Nat

GO BEARS!!! Hey @realstewpeters @AnaEscobarShow @RealCandaceO FUCK ALL THE WAY OFF. @paleochristcon has just RUINED YOUR ENTIRE CAREERS you pieces of trash. DRIP DRIP MFERS. Your entire BULLSHIT JUST CRASHED and this is not even the beginning. Hey @DiligentDenizen Guess what? Your day is coming soon. LMFAO Oh, and the PIC METADATA, suck it all you conspiritards. You just got SOAKED. Hey Baron Coleman, was that heartbreaking video JACKIE KENNEDY ENOUGH FOR YOU, ASSHOLE??? Stew Peters go back to rap you piece of shit.

Why @RealCandaceO @baroncoleman and people like @DiligentDenizen will be responsible when Tyler Robinson gets the death penalty. If Tyler Robinson is innocent, why is the Robinson family being silent? I will tell you why, the podsloppers are right about only 1 thing, they are getting legal advice to stay silent, but not because his is innocent. Because they know he is in fact, guilty. Tyler Robinson’s parents, Matt and Amber, recognized him from the suspect photos, confronted him, heard him imply he was the shooter and talk about killing himself rather than going to jail, then helped get him to surrender. They also turned over evidence. That sequence is in charging documents and official briefings. Once you have done that, you cannot suddenly PIVOT TO "HE IS INNOCENT." and I will tell you why. A public “he’s innocent” campaign after they already helped turn him in would mainly hurt them in the second half of a capital case, not the first. In a death-penalty case after he is convicted, we move to that second half phase. This phase decides life in prison or the death penalty. This phase is about mitigation--why this person should not be executed. Family members are often the most important witnesses there. They talk about childhood, character, mental health, remorse, and what executing him would do to the rest of the family. Public innocence claims would really hurt their credibility in the eyes of the jurors : If they later go on TV saying he didn’t do it, prosecutors can put their earlier statements in front of the same jury and ask: which version is true? That wrecks their credibility as mitigation witnesses. If these dumbass podcasters keep claiming the Robinson family says he is Innocent, that also undermines the family. This is also why the family REFUSES TO SPEAK TO THEM. A jury that thinks the parents are now lying to save him is less likely to trust anything else they say about his character or their suffering. It undercuts remorse and acceptance. Penalty-phase arguments often work better when the defense can show some acknowledgment of harm, even if they still fight the charges at trial. A family loudly insisting “wrong man” after a guilty verdict can look like denial rather than mercy. Some jurors read that as the family refusing to accept what the evidence showed, which makes a “spare him for our sake” plea land worse. The Robinson family has been told this, despite what @RealCandaceO @DiligentDenizen @baroncoleman say, despite Diligent DUMBASS is trying to get Grandma Robinson on record, that will only HURT the case of Tyler Robinson, really hurt his chances of getting a life sentence. Which is EXACTLY why when Diligent Dumbass posted an image of Grandma Robinson, the Robinson family screamed at him to immediately take that down. Which is why the Defense team hates his guts, because this dumbass is hurting this kid, when Tyler is executed, you can blame your precious podcasters. This is the reason they are claiming the defense is in on it, because the defense is trying to save the kids life. Your dumbass podcasters are the ones who will likely end it. FACT................don't believe me? ASK ANY ATTORNEY. This shows you the despicable GRIFT these bastards are on, they don't give a SHIT about Charlie Kirk or Tyler Robinson, they care about the money dumbas, ignorant people give them and how they can fleece them more. DEAL WITH IT, this is the truth.

Fun Fact of the day............when @DiligentDenizen went back to get the NAMES of the servers at the Smokehouse for his "Exculpatory" evidence........"Claim" He knew he would not be welcomed back at the Smokehouse because of the secretly recorded interview, the manipulation and the selective presentation. So, who did he send in to get it? THE ONE AND ONLY @billiewebbb who conveniently left out the fact that they were told NO INTERVIEWS, NO RECORDING AND never told her fans that they did not even have the name of the server. In fact, THEY STILL DON'T HAVE THE NAME OF THE UNDERAGE SERVER. FUN FACT: When they tried to get an interview with the older server who did in fact serve the NOT TYLER ROBINSON person, they were TOSSED OUT OF THE BUILDING..........yup. Now tell me, how in the world do they give exculpatory evidence WITHOUT THE CORRECT NAMES AND disclosing the fact that the server who WAITED ON THE NOT TYLER PERSON was not even 50% sure??? Now, did they check the two hotels that had cameras to see if a 2013 Dodge Challenger had pulled in? NOPE. Probably should have....but I guess that would have produced ..................oh...................I don't know POSITIVE EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS NEVER THERE. You know, it doesn't even matter if they are showed the receipt, at this point they should just be invited to the Smokehouse themselves to see for themselves that it was NOT TYLER...What you say @RealCandaceO @DiligentDenizen ?? I can set that up...........What say you?

It should come as a shock to nobody with a functioning brain that @RealCandaceO DID NOT get her tip about Tyler Robinson allegedly in Panguitch via a call from ANYONE at Cowboys Smokehouse. Here is what happened and it is the truth: When Charlie was shot, the owner Ralph, was out of town. He came back the FOLLOWING Tuesday, and the FEMALE server told him she thinks but is not sure that a young male who was in the Smokehouse that night may have been Tyler Robinson. Ralph contacted a Sherriff FRIEND OF HIS asking what he should do. The Sherriff friend helped Ralph to reach out to the @fbi. The FBI DID IN FACT come down to the Smokehouse and interview the relevant people involved in the case and the RECEIPT was provided to the FBI. There was NO CREDIT CARD USED, that person either used a debit card of Apple Pay or something similar as Ralph would have been able to pull up the name of the person if they had used a credit card. So, here are people doing their civic duty, reporting a lead. They NEVER REACHED OUT TO CANDACE OWENS. NOPE. They were not in this for fame, not in it for free advertising, nothing. They do not want to be a part of this, but they keep dragging them back in. Ralph talks to me because I have kept my word with him, I have never printed anything he has not wanted printed and he knows I will absolutely do what I promise. Anyway, Panguitch being a small town, word got out that Tyler might have eaten at the Smokehouse, the local conspiracy lady, in her mid 70's, who is known to be into conspiracies of all kinds called Candace Owens. SHE GAVE CANDACE OWENS RALPH'S NUMBER. So, here is Ralph driving down the street when Candace Owens called and he told her the exact same story I am telling you, but he told her that the female server was just not sure, she thinks it could have been him, nobody ever told her they were 100% sure about the identification. When the FBI came, THEY were given the original receipt. Fox 13 in Utah did a story and that is what got this out to National news. The FBI said they would be in touch if in fact the receipt came back as Tyler Robinson, they never got back to him, the defense has NEVER CALLED THEM and today I found out that the FBI has confirmed that the receipt did not belong to Tyler Robinson. It is my understanding that @DiligentDenizen has been told same. Which would explain why he is now attempting to say that the DEFENSE is in on a scam to blame it on Tyler. What did he say, they are Government Cheese? Give me a break. If anyone has that clip from Spaces, please send it to me so I can forward that VIA PROCESS SERVER TO THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY. Perhaps she will sue him for defamation. Anyway, @RealCandaceO I am a big fan, love the show, it is my favorite fictional series ever. But this next part you are not going to like so much, Tyler Robinson has been CONFIRMED as not eating at the Steakhouse. Also, The Discord confession? Yeah, that is true ahs well. How do I know? I interviewed a friend who was part of that chat. ....OH, I almost forgot, I got permission to give Andrew Wilson a witness phone number, if you don't hear me, you certainly will hear him. Cheers!!! @paleochristcon Oh, for the cultists who get mad at me just because I am speaking truth, you need to deal with it, because something is becoming really clear...........

I think @RealCandaceO and @baroncoleman absolutely should represent Tyler Robinson, in fact, I believe it so much, I thought I would run a courtroom simulation based on some of their tweets and "Theories" --Feel free to throw in more theories you want tested with a Court Simulation and likewise, throw in any REAL evidence that you believe would help Tyler Robinson, otherwise, this is how some of this stuff would play out in court. (this simulation cannot possibly address all the nonsensical theories, but we will in other simulations) Comprehensive Courtroom Simulation State of Utah v. Tyler Robinson Public-Conspiracy-Theory Hearing - Including Google Trends Claims Fictionalized courtroom simulation based on publicly circulated arguments and theories. Statements attributed to participants are dramatized for purposes of illustrating evidentiary objections and courtroom procedure. Fourth District Court, Provo, Utah. The jury is seated. The prosecution table is ready. Defense counsel sits beside Tyler Robinson. Candace Owens and Baron Coleman have been granted extremely limited permission to address theories that have circulated publicly concerning the killing of Charlie Kirk. The Court has warned both speakers that they may discuss only matters capable of being supported by admissible evidence. Judge: Ms. Owens and Mr. Coleman, this is not a podcast, livestream, social-media space, or press conference. You will preview evidence that could actually be admitted at trial. No anonymous-source storytelling. No dreams. No numerology. No unsupported Internet speculation. And no accusations against governments, religious groups, military organizations, or private individuals without competent evidence. You have five minutes between you. Proceed. Candace Owens: Members of the jury, the State wants you to believe this was a simple assassination carried out by one young man with a rifle. But what if it wasn't? What if Tyler Robinson was merely the person selected to take the blame? I have spoken with a highly placed French government source who told me- Prosecutor: Objection. Hearsay. No identified declarant, no foundation, no showing of personal knowledge. Judge: Sustained. Candace Owens: There were French military connections. French Foreign Legion personnel. Men wearing maroon. A man in a beret near the Losee Center- Prosecutor: Objection. Speculation and improper inference. The existence of a person wearing a beret does not establish membership in the French Foreign Legion, American Special Forces, or any military organization whatsoever. Likewise, the color maroon is not forensic evidence. Millions of civilians own maroon shirts, jackets, hats, uniforms, and accessories. A color cannot become proof of participation in an assassination merely because some military units also use it. Judge: Sustained. Candace Owens: But an Egyptian military aircraft was connected to Provo. There were reports involving Israeli telephones. There were unusual flights- Prosecutor: Objection. The presence of an aircraft at an airport proves an aircraft was present at an airport. Before such evidence could have any relevance to this homicide, someone would need competent evidence connecting the aircraft, its passengers, crew, cargo, itinerary, communications, or mission to the offense. Without that connective evidence, the argument is: Plane existed. Crime occurred. Therefore plane was involved. That is not evidence. That is association masquerading as causation. Judge: Sustained. Candace Owens: There were twelve Israeli phones- Prosecutor: Who owned them? Candace Owens: The data indicates- Prosecutor: Who owned them? Candace Owens: We don't know. Prosecutor: Who possessed them? Candace Owens: That has not been established. Prosecutor: Were they actually Israeli citizens? Candace Owens: We don't know. Prosecutor: Were they government devices? Candace Owens: We don't know. Prosecutor: Were any of them communicating with Tyler Robinson? Candace Owens: Not that I can establish here. Prosecutor: Then there is no evidentiary bridge between the phones and the homicide. Judge: Correct. Move on. Candace Owens: There was also a trap door near the stage and possible underground infrastructure beneath the campus. Prosecutor: Objection. Foundation. Produce architectural drawings. Produce construction records. Produce photographs. Produce measurements. Produce a witness who physically entered this alleged assassination tunnel. Produce surveillance showing someone using it. Produce fingerprints, DNA, footprints, fibers, weapons, communications, or some other forensic connection between that structure and the crime. A door, utility access point, maintenance cavity, basement, steam tunnel, electrical vault, or ordinary campus infrastructure does not transform into a clandestine assassin escape route because somebody circles it in a video. Judge: Sustained. Candace Owens: The area was paved afterward. Prosecutor: And paving proves what? Was ballistic evidence underneath it? Was there blood underneath it? A weapon? A footprint? A cartridge? A tunnel entrance? Unless evidence establishes that something material was deliberately destroyed, normal construction or repair activity does not become evidence destruction merely because it occurred after a crime. The scene was processed and turned back over to the University for Biohazard cleaning and Mitigation purposes. Temporal proximity is not proof of conspiratorial intent. Judge: Sustained. Candace Owens: Charlie's microphone may have exploded. Enhanced photographs appear to show fragments- Prosecutor: Objection. Image enhancement cannot manufacture missing forensic provenance. Where is the microphone? Where is the chain of custody on the photographs? What is the chain of custody on that vehicle? How are we to know if images from inside the truck were not planted weeks after the murder? There is absolutely NO acoustic evidence that points to an exploding microphone, none. Where are the fragments? Who recovered them? Where is the chain of custody? Where is the explosive residue analysis? Where is the electrical analysis? Where is the blast-pattern evidence? Where is the explosive-device expert? Where are the characteristic injuries demonstrating an explosion rather than gunshot trauma? Zooming, sharpening, contrast enhancement, AI upscaling, edge detection, or drawing arrows on compressed Internet images does not substitute for physical examination of evidence. Judge: Sustained. Candace Owens: Charlie also appeared to me- Judge: Don't. Candace Owens: -in a dream. Judge: Sit down. Candace Owens: And the number thirty-three- Judge: Sit. Down. Owens reluctantly returns to counsel table. Baron Coleman rises. Baron Coleman: Your Honor, unlike some of these broader theories, I have concentrated on technical inconsistencies. I have consulted medical experts who tell me that the physical response seen in video is incompatible with the official explanation. Prosecutor: Names? Baron Coleman: I do not have the names immediately available. Prosecutor: Specialties? Baron Coleman: Trauma medicine, ballistics- Prosecutor: Which individual held which specialty? Baron Coleman: I would need my notes. Prosecutor: Did they review the complete autopsy? Baron Coleman: I believe- Prosecutor: Did they examine the body? Baron Coleman: No. Prosecutor: Did they review histology? Baron Coleman: I don't know. Prosecutor: CT imaging? Baron Coleman: I would need to check. Prosecutor: Toxicology? Baron Coleman: Again- Prosecutor: Clothing examination? Baron Coleman: Not personally. Prosecutor: Weapon? Baron Coleman: No. Prosecutor: Bullets or fragments? Baron Coleman: No. Prosecutor: Scene measurements? Baron Coleman: Not that I know. Prosecutor: Then what you presently have is an unidentified person offering an unverifiable opinion about incomplete material. That is not expert testimony. Judge: Correct. Baron Coleman: The movement of Kirk's shirt indicates air being expelled in several directions. His hair moves. His ring appears to move contrary to gravity. Those mechanics could indicate electrocution from the metal chair and table, or perhaps a directional charge beneath the shirt near the wireless microphone. Prosecutor: Objection. Now we have two mutually different mechanisms being proposed because a compressed video looks unusual frame-by-frame. Electrocution requires evidence of electrical current sufficient to produce the alleged effect. Where is the power source? Where is the circuit? Where are electrical burns? Where is damage to the chair? Where is damage to the table? Where are the conductive pathways? Where is the electrical-engineering analysis? Where is the biomedical evidence demonstrating lethal current? A directional explosive charge requires an entirely different evidentiary chain. Where are the explosive residues? Where is the initiator? Where is fragmentation? Where is blast damage? Where is scorching? Where is pressure-wave damage? Where is the device? Where is the trigger? Where is the person who planted it? You cannot alternate between electrocution and explosives depending upon which individual video frame happens to be under discussion. Competing possibilities are not cumulative evidence. They are competing hypotheses. Judge: Sustained. Baron Coleman: Then explain the Google Trends data. Searches involving Tyler Robinson, the Losee Center, hospitals, officials, surgeons, judges, and other terms connected with the case appear in Google Trends before those details supposedly became public. Some searches appear associated with Washington, D.C., Israel, Alabama, and other locations. That is evidence of foreknowledge. Prosecutor: No. That is precisely what Google Trends does not establish. First, Google Trends does not ordinarily identify individual searchers. It does not tell this jury: "This person typed this exact query from this computer at this exact location at this exact time." It reports aggregated and sampled search-interest information. Second, the numbers displayed by Google Trends are generally normalized relative-interest values, not a raw census of searches. A value of 100 does not mean one hundred people searched a phrase. It represents peak relative popularity within the selected comparison. Third, geographic interest is also relative. A region showing unusually high interest does not necessarily mean that region generated the largest absolute number of searches. A location with relatively few searches overall can produce an apparently dramatic percentage or index when the term is rare. Fourth, extremely low-volume terms create another problem. Google Trends can behave strangely with obscure names and phrases because the underlying search volume may be tiny. If three people somewhere search an obscure phrase and nobody else does, the relative spike can look enormous. That does not make those three hypothetical searches members of an intelligence service. Fifth, search terms are ambiguous. A person's name may belong to multiple people. A building name may occur in unrelated contexts. A hospital, physician, surname, organization, or abbreviation may have existed on the Internet long before the event. Sixth, location inference is not the same thing as identity. Even assuming searches genuinely originated in Washington, D.C., that does not mean they were performed by the CIA, FBI, Pentagon, White House, Israeli intelligence, foreign diplomats, or any government employee. Washington contains residents, tourists, students, journalists, lawyers, researchers, contractors, businesses, universities, hospitals, bots, VPN users, and millions of ordinary Internet activities. Likewise, a search associated with Israel does not become an Israeli intelligence operation simply because the geographic label says Israel. That inference leaps from geography to identity and then from identity to criminal intent without proving either step. Seventh, retrospective searching creates enormous opportunities for cherry-picking. Once investigators already know hundreds of names, locations, organizations, hospitals, streets, buildings, officials, dates, acronyms, and phrases connected to an event, they can search backward through countless combinations until some chart somewhere appears unusual. That is not prediction. That is multiple-comparison fishing. If you test enough combinations, apparently remarkable coincidences become mathematically inevitable. Baron Coleman: But some of those searches happened before the assassination. Prosecutor: Even if the underlying Trends display is accurate, that establishes only that some search activity apparently occurred. To turn it into evidence of conspiracy, you would still need to prove: who made the search, what exact query was made, when it was made, whether the displayed date or region is sufficiently precise, whether the term referred to the same person or place, why the person searched it, whether that person had any connection to the crime, and whether the search resulted from foreknowledge rather than coincidence, ordinary research, unrelated activity, automated traffic, VPN routing, or statistical noise. Without those links, Google Trends supplies correlation without attribution. There are internet Grifters such as @AnaEscobarShow and @realstewpeters who broadcast nonsensical Google Trends theories that are laughable and unreliable, but gullible people eat it up, that is what Counsel is trying to do here. And correlation without attribution cannot identify an assassin. Baron Coleman: That's too many coincidences. Prosecutor: "Too many coincidences" is not a forensic standard. A criminal prosecution requires evidence connecting a defendant or alleged conspirator to an act. If someone produced Google account records showing that a specific conspirator searched: "How do I enter the Losee Center roof undetected?" followed by authenticated communications discussing the attack, location records placing that person at the scene, and forensic evidence connecting that person to the weapon, then the searches might become highly relevant. But that would be because the searches had been authenticated and connected to a person and criminal conduct. A public Google Trends graph cannot perform those functions. It cannot identify the searcher. It cannot establish motive. It cannot establish membership in an intelligence organization. It cannot establish a conspiracy. It cannot establish that Tyler Robinson was framed. And it certainly cannot convert the words "Israel" or "Washington, D.C." appearing on a regional-interest display into evidence that a national government ordered a murder. Judge: Sustained. The jury is instructed that Google Trends data cannot be treated as proof of the identity, motive, occupation, governmental affiliation, or criminal intent of unknown searchers merely because a search term appears to register interest from a particular region. Baron Coleman: But there are also Bates-stamped documents showing inconsistencies in the custody timeline- Prosecutor: Then introduce the actual document. Authenticate it. Identify who created it. Establish what the timestamp represents. Determine whether it records creation time, upload time, extraction time, processing time, UTC, local time, a database event, or the event itself. Then compare it with the authenticated source records. A Bates number proves where a page sits inside a litigation production. It does not magically authenticate every interpretation someone assigns to the contents of that page. Judge: Correct. Baron Coleman: And the maroon berets near a Special Forces installation- Prosecutor: Already excluded. Geographic proximity to a military base does not turn civilians into commandos. Baron Coleman: French troops trained with Americans before the attack. Prosecutor: Militaries conduct joint training routinely. To connect a training exercise to a murder you would need actual participants, communications, travel records, operational orders, surveillance, forensic evidence, financial records, witnesses, or some other competent link. "Training occurred before crime" proves chronology. It does not prove participation. Judge: Sustained. Baron Coleman: The official narrative cannot explain the body's movement. Prosecutor: Human bodies struck by projectiles do not obey simplistic movie physics. The prosecution would establish mechanism through pathology, wound tracks, tissue damage, ballistics, trajectory evidence, scene reconstruction, and qualified expert testimony-not by freezing individual pixels from social-media video and inventing a different mechanism for each one. Furthermore, this defense counsel at one time suggested the 30-.06 wound suffered by Mr. Kirk was ridiculous and that the wound would have been much more devastating, after the Medical Report came out, defense counsel now says, the wounds suffered are larger and more devastating than they should be. Judge: Sustained. Owens jumps back to her feet. Candace Owens: This court is suppressing the truth! Judge: Sit down. Candace Owens: The French source- Judge: Sit down. Candace Owens: The Google searches- Judge: Sit down. Baron Coleman: My experts- Judge: Name one. Silence. Judge: That's what I thought. The Court is going to make something very clear. Suspicion is permitted outside this courtroom. Speculation is permitted outside this courtroom. People may publish theories, podcasts, videos, charts, diagrams, slowed footage, annotated photographs, timelines, flight maps, Google Trends screenshots, anonymous-source claims, and endless interpretations of coincidences. But once a claim enters a criminal courtroom, it encounters rules. Who is the source? How does the witness know? Can the information be authenticated? Can it be tested? Is there a chain of custody? Is the witness qualified? Is the methodology reliable? Does the evidence actually make a disputed fact more or less probable? Can the opposing party cross-examine the person making the assertion? Those requirements are not a conspiracy against alternative theories. They are the mechanism by which courts distinguish evidence from rumor. Candace Owens: You're protecting— Judge: Bailiffs. Owens continues shouting as deputies approach. Coleman stands. Baron Coleman: If the Court refuses to consider the Trends data, the berets, the electrocution evidence, the French connection- Judge: What electrocution evidence? Baron Coleman: The video- Judge: What electrical evidence? Silence. Judge: What explosive evidence? Silence. Judge: What authenticated French operational evidence? Silence. Judge: What evidence identifies the supposed Google searchers? Silence. Judge: What witness can testify from personal knowledge that a tunnel was used during this crime? Silence. Judge: What named expert is prepared to testify under oath that the medical evidence demonstrates electrocution or a shaped charge? Silence. Judge: Then we are finished. Bailiffs escort both speakers from the courtroom. The Judge turns toward the jury. Judge: Members of the jury, you are instructed to disregard unsupported allegations concerning foreign governments, military units, religious or political groups, aircraft, unidentified cellular devices, alleged tunnels, exploding microphones, electrical devices, symbolic colors, numerology, dreams, or anonymous experts. You are additionally instructed that Google Trends is not a database identifying individual Google users. A regional search-interest display, standing alone, cannot establish who performed a search, why it was performed, whether it concerned the same person or event, whether the searcher possessed advance knowledge, or whether the searcher belonged to any government or intelligence organization. Coincidence may justify investigation. It does not itself establish guilt. Anomaly may justify a question. It does not itself supply the answer. And a hypothesis does not become evidence merely because it has been repeated many times on the Internet. The State will be required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt using evidence actually admitted in this courtroom. The defense remains entitled to challenge every part of that evidence, expose inconsistencies, cross-examine witnesses, attack forensic methodology, challenge authentication, contest timelines, present qualified experts, and propose reasonable alternative interpretations supported by evidence. That is how adversarial testing works. The jury will decide the case from that evidence-and nothing else. Prosecutor: Your Honor, the State asks that the limiting instruction be reduced to writing and provided to the jury. Judge: Granted. Prosecutor: And, specifically, that the Court clarify that unusual Google Trends results may warrant further investigation but cannot themselves identify conspirators or establish advance knowledge. Judge: That instruction will be included. Defense counsel may proceed with its opening statement. The courtroom returns to silence. For the first time since the interruption began, nobody is discussing berets, tunnels, dreams, exploding microphones, anonymous intelligence sources, or Google Trends heat maps. The lawyers begin trying the case with evidence. End of Simulation. You get the point now? You can have all your cute theories, you can say this and that, but you have not produced 1 theory that will hold up in a court of law. NOT ONE. Bray, Coleman, Escobar, Peters and company have done nothing but make money off you, their interest is to make money, period. While other people investigate real theories, real leads. I would never want an innocent man put down for something he did not do, but there is ZERO evidence that he is NOT the shooter.

🚨🚨🚨So let me get this straight... THE GRIFT IS ON.............................🤣🤣🚨🚨 @BaronColeman posted what he claimed was a burn mark on Charlie Kirk's chest. I compared that claim against the evacuation footage and the screenshots below. I debunked that claim THERE WAS NO MARK on Charlie's Chest until the man with blood-soaked hand made contact to that same area. The images show the lead rescuer in black rolling the side of his palm across Charlie's chest during the evacuation, leaving the mark Baron later characterized as a burn. I even included the frame showing the apparent point of contact. Then @RealCandaceOwens said she had been "sitting" on evidence so people couldn't get their alibis before making an "EMERGENCY BROADCAST"🤣🤣 Except... according to the posts shown below, the vehicle photos appear to have been provided to her by another individual earlier as exposed by @CinemaShogun , the man in the post who publicly stated that a friend took the pictures and that he forwarded them to Candace. If that's accurate, then the obvious question is this: What is the documented chain of custody? Why would this individual who clearly knew Candace was on this, not call the police? I will tell you why, because it is a GIANT GRIFT. She claimed she had been "SITTING" on this evidence so she could SPRING HER TRAP........🤣🤣🤣 Hey Cultists, are you not upset your modern-day Jim Jones and David Koresh lied? If private individuals had access to the vehicle before whatever evidence is eventually presented, any later physical item allegedly recovered from that vehicle would never be admissible in a court of law. Those are the same kinds of chain-of-custody issues that courts routinely consider when evaluating physical evidence. There is NOTHING from this vehicle now that can be looked at in anything other than Candace Owens tainted cultists. Now setting them up with the PERFECT GRIFT. Now, they have the perfect alibi for when their ridiculous BULLSHIT exploding mic theories get blown apart. "IT'S ALL FIXED BY THE ZIONISTS, WE EXPOSED IT, THIS IS INSANE!!!" You know I am right. What was to stop this guy from burning up a few napkins, throwing them in this truck? I guarantee they do not show a video of that truck when it was SECURED by whoever got the truck. So here's my prediction. The next "smoking gun" will be some object that is claimed to have come from that vehicle—perhaps pieces of a microphone or similar item? OBTAINED FROM THE VEHICLE? You now see where this is going? They could buy a similar mic, smash it in pieces and claim it was taken from that vehicle or what was to stop this guy from doing it himself? Someone clearly had access to that vehicle who is PRO-CANDACE. To me, this explains a whole lot now. If that happens, one of the first questions should be: Who had access to the vehicle, when did they have access, what was documented, and what is the complete chain of custody? They will not ask the obvious question, this was such an INCREDIBLY WELL-DONE ISRAELI HIT, that they allowed people to take photographs of the vehicle with evidence in it.....🤣🤣🤣🤣 Or, that they did not clean up the evidence themselves before allowing others access? Yes Baron and Candace, YOU CRACKED THE CASE!! The WORLD RUN BY ZIONISTS DID A GOOGLE SEARCH, SET UP A FURRY, LEFT BEHIND TRUCK FULL OF EVIDENCE...........GOT 1-300 people to lie..........DEFIED PHYSICS..........Somehow blasted fake acoustic gunshots over the entire area while syncing that timing with the EXPLODING MIC in front of 3,000 people, then, with hundreds recording, the security team quickly leaped over the table, grabbing and hiding evidence, ONLY TO LEAVE HUGE AMOUNTS OF EVIDENCE IN THE TRUCK AFTERWARD?? FOR ANY JOE TO PHOTOGRAPH??😉😉😉Yeah, once again, not the sharpest tools in the shed. The burden isn't on the public to assume authenticity. The burden is on whoever is presenting the evidence to demonstrate that it has been preserved, documented, and handled in a way that supports its reliability. That's how evidence is evaluated—not by dramatic reveals, but by documented chain of custody. @grok Go ahead, evaluate this post, it's ok, you can tell them. I'm right..........................AGAIN.

Interesting day for the podsloppers. It appears @RealCandaceO has STIFFED Mitch Snow out of the promised money and fundraising that she did for him. If you recall, I had done a post saying I had information saying he had been promised money to come on her show and make those accusations that he had made. But Candace stiffed him? SHOCKER. In return, Mitch Snow is now claiming @imelizabethlane is in fact a nefarious operator. SHOCKER. But while this was going on today, the podsloppers wanted to keep you distracted from a lie regarding 92 people who were doxxing Queen Dipshit. But here is @shadyladykady AFTER she left the group stating this NEVER happened. SHOCKER. Perhaps they were trying to distract from this unearthed video by @LakeTime79 where it certainly appears VALHALLA was going to EXPOSE the podsloppers for something--he was upset that Candace was giving Mitch Snow a fundraiser--I wonder if my source saying he was promised MONEY from Candace to say those things was in fact true? I had offered Mitch Snow and interview and he declined. I posted about that. I also saw a fascinating video absolutely CRUSHING @baroncoleman funeral timeline bullshit. SHOCKER that video is attached. Isn't it interesting these people can NEVER get actual experts to back ANYTHING they say? Remember, Baron Coleman is the guy who was a confidential informant and orchestrated a WHISPER CAMPAIGN to taint a jury. So, we have a pizza delivery boy Nazi, a narcissist, a Russian operative and an unethical attorney and their bullshit is falling apart? SHOCKER. I thought it was going to be a BAD WEEK for the people who believe Tyler actually did it? It certainly sounds like Valhalla is threatening to expose something about Candace in this video--- Oh, and I forgot, I have actually interviewed REAL Neurosurgeons and Medical Examiners and Guess what? I will actually release their names, that report is coming next week and SHOCKER Baron Coleman is full of shit, again. ENJOY THE DEBUNKING AND THE INFIGHTING....................🤣🤣🤣 When Truth is on your side, it is so much easier to get along. bing.com/videos/riverview/re…