T1 — The Mechanism Of Death Was An Explosive, Not A Rifle Round
:::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. :::
What We Contend
This is a contention our AI defense attorney would attempt to prove, not a finding this site asserts as established. The contention is that Charlie Kirk was killed by a shaped charge functioning in or on the microphone at chest height, that no rifle round entered his body, and that the mechanism of death in the State's theory is therefore wrong.
Every other thesis in this section is downstream of this one. If the fatal wound was not caused by a rifle round, then who was on the Losee Center roof stops being a question a jury has to answer. The rooftop, the seized Mauser, the DNA mixture, the phone, the message attributed to the defendant — all of it becomes evidence about an event that did not cause the death charged. That is why this is the shortest route to an acquittal and why it is the first thing an AI defense attorney would try to settle.
It is also the most testable proposition in the entire case, by the cheapest and most routine procedure in forensic chemistry. A high explosive of the RDX, PETN or HMX class does not vanish. It leaves recoverable particulate on fabric, skin, upholstery, soil and overhead concrete within a few feet of the point of function, and gas chromatography–mass spectrometry and ion mobility spectrometry find it at trace concentration against a known library. The answer is binary. A single clean negative across the retained items closes this thesis as a physical proposition, and our attorney would say so on this page the day it came back.
What follows is not an argument that the test came back positive. It is an argument that we cannot find any public trace of the test being requested, run, declined or reported — and that a capital jury is being asked to accept a mechanism of death that has never been demonstrated against the alternative it excludes.
The Chain Of Reasoning
Each link below is something this site already holds, in the order the links build. Where a link rests on a certified transcript we hold, it is marked T1; where it rests on a filing in the archive, T2.
- The State's mechanism requires a round fired from the roof of the Losee Center. Sergeant Faumuina testified on the certified Day 4 record that the distance from what she called the perch to the tent was approximately 415 feet, about 410 feet horizontally, across an elevation difference of approximately 68 feet — a descent of roughly nine degrees. T1 (Day 4).
- A round on that path should strike high and forward. This site's trajectory and wound analysis argues a shallow downward path from the east would meet the face or jaw before the throat, while the reported entry sits between larynx and trachea, left of the cervical spine — closer to straight-on.
- A .30-06 carries roughly eight times the energy of a 9mm. Around 3,950 joules at the muzzle. The energy mismatch page collects the argument that the publicly described wound and the publicly visible blood pattern do not fit that energy at that range.
- Witnesses at the scene described a chest or heart injury, not a neck injury. The chest-shot witness compilation sets out the immediate on-camera accounts and the conflict between them and the later account.
- The professional audio splits into more than one event. The Canon XA55 analysis and the acoustic two-event split argue for a distant rifle signature and a louder, lower-frequency event at the tent, roughly 46 metres from the camera.
- A shaped charge at chest range is a physical mechanism that fits those observations. The shaped-charge demonstration, the shape charge versus bullet comparison and the high-explosive page set out what RDX, PETN and TNT-class compounds do, and why a detonation shears where a deflagration pushes.
- The microphone is the candidate carrier, and it is a serial-numbered object. The Mic section collects the RØDE wireless hardware, the AV setup, and the burnt object photographed in the transport vehicle.
- Every substrate that would have carried residue was removed, altered or taken. The soil was hauled and replaced with cement; the overhead surface was painted; the security detail's clothing was taken; the transport vehicle's custody is disputed. That is the explosive-residue cover-up thread in one line.
- No public record shows anyone testing for energetic residue on any of it. Forensic tests skipped and no GSR and missing physical tests collect what is missing. Our own search of the two certified transcripts we hold — 375 pages — returns zero occurrences of residue, GSR, gunshot residue, energetic, PETN, RDX, chemistry, trajectory or wound. T1.
- The one physical item recovered from the body was cleaned before anyone could swab it. On the certified Day 4 record the ATF firearms examiner testified that she cleaned the bullet jacket fragment and peeled its petals back with pliers to expose the interior surface. T1 (Day 4). The ATF laboratory report on that examination is dated September 17, 2025 — seven days after the killing, and thirty-three days before the first preservation order in this case, which was entered on October 20, 2025. T2 (State's Notice of Intent to Conduct Non-Destructive Testing, December 22, 2025).
- The fragment count does not reconcile. Also on the certified Day 4 record: the examiner was told there was a discrepancy between what she examined and what the medical examiner documented in the number of bullet fragments — that there were potentially seven in a photograph from the medical examiner, and she ended up with four plus the jacket. She was not asked to determine whether the ATF had lost any of them. T1.
- The comparison that was run cannot place that fragment in that rifle. The examiner's conclusion, read into the certified record: the jacket fragment "could not be identified or excluded as having been fired from the Exhibit 1 rifle" — neither sufficient agreement nor sufficient disagreement, "I'm unable to say one way or another." The four lead fragments were "not suitable for microscopic comparison." T1 (ATF inconclusive).
- The fragment's own measured diameter is a range, and part of that range is not .30 calibre. The examiner measured .286 to .301 inches, giving a range because of damage and deformity to the base. T1 (barrel dust and diameter).
- The document that would settle the wound has never been public and its author has never been crossed. The autopsy report is sealed and not public; it came into the preliminary hearing through a police witness rather than the pathologist who wrote it.
- Therefore: the State's mechanism of death rests on an inconclusive comparison of a cleaned fragment whose count does not reconcile, described by a report nobody has cross-examined, while the single test that would separate a rifle round from a detonation does not appear anywhere in the public record of this case.
The Elements Analysis
This is the part a defense lawyer does before anything else, and it is the spine of the thesis. Write down what must physically be true for the State's mechanism to hold. Then ask, element by element, which of those has actually been demonstrated on a record anyone can read.
| # | Element the State's mechanism requires | Demonstrated on a public record? |
|---|---|---|
| E1 | A .30-06 round left the muzzle of the seized rifle on September 10, 2025 | Not demonstrated. The only public comparison of the recovered jacket fragment to that rifle is inconclusive — T1, certified Day 4 |
| E2 | It travelled approximately 415 feet on a descent of approximately 68 feet from the perch to the tent | The geometry is testified to — T1, certified Day 4. That an object travelled it is inference, not measurement |
| E3 | It struck at the point the State's account places the wound | Not demonstrated publicly. The autopsy report is sealed; the site's trajectory analysis disputes the fit |
| E4 | It deposited the jacket fragment and lead fragments recovered at autopsy | Recovery is testified to — T1. Provenance to that rifle is not. And the count does not reconcile: potentially seven fragments photographed by the medical examiner, four received at the laboratory |
| E5 | It produced the observed wound morphology | Not demonstrated publicly. No pathologist has testified. The State indicated on March 12, 2026 that it intended to introduce the autopsy report without supporting expert testimony — T2 |
| E6 | It produced the recorded acoustic signature, from that bearing, as a single event | Not demonstrated. No acoustic analysis appears anywhere in the public record. The word blast appears once in 375 certified pages, in the phrase "blast a headline in the media" — T1 |
| E7 | Nothing else energetic functioned at or near the body | Not demonstrated, and not tested for. Zero occurrences of residue, energetic, PETN or RDX in either certified transcript — T1 |
Five of the seven elements are undemonstrated on any record the public can inspect. That is the whole thesis in one table, and it is Doctrine 2 done properly: the burden is the State's, and reasoning up from the physical facts rather than down from the charging document produces a very different list of settled things than a reader of the news would expect.
The FARO Point Cloud — The Argument Nobody On This Site Has Made Yet
On July 20, 2026 the defense received 660 gigabytes of raw FARO 3D laser-scan data of the scene. Not a report. Not exported images. The raw scan data — millions of individually measured points, each with a coordinate and a return intensity. That is disclosed in the Discovery Status Report of August 28, 2026, held in the legal archive, which also records the defense's own position: possession of the raw data "does not, standing alone, permit counsel to meaningfully assess the scene reconstruction or any measurements," and evaluating it requires FARO SCENE or Zone 3D and a retained expert. T2.
Nobody on this site has said what that dataset means for this thesis, and it is the single most under-used object in the case.
A registered point cloud of that courtyard is a measurable three-dimensional record of the scene as it stood when it was scanned. It is not a photograph and it is not an artist's reconstruction. Four things follow, and each one is a question the data can answer rather than a question we have to argue about.
It tests the trajectory. Sergeant Faumuina gave a distance and an elevation difference from the witness stand. A point cloud lets an expert draw the actual line from the claimed firing position to the claimed impact position and check what is on it — parapet, canopy pole, tree, tent frame. Line of sight either exists at that height or it does not, and the answer is a measurement rather than an opinion. The word trajectory does not appear once in either certified transcript we hold.
It tests the blast hypothesis. A detonation at chest height inside a canopy leaves geometry: directional spall and pitting on nearby hard surfaces, fragment strike marks with measurable angles of incidence, deformation of light structural members, and a damage field whose centre can be located by intersecting those angles. A rifle round leaves one hole and one path. These two hypotheses predict visibly different point clouds, and the point cloud already exists.
It records overhead surfaces. A scanner sees up. The painted ceiling of the adjacent structure is one of the substrates this site argues would have carried residue. Whether that surface was scanned before it was painted, and what the scan shows of it, is a question with a documentary answer.
It is already in the defense's hands, which makes it reachable. Every other item on this thesis requires somebody to hand something over. This one does not. It requires a retained expert, licensed software, and a Rule 16 demand for the scan metadata — dates, scanner positions, registration targets and the surveyor's field notes — so that the reconstruction can be validated rather than merely viewed. The retention and re-examination mechanics are set out on the independent re-examination page.
There is a second point cloud in this case and it belongs here too. The State's December 22, 2025 notice records that the FBI intended Virtual Comparison Microscopy on the jacket fragment — a 3D scan of the fragment itself, with the notice stating that "the scan data will be preserved for future use, allowing any generated scan files to be produced for independent VCM examination and analysis." T2. The State has therefore already promised, in writing, to produce a three-dimensional dataset of the single physical item recovered from the body. On the certified Day 4 record the ATF examiner said her own laboratory "currently does not have that capability." T1. Both datasets are obtainable. Neither has been publicly analysed by anyone.
The Day-One Track
Our AI defense attorney has been counsel of record since September 12, 2025. The dates below are when each demand goes out and what was still recoverable on that date. The full calendar is on the day-one track.
| Date served | What our attorney serves, and on whom | What was still recoverable then | When that window closed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sept 12, 2025 | Preservation letters to the Utah County Attorney, the State Bureau of Investigation, the FBI, the ATF, UVU, the event organiser, the AV contractor and Timpanogos Regional Hospital — naming energetic residue as a category, so no item is cleaned, washed or surface-prepared before a swab is taken | Everything. Nothing had been cleaned, hauled, resurfaced or laundered | Rolling. The ATF laboratory report on the jacket fragment is dated September 17, 2025 — five days later |
| Sept 12, 2025 | Ex parte motion to preserve the scene itself, barring alteration pending a defense inspection and a defense scan | The courtyard, the tent pad, the soil, the overhead surfaces | Soil hauled and replaced with cement — permanent |
| Sept 15, 2025 | Motion to compel explosive-residue testing on every retained item, plus production of the laboratory request log — the list of panels ordered, declined and withdrawn | Trace compounds on fabric, upholstery, canopy and concrete | Degrading from hour one; gone on anything washed or released |
| Sept 16, 2025 | Demand for the security detail's clothing and the hospital garments, with an order barring release or cleaning | Unwashed garments, worn by people who were within a few feet of the chest | Unknown, and no public inventory establishes it |
| Sept 17, 2025 | Written objection, served the same day, to any surface-altering handling of the jacket fragment before a residue swab is taken, plus a demand for notice of every analysis requested of it | The fragment's surface, as recovered | Closed. The fragment was cleaned and the petals folded back with pliers — T1 |
| Sept 18, 2025 | Subpoena for the microphone and transmitter, serial numbers, and the AV custody chain | The device in its September 2025 condition | Open in principle; the device's condition is not |
| Sept 20, 2025 | Demand for the bomb-dog and EOD sweep record for the venue, before and after | Contemporaneous canine and EOD logs | Agency-dependent; short |
| Sept 25, 2025 | Subpoena for the hospital and transport record and the transport vehicle's custody file | The trauma record, and the vehicle interior before release | Vehicle release date not public |
The one that matters most is row five. No preservation order of any kind existed in this case until October 20, 2025, and the negotiated order that governs today was entered on November 4, 2025. The ATF laboratory report on the jacket fragment is dated September 17, 2025. Whatever was on that fragment's surface was gone before there was any court order in the world requiring anyone to think about it.
The Gap Analysis
| # | What we would do, and of whom | Stage and date | Witness took the stand? | Asked on the record we hold? | How we checked |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | "Sergeant Faumuina, of the items you routed to a laboratory from that courtyard, how many were submitted for explosives analysis, as distinct from DNA or firearms analysis?" | Prelim cross — July 9, 2026 | Yes — July 7 and July 9, 2026 | Not found | T1 — certified Day 4 searched for explosive, residue, energetic, PETN, RDX, chemistry. Zero substantive hits |
| 2 | "Ms. Karner, before you cleaned the Exhibit 6A jacket fragment, was any swab taken from its surface for energetic compounds?" | Prelim, defense direct — July 9, 2026 | Yes — July 9, 2026 | Not found | T1 — she testified she cleaned it and folded the petals back with pliers. No question followed about what cleaning removed |
| 3 | "Ms. Karner, you were told the medical examiner photographed potentially seven fragments and you received four. Who reconciled that difference?" | Prelim, defense direct — July 9, 2026 | Yes — July 9, 2026 | Partly — Asked | T1 — the discrepancy was put to her and she confirmed it; she was not asked who reconciled it, and answered that she was not asked to check whether the ATF had lost any |
| 4 | "Sergeant Faumuina, you requested DNA and other analysis on the items recovered along the flight path. Who decided to stop that testing, and on what date?" | Prelim cross — July 9, 2026 | Yes — July 9, 2026 | Partly — Asked | T1 — counsel asked whether she decided to "pull the plug"; she answered the items were later determined not to be probative. The date and the decision-maker were not established |
| 5 | Rule 16 demand to the State and its federal partners for the complete laboratory request log — every analysis requested, declined, withdrawn or left unscheduled, on every exhibit | Pretrial discovery; available since September 2025 | n/a — records demand | Not found | T2 — the September 30, 2025 Rule 16 request, item 31, demands testing results performed. A log of tests not performed is a different document and no filing in the archive requests it |
| 6 | Motion under the November 4, 2025 stipulated order objecting to any cleaning or surface preparation of the jacket fragment as "likely to change the character of a piece of evidence" | Would have been due within 14 days of notice | n/a — motion | Not yet due, then overtaken | T2 — the ATF report predates the order by 48 days. The order the defense negotiated could not reach backwards |
| 7 | "Agent Hull, was the examiner who performed the autopsy ever asked to consider, and to exclude, a blast mechanism?" | Prelim — July 6 and 7, 2026 (Days 1 and 2) | Yes — Days 1 and 2 | Not checkable | T4 — Days 1 to 3 exist here only as machine transcriptions of the pool feed. Those are not the record and are not citable as one |
| 8 | Subpoena duces tecum to the Office of the Medical Examiner for the autopsy photographs, radiographs, tissue slides and fragment inventory sheet | Pretrial; photographs produced to the defense March 18, 2026 | n/a — records demand | Asked, on the real track | T2 — the March 27, 2026 motion records the report was completed September 16, 2025 and produced November 13, 2025, and the photographs taken September 10, 2025 were produced March 18, 2026 |
| 9 | Rule 16 demand for the FBI's VCM scan files of the jacket fragment, which the State has already undertaken in writing to produce | Pretrial; promised December 22, 2025 | n/a — records demand | Not found as a separate demand | T2 — the State's notice states the scan data "will be preserved for future use, allowing any generated scan files to be produced for independent VCM examination" |
| 10 | Rule 16 demand for the FARO scan metadata — scan dates, scanner positions, registration targets, surveyor field notes — so the 660 GB point cloud can be validated rather than merely viewed | Pretrial; raw data delivered July 20, 2026 | n/a — records demand | Not found | T2 — the August 28, 2026 status report describes the raw delivery and the tooling gap; no filing in the archive we hold requests the metadata |
| 11 | Motion in limine to exclude the autopsy report absent testimony from the pathologist who performed the examination, under Rule 602 and the Confrontation Clause | Post-bind-over, pretrial | n/a — motion | Not yet due | T2 — the case has not been bound over. Bind-over argument is today. A step not yet due has not been missed |
| 12 | Retain and notice an explosives expert on shaped-charge effects at chest range, and an acoustician on the recorded report and its direction of arrival | Expert notice, post-bind-over | n/a — expert retention | Not yet due | T4 — defense expert work is confidential until the expert testifies. See blast and acoustics experts |
| 13 | "Ms. Karner, in your prior career you recovered latent prints from improvised explosive devices. Were you asked to look at this fragment for any indication of an explosive event?" | Prelim, defense direct — July 9, 2026 | Yes — July 9, 2026 | Not found | T1 — her IED background is the only substantive use of the word "explosive" in 278 certified pages of Day 4. No follow-up appears |
| 14 | Rule 12 motion addressed to the absence of any warrant for the UVU scene in the public warrant set, and to what was collected under what authority | Pretrial suppression | n/a — motion | Not found | T2 — 25 public warrants, 3212261 to 3229461. None names the campus. Warrant 3212261 reaches only the body and effects at the hospital. See the warrant gap |
| 15 | Motion to exclude any State expert opinion on the mechanism of death for want of the statutory notice under Utah Code 77-17-13 | Post-bind-over, pretrial | n/a — motion | Not yet due | T2 — no State expert notice appears anywhere on the 867-row docket; a search returns two hits, both defense. See expert notice exclusion |
| 16 | Rule 702 challenge to the firearms and toolmark opinion, and to any comparative bullet lead analysis the FBI produces | Post-bind-over, pretrial | n/a — motion | Not yet due | T3 — a press attachment filed April 16, 2026 records that the FBI was conducting a second comparative bullet analysis and a bullet lead analysis. See the Daubert challenge |
| 17 | Demand for the bomb-dog and EOD sweep records for the venue on and before September 10, 2025 | Pretrial; retention short | n/a — records demand | Not found | T1 for the transcripts — bomb, sweep and detonat- return zero hits across both certified transcripts. T2 for the archive: no filing requests them |
| 18 | Demand for the autopsy report itself, Exhibit 11, Bates 1682, as a document rather than as a projected image | Pretrial; disclosed to the defense November 13, 2025 | n/a — records demand | Not obtainable by us | T4 — we hold zero of the State's 34 preliminary-hearing exhibits as documents. What we hold is screenshots of exhibits as displayed on the courtroom feed |
Tier count: 6 rows at T1, 8 at T2, 1 at T3, 3 at T4. Rows 3 and 4 are Asked on the certified record, and they are the two most important rows in the table for exactly that reason. This thesis is not built on silence alone.
Where this chain breaks the State's case
It breaks at causation, which is the first link the State has to prove and the one it has least publicly demonstrated. Utah must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a round fired by this defendant caused this death. The public record establishes that fragments were recovered from the body; it does not establish that they came from the seized rifle, because the only comparison run on them was inconclusive and the four lead fragments were unsuitable for comparison at all. If causation is unproven, identity is irrelevant — and identity is where the entire visible prosecution has been fought.
What would defeat this thesis
A laboratory request log, or a report, showing that a gas chromatography–mass spectrometry or ion mobility spectrometry panel for RDX, PETN, HMX and TNT was run on the retained clothing, the transport vehicle interior or the courtyard substrates, and returned negative. One document. If it exists and says that, this thesis is over as a physical proposition, and this page will say so at the top rather than at the bottom. That is the falsifiable test, it is cheap, it is routine, and the party holding the answer is the party carrying the burden of proof.
A second result would badly wound it without ending it: a certified Day 1, 2 or 3 transcript showing the pathology and mechanism questions were put to Agent Hull. Days 1 to 3 are the largest verification hole in this section and they cut both ways.
The instruments that serve this thesis
- Move For Court-Ordered Explosive Residue Testing — motion number one
- Retain An Independent Forensic Pathologist And Cross The Medical Examiner
- Retain A Blast Expert And An Acoustics Expert
- Subpoena The Microphone Itself
- The Crime-Scene Warrant Gap
- State Expert Notice Exclusion
- Independent Re-Examination Of The Physical Evidence — the retention mechanics for the FARO and VCM datasets
- The Ballistics Daubert Challenge
- The Security Team's Clothing
- Transport SUV Custody
- Bomb Dogs And The EOD Sweep
- The Hospital And Transport Record
How This Reaches A Juror
This page serves Route 1 — mechanism, in its purest form, and it is the shortest route to an acquittal in the whole section. It requires no alternative perpetrator, no foreign state, and no theory about who was on the roof. It requires only that one juror be unsure the State has shown what killed the man.
It also feeds Route 2 without being asked to. Every demand in the table above produces an answer whether or not it produces a document, because a refusal is an answer and an empty request log is an answer.
Here is the sentence counsel says in closing.
"The State says a bullet from that rifle killed Charlie Kirk. Their own examiner — the one we called — told you she could not identify that fragment to that rifle. She told you she could not exclude it either. She told you the medical examiner photographed seven pieces and she received four. She told you she cleaned it, and folded it open with pliers, before anyone ever asked what was on the outside of it. And in five days of testimony in this courtroom, nobody — not the State, not one of its witnesses — ever spoke the word residue. There is a test that would have told you. It costs a few hundred dollars. It is run every day in every crime laboratory in this country. The State has not brought you the result of that test. You may ask yourself why not, but you do not have to. You only have to be unsure. And you are entitled to be."
What Would Have To Be Obtained
REACHABLE — a court order on items the State already holds, or a private-party subpoena.
- The laboratory request log from the SBI, the FBI and the ATF: every analysis requested, declined, withdrawn or left unscheduled, on every exhibit. The cheapest high-value document in the case.
- The autopsy report, photographs, radiographs, tissue slides and fragment inventory — already produced to the defense; not public.
- The FBI's VCM scan files of the jacket fragment. The State undertook in writing on December 22, 2025 to make them producible.
- The FARO scan metadata — dates, scanner positions, registration targets, surveyor field notes — so the 660 GB point cloud can be validated.
- The retained items themselves for defense testing: the security detail's clothing, the hospital garments, the transport vehicle interior, and any retained soil or surface samples.
- The microphone and transmitter, the AV procurement chain, and the original camera media — all private-party subpoenas that fight nobody.
- The bomb-dog and EOD sweep records for the venue.
- The complete warrant inventory and every return, including whatever authority covered the campus.
UNREACHABLE — or reachable only through a fight this thesis does not need.
- Any federal laboratory's internal deliberations about which panels to run. A request log is a record; a decision rationale is not, and no subpoena reliably produces it.
- Classified holdings of any agency. This thesis does not require one page of them, which is precisely its advantage over every other thesis in this section.
- The soil. It is gone. No order reaches material hauled to a landfill by a contractor, and a preservation order reaching items "in their custody or under their control" never could.
The Honest Counterargument
This is the strongest counterargument in the section and it has to be stated at full strength, because a thesis that only ever hears itself agreed with is not worth publishing.
There is a physical object. On the certified Day 4 record an ATF firearms and toolmark examiner testified that she personally received, in a sealed manila envelope, one .30-calibre-class deformed bullet jacket fragment and four lead fragments recovered from Charlie Kirk's body at autopsy. She measured the jacket fragment. She photographed it. She examined its land and groove impressions. Whatever else is true, metal was taken out of the body, and that is a fact from a defense witness under oath on a certified transcript. A theory that no projectile entered has to account for it, and "the fragments came from somewhere else" is a claim requiring evidence this site does not yet hold.
The measurements are close to a .30-06. The examiner's diameter range of .286 to .301 inches is a range precisely because the base was damaged and deformed, and a deformed jacket measures under its nominal calibre. A .30-06 bullet is .308 inches. That the measured range sits below it is what deformation does, and reading it as evidence of a different calibre requires an expert prepared to say so under Rule 702, which no one has yet.
An inconclusive result is not an exclusion, and the examiner said so. She testified that inconclusive means neither sufficient agreement nor sufficient disagreement — "I'm unable to say one way or another." She also testified that in a proficiency test where the ground truth was an exclusion, inconclusive was still "extremely appropriate" because the marks never reached sufficiency in either direction. Presenting inconclusive as "the bullet does not match the rifle" is not what the witness said.
Not running a test is not, by itself, a constitutional violation. Utah law is against us here and it should be said plainly. State v. Shaffer, 725 P.2d 1301, 1305–06 (Utah 1986) held that cremating a body before gunshot-residue testing was not a Brady violation where residue offered a "mere possibility" of favourable evidence. State v. Bakalov, 1999 UT 45, and Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, are to the same effect: a prosecutor generally has no duty "to search for exculpatory evidence, conduct tests, or exhaustively pursue every angle on a case," and a failure to test is not a due process violation absent bad faith. Our residue argument therefore has to run to the jury, as reasonable doubt, not to the judge as a suppression or dismissal argument. That is a real limit and it changes what the instrument is for.
Counsel may already hold the answer and may be right to say nothing. The defense has had the autopsy report since November 13, 2025 and the photographs since March 18, 2026, and it has told the court it is putting an independent pathologist to work on them. If a residue panel was run and came back negative, the correct professional decision is to never mention it again, and the public record would look exactly as it does. Silence here is indistinguishable from a defense that asked and got a bad answer.
And running both theories has a cost. Arguing that a device killed the victim, while also arguing that the State cannot prove the defendant fired the rifle, risks a jury hearing two stories and believing neither. Experienced capital counsel routinely hold an alternative-mechanism theory back until the State has committed to its own. Delay is not neglect, and the two-tracks comparison sets out why the visible posture is a respectable one.
Sources On This Site
- Cause of Death — the site's mechanism review
- Mic — Exploding Mic Theory and the explosive-residue cover-up thread
- High Explosive — RDX, PETN and TNT and Explosive Residue on Fabric
- Demo of a Shaped Charge and Shape Charge vs Bullet
- Six Forensic Physics Phenomena
- Chest-Shot Witnesses and Mic Explosion Video Analysis
- Canon XA55 Audio and Acoustic Two-Event Split
- Burnt Object — RØDE Transmitter and SUV Transporting Charlie
- Trajectory and Wound Mismatch and Alternative Kill Mechanisms
- No GSR and Missing Physical Tests and Forensic Tests Skipped
- .30-06 Energy Mismatch, Wound Trajectory Angle, ATF Fragment Inconclusive, Barrel Dust and Diameter
- Autopsy Sealed and the Examiner Kept Out of View and Autopsy Report Not Public
- Preliminary Hearing — Day 4 and the Preliminary Hearing overview
- Legal Documents — every filing cited above
- The Day-One Track, Two Tracks Compared, Method, Score Card
:::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.