Skip to main content

Tyler Robinson Travel

Overview​

This document contains information about Tyler Robinson's travel patterns and movements related to the Charlie Kirk incident.

Topic​

Topic: Claimed travel routes and movements of Tyler Robinson before and after the incident, and questions about timing and logistics.

Reported movements on 10 September 2025 (claimed)​

Publicly discussed doorbell, traffic, and campus surveillance footage has been used by media outlets and online investigators to outline Robinson’s movements on the day of the incident. A commonly cited timeline (based on those sources) includes:

  • Morning (pre‑event)
    • 8:07 a.m. – Walking on S 800 W toward campus (Ring camera; maroon shirt and light‑colored shorts).
    • 8:23 a.m. – Driving on W 880 S (WYZE camera).
    • 8:29 a.m. – Driving on campus (UVU surveillance).
    • 9:57 a.m. – Walking on W 880 S (WYZE camera).
  • Late morning (outfit change)
    • Commentary notes a reported outfit change to jeans and a long‑sleeve shirt between 10:00 and 11:30 a.m.
    • 11:44 a.m. – Walking on W 800 S (Ring camera).
    • 11:49 a.m. – Walking on S 800 W toward campus (Ring camera).

The shooting itself is generally placed at 12:23 p.m. MDT, with some reports referencing 12:27 p.m., and police audio suggesting a first radio call at about 12:26 p.m. These discrepancies are a core focus for investigators questioning the official timeline.

Rifle drop‑off and route questions (claims)​

News reports and commentary on the case state that:

  • The rifle attributed to Robinson—a scoped .30‑06 belonging to a family member—was recovered in or near bushes close to the university after the incident, with DNA on the weapon reported to match Robinson.
  • Some analyses reference a map published in media that marks locations such as the “rifle found” point and a nearby construction site, where workers reportedly encountered a person dressed in black they initially believed might be the gunman, before later being told the person did not match Robinson’s appearance.
  • Investigators and commentators ask whether there was sufficient time for Robinson to:
    • Leave the rooftop,
    • Move across campus or nearby areas,
    • Stash or abandon the rifle,
    • Change clothes, and
    • Travel on to later‑reported locations.

These are presented as questions and analytical challenges to the official narrative, not as definitive proof of an alternative account.

Dairy Queen stop and return to St. George (claims)​

Several media segments and social‑media posts, including those shared by commentators such as Candace Owens, describe a claimed sighting of Robinson at a Dairy Queen in Orem:

  • The location is typically given as 813 E 800 N, Orem, Utah 84097, about a 15–20 minute drive from the UVU campus under normal traffic.
  • Time of the sighting is often cited as 6:38 p.m. MDT, with still images showing a person alleged to be Robinson wearing a maroon shirt, blue jeans, hat, and sunglasses, appearing calm.
  • Based on this, investigators pose questions such as:
    • What route did he take from UVU to the Dairy Queen?
    • How long did he stay there, and who (if anyone) accompanied him?
    • How did he travel from Orem back to St. George, and when did he arrive?
    • Are there additional license‑plate, toll, or camera records for vehicles used on that route?

These questions are part of the broader challenge to reconstruct a complete and verifiable travel timeline for the hours after the shooting.

Open questions and further evidence needs​

To clarify Robinson’s travel and movements, investigators continue to call for:

  • Full, timestamped release of relevant Ring, WYZE, and UVU campus footage showing his movements to and from campus.
  • Any traffic, parking, or roadway cameras capturing vehicles associated with Robinson between Orem and St. George.
  • Detailed cell‑tower and location data, where legally obtainable, to cross‑check claimed sightings and travel times.
  • Clarification of the exact time of the shot, and synchronized comparison with camera footage and dispatch records.

Until such primary‑source material is comprehensively disclosed and independently reviewed, the travel narrative remains partly reconstructed from media reports and citizen‑investigator analyses, and should be treated accordingly.