under the arm I mean, everything you dry off, my DNA's all over it. Throw it in the hamper. You grab the towel out of the hamper, my DNA is littered on that thing. That's just not very compelling evidence to me. It's just common sense. Of course his DNA's on it. Uh I bring that up to say the gun to me is very much still in play. The the type of the type of wound does not look like a .30-06. The fact that his DNA is found on it is not very compelling, and that weapon doesn't look like a pre-1943 or '44 weapon. Now, I will say that's the only pic of the gun that's floating around. It for some reason ended up in the New York Post. We have no idea how it got there. Uh Daisy has emailed them four times in the last 3 weeks. She's only asked them two questions. One, "Was the firearm shown in the article obtained directly from law enforcement sources? If so, was it local law enforcement or FBI?" I think it's a reasonable question. Two, "Can you confirm whether this image is of the actual weapon recovered in connection with the shooting? Has it been verified by law enforcement or is the image simply representative or illustrative?" I think those are fair questions. To be fair, she didn't just email the author. She's emailed like 100 people at the New York Post, and nobody wants to answer the question. That's problematic to me because this weapon is being used to convict Tyler >> [music]