The recent murder of Charlie Kirk has unleashed a digital frenzy of differing theories and questions, from the potentially valid to the absurd. In my investigative experience, this kind of digital frenzy doesn’t help in the search for the truth. It hinders that search. Worse, it causes tunnel vision and serves to distract people from asking the correct questions to unveil the bigger picture of an even larger, more nefarious agenda.
The only authenticated evidence we’ve seen so far points directly to one suspect: Tyler Robinson. Yet, many well-intentioned internet sleuths are poring over selected videos, analyzing every frame for supposed clues like unusual crowd movements or alternative bullet angles. For example, they argue the shot entered from behind on the right, exiting left, implying a different shooter altogether. In my experience in course lab work and in real life, bullets do all sorts of weird and unexpected things. Trajectory, distance, and the specifics of impact play huge roles, and no two cases are alike. Trying to solve a homicide via selected video clips alone is not only unreliable but foolhardy. Two-dimensional video lacks the depth to reveal truths that a proper autopsy and legitimate forensic analysis will uncover.
Like it or not, investigators are wisely withholding key details, su ...
