I'm seeing a good number of people convinced that Tyler Robinson could not be the killer of Charlie Kirk, but I'm not seeing much sound reasoning for coming to this conclusion. I fully understand being skeptical of "official narratives." We have been fed a lot of lies by the institutional powers. But skeptical is one thing, being unreasonable is something else.
To be sure, there are a number of unanswered questions regarding the Charlie Kirk assassination--there always are in events similar to this. But so far, every instance I've seen of someone citing a "problem with the story" that "proves" Robinson did not kill Kirk is either easily refuted or too incredible to take seriously without some evidence to support it. If you think Tyler Robinson shooting Charlie Kirk is too incredible to believe so you counter with some theory far more incredible, I think the burden of proof is now on you.
The first "problem" I heard of was "Only a highly trained professional could have made that 200 yard shot from the roof." First I'll point out that the actual distance has been confirmed to be closer to 140 yards, but even a 200 yard shot from a stable rest at a stationary target is no great technical feat. Most any deer hunter could make it easily. Most people who have never fired a gun in their lives could likely make this shot with an afternoon of practice.
Second "problem" was "There's no way he could have gotten that rifle into the campus and up to the roof without it being noticed by everyone." I encourage you to watch Gray Hughes' video breakdown showing quite clearly how he got the rifle to the roof. Stuck the barrel down the back of his pants leg and had his backpack covering the portion against his back. He likely also detached the stock and carried it either in his backpack or possibly also partially down a pants leg. The Hughes breakdown clearly shows Robinson caught on multiple cameras outside the school and within the school walking with a limp to his right leg that he no longer had after leaving the roof. Some of the camera shots even clearly show what looks to be the imprint of a rifle barrel on the back of his right pants leg. And this has given rise to another so-called "problem." "He didn't have the tools or the time to reassemble the rifle after getting to the roof, and it would have thrown off the zero on the rifle's scope." Well, there's no reason to think he did any more disassembly than removing the stock. Leaving the scope mounted to the receiver and removing the stock should not alter the zero to any measurable degree. The only tool necessary for this is a single screwdriver. Re-attaching the stock takes nothing more than placing the receiver/barrel into the stock, turning it over to put the trigger plate in place and driving in 2 screws. Could easily be done in 60 seconds or less. We have been told there was a screwdriver with DNA matching Robinson found on the roof.
And now we get to "Well fine, he took a rifle up to the roof, but clearly he didn't have it when he was seen jumping down from the roof." I refer again to the Hughes Breakdown video. It shows pretty clearly that he did in fact have a rifle sized object wrapped in a black cloth as he descended from the roof.
What looks like the current favorite "problem" of the crowd convinced Robinson didn't do it is "There's no way Charlie Kirk could have been shot in the neck with a .30-06. His neck and head would have exploded. I saw a video proving it with ballistics gel." Now I make no claims to being a ballistics expert, but I can refer you to plenty of ballistics experts who will tell you this is false. Ballistics gel is useful as a consistent medium to test and compare penetration of various rounds. It is NOT an exact equivalent of actual flesh. And for the majority of us who are not experts, just ask yourself this question: "how many millions of deer have been shot with a .30-06(many in the neck,) and how many exploding deer can you point to?'
Then I start reading of various people asserting that the throat wound is obviously an exit wound. What do you base this on? Again, I'm not a ballistics expert, but this looks nothing like any exit wound I've ever seen, and plenty of ballistics experts agree with me. I can pretty safely say it most definitely is NOT an exit wound for any centerfire rifle cartridge. You could possibly argue that it could be an exit wound from a medium sized pistol caliber such as a 9mm, but even then it's quite a stretch to believe this. Even a 9mm exit wound is likely to be far more torn and outward bulging. If you want to make this claim, you need to show some convincing evidence to support it, and I've yet to see any.
Then there are the theories that seem to be based on nothing but imaginative fantasy. "The real shooter was off to Kirk's right or off to Kirk's left and shot him with a pistol." Where in that crowd of thousands of people could a shooter with a handgun have fired from that was within realistic handgun range without being seen and heard by at least a few dozen people crowded around him? I'm not seeing any place that looks believable for that scenario. Some will counter "but you don't understand, the handgun shooter in the crowd had a silencer." Anybody saying this doesn't understand what "silencers" are capable of. Any handgun equipped with even the most effective suppressor is still going to be very loud. You'll have a hard time convincing me that a suppressed pistol fired in that crowd wouldn't have been immediately noticed by everyone around.
And this is my central point: every single theory I've seen that involves disbelieving that Robinson could be the shooter because of some perceived "problem" presents far greater problems that are much harder to explain. If you want to convince reasonable people that Tyler Robinson did NOT shoot Charlie Kirk the burden will be on you to provide explanations for these questions:
If Robinson was not the shooter, why was he on the roof with a rifle?
Why did his own parents turn him in to the authorities?
Why do his own parents say he admitted the murder to them?
Why stage an assassination to frame Robinson if your "real" shooter is firing from an entirely different trajectory that's easily discovered?
I'm sure there are plenty more questions to answer if you take this position, but I think I've made my point.
I can entertain the idea that some new piece of evidence will come to light that could change my mind, but based on everything I've seen so far, I conclude that it is far more likely than not, that Tyler Robinson is the sole shooter of Charlie Kirk.
Prove me wrong.