- cross-posted to:
- usnews@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- usnews@beehaw.org
An analysis from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive (ATF) could not conclusively connect a bullet fragment recovered during Charlie Kirk’s autopsy to the rifle found near the scene of the rightwing political activist’s killing – and the FBI is running additional tests, lawyers for Kirk’s accused murderer said in recent court filings.
In the court filings, Tyler Robinson’s defense team also asked for a delay to a preliminary hearing scheduled in May, saying they need time to review the bullet analysis as well as an enormous amount of other material that could contribute to the suspect’s defense.
The ATF’s bullet analysis report has been kept private, but attorneys have cited snippets in other public filings that say the results were inconclusive.
The defense said in its motion that it may try to use the analysis to clear Robinson of blame during the preliminary hearing while prosecutors aim to show they have enough evidence against him to proceed with a trial.
You must log in or register to comment.
I have read somewhere that the whole “bullet forensics” process is mostly pseudoscience anyway. A quick search found this article:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-field-of-firearms-forensics-is-flawed/
If a shell casing wasn’t ejected on the scene (like with a bolt-action not cycled) then all they would have to analyze is the what’s-left-of-bullet which is possibly just a mess of lead and copper. May or may not have rifling marks left on it
Yeah, shits not like on TV.
In fact, one of the big reason it’s like that on TV, is just so when cops lie in real life, idiots believe them.
They consistently tell suspects “we know your gun fired the bullet” but they don’t, at most for handguns they can say “a glock fired it” because they use weird octagon rifling.
Matching it to a specific firearm is impossible unless the barrel is real fucked up in a unique way.
A 30-06 will have such massive deformation, I’d be shocked if any rifling is identifiable.
That doesn’t mean the person they claim is the shooter really is tho, all types of shit happened immediately after that only make sense if there was a cover up.
But anyone expecting a bullet to be “matched” to a rifle been watching too much CSI
Which really sucks because the juries are all full of tv forensics knowledge, so when cops lie or bend the truth I bet they eat it up
Yeah, shits not like on TV.
Is that the scene the other fellow ‘helps’ by also typing on the same keyboard?! 🤣
Lovely duet
Yeah, and another guy “solves” it by unplugging the computer.
A 30-06 will have such massive deformation
The article describes a fragment, which is beyond mere deformation. That’s unsurprising with a high-velocity rifle round and would typically be impossible to conclusively match to the weapon that fired it. It could be possible to exclude a particular weapon (wrong caliber, obviously different rifling, etc…).
They don’t seem to be denying fragmentation/massive deformation. In fact, the crux of their comment relies on that fragmentation.
That massive deformation of the bullet comes from massive force, that didn’t happen to kirk’s neck.
The point is that, with the amount of force in applied to fragment this bullet, we do not see a similar amount of force applied to Charlie’s neck. There was no large exit wound, and the projectile did not appear to impact his spine.
That massive deformation of the bullet comes from massive force, that didn’t happen to kirk’s neck.
Have you even looked at the evidence? You people are fucking sheep.
Article says “fragment”. Have you seen otherwise?
Did the bullet stop in some conveniently placed ballistics gel behind Kirk?
That round would have turned his neck into hamburger.
Hunting rifles like that are usually going to make a small entrance wound and larger exit wound. I haven’t seen exactly what happened to kirk because I don’t like to watch people die. But I can say from experience with deer hunting that it’s plausible for that rifle to make a narrow wound channel through a person, while being extremely deadly to them, not making a huge wound outside.
Basically those high powered rounds are made to penetrate well through large animals, tougher than humans. Expanding and deforming of the round is intended to begin well after penetration, unlike the way handgun bullets are designed.
So I think it’s totally possible that Robinson did it even though the bullet isn’t able to be matched
The demonstrations I have seen with this rifle, with all types of ammunition including Old World War One ammunition that is less powerful, there’s a fist sized exit wound and bones in the neck would be broken.
Neat - that in no way answers my question.
Why are you asking me, I am denying it was that gun at all. The story is bs^3.
I’m asking you because you said
That massive deformation of the bullet comes from massive force, that didn’t happen to kirk’s neck.
Have you even looked at the evidence?
It sounds like you’re saying the bullet wouldn’t have been deformed and that you’ve seen some evidence to that end.
Same with fingerprinting and blood spatter analysis. There is very little within the field of forensics that is backed by science.
“We’re 100% certain the one responsible for destroying the eucalyptus bush is either you or this koala. Why don’t you just admit it now and save yourself some trouble?”
*munches on leaves*
It was the koala!
Eats shoots and leaves!
gangster koala
I searched and couldn’t find any information about fingerprints not being admissible in any courts. I’ve found a lot of stories about how they aren’t 100% accurate (closer to 95-99 percent), but not one story about how fingerprints were not admissible.
Where are these “many courts” that don’t accept fingerprints?
Did you try?
fingerprint evidence is not currently permitted to be reported in court unless examiners claim absolute certainty that a mark has been left by a particular suspect. This courtroom certainty is based purely on the opinion of experts
https://science.psu.edu/news/barriers-use-fingerprint-evidence-court-unlocked-statistical-model
Fingeprints are not admissable, just some guy’s opinion, because fingerprint identification has no real basis in science. And no, they aren’t 95-99% accurate (especially because it is just some guy eyeballing it), when tested by giving multiple “experts” the same set of prints, the “experts” come to disagreeing conclusions about if the prints match or not over half the time.
There are points of similarity in fingerprinting, and every state has their own number of points to be a match. They all accept them as evidence.
There are points of similarity in fingerprinting, and every state has their own number of points to be a match.
You mean they bring in an “expert” to testify that the fingerprints match… and when you give 2 “experts” the same set of fingerprints to compare, they literally come to disagreeing conclusions in 50% of tests
It is not a scientific or analytical process with scientifically identified “points of similarity”, its just a person who is deemed an “expert”, who looks at 2 fingerprints and says “yeah these look similar, and they look similar in X different places so 👍”
There are the actual standards, then there are prosecutors perverting them. Prosecutors are the least trustworthy people on the planet. Total pieces of shit, no argument here. But fingerprints themselves aren’t junk science as I’ve read, not like past hair analysis, blood spatter, bite mark analysis, 911 voice recording analysis, or any number of other junk sciences. As I understand it.
But don’t let me dismiss your point out of hand, what gave you this opinion, did you read something as such, you have a source on this?
not anymore fingerprinting, a study came out recently how fingerprints can be very similar to one or another
And even if it does, they’ll be so mangled as to be useless. Like you could say "ok the rifle has four grooves at 1:8” but you’ve got a fraction of a bullet that was squished into an entirely different shape on impact.
They have a sort of computer-aided 3-D reconstruction process, but that’s pretty sketchy, too.
Enhance!
“I asked ChatGPT and it said that gun fired the bullet.”
“I asked ChatGPT and it said that gun fired the bullet.”
“Youre absolutely right!!”
Bullet tracing is mostly a TV fiction. This headline is just the natural state of things.
Especially for 5.56/.223 where one of the major selling points is the cavitation it causes in soft tissue. “cavitation” being a polite term for “makes fucking explode”.
Its why actual footage of mass shootings is so horrifying. Media (and video games that glorify it…) like to paint it as neat little holes when the reality is you have one neat little hole for the entrance wound and a giant fist sized one or larger for the exit.
And all of that does a number on the bullet itself.
… The official story is that Kirk was shot with a 30-06.
A 30-06 is not a 5.56.
The official story is that Robinson shot Kirk with a 30-06, his grandpa’s old bolt-action rifle.
Why are you talking about a 5.56?
That’s nowhere in the article, its not part of the official story / prosecution case.
I don’t think he meant to infer the shooter used a 5.56 or 223. I think he just wanted to flex what he knew about a rifle caliber.
The whole bullet gun fingerprint thing is total bullshit, but it’s not completely impossible to determine caliber depending on the size of the fragment which could rule out a specific firearm.
Gun “finerprinting” is and isn’t bullshit.
The reality is that for a given configuration of a gun, you do get some rather distinct markings on a bullet. It is less “We can 100% determine this bullet was fired by this bigoted dipshit’s gun so let’s hand it to him so he can dramatically show he took the firing pin out” but you can get within a pretty high level of confidence.
Unless… the shooter cleaned their gun. Even just field stripping can often be enough. Let alone if they actually remove the firing pin and reinstall it (not even replacing).
I thought Charlie’s medical found lethal doses of fentanyl in his system.
There is no standard lethal amount of fentanyl. Someone who is naive to the medication could die from a very minute amount, while someone with experience and tolerance could do far more.
there’s actually a measure, it’s called the LD50.
I understand that, and thats probably a good rule for those who are naive to the medication. Tolerance does change the lethal amount on an individual basis so its hard to make statements on what would be lethal for a specific person though.
What about 220 grains of fent going 2400 fps into your neck?
Fent bullet incoming.
I don’t believe anyone here was saying there was.
You are correct though. It was obvious some conservatives wanted the execution, they just watched, to not be labeled an execution. “Self inflicted overdose” was a convenient excuse for them, so they ran with it.
They tried the same thing with Alex Peretti too. Disgusting behavior.
Source on that?
I’m confused. That’s an article about George Floyd?
Son, You make Molasses in January look swift.
Ok, just to check I’m not being too obcure I put my initial comment into Gemini.I asked it to explain the comment in the context of a post about the bullet that killed Charlie Kirk. It doesn’t know Kirk is dead, it did get the joke though. Now to the article, would you like to read the initial paragraph again please… Perhaps copy it into your next comment.
Prompt:
Explain this comment left under an article about the bullet that killed Charlie Kirk:
“I thought Charlie’s medical found lethal doses of fentanyl in his system.”
Gemini:
To understand that comment, you have to look at it through the lens of internet subcultures and political satire. It is a layered reference to the 2020 death of George Floyd and the subsequent memes that emerged from right-wing and left-wing online spaces. Here is the breakdown of why that comment was made:
- The “Lethal Dose” Trope The specific phrasing—“lethal doses of fentanyl in his system”—is a direct callback to the toxicology report of George Floyd. Following his death, many conservative commentators and social media users argued that Floyd did not die from police restraint, but rather from a drug overdose. By using this exact line in a comment about Charlie Kirk (a prominent conservative figure), the commenter is engaging in “copy-pasta” satire. They are taking a common right-wing talking point and “copy-pasting” it onto a situation involving a conservative to point out what they see as an absurdity or a double standard.
- The Context of the “Bullet” Article If the article mentioned a “bullet that killed Charlie Kirk,” it is likely referring to a viral piece of misinformation or a specific satirical news story. Charlie Kirk is alive; therefore, any article claiming he was killed by a bullet is either: Satire: (e.g., The Onion or The Babylon Bee style content). Misinformation: A hoax designed to trigger a reaction.
- The Irony of the Comment The commenter isn’t actually confused about Kirk’s medical records. Instead, they are using dark irony. The Logic: If a conservative argument suggests that a victim of violence actually died of a drug overdose to absolve the shooter/police, the commenter “flips the script” by suggesting that even if Kirk were shot, his “true” cause of death must have been fentanyl. Summary of Intent Mockery: To mock the arguments used in high-profile police brutality cases. Shitposting: To derail a serious or sensationalist headline with a well-known political meme. Parody: To act as a “mirror,” showing how certain political rhetoric sounds when applied to its own side. In short, it’s a cynical joke aimed at the way political deaths are litigated in the “court of public opinion.”
You used AI to explain a joke to you? Bruh
What’s the problem? It seemed to do a good job explaining it. As a non-American who didn’t get the joke either, it was helpful
They’re going for the ‘AI bad’ vote.
It doesn’t matter that the summary is correct and accurately demonstrates the user’s point.
Because they used AI, the people (who, mind you, responded to the wrong user and also didn’t read the article before responding) immediately jump to the conclusion that it’s bad.
I used AI to explain my own joke to myself? I don’t understand your comment.
Like the person I asked to re-read the initial paragraph of the article I linked, explaining the comment I made. I’ll ask you to re-read the initial paragraph of the comment I made explaining the joke I made.
I’m done with Lemmy for the day until you peeps start to read what you’re replying to.
People just want to comment with their hot take and don’t care to do things like read the article or look at the username of the commenter before responding.
So when do we get the evidence that this kid wasn’t involved, and is an AIPAC plant?
In a foreign-made documentary that’ll drop in about 30 years.
Or on youtube in a hundred places already but sure.
Completely and totally unrelated question to the topic because your username interests me.
What kind of communist is Tasslehoff Burrfoot?
Never. That is what it was though. Something similar to that anyway. We should all know it, but plenty on “the left” here silence questioning the obviously false on at least three points fbi information, officially because some on the right also questioned that evidence and therefore they are opposite of that.
Look at my username. I’m pretty damn far left. There are idiots everywhere, to misquote Mel Brooks, “We’re all surrounded by assholes.”
I was agreeing with you pal. You are like the only one I agreed with on this thread. I guess I wasn’t clear sorry.
Ahh, ok. Sorry for the misunderstanding on my part.
Every high profile murder that happens from now on will be conspiracy-theoried to death. Articles like this fuel it. I think it often makes sense to doubt the story we’re told. But many Lemmy users for example, are not “doubting”. They “know” what happened.
Yup. The smallest fragment of doubt will be a mountain of fuel.
our species is too stupid for the internet
Removed by mod
From your comment history:
It’s also rumoured, for a long time, decades, that the US has kill switches in most of the world’s computers. A fusible link they can send a message to that bricks it.
Yikes.
I mean, the Israelis kind of had something similar for a bunch of pagers, but instead of bricking the device, they just violently exploded.
Removed by mod
That is one of many windows into your thought process including your response to me here. I didn’t even state an opinion on the conspiracy theories, you just got mad that you thought someone implied they doubted them.
Removed by mod
His neck just did that.
The front fell off.
towed beyond the environment
Must have been a second shooter on the grassy knoll.
No, his neck just does that.
ACNE pimples gone wild.
They really want it to not be a groyper who shot him huh lol.
More likely Israel.
What makes you think so? I don’t know about Charlie Kirk in such high detail besides the surface level human garbage stuff and that a lot of nazi podcast bros got caught taking Pooty rubles awhile back.
Honestly, this comedian covers so many more obsurd issues with this case than I could think of. Shootout to some other Lemmizen who introduced me to this video about a month back in another post.
This story stinks, totally impossible story by the fbi on three counts at least. No shit they didn’t release the ballistics results, because that rifle would’ve made a very different more dramatic wound than whatever hit kirk.
I found it interesting that after Joe Kent resigned from being Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, he went on the record to say that the FBI prevented them from investigating any foreign links to the shooting.
Between this and the fake assassination attempt on Trump I’m convinced we need to just throw away the CIA and FBI.
Yep.
So many idiots here in this thread haven’t been following this story at all, they known nothing about the autopsy results.
There’s no way a 30-06 from the range and angle that Robinson was at… makes the wounds Kirk’s body had.
Yup. Said the exact same thing on the day. A 30-06 would have made a fist sized wound (bigger if it hit bone). The wound is consistent with a 5.56 or similar. Much smaller bore lower ft/lb projectile is more likely.
Have we considered the possibility of multiple shooters? The gun that killed Kirk may not necessarily have been the one that was found.
Just trying to avoid jumping to conclusions.
That is precisely what I think is the case.
I think Robinson was there, but he was being monitored, being shadowed.
There are many more parts of the FBI narrative that do not add up.
No shit they didn’t release the ballistics results, because that rifle would’ve made a very different more dramatic wound than whatever hit kirk.
They didn’t release the ballistics results because it is evidence in a case that is in progress.
FYI, Kirk was against an attack on Iran, and dared to equivocate Palestinian lives with those of genocidal zionazis, in the sense that perhaps the genocide was a little too heavy. Reportedly, Bill Ackman (head of US mossad zionazi division) tried to donate/persuade him to be more in line with GOP doctrine on the chosen genocidal supremacists, but was rebuffed shortly before the murder.
Joe Kent, director of counter terrorism, who recently resigned from Government because Iran war is purely for Israel, said that he was denied access to “terrorism investigation” related information in Kirk’s death.
Netenyahu has wanted the US to back Israel’s war with Iran for at least 20 years. Trump is the first president sufficiently cognitively challenged to do it.
These people are opportunists, not 5D chess players.
Who cares? Fuck kirk and his wife wife. And JD vance that fucks her and her sofa.
cool
A disturbing number of people seem to be reading this as:
“The bullet does not match the gun.” i.e. that there is ‘proof’ that the bullet didn’t come from his gun
Instead of
“They can’t say if it is or is not from the gun due to being a small fragment and not an entire bullet”
It probably doesn’t help that there are a bunch of communities/subreddits who’ve editorialized the headlines to say ‘bullet does not match gun’ and the tendency of people to only read the headline.
Under the requirement to prove beyond reasonable doubt, “they can’t say if it is or is not from the gun” is huge, having a gun becomes circumstantial, and requires additional evidence, and depending on the strength of additional evidence, a good lawyer maybe able to get him off the hook.
If the bullet doesn’t fit, you must acquit.
Can we compare it to IDF rifles next?
This is a nothing statement. It just means that they can’t definitively prove what rifle fired the bullet. It’s something that happens all the time, and there’s plenty of other evidence for them to convinct. Plus that motherfucker is still worm food, so it doesn’t really matter anyway.
there’s plenty of other evidence for them to convinct
Like confessing to the trans roommate? That was surely planted evidence.
Bullet analysis is circumstantial and pseudosciencey anyway so the fact they couldn’t get that in their favor is kind of weird.
