How one headline shaped the narrative in the Tyler Robinson case

SALT LAKE CITY — After the British tabloid the Daily Mail said a recent filing in the case against alleged Charlie Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson contained "bombshell" findings, firearm experts have accused the publication's choice of words as "completely and utterly misleading garbage."

The Daily Mail published a story on Monday about a motion recently filed by Robinson's defense attorneys, which asked the judge to vacate or delay the upcoming preliminary hearing in May because they do not yet have all the evidence needed to prepare their case. Their story quickly went viral with over 22 million views on X.

Why? Likely because of the misleading headline: "Bullet used to kill Charlie Kirk did NOT match rifle allegedly used by suspect Tyler Robinson, new court filing claims."

The filing from the defense team stated that the "discovery in this case is incomplete, voluminous, and the processing of it is complex," and also noted that they plan to hear testimony from Robinson's parents and former partner Lance Twiggs.

The preliminary hearing is currently set for May 18, 19 and 21. Robinson, 22, was charged with aggravated murder, along with five other felonies and a misdemeanor, less than a week after Kirk was shot and killed on Sept. 10, during an event at Utah Valley University in Orem.

But the Daily Mail highlighted information in the filing pertaining to the bullet recovered from Kirk's body.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the defense said, "was unable to identify the bullet recovered at autopsy to the rifle allegedly tied to Mr. Robinson." Robinson's team added that they could possibly have the ATF firearm analyst testify before the court as "exculpatory evidence."

Ammunition expert weighs in

But being unable to match does not definitely mean it wasn't used with the gun linked to Robinson, according to Justin Nazaroff, CEO of Fenix Ammunition.

The ATF "analyzed a bullet jacket fragment and were unable to determine that it came from the shooter's rifle," he said Tuesday morning on The Charlie Kirk Show. "Unfortunately, ballistic science is, in a lot of cases, a best guess, and in many other cases, pseudoscience."

He said that it was as likely to be determined as a match to the rifle as otherwise.

Nazaroff continued, "Even people in the firearms community who do understand firearms generally don't really know a lot about ammunition."

Since the Daily Mail drew attention to the bullet findings, many online, including podcaster Candace Owens, are using the headline to support their view that there isn't enough evidence against Robinson.

"But it's exactly what I'd expect from people who also watch Candace Owens," Nazaroff said. "It's actually very difficult to match a bullet to a rifle."

A 2020 collaborative study by the FBI found that firearms analysis often produces inconclusive results, even in controlled studies.

"If they had managed to recover a fully intact bullet where the lands and grooves matched perfectly. People on the other side would say, Well, it's obvious that the bullet was planted, because you're telling me that a bullet was fired through a human being, and it was, it was in perfect condition," Nazaroff said, emphasizing that understanding that the bullet would be fragmented was common knowledge, just days after the death of Kirk.

Owens even mentioned it in a podcast on Sept. 25.

"It seems obvious that there are people who will latch onto the piece of evidence that they think can be most easily used to confuse people," Nazaroff added. "I want people to take away the fact that, again, ballistic science is very inexact at best, and you're dealing with a lot of people on the internet who have no knowledge of it whatsoever. … This is not something that you can draw a 100% conclusions about. This is but one piece of evidence among many."

Former federal prosecutor Cully Stimson said on Fox News that it's a "delay tactic" by Robinson's defense. At the beginning of this year, Kirk's widow, Erika Kirk, asked Utah attorneys to guarantee her right to a speedy trial.

"Nobody believed in the importance of the United States Constitution more than Charlie Kirk. And although the United States Constitution guarantees criminal defendants many rights, it does not guarantee them the right to cause undue delay in the criminal justice process," Kirk's lawyer wrote.

Related topics