Charlie Kirk shot at an event in Utah

[putnam6]

Not true and your toxic manipulations don't work.

I'm not claiming there is a conspiracy here, I am saying sloppy forensics is what it appears to me. They have now claimed that they will do further analyses which they failed to do in the first place. Whatever they are doing, they aren't doing it properly and this sloppy forensics could affect the perps sentencing.

You don't seem to be able to understand a simple post and make up nonsense in your head, as usual.

Would this conclusion be considered "sloppy" by Horatio of CSI Miami

No, Horatio Caine (from CSI: Miami) would almost certainly not consider the inconclusive ballistics result on the Charlie Kirk bullet fragment "sloppy" forensics.

In fact, he'd likely treat it as a routine, scientifically honest limitation rather than a failure of the investigators.


Why Horatio wouldn't call it sloppy


Horatio Caine's character is portrayed as a meticulous, no-nonsense forensic leader who demands excellence from his team (especially ballistics expert Calleigh Duquesne). He frequently emphasizes that evidence must be followed rigorously, but he also respects the physical realities of crime scene recovery. Key reasons this wouldn't register as "sloppy":
• Damaged/fragmented bullets are a known forensic reality. High-velocity rifle rounds like .30-06 often deform, fragment, or lose striations when they hit bone or tissue. Real-world ballistics experts (and the show's own plots) routinely acknowledge that not every projectile yields a clear "match." An "inconclusive" result due to insufficient microscopic detail on a fragment is neutral—it doesn't exonerate or implicate. Horatio's team has dealt with compromised evidence in multiple episodes without labeling the science itself as sloppy.
• The show repeatedly shows ballistics limits. In episodes like "Going Ballistic" (Season 6), the team handles damaged ammunition, misfires, and partial evidence. They pivot to other clues (DNA, trace, witness statements, etc.) when one test falls short. Horatio doesn't berate his team for physics; he says things like "We follow the evidence" and keeps pushing for more tests (exactly what's happening here with the FBI's supplemental bullet-lead analysis).
• Horatio values thoroughness over perfect matches. He'd probably deliver one of his signature dramatic lines while putting on sunglasses:
"The bullet may not speak clearly... but the DNA on that rifle does."
Or: "Evidence doesn't lie. Sometimes it's just... damaged."He would view the ATF's inconclusive report as transparent science, not incompetence—especially since prosecutors aren't hinging the entire case on ballistics alone. Other links (DNA on the trigger/casing/cartridges, palm print, footprint, alleged texts/admission, scene evidence) would carry more weight in his eyes.
What would make Horatio call it sloppy?
• Contaminating the fragment during recovery.
• Failing to attempt the comparison at all.
• Ignoring the damage and falsely claiming a "match" anyway.
• Not pursuing additional testing (like the ongoing FBI work).
In this case, none of that appears to have happened. The report was documented properly and disclosed to the defense, which is textbook professionalism.
In short: CSI: Miami often dramatizes forensics for TV (sometimes unrealistically fast or conclusive), but even within the show's logic, a fragmented high-velocity rifle bullet yielding an inconclusive microscopic comparison is not portrayed as sloppy work. It's a limitation of the medium—much like real life. Horatio would keep investigating the broader picture rather than fixating on one imperfect test. The defense is using it strategically, but that doesn't make the forensics team incompetent.

[quintessentone]

They are desperately grabbing at anything and everything to try to save their murdering whackjob client.  Typical of a defense team stuck in the impossible situation that they are in.   As Putnam6 showed ... this is indeed experienced and educated investigative police investigations happening, and the NEUTRAL finding of the ballistics is to be expected considering that the bullet was severely shattered.

You didn't read the information given by Putnam6 ... did you?  
Yeah ... didn't think so.
Otherwise, you wouldn't be doubling down on this nonsense.
Then again ... it's you ... so perhaps you would.   

If the lawyers are running with it, what does that tell us?

They may get Robinson off the death penalty sentencing.

I did read Putnam's information, which I had already read previously, which just repeats the facts that ballistics data is inconclusive and will most likely be inconclusive again.

No conspiracy on my end, just looking at the facts present so far.

[FlyersFan]

If the lawyers are running with it, what does that tell us?

It tells us that they are desperate to try anything to get their client off.
They know that a neutral finding of ballistics isn't going to do it.
But they have to give it a try anyways.

This is a nothingburger.
Pretty basic stuff.
Changes nothing.

[quintessentone]

[Video: https://youtu.be/mR3jnW2kcUs?si=YZ8lKznAAbcWrNlF]

Ballistics analyses are still inconclusive and may end up remaining inconclusive so Robinson may walk away from the death penalty.

"Act I, Scene 5: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.""

[quintessentone]

It tells us that they are desperate to try anything to get their client off.
They know that a neutral finding of ballistics isn't going to do it.
But they have to give it a try anyways.

This is a nothingburger.
Pretty basic stuff.
Changes nothing.

It only takes one juror to change everything.

[putnam6]

Ballistics analyses are still inconclusive and may end up remaining inconclusive so Robinson may walk away from the death penalty.

"Act I, Scene 5: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.""

Walking away from the death penalty because he is crazy as a Canadian loon does not mean he didnt pull the trigger and directly murder Charlie Kirk for talking.

Ballistics analyses are still inconclusive and may end up remaining inconclusive so Robinson may walk away from the death penalty? Is this likely


No, it is not likely that Tyler Robinson will "walk away from the death penalty" solely because the ballistics analyses remain inconclusive (or even if they stay that way).


Current status of the ballistics evidence (as of late March/early April 2026)

• The ATF comparison of the damaged bullet fragment (recovered from the autopsy) to the Mauser .30-06 rifle allegedly linked to Robinson came back inconclusive. This means examiners could not find enough intact microscopic striations or individual characteristics on the fragment to either confirm or exclude it as having been fired from that specific rifle.
• Prosecutors and independent ballistics experts emphasize that this is common with high-velocity rifle bullets, which frequently fragment or deform severely on impact (especially striking bone). An "inconclusive" result is neutral — it does not prove the bullet came from a different gun, nor does it exonerate Robinson. It simply means the physical condition of the evidence didn't allow a definitive microscopic match.
• The FBI is still conducting additional testing, including a second comparative bullet analysis and bullet-lead (compositional) analysis. Those results are not yet complete.
Defense attorneys are highlighting the inconclusive ATF finding in motions to delay the preliminary hearing (originally set for May), arguing it could be helpful to their case and that they need more time to review discovery. However, courts and experts treat this as standard forensic limitation rather than a major blow to the prosecution.
Why this probably won't save him from the death penalty
Prosecutors are not relying primarily on a perfect ballistic match. Capital (death penalty) cases in the U.S., especially aggravated murder, are built on the totality of evidence. In this case, reported evidence against Robinson includes:
• DNA evidence on the rifle (including on the trigger, fired casing, and unfired cartridges), plus a palm print, footprint, and other items tying him to the weapon and scene.
• Alleged texts or communications from Robinson admitting to or planning the targeting of Kirk.
• Surveillance/video, witness accounts, and items recovered from the shooting location (e.g., roof area).
• The rifle itself was found nearby with one spent cartridge.
Ballistics experts commenting publicly have noted that even if the microscopic match stays inconclusive, the gun can still be linked circumstantially through other forensics (e.g., cartridge case markings from the firing pin/extractor, DNA, trajectory/shot placement, etc.). An inconclusive bullet comparison is rarely enough to create reasonable doubt when the rest of the case is strong.
In real-world practice, many murder convictions (including death penalty cases) proceed successfully without a definitive bullet-to-gun match, especially when the projectile is fragmented. Juries are instructed that forensic tests have limitations, and "inconclusive" does not equal "exclusion."
What could actually affect the death penalty outcome?
• Plea deal: Robinson has not yet entered a formal plea. In high-profile capital cases, prosecutors sometimes offer life without parole in exchange for avoiding trial risks, but given the political nature of the killing and prosecutors' stated intent to seek death, this seems unlikely unless new exculpatory evidence emerges.
• Trial strategy: The defense will try to amplify any weaknesses (mixed DNA, inconclusive ballistics) to create doubt. But "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a high bar that the full evidence package can still meet.
• Sentencing phase: Even if convicted of aggravated murder, the penalty phase (where death vs. life is decided) considers aggravating factors (premeditation, political targeting, public event) versus mitigating ones. Inconclusive ballistics might be argued as mitigation, but it's weak compared to the other links.
• Appeals: Post-conviction appeals often challenge forensics, but an inconclusive result (vs. a positive exclusion) is not strong grounds for reversal.
As of now (early April 2026), the case is still in pre-trial stages, with hearings on media access, delays, and evidence disclosure ongoing. No major reports indicate the prosecution's overall case is collapsing. The defense is using the ballistics issue strategically for delay and leverage, which is common, but experts describe it as unlikely to be outcome-determinative here.
In summary: An inconclusive ballistics result on a damaged fragment is a known forensic reality, not a get-out-of-death-penalty card. Robinson's fate will depend far more on the DNA, digital, and circumstantial evidence than on whether a perfect rifle match is ever confirmed. The death penalty remains a realistic possibility if he is convicted. The case continues to develop, with more forensic details expected as FBI testing concludes.

[cherokeetroy]

That's just stupid.
Usually you do better than that.
[Image: https://denyignorance.com//images/addsmi...3_spam.gif]

Yeah that was lowbrow 
I deleted it

[putnam6]

Deleted

Nice self-edit...


I mean, I post stupid shit, but damn, low brow? How about no brow..

I thought you were formally educated?

[quintessentone]

Walking away from the death penalty because he is crazy as a Canadian loon does not mean he didnt pull the trigger and directly murder Charlie Kirk for talking.

I am not claiming that is the case and we really don't know whether he is crazy as an American coot either unless you have his psychological assessment for all of us to read, do you?

What I posted was simple to understand, again, his lawyers are jumping all over the inconclusiveness of forensics failure to match bullet fragments to gun and therefore to Robinson. Forensics is doing another analysis matching materials, which they should have done in the first place, IMO.

Robinson is pleading not guilty. It takes only one juror to vote differently or to believe all the evidence is 'beyond a reasonable doubt', which I believe it is, but then nobody really knows how a juror will see it.

@cherokeetroy

I only said 'you bad' with that parody of white "fundamentalist" Christian women (with Erika Kirk chosen as an example) because I've noticed lately certain people can't take a joke, especially with parodies of others whom they, without merit, put up on pedestals, usually certain types of white people and we all know some of those here on DI will not or can not and never will see the funny side of certain parodies when it comes to making fun of those types of people. Was that parody somewhat indicative of how some white fundamentalist Christian women act, I'd say 'yes' - it is funny? well to me it is somewhat sad to watch because they are following a script which does not follow Jesus' script.

[putnam6]

I am not claiming that is the case and we really don't know whether he is crazy as an American coot either unless you have his psychological assessment for all of us to read, do you?

What I posted was simple to understand, again, his lawyers are jumping all over the inconclusiveness of forensics failure to match bullet fragments to gun and therefore to Robinson. Forensics is doing another analysis matching materials, which they should have done in the first place, IMO.

Robinson is pleading not guilty. It takes only one juror to vote differently or to believe all the evidence is 'beyond a reasonable doubt', which I believe it is, but then nobody really knows how a juror will see it.

@cherokeetroy

I only said 'you bad' with that parody of white "fundamentalist" Christian women (with Erika Kirk chosen as an example) because I've noticed lately certain people can't take a joke, especially with parodies of others whom they, without merit, put up on pedestals, usually certain types of white people and we all know some of those here on DI will not or can not and never will see the funny side of certain parodies when it comes to making fun of those types of people. Was that parody somewhat indicative of how some white fundamentalist Christian women act, I'd say 'yes' - it is funny? well to me it is somewhat sad to watch because they are following a script which does not follow Jesus' script.

A coot is commonly called a mud hen in America, so it would be crazy as a mud hen would be more appropriate.