Don’t Let Your Lawyer Think Like A.I. – Part Two

It’s productive to look in detail at the summary of defence arguments which A.I. provided to Matt Wright, host and creator of his podcast, “TriggerSmart”.

If you consider these points closely on their own terms you almost can’t help being dropped smoothly down the greased slipway to believing the Prosecution’s theory.

Hold on just a cotton-pickin’ minute, Mr A.I., just what is your mission and who programmed you? Did the FBI and the Trump White House get to you too?!

A.I. is distracting the reader from realizing something that really should be blindingly obvious. The prosecution’s case is based on assumptions.

And here I was, naively thinking that A.I. is totally objective and pure, just like Sam Altman promised.

Wright asked A.I. for an objective assessment of the case. A.I. provides an appearance of objectivity but when the reader steps back and takes an objective look, the A.I. robot is working in cahoots with the prosecution.

1. “The DNA evidence … that the defendant contributed … who fired the shot… “

Before assuming that TR contributed DNA to towel, rifle and casing there is the assumption that Kirk was hit by a bullet fired from the Losee Center roof and this is what caused his death.

By starting with considerations of DNA and the minutia about how it may be transferred this argument misdirects the reader to such superficial scientific controversy. The reader is led to forget that the entire question of DNA is based on the prosecution’s theory of the case. This theory is embedded within the statement: the rifle fired the bullet that was the cause of death; that’s 3 inferences stacked in one clause. This is a confining conceptual framework, the prosecution’s theory. None of these inferences were supported by an indisputable chain of evidence from crime scene to courtroom.

2. “There is no mention of matching… the bullet that hit Mr Kirk… “. This is the prosecution’s theory.

“The report only says the bullet was in the same general size class… “ as .30-06 ammunition. In fact the ATF examiner testified that she examined 4 out of 7 fragments allegedly recovered from Kirk’s autopsy, and she pronounced on the mushroomed bullet casing she was given. She said she could not either match or exclude it from a match to a .30-06 projectile.

Embedded in 2. Is the assumption of the Prosecution’s theory of the case. The ATF examiner’s findings throw reasonable doubt on this theory.

3. “[T]he bullet travelled through the body (front to back, slightly left to right and downward)… the claimed shooting position on the roof about 410 feet away and 68 feet higher...”

This is the prosecution’s theory. Indeed, number 3 does correctly say that the bullet path was not described, however 3 does describe it in what looks like perfectly plausible detail. But this alleged bullet path is an assumption not a proven fact. Was Kirk hit by any bullet at all? That’s still a theory, not a fact.

Given the superficiality of the one wound evident compared to the enormous damage that the powerful large hunting round, the .30-06, is known to do to large game animals, the theory that Kirk was hit by a .30-06 bullet, and that this was the cause of his death, is doubtful at best.

That anomaly virtually begs any jury for a verdict of Not Guilty as Charged because of Reasonable Doubt.

And the assumption of sniper-and-bullet skates over the damning fact which emerged from video footage publicized on the World Wide Web within hours. It was shown that a man tampered with the scene of Kirk’s fatal injury by moving the chair which Kirk had sat in and by removing the video camera that had pointed past Kirk’s back and towards the audience. This tampering of the scene of the crime is what made it impossible to calculate the exact angle from Kirk’s body to the alleged shooting position.

Thus, number 3 distracts the reader from the tampering and tainting of crime scene evidence which Utah State Police and the FBI failed, inexplicably failed, to prevent. The crime scene evidence was not sequestered and delivered to the court to establish an unbroken chain of evidence from crime scene to courtroom.

The tent and Kirk’s microphone and his broken necklace were all given to Mrs Kirk and TPUSA. Mrs Kirk was immediately assumed to be “the victim”. Since it is a statistical fact that most murdered people were attacked by people they knew or killers hired by people the victim knew, in the normal course of any similar murder investigation the wife who inherited money and power by her husband’s death would be suspect number one. Instead Mrs Kirk was given evidence which should be in possession of the police and the court.

Moving the chair, removing the camera and giving away the evidence to what should have been the prime suspect are not even the worst investigative malpractice. The SUV which transported Kirk’s body to the hospital [and why was an ambulance not provided on standby as would be normal to attend a crowded outdoor venue in the hot sun?], this SUV which should have been put into sequestration by the Utah Police was seized by the FBI and cleaned and sold at auction.

And at the order of the FBI and of the Utah governor, four days after the crime, on Sabbath Sunday no less, the area where the tent had been set up was excavated to a depth of 10 inches, the soil discarded and the area paved over. The paving contractor publicly said that he was told that the FBI had “investigated” the area and that he must finish paving by Monday morning, September 15, 2025.

These actions are astonishing, shocking and inexplicable investigative malpractice which irreparably taint the prosecution’s case. This constitutes interference with the course of justice by the FBI.

4. “Identification from the security video… investigator … his roommate saying it “definitely” looks like… the same shoes…” Is indeed questionable.

But left out of consideration is the fact that this roommate, Lance Twiggs, is the sole source of this identification and of alleged text messages alleged – without detailed forensic data being provided to the Defence! – to be from Robinson and which contained his confession.

And was Mr Twiggs cross examined by the Defence? No. Because Twiggs was given immunity from prosecution. His interrogation by leading questions by a Utah detective was played in court.

Mrs Kirk has been discounted as a suspect. But even before that, Lance Twiggs has been eliminated as a possible suspect.

The crime scene evidence which should have supported – or could have contradicted – the prosecution’s theory has been handed back to the first “person of interest” and the foundational evidence to identify Robinson as the perpetrator comes from the second most likely “person of interest” who has been shielded from any investigation or prosecution.

5. “There has been no testing mentioned of gunshot residue …” That’s because, inexplicably and outrageously, Tyler Robinson was not swabbed for gunshot residue by police when he turned himself in. The bloody clothing Kirk had been wearing was disappeared at the hospital, so it can never be tested, nor can the SUV which carried him instead of a proper ambulance which should have been on standby in case a spectator might have needed help.

6. “The claim” that the sniper caused danger to people behind Kirk. This is the conceptual box of the prosecution’s theory. Instead of contradicting that theory, number 6 weakly claims that “great distance” mitigated this danger. This straw man argument assumes the prosecution’s theory as fact.

7. “Some of the writings on the ammunition …”the defendant called some of them “mostly a big meme”?

Really? Robinson actually said this, or anything at all, in these text messages? Robinson did in fact send them? How do we know that? Because one man who has been given immunity from prosecution told us so.

As Tyler’s Defence councilors told the judge on record – and that has been broadcast over the internet world wide – , vital digital data which could identify when and from where these texts were sent has been withheld by the FBI along with Lance Twiggs.

A.I. provides an “Overall Assessment”

<< the State has provided enough … to send the charges forward to trial >>?

No it hasn’t.

<< The defendant’s own repeated admissions, the fact that he turned himself in, the recovery of matching-type ammunition and a related rifle near the path he took, and security video showing a person consistent with him on the roof form a solid foundation.>>

This is a teetering stack of unproven, not evidence-based, inferences stacked upon inferences.

If this goes to trial, and it surely will, it will be because of the enormous political pressure from the Trump White House demanding that Robinson be railroaded quickly to conviction and death.

The Trump Department of Justice, via the FBI, has tainted and vitiated the evidence so severely that a verdict of guilty as charged would be farcical.