In the days since Charlie Kirk’s assassination at Utah Valley University, a storm of controversy has erupted over text messages allegedly exchanged between the accused shooter, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, and his roommate. Released by prosecutors as key evidence, these texts purportedly detail Robinson’s confession, his motive, and even instructions for evading law enforcement. But almost as soon as they were made public, a chorus of skeptics, from social media users to prominent commentators, began questioning whether these digital conversations are real, fabricated, or strategically scripted.
The messages, which read like a tense real-time thriller, include Tyler Robinson telling his roommate, Lance Twiggs, to look under a keyboard for a handwritten note stating, “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I’m going to take it.” When Twiggs responds with disbelief, Robinson allegedly admits, “I am. I’m sorry.” He goes on to describe hiding the rifle, expresses worry about fingerprints, and urges Twiggs to delete their messages and lawyer up if questioned. But it’s the tone and phrasing, like Robinson calling Twiggs “my love” and referencing his “old man” MAGA dad, that have sparked accusations of inauthenticity.
You Might Like: Who Is Luigi Mangione’s Lawyer?
The Case for Authenticity
READ IT: Tyler Robinson’s transgender partner and roommate, Lance Twiggs, shared a series of chilling text messages with law enforcement. 🧵 pic.twitter.com/S4k6kB8GTD
— Fox News (@FoxNews) September 16, 2025
Prosecutors in Utah County are standing firmly behind the texts, presenting them as a critical piece of a larger evidentiary puzzle. Alongside these messages, they point to Robinson’s DNA on the trigger of the bolt-action rifle used in the shooting and a handwritten confession note found in his room. The texts, they argue, provide a window into Robinson’s mindset, planning, and actions immediately following the killing. He allegedly wrote that he had planned the attack for “a bit over a week” and framed it as a response to Kirk’s “hatred,” stating, “Some hate can’t be negotiated out.”
The messages were filed publicly with the court and are part of the official docket, suggesting prosecutors are confident they will withstand legal scrutiny. Furthermore, the texts align with the timeline of events. Tyler Robinson allegedly messaged about police initially detaining “some crazy old dude,” which matches the real-life false confession of 71-year-old George Zinn, who was arrested at the scene after shouting, “I shot him; now shoot me” in an attempt to divert attention from the real shooter.
The Skeptics’ Playbook: Why Many Are Crying Foul
BREAKING: Utah County DA reads the full text message exchange between Charlie Kirk’s assassin and his transgender boyfriend/roommate after committing the murder:
ROBINSON: “Drop what you’re doing, look under my keyboard.”
ROOMMATE: “You are joking right?”
ROBINSON: “I am still… pic.twitter.com/epa1HXFJZ4
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) September 16, 2025
Despite the official narrative, a wave of skepticism has flooded social media and parts of the news cycle. Critics, including right-wing figure Candace Owens, have labeled the messages “doctored” and “scripted.” The objections are multifaceted. Many argue the language feels stilted and unnatural for a 22-year-old. One X user quipped, “I’ve never once heard an engineer talk like this,” while others mocked the absence of emojis and the formal phrasing as evidence of fabrication.
A more conspiratorial theory suggests the texts were pre-written by Robinson and his roommate as a cover story to shield Twiggs from involvement, making their exchange seem “extremely fake” and “conveniently structured.” This doubt is compounded by questions about Robinson’s physical ability to make the precise shot from 160 yards away, with online detectives pointing to his apparent eye misalignment and dubbing him “Wonky-eyed Tyler Robinson.”
🚨 Candace Owens just dropped a bomb:
“The texts are fake.”
She says the DOJ doctored Tyler Robinson’s messages, selectively edited, cherry-picked, and released without timestamps to frame a narrative. pic.twitter.com/g1f3iEhDTd
— Brian Allen (@allenanalysis) September 17, 2025
Adding another layer of confusion, a fact-check from Mercado Media claims there is “no verified evidence” Robinson had a trans partner, directly contradicting widespread initial reporting that Lance Twiggs is transgender and that the two were romantically involved. This has led to accusations that the “trans relationship” narrative was pushed for political reasons, further eroding trust in the official story for some.
Also See: Robert Redford’s Family: Meet His Wives and Children
A Messy Digital Fog: AI’s Role in Muddying the Waters
Armchair detectives sharing “AI enhanced” pics of the Kirk shooter suspect, not knowing that the LLM just makes it up. These four different blokes all generated from one grainy picture that doesn’t look much like any of them! pic.twitter.com/A2VTWPovDq
— Arieh Kovler (@ariehkovler) September 11, 2025
Complicating everything is the role of artificial intelligence in spreading misinformation. In the hours after the shooting, AI chatbots like Grok falsely identified innocent people as the shooter, misreported key facts, and even described the event as a “hypothetical scenario.” AI-generated images altered the suspect’s appearance, and these distortions were shared thousands of times, creating a chaotic digital environment where truth is increasingly hard to pin down. This context makes the public’s wariness about the authenticity of any digital evidence, including texts, somewhat understandable.
The Unsettled Truth
So, are the texts real, fake, or fabricated? As of mid-September 2025, it’s the question dominating true crime forums and news desks alike. Prosecutors present them as a genuine confession corroborated by physical evidence. Skeptics see them as a poorly written script, part of a cover-up, or a politically motivated frame job. In an era where AI can warp reality and misinformation spreads at lightning speed, the public is left to navigate a fog of digital doubt. The answer, for now, rests with the courts, but the court of public opinion is already in a deeply divided session.
