Headline totally misleads public: 'Bullet used to kill Charlie Kirk did NOT match rifle allegedly used by suspect...'

A court filing from Tyler Robinson’s defense regarding the bullet that killed Charlie Kirk is being debated on social media.

Robinson is accused of firing the shot that killed the conservative activist as he spoke at a college campus in Utah, but his defense is now claiming that the bullet retrieved from Kirk’s body doesn’t match the firearm that has allegedly been linked to Robinson.

A report from The Daily Mail has more:

Robinson, 22, is facing capital murder charges and a potential death sentence for Kirk’s murder at Utah Valley University on September 10.

But his defense attorneys now argue that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ‘was unable to identify the bullet recovered at autopsy to the rifle allegedly tied to Mr Robinson.’

The defense team may now offer the ATF firearm analyst’s testimony as exculpatory evidence, they said in a motion filed on Friday to push the preliminary hearing back at least six months, Fox News reports.

X user @KaneokaTheGreat took issue with DM’s headline, which reads “Bullet used to kill Charlie Kirk did NOT match rifle allegedly used by suspect Tyler Robinson, new court filing claims.” He pointed out that not being a direct match isn’t necessarily exculpatory, given the situation.

What a misleading headline from The Daily Mail.

The ATF ran a tool mark analysis on a bullet jacket fragment recovered from Charlie’s autopsy.

The result was “inconclusive” — not “no match.”

The jacket was too fragmented to compare, which also partially explains the lack of… https://t.co/hAfq65nomB pic.twitter.com/SzCvutbtek

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) March 31, 2026

“What a misleading headline from The Daily Mail. The ATF ran a tool mark analysis on a bullet jacket fragment recovered from Charlie’s autopsy. The result was ‘inconclusive’ — not ‘no match.’ The jacket was too fragmented to compare, which also partially explains the lack of an exit wound. The bullet shattered on impact. ‘Inconclusive’ means insufficient evidence to draw any conclusion. It doesn’t mean the bullet ‘did NOT match’ the rifle like the headline says. The defense wants to use ‘inconclusive’ as exculpatory evidence — but the prosecution wants to run chemical or molecular analysis comparing the jacket alloy to ammunition recovered with the gun. Unlike tool mark analysis, it doesn’t require an intact bullet. The defense is trying to block that testing from happening. That’s the nuance of the real story,” the user reasoned.

Naturally, the defense team is going to frame the information in a way that is favorable to their client’s interests, but that doesn’t mean the case is closed.

X users weighed in:

Didn’t they find a spent shell casing.
That should have been tested for a match to the gun. I didn’t see it mentioned.

— Gina Viveros🇺🇲🇹🇭 (@six_alive) March 31, 2026

I guess if you shoot someone, just hope the bullet fragments. According to X tonight, that means you get to walk free. 🤪

— MAZE (@mazemoore) March 31, 2026

Maybe just maybe if the damn morons who run security or the lack thereof at UVU weren’t such imbeciles and missed obvious clues, Charlie would still be alive today. I hope Erika can sue their asses off.

— mercifultrees (@mercifultrees) March 31, 2026

Why are we testing the bullet when the guy confessed he did it to family and friends?

— GenJeFT (@GenJeFT) March 31, 2026

Would have been nice if they didn’t immediately pave over and paint over the crime scene.

— Mythos (@ANewMythology) March 31, 2026

Author
Recent Posts

Sierra Marlee

Writer/Columnist [email protected]
Writers and editors can be contacted at [email protected] with feedback, tips, or corrections.

Sierra Marlee is a millennial whose hunger for the truth in a world of fake news has led her to write. Marlee also contributes to BizPac Review.

Comment

Latest Articles