Skip to main content
← Suspicious About the Trial and Legally

Prosecutors Accused of Withholding the Rooftop Video (Claims)

Public appetite for the rooftop footage is driven by the unresolved question of how Charlie Kirk was killed on September 10, 2025 — the explosive-versus-rifle dispute that the state's account has not settled for most citizen researchers.

:::caution Attributed claims only — and this one does not hold up Prosecutors owe evidence to the defense, not to the public, and declining to publish raw video mid-case is ordinary and lawful. Utah County Attorney Jeffrey Gray is accused of nothing here that any evidence supports. Tyler Robinson is charged, not convicted. :::

Claim snapshot​

FieldValue
The claimThe rooftop-view video was deliberately trimmed to hide that the runner started before the shot, making the shot impossible
Raised byAn X commentator in the thread recorded as "Ran before shot. Roof top"
First surfacedUndated in source
Rests onAnonymous post performing arithmetic on estimates read off a compressed clip
Evidence ratingSPECULATIVE — the calculation's inputs are all uncorroborated, and its method is unsound

What is alleged​

An X commentator alleges that Utah County Attorney Jeffrey Gray and UVU are deliberately withholding rooftop-view video files from the public, and that the released clip was trimmed to begin at 12:23:34 p.m. — by which point, the poster says, the figure was already 60 feet from the perch position and running.

From a visible run the poster measures at approximately 220 feet in 15 seconds, he back-calculates a speed, applies it to the missing 60 feet, and concludes the sprint began at 12:23:28 p.m. — two seconds before the 12:23:30 p.m. hit. On that arithmetic, the runner had already left the perch before the shot, which the poster argues makes the shot impossible from that position. He calls the withholding "criminal." A related timing analysis appears at the runner sprint page.

The ordinary explanation​

The premise conflates two different obligations. Prosecutors owe evidence to the defense, not to the public. No rule requires the State to publish raw video mid-case, and doing so would risk tainting the very jury pool that these same commentators elsewhere argue the court over-protects. A prosecutor cannot simultaneously be wrong for restricting publicity and wrong for not publishing evidence.

Every number in the calculation is uncorroborated. The 220 feet, the 15 seconds, the 60-foot gap, and the claimed hit time are all estimates read off a compressed clip by an anonymous account with no scale reference, no surveyed distances, and no frame-rate verification. A small error in any single input flips the conclusion — and the conclusion turns on a two-second margin.

The method is also unsound in a specific, disqualifying way. The back-extrapolation assumes constant velocity from a standing start. Sprinters accelerate: the first 60 feet takes materially longer than a linear rewind of top speed implies, which pushes the calculated start time later, not earlier — potentially erasing the entire discrepancy the post is built on.

Nor does a clip's start time imply intent. Start times typically reflect what a records custodian excerpted for release or what was played at a hearing, not a deliberate trim by a prosecutor.

And here is what disposes of it: the defense has the full files through discovery, and is not reported to have made this argument. If the video showed the shot was physically impossible from the charged position, a three-lawyer capital team with more than a century of combined death-penalty experience would have led with it. They have the footage, the motive, and the funding. Their silence is the loudest fact on this page.

What would settle it​

  1. Obtain the complete, untrimmed rooftop video file with its original metadata and frame rate through the access litigation or a records request.
  2. Have a qualified video analyst establish the actual distances using surveyed reference points, rather than estimates from a compressed clip.
  3. Check the defense docket for any motion or expert notice raising a sprint-timing impossibility — its absence is dispositive.

Interesting In This Area​

Interesting In Other Areas​

Images​

This is a digital screenshot of a news article headline on the CNN US website.
This is a digital screenshot of a news article headline on the CNN US website. Full write-up →

Other Pages In This Section​

Clock Tower X FARA Filing and VFX LA (Claims)

A FARA registration filed eight days after the killing, touching the same media network Kirk broadcast through — plus a reported TPUSA contact with a Hollywood synthetic-media firm. The file opens the section with "Can we confirm if this happened?"

Read this
This low-resolution, slightly blurry image shows a close-up crop of a man's face positioned on the right side of the frame, looking downward and slightly toward the camera.

N1098L: The HADES Aircraft's Low Passes (Claims)

An Army-linked ISR jet reportedly made two abnormally low, slow passes near the venue. The investigation file gives the same two maneuvers three incompatible ways, which means at least two tellings are wrong and none shows its work.

Read this
This eye-level, medium-wide interior photograph captures the third-row passenger seats of a modern vehicle, which are cluttered with stained paper bags and trash.

SAM-702 to Fort Huachuca — the Hansell Passenger Claim

A USAF C-37A reportedly sat at the Army's intelligence home and left the morning of September 9. The claim that the Pentagon's top intelligence official was aboard rests on one broadcaster's allegation; no manifest or visitor log has been released.

Read this
This low-resolution digital image shows a group of people standing on a balcony or behind a railing of a modern building, viewed from a distance.

The Claim a Group Blocked University Security (Claims)

One numbered bullet, with the file's own author writing "Is that true" into the record as he wrote the claim down. No name, no footage, no date, and no description of what blocking would have meant.

Read this

Elsewhere In The Investigation​

Rooftop-View Video Reportedly Trimmed and Withheld (Claims)

The released rooftop clip reportedly starts at 12:23:34, with the runner already moving. The whole argument is about the seconds before that — the ones nobody has published.

Read this
This is a low-resolution, high-angle aerial or satellite 3D-rendered view of a modern building complex with angular roofs.

Roof Jumping Timeline (September 10, 2025)

The alleged egress minute by minute: the climb, the prone position, the drop to the grass and the run north. The feasibility objections sit beside each step rather than at the end.

Read this
This image is a slightly blurry, high-angle photograph taken from inside a building, looking through a large glass window at a dense crowd of people gathered outdoors on a sunny…

Losee Center (Alleged Sniper Rooftop)

The roof the government says the shot came from. Every part of it — line of sight, the lip, the drop, the screwdriver — has been measured by people who do not accept that account.

Read this
This is a still screenshot from a digital news broadcast, formatted for social media or a mobile video feed, featuring a close-up shot of a male spokesperson presenting at a…

Eyewitness & Mobile Video

Dozens of phones were recording. Their combined coverage is more complete than the institutional cameras that were never released, which is why the crowd's footage keeps mattering.

Read this

Sources​

  • X commentator in the thread recorded in the investigation file as "Ran before shot. Roof top." No author name or direct URL is recorded in the file for this post.
  • No court filing, expert report, or named analyst supports any figure in the calculation.

This website's author is @HolonCitizen on X and YouTube/@HolonCitizen. Follow me there.

Interesting​