Move For Court-Ordered Explosive Residue Testing
:::caution Legal Disclaimer Tyler Robinson is charged, not convicted, and is presumed innocent. Nothing on this page states as fact that any living person committed a crime, destroyed evidence, or acted improperly. Court filings in this case are subject to a gag order and sealing, so the public record is incomplete by design. :::
The One Thing We Would Do Differently
File a Rule 16 motion compelling the State and its federal partners to produce every explosive-residue test they ran, and — where nothing was run — to permit defense testing of the retained items now.
The cause-of-death record on this site concludes that Charlie Kirk was killed by an explosive device, most plausibly a shaped charge concealed in or on the microphone, and not by the .30-06 rifle round of the government's account. That conclusion is not a rhetorical position. It is a testable physical claim, and it is testable by the cheapest and most routine procedure in forensic chemistry.
If a charge containing PETN, RDX, HMX or TNT detonated at chest height in an open courtyard, post-blast particulate reached fabric, skin, upholstery, soil and overhead concrete within a few feet. Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry and ion mobility spectrometry recover those compounds at trace concentrations against a known library. The result is binary and it is fast.
That is why an AI defense attorney treats this as motion number one, ahead of ballistics, ahead of DNA, ahead of the phone. A single negative panel across the retained items would close the exploding-mic theory as a physical proposition and the defense would know to spend its budget elsewhere. A single positive would end the State's theory of the mechanism of death outright — and with it, the theory that a rifle round fired from the Losee Center roof caused the fatal wound.
What The Defense Team Did Instead
On the public record the defense has litigated the case the State framed: the inconclusive ATF comparison, the DNA mixture, the device extractions, and Miranda timing. Those are strong, conventional capital-defense lines and they are winning ground — the ATF result came back neither identifying nor excluding the seized rifle.
What has not appeared in any public filing, docket entry or press account reviewed here is a motion directed at energetic residue. No public request for a residue panel. No defense chemist noticed. No question at the preliminary hearing to Jennifer Faumuina, the crime-scene sergeant who described lab routing, about whether anything was ever submitted for explosives analysis.
That absence is a fact about the public record, and it is the whole of what we assert. The filings are gagged and partly sealed.
Where This Belongs In The Case
| Stage of the case | When that stage runs | Status of this step |
|---|---|---|
| Pretrial discovery (Rule 16) | From arraignment onward; available now | Not visible on the public record |
| Preliminary hearing cross | July 6-10, 2026 — completed | Not asked of any witness |
| Motion in limine / Rule 702 | After bind-over, before trial | Still fully open |
| Trial — defense case | No trial date set | Still fully open |
Witness Or Discovery Target
| How it would be done | Target | Took the stand? | Status on the public record |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discovery demand never made publicly | State Bureau of Investigation and FBI laboratory request logs | n/a | No public motion |
| Cross-examination — witness testified, question not asked | Jennifer Faumuina, SBI crime-scene sergeant | Yes — July 7 and July 9, 2026 | Testified to lab routing; not asked about explosives submission |
| Expert never retained publicly | Forensic chemist in post-blast residue analysis | No | No defense chemist noticed publicly |
The Questions That Were Not Asked
- Sergeant Faumuina, of the items you routed to a laboratory from the courtyard, how many were submitted for explosives analysis as opposed to DNA or firearms analysis?
- Was any swab taken from the tent pad, the lectern, the chairs, or the canopy fabric for energetic compounds?
- Does the evidence inventory contain a line item for gas chromatography–mass spectrometry on any exhibit in this case?
- Who decides which analyses an item receives once it reaches the laboratory — the submitting agency, or the laboratory?
- Was any request for explosives analysis made and then withdrawn, declined, or left unscheduled?
- Do any of the retained items still exist in a condition that would permit that testing today?
Why A Defense Attorney Would Want This
A capital defense wins by breaking the causal chain, not by disputing character. The State must prove that a bullet fired by this defendant caused this death. If the mechanism of death is something other than a bullet, the identity of the person on the roof stops mattering — the whole prosecution collapses at an earlier link than the one the defense is currently fighting over.
Residue testing is also the rare defense request that a court finds easy to grant. It is cheap, it is standard, it does not touch classified material, it does not require any federal agency to waive anything, and it can be ordered on items the State already holds. A judge who would never order the CIA to answer a subpoena will readily order a laboratory to run a panel.
The Honest Counterargument
Competent counsel may have already asked for this in a sealed filing, and we would not know. Counsel may also have received the lab inventory in discovery, seen that residue panels were run and came back negative, and correctly decided never to raise it in open court — a defense attorney does not volunteer a bad fact.
There is a further tactical reason for silence. Arguing that a bomb killed the victim, while simultaneously arguing that the State cannot prove the defendant fired the rifle, risks a jury hearing two inconsistent stories. Some capital lawyers deliberately hold an alternative-mechanism theory back until the State has committed to its own, then deploy it in the defense case. Delay is not neglect.
Sources On This Site
- Removing Explosive Residue Cover-Up
- Explosive Residue on Fabric
- High Explosive — RDX, PETN, TNT
- Forensic Tests Skipped
- Cause of Death
:::danger Theoretical Exercise Only This page is a theoretical exercise. It is a written simulation of how an idealised defense attorney might approach this case. We make no claim that there is any problem with the current defense attorney, with any member of the defense team, or with any decision they have made.
Real capital defense is conducted under a gag order, with sealed filings, and on the basis of full discovery that the public has never seen. Counsel of record know facts we do not. A step described here as "not on the public record" may already have been taken privately, may have been considered and rejected for good reason, or may not yet be due at this stage of the case. Silence in the public record is not evidence of a failure.
Nothing here is legal advice, a criticism of any licensed attorney, or an allegation of professional misconduct. :::
This website's author is @HolonCitizen on X and YouTube/@HolonCitizen. Follow me there.