Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • Freed Up
    • The Soho Forum Debates
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Print Subscription
    • Subscriber Support

Log In

Create new account

Media Criticism

The Daily Mail's Dishonesty About Charlie Kirk's Alleged Killer

This is how a conspiracy theory grows.

Robby Soave | 4.2.2026 3:28 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Daily Mail headline with image of Tyler Robinson | Illustration: Adani Samat, Photo: UPI/Newscom
(Illustration: Adani Samat, Photo: UPI/Newscom)

Earlier this week, the Daily Mail published the following headline: "Bullet used to kill Charlie Kirk did NOT match rifle allegedly used by suspect Tyler Robinson, new court filing claims."

You are reading Free Media from Robby Soave and Reason. Get more of Robby's on-the-media, disinformation, and free speech coverage.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

That may strike the casual reader as a significant finding and one that casts doubt on whether the authorities have apprehended the correct person. Connecting Robinson's gun to the crime is obviously a key piece of evidence. If the bullet that killed Kirk came from some other gun, which is implied by this headline, then the conspiracy theories advanced by Candace Owens and others suddenly seem more plausible.

Right on cue, Owens shared the story, claiming vindication.

Where are all my neocons who have been "overwhelmed" by the non existent evidence against Tyler Robinson?

You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Hope the money was worth your soul. https://t.co/C88xGoigdR

— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) March 31, 2026

Where to begin? This headline is woefully dishonest and clearly intended to generate massive numbers of clicks from gullible people. But the actual news is much less sensational: A report from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives failed to match a recovered bullet fragment to the gun in Robinson's possession. This is not all that noteworthy. The bullet that killed Kirk did not exit his body, rendering it "more of a fragment, not a round," according to NewsNation's Jennifer Coffindaffer, a retired FBI agent. In other words, it was not necessarily expected that the bullet fragment would match the weapon. A nonmatch signifies an inconclusive result, not that the bullet is provably from some other gun.

If this were the only piece of evidence against Robinson, I suppose I could understand why it might give people pause. But the case against Robinson is extremely solid because he confessed to his family and his roommate/lover. Indeed, the prosecution plans to call his father and ex-roommate to testify against him. The prosecution possesses text messages that Robinson sent to his roommate in which he explains in detail why and how he committed the murder. Robinson is entitled to the presumption of innocence and should have every opportunity to defend himself, but people who seriously doubt that he's the killer are deluding themselves.

I'm aware that it's no use arguing with Owens. But in theory, at least, the Daily Mail's editors should be capable of feeling shame over this.


This Week on Free Media and Freed Up

Check out the latest episode of Free Media with Amber Duke and Freed Up with Christian Britschgi and subscribe to our channel!


Worth Watching

The Reason staff and I saw Project Hail Mary earlier this week: It was really good! I had no idea what to expect and was totally unspoiled. That's definitely the right way to see it, so I won't say much more about it.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Justice Department Drops 23,000 Cases To Make Room for Trump's Immigration Crackdown

Robby Soave is a senior editor at Reason.

Media CriticismCharlie KirkFirst AmendmentCrimeForensic sciencePolitics
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (14)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)   3 hours ago

    Robby, did you hold your hand in front of your mouth like a girl when you read this?

    Log in to Reply
    1. Zeb   3 hours ago

      Eliciting that sort of reaction is pretty much the business the Mail is in.

      Log in to Reply
  2. MollyGodiva   3 hours ago

    This post is accurate. Inconclusive results have little meaning. The killing of Kirk was awful and everyone needs to condone all political violence. But there is a silver lining to this dark cloud; Babbitt now has a cell mate in Hell.

    Log in to Reply
    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 hours ago

      Hey, want to go hunting with me and my buddies some time?

      Log in to Reply
    2. rswallen   3 hours ago

      Condone all political violence? Quite the Freudian slip there, Molly

      Log in to Reply
      1. Chuck P. (Now with less Sarc more snark)   3 hours ago

        Lefties often reveal themselves in their sarcasm. They write things that are much worse than what racists, sexists, and right wing nuts actually wrote because it aligns with their poisonous thoughts.

        Log in to Reply
    3. Rick James   3 hours ago

      If Babbitt is in hell for breaking a window, where are these guys on the waiting list?

      Log in to Reply
    4. Minadin   2 hours ago

      Reasonably sure that you meant condemn all political violence, there.

      Log in to Reply
      1. Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)   2 hours ago

        I do not share your optimism.

        Log in to Reply
        1. Minadin   1 hour ago

          Meant to type, not his actual sentiment.

          Log in to Reply
    5. SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad   37 minutes ago

      It’s going to be so awesome when things hit a tipping point and it’s open season on leftists. I only wish I could be there to chronicle your mortal terror when you realize how badly you and your fellow travelers have fucked up.

      Hint; it will be a short and miserable chronicle for you.

      Log in to Reply
  3. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 hours ago

    Hmm, what's worse, sleazy media whores lying in order to attract interest from stupid humans, or partisan media whores lying in order to spread propaganda and comfort their tribal comrades?

    Log in to Reply
  4. Rick James   3 hours ago

    This is how a conspiracy theory grows.

    ...by confirming it?

    Log in to Reply
  5. mad.casual   33 minutes ago

    I congratulate Reason's token conservative on finally discovering, after all the other "[Insert field of forensic] Science is junk science" articles that there's a difference between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence.

    That, even if the hairs from the scene were contaminated with *a* dog hair, there's still a body with its hands chopped off and a bullet hole in the back of its head and, thus, (at least) a perpetrator that the law still has to deal with.

    Log in to Reply

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

The World Bank Used To Champion Markets. Now It's Surrendering to State-Led Industrialization.

Veronique de Rugy | 4.2.2026 5:45 PM

Pam Bondi's Loyalty to Trump Wasn't Enough To Save Her Job

Joe Lancaster | 4.2.2026 5:01 PM

Alabama Birthing Center Regulations Are Nearly Impossible To Comply With. State Supreme Court Could Intervene.

Alexandra Stinson | 4.2.2026 4:45 PM

Satanic Temple Wins Legal Fight Over 10 Commandments Monument in Arkansas

Meagan O'Rourke | 4.2.2026 4:33 PM

Infographic: Who Really Pays for Tariffs? These Scholars Tracked a Bottle of Wine To Find Out.

Eric Boehm | 4.2.2026 4:00 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2026 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

I WANT FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS!

Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.

Make a donation today! No thanks
r

I WANT TO FUND FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS

Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.

Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
r

SUPPORT HONEST JOURNALISM

So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.

I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK

Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.

My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
r

HELP KEEP MEDIA FREE & FEARLESS

Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREE MINDS

Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.

Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK AGAINST SOCIALIST IDEAS

Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BAD IDEAS WITH FACTS

Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS ARE EVERYWHERE. LET’S FIGHT BACK.

Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BACK JOURNALISM THAT PUSHES BACK AGAINST SOCIALISM

Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BACK AGAINST BAD ECONOMICS.

Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks