Inconclusive Ballistics Test

Quote:

---

That fragment was found to be a .30-caliber "deformed/damaged bullet jacket fragment" according to a report from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) submitted to a Utah court in January and unsealed Wednesday.

And while it couldn't be determined whether the bullet fragment was fired from Robinson's gun, it matched the caliber of his .30-06 hunting rifle found near scene of Kirk's September killing at Utah Valley University.

The ATF found the bullet fragment found in Kirk "could not be identified or excluded as having been fired" from the gun but the circumstantial evidence was enough to prompt Robinson's defense to request no further bullet forensics be done without a defense expert from their team being present.

---

It would be good if the lawyers with criminal expertise can opine on whether or not this significantly damages the case against Tyler Robinson.

Doesn't damage the case at all. It's a fragment.

They have solid DNA evidence all over the rifle and the ammunition still in the magazine.

Urban Ag said:

---

Doesn't damage the case at all. It's a fragment.

They have solid DNA evidence all over the rifle and the ammunition still in the magazine.

---

And confessions

And a confession

Not a lawyer but I believe the answer is the fragment is so small that it makes it inconclusive. Seems perfectly plausible to me with lots of other evidence that will hang lover boy. This is a red herring conspiracy argument.

But the juice

Prosecutor's can, and do, win murder cases without bullets, murder weapons, sometimes even without a body

This is no big deal

From what I've read this isn't unusual at all. It's TV that makes you think every bullet is found in original shape and can be conclusively tied to a firearm.

I think the bigger evidence is the empty case that tied to the rifle with Antifa/Trantifa messages engraved on it, a dremel engraver tool at his apartment, and the notes he left for his boyfriend.

This story has been recycled and addressed previously. For some reason it keeps circulating and coming back up as if it is new news. Months ago it was reported that the badly fragmented bullet remains could not definitively be linked to the recovered rifle, but that neither do they eliminate it, this is not uncommon with a very high velocity rifle bullet at relatively close range.

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

Not a lawyer but I believe the answer is the fragment is so small that it makes it inconclusive. Seems perfectly plausible to me with lots of other evidence that will hang lover boy. This is a red herring conspiracy argument.

---

I don't think that's right that it's only a red herring conspiracy argument. Otherwise, why do a ballistics test at all?

The prosecution has to show not only that Robinson intended to shoot Kirk, but that he actually did. A key piece of evidence just evaporated, that is, tying the bullet to Robinson's gun. The defense will almost certainly argue that there was another person with a gun who actually shot Kirk. That's a stretch, admittedly, but that argument could not be made if the bullet was tied to Robinson's gun.

Prosecutors and other trial lawyers don't get to make the facts they want. They have to accept the facts that are presented. And the inconclusive ballistics evidence is not a good thing for the prosecution. The only question is how damaging is it, if at all.

We already had a thread on this. Defense is going to file all kinds of motions and such that will make it seem like it's a grand conspiracy to convict an innocent man. Stop believing everything the defense says.

It is so "not good news for the prosecution" that the media keeps recycling it because they have nothing else to cling to.

This will explain it for you:

A lot of noise was made yesterday about the Daily Mail headline said the ATF could not match the gun to the bullet in the Tyler Robinson trial.@FenixAmmunition joined us today to explain the actual facts. pic.twitter.com/xSKiDhZQB7

— Andrew Kolvet (@AndrewKolvet) March 31, 2026

It only damages the case with ******s that want to believe everything is a broader conspiracy.

Do you really think a positive match is made between a bullet and the firearm in most firearm homicides? That bullet was moving at somewhere between 2500 and 3000 fps. They're lucky they even found a fragment.

Will mean nothing at trial.

Multiple threads on this already. The bullet shattered. And even if they had an intact bullet a lot of ballistics is junk science.

IWantToBelieve.gif

Kvetch said:

---

It only damages the case with ******s that want to believe everything is a broader conspiracy.

---

Candace is probably already linking the bullet fragment to a gun bought by Egyptians and fired backstage by Erika Kirk

Not trying to be an ass, but this news is weeks old, been talked about a ton with multiple threads, and it's pretty much meaningless. You're tardy to the party. Couldn't conclusively be ruled a match or ruled not a match based on it being a fragment. Very common and not detrimental to the case at all.

Urban Ag said:

---

That bullet was moving at somewhere between 2500 and 3000 fps.

---

That's what THEY want you to believe!

I didn't read every single thread and didn't realize it had been "extensively discussed". Plus, the FBI report was only unsealed yesterday.

4stringAg said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

It only damages the case with ******s that want to believe everything is a broader conspiracy.

---

Candace is probably already linking the bullet fragment to a gun bought by Egyptians and fired backstage by Erika Kirk

---

If the lab tech had a sense of humor, he would have made a comment that the bullet fragment had striations that resemble a character from the Hebrew alphabet. That would have been enough fuel for Candace make her completely stroke out.

KingofHazor said:

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

Not a lawyer but I believe the answer is the fragment is so small that it makes it inconclusive. Seems perfectly plausible to me with lots of other evidence that will hang lover boy. This is a red herring conspiracy argument.

---

I don't think that's right that it's only a red herring conspiracy argument. Otherwise, why do a ballistics test at all?

The prosecution has to show not only that Robinson intended to shoot Kirk, but that he actually did. A key piece of evidence just evaporated, that is, tying the bullet to Robinson's gun. The defense will almost certainly argue that there was another person with a gun who actually shot Kirk. That's a stretch, admittedly, but that argument could not be made if the bullet was tied to Robinson's gun.

Prosecutors and other trial lawyers don't get to make the facts they want. They have to accept the facts that are presented. And the inconclusive ballistics evidence is not a good thing for the prosecution. The only question is how damaging is it, if at all.

---

Without actual EVIDENCE (i.e. a witness or something else), no they can't "argue" that. The most they can say is something along the lines of "the prosecution can not prove that the introduced bullet fragment they allege killed the victim was fired either by the gun owned by my client or my client himself..."

The ballistics evidence is nowhere near the only evidence the prosecution has. Contrary to what you see on TV and some high profile cases, I'd bet money that it is rarely tied to the defendant in all sorts of cases that end up with convictions. Especially with handgun rounds that aren't FMJ.

What do you mean by the prosecutors "have to accept the facts that are presented?" THEY present the facts. (As does the defense, if they put on any witnesses).

Fragments can be matched but more typically are not. This means nothing but the MSM wants it to sound like it's a big deal because that's what they do.

Quote:

---

What do you mean by the prosecutors "have to accept the facts that are presented?" THEY present the facts. (As does the defense, if they put on any witnesses).

---

Poor choice of words by me. I should have said that the prosecutors "have to work with the evidence that exists". By "presented", I incorrectly used a semi-technical term that you caught. Thanks for the correction.

Just a reminder : An inconclusive result is not evidence for or against a case.

The left wants the murderer to get off so badly.

zephyr88 said:

---

The left wants the murderer to get off so badly.

---

So does the Owens/Tucker/Fuentes wing of the far right.

Rapier108 said:

---

zephyr88 said:

---

The left wants the murderer to get off so badly.

---

So does the Owens/Tucker/Fuentes wing of the far right.

---

Those ****ers are so crazy that the far right doesn't even claim them.

zephyr88 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

zephyr88 said:

---

The left wants the murderer to get off so badly.

---

So does the Owens/Tucker/Fuentes wing of the far right.

---

Those ****ers are so crazy that the far right doesn't even claim them.

---

Far right? Don't think so. Not left nor right. Just nuts.

Rapier108 said:

---

zephyr88 said:

---

The left wants the murderer to get off so badly.

---

So does the Owens/Tucker/Fuentes wing of the far right.

---

I don't consider them far right.

Nick used to be one of the good ones but he lost his way.

They removed this fragment from Charlie Kirk's dead body, right? If the ballistics don't yield any information then what about other comparisons like the metallurgical composition of the fragment vs bullets found in the gun? Or the bullet trajectory through his neck vs the location of the murder weapon?

So does his confession not mean anything? How will the defense argue that away?

Quote:

---

Nick used to be one of the good ones

---

Must have been the pre-teen years.