Suspicious at UVU on 9/10
Things citizen investigators flag as suspicious about the venue, the setup, the equipment, and the people physically on campus on September 10, 2025. The tight ten-minute clock around the shot lives at Suspicious Within Five Minutes; this page is the wider day. Every item is an attributed claim; no person named here has been charged with or found to have done anything wrong. Tyler Robinson is charged, not convicted.
The numbered list
- Six campus officers, no ambulance staged — a quarter of the department for 3,000 people
- The mic mounted under the shirt, not over — a furry windscreen under fabric
- Tyler Robinson's clothing changes that day — and a limp that appears and vanishes
- The executive who removed the camera SD card — and left the more expensive camera body
- Stairs guy and the backpack that doesn't fit — a 44-inch Mauser and a 17-inch bag
- The all-black man the construction worker met — Dylan Hope's account
- The Canon XA55 audio and a third boom — three low-frequency events, or three echoes
- The burnt object in the SUV — and a model conflict the theory cannot resolve
- Rick Cutler, the arm-pull and the hand device — a ring, a tracker, or a gesture remote
- The acoustics claim: shot came from the South — which contradicts the Canon analysis on the same page
- Butch Hibbs and backstage access — anonymous hearsay about a pastor's brother
- The claim a group blocked university security — which the file itself questions in-line
Three theories that cannot all be right
This section contains the site's clearest example of incompatible theories held simultaneously, and putting them on one page is the point. Item 10 says an acoustics engineer placed the shot to the South, above the Teachers' balcony. Item 7's Canon XA55 analysis places a rifle ~120m away — consistent with the Losee rooftop to the east — plus a separate detonation at the tent. Elsewhere the file argues the shot came from inside the tent via an Israeli CornerShot. These are three mutually exclusive origins. At most one is correct; the file asserts all three.
Worse for the acoustic case: item 7's own 120m rifle estimate matches the official rooftop account within a few percent of an independent ten-camera estimate. The analysis being used to prove a bomb at the tent simultaneously corroborates a rifle where the state says it was. You cannot bank the half you like and discard the half you don't.
What actually holds up
Item 1 is rated CONFIRMED and it is the substantive core of this page — six officers for a crowd the police chief later put at 3,000, no ambulance staged, the jointly-funded Public Order Unit never activated, and faculty never trained on active-shooter protocol. That is documented through a Daily Caller News Foundation records request. But note what the ordinary explanation is, because it is almost certainly the true one: American universities are chronically under-resourced and routinely underestimate outdoor crowds. Negligence explains every item in it without any coordination — and negligence is a real finding, just not a conspiratorial one.
Items 4 and 2 are the honest middle. Pulling SD cards and leaving the camera body is ambiguous: it reads as suspicious selectivity, and it reads equally as grab the irreplaceable data, the body is insured — which is what any working AV person does by reflex. Running a lavalier under a shirt is standard broadcast practice for wind noise and cable concealment. Neither fact is inert, and neither is proof.
The bottom of the list is thin and labeled so. Item 11 rests on anonymous hearsay that the file's own author once called "fuckin crazy," and infers significance from a sibling's religious politics — guilt by association twice removed. Item 12 is a one-line claim the file immediately undercuts itself with "(Is that true)." Item 9 involves reading consumer electronics off a compressed frame; the file's compiler saw a far uglier version of that claim and refused to publish it, which tells you what he thought of the sourcing.