Posted July 10, 2026
Today marks ten months since Charlie Kirk was murdered while speaking at an event in Utah. Perhaps it’s fitting then that today also marks the end of the preliminary hearings for Tyler Robinson, the man accused of killing Kirk.
The purpose of this week’s hearings was not to determine whether Robinson was guilty but, rather, whether there was enough evidence to push forward with a trial. By all accounts, the prosecution has met that standard, and the actual trial should be scheduled soon.
As I discussed in the “News worth knowing” section of this week’s Focus, the hearings were significant because they offered the first opportunity for the prosecution to present the evidence they’ve gathered since the shooting, though some of that evidence has proven stronger than others.
For example, the DNA testing proved to be a particularly thorny issue.
Robinson’s defense argued that the results were inconclusive, and the prosecution countered that these hearings were not the place to sort that out. I’ll admit that sounded like a strange retort from the side most responsible for building the case against Robinson, but Judge Tony Graf seemed content to wait for the trial to delve into the details.
Regardless, the strongest evidence against Robinson was the recorded testimony of his former roommate and romantic partner, Lance Twiggs.
Twiggs was given “use immunity”—meaning his testimony can’t be held against him in future prosecution—in exchange for talking with police.
On Thursday, portions of that testimony were presented to the court, in which he outlined conversations with Robinson in the days leading up to and following Kirk’s death. The most important parts included a borderline confession in which Robinson told Twiggs that he wished “he hadn’t done it” the day after the shooting, and details of Robinson saying he planned to turn himself in.
As part of that testimony, the prosecution also revealed text messages between the two in which Twiggs wrote, “You weren’t the one who did it, right????” to which Robinson responded, “I am, I’m sorry.”
Robinson’s attorneys fought as late as Wednesday to prevent both the recording and the text messages from becoming public, arguing that presenting that evidence now would “affect Robinson’s right to a fair trial and could taint a future jury pool.”
The prosecution—along with representatives from the Kirk family—argued instead for complete transparency, warning that, without it, “speculation and conspiracy theories related to the tragic assassination of Mr. Kirk will continue to proliferate in the public domain, breeding doubt and distrust in the judicial system.”
In the end, they settled for a partially redacted testimony, though it’s possible the full version will be shown during the trial.
Considering how far-ranging and persistent conspiracy theories around Charlie Kirk’s death have been over the past ten months, it will be interesting to see if this week’s proceedings are able to put to rest some of the more errant beliefs. If recent results are any indication, though, it seems unlikely.
As Douglas Murray describes, in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, “Of all the shocking things that happened in the immediate aftermath, perhaps the most shocking was how hard some online commentators tried to ignore everything about the case.”
Murray goes on to outline how, “At various times, the accused have included the Israeli government, Egyptian spy planes, Kirk’s colleagues at Turning Point USA, his widow, and people in the crowd that day who were wearing maroon-colored shirts.”
Moreover, it was often those who were, at least at one point, friends of Charlie Kirk who have pushed these beliefs the hardest. Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson have been particularly persistent in their conviction that, even if Robinson was the one to pull the trigger, others share in his guilt.
To an extent, perhaps that’s to be expected. After all, both Owens and Carlson have built a fanbase comprising millions of followers—6 million and 5.7 million respectively on YouTube alone—by “trading in the outrageous.”
Part of what makes them—and others like them—so popular is that they excel at asking the questions people want to hear while doing so in a way that gives others the confidence to do the same. When it comes to conspiracy theories, you don’t have to be right very often to build a following that is more than willing to believe what you say, and both have been right just often enough to lend credence to the broad (and frequently flawed) spectrum of their beliefs.
And when you combine that history with the need to find some deeper meaning in the death of their friend, you get a series of explanations that can easily stray into the obtuse and inane. The idea that the greatest mind in their movement could be gunned down by a lone crazy person rather than taken out as a part of some larger plot is, in many ways, a harder pill to swallow.
Perhaps that’s giving too much credit to Owens, Carlson, and others, but grief often amplifies our worst impulses, and their worst impulses frequently point toward government plots and Illuminati-esque groups that meet in dark corners to plan the domination of the world. As a result, even when they bring up points worth considering, people are quick to dismiss them.
And, as Christians, it’s desperately important that the same cannot be said of us.
In Paul’s second letter to Timothy, he warns his young apprentice in the faith that “the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths” (2 Timothy 4:3–4).
Few descriptions fit our culture better, despite this particular passage being almost two thousand years old. And I think the reason is that Paul was speaking to a flaw in human nature rather than Roman culture.
You see, we often hold truth to a higher standard than God does, and that mistake is at the root of why so many fall into heresy and error. The truth doesn’t have to be emotionally satisfying. It doesn’t have to be thought-provoking or intriguing. And it doesn’t have to illuminate some dark mystery in the world.
No, as simple as it sounds, the truth just has to be true, but that’s often not enough for us.
Fortunately, we’ve been given the privilege of sharing a message that is satisfying, intriguing, and illuminating in ways that no other news could be. But if we allow our itching ears to eat away at our credibility, then even the greatest truth that could possibly be shared will seem diminished as a result.
So, the next time you feel drawn to a thought or a theory that checks all the boxes of how we want the truth to make us feel, take a step back and ask the Lord to help you understand why you find it so appealing. Is it resonating with the part of you that’s guided by the Holy Spirit or with the part that wants to scratch that itch for something more than what’s simply right?
Is the truth enough for you today?
“Many issues are misconstrued, not because they are too complex for most people to understand, but because a mundane explanation is far less emotionally satisfying than an explanation which produces villains to hate and heroes to exalt.” —Thomas Sowell
The post Hearings for man accused of killing Charlie Kirk end today appeared first on Denison Forum.
