正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

“In almost twenty years practicing as a criminal defense attorney, I cannot imagine having exculpatory evidence and NOT bringing it up at the probable cause hearing.” Criminal defense attorney confirms the obvious—that if Tyler’s parents have been misreported as believing he’s guilty and urging him to turn himself in,... show more

Natalie Jean Beisner

120,055 subscribers

29,729 次观看 • 23 天前 •via X (Twitter)

教育新闻政治

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

And this is where Candace loses: If the defense could adduce evidence of fabricated documents, conspiracy, fake messages… they would not do it at the preliminary hearing for probable cause, but would wait until the trial? That the defense was precluded from adducing such evidence at the preliminary hearing? Absolute nonsense. True, it is not the trial. But there is no realm of the universe in which the defense would not attempt to adduce evidence - to the extent that you could, either through cross or direct - of fabricated / falsified text messages, manufactured documents and/or conspiracy to frame. They were not prevented from doing so at the preliminary hearing. They simply did not present anything to suggest the messages were fabricated, that a bullet did not kill Charlie, and other elements that, if remotely demonstratable, would easily be an obstacle for even the lower threshold of probable cause. And that is exactly why they could not deny them in their latest filing.

And this is where Candace loses: If the defense could adduce evidence of fabricated documents, conspiracy, fake messages… they would not do it at the preliminary hearing for probable cause, but would wait until the trial? That the defense was precluded from adducing such evidence at the preliminary hearing? Absolute nonsense. True, it is not the trial. But there is no realm of the universe in which the defense would not attempt to adduce evidence - to the extent that you could, either through cross or direct - of fabricated / falsified text messages, manufactured documents and/or conspiracy to frame. They were not prevented from doing so at the preliminary hearing. They simply did not present anything to suggest the messages were fabricated, that a bullet did not kill Charlie, and other elements that, if remotely demonstratable, would easily be an obstacle for even the lower threshold of probable cause. And that is exactly why they could not deny them in their latest filing.

Viva Frei

60,571 次观看 • 1 个月前

Attorney confirms that Tyler’s defense would’ve brought up all the alternative theories at the preliminary hearing if there was any merit to them. “The mom and dad are going to testify, that sheriffs deputy is going to testify, Twiggs is going to testify about the admissions that Tyler Robinson made to them. If you’re the defense lawyer, you know that evidence is coming, which is why you’re not saying ‘oh it was somebody else.’..I haven’t seen a stronger murder case in the 28 years that I’ve sever in the prosecution business.”

Attorney confirms that Tyler’s defense would’ve brought up all the alternative theories at the preliminary hearing if there was any merit to them. “The mom and dad are going to testify, that sheriffs deputy is going to testify, Twiggs is going to testify about the admissions that Tyler Robinson made to them. If you’re the defense lawyer, you know that evidence is coming, which is why you’re not saying ‘oh it was somebody else.’..I haven’t seen a stronger murder case in the 28 years that I’ve sever in the prosecution business.”

Natalie Jean Beisner

17,195 次观看 • 25 天前

It's interesting listening to Baron Coleman' here. He reads over Andrea Burkhart 🐟🐟🐟🐟🏴‍☠️'s analysis of the Defense team's latest filing, calls her "everybody's favorite fed-slopper" (gotta give your audience the cues as to how to disregard someone without addressing the substance of what they say) but then ultimately concludes that he agrees with her analysis. I guess that makes him a "fed-slopper by proxy". lol But not before doing his own gish-gallop of "slop". 1) "There's no basis for them to argue that evidence is unreliable or fabricated because they didn't elicit any facts in the hearing to suggest it was" (from Andrea's analysis). "Yeah, because they're not allowed to at that stage." -Baron. I don't think Baron understand what Andrea is saying here. My understanding is that Baron's statement is simply false. Thought the evidence is not fully litigated (because it's a preliminary hearing and not a trial - a distinction Baron has difficulty keeping in mind), eliciting facts of unreliability or fabrication can most certainly be done at the prelim hearing. And you would want to do it to challenge probable cause. Defense did not do it, so they could not argue it in the filing. Baron must know that his statement is false / misleading, because when I asked him why the Defense did not call the parents to prove that Tyler did not confess to them (another assertion Baron made), his answer was not "because they couldn't". His answer was the preposterous "they didn't call the parents because the parents would have been asked by the prosecution if Tyler had confessed to other crimes", which Baron "assumed" would be yes. Outlandish. But not predicated on Defense not being allowed to make that evidence at the prelim stage. 2) "They don't have the evidence in their possession... They could not raise these issues at trial [sic] because they did not have the evidence". -Baron "They don't have the gun in their possession". This is almost always true in any prosecution. From what I understand, prosecution does not give the alleged murder weapon to the defense. Defense gets photos, ballistic reports, etc., which from what I understand, they did receive. "They don't have the DNA reports in their possession" Also false. They did have the reports in their possession. They cross-examined on it during the prelim. "They don't have all the camera footage in their possession". Fairly certain this is materially false as well. But not knowing what "all" consists of, they certainly had substantial amounts of surveillance video. "They don't have the cell-phone authentification stuff in their possession... what the hell do you expect them to introduce at trial [sic]". I am not certain enough on this to assert one way or the other, and it's not clear what meta-data on the text messages the defense did received prior to the preliminary hearing to verify authenticity. But if they had reason to believe the text messages were fabricated, one would think they would have challenged that at the prelim because if true, it would certainly impact probable cause (to put it mildly). "How can I introduce evidence I don't have". Again, totally false oversimplification, thought it must be noted that we are still at the preliminary hearing stage, which is not a full evidentiary hearing. That's my input. Subject to any mistakes which, if I make, I will certainly correct. I think I included the requisite qualifiers in my reading of the brief. Now, we will see how things pan out in order to retrospectively assess the quality of everyone's analysis.

It's interesting listening to Baron Coleman' here. He reads over Andrea Burkhart 🐟🐟🐟🐟🏴‍☠️'s analysis of the Defense team's latest filing, calls her "everybody's favorite fed-slopper" (gotta give your audience the cues as to how to disregard someone without addressing the substance of what they say) but then ultimately concludes that he agrees with her analysis. I guess that makes him a "fed-slopper by proxy". lol But not before doing his own gish-gallop of "slop". 1) "There's no basis for them to argue that evidence is unreliable or fabricated because they didn't elicit any facts in the hearing to suggest it was" (from Andrea's analysis). "Yeah, because they're not allowed to at that stage." -Baron. I don't think Baron understand what Andrea is saying here. My understanding is that Baron's statement is simply false. Thought the evidence is not fully litigated (because it's a preliminary hearing and not a trial - a distinction Baron has difficulty keeping in mind), eliciting facts of unreliability or fabrication can most certainly be done at the prelim hearing. And you would want to do it to challenge probable cause. Defense did not do it, so they could not argue it in the filing. Baron must know that his statement is false / misleading, because when I asked him why the Defense did not call the parents to prove that Tyler did not confess to them (another assertion Baron made), his answer was not "because they couldn't". His answer was the preposterous "they didn't call the parents because the parents would have been asked by the prosecution if Tyler had confessed to other crimes", which Baron "assumed" would be yes. Outlandish. But not predicated on Defense not being allowed to make that evidence at the prelim stage. 2) "They don't have the evidence in their possession... They could not raise these issues at trial [sic] because they did not have the evidence". -Baron "They don't have the gun in their possession". This is almost always true in any prosecution. From what I understand, prosecution does not give the alleged murder weapon to the defense. Defense gets photos, ballistic reports, etc., which from what I understand, they did receive. "They don't have the DNA reports in their possession" Also false. They did have the reports in their possession. They cross-examined on it during the prelim. "They don't have all the camera footage in their possession". Fairly certain this is materially false as well. But not knowing what "all" consists of, they certainly had substantial amounts of surveillance video. "They don't have the cell-phone authentification stuff in their possession... what the hell do you expect them to introduce at trial [sic]". I am not certain enough on this to assert one way or the other, and it's not clear what meta-data on the text messages the defense did received prior to the preliminary hearing to verify authenticity. But if they had reason to believe the text messages were fabricated, one would think they would have challenged that at the prelim because if true, it would certainly impact probable cause (to put it mildly). "How can I introduce evidence I don't have". Again, totally false oversimplification, thought it must be noted that we are still at the preliminary hearing stage, which is not a full evidentiary hearing. That's my input. Subject to any mistakes which, if I make, I will certainly correct. I think I included the requisite qualifiers in my reading of the brief. Now, we will see how things pan out in order to retrospectively assess the quality of everyone's analysis.

Viva Frei

21,970 次观看 • 1 个月前

From #D4vd defense at today's hearing: "We believe the actual evidence will show David Burke did not murder Celeste Rivas Hernandez nor was he the cause of her death." They have asked for a preliminary hearing within the 10 days as required by statute, if defense doesn't waive. "..we would like to be able to have the evidence come into the light of day at the earliest opportunity .." #DavidBurke That date is set for April 23.

From #D4vd defense at today's hearing: "We believe the actual evidence will show David Burke did not murder Celeste Rivas Hernandez nor was he the cause of her death." They have asked for a preliminary hearing within the 10 days as required by statute, if defense doesn't waive. "..we would like to be able to have the evidence come into the light of day at the earliest opportunity .." #DavidBurke That date is set for April 23.

Cathy Russon

1,024,475 次观看 • 4 个月前

🚨 TYLER ROBINSON WILL NOT TESTIFY On the record moments ago: Robinson's own defense attorney told the court they advised him of his right to testify at this hearing, and that he is choosing to take their advice and NOT testify. The judge confirmed it: Robinson nodded yes. He stays silent. As is his right. At a preliminary hearing the defendant almost never testifies, so this is not a surprise. But it is now locked into the record on the final day.

🚨 TYLER ROBINSON WILL NOT TESTIFY On the record moments ago: Robinson's own defense attorney told the court they advised him of his right to testify at this hearing, and that he is choosing to take their advice and NOT testify. The judge confirmed it: Robinson nodded yes. He stays silent. As is his right. At a preliminary hearing the defendant almost never testifies, so this is not a surprise. But it is now locked into the record on the final day.

Danks

278,794 次观看 • 2 个月前

🚨MY THOUGHTS After Day 1 of the Preliminary Trial: Sitting in the courtroom for the Tyler Robinson preliminary hearing is a completely different experience than watching clips online. Seeing the defendant, hearing the testimony firsthand, and watching the evidence unfold in real time reinforces why due process matters. The State has presented evidence it argues establishes probable cause, the defense is doing its job by challenging that evidence, and the hearing is far from over. If you're following this case, watch the proceedings yourself instead of relying on social media narratives.

🚨MY THOUGHTS After Day 1 of the Preliminary Trial: Sitting in the courtroom for the Tyler Robinson preliminary hearing is a completely different experience than watching clips online. Seeing the defendant, hearing the testimony firsthand, and watching the evidence unfold in real time reinforces why due process matters. The State has presented evidence it argues establishes probable cause, the defense is doing its job by challenging that evidence, and the hearing is far from over. If you're following this case, watch the proceedings yourself instead of relying on social media narratives.

Brandon Tatum

196,202 次观看 • 2 个月前

UPDATE: Tyler Robinson Judge ruled that Tyler Robinson will stand trial in Charlie Kirk's murder, where he could face the death penalty. Robinson already declined to testify at the preliminary hearing, and his lawyers have not indicated he will take the stand at trial. Putting him on the stand in a case with alleged written notes, texts, DNA, video, and other evidence would expose him to cross-examination, so his defense team likely advised against it. At this point, as far as I can tell, the trial will be televised to the public.

UPDATE: Tyler Robinson Judge ruled that Tyler Robinson will stand trial in Charlie Kirk's murder, where he could face the death penalty. Robinson already declined to testify at the preliminary hearing, and his lawyers have not indicated he will take the stand at trial. Putting him on the stand in a case with alleged written notes, texts, DNA, video, and other evidence would expose him to cross-examination, so his defense team likely advised against it. At this point, as far as I can tell, the trial will be televised to the public.

MJTruthUltra

29,356 次观看 • 12 天前

‼️BUSTED: The State Got Caught SNEAKING-IN New Evidence During Closing Arguments In Yesterday's Tyler Robinson Hearing — The Defense IMMEDIATELY Called Them Out 👀 The state got five days to put on a case. When that was over, the record was closed. Yesterday the state got caught trying to insert new evidence regarding safety standards from a Provo shooting range that were not previously added as evidence. In their reply brief and again at the podium they started citing things that were never admitted — including safety standards from a Provo shooting range that was not in evidence at the preliminary hearing. The defense immediately called them out for this. That is not argument. That is a backdoor evidence dump. Counsel was blunt. The state had every chance to put on guns, gun-safety specifics, physics, and probabilities. It did not. It does not get another bite at the apple through a brief or a closing. A judge deciding probable cause is supposed to weigh only what was actually placed into the record in court, not what a prosecutor wishes he had proved after the fact. Argument is not testimony. A citation in a reply is not an exhibit. They asked the court to stay inside the record. That is the whole point of holding a 5 day long evidentiary process. If the official story needed range rules and extra science, those belonged in July with a witness under oath — not in September as a sneak. RT and watch the FULL hearing linked below.

‼️BUSTED: The State Got Caught SNEAKING-IN New Evidence During Closing Arguments In Yesterday's Tyler Robinson Hearing — The Defense IMMEDIATELY Called Them Out 👀 The state got five days to put on a case. When that was over, the record was closed. Yesterday the state got caught trying to insert new evidence regarding safety standards from a Provo shooting range that were not previously added as evidence. In their reply brief and again at the podium they started citing things that were never admitted — including safety standards from a Provo shooting range that was not in evidence at the preliminary hearing. The defense immediately called them out for this. That is not argument. That is a backdoor evidence dump. Counsel was blunt. The state had every chance to put on guns, gun-safety specifics, physics, and probabilities. It did not. It does not get another bite at the apple through a brief or a closing. A judge deciding probable cause is supposed to weigh only what was actually placed into the record in court, not what a prosecutor wishes he had proved after the fact. Argument is not testimony. A citation in a reply is not an exhibit. They asked the court to stay inside the record. That is the whole point of holding a 5 day long evidentiary process. If the official story needed range rules and extra science, those belonged in July with a witness under oath — not in September as a sneak. RT and watch the FULL hearing linked below.

Project Constitution

90,790 次观看 • 11 天前

Tyler Robinson defense attorney asks Court to delay preliminary hearing on claims that they have not received DNA data files from FBI and ATF: "We have the right to call them as witnesses…I can't examine those witnesses without the data."

Tyler Robinson defense attorney asks Court to delay preliminary hearing on claims that they have not received DNA data files from FBI and ATF: "We have the right to call them as witnesses…I can't examine those witnesses without the data."

The Post Millennial

21,445 次观看 • 4 个月前

Erika Kirk Got Nuked in Court. “I’ve seen it all.” That’s what Erika Kirk told Fanatical Ziónist Bari Weiss about the evidence. Her side later pushed the court to review more video evidence during the preliminary hearing. That’s when the defense attorney fired back: “The purpose of this trial is not to educate the victim’s family. ErikaKirk has been adept at holding press conferenceswhere she’s revealed evidence and claimed the state is her personal attorneys.” If Erika Kirk already has the evidence and wants transparency, release it to the public. The judge agreed: the preliminary hearing’s limited time should focus on testimony and legal proceedings — not replaying evidence already claimed to be known. So the question remains: If Erika has seen all the evidence, why not show it? And why spend valuable court time reviewing it again instead of hearing more testimony? The contradiction is impossible to ignore.

Erika Kirk Got Nuked in Court. “I’ve seen it all.” That’s what Erika Kirk told Fanatical Ziónist Bari Weiss about the evidence. Her side later pushed the court to review more video evidence during the preliminary hearing. That’s when the defense attorney fired back: “The purpose of this trial is not to educate the victim’s family. ErikaKirk has been adept at holding press conferenceswhere she’s revealed evidence and claimed the state is her personal attorneys.” If Erika Kirk already has the evidence and wants transparency, release it to the public. The judge agreed: the preliminary hearing’s limited time should focus on testimony and legal proceedings — not replaying evidence already claimed to be known. So the question remains: If Erika has seen all the evidence, why not show it? And why spend valuable court time reviewing it again instead of hearing more testimony? The contradiction is impossible to ignore.

Phantom Pain

94,391 次观看 • 2 个月前

Retired Massachusetts judge tells me; Keep your eyes on a possible next step in the Lindsay Clancy case: a “Fidler hearing.” After a mistrial in the triple murder case, Clancy’s defense is again asking the judge to find her not guilty as jurors reveal what happened behind closed doors. “If a juror truly had reasonable doubt about criminal responsibility, the law required a not-guilty verdict,” retired Massachusetts Judge James Barretto explains. But the holdout “could have misunderstood—or worse, even misapplied—the law.” Barretto says credible evidence of juror misconduct, bias or dishonesty during jury selection could trigger a Fidler hearing—an evidentiary hearing examining what happened and whether it affected the trial. Listen to Barretto explain the legal roadblock—and what could trigger a rare Fidler hearing—on my show NewsNation Live.

Retired Massachusetts judge tells me; Keep your eyes on a possible next step in the Lindsay Clancy case: a “Fidler hearing.” After a mistrial in the triple murder case, Clancy’s defense is again asking the judge to find her not guilty as jurors reveal what happened behind closed doors. “If a juror truly had reasonable doubt about criminal responsibility, the law required a not-guilty verdict,” retired Massachusetts Judge James Barretto explains. But the holdout “could have misunderstood—or worse, even misapplied—the law.” Barretto says credible evidence of juror misconduct, bias or dishonesty during jury selection could trigger a Fidler hearing—an evidentiary hearing examining what happened and whether it affected the trial. Listen to Barretto explain the legal roadblock—and what could trigger a rare Fidler hearing—on my show NewsNation Live.

Laura Ingle

90,754 次观看 • 1 天前

CHARLIE KIRK CASE UPDATE 🔔 Today is the BIG day‼️ The judge is expected to make a decision on whether or not cameras 🎥 will be allowed in the courtroom. We should also find out if the preliminary hearing will be delayed. Don’t forget that Candace Owens and her cult are extremely upset that cameras might be allowed. And so is Tyler’s defense team. They don’t want people to see the evidence that is stacked up against Tyler Robinson. They’re also calling for the preliminary hearing to be pushed back because it will extend their grift. If these people really wanted truth they should be demanding transparency but they’re not.

CHARLIE KIRK CASE UPDATE 🔔 Today is the BIG day‼️ The judge is expected to make a decision on whether or not cameras 🎥 will be allowed in the courtroom. We should also find out if the preliminary hearing will be delayed. Don’t forget that Candace Owens and her cult are extremely upset that cameras might be allowed. And so is Tyler’s defense team. They don’t want people to see the evidence that is stacked up against Tyler Robinson. They’re also calling for the preliminary hearing to be pushed back because it will extend their grift. If these people really wanted truth they should be demanding transparency but they’re not.

Cinema Shogun

10,848 次观看 • 4 个月前

NEWS: The Kirk family attorney has filed a motion on behalf of Erika DEMANDING the court release every piece of evidence from the preliminary hearing for Tyler Robinson, her husband’s accused ass*ssin. “At certain points throughout the preliminary hearing, the Kirk family sat in the room while evidence was admitted but not presented for their viewing. They were present in body, yet denied the very thing their presence was meant to secure: their ability to meaningfully observe the preliminary hearing.” “The Victim's Family's position is simple. At a minimum, every exhibit entered into evidence during the preliminary hearing must be visible to every person lawfully present in the courtroom,” the court filing read. “To receive evidence in a manner shielded from those seated in the courtroom – as happened today – is not transparency. And in the absence of transparency, speculation and conspiracy theories related to the tragic assassination of Mr. Kirk will continue to proliferate in the public domain, breeding doubt and distrust in the judicial system. This is not what anyone should want."

NEWS: The Kirk family attorney has filed a motion on behalf of Erika DEMANDING the court release every piece of evidence from the preliminary hearing for Tyler Robinson, her husband’s accused ass*ssin. “At certain points throughout the preliminary hearing, the Kirk family sat in the room while evidence was admitted but not presented for their viewing. They were present in body, yet denied the very thing their presence was meant to secure: their ability to meaningfully observe the preliminary hearing.” “The Victim's Family's position is simple. At a minimum, every exhibit entered into evidence during the preliminary hearing must be visible to every person lawfully present in the courtroom,” the court filing read. “To receive evidence in a manner shielded from those seated in the courtroom – as happened today – is not transparency. And in the absence of transparency, speculation and conspiracy theories related to the tragic assassination of Mr. Kirk will continue to proliferate in the public domain, breeding doubt and distrust in the judicial system. This is not what anyone should want."

RedWave Press

35,063 次观看 • 2 个月前

IF YOU BELIEVE PATRICK DID IT, ANSWER THIS ONE QUESTION. This is what is holding me up and why I believe what I believe. Don’t answer with another question and don’t tell me all the reasons I’m wrong… Just answer this ONE very simple question. If he knows Patrick did it, why in 3 YEARS and the ENTIRE trial was it never brought up. Watch the whole video. If you don’t it’ll be very apparent. Also because apparently I have to spell absolutely everything out — I am not retarded. I know what a defense attorney is and what a prosecuting attorney is. Don’t tell me it’s because that’s not his job. My question is why if Reddington KNEW Patrick did it, he didn’t figure out a way to expose it and avoid Lindsay being brought to trial with THREE YEARS to be able to. Because there absolutely is a way to do it if the evidence is strong enough against Patrick. The defense attorney is 100% allowed to pursue an alternative perpetrator defense. It's also legal under Massachusetts law, section 1105 of the Massachusetts Guide to Evidence. If third party culpability is suggested, the defense attorney must bring substantial, non-speculative evidence that links the other person to the crime before the defense attorney can present it to the jury. And I’ll even add like I said in this video — WHY HAS NO ONE ELSE SUGGESTED PATRICK IN 3 YEARS EITHER?

IF YOU BELIEVE PATRICK DID IT, ANSWER THIS ONE QUESTION. This is what is holding me up and why I believe what I believe. Don’t answer with another question and don’t tell me all the reasons I’m wrong… Just answer this ONE very simple question. If he knows Patrick did it, why in 3 YEARS and the ENTIRE trial was it never brought up. Watch the whole video. If you don’t it’ll be very apparent. Also because apparently I have to spell absolutely everything out — I am not retarded. I know what a defense attorney is and what a prosecuting attorney is. Don’t tell me it’s because that’s not his job. My question is why if Reddington KNEW Patrick did it, he didn’t figure out a way to expose it and avoid Lindsay being brought to trial with THREE YEARS to be able to. Because there absolutely is a way to do it if the evidence is strong enough against Patrick. The defense attorney is 100% allowed to pursue an alternative perpetrator defense. It's also legal under Massachusetts law, section 1105 of the Massachusetts Guide to Evidence. If third party culpability is suggested, the defense attorney must bring substantial, non-speculative evidence that links the other person to the crime before the defense attorney can present it to the jury. And I’ll even add like I said in this video — WHY HAS NO ONE ELSE SUGGESTED PATRICK IN 3 YEARS EITHER?

Ian

18,196 次观看 • 9 天前

THE TRUTH MATTERS: The Daily Mail faced MASSIVE BACKLASH last night after running a misleading headline on the Kirk assassination case, and RIGHTFULLY SO. Now the ACTUAL FACTS are exposing the spin. In their latest motion, Tyler Robinson's defense team is challenging a bullet fragment recovered during the autopsy. They argue it is exculpatory because an ATF analysis could not conclusively link it to the rifle found at the scene. The FBI is running additional testing. Former federal prosecutor Cully Stimson cut through the noise and called the filing exactly what it is: a DELAY TACTIC. He reminded viewers that the preliminary hearing only requires probable cause, a VERY LOW standard. Prosecutors already have eyewitness testimony, the defendant's alleged confession, DNA evidence, and much more physical evidence connecting Robinson to the crime. Media spin and conspiracy theories should not override the truth.

THE TRUTH MATTERS: The Daily Mail faced MASSIVE BACKLASH last night after running a misleading headline on the Kirk assassination case, and RIGHTFULLY SO. Now the ACTUAL FACTS are exposing the spin. In their latest motion, Tyler Robinson's defense team is challenging a bullet fragment recovered during the autopsy. They argue it is exculpatory because an ATF analysis could not conclusively link it to the rifle found at the scene. The FBI is running additional testing. Former federal prosecutor Cully Stimson cut through the noise and called the filing exactly what it is: a DELAY TACTIC. He reminded viewers that the preliminary hearing only requires probable cause, a VERY LOW standard. Prosecutors already have eyewitness testimony, the defendant's alleged confession, DNA evidence, and much more physical evidence connecting Robinson to the crime. Media spin and conspiracy theories should not override the truth.

Gunther Eagleman™

62,658 次观看 • 5 个月前

🤔Baron Coleman keeps asking about the prosecution not calling the parents as hiding the ball. In reality it’s the OPPOSITE. That is NOT the hole. The glaring hole is the defense never called them either. If those family texts his buddy waves around were real & if the parents were ready to say Tyler never confessed I assure you they would’ve been on THAT STAND. They weren’t. The texts are from the same guy who claimed Tyler was in Panguitch when the Dairy Queen photo proves he couldn’t have been there for his steak dinner after eating at DQ at 6:38 MINIMUM. Those texts are also from a supposed “close family member”. If they were real the defense likely would have authenticated them and it would have been EVIDENCE. So is the defense in on all of this also? The official document record already has the parents telling police that TESTIFIED that Tyler called UVU a “stupid venue,” IMPLIED he was the shooter and when asked why, said there was “too much evil” and Charlie “spreads too much hate.” That’s locked in through the officers at the prelim. Probable cause only requires that. If Robinson’s parents were ready to help Tyler…. they would’ve used them. Because putting them on the stand opens them up to the state impeaching them with their own recorded statements to the officers. The defense didn’t want that fight. Just like they wanted to block most evidence. That’s the part that actually matters. The defense DID however want to remind the court he came peacefully. So why is he framing it to Julian Dorey about the prosecution not putting the parents on the stand as them “hiding the ball”? The defense had the exact same chance to put the parents up or authenticate those family texts and didn’t either. That’s the actual silence that stands out to me. Just like neither parent went screaming to cameras MY SON IS A PATSY. Spare me the threatened red herring. No mom is more afraid for their own life than their child. Maybe … just MAYBE… the family wants to give their kids the best opportunity to avoid the death penalty? You know… their son who wore the TRANS COLORED TIE at his first hearing. That’s just a coincidence also I guess. He was a brainwashed true believer for the leftist cause… that’s for sure.

🤔Baron Coleman keeps asking about the prosecution not calling the parents as hiding the ball. In reality it’s the OPPOSITE. That is NOT the hole. The glaring hole is the defense never called them either. If those family texts his buddy waves around were real & if the parents were ready to say Tyler never confessed I assure you they would’ve been on THAT STAND. They weren’t. The texts are from the same guy who claimed Tyler was in Panguitch when the Dairy Queen photo proves he couldn’t have been there for his steak dinner after eating at DQ at 6:38 MINIMUM. Those texts are also from a supposed “close family member”. If they were real the defense likely would have authenticated them and it would have been EVIDENCE. So is the defense in on all of this also? The official document record already has the parents telling police that TESTIFIED that Tyler called UVU a “stupid venue,” IMPLIED he was the shooter and when asked why, said there was “too much evil” and Charlie “spreads too much hate.” That’s locked in through the officers at the prelim. Probable cause only requires that. If Robinson’s parents were ready to help Tyler…. they would’ve used them. Because putting them on the stand opens them up to the state impeaching them with their own recorded statements to the officers. The defense didn’t want that fight. Just like they wanted to block most evidence. That’s the part that actually matters. The defense DID however want to remind the court he came peacefully. So why is he framing it to Julian Dorey about the prosecution not putting the parents on the stand as them “hiding the ball”? The defense had the exact same chance to put the parents up or authenticate those family texts and didn’t either. That’s the actual silence that stands out to me. Just like neither parent went screaming to cameras MY SON IS A PATSY. Spare me the threatened red herring. No mom is more afraid for their own life than their child. Maybe … just MAYBE… the family wants to give their kids the best opportunity to avoid the death penalty? You know… their son who wore the TRANS COLORED TIE at his first hearing. That’s just a coincidence also I guess. He was a brainwashed true believer for the leftist cause… that’s for sure.

Johnny St.Pete

62,523 次观看 • 1 个月前

🚨 I predicted it. Karmelo Anthony’s request for a new trial was DENIED. His defense should call that a gift. He has 35 years. A retrial could have exposed him to up to LIFE, with jurors potentially hearing the violent evidence kept out the first time.

🚨 I predicted it. Karmelo Anthony’s request for a new trial was DENIED. His defense should call that a gift. He has 35 years. A retrial could have exposed him to up to LIFE, with jurors potentially hearing the violent evidence kept out the first time.

Mehek Cooke🇺🇸

15,534 次观看 • 22 天前