On the day Charlie Kirk was killed at Utah Valley University, surveillance video of the alleged shooter caught him moving throughout campus, speaking with Turning Point USA staff and even stopping for a meal. Utah’s lead investigator, David Hull, walked the Provo courtroom through the compilation, including footage that he said captured an individual accessing the roof and later escaping.
“He moves out across Campus Drive into a wooded area on what would be kind of the northeast side of Campus Drive, then returns back onto campus,” Hull explained as the video played in the courtroom. “We noticed at this point that he's no longer carrying the backpack that he was originally wearing.”
Hull believes, based on his investigation, that the individual captured on video is Tyler Robinson, the man accused of killing Kirk.
Prosecutors continued their efforts to show there is probable cause that Robinson should stand trial. The defendant has yet to enter a plea to the charges against him, which include aggravated murder and six other counts. Day one of the hearing focused more on witnesses and establishing the scene last September, rather than any new revelations.
Robinson’s defense team successfully argued on the first day that an edited version of the surveillance tape with added highlight circles and zoomed-in footage to more clearly identify the person in the video could introduce bias. Prosecutors returned on the second day with unaltered footage, which Fourth District Judge Tony Graf determined was admissible and available to the public.
The footage detailed what Hull said were Robinson’s movements between approximately 8:30 a.m. on Sept. 10 — the day last year that Kirk was fatally shot — and the early morning hours of Sept. 11. Previously, only still images and short clips had been released to the public.
In the footage, a person in a grey Dodge Charger, the one believed to belong to Robinson, pulls into a university parking garage and leaves their vehicle. They wore a dark red t-shirt, dark shorts, sneakers, a baseball hat and carried a backpack. They moved through campus, where Hull said they spoke with Turning Point USA staff and got food at a Chick-fil-A.
Later, the individual is seen without the backpack. Shortly before noon, the person returns to campus in different clothing — a dark long-sleeve shirt and dark pants — but the same shoes and walking with a noticeable limp. They are observed slowly climbing stairs before getting onto the roof of the UVU Losee Center, crouching and crawling toward a rooftop corner. Seconds later, a person in the same clothing is seen moving — no longer with a limp — toward another corner of the roof where they jump off and head toward a wooded area off-screen.
The last part of the video showed the grey Dodge Charger leaving campus after midnight on Sept. 11.
The rest of the morning focused on whether Judge Graf should admit into evidence an affidavit submitted by the prosecution. A close associate of Kirk, David Engelhardt, wrote it. He detailed Turning Point USA’s mission, Kirk’s leadership of the organization and what Engelhardt believed Kirk’s political and religious views were on a wide range of issues.
The prosecution is attempting to use the affidavit to justify a victim targeting enhancement against Robinson. The claim is that Robinson deliberately targeted Kirk for his political views. The defense strongly objected because, in their view, the affidavit unfairly blurred the difference between political and religious views. Both are treated separately in Utah law.
“There's a constitutional concern that this type of evidence being sanctioned by the court is going to suggest to the jury pool that this is a case about religion. This is not a case about religion. The state doesn't even allege this is a case about religion,” said defense attorney Richard Novak. “The state alleges one enhancement based on Mr. Robinson's perceptions of Mr. Kirk's political expression.”
The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the affidavit provides important context to motive.
“We will offer evidence through other witnesses that talks about some of the defendants' statements that indicate his gender persuasion, and that he falls into some of these political and gender views that Charlie Kirk argued against,” said prosecutor Ryan McBride. “Charlie Kirk publicly in front of large gatherings of people debated and presented his views, his political views, which were tied to his religious views about gender identity, LGBTQ rights-type issues.”
Graf provisionally admitted the affidavit into evidence, but did not publish it in the courtroom or to the public.
DNA evidence gathered from items collected at the scene later dominated the hearing.
According to the testimony of Utah Department of Public Safety Agent Jennifer Faumuina, investigators discovered a bolt-action rifle wrapped in a towel in a wooded area near campus. FBI tests later found two people’s DNA on the rifle, towel and a screwdriver recovered from the roof of the Losee Center: Robinson’s and that of his roommate at the time and alleged romantic partner, Lance Twigs.
“Male DNA was obtained from item eight sub one,” Faumuina read from a report. “The DNA results from item eight sub one are 30 quintillion times more likely if Twigs and T. Robinson are contributors than if Twigs and an unknown unrelated person are contributors.”
The defense’s strategy was to attempt to highlight the potential fallibility of DNA evidence. Defense attorneys spent the better part of three hours questioning FBI forensic examiner Amanda Bakker, the examiner who led the DNA testing in this case, about the ins and outs of sampling and testing.
While Bakker stood by the accuracy of her work and the results presented in court that identified Robinson’s DNA, she acknowledged that DNA testing is an imperfect science.
“One of the big things is potential human error,” she said. “I guess you could also associate the DNA testing itself in how items are collected or how those items are tested.”
Ultimately, Judge Graf admitted exhibits presented by the defense to illustrate that point for the hearing.
As on the first day, Kirk’s family, including his parents and widow Erika Kirk, were present in the courtroom. Robinson’s parents, Matt and Amber Robinson, were also in the courtroom. Both families sat silently on opposite sides for the duration of the hearing.
Robinson himself, dressed in plain clothes but in ankle shackles and only one hand free, showed little emotion throughout the day, only occasionally taking notes or whispering with his defense team.
