The preliminary hearing for Tyler Robinson—the man accused of murdering Charlie Kirk—is unfolding this week in Utah, and the central question before the judge is straightforward: Is there enough evidence to move the case to trial?

Based on what’s been presented so far, the answer appears increasingly clear.

Utah State Bureau of Investigation Agent Brian Davis testified Wednesday that Robinson turned himself in around 9 p.m. the night Charlie Kirk was killed.

That testimony is just one piece of what prosecutors have presented during the hearing. Taken together, the evidence paints a picture that directly challenges the numerous online theories claiming someone other than Robinson was responsible for Kirk’s death.

My position has not changed.

Everything presented publicly to this point points toward Tyler Robinson as the man who killed Charlie Kirk.

According to evidence discussed during the hearing, Robinson was a radicalized leftist who lived with his transgender boyfriend. Prosecutors have argued he spent significant time in online communities, including Reddit and Discord, where he allegedly embraced extremist views and developed hostility toward conservatives like Charlie Kirk.

Investigators also testified that spent shell casings recovered from the scene were etched with phrases including, “Hey, fascist, catch,” language prosecutors argue is relevant to motive.

That may help explain why Robinson’s defense team sought to prevent statements about Turning Point USA’s beliefs from being admitted into evidence.

The defense clearly understands that motive matters. Prosecutors argue Robinson’s alleged political beliefs and hostility toward Turning Point USA are directly relevant to explaining why Charlie Kirk was targeted.

Reports from inside the courtroom also described Robinson laughing with his attorney before proceedings began—just feet away from Charlie’s widow, Erika Kirk, and other family members.

Whether jurors ultimately view that behavior as meaningful is up to them. But if Robinson is convicted, the consequences could include the death penalty.

Just as important, this case should serve as a reminder that political violence cannot be excused or rationalized—regardless of ideology. No movement benefits when extremists are allowed to become martyrs or excuses are manufactured in the absence of evidence.

Over the past several months, numerous podcasters and online personalities have promoted alternative theories about Charlie Kirk’s death. They are entitled to ask questions. They are entitled to skepticism.

They are not entitled to invent evidence that doesn’t exist.

As this hearing has continued, prosecutors introduced surveillance footage showing Robinson on Utah Valley University’s campus at least four separate times on the day Charlie Kirk was killed. That directly contradicts repeated claims circulating online that Robinson was never there.

Prosecutors say Robinson was not a student at UVU. According to the evidence, he drove more than four hours to reach the campus before the shooting.

For what purpose?

The prosecution believes the answer is obvious.

That evidence also undercuts one of the more widely circulated claims made by commentator Candace Owens, who argued as recently as last week that Robinson had never been on campus.

The preliminary hearing has produced no indication that Robinson’s attorneys dispute the identity of the individual shown in those surveillance videos.

Even more significantly, testimony indicated Robinson’s own mother identified him from images taken from that surveillance footage.

Another point of contention online has been whether Robinson could have concealed the rifle while moving around campus.

Internet commentator Matt Kester recreated the method prosecutors believe Robinson used, demonstrating how a rifle could be hidden beneath clothing while walking in a manner strikingly similar to what appears in the surveillance footage.

There has also been considerable speculation about the shooting itself.

Here’s my view.

The first video I saw showed Charlie being shot from a distance. The moment I heard the rifle report and the unmistakable sound that followed, my immediate reaction was that it sounded like a .30-06. I remember telling my wife almost instantly that Charlie was likely dead before he ever hit the ground.

My theory is that Robinson intended to shoot Charlie Kirk in the face but missed his exact point of aim.

If Robinson was using an older Mauser .30-06 rifle—as prosecutors have indicated—it’s entirely plausible the rifle was sighted for approximately 100 yards while the shot itself was taken from roughly twice that distance. Bullet drop, combined with the heavier two-stage trigger common on surplus military rifles, could account for the final point of impact striking Charlie’s neck rather than the intended target.

That’s informed speculation based on the firearm involved—not evidence presented in court.

Questions have also circulated about the lack of an exit wound.

Several analysts have suggested the bullet may have struck Charlie’s clavicle, fragmented, and lodged near his spine, which would be consistent with reports that investigators recovered bullet fragments from his body.

The specific ammunition Robinson allegedly used has not been publicly identified. If it was older surplus ammunition—as the rifle itself reportedly was—that could further explain the bullet’s behavior.

What it does not explain is some of the more extraordinary theories circulating online.

The prosecution confirmed the coroner ruled Charlie Kirk’s death was caused by a **single gunshot wound to the neck.

Prosecutors also reportedly showed the judge video capturing the moment the bullet struck Charlie.

That evidence stands in direct opposition to claims that Charlie died because of some elaborate explosive device hidden in a microphone.

Those theories have gained attention online despite the lack of evidence supporting them.

The same pattern has emerged regarding Robinson’s access to the rooftop where prosecutors say the fatal shot originated.

Some commentators have portrayed reaching that location as nearly impossible. Candace Owens even suggested it would require abilities worthy of Spider-Man.

But investigators say otherwise.

According to testimony and demonstrations presented publicly, reaching the rooftop required little more than walking up a stairwell and stepping over a modest guardrail.

That is hardly an impossible feat.

At the end of the day, the evidence introduced in court continues to point toward Tyler Robinson.

So far, the defense has focused on challenging what evidence should be admitted—not presenting evidence that someone else committed the crime.

That’s an important distinction.

Commentators may complain they haven’t seen every investigative file or every piece of evidence gathered by the state. But no podcaster, influencer, or media personality is entitled to the prosecution’s complete case before trial.

Healthy skepticism is part of journalism.

Replacing evidence with speculation is not.

Charlie Kirk’s family deserves better than internet conspiracy theories masquerading as investigative reporting. So does the public.

Until credible evidence emerges pointing elsewhere, the responsible position is to evaluate the facts presented in court—not the theories gaining clicks on podcasts.

Evidence should decide this case.

Not algorithms.