Bannon's War Room - July 07, 2026


Episode 5499： Day 2 Of The Charlie Kirk Assassination Trial Cont.

Topics
elimination sample emergency food supply preparation foundation establishment
Hosted by
Steve Bannon
Mentioned
Twiggs Wendy Patrick Burt Robinson Steve McBride Charlie Kirk Philip Patrick Trump Twig Stakes Exhibit Tara Benson Don Jr. Netanyahu Plattner Bannon Burtz Bird Evan
Episode 5496： Charlie Kirk's Assassination Trial Begins Episode 5501： The New Threat To Our Nation; Pay To Play For America's Vote

Episode Stats


Length

1 hour and 6 minutes

Words per minute

152.61

Word count

10,157

Sentence count

609

Harmful content

Hate speech

1

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

In this episode, the Court of Appeal rules that DNA evidence should be excluded from the case because it is not consistent across forensic DNA testing over time. DNA testing can only be performed on single-sourcing samples, which means there is no way to determine the exact number of contributors to DNA evidence. However, there are a number of ways to estimate the total number of DNA contributors to a crime scene. In this case, a DNA expert testified that this is not a problem.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
Topics generated with Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct.
Hosts, guests, and mentioned names generated with spaCy (en_core_web_sm), reconciled against Wikidata.
00:00:00.000 ...determinations are not proper for the court to make here for the whole reason that, you know, studies supporting this science, studies opposing this science,
00:00:10.540 testimony from this expert or that expert about what is reliable, what is not, what's more reliable, what's less reliable, factors that affect all those determinations,
00:00:19.180 those are all very, very complex decisions.
00:00:22.440 There will be probably multiple-day hearings dealing with that.
00:00:26.580 And a probable cause determination is just not the place to conduct that kind of thorough, in-depth, and searching analysis.
00:00:32.760 Rather, the case law, the Constitution of Utah that says the only purpose of a preliminary hearing is determining probable cause,
00:00:40.120 the case law, the rules that all say the court does not weigh the evidence at this stage,
00:00:45.040 but leaves that for a finder of fact, the jury in the end.
00:00:48.040 And that all supports cutting this line of questioning off at this point
00:00:54.000 rather than going on into greater depth, Your Honor.
00:01:01.060 All right.
00:01:04.100 Based off what's been presented before me,
00:01:07.040 I'm going to sustain in part and deny in part the objection made.
00:01:11.420 I'm going to allow this question to be asked,
00:01:14.660 And so that is denying, but sustained in the sense that this would be the last question.
00:01:20.940 And if Mr. Burt would choose us to, may go on to a different subject or a different line of questioning.
00:01:28.040 Sure.
00:01:30.120 Did that in this report conclude that it remains unclear if visual inspection renders consistent number of contributor estimations across analysts over time?
00:01:44.660 Can you repeat that?
00:01:45.920 Yeah.
00:01:46.520 Did the report, the NIST report that you referenced,
00:01:49.460 conclude that it remains unclear if visual inspection renders consistent number of contributor
00:01:56.940 estimations across analysts over time?
00:02:01.600 I think that goes to the DNA evidence.
00:02:06.800 Again, we never truly know the number of contributors in a forensic sample.
00:02:13.280 So like I mentioned before, you could have DNA mixtures that are made up of two, three, four individuals.
00:02:19.820 I have training.
00:02:20.700 I have experience.
00:02:21.620 I followed standard operating procedures.
00:02:24.280 So I'm making the best determination based on the evidence, the DNA evidence that I have as far as number of contributors goes.
00:02:34.580 Now, if I could, I'd like to return to your case notes.
00:02:37.340 And could you display for the witness page 365 of tab number four?
00:02:49.160 And while he's doing that, by the way, it's true that if you change the number of contributors,
00:02:53.580 you're going to get different numbers from the software program.
00:02:57.500 It depends.
00:02:58.600 So actually, each time you run the software, you will get a different number based on the math that the software system does.
00:03:06.520 But there are studies and validations that show we don't expect that math to be greatly different, usually by a factor of 10.
00:03:15.480 Changing the number of contributors, it depends.
00:03:17.940 If you have a major contributor, someone who's made up most of that DNA profile,
00:03:23.760 if I originally interpret something as three, calculate a statistic,
00:03:27.940 if that major contributor is the individual that I'm comparing to,
00:03:31.980 If I change the number of contributors to two, based on the studies and based on my own experience, it doesn't change the likelihood ratio of that major contributor by much.
00:03:42.940 But it does change it, correct?
00:03:44.760 Yes.
00:03:45.380 And you just said, I think, that even when you put in the same parameters, you don't get the same answer if you run it through SDR mix more than once, right?
00:03:55.460 That is correct. Based on how StarMix utilizes math and distributions, you will never get the
00:04:02.160 same answer twice, but it will be no more than a magnitude of 10. So that test is not
00:04:11.200 reproducible in the sense that you can run a sample or your assumptions in there 10 times,
00:04:18.580 you could get 10 different answers. That is true. Again, the first time I run StarMix,
00:04:24.740 I'm not going to get a likelihood ratio of 10 and the second time get 10 quadrillion.
00:04:29.300 I might get 10 quadrillion the first time, 2 quadrillion the second time,
00:04:34.320 but even if I run it 10 times, I'm still going to get around the same likelihood ratio value.
00:04:39.920 Now, could you look at tab number 4, your case notes at page 365,
00:04:46.620 if you could bring that up to the witness?
00:04:54.740 Let me know when you have that in front of you.
00:04:57.760 I think you need to scroll up one page.
00:05:05.660 There we go.
00:05:08.220 Can you identify this page from your notes?
00:05:11.120 Yes, I can.
00:05:12.260 These were notes that my technical reviewer made.
00:05:15.620 And my technical reviewer, they will review all of my DNA evidence.
00:05:19.860 They will draw their own conclusions as far as number of contributors and comparisons, then compare it back to my conclusions.
00:05:28.060 All right.
00:05:28.280 So this is regarding the seven sample, correct?
00:05:32.780 That is correct.
00:05:33.320 That is one of the samples.
00:05:34.580 And your original assessment was that there were three contributors to this sample, right?
00:05:39.960 That is correct, yes.
00:05:41.140 And that conclusion was reviewed by a reviewer, correct?
00:05:46.380 Correct, yes.
00:05:46.880 She read the same electropherograms or the name for the output of this technology you used, correct?
00:05:55.880 She utilized the same electropherogram, which is the chart that the DNA is on.
00:06:01.280 And does this page in front of you, is that an accurate representation of your case file?
00:06:06.760 Yes, it is.
00:06:07.300 So I'm moving to evidence page 365, and that would be Baker 4.
00:06:19.220 Mr. McBride?
00:06:21.200 I'll object on relevance grounds.
00:06:25.060 All right.
00:06:25.800 Did you want to respond, Mr. Burt?
00:06:28.060 Your Honor, it's relevant because the witness originally determined that there were three contributors,
00:06:35.080 and I'd like her to explain to the court how she reached that conclusion
00:06:39.420 because I think it does go to the reliability of her testing here.
00:06:43.640 All right, so as it relates to Baker 4,
00:06:50.340 and this is her personal notes from Ms. Baker
00:06:55.340 as it relates to what I'm assuming is State's Exhibit 31,
00:07:02.680 that these notes were prepared as part of the report in State's Exhibit 31.
00:07:11.740 I find that it is relevant and that it is admitted into evidence as regards to publication.
00:07:18.880 What is the request, Mr. Bird?
00:07:20.960 If I may clarify, I think the testimony was that this was not her notes.
00:07:24.960 These were the notes of her technical reviewer is what I heard.
00:07:28.200 If I, please correct me if I misheard that from both sides.
00:07:32.940 I want to make sure, I want to make sure, are these Ms. Baker's notes?
00:07:37.840 Could I clarify that?
00:07:39.720 Absolutely.
00:07:41.820 Ms. Baker, these are notes in your case file, correct?
00:07:46.020 These are notes in my case file, but they're not my notes.
00:07:48.580 And the way your lab works, you're not the one that does all the different steps in the testing process, correct?
00:07:58.780 That is correct.
00:08:00.120 Other analysts have input.
00:08:02.740 That then all goes into the case file, which you have access to and rely upon in rendering your opinions.
00:08:10.660 That is correct, yes.
00:08:11.440 And this particular page is a note written by your peer reviewer that you relied upon?
00:08:21.500 Correct.
00:08:22.200 After I made my interpretations and drew conclusions, my technical reviewer then reviews the data and draws their own conclusions.
00:08:30.460 So this was created after I had already drew my own conclusions.
00:08:41.440 All right, I'm just trying to put it together here.
00:08:50.920 So the question I'm trying to get to, Council, is was this particular,
00:08:56.500 I recognize it as it being prepared by someone else,
00:09:00.480 but as it relates to States Exhibit 31,
00:09:03.460 was this relied upon in order for States Exhibit 31 to be put together as the report?
00:09:11.440 Because I'm trying to determine relevancy as it relates to that, and that's a crucial point I don't have the answer to just yet.
00:09:21.080 Okay.
00:09:23.380 Let me lay a more adequate foundation.
00:09:26.600 The case file notes are assessed by you at every step of the analysis, correct?
00:09:38.420 Not necessarily at every step.
00:09:43.320 Before I issue a report, before I write a report, I review all of the case notes.
00:09:49.640 So that will be any communication log entries, any documentation from the laboratory, the biologists that perform the DNA testing.
00:09:59.100 I will review all of that, write a report, and then give that to a technical reviewer.
00:10:05.620 They will draw their own conclusions to determine if they agree with me.
00:10:10.120 If they do, they will sign off, and then my report and my case file will go for an administrative review
00:10:16.280 to make sure that the laboratory number is correct on all the pages,
00:10:22.740 that if there's any crossouts, there's dates and initials and so forth.
00:10:25.940 Those two reviews have to be done before I can actually make it a final report and case file
00:10:31.560 that gets submitted and sent to the field.
00:10:34.180 And in this case, correct me if I'm wrong, but the sequence was you originally determined in seven, sample seven, that there were three contributors.
00:10:44.380 That conclusion got reviewed.
00:10:46.800 Then you ran some further testing, and then you changed your conclusion, correct?
00:10:52.120 That is correct, yes.
00:10:53.160 And before you change your conclusion, you, of course, go back and look at what the reviewer said about her review.
00:11:00.720 We would have a discussion.
00:11:02.720 If I say a number of contributors was three, here she notated that it was two.
00:11:08.700 We had that discussion.
00:11:10.320 She agreed with three.
00:11:11.760 So for that step of that process, because again, we're piecemealing this.
00:11:17.500 Typically in a normal case, we will work all of the evidence.
00:11:20.600 I will write a report.
00:11:22.080 For this situation, I had DNA evidence coming to me throughout the day, throughout the night.
00:11:28.120 So I had reviewers at different steps, which is not usual for a case.
00:11:32.380 usually I have one reviewer. So in this case, at that particular time, I had a reviewer. Then when
00:11:38.660 I was submitted additional known samples and used those for comparisons, then I did have additional
00:11:45.020 conclusions and additional reviewers. But you certainly took into account this notation on
00:11:50.660 this page before you changed your conclusion, correct? I don't know that I would agree that
00:11:57.180 I took into account. We had already had that conversation. And again, once I received additional
00:12:02.360 known samples and additional information from the field, I then did amend my conclusion.
00:12:08.620 And these notes are kept in the ordinary course of your business?
00:12:12.240 Yes.
00:12:12.940 And they're part of the case file that you rely upon in reaching your conclusions?
00:12:18.600 They are kept with the case file after I draw my conclusions.
00:12:25.340 So, Your Honor, I think there's a foundation for this. The state has offered all kinds of
00:12:30.120 hearsay here and certainly this is
00:12:32.060 there's no question about the reliability
00:12:34.180 of the entries.
00:12:35.960 Alright.
00:12:38.340 Anything further from the parties
00:12:39.980 before I weigh
00:12:42.200 in on, well, make my
00:12:44.080 ruling on Baker 4? No.
00:12:47.520 The
00:12:48.120 court finds that it is relevant
00:12:50.220 and as it
00:12:52.200 relates to Stakes Exhibit
00:12:54.120 31 and Baker 4 is admitted
00:12:56.200 into evidence in regards to publication.
00:12:58.360 Mr. Burt, what is your request?
00:13:02.220 That it be published.
00:13:03.960 All right, to in the courtroom?
00:13:05.880 Both the courtroom and to the cameras.
00:13:09.500 All right.
00:13:10.100 Any objection, Mr. McBride?
00:13:13.300 All right.
00:13:14.380 Go ahead and publish that to all screens.
00:13:17.720 It may be captured by the media.
00:13:20.100 So these notations at the top there,
00:13:23.640 7-1 male, discuss 3 NOC, and okay with 3. Could you translate that for us, what that means?
00:13:33.160 Sure. So when my technical reviewer took a look at the DNA evidence, she determined that male DNA
00:13:40.800 was present, and she concluded that she would have called it a number of contributor of 2.
00:13:46.160 She compared it to my conclusions. I said number of contributor 3. So we had a discussion as to
00:13:52.160 why she thought it was two, why I thought it was three.
00:13:55.040 And she said she agreed with me calling it three based on her discussion.
00:14:00.660 Okay.
00:14:01.280 So was that an extended discussion you had with her or just?
00:14:06.040 No, this was a quick discussion, and this is not unusual.
00:14:09.500 We have discussions like this during the technical process quite often.
00:14:12.820 And the stamp on the bottom approved by Tara Benson, is that the reviewer?
00:14:18.500 Yes, it is.
00:14:19.120 All right, thank you.
00:14:20.740 Now, I want to ask you to look at page 128 of that same exhibit.
00:14:39.240 No.
00:14:42.000 Is this an electrophairogram that is a part of your case file?
00:14:48.280 Yes, it is.
00:14:48.780 And is this an accurate representation of what's depicted on this page?
00:14:56.760 I'm sorry.
00:14:57.760 There's nothing on the screen.
00:14:59.020 Am I?
00:15:00.940 Yeah, 128.
00:15:09.240 Yes, it is.
00:15:10.860 I move that into evidence, Your Honor.
00:15:12.560 This would be Baker 4, page 128.
00:15:18.780 Oh, I thought I already admitted Baker 4. Is this a different?
00:15:23.920 The previous one was Baker 4, as I understood it.
00:15:27.300 Yeah, Baker 4, page 365.
00:15:30.720 Oh, okay.
00:15:32.060 And so this is Baker 4, page 128.
00:15:38.160 Right, so the previous admitted exhibit is Baker 4, 365.
00:15:42.360 The current proposed one is Baker 4, 128.
00:15:45.220 That's correct.
00:15:45.960 All right, Mr. McBride.
00:15:46.860 If I could have just a minute to update my notes on those page numbers.
00:15:50.540 All right.
00:15:56.000 365 was the previous one, unless I heard it wrong.
00:15:58.880 Yes, that's right.
00:15:59.880 All right.
00:16:00.320 And the current one is 128.
00:16:09.040 First, I'll note, this is the first I'm seeing these as exhibits.
00:16:13.000 Of course, I have this file, but I was unaware that these are going to be offered as exhibits,
00:16:18.760 so I'm looking to find them in my file as we go.
00:16:22.860 Second, again, I'm going to object on relevance grounds to the probable cause determination.
00:16:29.940 We're going through the finite details of the analysis here.
00:16:33.840 And once again, I think these are appropriate questions to raise in a 702 hearing,
00:16:37.980 but with the standards that apply at the preliminary hearing that I've already discussed,
00:16:43.000 I think we're beyond the scope of probable cause determination as we dive into this evidence.
00:16:48.260 All right. Mr. Burtz.
00:16:50.220 Your Honor, I think this exhibit is particularly important because the court does not yet have in front of it what an electrophairogram is and how it's interpreted.
00:17:00.520 And this particular page will illustrate to the court how the analysts interpreted the peaks on this electropherogram to reach the conclusions that she reached, that there were three and not two contributors.
00:17:15.820 And I think it will assist the court in determining exactly how this comparison process works and what the output looks like so the court can see exactly how the interpretations are being made.
00:17:27.160 and is this the dose that we're relied upon uh in i'm so i'm viewing stays exhibit 31 as a summary
00:17:37.940 and this more of showing the work of how the summary was reached am i misunderstanding how
00:17:44.220 this fits in this fits into uh how the analyst originally was of the opinion that there are
00:17:52.220 three people here, and not two.
00:17:55.880 And she will go on to explain how she changed
00:18:00.980 the interpretation from three to two.
00:18:04.580 And the point of this is to illustrate to the court
00:18:09.160 that this is a subjective process, to a certain extent,
00:18:13.100 and that people can read these things in different ways.
00:18:18.300 And so I think it will help the court understand exactly what's
00:18:23.980 being compared here.
00:18:25.860 You've got peaks on a line, she will say.
00:18:28.780 And just to let the court know, in response
00:18:31.360 to Mr. McBride's statement that he was unaware
00:18:35.940 that this is going to be an issue,
00:18:38.700 he and I met with this analyst before the preliminary hearing.
00:18:44.040 The analyst pointed this page out to us
00:18:46.620 as being illustrative of why she originally
00:18:52.160 concluded that there were three contributors.
00:18:55.540 So this is not something that's being sprung on the state.
00:18:59.500 He was a part of that conversation.
00:19:01.820 And this particular page was identified by the analyst,
00:19:04.840 not by me.
00:19:06.160 So it is important to understand why we went from three to two
00:19:11.560 and what impact that has on the numbers that the state is offering.
00:19:16.480 All right.
00:19:17.460 Anything further?
00:19:18.700 No.
00:19:20.500 All right.
00:19:20.920 Under Utah Rule of Evidence 1102, B4, it says Scientific Laboratory of Forensic Reports and Records,
00:19:32.400 I find that this is admissible and is admitted into evidence as Baker 4, page 128.
00:19:42.200 And is there a request to publish this document?
00:19:48.960 Was that a yes?
00:19:50.700 Oh, okay.
00:19:51.360 Yes.
00:19:51.920 All right.
00:19:52.300 So published, I'm assuming, to all to that screen as well?
00:19:56.160 Yes, correct.
00:19:56.460 All right. It may be published.
00:19:57.800 Counsel, just as a reminder, as this is a probable cause,
00:20:02.660 I understand and I appreciate you give me a pointer of where it's going,
00:20:07.220 but just as a reminder, as probable cause, it is admitted, and you may discuss it,
00:20:15.140 but I definitely want to keep this within the track of probable cause.
00:20:19.660 Understood.
00:20:20.480 All right.
00:20:21.080 Thank you, Mr. Burt.
00:20:25.060 Okay.
00:20:27.240 Is it true what I just told the court that you pointed this particular page out
00:20:32.160 as illustrating why you originally thought we had three contributors?
00:20:36.120 Yes, that is true.
00:20:36.880 So explain to the court, is this an electropherogram?
00:20:40.480 Yes, this is an electropherogram.
00:20:42.920 Each of those rectangles at the top, for example, D2S441,
00:20:48.420 that is that small segment of DNA that I referred to earlier.
00:20:52.440 And each of those peaks has a corresponding number that is the allele, so that corresponds to the number of repeats that an individual inherited.
00:21:02.640 And this is why you ultimately, you get this electropherogram not through running it through SDR mix.
00:21:12.200 There's a different device that you use to produce these electropherograms, right?
00:21:17.960 Correct. Yes. During the DNA process, this is the last step of that process. So what it's doing is it's, so we, DNA is found in cells of our body. We're taking those cells, we're breaking them open with chemicals to release the DNA from those cells. We're making photocopies of those pieces of DNA so that we can essentially see them.
00:21:40.940 And then the last step is to separate those pieces by size, and the ultimate output is this electropharogram.
00:21:48.620 Okay.
00:21:49.220 And is it true that you set the parameters for what the machine will pop up in terms of numbering the alleles?
00:22:00.940 Personally, I do not set that up.
00:22:02.860 That was done during our validation of the chemicals and the software and the instrument that we utilize.
00:22:09.000 but there are parameters. So the output of the DNA lets me know, for example, the different
00:22:17.980 types of alleles, but that's not a parameter I set. I want to make sure you answered that.
00:22:24.060 You set, or your lab sets, what the machine does in terms of labeling particular alleles, correct?
00:22:33.300 Yes, that's part of the whole process and the validation, yes.
00:22:37.020 So you could tell the machine, give me all the peaks at whatever level and label them as whatever the alleles are.
00:22:48.000 I see.
00:22:48.540 So yes.
00:22:49.140 So during our validation, we determine our thresholds, our analytical threshold, and that stochastic threshold that I mentioned before.
00:22:56.600 The analytical threshold is a threshold that was determined during validation that we input into the software that I utilize.
00:23:04.600 that says, for example, our analytical threshold is 150.
00:23:08.880 Any peak that is 150 or greater,
00:23:11.960 the software system will give me that allele call or that number for that peak.
00:23:16.980 Any peak that's below the 150,
00:23:20.440 the software system will not give me an allele call for it.
00:23:24.560 Even though it might be a true allele?
00:23:27.140 Correct, yes.
00:23:28.380 So you could say, and you referred to a measurement,
00:23:32.480 you refer to that as RFUs, right?
00:23:35.580 Yes, that is the unit.
00:23:37.660 What does that mean?
00:23:38.680 It stands for Relative Fluorescent Unit.
00:23:42.180 So in your lab, you tell a machine only label peaks that come above 150 RFU.
00:23:49.840 The software that utilizes the information from the machine, yes.
00:23:54.680 However, it's true, is it not, that in determining the number of contributors,
00:23:58.820 you look below that 150 RFU level.
00:24:03.040 And that is true, yes.
00:24:04.240 All right.
00:24:04.580 Now, on this, this is only showing four different locations, right?
00:24:11.580 Correct, yes.
00:24:12.860 And you see a number of peaks at each one of these locations.
00:24:17.960 Some of them are labeled.
00:24:19.040 Some of them are not.
00:24:20.680 Correct, yes.
00:24:21.580 So tell us how you originally looked at this and said there's not two contributors, there's three.
00:24:27.340 Sure.
00:24:28.260 So first what I do is I count how many labels that I see,
00:24:32.780 so how many of those little squares under each of those locations.
00:24:36.160 So for example, at D2S441, there are three squares.
00:24:41.380 Knowing that one piece of information comes from mom and one comes from dad,
00:24:45.420 if it's a single source profile from one individual,
00:24:47.680 I expect to see no more than two squares.
00:24:50.540 Because I see three, that gives me an indication that there's at least two individuals.
00:24:55.420 Same thing for the next D19S433 and as well as FGA.
00:25:02.820 There were three peaks that were called.
00:25:05.140 So I knew this had to be at least two individuals.
00:25:08.600 Then what I do is I take a look at the peaks that are not called
00:25:12.100 and determine could there potentially be a third person included.
00:25:17.220 So for example, at D2, the location farthest to the left,
00:25:22.040 I'm asking myself, that 12 in that bottom box,
00:25:26.000 is it the same contributor as, for example,
00:25:29.220 the 22 under FGA all the way to the right?
00:25:33.460 Because I see peaks that are not labeled,
00:25:35.860 it could be that the 12 belongs to one individual
00:25:39.220 and those two peaks that are not called
00:25:41.080 belong to a second or third individual,
00:25:43.400 and that at FGA, I could be seeing the 22
00:25:46.720 from that third person, but that second person
00:25:49.460 has dropped out.
00:25:50.200 Because I'm able to use information below the threshold and I see peaks, that gives me an indication that I can increase my number of contributors to three, which I did in this case.
00:26:02.120 Okay.
00:26:02.520 When did you reach that conclusion, time-wise?
00:26:08.820 If I recall, it was somewhere around September 12th.
00:26:13.540 And when did you change your conclusion?
00:26:20.200 That I would have to refer.
00:26:22.520 Sure.
00:26:50.200 I changed my conclusion on September 13th of 2025.
00:26:55.140 And explain to the court why you changed your conclusion?
00:26:58.440 I was submitted an elimination sample from Mr. Twiggs.
00:27:02.800 And an elimination sample is a sample in which it's from a known individual,
00:27:07.420 and then there's an expectation that the individual's DNA might be present.
00:27:12.320 In receiving that sample and talking to the investigators,
00:27:15.960 it was decided that Mr. Twiggs should be used as an elimination.
00:27:21.820 When I compared him to this sample, all of the DNA, unlike that major contributor, matched to Mr. Twiggs.
00:27:29.380 So because of that, I determined that there's actually only two individuals
00:27:33.800 because those small peaks, there was nothing left for a third individual to be compared to.
00:27:40.260 You use the phrase elimination sample.
00:27:42.380 sample? That's typically used, is it not, in a situation where you're testing a sample that
00:27:49.020 has more than one contributor? Not necessarily. An elimination is just simply an individual that
00:27:58.560 we're expecting their DNA to be there. So for example, if we have a stolen vehicle,
00:28:04.320 I will request an elimination sample from the known driver of the vehicle so I can subtract
00:28:10.180 out their DNA to see what I have
00:28:12.240 left over. It doesn't necessarily
00:28:14.040 have to be more than one individual.
00:28:16.100 There certainly has been times where I only
00:28:18.100 detect that known expected
00:28:19.920 individual.
00:28:21.480 You said you had a
00:28:23.820 conversation with the investigators as
00:28:26.100 to whether twigs should be
00:28:28.440 included as
00:28:30.220 where you talked to them about whether
00:28:33.820 you should get elimination
00:28:35.800 samples?
00:28:37.700 I talked to them with regards
00:28:40.080 to if I should utilize Mr. Twiggs as an elimination
00:28:43.480 versus comparing him and offering a statistic.
00:28:47.780 Okay.
00:28:48.520 But in your report, you concluded, did you not,
00:28:53.900 that one of the contributors to both samples was Twiggs.
00:29:01.540 That is correct, yes.
00:29:03.320 Right.
00:29:03.540 You didn't just assume that.
00:29:05.640 You reached the determination that he was the source
00:29:09.000 of both those samples?
00:29:11.200 One of the sources, right?
00:29:13.280 I don't want to use the word source,
00:29:15.400 but knowing that there was an expectation
00:29:17.360 that his DNA could be present,
00:29:19.380 when I compared him to that DNA sample,
00:29:21.860 I did see his DNA types present.
00:29:24.900 So using the word assumed,
00:29:27.560 that's verbiage that we use
00:29:29.700 when we calculate our statistical calculation.
00:29:33.840 I'm letting the software know,
00:29:35.340 I know this individual is there.
00:29:37.160 I'm assuming that they're there.
00:29:39.000 based on my comparisons, I did see evidence that that person was there.
00:29:45.620 But I guess what I'm confused about is we talked before about how your language should never imply an absolute identification.
00:29:53.580 But in the body of your report, you say that one of the contributors is Twiggs.
00:29:58.740 You don't say he's a possible contributor like you do for Mr. Robinson.
00:30:03.080 You say he is a contributor. Do you not?
00:30:05.560 I do. And with elimination samples, that's slightly different. So for example, let's say I have a sexual assault case and I have a vaginal swab from a female. She has a consensual partner. I can request an elimination sample from that consensual partner. If I see that they're present, I can say they're present and say the DNA foreign to that victim and that consensual partner is one person, for example.
00:30:30.560 So it's different than comparing a known individual if they're an elimination sample.
00:30:39.160 I can say that I expect their DNA to be there.
00:30:42.620 And based on my interpretation and reviewing that data, they are present.
00:30:47.900 And based either on your conversations with the agents or other people,
00:30:52.280 why did you think that twigs was someone whose DNA you would expect in those two samples?
00:30:58.920 So from what I recall, in speaking with the investigators, Mr. Twiggs was a roommate of Mr. Robinson, and it was thought that those items came from potentially Mr. Robinson's home.
00:31:14.520 And I don't recall exactly if it was a situation where a particular towel was known to have been in that house.
00:31:22.500 I don't remember that exactly.
00:31:23.700 But in talking to the investigators, based on their investigation, it was important to assume potentially Mr. Twiggs was present.
00:31:33.100 Did any investigator ever tell you that the towel did not come from Mr. Robinson's home but was found in a bush out at the university?
00:31:43.760 I was aware of that, yes.
00:31:46.280 So you knew that that towel was not found in a place where you would expect Mr. Twiggs' DNA to be present?
00:31:54.340 That is correct.
00:31:55.420 It was found outside of a home, but again, based on speaking with the investigators,
00:31:59.880 they had information to suspect that that towel came from Mr. Robinson's home,
00:32:06.680 and I should utilize Mr. Twiggs as an elimination.
00:32:10.480 Right.
00:32:10.640 Right. And again, you didn't assume that you actually concluded it based on the match, right?
00:32:16.920 Based on reviewing Mr. Twig's DNA profile to what I developed from these items, I used him as an elimination sample.
00:32:23.980 Now, you did various STR mix, what I'll call runs, correct?
00:32:33.220 That is correct, yes.
00:32:34.020 And the way this works is you input the number of contributors.
00:32:41.780 You determine that.
00:32:43.820 And then they also have something called HD and HP, right?
00:32:49.700 Correct, yes.
00:32:50.540 Tell the court what that is.
00:32:51.980 So those are different propositions.
00:32:53.940 So in calculating the likelihood ratio, likelihood ratio compares the probabilities of seeing a DNA profile given one of two different scenarios or explanations or hypotheses.
00:33:05.980 One is that a particular person of interest is a contributor, and the other is that an unknown unrelated individual is a contributor.
00:33:12.780 So depending on the question being asked is how I set up STAR-Mix, number of contributors.
00:33:19.720 For example, if I'm utilizing someone as a known elimination sample, I will apply their DNA profile both to HP and HD.
00:33:28.960 And the theory of this, HP is the prosecution hypothesis, right?
00:33:34.260 Correct, yes.
00:33:35.340 And HD is the defense hypothesis.
00:33:38.820 Correct, yes.
00:33:39.460 so and and these are things you plug in based on your understanding of what the prosecution and
00:33:46.400 the defense are contending correct yes so how do you plug in the hd in a case where you don't yet
00:33:51.720 have a defense postulating what their theory is uh so that is so hd or the defense hypothesis
00:33:59.440 is simply a the dna profile the probability of the dna profile given that it's another unknown
00:34:05.720 unrelated person to the prosecution's potential person of interest.
00:34:13.120 Mr. Burt, I don't want to interrupt your line of questions,
00:34:16.900 but we've been going for just shy of two hours.
00:34:19.560 Would right now be a good time to take a 15-minute break?
00:34:21.740 All right, let's take a 15-minute break.
00:34:24.480 Let's see.
00:34:25.720 We'll come back at 3.50.
00:34:29.220 The court is in a brief recess.
00:34:30.800 buy gold and put some silver in your pocket i know what you're thinking everything's expensive
00:34:41.680 right now how am i gonna buy gold pull your head out of the sand one thing you can control right
00:34:47.360 now that doesn't cost you anything out of pocket is diversifying your retirement savings birch gold
00:34:53.860 Group will help you convert an old 401k from a previous employer or an IRA into a physical
00:35:00.780 gold IRA. Let me repeat that. Birch Gold will help you now convert an old 401k from a previous
00:35:08.520 employer or an IRA into a physical IRA in gold. You know, something that's a hedge against inflation.
00:35:17.280 Listen to this right now. Birch Gold is going to give you a special America 250, one ounce
00:35:22.840 silver round for every $10,000 you purchase by July 10th. I'm going to repeat this. With every
00:35:30.500 $10,000 purchase, you get a free one-ounce silver round America 250 commemoration, a special.
00:35:37.840 Think about this. 10 years ago, an ounce of gold was about $1,200. Today, it's around $4,500.
00:35:45.580 Where will it be in 10 years from now? Text Bannon, B-A-N-N-O-N, 989898,
00:35:51.280 to take advantage of free America 250 silver
00:35:54.480 with qualifying purchase before the 10th of July.
00:35:58.600 Again, text my name, Bannon, B-A-N-N-O-N,
00:36:01.400 to number 989898 today.
00:36:05.420 Take advantage of this offer.
00:36:07.680 With qualifying purchases, you get a silver round,
00:36:11.960 a one-ounce silver round.
00:36:14.780 Check it out, qualifying purchase.
00:36:16.720 You got to do it before July 10th.
00:36:18.120 Do it today.
00:36:18.600 everyone's focus on how the conflict in the Middle East is raising oil prices but there's
00:36:23.840 another grim reality to this contention oil isn't the only resource being constrained about one
00:36:30.840 third of global fertilizer trade happens through this region and with spring planting season on
00:36:36.960 top of us American farmers are sounding the alarm with some saying they can't afford to plant their
00:36:42.060 fields when one piece of the supply chain gets hit this hard you know what comes next higher
00:36:47.940 food prices, reduced availability, maybe even panic buying. That's why having an emergency
00:36:53.860 food supply at home makes so much sense. And that's where our friends at MyPatriotSupply come
00:37:00.580 in right now at preparewithbannon.com. That is preparewithbannon.com. We've set up an entire
00:37:07.600 just site for the war room posse. You go to preparewithbannon.com. That's all one word,
00:37:14.960 PrepareWithBannon.com. You get a three-month emergency food supply. They'll include a free
00:37:21.100 mega protein upgrade, an incredible $200 bonus you don't want to miss. It's a simple way to
00:37:28.240 protect your family from whatever comes next. Go to PrepareWithBannon.com. That is PrepareWithBannon.com
00:37:36.880 to get your emergency food supply today. That's PrepareWithBannon.com. Do it today. Go check it
00:37:44.820 Why wait till you're down to your last pill, stuck traveling, or dealing with a packed pharmacy
00:37:49.680 when you can already have your medications on hand? Seriously. You know what you normally take.
00:37:56.060 You already know what your family could need. That makes no sense. Smart families don't operate
00:38:01.100 like that. That's why I love All Family Pharmacy. They're built a better, simpler system to get your
00:38:07.880 prescription medications. You go online, fill out a quick medical form, licensed doctors review your
00:38:13.660 request, prescribe if appropriate, and your medications are shipped directly to your door.
00:38:19.320 No waiting rooms, no pharmacy lines, no insurance nonsense. People are traveling more, schedules are
00:38:25.060 getting crazier, and have your medications already on hand just makes your life easier. Because being
00:38:30.600 prepared isn't paranoia, it's common sense. Go visit my friends at allfamilypharmacy.com. That's
00:38:36.980 one word, allfamilypharmacy.com slash Bannon, and use code Bannon10 to save 10% on your
00:38:44.280 next order.
00:38:45.420 Again, that's allfamilypharmacy.com slash Bannon, and use code Bannon10.
00:38:52.480 Okay, it is Tuesday, 7th of July, Year of the Alert, 2026.
00:38:59.780 You're in the War Room.
00:39:01.080 We're going to go and get Wendy Patrick is with us.
00:39:04.380 We're going to get Wendy up in a second.
00:39:05.540 for many of you of a certain age that may be reminiscent of the OJ trial right now into the
00:39:11.960 DNA section. If that doesn't make your eyes cross, nothing will. You're pretty true. I think the
00:39:17.340 purpose of this is to sit through it. And those of you who go through the entire thing will
00:39:23.380 have a vote as your grand jury members, maybe on Friday, see where you're coming up.
00:39:28.400 So, Wendy, Patrick, Wendy, can you get us up to speed on how you've observed this today and what is important?
00:39:37.020 What's the wheat and what's the chaff?
00:39:39.520 I observed it with much interest, Steve, because having put on plenty of these witnesses in years past,
00:39:45.220 I thought this witness did a pretty good job of explaining the process, not just the process, though,
00:39:50.720 the process of elimination of a known sample of an unknown contributor,
00:39:54.840 And also how it can be true that an original assumption that there's three people could very easily be narrowed down to two.
00:40:03.340 You know, at first glance or at first listen to a jury who doesn't know a lot about DNA, it might sound like, wait a minute, you know, this is so different of a result.
00:40:11.380 But actually, upon examination, she was able to very competently explain it.
00:40:16.200 I would say the same thing regarding the testimony that comes out with different numbers.
00:40:21.980 She narrowed that down by saying, yes, the more you run it using the math, you'll get different numbers.
00:40:27.560 But then she gave the examples of, you know, 10 quadrillion and 2 quadrillion.
00:40:31.200 And I know it's probably even less than that.
00:40:33.620 So we're still up in the quadrillions, which is usually where I turn to the jury and say to the expert, tell this jury how many zeros that is, basically to determine that it sounds like a match.
00:40:44.820 But the prelim is the chance to do exactly what you and I and our viewers just watched.
00:40:49.400 test the scope of the evidence in terms of the way the witness is going to explain it.
00:40:54.360 That helps both sides hone their strategy as to how they're going to approach that trial.
00:41:00.700 What is the purpose right now?
00:41:02.680 I guess it's definitely the tau.
00:41:04.940 What other objects?
00:41:06.000 And what is the purpose?
00:41:07.100 What is the purpose of the entire thing of trying to show whose DNA is on what?
00:41:12.980 Because the tau, we don't even know if the tau came from the location.
00:41:17.560 It was just found out in the woods, correct?
00:41:19.400 Well, yes, but where was it originally? Apparently it was at the defendant's house. And so the purpose of these types of questions and this line of questioning is just a process of connecting the dots to the rest of the evidence, to the sniper portion of the testimony.
00:41:35.920 You know, you had the items that were arranged, to the bullets, to the gun, to the trigger of the gun, all the rest of the places where the same DNA was found.
00:41:44.980 And then putting the two of them together is also relevant because that's also part of the testimony and the storyline, the timeline that's going to emerge.
00:41:53.580 So it's just tying it up neatly, well, as neat as you can at a crime scene like this, tying it all together in a fashion that will make it not only easy to argue at the end of the prelim, but also easy to think through the way in which you're going to present it at trial.
00:42:08.080 You know, sometimes we call witnesses out of order because we have to.
00:42:11.460 But ideally, once you've heard what they're going to say at prelim, you're better able to put them in the order you think would be most beneficial to your case.
00:42:20.780 Do you think that the prosecution is the prosecution tipping their hand too much to make sure that they get the permission to to go to trial?
00:42:28.420 You think they're giving too much information here or do you think this is the appropriate amount to make sure?
00:42:33.060 because their objective here is to make sure that they, on the seven charges, all seven charges go
00:42:37.820 forward, but most importantly, that this still is a capital murder case, correct?
00:42:43.120 Absolutely. And I think that it's appropriate. And part of the reason I say that is we know that 0.83
00:42:48.320 the judge keeps reminding everyone it's just a probable cause hearing, which always makes me
00:42:52.560 suspect that he's already heard enough evidence, and both sides have to pick up on that as well.
00:42:56.920 But the prosecution also faces an uphill battle when facing a defense attorney that literally
00:43:02.040 objects to everything. You know, there are so many trials where both sides stipulate to large
00:43:07.380 portions of evidence. This is not one of them. So they're going to put in everything they can
00:43:12.320 just to make sure they don't leave any loopholes for the defense to argue at the end of the prelim
00:43:17.300 because if they don't establish factually all the charges at prelim, they're not going to have
00:43:21.320 another shot between prelim and trial. The difference, can you describe for the audience
00:43:26.940 The difference, the fundamental difference, I guess, the most important difference between this type of evidentiary hearing in Utah and going to a grand jury.
00:43:36.700 In a grand jury, you don't have the defense there.
00:43:39.640 They're not objecting to anything.
00:43:40.900 It's just the prosecution putting its evidence on to try to convince the grand jury.
00:43:47.460 This is why that famous saying, you can indict a ham sandwich, because there's no counter.
00:43:52.720 There's no cross-examined.
00:43:53.820 There's nobody on the fence there to call it out, correct?
00:43:58.260 Is that the fundamental difference we're seeing in these two processes?
00:44:02.440 That's a big difference.
00:44:03.980 But, Steve, the prosecutor has to know they can convict the ham sandwich before they take a case to the grand jury because otherwise it would be in bad faith.
00:44:12.300 But you did point out the biggest difference is it's one-sided.
00:44:16.000 You just have the prosecutor, but you don't just have the prosecutor's facts and evidence.
00:44:20.660 The job of a prosecutor presenting to a grand jury, they're supposed to present both sides.
00:44:25.140 They're supposed to present all of the evidence, which is why we often second-guess grand jury
00:44:30.620 verdicts, because we think if it's a secret proceeding, how do we know what evidence was
00:44:35.640 presented? So that's one of the reasons that a prelim like this is much more transparent and
00:44:41.220 allows the public, the court of public opinion, and the judge sitting as a magistrate in the court
00:44:46.140 of law, all to weigh the strength of the evidence at the same time. And that is what you're seeing
00:44:51.640 happen here, which is different than what would happen at a grand jury if we ever got to learn
00:44:57.060 about the proceedings to begin with, because most of them are secret. Before we got to the DNA part,
00:45:03.340 when we left you this morning, there was going to be video. I think there's going to be movement
00:45:07.180 around the campus, how many times the campus. Don Jr., I think, tweeted out that the guy had
00:45:14.180 been on the campus, I think, four times within a certain date. And nobody, you know, it didn't
00:45:19.840 raise anybody's eyebrows. What can you say about the morning testimony? Yeah, there was more of
00:45:27.040 that. There was more establishing that the defendant here was on campus four times. And
00:45:32.360 that's important because, you know, apparently he targeted Charlie Kirk. And that was something
00:45:37.160 important to point out. Also, along those same lines, there was testimony about one of the
00:45:41.700 officers spotting the place where the sniper probably set up. That's important because,
00:45:46.960 remember, that's where the DNA was found. That's where sort of the sniper's perch was found. So
00:45:50.880 this officer was pretty good instinctively in recognizing what would have been a logical
00:45:55.920 vantage point for that shot, that fatal shot. So yes, there was more evidence today, and the
00:46:01.060 prosecution cleaned up some of the evidence that wasn't admitted yesterday to make it proper today,
00:46:05.880 like the original version of a particular video. So what we're seeing as the days go by,
00:46:11.440 Not only are we having more evidence presented, but we're having evidence that was not inclined to be admitted, according to the judge, now admitted because a proper foundation has been laid.
00:46:21.480 That's going to benefit both sides in terms of what they think about as they prepare for trial.
00:46:26.900 What do you mean a proper foundation has been laid?
00:46:29.740 What does that mean for a layman?
00:46:31.800 Sure.
00:46:32.120 For a layman, it basically means if you're going to introduce something into evidence, let's say it's an object, it's a bullet or even an opinion as to what happened.
00:46:41.440 The witness has to be able to say, this is how I know it's true.
00:46:45.460 In other words, these are the facts and circumstances I've analyzed in order to be able to say with confidence that this object was what it's supposed to be, what it's purported to be, really does link up with these other portions of the evidence.
00:47:00.020 And that's important because a foundation without evidence is not a good opinion.
00:47:03.720 It would be like an expert saying, my opinion is that this defendant fired the bullet without going through all of the things that he or she considered and looked at and listened to to be able to tie it all together to come up with that conclusion.
00:47:18.140 So the perfect example from yesterday is yesterday there was video footage that a judge ruled was inadmissible because the prosecution didn't have the proper person there to explain the changes that were made to that footage.
00:47:30.760 Once you bring in that person and they're able to explain what they did and how the video may or may not have been changed, then a judge can be more confident that this is a reliable piece of evidence.
00:47:40.500 Because even though it's a probable cause hearing, one of the things we saw argued about an hour and a half ago was a judge reminding everybody that, yes, it's probable cause, but he has to understand that the evidence is reliable before he admits it as something that he can consider in determining whether there's enough evidence to proceed.
00:47:58.500 You said the other day that there's all types of strategy and tactics.
00:48:02.400 Is that where we see the strategy about this foundation, that they're thinking four or five moves ahead and they're actually thinking four or five moves ahead of one of the trials a year from now of what they've got to lay a foundation today to be able to bring in a piece of evidence?
00:48:15.520 Is that what you meant?
00:48:17.080 Yes.
00:48:17.500 And that's an excellent analogy, because when you think about strategy and being four or five moves ahead, what you're doing is thinking about, well, these are the judges' rulings during the prelim.
00:48:28.360 How then do I think towards trial and call the witnesses I need to call to establish what I need to have an expert give an opinion, for example?
00:48:37.160 or one of the law enforcement officers to be able to give an opinion
00:48:40.640 as to why this bullet would have come from that vantage point
00:48:45.320 and why the defendant would be likely to be the person in this particular video
00:48:50.040 when you can't pick him out from so far away, for example.
00:48:53.000 That would be one of the arguments.
00:48:54.640 So, yes, it informs strategy.
00:48:56.640 It also allows both sides to come up with that strategy
00:48:59.920 through the witnesses they call.
00:49:01.460 I'll tell you, Steve, one of the biggest challenges
00:49:03.160 between a prelim like this and a trial possibly a year away
00:49:07.100 is keeping the momentum going because most prosecutors and defense attorneys have a heavy
00:49:12.200 caseload. So if the trial were to be next week, both sides would be in an excellent position to
00:49:17.020 remember what happened this week. They've got to take that time and use it wisely in continuing to
00:49:22.980 build the momentum between prelim and trial. One of the controversies was about the officer's
00:49:29.060 body camera and the battery going out. This screwdriver now that shows Twig's DNA on it,
00:49:35.920 Just the whole finding of the screwdriver and then associating Twiggs, the furry boyfriend, to the alleged assassin.
00:49:46.800 I guess it's important that they're laying out that there's DNA on the towel and the screwdriver.
00:49:52.220 Will that cause even more controversy since the screwdriver itself is controversial enough?
00:49:58.240 Well, it shouldn't, but it's something the defense can argue.
00:50:01.800 You know, sometimes in cases where there's a lot of pieces of evidence found in different places, it allows the defense to sort of, you know, make it make an argument that, well, we don't necessarily know that these objects are related because they were all found in different places.
00:50:15.980 But that's where the DNA comes in. If they all came from the same two people, if they all arguably came from the same location, what are we doing?
00:50:24.840 We're using circumstantial bits of evidence that if we didn't have DNA might not mean anything and tying them together and tying them to this defendant who happened to live with the only other person whose DNA was located on the same items.
00:50:38.940 That's the way the prosecution is going to present it.
00:50:41.960 Wendy, before we let you take a break and before we go back, any other highlights from the day you think the audience ought to take in their notebook and just underline?
00:50:48.940 I think it was interesting that we got a sneak preview of what kind of cross-examination some of the analysts are going to face when you had the argument to admit some of the studies.
00:50:59.180 Now, the judge was very good about saying this isn't a trial.
00:51:01.680 We're not going to go into, you know, psychological or evidentiary studies.
00:51:05.500 But we know that's coming because we saw a little bit of that already.
00:51:08.940 So I think it just goes to show what kind of a case is coming, that it will be relying not only on physical evidence, but also on reliability of the kinds of physical evidence these experts relied on in arriving at their conclusions.
00:51:21.760 That's a great question.
00:51:23.440 I'm going to ask you a quality questions.
00:51:26.160 What you've seen so far, and we're not through the second day of it, how would you assess both the prosecutors and the defense teams?
00:51:33.560 Yeah, I think that's one of the areas that I've been noticing most frequently and most fervently when it comes to what kind of a case this is.
00:51:42.840 So far, so good.
00:51:44.340 You are seeing a civil proceeding from both sides, the prosecution and the defense and the judge.
00:51:50.440 It seems like they are getting along fine.
00:51:53.080 They are gracious.
00:51:54.100 They're patient.
00:51:55.440 They are very willing to make their records even when the rulings are something other than they expect.
00:52:00.860 And that's going to be very important when it comes to trial.
00:52:03.560 because the jury is not going to like one side or the other basically behaving badly.
00:52:07.960 I'll say that as a mild way to to portray what we sometimes see in trials that are this contentious.
00:52:14.520 So far, so good. And I can only hope that they carry that momentum from the prelim through the year.
00:52:19.060 So it's going to take to actually get into a trial courtroom as you've seen the first two days of the first day.
00:52:24.540 And let's say two thirds. Have you noticed or is anything gone, any alarm gone off that you feel one or one or both sides have missed something?
00:52:33.120 have screwed something up, have made a strategic mistake that will come back to bite them
00:52:37.840 five moves from now, a year from now?
00:52:41.380 I am loving the chess analogy because you're right.
00:52:43.960 That's the way you look at it.
00:52:45.100 You look at it from how is what happens today going to impact down the line?
00:52:49.020 I haven't.
00:52:49.700 In fact, if I've seen anything, it's overkill on both sides.
00:52:52.760 I use that term pejoratively because both sides are probably thinking we've got to make sure
00:52:57.620 we make every objection.
00:52:59.180 We try to introduce every piece of evidence because this is a high profile.
00:53:02.800 It's an important case. Charlie Kirk was a beloved friend, brother and mentor to so many of us.
00:53:08.640 But also because this is one of those cases where you do not want to drag this group back into court,
00:53:14.440 especially given how re-traumatizing it is for the friends, family, fans and followers that are packing out that courtroom day after day.
00:53:23.640 And the state is asking for the death penalty. I mean, this is the ultimate capital murder case, correct?
00:53:29.900 That's right.
00:53:31.080 And that's also why you have so much evidence going into the record, because a lot of it
00:53:35.600 can be used to argue what they need to argue, to talk about how dangerous this was in a
00:53:40.460 crowd of 3,000 people to fire that bullet, to talk about how Charlie Kirk was targeted
00:53:45.900 because of his beliefs.
00:53:47.360 All of the types of things that are relevant in determining that as well, you're seeing
00:53:52.000 admitted into evidence.
00:53:53.120 I'm hoping we'll hear even more of that tomorrow.
00:53:56.380 Sometimes a prelim that's going to be multi-day sort of warms up as the days pass.
00:54:00.620 But the judge is definitely going to be laser focused as the testimony comes out in picking out those pieces of evidence that we're hearing that are going to go towards that ultimate conclusion.
00:54:10.640 Because you're right, it is the ultimate penalty on the table, death penalty in this case.
00:54:14.960 For the seven charges, including the death penalty, do you see, given the thoroughness they're taking on some of these topics, do you see this actually ending with the decision on late Friday afternoon at 5 p.m.?
00:54:31.640 I think that the judge's goal is to have that happen, and I think the reality that he's been stating at least once or twice every single day, reminding everybody it's a probable cause hearing,
00:54:43.320 he's probably going to try to get everyone to stick to that schedule.
00:54:46.760 I wouldn't be surprised if you even hear that in open court at some point,
00:54:50.220 in addition to reminding everyone it's just a probable cause hearing, because that's his goal.
00:54:55.240 Now, Steve, one question that still hangs out there for me is whether, let's say the evidence is finished on Friday,
00:55:01.480 whether or not the judge is actually going to give his ruling on Friday,
00:55:04.940 or whether he's going to take the weekend to really put his thoughts together concisely to make a dynamite record Monday morning.
00:55:12.420 Or is he doing it as we go along?
00:55:15.120 I just think this thing sounds so thorough.
00:55:18.280 There's so much been presented, and we're only on Tuesday afternoon.
00:55:21.080 I would assume I'd take the over right now on him taking the weekend and pulling it together to come back Monday because the whole world is watching this trial.
00:55:31.260 Wendy, thank you so much.
00:55:32.600 I'm going to take your short break, and then you go back and watch.
00:55:34.480 I think I'm going to reconvene here in a moment.
00:55:36.120 So thank you so much for filling us in with your analysis.
00:55:39.520 Thank you, Steve.
00:55:39.740 fantastic uh a few minutes before they come back to the courtroom okay a couple of three things
00:55:47.440 have been happening uh one of them and by the way tomorrow morning show we're going to have
00:55:53.280 all two hours from 10 to noon and boy does this uh at least it makes myself your humble servant
00:55:59.500 and our uh crack team in both denver and of course the worm producers really appreciate the time we
00:56:04.920 have with you tomorrow's going to be absolutely slammed from 10 o'clock to noon as we get in a
00:56:11.120 full show uh so much going on a couple things uh number one uh memo memo of understanding aside
00:56:18.820 they're back to uh there's it's back to a shooting it's back to kinetic activity
00:56:23.460 um the um the iranians the persians have lit up an lng tanker uh from qatar understanding is at
00:56:33.680 reporting from borders it's on fire they've attacked another i think another vessel also
00:56:39.280 cencom has announced they have attacked so we're back to the uh back and forth i don't know what
00:56:44.480 that does with the memory memorandum of understanding about the ceasefire president
00:56:50.960 trump is in nato and he is telling the uh allies the israelis are making a hardcore effort not for
00:56:56.960 to President Trump to sell the F-35s to Turkey.
00:57:01.400 Also, this lack of enthusiasm by some other people for that,
00:57:04.560 but President Trump says he's going to try to get Congress to approve a sale of F-35s.
00:57:09.420 Also, Netanyahu has gone out of his way to say that Turkey's the next big threat to Israel
00:57:15.160 and doesn't think Turkey ought to be involved in the Gaza situation.
00:57:19.200 So a lot going on in NATO, a lot going on in the Mideast War.
00:57:23.360 Also in politics, Plattner, he's kind of made a decision.
00:57:29.180 He says, hey, look, I'll drop out.
00:57:31.880 He's using his leverage, right, having really been the, you know, beating the governor by such a, the sitting governor by such a large amount.
00:57:42.480 He's using his leverage and his leverage particularly on the more left-wing side or populist side of the Democratic Party.
00:57:51.500 He says, hey, I will step down when I can pick who my successor is going to be.
00:57:56.680 So that's they're having a firestorm over there.
00:57:59.640 Remember, Maine is central.
00:58:02.180 If you take Maine off the chessboard and he's up in most of the polling I've seen, he's up is up by a big number in a couple of them.
00:58:08.620 If you take Maine off the chessboard, even with North Carolina and maybe Ohio going, it's it gets tough.
00:58:18.420 It's very tough.
00:58:19.040 They really need Maine to take the Senate.
00:58:21.580 So this is important.
00:58:22.700 You're seeing the Democrats in a total meltdown.
00:58:26.820 I think what's most important there is that the Democrats have no qualms about changing voting procedures, changing dates.
00:58:35.520 If the 13th doesn't work, it's supposed to be next week chosen.
00:58:38.260 If they need more time, they'll take more time.
00:58:40.900 They will do whatever it takes to get the best candidate to run against the Republican.
00:58:47.860 And look about the redistribution. We left nine seats on the table because established Republicans, it was it was too tough for them to get grease under the fingernails.
00:58:57.680 I'm particularly in in Georgia and parts of the deep south. I think Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.
00:59:05.380 We left. I don't know. You add Texas in there. You add Indiana.
00:59:10.840 There's another eight or nine seats that just was too much heavy lifting for the Republicans.
00:59:16.080 Look at the Democrats. If something happens there in the will of the voters, they could care less.
00:59:20.740 They're going to change things around until they get whatever they have to do, manipulate whatever they have to manipulate in order to get a candidate that can win.
00:59:29.380 I continue to say if they can't cheat, they can't win. If they can't steal it, they can't win.
00:59:35.620 But when they're dealing with their own party and their own primaries, they have no qualms whatsoever.
00:59:39.920 And on this, I think it makes a lot of sense.
00:59:45.060 In Georgia and Louisiana, all you heard was all this, oh, my gosh, we've done this.
00:59:50.700 Hey, what people want to do is they want to win.
00:59:54.500 And they want to have a path to victory that's out there.
00:59:57.480 We left, just write this down with your number two pencil.
01:00:02.280 on the night in November
01:00:04.500 when we vote
01:00:06.700 late in the evening
01:00:08.720 if we're losing the House
01:00:10.280 by a seat or two
01:00:12.580 we left eight or nine
01:00:14.720 on the table
01:00:17.080 eight or nine on the table
01:00:18.840 that would have never happened to Democrats
01:00:20.880 would have never happened to Democrats
01:00:22.900 I want to thank our sponsors
01:00:25.160 and particularly our sponsors are really
01:00:26.960 helping us give all this commercial free
01:00:28.880 and break free, Real America's Voice, great job
01:00:31.000 We think it's very important that you see it all because there's a lot of controversy.
01:00:36.120 Trust me, there's a lot of people that are very skeptical about what they're seeing.
01:00:41.480 That's why we think it makes sense for you folks to see everything.
01:00:44.540 Total transparency here so you can see it, question it.
01:00:48.260 And we will hopefully have not just Wendy, but other people doing analytics over the next couple of days.
01:00:52.800 I don't see how they get through by Friday.
01:00:55.180 But on us, Evan charges, the judge is moving along as quickly as he can.
01:00:59.600 I think he'll give a report of the next week.
01:01:02.280 I want to thank Birch Gold particularly.
01:01:05.000 Birch Gold, take your phone and text Bannon.
01:01:07.880 That would be me.
01:01:09.140 9-8-9-8-9-8.
01:01:12.060 Get the ultimate guide for investing in gold and precious metals.
01:01:14.520 But most importantly, get to talk to Philip Patrick and the team about the silver rounds.
01:01:20.460 They coming back in?
01:01:21.380 Okay, we're going to go right now.
01:01:22.960 Let's go back to the courtroom.
01:01:29.600 At the very bottom of the page, did you write there on the 15th of September, 2025, spoke
01:01:49.200 with Special Agent Folger, gave update on report timeline, discussed that upon review,
01:01:56.400 it was decided that additional statistics needed to be run report will still be issued with twigs
01:02:04.220 as an assumed contributor per previous discussions with Folger and Carmack you see that yes I do
01:02:11.800 and and what additional statistics needed to be run at that time so at that time I believe I ran
01:02:19.360 statistics with just twigs comparing that individual to the sample if I may
01:02:28.960 refer I think that was the only additional
01:02:49.360 Yes, after discussion with my reviewer, it was determined that I was also going to calculate
01:02:55.900 a statistic or compare twigs by himself, comparing him to the evidence, and having that run in
01:03:02.400 my case file.
01:03:03.760 Okay.
01:03:05.740 And could you go to tab 38, page 39?
01:03:11.120 oh yeah it should not be on the screen let's pull it down from the screen thank you so just to the
01:03:23.940 monitors of the attorneys and the witness Mr. Burt uh just for the witness right okay just for
01:03:30.760 witness. 39. And this is it. Yeah, page 39. Is this the DNA report? I'm sorry, the StarMix report
01:03:43.720 that you that was produced as a result of your inquiry that involved a comparison of the sample
01:03:53.100 to Mr. Twiggs alone?
01:03:55.140 Yes, it is.
01:03:56.260 And is that a six-page report?
01:04:00.240 Yes, it is.
01:04:02.340 And is it a true and accurate copy
01:04:04.680 of the STRMX report for that particular sample?
01:04:11.160 Do you owe back taxes
01:04:12.980 or you haven't filed your taxes in years?
01:04:16.080 Now is the time to resolve your tax matters.
01:04:19.380 With the national conversation
01:04:21.240 around abolishing the income tax,
01:04:24.080 the IRS is fighting back and proving it's here to stay
01:04:27.180 by becoming more aggressive than ever before.
01:04:30.560 They're sending out more collection notices,
01:04:33.120 filing more tax liens,
01:04:34.680 and collecting billions more in recent years.
01:04:38.080 If you owe, the IRS can garnish your wages,
01:04:42.100 levy your bank accounts,
01:04:43.820 seize your retirement, and even your home.
01:04:46.740 If you owe or haven't filed,
01:04:48.760 it's not a question of if the IRS will act, it's a question of when it will act. Right now,
01:04:55.860 Tax Network USA is offering a completely free IRS research and discovery call to show you exactly
01:05:02.440 where you stand and what they can stop before it's too late. Their powerful programs and strategies
01:05:09.420 can save you thousands or even eliminate your debt entirely if you qualify. Don't make a costly
01:05:15.680 mistake. Representing yourself or calling the IRS on your own waives your rights and cost you more
01:05:21.000 money. They are not, and let me repeat, the IRS is not on your side. Get protected the right way
01:05:27.960 with Tax Network USA and start the process of settling your tax matters once and for all today.
01:05:34.520 Call 1-800-958-1000
01:05:38.820 That's 1-800-958-1000
01:05:42.420 Or visit TNUSA.com slash Bannon
01:05:46.380 For your free discovery call with Tax Network USA
01:05:50.500 Let me repeat, 800-958-1000
01:05:53.940 Tell them Bannon sent you
01:05:55.200 Don't let the IRS be the first to act
01:05:58.960 Take advantage of first mover advantage
01:06:02.060 You move
01:06:03.260 Thank you.