HEY FBI: How Sure Are You That Your Case Against Charlie’s Killer Is Actually Airtight?

After years of the public being trained to be skeptical of an often dishonest federal government, now is the time to prove everything is on the up-and-up. Especially with so much riding on a proper resolution to this case.

I often point back to the example of John Adams defending Redcoats in the Boston Massacre as a high water mark for what the American legal system can truly be. Those men shot into a crowd, after a protest where rocks were thrown at the Redcoats by a crowd in which they were vastly outnumbered. After being struck, the soldier fired a shot, which led to a total of 11 shots fired with 5 fatalites, and 6 wounded. Two men were convicted of manslaughter, the rest were acquitted by reason of acting in self-defense.

It’s no secret what Adams thought of the Redcoats at the time, but more than ‘making them hang’ he cared about justice rightly dispensed, condemning the guilty and acquitting the innocent. He himself served as their legal defence counsel.

In that same great tradition of carefully inquiring into the guilt or innocent of the accused, now that the initial and inflamed passions of our reactions to the klling of Charlie Kirk have cooled to a more steely resolve, let us do something Charlie himself would do in his own preparation for public debates.

Let’s stress-test our own assumptions about what we THINK we know about this case, so that we, like Adams, can be confident that we are not making errors in judgement that result in the guilty going free, or (worse still) an innocent party bearing unjust guilt.

For the record, we have high hopes for the desire of Kash Patel and Dan Bongino to enact the cultural reset the FBI would need to rebuild the trust that has been lost through Comey and Wray, and truth be told, about the handling of cases long before either of them came along.

We see accounts like this one of Bongino, and we WANT to believe the best about both him and his agency…

The Bongino Army knows how heartbroken @dbongino is in this clip.
Dan has always been one of us, no matter his job.
I’m so thankful that he is the one getting justice for Charlie. pic.twitter.com/Ud2o8xtV0M

— AnitaMagroin 👑 (@QueenAnitaDBS) September 26, 2025

…but we don’t have any way of knowing whether his medicine has provided a cure. We’ve been burned before. Until that trust is rebuilt, we have little recourse but to invoke the Gipper’s ‘trust but verify’ standard.

If we, and others like us, can throw some difficult questions at the FBI now we can have two outcomes. If they have the right guy, the prosecution will be able to anticipate objections raised by the defendant’s attorney, and will not be caught flat-footed by them.

If they have the WRONG guy, and/or the wrong details about the case, raising questions can cause them to continue their search before the evidence goes completely cold and build a case around better information.

We know, for instance, that we already have one guy who played decoy for this event to allow the assassin to go free. Have we ruled out all possibility that the guy now accused is playing a longer version of the same bait-and-switch where he will come along later to drop evidence that exhonerates him long after someone else slips away into the night or worse, into a non-extradition country?

The fact that an entire group is under investigation for what they knew both prior to and immediately after his murder makes it even more imprtant that we have the right guy and not a fall guy, especially with the death penalty in play.

If he’s the guilty party, let the hammer of justice land as it will. But if he was just a bit player in a larger drama, or just talking tough to look badass for his ‘anti-fascist’ buddies? That changes the math.

Better minds than mine, familiar with the tools alleged to have been involved have scrutinized the timeline and have come up scratching their heads. It took the official police timeline seriously and asked whether the details held together.

Questions raised when it was announced there was no official autopsy only heightened the public skepticism, as Utah’s law requires an autopsy in the event of homicide if the ME determines to be necessary in determining the COD. Those who do not believe federal agencies have yet been purged of political biases might point to the sketchy handling of Ashli Babitt’s remains.

A YT video with the catchy title ‘The Charlie Kirk FBI Shooting Narrative Is Total Bullshit‘ by Valhalla VFT.

He’s by no means the only one asking questions.

Here’s just a taste of the kind of question he and others like him have been raising.

He walks us through the official timeline and then starts asking questions. Questions like —

1) how did he smuggle that gun to the site? One guy shows how enormous it would be in loose-fitting pants, let alone the skinny jeans the accused is pictured as wearing.
2) how did he have time to change his clothes between two different outfits as described.
3) Where was the gun as he got away — in that tiny little backpack? Was it totally broken down?
4) How did he reassemble the rifle for where it was stowed in the towel (supposing it was broken down) if the screwdriver was left behind on the roof.
5) Explain how a weapon of that caliber and power makes a fatal kill without leaving an exit wound let alone shearing the man’s head completely off.

You get the idea.

These are not inconsequential questions. They WILL come up in a trial.

Either he really is the guy who did it, or he is a patsy, and someone else is literally in the process of getting away with murder.

Both cannot be true.

Justice is demanded, sure. But Charlie himself would cation about rushing to judgement and condemning the wrong man to a fate he did not deserve.

Especially since so much of Charlie’s life was spent in preaching the good news of Christ, good news which (ironically) involved the condemnation of the world’s ONLY true Innocent Man to a wrongful death so that countless guilty men could trust in his sacrifice and go on to live as free men who had escapted certain judgment.