Katie

‘“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” — Benjamin Franklin

[Mikki Willis Official @MikkiWillis]

Case closed! Tyler Robinson was the lone shooter. The evidence is overwhelming. Move along!

Why do so many social media influencers want this case closed? They claim the evidence presented during the preliminary hearing was “crystal clear,” “damning,” and “conclusive.”

They are either seeing what they want to see, or they are lying.

I’ve been thoroughly investigating the Charlie Kirk assassination since the day it happened. This is the first time I’ve said anything publicly about the case. I couldn’t care less about being the first to break a story or about the clicks and cash that come with it. I care about accuracy. My track record speaks for itself.

What’s happening on social media right now is identical to what happened during COVID. Anyone who dared to seek information about the safety and efficacy of an experimental mRNA injection was labeled a science denier and shamed into solitude.

Ask questions about the public assassination of Charlie Kirk and you’re “crazy,” “a grifter,” or “a Candace cult member.”

To conclude that Tyler Robinson acted alone requires setting aside a number of glaring details that, at a minimum, warrant further scrutiny. These are just a few:

THE OTHER GUNMAN
An eyewitness videotaped an individual on the roof of the Losee Center, dressed in all-black tactical gear, including a face mask and helmet. This witness reported seeing what appeared to be a smaller/shorter rifle than the one later associated with the case.
He stated that he observed the individual run across the roof, set up, and take the shot at 12:23 p.m. The weapon he saw appeared to be a smaller rifle than what authorities later highlighted. He noted the sound as a “sharp crack,” not a big hunting rifle boom. The witness reported these details to authorities, but to date no one has followed up.

DISPATCH AUDIO
911 audio was broadcast shortly after the shooting. Dispatch relayed the suspect description to officers: “He’s on top of the building on the far north side, just east of the library… He’s going to be wearing all black, black long gun, black tactical helmet, a black mask, possibly wearing a tactical vest and jeans.”

DESTRUCTION OF THE CRIME SCENE
The lawn where Charlie Kirk was shot was paved over just four days later. The crime scene was excavated and covered with concrete on a Sunday. Dan Merrell was hired to pave the area. When he arrived at the scene, approximately 10 inches of topsoil had already been removed. Merrell stated on camera that someone coordinating the work told him, “The governor and the FBI said they want this done by Monday.”

DNA DISCREPANCIES
Forensic testimony indicated that DNA recovered from the towel wrapped around the rifle belonged to two individuals. One profile was identified as Robinson’s roommate, Lance Twiggs, while Robinson was identified only as a possible contributor to DNA found on the towel and on a screwdriver recovered from the rooftop. ATF forensic biologist Kaitlyn Oliver testified that Tyler Robinson’s DNA sample was “the most degraded.” What this could mean is that Lance Twiggs was the last to touch the rifle.

INCONCLUSIVE FRAGMENTS
During the preliminary hearing, ATF examiner Samantha Karner testified about a bullet jacket fragment pulled from Kirk’s autopsy compared against test-fires from the Mauser bolt-action rifle. Her analysis concluded the fragment “could not be identified or excluded” as having been fired from the rifle, with the report stating “the result of the comparison was inconclusive.” She testified she was “unable to say one way or another” due to a lack of microscopic marks on the bullet jacket fragment.

THE UNFIRED BULLET
During cross-examination, the defense asked investigator David Hull about a bullet found on a rooftop other than the rooftop where Robinson is alleged to have fired the fatal shot. Hull said he “believed” there was an unfired bullet found on another building, not the Losee Center. He said the area wasn’t treated as part of the crime scene because the bullet “was accounted for as an ejected cartridge from an officer who had cycled his rifle.” When pressed on specifics, Hull said he could not identify the building, could not recall the type of round, didn’t know when it was found, and didn’t know where it currently was.

ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE VIDEO
Judge Graf agreed to play an “enhanced” UVU surveillance video showing the person alleged to be Robinson on the rooftop���but ruled it would be shown only to people physically present in the courtroom.
As if following a script, conservative influencers who were in the courtroom that day echoed the same talking points. They claimed that the footage was clear, high-definition proof showing Robinson taking the shot—framing it as “undeniable.” However, others who were in the courtroom strongly refute these claims.
Brandi Siciliani posted on X “I was in the courtroom today. There is no high-quality, zoomed-in footage showing anyone taking a shot. The video shown is the same distance as the footage of ‘Tyler’ jumping off the roof… I have no idea why people are claiming otherwise. They know the video isn’t going to be released publicly, so they’re misrepresenting what was actually shown in court.”

As a filmmaker, I know a thing or two about video technology. 4K resolution alone doesn’t overcome the physics of distance and digital zoom. 4K refers to the sensor/output resolution (roughly 3840×2160 pixels), not how much detail exists on a subject 100+ yards away. If the subject occupies a tiny fraction of the frame, you only have a small number of actual pixels covering that person. Zooming in digitally (enlarging in post-production) doesn’t add resolution—it just makes the existing pixels bigger. It can improve visibility of shapes and colors, but it doesn’t recover facial detail or other identifying features that weren’t resolved at capture.

Not even AI can be trusted to upscale pixelated video. Enhancing a blurry face with AI can produce a coherent, convincing face that doesn’t match the actual person—because the model is filling gaps with statistically likely features, not real ones.

And… exhale.

These are just a few of the outstanding details that, in my opinion, should warrant deeper investigation into the murder of Charlie Kirk.

What you’re witnessing is a psychological operation cunningly deployed to further divide us and stop us from asking questions.

Beware of anyone pushing to close this case prematurely. We must never allow politics to thwart the pursuit of truth and justice.

This case holds the power to kill critical thinking or pull back the curtain to reveal the inner workings of “fifth generation warfare.” Which way it goes is entirely up to us, the people.

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

Mikki Willis
Investigative Filmmaker

[Libs of TikTok @libsoftiktok]

Italian artist Sergio Furnari unveils a beautiful new statue honoring Charlie Kirk, which is set to be on display in NYC's Times Square on the 1st anniversary of his assassination.

Amazing 🇺🇸

[Katie @Hardwick3282]

@Bitcoin_Teddy Yet absolutely true haha

[CrimeWatchMpls @CrimeWatchMpls]

Submitted: Random assault on a woman on July 11 at 50th and Logan Ave S while she was mowing. She was beaten badly. Camera caught the guy running down the alley as my husband tried to chase him - he did not catch him btw. Get this guys picture everywhere.

MPD case number 26-192260.

[Katie @Hardwick3282]

@webbygreg @grok @Taffy3isLegend @RealCandaceO @thevivafrei

[Katie @Hardwick3282]

@grok @webbygreg @Taffy3isLegend @RealCandaceO @thevivafrei I can’t even with these absolute retards and paid actors. They’re gonna kill a patsy to save their own asses. I hope every single one of them burn in hell for eternity. They’re not people or influencers….they’re demons. Demons walking the earth.

[Katie @Hardwick3282]

@grok @webbygreg @Taffy3isLegend @RealCandaceO @thevivafrei That’s because it’s Tyler‘s gun. And his was the most diminished meaning there was more fresh DNA on it than Tyler Robinsons DNA

[Katie @Hardwick3282]

@grok @webbygreg @Taffy3isLegend @RealCandaceO @thevivafrei It also matches lance twigs. Tyler’s DNA was the most broken down/diminished DNA of all the DNA that was found on the gun so nice try. Grok is clearly retarded and extremely censored

[Katie @Hardwick3282]

@TheDibsterX Amen

[The Disrespected Trucker @DisrespectedThe]

Charlie Kirks assassination made me lose what little hope I had in our government.

I think they're all crooked.

Every last one of them.

You stole the only hope this nation had left from us.

The only one willing to have a reasonable conversation.

You all declared war on America on September 10th.

War you will get!

You may have better weaponry but we have heart and God!

FREEDOM!!!!

[Vivian Kubrick @ViKu1111]

Andrew

Let me offer advice.

Experienced investigators pay close attention not only to what a person says, but to what they avoid, what provokes disproportionate anger, and where they repeatedly try to redirect attention.

When someone confronted with factual questions responds by attacking the questioner’s character, motives, sanity and reputation, that behavior does not make the questions disappear. It makes investigators more interested in why those questions produce such an extreme reaction.

Your response is not the language of a man calmly confident that the evidence supports him. It is the language of someone desperate to control the frame: Charlie’s death must be discussed only on your terms, Tyler Robinson must be accepted as the killer, alternative explanations must be ridiculed rather than examined, and anyone who refuses to comply must be publicly destroyed.

That is not a rebuttal. It is containment.

Candace has been conducting what every genuine investigation requires: collecting testimony, crowdsourcing information, following leads, testing theories and discarding those that fail. Some leads will inevitably reach dead ends. That is not proof of dishonesty; it is the nature of investigation. What matters is whether substantial questions remain unanswered—and they do.

Yet instead of answering those questions with evidence, you substitute moral outrage, mockery and character assassination. You invoke Charlie, Erika and the children as emotional shields, as though grief grants you exclusive authority over the facts or makes scrutiny immoral. It does not.

You claim Candace lacks proof while demanding that everyone accept Tyler Robinson’s guilt despite evidence that remains weak, contested and inconclusive. You therefore apply one standard to Candace and another to the official narrative: absolute proof is required before she may ask questions, but certainty is demanded from the public before the case itself has established it.

That contradiction is becoming impossible to miss.

So here is the advice an experienced interrogator might give you: stop attacking the person asking the questions and start answering the questions themselves. Stop repeating certainty where certainty has not been earned. Stop behaving as though investigation is a threat.

Because every time you respond to evidence with sarcasm or moral outrage, to questions with insults, and to uncertainty with enforced certainty, you do not make Candace look less credible.

You make yourself look more concerned about where the investigation may lead.

@RealCandaceO @baroncoleman @JohnMappin @ImMappin @joekent16jan19 @TRobinsonNewEra @LionelMedia @IanCarrollShow @AwakenWithJP @jimmy_dore @OwenBenjamin @leahfiles @realstewpeters @EstulinVz @RealAlexJones @HarrisonHSmith
@BlakeSNeff @TPUSA @DonaldJTrumpJr
#TylerRobinson #CharlieKirk #TPUSA #Israel

[Sam Tripoli @samtripoli]

Tyler Robinson will be found guilty. The truth is irrelevant, the narrative is all that matters.

[Katie @Hardwick3282]

So perfectly said!!!

[Andrew Zywiec, M.D. @AndrewZywiecMD]

I grow infinitely tired of the first sentence here. I don't know what goes on with the Candace situation, I don't watch podcasts. With that in mind, let me offer you all some sense.

In America, you are innocent until proven guilty. End of story. Anyone making the statement this idiot just made needs to reflect. And yes, it's idiotic, so spare me the self righteous virtue signaling. You do not condemn someone to guilt before seeing the evidence and going through a thorough process to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a human right. So, Kristan, I know you find logic and consequence challenging, evidenced by your failure as a pro life advocate, but bear with me here.

When a high profile political and religious figure, of which Charlie was both, is assassinated, no stone can be left unturned. Everyone close to him, every business relationship, every random quack letter with a threat, EVERYTHING must be investigated.

When this much money, power, and influence are involved, those closest must be met with ultimate scrutiny. Not as accusation, but as thorough investigation.

I find it ridiculous that such common sense must be stated.

As far as the ever obvious clown show arguments, let's put something to bed.

I don't trust our government. I don't trust any other government. When the most influential evangelical Christian on the planet is bankrolled by Jewish influence, which is a completely opposed theology, openly states that Israel is ethnically cleansing GAZA, as in, openly makes accusations of genocide, against the opposing religious influence that bankrolls his existence, one must factor this in. When donors, funding operatives, and world leaders are in the DMs, one must take that into account.

I am not saying Israel killed Charlie. I literally have no idea. I am saying how on earth can you rule any involvement out? Even secondary involvement. You think this is so irrelevant that it doesn't merit investigation? You think screeching "conspiracy" makes you sound rational or well intentioned? It doesn't. It makes you sound like a tone deaf sycophant with no desire for truth. And oppressive, thought policing tyrant.

I also believe that Erika Kirk has acted EXTRAORDINARILY strange in the wake of Charlie's death. Does that mean she killed him? No. Does that even mean something is off? No. People act weird all the time. What it does mean, is taking videos of Charlie in a casket and posting to social media is odd. The interviews are odd, the mannerisms are odd. The behavior is all odd, and there are odd things in the history. And that should ALL be taken into consideration. Again, on what planet is having eyes and ears and opinions on behavior some sort of thought crime?

Again, I haven't even spoken about this topic, and I have no clue who killed Kirk, and indeed I hold no position on it, but I find the shaping of narratives and the silencing of dissent, and the "mis and disinformation" campaigns akin to... COVID? Are you people are completely lost?

Given that this is the biggest political assassination since Kennedy, maybe people should stop being retards and look at the whole picture.

Is it possible some random transgender freak pulled off the greatest hit of our lifetimes? Sure. Is it likely, given the circumstances? Not at all. Trust your government at your own peril.

If you are incapable of having conversations on this topic, maybe sit at the children's table this Thanksgiving.

In closing, you will likely never know who killed Kirk. But someone will fall.

[Katie @Hardwick3282]

@kellscrushXX @clerpatriot Yep. Agree 100%

[Katie @Hardwick3282]

@jill_reality @clerpatriot Can’t imagine just blindly following the rest of the sheep…….she’s probably also on tpusa’s payroll along with graham and paramount not so tactical. They literally sound like a bunch of morons. Definition of NPC. Ick

[Katie @Hardwick3282]

These people are just straight up idiots literally

[Rachel Wilson @Rach4Patriarchy]

If someone is bleeding out, the first step is stop the bleeding. Doing chest compressions would make them bleed out faster. Why would you prioritize the heart beating if there’s no blood left to pump? She boldly asserts garbage that takes seconds to think through and debunk.

[Katie @Hardwick3282]

@SharrellAnne2 That’s not true you try to do both at once but if somebody does not have a pulse and is not breathing regularly, you start CPR regardless so you’re lying.

[Katie @Hardwick3282]

@clerpatriot I work in the medical field and yes, you would do CPR regardless so you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. Have you ever taken a CPR class?

[Katie @Hardwick3282]

Regardless of this ballistics bs, explain all other 500 inconsistencies with their absolute garbage story that not a single one of these retards can actually get straight. They clearly did not get their stories straight ahead of time. They are getting caught in straight up lies daily, bro!