Candace Owens sees right through Andrew Wilson

If he tried to rub them off then the rest of the fingerprints would be wiped as well.

The dude that supposedly had the gun both in his hands and stuffed down his pants all day had the most degraded DNA on the rifle? That’s a tough sell.

If Tyler just tried to scrub them off wouldn't it also scrub off the other prints??

Look at it this way: Is Candace investigating, following the chain of facts and events the way an FBI agent would? She appears to have the receipts, here.

They claimed he had the gun shoved down his pants against his body is the HEAT…. His DNA and PRINTS should be ALL OVER that gun. Not them saying his prints were the MOST degraded. 😭😭

The trigger is pretty small. We’re talking miracles for him to carefully only wipe his prints and leave all the others in tact.

Prints and DNA are two different things.

Wearing gloves that is so large it also cover his legs for having the gun down his pants? I don’t think you guys understand how casing ending that fact is.

I can’t believe there is a single person defending Andrew Wilson. He’s clearly a huge loser whose whole schtick has been exposed over and over. How is he even a little bit popular?

If Tyler has waited his prints off to cause the degradation then the other prints which were not degraded would have been degraded as well.

PapaG, the an assassin got time to dismantle a murder weapon, but no time to throw his 'gloves' away?

They’re blurring the term evidence with proof. When they hassle her about evidence they’re meaning proof. Degraded prints is evidence he didn’t recently shoot it.

Andrew Wilson is someone who is uncomfortable in his own skin. He’s supposed to be an alpha male chauvinist yet he’s ugly, incompetent, overweight and petulant.

Reminds me of “Making a Murderer” and this Tyler Robinson case reeks of the same level of cover up as Stephen Avery and Brendan Dassey. For sure Brendan Dassey was not involved at all. Don’t know if Stephen did it, but for sure it didn’t happen the way they claimed.

How do someine" scrub Tyler's "prints but manage to not dusturb others, fingerprints are usually not visible with naked eye. Thats pretty retarded

Scrubbing off prints is easy, if they're even smudged then there is no more print, there are millions of unique fingerprints, and for the average person they've only recorded the index finger. So if multiple individuals are ID'd, then they likely weren't scrubbed; it's not hard.

So what? lol Andrew is a fucking retard

He had the gun down his pants - apparently. Not even a PubicHair? & not much DNA! Yeah right Whatever •

People don’t be dense he obviously wiped his prints off so lightly that he didn’t disturb the other prints underneath 😜

Stop giving them talking points!

To scrub off the would mean the others would’ve been less than what his were already being degraded

I still don’t believe Tyler Robinson did it, but as debate strategy I can argue for both sides of the case. And Andrew didn’t even practice his arguments. What ever claim or assumption you have you have to put it to stress test, how would the other side destroy the argument.

If he tried to scrub off his prints, he would’ve scrubbed off the other people’s prints. The fact is his parents were the oldest ones on there.

This is how he debates. Andrew is a loser

Does he have an FFL?

“Candace the Butcher” slaughters Andrew 😂

I think Andrew's traction will slip and fade quickly

Anyone who follows @paleochristcon is a waste of space

She is a moron and she’s talking bullshit.

Thank goodness AI doesn’t care about debate performance and just gives us the facts that were actually presented… Regarding Candace’s claim: Partially accurate on the underlying testimony, but imprecise and overstated in presentation. Candace Owens (in the clip and related recent commentary) refers to testimony from the Tyler Robinson preliminary hearing about the recovered Mauser rifle. She describes “5 plus prints” on the weapon (particularly the trigger area) and states that Robinson’s were the most degraded among them. What the actual testimony established • Swabs were taken from multiple areas of the rifle, including the trigger and trigger guard (noted as having possible ridge detail/smudging). These were DNA swabs, not traditional developed latent fingerprints for ridge comparison. • The trigger/trigger-guard sample was a mixture consistent with at least four contributors. • Robinson was the major contributor (highest quantity of DNA) on that sample and on several other parts of the rifle, with very high likelihood ratios (commonly reported as “at least one trillion times more likely”). • When asked specifically whether the major profile had the largest amount of degradation in that sample, the ATF DNA expert (Caitlin Oliver) answered yes. So the core factual point she highlights—Robinson’s DNA profile in that mixed trigger sample showed the greatest degradation—is supported by the hearing testimony. Where the framing goes beyond the evidence • She repeatedly calls them “prints.” The hearing focused on DNA recovered from areas that had possible ridge detail/smudging. Separate latent fingerprint examinations (e.g., on a window near the rooftop jump point) excluded Robinson. • Multiple DNA contributors on a rifle that had been in the family and shared living situations is expected. Elimination samples included Robinson’s father (Matthew) on the rifle and roommate Lance Twiggs on related items (towel, screwdriver). • Degradation does not automatically prove “older” or “less recent” contact in a simple timeline sense. Experts noted environmental factors (heat, humidity, etc.) cause it, DNA can persist for decades under some conditions, and the presence of a major (higher-quantity) profile can show different degradation patterns. The same experts emphasized that DNA presence alone does not establish when it was deposited or the activity that left it. Bottom line: The specific observation about greater degradation of the major (Robinson-associated) profile in the trigger mixture is true according to the court testimony. Presenting it as “his fingerprints were the most degraded of 5+ prints on the rifle” as clear evidence of planting, staging, or someone else having more recent contact is an interpretive leap that goes beyond what the forensic witnesses stated. The DNA evidence overall still strongly links Robinson to the rifle under the reported likelihood ratios.

If he scrubbed it all of the dna would have the same issue