• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University event. / Charlie Kirk Shot And Killed

Gulliver Foyle said:
Yes, you would stoop to any tactic to deny reich on reich violence.
Click to expand...
I'm not even claiming the perp is necessarily "leftwing" he could have just hated Kirk for speaking badly about gay/trans people, cause he had a personal relationship with one.

But the Groyper theory was desperate wishful thinking.
 
Thermal said:
Forgot to mention: autodidact isn't a commonly used word, and through disuse (and general worthlessness) many users might need to be prompted for its meaning. The only time I hear it used is by uneducated people who are describing themselves and trying to sound intellectual. We had a banned member here use it to title one of his threads here recently in exactly that way.
Click to expand...
Kirk was a fur piece from intellectual. The college he dropped out from was not known for it's difficult curriculum at the time. Not saying a college degree = intelligence, but honestly, as others have pointed out, a few looks at unedited exchanges demonstrates Kirk was hardly as adept as his apologists claim. I'd rate him one Dinesh D'Souza.
 
Thermal said:
I was thinking more along the lines of the texts themselves being deliberately composed for prosecutors. I'm behind on this part of the story, but did they get thiese texts from Robinson's phone or 'my love', the BF's?
Click to expand...
Indeed, I'm behind the curve here and I didn't realize what the actual fabrication allegation was. (Ironically I was up at the law library looking up something else instead of listening to Steve Bannon.) The prosecutor merely needs to have a reasonable belief that the text conversation took place. If someone else undertook to fabricate the conversation, then the prosecutor won't be sanctioned for it as long as he remains candid with the court as the investigation continues.

The complaint says the messages came from the roommate's phone. It does not say how they were given to law enforcement, but it was almost certainly via a forensic dump of the phone. If you don't do it that way, you have all kinds of evidence problems later. While the roommate could have shown the interrogators the conversation on the screen at first, the immediate next step would be to dump the phone and preserve the evidentiary record. Again, since this is a high-profile prosecution, it is quite likely the text message traffic was verified according to the dump before filing charges, although this would not necessarily reveal all tampering. Ultimately, if the authenticity of the conversation is in question, the SMS traffic can be obtained from the carrier and would reveal any attempt to use a burner phone or to alter the message or metadata.

Technical means aside, the motive for such fabrication remains cloudy.

If the messages are recovered from the roommate's phone, any fabrication would possibly have occurred on that phone and been undertaken by the roommate. That makes them an accomplice and subject to additional charges of obstruction of justice. Romanticism aside, it seems that this is something the roommate would do only if they were actually embroiled in it much more extensively and were seeking to create a false appearance of their own lesser involvement.

If you assume the conversation was fabricated, it still doesn't make sense. Why create a false trail of evidence that admits to the murder and connects to the physical evidence, but restates only the motive for doing so? By far the most common method of obstructing justice is simply to destroy evidence (or attempt to). In fact, that's what Robinson urges the roommate to do—a fact alleged in support of one of the counts of obstruction of justice. If you're going to fabricate a false trail of evidence, fabricate one that throws doubt on guilt. Say something like, "My grandfather's rifle was stolen, did you leave the door unlocked?" Or, "I went to UVU to hear Kirk speak, and now they all wrongly think I did it!"

Claiming a conversation was fabricated to admit to the crime but restate its motive away from right-wing talking points smacks of something the right-wing just really wants to be true—a scenario that would benefit the right-wing narrative but present no cognizable advantage for the alleged participants. There's no evidence that either Robinson or the roommate has any desire to shield any larger interest or absolve any larger political or social group. The fabrication theory amounts to nothing more than a conspiracy theory that the witness is hiding exactly what the right-wing commentators wanted the evidence to be, even if it makes no sense for the witness to do so.
 
JayUtah said:
If you assume the conversation was fabricated, it still doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...
Oh, agreed, it's not shining any motivational light. It's more the composition and content that seems out of whack, and it would explain that, standalone, if it was actually contrived.

Longshot speculation: there were other people involved, with an agreement that Robinson takes the fall alone if caught (or in another scenario, if someone else gets caught, they take it, and the case falls apart with the evidence they can't make fit). To protect the theoretical co-conspirator/s, a covo is doctored to fill in the gaps and limit the prosecutors fishing too much.

Not even remotely suggesting this is the case, bear in mind. An examination of other texts on the phone would probably confirm if this was his/their way of texting, possibly going back years, depending on how long those devices were owned.

eta: again, not remotely suggesting this actually happened or was even likely. My tin foil hat was used to wrap up a pizza slice earlier.
eta2: again (because I don't want anyone thinking I'm a nut job), the doctored convo might explain one element. Is there any reason to suppose it or anything remotely to support it? No, so nothing to pursue there.
 
Last edited:
I see the Kirk fanboys are whining that his quotes are 'taken out of context'. Pretty much the only example I've seen so far is the empathy one, as if the full quote is any less bad.

kirk said:
So the new communications strategy for Democrats, now that their polling advantage is collapsing in every single state… collapsing in Ohio. It's collapsing even in Arizona. It is now a race where Blake Masters is in striking distance. Kari Lake is doing very, very well. The new communications strategy is not to do what Bill Clinton used to do, where he would say, "I feel your pain." Instead, it is to say, "You're actually not in pain." So let's just, little, very short clip. Bill Clinton in the 1990s. It was all about empathy and sympathy. I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage. But, it is very effective when it comes to politics. Sympathy, I prefer more than empathy. That's a separate topic for a different time. (...) The same people who lecture you about 'empathy' have none for the soldiers discharged for the jab, the children mutilated by Big Medicine, or the lives devastated by fentanyl pouring over the border. Spare me your fake outrage, your fake science, and your fake moral superiority.
Click to expand...

Empathy, or the fact that we have mirror neurons and feel others' pain, is a foundational part of being pack animals existing in a society. Trying to paint that as new age BS, and outrage as fake, over whataboutisms and a WELL ACKSCHUALLY that you don't literally feel the other person's pain is just ludicrous.

Also, since they're so faux-outraged that he's TaKeN oUt Of CoNtExT, is that there's a wide movement in the MAGA and fundamentalist Christian world that empathy is a sin.

They're really clutching at straws to defend such a horrible person. Pathetic.
 
Thermal said:
Forgot to mention: autodidact isn't a commonly used word, and through disuse (and general worthlessness) many users might need to be prompted for its meaning. The only time I hear it used is by uneducated people who are describing themselves and trying to sound intellectual. We had a banned member here use it to title one of his threads here recently in exactly that way.
Click to expand...

That is one thing. Another thing is the gotcha that Walter sees in Kirk defining autodidact = if somebody has to define a word, the one who didn't already know the definition has lost the debate!
So Kirk's opponent didn't know the definition of a word, and so what? What makes it important in the context? What was the theme of the debate? What were the specific arguments?
And why doesn't Walter link to the Q&A "where a college student questioned his credentials and Kirk had to define autodidact" since it allegedly "was brilliant."
 
JayUtah said:
Indeed, I'm behind the curve here and I didn't realize what the actual fabrication allegation was. (Ironically I was up at the law library looking up something else instead of listening to Steve Bannon.) The prosecutor merely needs to have a reasonable belief that the text conversation took place. If someone else undertook to fabricate the conversation, then the prosecutor won't be sanctioned for it as long as he remains candid with the court as the investigation continues.

The complaint says the messages came from the roommate's phone. It does not say how they were given to law enforcement, but it was almost certainly via a forensic dump of the phone. If you don't do it that way, you have all kinds of evidence problems later. While the roommate could have shown the interrogators the conversation on the screen at first, the immediate next step would be to dump the phone and preserve the evidentiary record. Again, since this is a high-profile prosecution, it is quite likely the text message traffic was verified according to the dump before filing charges, although this would not necessarily reveal all tampering. Ultimately, if the authenticity of the conversation is in question, the SMS traffic can be obtained from the carrier and would reveal any attempt to use a burner phone or to alter the message or metadata.

Technical means aside, the motive for such fabrication remains cloudy.

If the messages are recovered from the roommate's phone, any fabrication would possibly have occurred on that phone and been undertaken by the roommate. That makes them an accomplice and subject to additional charges of obstruction of justice. Romanticism aside, it seems that this is something the roommate would do only if they were actually embroiled in it much more extensively and were seeking to create a false appearance of their own lesser involvement.

If you assume the conversation was fabricated, it still doesn't make sense. Why create a false trail of evidence that admits to the murder and connects to the physical evidence, but restates only the motive for doing so? By far the most common method of obstructing justice is simply to destroy evidence (or attempt to). In fact, that's what Robinson urges the roommate to do—a fact alleged in support of one of the counts of obstruction of justice. If you're going to fabricate a false trail of evidence, fabricate one that throws doubt on guilt. Say something like, "My grandfather's rifle was stolen, did you leave the door unlocked?" Or, "I went to UVU to hear Kirk speak, and now they all wrongly think I did it!"

Claiming a conversation was fabricated to admit to the crime but restate its motive away from right-wing talking points smacks of something the right-wing just really wants to be true—a scenario that would benefit the right-wing narrative but present no cognizable advantage for the alleged participants. There's no evidence that either Robinson or the roommate has any desire to shield any larger interest or absolve any larger political or social group. The fabrication theory amounts to nothing more than a conspiracy theory that the witness is hiding exactly what the right-wing commentators wanted the evidence to be, even if it makes no sense for the witness to do so.
Click to expand...

i’d also add that the fbi and specifically kash patel has been bungling this and getting facts wrong since it happened
 
Venom said:
I'm not even claiming the perp is necessarily "leftwing" he could have just hated Kirk for speaking badly about gay/trans people, cause he had a personal relationship with one.

But the Groyper theory was desperate wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

nazi furries aren’t exactly unheard of either though
 
dann said:
And why doesn't Walter link to the Q&A "where a college student questioned his credentials and Kirk had to define autodidact" since it allegedly "was brilliant."
Click to expand...
Without having heard or read a word of it, I'd bet Charlie said "I'm an autodidact" and the student said "a what?", not having heard the word in a long time and momentarily confused if they heard correctly.

eta: LOL, found it! Exactly what I thought, he was describing himself and rapid fire asked the student if he knew what it meant, and immediately defined it and reprimanded the student for not knowing it, barely taking a breath. Kirk's whole schtick is to rapid fire and give the opponent no time to compose a response. 'Autodidact' at around 1:40.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Indeed, I'm behind the curve here and I didn't realize what the actual fabrication allegation was. (Ironically I was up at the law library looking up something else instead of listening to Steve Bannon.) The prosecutor merely needs to have a reasonable belief that the text conversation took place. If someone else undertook to fabricate the conversation, then the prosecutor won't be sanctioned for it as long as he remains candid with the court as the investigation continues.

The complaint says the messages came from the roommate's phone. It does not say how they were given to law enforcement, but it was almost certainly via a forensic dump of the phone. If you don't do it that way, you have all kinds of evidence problems later. While the roommate could have shown the interrogators the conversation on the screen at first, the immediate next step would be to dump the phone and preserve the evidentiary record. Again, since this is a high-profile prosecution, it is quite likely the text message traffic was verified according to the dump before filing charges, although this would not necessarily reveal all tampering. Ultimately, if the authenticity of the conversation is in question, the SMS traffic can be obtained from the carrier and would reveal any attempt to use a burner phone or to alter the message or metadata.

Technical means aside, the motive for such fabrication remains cloudy.

If the messages are recovered from the roommate's phone, any fabrication would possibly have occurred on that phone and been undertaken by the roommate. That makes them an accomplice and subject to additional charges of obstruction of justice. Romanticism aside, it seems that this is something the roommate would do only if they were actually embroiled in it much more extensively and were seeking to create a false appearance of their own lesser involvement.

If you assume the conversation was fabricated, it still doesn't make sense. Why create a false trail of evidence that admits to the murder and connects to the physical evidence, but restates only the motive for doing so? By far the most common method of obstructing justice is simply to destroy evidence (or attempt to). In fact, that's what Robinson urges the roommate to do—a fact alleged in support of one of the counts of obstruction of justice. If you're going to fabricate a false trail of evidence, fabricate one that throws doubt on guilt. Say something like, "My grandfather's rifle was stolen, did you leave the door unlocked?" Or, "I went to UVU to hear Kirk speak, and now they all wrongly think I did it!"

Claiming a conversation was fabricated to admit to the crime but restate its motive away from right-wing talking points smacks of something the right-wing just really wants to be true—a scenario that would benefit the right-wing narrative but present no cognizable advantage for the alleged participants. There's no evidence that either Robinson or the roommate has any desire to shield any larger interest or absolve any larger political or social group. The fabrication theory amounts to nothing more than a conspiracy theory that the witness is hiding exactly what the right-wing commentators wanted the evidence to be, even if it makes no sense for the witness to do so.
Click to expand...
Another banger from JayUtah. :clap:
 
Thermal said:
Oh, agreed, it's not shining any motivational light. It's more the composition and content that seems out of whack, and it would explain that, standalone, if it was actually contrived.
Click to expand...
It doesn't seem "out of whack" to me. But whether it's out of whack or perfectly in whack is utterly irrelevant. It has been entered into evidence and we'll see where it goes from there. All the second-guessing about its authenticity has more to do with people wanting desperately to talk about this incident and making the most out of what little evidence there is to talk about.

Keep in mind that we're almost certainly seeing only excerpts from the conversation. Not only would a prosecutor present only the information that seems to support his narrative, he's duty-bound not to present anything he obtained that isn't relevant to the charges. That might explain why some people find it unconvincing.

I have ongoing text conversations with many people, as I assume most of you do too. There's no one standard pattern or tone of conversation in them that would allow anyone to say one conversation or another is anomalous.

Thermal said:
Longshot speculation: there were other people involved, with an agreement that Robinson takes the fall alone if caught (or in another scenario, if someone else gets caught, they take it, and the case falls apart with the evidence they can't make fit). To protect the theoretical co-conspirator/s, a covo is doctored to fill in the gaps and limit the prosecutors fishing too much.

Not even remotely suggesting this is the case, bear in mind.
Click to expand...
It's natural to want assassins to be part of some larger conspiracy. But they inevitably turn out to be lone nuts. As messy as some seem to want this evidence to look, it's pretty straightforward. It looks like a lone nut killed an outspoken commentator out of frustration and confessed it to the person he likely felt closest to.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
I see the Kirk fanboys are whining that his quotes are 'taken out of context'. Pretty much the only example I've seen so far is the empathy one, as if the full quote is any less bad.



Empathy, or the fact that we have mirror neurons and feel others' pain, is a foundational part of being pack animals existing in a society. Trying to paint that as new age BS, and outrage as fake, over whataboutisms and a WELL ACKSCHUALLY that you don't literally feel the other person's pain is just ludicrous.

Also, since they're so faux-outraged that he's TaKeN oUt Of CoNtExT, is that there's a wide movement in the MAGA and fundamentalist Christian world that empathy is a sin.

They're really clutching at straws to defend such a horrible person. Pathetic.
Click to expand...
1. He never said that.

2. You took it out of context.

3.◊◊◊◊ you, lib.
 
sackett said:
An aside about gun culture. Out West, hunting is a common practice,
but it doesn't, I think (I hope), foster the unhinged fetishization of guns that we
find so frightening. Robinson is accused of using a scoped high power
rifle to kill Kirk, as almost any westerner could if he chose. A real gun fetishist would've tried that shot with an AR15 or
some cheaper derivative, because that's what the cool kids shoot, or anyway pose with in their
selfies.

I hope we aren't lapsing into a toggle switch definition of gun culture:
on-off, black gun slobbering vs angelic oh! dreadful things! dichotomy.
Too damn much of that non-thinking going on in the USA already.
Click to expand...

It goes beyond just being hunter.

Plenty of photos from Robinson family social media showing that.
 
Venom said:
But the Groyper theory was desperate wishful thinking.
Click to expand...
Not really. It was a reasonable hypothesis given the facts then in evidence. The connection between the messages on the cartridge casings and Groyper culture were (and remain) a factor recognized by those familiar with the culture. And according to the text messages offered in evidence, they were intended as memes in reference to online culture, including Groypers. But what the additional evidence shows is that Robinson likely did not intend them seriously but was merely trolling—if trolling a bunch of trolls can be considered a thing. The reasoning may have been wishful, but it was by no means desperate.
 
JayUtah said:
It doesn't seem "out of whack" to me. But whether it's out of whack or perfectly in whack is utterly irrelevant. It has been entered into evidence and we'll see where it goes from there. All the second-guessing about its authenticity has more to do with people wanting desperately to talk about this incident and making the most out of what little evidence there is to talk about.
Click to expand...
Well... yeah, that's interesting, and for lack of a better word, fun. Putting pieces together as they come up and seeing how the armchair predictions play out is a casual way of testing our observational skills in real time.
JayUtah said:
It's natural to want assassins to be part of some larger conspiracy. But they inevitably turn out to be lone nuts. As messy as some seem to want this evidence to look, it's pretty straightforward. It looks like a lone nut killed an outspoken commentator out of frustration and confessed it to the person he likely felt closest to.
Click to expand...
Usually, yes. In the matter of Luigi Mangione, he was videoed talking on the phone, then he turned on his heel and went to his lookout point, where Thompson appeared a couple minutes later (with no reason for Mangione to have known or expected Thompson to be either there or exactly then. I don't think Luigi was calling for the surf report. I think someone was letting him know that Thompson was heading down. Either that, or Luigi was calling someone in the wee hours to chit chat, who forgot to mention it to investigators?

It's just interesting for some of us to try and piece things together with minimal information, nothing more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom