The FBI uploaded a video of their suspected shooter running over the roof after the shoot on Charlie Kirk was made. The Utah County Attorney writes in their charging document:
Immediately after the shot was fired, a camera captures the suspect running across the roof carrying an item whose shape is consistent with a rifle.
When I look at the video myself I don’t see “an item whose shape is consistent with a rifle”. When I asked GPT-5 Pro (to have an objective perspective) whether it can find such an item on the video and it can’t find anything that matches the description either.
In the past we discussed how Amanda Knox likely wasn’t guilty as charged because the evidence from the prosecution didn’t really line up. What do you think in this case? Do you see the rifle? Otherwise, what consequences should we draw from it not being there?
It sure looks more like a jacket than a rifle.
Also, that GPT-5 analysis seems really bad. Not very informative that it didn’t find anything. It also might not be “objective” if you interacted with it after not seeing the rifle yourself, which I feel like I get from your messages.
I have not told it anything about me not seeing the rifle. I did give the link to my chatlog and the questions I asked, and my follow-up questions. In a previous chat I just asked it fairly objective questions about what the official timeline is. Given the way GPT is set up, if anything that should bias it toward validating the official version.
I don’t think GPT-5 Pro’s capability is absolute proof, but it’s another set of eyes and GPT-5 likely know a bunch about how artifacts from low resolution in videos are supposed to look like that I don’t know.
When the figure is about to jump off of the roof, they briefly put down their bag. It has a long thin part of the right side. It’s not definitively a rifle, but its shape is consistent with one. There isn’t enough detail to really show for sure one way or another.
Given the quality of the camera, that item’s shape is “consistent with” a lot of different items, including a rifle. It could’ve been anything from a jacket to a small suitcase, and any features smaller than a couple inches (such as a rifle barrel) would disappear between the pixels.
I wouldn’t expect to see an identifiable rifle in that low-quality footage, so not seeing it isn’t surprising. Album, where I tried to keep the pixelization consistent (18 pixels tall = 4“/pixel in the video, guessing 28” barrel = 7 output pixels per 430 input pixels). My unidentifiable blob is consistent with a rifle because it was made from a rifle. It’s also consistent with a stick.
Which blob are you talking about?
While the moment right before he jumps might have a blob that’s consistent with a lot of different items, it seems to me like the time he walks, there’s no such blob as far as I (and GPT-5 Pro) seem tobe able to tell.
It’s worth noting that the government document says that him carrying an object consistent with being a rifle is visible while he runs across the roof. The moment where he prepares his jump is not a moment he runs over the roof.
It’s visible in several frames as he walks away, otherwise it blends in with his legs. It’s also easy to mistake for another leg.
What time stamps do you mean?
If you haven’t seen it in your investigations, then I doubt if raw timestamps would help.
First, follow the link in the Youtube description to the FBI page, and download the .mp4 file.
Next, open it in VLC (download it first, if needed), activate “Interactive Zoom” mode (Tools → Effects and Filters → Video Effects → Geometry → Interactive Zoom), set it to 800% (small slider below the left corner of the picture-in-picture) and focus on the edge of the small rooftop building.
Last, look at 0:09-0:10. There is clearly an object of some sort on his back, as his torso is larger in that direction than to his front (relative to his head). It’s more consistent with a backpack than a rifle, but that’s unsurprising given the camera. Annotated image here, but it’s much clearer in video form.
(Those aren’t the parts I was mentioning in the previous comment. That was as he was walking across the grass, which (on rereading) wasn’t your point. This is as he is still on the roof.)
To answer your question succinctly: I don’t see or not see a rifle. The video is not clear enough to tell. And I think we should draw zero consequences from that.
I think trying to deeply analyze a grainy video to confirm or deny the existence of a rifle is a fool’s errand when there’s so much other evidence available. It’s silly for the FBI to claim it’s definitively a rifle, and it’s silly to claim that not being able to see a rifle in that quality of video cuts against guilt.
There’s a ton of other evidence, finding the rifle near the scene of the shooting in the woods, the other surveillance where a rifle is much more visible, the texts, the confession, etc.
Tyler Robinson is Rudy Guede. The evidence points towards him. Is it vaguely possible that the FBI has manufactured a ton of evidence and has convinced many civilians, including Robinson’s own father and his boyfriend to lie, but that is a mere possibility and definitely not reasonable.
The scenarios are either that Tyler Robinson is the perpetrator or that someone tried to set him up as a patsy.
In an age of no-click remote exploits for phones, it’s easy for someone with nation state capability to fake the text messages and there is plenty of the discussion online that they are looking fake. I think it’s debatable whether the text messages are stronger evidence for Tyler as perpetrator or patsy.
The rifle being found in the woods near the shooting is consistent with both versions.
It’s a hand-written document that could also have been faked if someone tried to setup Tyler as a patsy. The same goes for the discord message.
We don’t have on the record statements from Tyler’s father. We have statements from the police that suggests that the father thought Tyler is guilty. There are statements from Candace Owens that she contacted Tyler’s parents and that the position of his parents is that Tyler is innocent.
The official position is that the boyfriend (Lance Twiggs) has no prior knowledge of the killing. To the extend that he knows anything about it, it’s that he received text messages. There’s also no on-the-record statement from Lance that Tyler is guilty and it seems people who want to interview him can’t reach him.
The TPUSA position seems pretty weird to me. Their [spokesperson Andrew Kolvet is essentially saying](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VzyGCRB4B8&t) that he privately asked some people in the Trump administration to look into Israel as a possible suspect for the killing. That they are glad, that Candence publishing messages put them into a situations where they could say so, because apparently beforehand they didn’t think they could be open about that.
They also seem to argue that it would be harder to convince a jury that Tyler is guilty if TPUSA would release more of the video material of what went on that day, and that’s why TPUSA doesn’t release more of the video of that day.
Your son has been arrested and the news media has all reported that your son confessed to you, you told a priest friend of yours, and that priest/retired Sheriff went to the authorities which is what led to your son’s arrest. But this is a lie and the FBI is setting your son up as a patsy.
Do you either:
A) Give an unrecorded statement to an unknown source for a conspiracy-minded conservative journalist/podcaster and do nothing else besides that; or
B) Sing from the rooftops and to every single possible news outlet you can find that your son is being setup in order to free him.
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/shorts/robinson-s-parents-recall-recognizing-him-in-manhunt-photo-247697477994
From the perspective of thinking that Tyler is innocent it makes a lot of sense to encourage him to turn himself in. It makes it less likely that he would get shoot during the arrest and also makes it less likely that someone else can shoot him in retaliation for allegedly shooting Charlie. He shouldn’t have any expectations of permanently being able to escape a manhunt either.
Do you think that’s what a lawyer would advise him to do as the most effective way to free his son? I doubt that’s the case. Standard legal advice is to not to talk to the media.
I’m not talking about the dad telling Robinson to turn himself in. I’m talking about police reporting that the father said Robinson confessed. That is a massive distinction and the fact that Candace Owens continues to focus on the ‘told him to turn himself in’ while ignoring the whole part about the dad reportedly saying his son confessed makes me distrust her reporting on this issue.
Also, I am a criminal attorney. I would have the father sign and swear to an affidavit attesting to the truth, and then circulate that to the news media and immediately file it with the Court as part of a bond motion. I would also have Robinson’s father testify at a bond hearing if possible. This is a routine practice of criminal defense attorneys. While this is an unusual situation, if Robinson truly was being setup by the FBI I would expect the next thing to happen is that he be killed in custody because the case clearly won’t stick if they’re making it up this bad.
The police didn’t do that. What they did say was:
A statement that news media can easily report as “Robinson confessed to his father” while they can still say in court that they never made that claim.