MaxFrenzy

[MaxFrenzy @TheMaxFrenzy]

It mentions the shooting on the 10th a few sentences down from the beginning. No idea why it had the 9th listed at all, but it appears to be error vs a pre-recorded jump happened on the 9th being sold as an event happening on the 10th, particularly when vehicles appear to match know aerial photography from the 10th.

[MaxFrenzy @TheMaxFrenzy]

@GarbageTGaming @MuppetMasher Aerial/satellite photography isn't taken daily. The third party aerial footage Baron paid for access to just happens to be taken on the 10th, which is why it has been useful. He can look for other dates but it's unlikely they'll be back to back.

[MaxFrenzy @TheMaxFrenzy]

For me it starts with the shirt motion. When you can see what appears to be an apparatus under his shirt blasting up to obstruct or trigger the subsequent neck wound, that needs to be addressed. I hope the defense gets their hands on the TP 4k footage, examines it thoroughly, and addresses it in court. Maybe that camera footage will show the smoking gun, or lack thereof!

[MaxFrenzy @TheMaxFrenzy]

Why is this theory always so hard for people to possibly accept? Those that refute it don't really take an evidence based approach to its consideration, they simply state that they don't think it happened because Charlie wouldn't do that. None of us knew Charlie, what was going on behind the scenes, what types of threats he may have been facing, or what he may have been told by powerful people. I don't think it takes a lot of stretching to come up with a plausible reason why he may have been coerced or agreed to go along with such a plan. It doesn't automatically make him a monster if that's what happened.

Think about everything we've seen and all the evidence. All of the people that seem to have had foreknowledge, how the event appears orchestrated, how everyone has behaved since. What's really more reasonable, that 20 or so people were actively in on taking him out and not a single one told Charlie about it or that they were involved because that's what was required in order to pull it off? Pulled off... weren't those Erika's words? "I can't believe we were able to pull off a event of the century." If they were really going to just assassinate Charlie, there would never be a need for so many people to be aware of it.

Either way, I'm just making the point that looking at the case objectively, this is a particularly strong candidate that can't be dismissed because it would appear counter to the public persona everyone knew.

[MaxFrenzy @TheMaxFrenzy]

When you look at enough video and photos, it's clear that he had some kind of apparatus under his shirt unrelated to the microphone. A bullet to the neck doesn't cause a shirt to move that way. It also happens to go straight to where the neck wound appears. It also looks like it has mass and dimensions, not just the shirt puffing up that way. What are the chances that another event is occuring by coincidence exactly at the moment he's supposedly being shot?

[MaxFrenzy @TheMaxFrenzy]

Holy shit .. how long are people going to keep pushing the issue here? It has been discussed ad infinitum and the interview was posted. The waiter claimed it was Robinson and said he was 100% sure. There's a receipt that requires validation. What more is there to discuss? Everyone who has spoken on the matter has said it's possible he's incorrect. The only way anyone is going to know for certain is with records none of us have access to obtain.

[MaxFrenzy @TheMaxFrenzy]

@BasedSamParker You don't have a warrant ...lol. Why so concerned??

[MaxFrenzy @TheMaxFrenzy]

He doesn't believe TR is guilty, he wants access to the full unedited content to focus on other aspects that may support his ideas. Candace is obviously particular and strategic about what she releases and when. It gives her a strategic advantage and has been used to catch people in lies or otherwise acting suspiciously. The truth is, we wouldn't be seeing any of it without her so I don't think he's in a position to demand anything. However at this point, I think the people who have spoken about the events of that day have probably said as much as they're going to, so if there is footage that can be released that doesn't serve a strategic value any longer, it would be nice to have them all available to the community to get more eyeballs on them.

[MaxFrenzy @TheMaxFrenzy]

@maestrovita @BlakeBednarz Frank with the "This is Sparta!!"
Or he fell out from acceleration, but I like to believe Frank booted him because he wasn't supposed to be part of that portion of the plan.

[MaxFrenzy @TheMaxFrenzy]

It could be for intimidation or to try to befriend you and make you sympathetic to their position. Obviously she watched some content you were involved with and got wind that you were attending the hearing. It wouldn't surprise me at all that they'd know everything about everyone who is there. I think resources are available to them that aren't normally available to regular members of the public, even wealthy folks.

[MaxFrenzy @TheMaxFrenzy]

@United_Bstans @brandisiciliani @TeresAbetterLif Those are two different people. Tracy L. Martin is Erika's long time friend, not the New Zealand former Minister.

[MaxFrenzy @TheMaxFrenzy]

They at least accounted for that in their messages with UVU police and the interview after didn't they? Might have been Harpole going over it but I believe the concern was people having access to throw things down at Charlie directly from above. Of course, it also blocked everyone from seeing a dude on the LC roof for long time.

[MaxFrenzy @TheMaxFrenzy]

It's true. People revert back to their worst forms. Perhaps many of them simply don't know how to engage in civil conversation to begin with. Almost all conversations devolve into chaos at some point throughout the Space with people being unable to exercise any self control over speaking or casting insults at another party. Many times it feels like the people speaking the most are also the worst representatives of the positions they're trying to champion. Even with some control over the audience from bursting in to the conversation, the two remaining speakers can't even maintain a reasonable conversation without insults and constant interruptions of each other. You don't win because you dominated the microphone for longer than everyone else, got the last word in, or cast the best insult. On occasion, you'll get to a point during a Space where some true gems shine, moments of clarity are produced, and ideas are challenged successfully through logic. The problem is the ratio of quality, useful conversation to ear bleeding juvenile banter often weighs so heavily towards the latter that it leaves you feeling you've just wasted an evening of your time for nothing.

Regardless of which "side" you're on, both sides feel like neither are capable of having an honest conversation. Unfortunately there are some bad actors who operate in these Spaces who have motivations beyond finding truth or arguing their position. I think the motivations vary from basic trolling for the sake of rage baiting all the way up to coordinated disinformation agents and individuals attempting to coerce others into specific language for legal reasons.

Just a singular example of something that feels nefarious was the "debate" between Andrew Wilson and Diligent Denizen the other night. If you listened to that conversation it was clear that Andrew had two goals. 1. To paint Candace as an official leader of an organized cause and 2. To paint Candace's personal timeline as representative of established truth that a community is using as an official doctrine that guides their actions. I'm not sure if it just comes down to building ammo for a massive defamation case that seems imminent or something worse, but I fail to believe that Andrew really sees the smokehouse visit as having zero evidence whatsoever and is just really bent out of shape about the criteria Candace used to add an event to her personal timeline. The evidence to suggest the man who comes on campus shortly before noon with a limp and black long sleeved t-shirt is Robinson is based on his shoes and a less than 100% visual confirmation from his boyfriend who remarked on none of his physical attributes wasn't cross examined using grainy surveillance video. This event is also on Candace's timeline despite the fact that there is reasonable doubt that it is actually Robinson. One could argue they find the visit to Cowboy's more compelling because that witness is the only person to claim with 100% certainty that they saw Robinson. Even though we don't have video from the restaurant and do on campus, the campus video is insufficient to make a positive identification. The point is that I think Andrew is smart enough to know this even if he disagrees. The prosecution has a timeline, as does the defense, as do dozens of independent investigators and not all of them are going to match. It's possible that none of them match and all of them are incorrect because we still don't have all the information. By their very nature they are an investigatory tool to piece together what that person thinks may have happened. It's the singular focus on Candace's timeline and relentless framing of "official" that makes me believe the goal isn't to win a debate.

So while I've gone off on a massive tangent, I hear what you're saying Jordan.

[MaxFrenzy @TheMaxFrenzy]

@BlakeSNeff Kind of stole your thunder with that immediate not guilty plea though huh.

[MaxFrenzy @TheMaxFrenzy]

@scarce_patriot @dailyfreddo Who knows what the truth is. A couple of gay dudes in their 20s not talking about Charlie Kirk and politics is probably the norm rather than the exception. We have no idea what the real story is, yet.

[MaxFrenzy @TheMaxFrenzy]

It's worth mentioning that Judge Graff became aware that there are public gambling sites like Polymarket where people can put money down on whether Robinson gets convicted or not. The information was provided by the defense as part of filings and objections made regarding what the media has access to throughout court proceedings. He could have redacted the links provided by the defense that I assume bring you right to the specific wagers but chose not to. Essentially his argument is that its already out there on the web and easily accessible. That's true, it doesn't take much Google work to find it, but why even participate in making it more publicly aware? While it's unlikely someone reviewing legal documents will say, oh! I can bet on the outcome?? and go put down money, you could easily redact the direct URLs without sacrificing any real public transparency. That's how I interpreted what they were covering this morning, maybe I'm missing something.

[MaxFrenzy @TheMaxFrenzy]

He concludes his post by writing "just asking questions" but there wasn't a single question asked. Those were all statements, even the opening line that concludes with a question mark was a declarative statement. If you actually have questions then ask them. If you want to just make assertions, don't pretend you're being inquisitive.

[MaxFrenzy @TheMaxFrenzy]

I just want everyone to be prepared for today. The bar for probable cause is so exceedingly low, they could have forced the whole prelim into a 4 hour hearing and the state would have met its burden. It is made particularly easy in Utah with their acceptance of reliable hearsay. That said, the judge will absolutely find the state met its burden and send this to trial. That doesn't mean anything. This was always going to go to trial. Don't be surprised when TPUSA and their minions flood legacy media, social media, and stand in front of any camera that is recording to try to distort this into somehow being a victory or proof of Robinson's guilt. Nothing is changing today regarding the state's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense was purposefully denied access to evidence that could have been beneficial because the state claimed it was unnecessary at this point in the proceedings and the judge accepted that logic. The judge also has to view all evidence in the light most favorable to the state. This was never an equal playing field. It's not meant to be.

[MaxFrenzy @TheMaxFrenzy]

I wouldn't continue to engage with him. I really think he's operating in bad faith. The whole thing about Candace being a leader and trying to define it seemed like he was fishing for legal ammo for a case against Candace being compiled behind the scenes. Part of it I believe is trying to make a case that she's leading a coordinated effort to undermine the case against Robinson, that she's solely responsible for sewing seeds of doubt, and that people are only questioning the narrative because of her, not because they independently came to the conclusion that the official narrative is insufficient. It often feels like he's trying to get people to say things in specific ways or agree to a statement so that it can be plucked out of context and used later on. I really don't think he cares about the case one way or the other. I think he has a checklist of things that would be helpful for a defamation or other lawsuit and is using people that don't support the mainstream narrative to collect it. The debate between him and Candace was a give away of that reality. He didn't care about defending the state's case, he's not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt himself. It was all about questioning the theories she's postured and positions regarding Erika. It just feels like the goal is two fold, one being to blame her for destroying justice for Charlie if Tyler is found not guilty and the other being to get her in a case like Alex Jones. I really think this is part of the contingency plan to shift attention away from them in the wake of not having anyone responsible for what happened to Charlie and people pointing the finger their way.