Two Tracks Compared — The Counterfactual Against The Visible Record
:::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 Two Tracks
This whole section is a comparison, and this is the page that makes it at the level of the case rather than one thesis at a time.
Track A is our AI defense attorney: retained September 12, 2025, no procedural default, no inherited file, unlimited time, no career risk, no relationship to protect with any office in Utah, and no obligation to accept the frame the State built.
Track B is the real case as the public can see it — dockets, filings in the archive, pool reporting, and the two certified preliminary-hearing transcripts.
:::tip The most important sentence on this page A difference between the two tracks is a difference in VISIBILITY before it is anything else. The archive holds 374 PDFs against 867 known docket entries, only 258 of which ever had a public PDF at all. 62 entries are marked private or sealed. A broad gag order has been in force since December 16, 2025. Preservation letters, investigator canvasses, private-party subpoenas and expert consultations are not docketed even when they happen. Track B is not the case. Track B is the part of the case a member of the public can read. :::
Milestone By Milestone
| Milestone | Track A — our AI defense attorney | Track B — the visible record | Tier |
|---|---|---|---|
| Week 1 (Sept 10–17, 2025) | Preservation letters out on day one to nine custodians; ex parte motion to preserve the scene; investigator video canvass of the courtyard perimeter and the block; Rule 16 request served | Counsel retained; initial appearance Sept 16; held without bail | T2 — docket |
| Weeks 2–3 | Residue-testing motion; lab request log demanded; campus camera inventory and VMS export log subpoenaed; microphone hardware and procurement chain subpoenaed; CAD and radio records demanded | Sept 30 — Formal Rule 16 Request and 404(b) notice demand (Dkt. 61) | T2 |
| Week 4 | Rental telematics, FBO ramp records, hospital and transport record, university property records — all served while retention windows were open | Oct 8 — Motion to Preserve Evidence (Dkt. 75). Oct 10 — first discovery production, 83 files | T2 |
| Oct–Nov 2025 | Rule 12 motion on the scene-warrant gap; complete warrant inventory and returns compelled | Oct 20 — preservation order granted (Dkt. 107). Oct 22 — State moves to set aside. Nov 4 — stipulated order replaces it, keeping the notice-before-destructive-testing requirement | T2 |
| Dec 2025 | Same posture; the gag order changes what is visible, not what is served | Broad gag order Dec 16; disqualification fight begins, largely non-public | T2 / T4 |
| Jan–Mar 2026 | Blast expert, acoustics expert, forensic pathologist and point-cloud expert all retained and reading; alternative-perpetrator investigation running in parallel | Camera and publicity litigation; Mar 13 — 12.1 TB forensic drive delivered; Mar 25–27 — Second Request for DNA and Other Forensic Discovery, and motion to vacate or continue the prelim pending discovery (Dkt. 466) | T2 |
| Apr–May 2026 | Rule 702 challenge lodged pre-emptively rather than reactively | April — motion to stop further testing of the bullet-jacket fragment. May 8 — ruling on the motion to vacate or continue | T2 |
| Preliminary hearing (July 6–10, 2026) | Cross aimed at what was never asked to be looked for, not only at what was found; a bomb-sweep record and a residue-panel question put to the crime-scene sergeant | Seven live witnesses. The defense called three of them, all government examiners, and got an inconclusive ATF comparison into the record. State rests July 10 | T1 for Days 4–5 |
| Post-hearing (Aug 2026) | Sanctions practice on everything unproduced; the discovery list published | Aug 28 — Discovery Status Report (Dkt. 257), and notice that a motion to compel forensic discovery the FBI and ATF have refused is being prepared | T2 |
| Today (Sept 1, 2026) | Same argument on bind-over, plus a mechanism-of-death record built over twelve months | Bind-over oral argument, four hours reserved. No ruling | T2 |
Where The Two Tracks Genuinely Converge
Naming this honestly is part of the method, not a courtesy, and on several of the biggest questions the two tracks are doing the same thing.
- The ballistics attack. The ATF jacket-fragment comparison came back inconclusive — neither identifying nor excluding the seized rifle — and it is in the record because the defense called the examiner. Track A would have done exactly that.
- Three defense-called government examiners. Using the State's own scientists to establish the limits of the State's own science is the correct play and it is the play being run.
- The custody-and-timing attack. The Miranda and custody timing line is a genuinely strong thread and it is being pressed hard.
- The April 2026 fragment motion. Moving to stop further testing of the bullet-jacket fragment, and to let a defense expert examine and photograph it first, is exactly the right instinct about exactly the right piece of evidence. Track A files the same motion.
- The negotiated preservation order. The November 4, 2025 stipulated order defines "potentially destructive" to include anything "likely to change the character of a piece of evidence." That definition was negotiated by the defense and it is what the April 2026 motion stands on.
- The forthcoming motion to compel the federal forensic discovery. Announced August 28, 2026. This is Track A's Cluster B argument arriving on Track B, and it is the single most important thing to watch after the bind-over ruling.
A defense holding an inconclusive ballistics result, a documented custody-timing conflict, and a negotiated destructive-testing bar is not a defense in trouble.
Where The Two Tracks Diverge
Each of these is stated as an observation about what we can see, and each is paired with the reason competent counsel might choose it deliberately.
| The divergence | What we can see | Why counsel might choose exactly that |
|---|---|---|
| Mechanism of death | Nothing visible questions that a rifle round caused the fatal wound. Track A treats the mechanism as the first thing to prove | Counsel hold full discovery and may have seen a residue panel that came back negative. A defense does not volunteer a bad fact |
| Timing of the first demands | The opening Rule 16 request is dated Sept 30 and the preservation motion Oct 8. Track A serves letters on day one | Preservation letters are not filed. This may have happened and be invisible. And a real firm was staffing up in those three weeks |
| Federal witnesses | One FBI witness has testified live in five days, a laboratory examiner, called by the defense. No federal case agent has been crossed | You do not call a hostile federal agent at a preliminary hearing where the standard is probable cause and you gain nothing by previewing your cross |
| Foreign involvement | Nothing visible questions foreign involvement or the intelligence services | An alternative-perpetrator notice is filed after arraignment on an information. It is not yet due. Filing early gets it denied and burns the theory |
| Two inconsistent stories | Track A argues the mechanism and the identity. The visible defense argues identity and reliability | Running "a bomb killed him" alongside "you cannot prove he fired the rifle" risks a jury hearing two stories and believing neither. This is a real and respectable reason |
| The publicity posture | The defense called the ATF result exculpatory and then moved to seal it | Jury-pool contamination in a capital case is a genuine, quantified concern and the defense has retained survey experts on exactly that question |
The One Structural Difference That Is Not About Strategy
Every divergence above has a good answer. This one is different, and it is the honest core of the comparison.
Track A's advantage is not that it is cleverer. It is that it started on September 12, 2025.
Eight categories of evidence that existed in September 2025 no longer exist: scene soil and the tent pad, consumer doorbell and merchant footage near the courtyard, rental telematics, FBO ramp CCTV, law-enforcement radio audio, campus video beyond the clips that were exported, access-control swipe logs, and residue on any clothing that has since been washed or released. The day-one track sets out each one with the date its window shut.
No lawyer of any quality can subpoena a record that has been overwritten. That is not a strategy gap and it is not anybody's fault — it is the physics of storage, and it is why the honest verdict on this comparison is a narrow one:
On the questions still reachable today, the two tracks are much closer than a reader of the internet would expect. On the questions that were only reachable in autumn 2025, the comparison is not close, and it is not close for reasons that have very little to do with what any lawyer decided.
What This Section Would Change Its Mind About
Four results would move this comparison, and they are named here so a reader can hold the section to them.
- The certified Day 1, 2 and 3 transcripts. They would upgrade a large number of claims in this section from "not found in the material we hold" to a real T1 answer — in either direction. It is entirely possible they show these questions being asked.
- The laboratory request log. If it shows an explosive-residue panel was ordered and returned negative, thesis T1 is closed as a physical proposition and this section says so on its front page.
- Any unsealing of the December 2025 – February 2026 disqualification exhibits, which are the largest body of sealed substantive material on the docket.
- The forthcoming motion to compel FBI and ATF forensic discovery. If it reaches the material Cluster B asks for, most of that cluster is answered on Track B and this section will record that plainly.
Related
- The Day-One Track — the dated counterfactual calendar behind Track A
- Trial Cursor — where the case actually is today
- Method — the rules, and what the real team is doing well
- Case Stage Map — which file tracks which stage
- Score Card — where you decide, area by area
- Legal Documents — every date on this page is drawn from a primary source held there
:::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.