An FBI analyst told a Utah courtroom Tuesday evening that DNA found on a towel wrapped around the rifle allegedly used to kill Charlie Kirk matched the accused shooter's profile at a 95 percent contributor level, testimony that sharpened the prosecution's case even as defense attorneys pushed back on its certainty.
The testimony came during a week-long pre-trial evidentiary hearing for Tyler Robinson, 23, who stands accused of shooting and killing the conservative influencer and Turning Point USA founder at a campus event at Utah Valley University on September 10 of last year. Robinson has not yet entered a plea.
FBI analyst Amanda Bakker, Utah State Bureau of Investigation Sergeant Jennifer Faumuina, and UTBSI agent David Hull all took the stand before Judge Tony Graf in Utah District Court. Their combined testimony laid out a trail of physical evidence, forensic analysis, and surveillance footage that prosecutors say links Robinson directly to the killing.
Investigators recovered a rifle wrapped in a towel in a wooded area near the UVU campus. A screwdriver was found on the roof of the Losee Center, the building where prosecutors say Robinson set up a firing position overlooking the amphitheater where Kirk was speaking. The rifle went to the ATF for DNA testing. The towel and screwdriver went to the FBI.
Bakker testified that the FBI's analysis identified two DNA contributors on the towel and screwdriver. Robinson's profile, she said, aligned with the 95 percent contributor. The remaining 5 percent aligned with Lance Twiggs, Robinson's roommate and romantic partner. Twiggs' DNA match was described as "definitive." Robinson's was characterized as "statistically extremely likely", but not definitive.
As the Daily Mail reported, Bakker acknowledged during cross-examination that the FBI's analysis routinely avoids making an "absolute identification" in DNA results. She did not exclude Robinson as a possible contributor, and she said no other individual's DNA was identified as a possible match beyond Robinson or Twiggs.
Defense attorney Michael Burt seized on the gap between statistical likelihood and certainty.
"She can't match Mr Robinson to the questioned samples."
Prosecutors countered that the defense's line of questioning went beyond the scope of a pre-trial hearing. The hearing's purpose, they argued, is to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to send Robinson to trial, not to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Agent David Hull walked the court through surveillance footage that prosecutors had submitted into evidence earlier in the hearings, footage described as never before seen publicly. Hull's testimony painted a detailed picture of Robinson's alleged movements before, during, and after the shooting.
Robinson allegedly drove a grey Dodge Challenger roughly four hours to reach the UVU campus. His vehicle was spotted in the area at least four times the day before Kirk was killed. On the day of the shooting, Robinson arrived on campus approximately four hours before Kirk was shot.
He visited the amphitheater where Kirk was preparing to speak and interacted with Turning Point USA members, though Hull did not testify as to what Robinson said to them. About two hours before the shooting, Robinson purchased food at the campus Chick-fil-A. Security footage showed him walking with a limp.
Hull testified that Robinson then climbed over a railing onto the rooftop of the Losee Center, crouched down, and ran to a position overlooking Kirk's location. After the shot was fired, Robinson allegedly ran back across the roof, dropped to the ground, and fled on foot.
What happened next may strike observers as brazen. Robinson allegedly returned to the UVU campus that same night, and came back again the following day, during the active manhunt for Kirk's killer. During that return visit, he interacted with a police officer who, acting on what Hull described as "cop intuition," wrote down Robinson's license plate number.
The preliminary hearing has drawn significant public attention, with Kirk's widow Erika among those present in the Provo courtroom as the proceedings began.
Sergeant Faumuina's testimony covered the physical evidence collected at the scene. Beyond the rifle, towel, and screwdriver, investigators found bullets inside the gun engraved with political messages. One read: "Hey fascist! CATCH!"
Prosecutors have also pointed to an alleged text message Robinson sent to Twiggs before the shooting. Authorities say Robinson wrote: "I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I'm going to take it." That text, if authenticated at trial, would speak directly to premeditation.
Twiggs is not expected to testify in person at the hearings. Prosecutors plan to introduce video testimony and messages between Robinson and Twiggs, along with a police interview Twiggs gave after Kirk's killing. That interview was expected to be introduced Tuesday but was pushed back due to time constraints.
The evidentiary proceedings have already produced courtroom friction over what evidence the judge will allow. Earlier in the hearing series, Judge Graf rejected prosecutors' edited surveillance footage, a ruling that forced the state to adjust its presentation of the visual evidence.
Several questions hang over the case as the hearings continue. The specific charges filed against Robinson have not been detailed in the hearing coverage. Whether Twiggs faces any charges in connection with the killing remains unclear. The full content of the text messages between Robinson and Twiggs, beyond the single quoted line, has not been made public.
Robinson's reason for returning to the UVU campus during the manhunt has not been explained. The nature of his interaction with the police officer who noted his plate, beyond the officer's decision to record it, remains undisclosed.
The forensic methodology behind the 95-to-5 percent DNA contributor breakdown also warrants scrutiny. Whether that figure represents a mixture interpretation statistic or a probability-of-source calculation has not been clarified in testimony, at least not in what has been reported from the courtroom. Defense attorneys will almost certainly press that distinction if the case goes to trial.
Judge Graf pushed Wednesday's hearing back to a half-day for procedural reasons. The week-long evidentiary process is expected to continue as prosecutors work to establish probable cause.
The broader case has raised questions about how prosecutors handle evidence presentation in high-profile proceedings, particularly when surveillance footage and forensic testimony carry so much weight in the public narrative before a trial even begins.
Charlie Kirk was a public figure exercising his right to speak on a college campus. He was shot and killed for it. The evidence presented so far, DNA on the weapon, surveillance footage tracking the accused across campus for hours, politically charged messages carved into ammunition, and an alleged text announcing intent, tells a story of deliberate, premeditated violence against a man targeted for his beliefs.
The defense has every right to challenge the forensic evidence and test the prosecution's case. That is how the system works. But the facts already in the record are substantial. A 95 percent DNA match may not be "absolute identification" by the FBI's careful standards. It is, by any common-sense measure, a long way from exculpatory.
The engraved bullets alone, "Hey fascist! CATCH!", tell the public something no DNA statistic needs to. This was not random violence. This was not an impulsive act caught on camera after the fact. If the prosecution's evidence holds, this was a calculated political assassination carried out by someone who drove four hours, scouted the venue, climbed onto a rooftop, and then had the nerve to come back the next day.
The courtroom owes Charlie Kirk a full accounting. The evidence so far suggests the prosecution has one to give.
