Patsy theory
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (65)
sorted by:
Didn't his father say he confessed at home? Is there any reason to doubt his father?
You can see him hiding something in his pants that seems to be a rifle and he did have a rifle.
There is no photo of him shooting because there was no camera on him at the time, if that is the level of proof we need to convict someone of murder then we're in trouble.
I'm also willing to bet that the bullet that was retrieved from Kirk's body came from his rifle and maybe they do have gunpowder on him at the time.
version 1 - he was set up and someone used his riffle while Tyler was hiding something like a rifle for no reason and then he agreed to tell his family that he killed Charlie or his family is lying. Why would the father lie? He was a Christian.
version 2 - he actually killed him and now he is desperate because death sentence is on the table
edit: version 3 - there was a guy who looked like him to walk around with a rifle like item in his pants to frame him while someone else shoot Charlie with Tyler's riffle , gave the riffle back to him and asked him to take credit for the killing and now he was told to not talk because they plan to get him out. But why would he agree at all, useful idiot maybe? However he was in engineering so I assume he was not that dumb so makes no sense for him to agree to take the heat.
We have a recent history of American family having munchausen syndrome by proxy and creating condition where heads of the family mislead by MSM forcing vaccines on kids that do not want it.
And now in this case, FBI had no leads whatsoever on who shot Charlie Kirk and now this father claims that his son is a shooter. Now we have all the convenient narratives lined up like how he's radicalised, that I could believe and he was living with a troon roommate. How can I put this? They are just throwing all kind of shit at what sticks as the most compelling motive since just hating charlie kirk is not that good of a motive to shoot him, not to mention his digital footprints are not everywhere like the troon school shooter.
Given our modern surveillance state, I think “no leads” usually means “we obtained all of our current evidence illegally, so we need to construct a parallel investigation that surreptitiously incorporates that evidence”.