1/38
Yesterday, I highlighted how Kash Patel's poor handling of the case could put it in jeopardy.
But today the FBI's lead-podcaster, doubled-down on *STUPID*, in a public interview that is a defense attorneys dream!
Let's breakdown the incompetence:
Yesterday, I highlighted how Kash Patel's poor handling of the case could put it in jeopardy.
But today the FBI's lead-podcaster, doubled-down on *STUPID*, in a public interview that is a defense attorneys dream!
Let's breakdown the incompetence:
https://twitter.com/116328126/status/1967343414959358056
2/38
An important piece of context to keep in mind, is they desperately want to make this a Federal charge crime, so they can keep it untelevized, control the narrative, and seek death penalty with a jury base that isn't 90% mormon.
An important piece of context to keep in mind, is they desperately want to make this a Federal charge crime, so they can keep it untelevized, control the narrative, and seek death penalty with a jury base that isn't 90% mormon.
https://twitter.com/116328126/status/1967343560593981875
3/38
Right off the bat, the host says "Kirk isn't just an impactful person, he was your friend"
Kash nods in silence.
Right off the bat, the host says "Kirk isn't just an impactful person, he was your friend"
Kash nods in silence.
4/38
Immediately defense is going to frame this as personal matter.
They'll seek a Motion to Suppress, attempting to exclude evidence that is from the FBI instead of local law enforcement, arguing it's tainted by personal relationships.
Immediately defense is going to frame this as personal matter.
They'll seek a Motion to Suppress, attempting to exclude evidence that is from the FBI instead of local law enforcement, arguing it's tainted by personal relationships.
5/38
They'll also make this a Voir Dire focus asking jurors if they saw this bias, and may even pursue a Motion for Gag Order, preventing the FBI from being allowed to make other public comments.
Although, I imagine they want him to continue to screw up
They'll also make this a Voir Dire focus asking jurors if they saw this bias, and may even pursue a Motion for Gag Order, preventing the FBI from being allowed to make other public comments.
Although, I imagine they want him to continue to screw up
6/38
More importantly, the defense will want to keep this as local charges, where Robinson has much better odds of avoiding the death penalty.
Since Utah has already charged, this can only move to Federal charges if the State steps out of the way.
More importantly, the defense will want to keep this as local charges, where Robinson has much better odds of avoiding the death penalty.
Since Utah has already charged, this can only move to Federal charges if the State steps out of the way.
7/38
Defense will argue on this (and many other matters):
-Why should Utah cede sovereignty to a federal agency that admits it’s personally tied to the victim?
Making it deeply politically unpopular, for Utah to let it federalize.
Defense will argue on this (and many other matters):
-Why should Utah cede sovereignty to a federal agency that admits it’s personally tied to the victim?
Making it deeply politically unpopular, for Utah to let it federalize.
8/38
Kash then begins to talk about how he personally walked the crime scene and at that time they found evidence including a "screw driver" on the roof.
The problem is that was around 5pm-6pm on the 11th way after the crime scene should have been processed.
Kash then begins to talk about how he personally walked the crime scene and at that time they found evidence including a "screw driver" on the roof.
The problem is that was around 5pm-6pm on the 11th way after the crime scene should have been processed.
9/38
Defense will argue that the director is an an administrator and not a crime scene technician.
This will raise questions about chain of custody, and how an obvious item lay in the open for more than 24 hours?
Defense will argue that the director is an an administrator and not a crime scene technician.
This will raise questions about chain of custody, and how an obvious item lay in the open for more than 24 hours?
10/38
But it will also come back to pretrial prejudice.
The reason evidence isn't disclosed on national TV before a trial, is some evidence may not be admissible.
And defense will certainly use this in a Motion to Suppress Evidence, arguing the chain of custody issues.
But it will also come back to pretrial prejudice.
The reason evidence isn't disclosed on national TV before a trial, is some evidence may not be admissible.
And defense will certainly use this in a Motion to Suppress Evidence, arguing the chain of custody issues.
11/38
Patel then said he walked into the wooded area where the gun was allegedly disposed of, and he "KNEW" from his "investigative experience" what decisions he needed to make.
Patel then said he walked into the wooded area where the gun was allegedly disposed of, and he "KNEW" from his "investigative experience" what decisions he needed to make.
12/38
Patel is not a career investigator.
He should not oversee crime scene handling, or make any decisions about a crime scene. He shouldn't bring *anything* to the table, that's the job of experienced career officials.
And saying he had support of Trump is even worse.
Patel is not a career investigator.
He should not oversee crime scene handling, or make any decisions about a crime scene. He shouldn't bring *anything* to the table, that's the job of experienced career officials.
And saying he had support of Trump is even worse.
13/38
Defense will attempt to say this is grounds of Motion to Suppress the evidence related to the firearm as it was overseen by a political figure.
But they'll also use it as a Motion to Compel Discovery, of involvement of the White House in investigative decisions.
Defense will attempt to say this is grounds of Motion to Suppress the evidence related to the firearm as it was overseen by a political figure.
But they'll also use it as a Motion to Compel Discovery, of involvement of the White House in investigative decisions.
14/38
Then Patel makes the DUMBEST possible mistake.
He says "I can report today that the DNA hits on the towel, that the gun was wrapped in, and the screw driver are positively processed for the suspect in custody"
Then Patel makes the DUMBEST possible mistake.
He says "I can report today that the DNA hits on the towel, that the gun was wrapped in, and the screw driver are positively processed for the suspect in custody"
15/38
Congrats Kash, you just tainted that evidence.
Now defense can argue you poisoned the jury pool, by giving an affirmed, inaccurate statement, about scientific evidence, without hearing expert testimony.
Congrats Kash, you just tainted that evidence.
Now defense can argue you poisoned the jury pool, by giving an affirmed, inaccurate statement, about scientific evidence, without hearing expert testimony.
16/38
1) DNA evidence isn't binary, its probabilistic.
2) They'll also argue contamination as you were involved in both evidence locations 24 hours later.
3) DNA evidence is supposed to only be presented by experts
1) DNA evidence isn't binary, its probabilistic.
2) They'll also argue contamination as you were involved in both evidence locations 24 hours later.
3) DNA evidence is supposed to only be presented by experts
17/38
The US 6th Amendment guarantees a fair trial before an impartial jury.
DNA evidence is always carefully disclosed as its seen as "magical evidence" that's tough to erase from the minds of a layperson.
The US 6th Amendment guarantees a fair trial before an impartial jury.
DNA evidence is always carefully disclosed as its seen as "magical evidence" that's tough to erase from the minds of a layperson.
18/38
Saying this on national TV means the defense has grounds to pursue:
-Motion to Dismiss for Irreparable Prejudice
-Motion for Bench Trial (waive jury and only have a judge)
-Alternative Motion to Strike Death Penalty (arguing non jury is now impartial enough for it)
Saying this on national TV means the defense has grounds to pursue:
-Motion to Dismiss for Irreparable Prejudice
-Motion for Bench Trial (waive jury and only have a judge)
-Alternative Motion to Strike Death Penalty (arguing non jury is now impartial enough for it)
19/38
They may even file for a Motion to Suppress Evidence on the DNA evidence itself, meaning it would become entirely inadmissible, even if its accurate.
All because podcast-Kash, cared more about clout chasing than doing his job.
They may even file for a Motion to Suppress Evidence on the DNA evidence itself, meaning it would become entirely inadmissible, even if its accurate.
All because podcast-Kash, cared more about clout chasing than doing his job.
20/38
Patel then goes on a ramble of how the "FBI secured the scene" and did "great investigation work" which I won't breakdown in depth but there are about 30~ contradictions to timelines and previous statements, all which will come up.
Patel then goes on a ramble of how the "FBI secured the scene" and did "great investigation work" which I won't breakdown in depth but there are about 30~ contradictions to timelines and previous statements, all which will come up.
21/38
Patel then highlights they "worked with the media to catch this killer" while this is in reference to releasing images/footage, it gives grounds for defense to compel *all* communications with the FBI, including who leaked the supposed "trans lover" story.
Patel then highlights they "worked with the media to catch this killer" while this is in reference to releasing images/footage, it gives grounds for defense to compel *all* communications with the FBI, including who leaked the supposed "trans lover" story.
22/38
Kash then confirms it was the father who turned in the son.
Contradicting previous reporting that a "trans lover's cooperation led to the arrest"
Kash then confirms it was the father who turned in the son.
Contradicting previous reporting that a "trans lover's cooperation led to the arrest"
23/38
Patel then answers a question about the group chats, which right-wing media claimed were being investigated for potential RICO charges due to advanced knowledge.
Patel notes they are still pursuing search warrants for it.
Patel then answers a question about the group chats, which right-wing media claimed were being investigated for potential RICO charges due to advanced knowledge.
Patel notes they are still pursuing search warrants for it.
24/38
Patel then says they got a "text message chain" between "suspect and live in partner" (notably not trans partner)
Patel then says they got a "text message chain" between "suspect and live in partner" (notably not trans partner)
25/38
Kash then says "the family said he subscribed to left wing ideology" - even though he tried to disclaim it, this is speaking to motive.
It's a Violation of Presumption of Innocence, it's also a matter of hearsay that would be inadmissible.
Kash then says "the family said he subscribed to left wing ideology" - even though he tried to disclaim it, this is speaking to motive.
It's a Violation of Presumption of Innocence, it's also a matter of hearsay that would be inadmissible.
26/38
It will also give the defense easy grounds to fight back against any Federal charges if filed arguing that the DoJ is pushing politics into a criminal trial.
Unless the suspect has specifically noted their ideology as the cause, then this always hurts prosecution.
It will also give the defense easy grounds to fight back against any Federal charges if filed arguing that the DoJ is pushing politics into a criminal trial.
Unless the suspect has specifically noted their ideology as the cause, then this always hurts prosecution.
27/38
There are a ton of other blunders, (including saying he was "quarter backing the investigation himself") but lets just highlight the biggest one:
Patel then tells us about a supposed text message:
There are a ton of other blunders, (including saying he was "quarter backing the investigation himself") but lets just highlight the biggest one:
Patel then tells us about a supposed text message:
28/38
He notes: "There was a text message to another individual that said he had a chance to kill Kirk and he was going to take it because he hated what Kirk stood for"
Not only is he once again speaking to motive, but there is another problem..
He notes: "There was a text message to another individual that said he had a chance to kill Kirk and he was going to take it because he hated what Kirk stood for"
Not only is he once again speaking to motive, but there is another problem..
29/38
The host then asks about a "written" note.
Kash says "he addressed this early" making clear the "written" part is referring to the text mesasge.
The host then asks about a "written" note.
Kash says "he addressed this early" making clear the "written" part is referring to the text mesasge.
30/38
He then says:
-The written note "we believe" "did exist" and we have "evidence to show what was in that note"
-This note "was destroyed" but we found "forensic evidence of its existence"
He then says:
-The written note "we believe" "did exist" and we have "evidence to show what was in that note"
-This note "was destroyed" but we found "forensic evidence of its existence"
31/38
-and "we have confirmed" what that note says, because of our aggressive interview posture"
Confirming they did not *see* the actual notes content.
-and "we have confirmed" what that note says, because of our aggressive interview posture"
Confirming they did not *see* the actual notes content.
32/38
A defense lawyer will point out:
-If you can't see the note it might have been misinterpreted, sarcastic, or in some way exculpatory.
-And without having seen it, your relaying on two layers of hearsay for its contents.
A defense lawyer will point out:
-If you can't see the note it might have been misinterpreted, sarcastic, or in some way exculpatory.
-And without having seen it, your relaying on two layers of hearsay for its contents.
33/38
More importantly, they'll hammer on the line "aggressive interrogation posture" (what an insane thing to say) - as this could be interpreted as coercion.
Any statement obtained through coercion is unreliable and unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment.
More importantly, they'll hammer on the line "aggressive interrogation posture" (what an insane thing to say) - as this could be interpreted as coercion.
Any statement obtained through coercion is unreliable and unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment.
34/38
And by broadcasting this supposed note, as a smoking gun, you once again taint any jury pool, as it is *IMPOSSIBLE* for any jury to ever see this evidence as it does not exist.
And by broadcasting this supposed note, as a smoking gun, you once again taint any jury pool, as it is *IMPOSSIBLE* for any jury to ever see this evidence as it does not exist.
35/38
So Patel is out here bragging, how they shared public evidence "faster than any other FBI investigation ever" while the reason that's the case, is because other FBI leaders knew not to taint their cases...
So Patel is out here bragging, how they shared public evidence "faster than any other FBI investigation ever" while the reason that's the case, is because other FBI leaders knew not to taint their cases...
36/38
Between this and public statements from the FBI and Governor, saying that it *was* Robinson, rather than alleged, and that they are going to "seek the death penalty" even though there is no charging document yet, this case will be a nightmare for prosecutors.
Between this and public statements from the FBI and Governor, saying that it *was* Robinson, rather than alleged, and that they are going to "seek the death penalty" even though there is no charging document yet, this case will be a nightmare for prosecutors.
37/38
Defense attorneys will point to constant politicization, and jury poisoning, but they may even have grounds to *EXCLUDE* evidence, just because Kash Patel cares more about his own political image, than this case.
Defense attorneys will point to constant politicization, and jury poisoning, but they may even have grounds to *EXCLUDE* evidence, just because Kash Patel cares more about his own political image, than this case.
38/38
If Robinson is indeed the shooter, locking him up for life should be an incredibly easy and reasonable case.
But, an inexperienced FBI director whose experience is a podcast and a clothing brand, continues to jeopardize justice through politics and ineptitude.
If Robinson is indeed the shooter, locking him up for life should be an incredibly easy and reasonable case.
But, an inexperienced FBI director whose experience is a podcast and a clothing brand, continues to jeopardize justice through politics and ineptitude.
PS - if you like in-depth coverage of important topics, combatting misinformation, and breaking down actual nuance of new stories, be sure to hit follow!
PPS - if you want to watch the terrible interview yourself, here is the full 15 minute segment:
POTUS now joining in on the stupid parade:
https://twitter.com/adamscochran/status/1967709025824358482
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
