As prosecutors continue presenting evidence in the preliminary hearing [1] against Tyler Robinson, the man accused of assassinating conservative activist Charlie Kirk, one thing is becoming increasingly clear: the courtroom is dealing in evidence, while internet personalities like Candace Owens have been dealing in fantasy, conspiracy theories, and vile comments.
The judge and the folks in court are hearing about surveillance video, DNA evidence, text messages and testimony that prosecutors show tie Robinson to the murder. The defense is challenging parts of that evidence, as expected, but the hearing has been a methodical legal process – not a Hollywood thriller. This really isn’t about WHO killed Charlie Kirk. It’s about how it happened. Allegedly, of course.
Israel-hater Candace Owens, meanwhile, has spent months spinning bizarre theories about Kirk’s murder, suggesting without evidence that Robinson wasn’t even on the Utah Valley University campus at the time of the shooting. She even floated accusations involving governments, intelligence agencies, and even Charlie Kirk’s own inner circle going after him.
She also claimed that Kirk wasn’t shot but was instead hit by an exploding microphone, dismissing the autopsy report concluding that he was struck in the neck by a bullet.
Owens has also mocked Kirk’s widow, Erika, questioned her grief, and amplified speculation that has fueled harassment and death threats against the family.
Owens is vile.
There’s nothing courageous about exploiting a widow’s pain for clicks. There’s nothing “truth-seeking” about tossing out insane accusations without evidence.
The facts in Charlie Kirk’s murder will ultimately be decided in a courtroom, where witnesses testify under oath and evidence is subject to scrutiny. Owens answers to no such standard. She has every right to ask questions. She does not have the right to invent “facts,” smear a grieving family, and profit from a tragedy by turning it into entertainment.