This wonderful egalitarian person wants an egalitarian world in which murder trials would make sense, unlike today. Go here to see 500+ photos of more wonderful egalitarians in my postal zip code.
Please restack this if you want more people to see it.
Tyler Robinson is accused of murdering Charlie Kirk (see articles of mine about him here) and his trial has now begun. Before telling you why the behavior of Robinson’s defense lawyer baffles me, let me point out that I am an expert on murder trials, having done my, so-to-speak, undergraduate study as a child who played the game of CLUE many years and then having done my, as it were, graduate work, by reading many Agatha Christie novels all of which featured murder and how the murderer was proven guilty. :)
Kidding aside, what I learned in my extensive study of the subject is that to prove a person guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt one must prove beyond a reasonable doubt three separate things: a) that the suspect had a motive to murder; b) that the suspect had the means by which to commit the murder; c) that the suspect had the opportunity to commit the murder.
Now, in the case of Mr. Robinson, there seems to be ample evidence that—at least plausibly—he had a motive to murder Charlie Kirk because he (Robinson) was in a sexual relation of the kind that Kirk very publicly condemned. And there also seems to be ample evidence that Robinson had the opportunity to murder Kirk because he was on top of a building from which he could have fired a lethal bullet into Kirk.
But is there any evidence that Robinson had the means to murder Kirk?
The only plausible means would have been the rifle that Robinson had at the top of the building. But to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Robinson’s rifle was the means by which Kirk was murdered requires evidence of that specific fact, such as, for example, evidence that the bullet that killed Kirk came from the Rifle that Robinson had.
There has been a LOT of social media commentary about the Kirk murder that focuses on the claim that there is no evidence that a bullet fired from Robinson’s rifle killed Kirk (see for some examples here and here and here.)
Therefore, I would have thought that the #1 task of Robinson’s lawyer would be to cast doubt on the theory that it was a bullet fired from Robinson’s rifle that killed Kirk.
But instead, Robinson’s lawyer, Richard Novak, as reported here, launched the defense by presenting evidence that his client had a huge motive for wanting to murder Charlie Kirk!!! Yes, you read that correctly!!
Robinson’s defense lawyer is accusing—apparently in agreement with his client—Charlie Kirk of having had hatred for people like Robinson. This amounts to arguing that his client did indeed have a motive to murder Kirk.
Is this bizarre or is this bizarre? Robinson’s defense lawyer is acting like he was the prosecutor!
We shall see if Robinson’s lawyer even tries to refute the prosecution’s claim that it was a bullet fired from Robinson’s rifle that killed Kirk; I found this video online that suggests maybe he wished initially to do so. Time will tell if he does.
If there is any truth to the TONS of evidence provided by social media that no such bullet was ever found and that the Kirk wound is not consistent with there even being such a bullet, then Robinson’s lawyer would be expected—in a sensible world at least—to focus on the prosecution’s failure to provide persuasive evidence for the existence of such a bullet. This is what a sensible defense lawyer in a sensible world would do, in order to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s theory that Robinson murdered Charlie Kirk.
But this is not a sensible world.
The mass media in collusion with the FBI have promoted an official story of the murder of Charlie Kirk (in which Tyler Robinson is cast as the guilty lone gunman), a story about almost all aspects of which LOTS of people on social media and on platform’s such as the Jimmy Dore show have cast very persuasive doubt.
A strong case can be made, for example, that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu—in order to silence a Charlie Kirk who had recently turned against Israel despite great efforts to make him remain pro-Israel by Zionists with threats to withdraw major funding from his Turning Point USA organization—orchestrated the killing of Charlie Kirk (by some means other than a bullet fired from Robinson’s rifle.)
A sensible defense lawyer would present the legitimate (i.e., not faked) evidence for this or other non-official stories about the Charlie Kirk murder, regardless of whether the lawyer personally believed the non-official stories that others plausibly concluded from this evidence, because these non-official plausible narratives cast reasonable doubt on the guilt of his client. Casting such doubt is a defense lawyer’s #1 professional obligation; failure to do it, when there are readily available ways of doing it, is unethical and even—I would think—grounds for disbarment.
These non-official stories about the Charlie Kirk murder not only exonerate Tyler Robinson but also IMPLICATE people with great power in our anti-egalitarian society. For this reason, in cases such as the Charlie Kirk murder trial, defense lawyers do not act sensibly, but in a bizarre manner.
This recalls to my mind the trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev for the Boston Marathon bombing on April 15, 2013.
As Wikipedia reports: “Tsarnaev’s defense lawyer, Judy Clarke, opened by telling the jurors that her client and his older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, planted a bomb killing three and injuring hundreds, as well as murdering an MIT police officer days later. In her 20-minute opening statement, Clarke said: "There's little that occurred the week of April the 15th ... that we dispute."[4] Tsarnaev[which?] was found guilty on all 30 counts and has been sentenced to death by lethal injection for his crimes.[5]”
As in the Charlie Kirk murder case, there was LOTS of evidence on social media and elsewhere that refuted the official story of the Marathon bombing and pointed to the bombing being a false flag attack orchestrated by powerful people in or working for the U.S. government.
At the time of the Marathon Bombing, as events were unfolding, I wrote a long running account of the anomalies in the official story, and also a short summary of these anomalies. You can read the short summary here, and the long running account here. (I had to transcribe these long-ago-written articles from my old web that is closed down to my current web and apologize if there are broken links in them.)
If you read these articles about the Boston Marathon bombings you will understand why I was amazed at the fact that the accused man’s defense lawyer did not even try to cast doubt on the official prosecution story, since there was so much that the lawyer had available with which to do just that. It was simply not sensible for Tsarnaev’s defense lawyer to declare him guilty as charged!
The Moral of the Story
In our anti-egalitarian society in which the very rich have the real power and often carry out false flag attacks (such as 9/11) to control us the have-nots, whenever there is a false flag attack our rulers need to blame a fall-guy (such as Lee Harvey Oswald in the JFK assassination) and either arrange for the fall-guy to die before his/her trial or—as it seems to me in the two trials I discuss here—arrange for the fall-guy’s defense lawyer never to challenge the official story and thus never seriously to provide their client a real defense.
This is why the world seems so bizarre to anybody who thinks murder trials with a huge public impact are what they purport to be.
If you haven’t read Dave McGowan’s account of the Boston Marathon false flag you owe it to yourself to do so! It can be found here: https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/
As far as the Charlie Kirk “murder” is concerned. I watched the initial videos that were displayed on the web via main stream and alternative media in which a massive amount of very dark blood literally pours out of Kirk. As a person who spent a career around blood daily it was obvious to me that that was a staged event. All blood, including venous blood, is bright red in a live human being. It was clear that that was a Hollywood fake. Hence, it becomes important to have the patsy’s (if he is a patsy) lawyer convict his/her own client in order to complete the false story of the false flag.
It is strange the lawyer didn't go directly after the bullet and the forensics around that; the crime scene was tampered with, that is captured on film. To your point, the defense lawyer is framing the Charlie Kirk murder as motivated by hatred, but he tries to tamp down the prosecution argument that the event was about hatred, but in an obtuse ineffectual way. Is the defendant still under the MK UlTRA spell, is that why he is seemingly unable to assist his attorney in his defense?
Radical egalitarians should frame Charlie Kirk's "murder" as a hit job by those around him. Implicating Israel is appropriate given he was becoming a critic of the Gaza genocide.
Will be interesting to see what happens.