Prosecutors Accused of Withholding the Rooftop Video (Claims)
:::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
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| The claim | The rooftop-view video was deliberately trimmed to hide that the runner started before the shot, making the shot impossible |
| Raised by | An X commentator in the thread recorded as "Ran before shot. Roof top" |
| First surfaced | Undated in source |
| Rests on | Anonymous post performing arithmetic on estimates read off a compressed clip |
| Evidence rating | SPECULATIVE — 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
- Obtain the complete, untrimmed rooftop video file with its original metadata and frame rate through the access litigation or a records request.
- Have a qualified video analyst establish the actual distances using surveyed reference points, rather than estimates from a compressed clip.
- Check the defense docket for any motion or expert notice raising a sprint-timing impossibility — its absence is dispositive.
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.