Sprout

Married to my best friend💕 Gardening, knitting, watercolor, Jesus is my Lord

[Sprout @monarch0603]

@dbongino Ephesians 6:12
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”

King James Version (KJV)

[Ms. Jackie @pr0truth]

@BasedSamParker Let's not forget, Charlie was NO fan of Gov. Cox either

[Sam Parker 🇺🇸🧯 @BasedSamParker]

🚨 CHARLIE KIRK CRIME SCENE BREAKING 🤯

Judicial Watch's GRAMA request on the paved-over Charlie Kirk crime scene has been revealed.

On late evening, Friday September 12, at nearly 8 pm, two days after Charlie was killed, UVU groundskeepers were told by local police that they wouldn't need to cut out any sod. The groundskeepers were happy at this news and discussed only needing to hose the area down.

But one of them then remarked that they couldn't do it yet because the FBI was still processing the crime scene.

That was late Friday night.

By Saturday afternoon the next day, the FBI & Governor Spencer Cox has overruled the local police and ordered not only the sod to be torn up, but the ground to be excavated to 10 inches deep!

That led to the now infamous "paver emergency" on Sunday morning, where another separate crew was brought in to pave over the crime scene after the first crew dug it up the day before.

Remember, all this happened AFTER the FBI finished examining the crime scene on Friday night, and after the local police had indicated a simple hosing down would be enough.

WHAT DID THE FBI FIND? WHY DID THEY ISSUE AN EMERGENCY ORDER TO DIG IT OUT AND PAVE IT OVER?

[Sprout @monarch0603]

For further clarity, this exhibit wasn’t supposed to be shown to the court attendees either, per the original order when the prosecution was forced to bring the unedited video the next day. But the victim representative filed a motion stating it was the family’s right to see the video so the judge reversed his order and showed it to the court and not the media.

[James Li @5149jamesli]

"Yes, there is reason for people to believe this was a professional hit job... that there is some considerable evidence there were state actors involved here."

- Benny Johnson

[Sprout @monarch0603]

Share the part where Andrea explains that all the gun results are mixtures and all but one are 4-5 contributors, and how STRmix is not validated for mixtures greater than 3, and how these results will be heavily litigated as unreliable before the trial even begins. This makes the reported statistics for Tyler highly questionable.

[Sprout @monarch0603]

Because you believe the testimony of the investigator that presented ring doorbell footage of Tyler’s supposed car with distinctive wheels (hint: they are stock and not unique) and failed to mention the homeowners saw a bald guy driving and 3 others in the vehicle? And that same investigator claimed maroon shirt guy and black shirt guy are the same guy because of converse shoes? Because you think that a 4-5 mixture of DNA on the rifle is even reliable and going to be admitted in the full trial? (Hint: STRmix software is only validated up to a 3 person mixture). Because you didn’t catch the part where Lance Twiggs lied when he said he never heard from Tyler all day until the autotext at 11 pm, but we can all see with our own eyes they texted at 4:33 pm that day? Because you didn’t notice that the challenger in the parking garage has a quad exhaust and Tyler’s car has dual? Because you didn’t catch on that the exact brand of seized bullets are designed to mushroom and not fragment? Because you trust the chain of custody of the bullet evidence when the medical examiner’s report states 7 lead fragments were found but the ATF received only 4? You’re in for a huge surprise at trial, my friend.

[Sprout @monarch0603]

@data_republican The DEFENDENT has a right to a speedy trial and he has WAIVED it. Apparently the victim representative does too in Utah, but her requests have been denied in favor of the defendent.

[Sprout @monarch0603]

The reason is the the defense requested to file briefs for their closing arguments of the preliminary hearing and to present limited oral arguments on 9/1. They plan to raise legal issues with the hearing which is their absolute right to do. The prosecution submitted that they would prefer oral closings yesterday but stipulated to the briefs. The defense actually said they’d be willing to have both sides submit their briefs simultaneously which would speed up the process, but the prosecution opted to file first in 2 weeks, the defense has 2 weeks to reply, then the prosecution has 1 week to rebut. Then the judge chose 9/1 because it was the only available date on the court’s calendar after that. Hope this helps! The judge is not concerned by the perception of a”regular” people. This is how real life works in a court of law. What happened to swift justice you ask? The defendant waived his right to a speedy trial. That’s HIS choice.

[Amy S. @woolman13]

Despite claims to the contrary, I’m not convinced the footage shown yesterday (to the courtroom only) is substantially different or more compelling than what we all saw on Day 2 of the preliminary hearing.

Why?

On Day 1, there was significant argument over the differences between the raw footage (shown Tuesday) and the edited footage (shown only to the courtroom on Friday).

Here is a clip where Utah County Prosecutor David Sturgill explains to Judge Graf the difference between the two versions of footage.

Anyone trying to convince you the footage is substantially different is essentially alleging that Attorney Sturgill misrepresented the evidence to Judge Graf, on Monday.

@UCSO
@UtahCountyGov

[Sprout @monarch0603]

@JiggylowJoe @baroncoleman Haha right?!

[Sprout @monarch0603]

@KaiSchwemmer Benny Johnson claimed you could read the license plate number on the Challenger in the garage. Is that true?

[Sprout @monarch0603]

@megbasham Do you have any idea what https://t.co/NQAOSugsei is? I didn’t think so.

[Sprout @monarch0603]

The altered video was admitted as evidence on the day they showed the raw footage against objection by the defense. The judge ruled to not display in court or media because it would be cumulative, but that he would view it himself and take it into consideration. Then Erika’s people filed a motion to see the footage, and it was granted and displayed in court but not shown to the media.

[Sprout @monarch0603]

@NPolitic23 @Mini_111111 Yep!

[Sprout @monarch0603]

Technically this is their argument against *admissibility* for the reasons you stated but the judge overruled that. He then himself made the argument not to show it in the courtroom because then it would be cumulative after showing the raw footage. So I understand for this particular exhibit there was a lot of issues taking place. But overall, I disagree with not allowing the media to view any admitted exhibits especially if they are shown in court because of what is happening today with those present potentially misrepresenting what they saw.

[Sprout @monarch0603]

@BrianKe73707409 @BrysonGray This 👆

[Sprout @monarch0603]

@leahfiles On my iPhone my message bubbles are the darker blue color and the other person’s is the light gray

[Sprout @monarch0603]

@Liz_Wheeler lol you should probably read these comments and learn something new 🤣