Skip to main content

Reported Pre‑Event Searches and Reconnaissance (Claims)

Overview​

This Level_3 page expands on claims about online searches, reconnaissance, and information‑gathering that allegedly occurred in the months before the UVU event. These stories rely heavily on:

  • Google Trends screenshots and similar tools,
  • OSINT‑style write‑ups on Substack and X/Twitter, and
  • Retrospective pattern‑matching that links search topics to people and places later tied to the case.

Because these tools show only aggregate, anonymized interest and not who searched or why, all entries here should be treated as speculative claims, not as proof that any specific individual or organization conducted reconnaissance for a plot.

For deeper timeline context, see Timeline 2024, Timeline 2025, and Reported Israeli Search‑Pattern and IP Activity (Claims).

Early location and building‑related searches (claims)​

Citizen‑research timelines often start with location‑focused searches:

  • UVU buildings and layout (claims):
    • Google Trends charts shared in X threads and Substack posts suggest that in August 2024 and into 2025, there were spikes in searches for terms like “Utah Valley University buildings,” “UVU Rooftop/Gun/Parking/CCTV/Layout/Losee Center,” and similar phrases.
    • Some analysts interpret this as evidence of advance scouting or reconnaissance of possible shooter vantage points and surveillance coverage.
    • Others note that such searches could also reflect academic or general interest, and that Trends data alone cannot show intent.
  • St. George addresses and “assassin’s pad” narratives (claims):
    • Threads also highlight repeated search interest in specific St. George, Utah addresses associated with individuals later linked to Tyler Robinson’s social circle, sometimes labeled as an “assassin’s pad.”
    • These claims are based on correlations between address names and later reporting, rather than on direct logs.

These patterns are part of a broader argument that key locations were being examined online well before 2025, but they remain circumstantial.

Another major pre‑event theme involves spikes in interest for medical and legal figures who would later appear in the case:

  • Attorneys and judges (claims):
    • Google Trends analyses—often highlighted by commentators like Baron Coleman—report a one‑week surge in searches for “Kathryn Nester” (later Tyler Robinson’s defense counsel) between December 8–14, 2024, largely from IP addresses in Israel.
    • Other charts reportedly show attention to Utah judges and prosecutors who would later appear in legal proceedings.
  • Medical and hospital personnel (claims):
    • Aggregated search‑pattern data is also said to show increased interest in:
      • Timpanogos Regional Hospital and other Utah medical facilities,
      • Specific surgeons and the Utah state medical examiner,
      • Related institutions like Intermountain Health and Dixie Technical College.
    • Commentators argue this could signal pre‑planning of how a potential shooting and its aftermath would be medically and administratively handled.

Again, these claims rely on publicly shared Trend graphs, not on any direct evidence of who performed searches or how many individuals were involved.

Targeted searches for people in Charlie’s orbit (claims)​

Some timelines emphasize searches for individuals connected to Charlie, TPUSA, or event security:

  • TPUSA insiders and allies (claims):
    • Threads list names such as Cooper Brown, Dr. Frank Turek, Eric Bolling, Professor Mark Harlin, Jamal Reed, and Jeff Gray, with claims that search interest in these figures rose in mid‑2025 from particular regions, including Israel and Washington, D.C.
    • These data points are used to argue that people close to Charlie were being systematically profiled.
  • Potential patsies and security personnel (claims):
    • Similar analyses mention searches around figures like Hunter Kozak, Phil Lyman, and certain security‑related names, suggesting that both potential scapegoats and key witnesses may have been examined in advance.
    • These interpretations are highly inferential and draw heavily on how post‑event narratives have developed.

These person‑focused searches form part of more complex theories about who might have been “on the radar” of unknown researchers before the event.

How to interpret pre‑event search and recon claims​

When evaluating these pre‑event search and reconnaissance ideas:

  • Recognize data limitations: Aggregate search tools cannot reveal who searched or their motives, only that interest in a term fluctuated over time and geography.
  • Beware hindsight bias: Once an event occurs, there is a strong temptation to see any earlier interest in related terms as predictive or conspiratorial, even when it might not be.
  • Distinguish correlation from causation: Elevated search interest around people and places later tied to a case can be coincidental, driven by unrelated factors, or reflective of broader political/media attention.

Within the Before section, these claims serve to illustrate why some investigators believe the UVU event was preceded by sustained research and planning. They do not, on their own, demonstrate that any specific person, group, or country conducted or directed reconnaissance with criminal intent.