Veater Ecosan: "The World About Us": October 2025

'Fiddler on the Roof'

by Tim Veater

'FotR' Quote: “There would be one long staircase just going up,
And one even longer coming down,
And one more leading nowhere, just for show.”

So many good reasons why the official narrative regarding Tyler Robinson can be neither trusted nor believed.

Introduction

Although the murder of Charlie Kirk (31) is fraught with doubt and difficulty, there is no room for doubt about the Utah State and FBI official position.

It is that Tyler Robinson (22) was the lone assassin of Charlie Kirk at the Utah Valley University, on the 10^th September, 2025, shooting him with a vintage Mauser 98 30 – 6 rifle belonging to his grandfather, that he had secreted under his T shirt and jeans, onto the roof of the Losee Building that he used as his firing position.

In the subsequent press conference, the fairly newly installed (20.2.2025) Director of the FBI, Cash Patel (45) was in no doubt they had caught the right man - within only thirty-three hours! He congratulated the police and FBI on their success.

Perhaps in retrospect, at least in private, he might wish he had been somewhat less confident and 'gung ho', because as time has passed more and more questions have been raised about Robinson's guilt and the reliability of the evidence that has been presented to prove it - 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

A lot at stake

Obviously a lot is at stake. And not only Robinson's liberty and life – for the death penalty is being sought for the charges preferred. Questions yet again are being raised about a violent American society and its propensity to create violent men bent on shooting and killing and the ability of the State to identify and prosecute the right people. Nor the much more sinister question as to whether this shocking assassination was actually a Deep State conspiracy involving other countris and actors?

This has gained credance with the discovery that Robinson, the newly appointed Judge, the newly appointed Medical Examiner responsible for the autopsy, the hospitan (not the nearest or best equipped for trauma cases by the way) and named doctors there were all Google searched from sites in Israel and Washington DC, at least a month before the shooting. The fact that the Jerusalem Post reported Charlie's before any other paper, domestic or foreign, plus Bemjamin Netanyahu's televised denial that Israel could possibly have anything to do with it - the only political leader who felt the need to do so - add weight to the theory that this was in fact a joint CIA/Mossad operation.

The Israeli Prime Minister, wearing his western disguise, claimed it would be "an outrage" to imagine his country, with a reputation for shooting tens of thousands of innocent Gazans, demolishing their homes, killing its own citizens on October 7th and hundreds of assassinations since its NAKBA foundation in 1948, could do such a thing is beyond parody.

Further his claim that Kirk remained a great friend of him and Israel and that he had a recent letter in his possession that proved it, was also undermined by insider reports that in the light of Gaza, Kirk had changed his attitude and position, refusing massive Jewish contributions in return for maintaining his Israeli support. Given his massive MAGA and youth following, the existential threat to zionism both in America and Israel would certainly provide sufficient deep state motivation to take him out. It cannot be discounted.

History repeating?

Everyone remembers the murders of JFK, his brother Robert and Martin Luther King in the 1960's but of course there have been many more situations where the wrong people were prosecuted and the right people never identified, or where basic security was lacking as most recently in respect of the attempt on President Trump (if such it was) Is it correct that some of the security detail were present at both?

More recently the identification of the Tsarnaev brothers for the Boston Bombing is a case in point where the the whole legal process shamed both the police and judiciary. Two people were undoubtedly murdered by State personnel and an innocent young man Dzokhar Tsarnaev (now 32) languishes in solitary confinement under the threat of death if he as much as appeals against the obvious injustice of his case.

American system of justice on trial

The sentences handed down by American Courts, and the use of multiple charges with consequative as well as concurrent terms, leads to inhumane periods of imprisonment. It also corrupts the plea bargaining process, meaning that undue pressure can be brought to bear on the accused, even if innocent or subject to extenuatiing circumstances. Nor should other potential forces acting on the accused be overlooked. The 'suicided' Jeffrey Epstein proves that sometimes State proceedures are the least of the accused worries. It is claimed that there are more people in American gaols as a proportion of the population, than any other nation.

Tyler Robinson now finds himself trapped in this unenviable position. He is merely a pawn in a bureaucratic judicial process deciding on his guilt and punishment or otherwise as the case may be. It will become a public entertainment followed by millions, in which reputations and fortunes will be won or lost from the debris of the misery and pain of a diabolical act. No one knows what pressures he is under, from prosecutors, defenders, family, friends, enemies some of whom he perhaps thought were friends. Let us hope his life is not cut short, before he can prove his innocence - if indeed he is.

A pyrrhic FBI victory?

FotR Quote: “He’s handsome, he’s tall, That is from side to side. But he’s a nice man, a good catch, right? Right.”

Despite Cash Patel's triumphant announcement that capturing the guilty party was down to the excellent co-operation between State police, FBI and ATF, the reality is somwhat more prosaic and nuanced. Robinson was not tracked down 260 miles away in Washington, Utah, but because, on the advice of his family, he handed himself in! His trip to the local police station was in fact unusually civilized and he was not even hand-cuffed.

Apparently, the story goes, he was first recognised by his mother, told his ex-cop father, who then involved a local Pastor for advice and a local policeman. Robinson then voluntarily gave himself up.

Another official story states that his father recognised the rifle allegedly found and used to kill Kirk as Robinson's grandfather's from the Second World War. However there is a major problem with that account, as the rifle publicised is clearly not an antique model from that period. This is clear to see. Yet again the official story is incompatible with the evidence.

'Neutralising' the attacker as an objective.

In such operations, there are distinct advantages in the attacker being 'neutralised', and in the last decade this became the announced formal policy in both Britain and France mimicing a longstanding Israeli policy. (It was probably always the preferred option in 'wild west' America!)

So to be brutally frank, the FBI and ATF had virtually no part in Robinson's arrest! It is arguable that he was well advised, for if the FBI had been notified by some other route, it is beyond doubt a SWOT team would have been detailed, and who could foresee how that would have turned out?

Is it even conceivable that Robinson might not have survived, in the mould of Tamerian Tsarnaev and Ibragim Todashev? In fact, if this had been a deep state operation, that might have been part of the plan! Oswald is still fresh in our memory.

A dead accused, of course avoids all the inconvenient and potentially embarrassing legal process, as will now be a feature of the Robinson case. The Epstein case reminds us that even in gaol Robinson is not out of potential danger from embedded interests. Is that what the highly implausible story that Robinson was a suicide risk was about, conditioning the public to what might take place? Let's hope the staff at the Utah County Jail are not so susceptible to falling asleep on the job as they are in New York.

How could the event security have been so lax?

Quote: May the Lord protect and defend you.

May He always shield you from shame.
May you come to be
In Israel a shining name.

Despite the strangely analogous attempt on Donald Trump's life by the alleged shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks (20) at Butler, Pennsylvania, security was so lax as to allow another roof marksman, in full view of the security detail to allegedly get into position and shoot.

Some might conclude that these basic and fundamental lapses must be far more than just incompetence and point to high level complicity.

At this initial stage, more important incongruous questions are raised. Despite a staggering failure of site security by all the actors involved – UVU, Kirk's security team, the local police, the FBI and the failure of police to identify or locate Robinson (all they managed was to follow his alleged movements, locate his alleged rifle, detail what had happened and publicise it) Cash Patel could appear at a public press conference only two days after the shooting, congratulatory and confident they had the right man and knew what he had done beyond peradventure. It begs the question what had happened to the normal interview phase? Had he even been interviewed by then? The speed and certainty is highly suspicious. Before investigation and trial, Robinson was deemed guilty of a lone act, neither of which now seem likely or even plausible.

Painting Robinson guilty even before a trial

As everyone knows, following a serious crime the suspect is, after being imformed of his constitutional right to silence and legal representation, questioned to test his story and alibi - if he has one - and to illicit a confession. Usually in civilized societies, employing guile rather than brute force, is the method employed. Amazingly we have not been told whether this took place. Was Patel's assertion based on a confession or just a hunch. If the latter he may rue the day.

But instead of keeping an open mind, the prosecuting authorities have doubled down on the lone killer hypothesis. Every effort has been made, to make Robinson the guilty party in the public perception, however flimsy the evidence. The public and jury is influenced to believe his guilt before the trial even begins.

Nor is the State's case as water tight as Patel liked to portray. In fact it is a bucket filled with holes! He has since blamed the internet. Of course it could not be his own inexperience and propensity to jump precipitously to conclusions. And what happened to the fundamental principles of 'innocent until proven guilty - beyond all reasonable doubt? Even I can see there is plenty of doubt in this case.

Precipitous charging process.

Within hours Robinson had been charged with Kirk's murder and other related charges and a statement made that the death penalty would be sought. The authorities were satisfied no one else was involved. To me this looks less like due process and more like following a proscribed script, previously agreed, in which, by some means or other, Robinson painted into the classic role of 'patsy', to obscure the real killer and organisation behind the 'hit'.

Incompatable character traits.

'FotR' Quote: They look so natural together

Just like two newlyweds should be
Is there a canopy in store for me?

Besides the unusual circumstances of his arrest outlined we have a very problem reconciling the murder with Robinson's character and background. Undoubedly individuals are complex and can act irrationally or inconsistently, or act violently from anger or some other deep seated malign motivation, but it is hard to apply any of these to Robinson. There is no trace of violence or anti-social behavious in his past. He appears highly intelligent and psychologically balanced.

A family neighbour, Kristin Schwiermann, described Robinson as "smart, quiet and had never caused any problems." Winning a $31,000 university sponsorship on to electrical apprenticeship programme at Dixie Technical College in St George, Utah, has been widely publicised.

The circumstances of an alleged gay relationship with a transitioning boyfriend, Lance Twiggs, made public only five days after the shooting, appears highly contrived, leaving aside the fact that Twiggs has apparently disappeared. He was not arrested or faced charges and has been described as 'very cooperative' by police which seems very unusual. In addition, he was latterly identified on the self same UVU roof and walking nonchalantly away only thirty minutes after the shooting. He was interviewed by police for only six hours and was never arrested or bailed.

The part he played in the whole operation has not been revealed and he has escaped police and media interrogation. If the alleged relationship between him and Robinson is as phoney as the self-incriminating note under his key-pad, we can only assume that the whole thing is a fabricated fraud.

Was this story to warp public opinion and feed well known right wing prejudices? If the alleged note from Robinson to Twigg – clearly fraudulent - is the standard of voracity as to the relationship, we should treat any official description of it with the greatest scepticism.

Can we trust or believe the FBI?

I would remind you, this article is about the reasons why we should not trust or believe the official government narrative of the event. The current head of the FBI, Cash Patel, made his name as an Internet conspiracy theorist apparently, but is now blaming such for making the prosecution of Robinson difficult. Having thrived on public discussion, he now wants to shut it down. Furtherclaiming credit for Tyler Robinson's arrest in thirty-three hours is clearly self congratulary and false. Robinson wasn't located and taken into custody, he handed himself in.

Patel believes they have the right man (forget that he thought he had the right man twice previously that turned out not to be the case) and Robinson acted alone, both of which assumptions appear to be highly naïve. Nor incredibly the fact that a video of a man in shorts running from the scene after the shooting, has seemingly been totally ignored by the FBI; or the fact that Google searches from Washington and Israel of significant people and places prior to the murder, were worthy of investigation; or the fact that the FBI failed to protect the crime scene and allowed it to be materially altered at government (not Utah or UVU) request before the trial was even started; should undermine our trust in the competence and precision of his organisation. Indeed the integrity of the FBI is obviously at stake given the glaring anomalies and inconsistencies. How we might wonder, did the FBi turn up so quickly after the event, but be so notable by its absence immediately before?

The Robinson/Twigg relationship

Even in these enlightened times, The Robinson/Twigg relationship appears odd. A friend has described the nature of it and what went wrong. It appears that Twigg had earlier been excluded by Morman Church and family accused of 'being possessed by a demon'. He certainly seems to have been emotionally unstable and sleep deprive, reliant on alcohols and drugs. In contrast, Robinson appears calm, controlled and tolerant of Twigg's extreme mood swings.

Twiggs was described as cuddly to Robinson and this seems to have developed into a more intimate relationship in the presence of friends who used the premises for meet-ups and 'magic sessions'. Twiggs increasingly appears to have adopted a passive feminie role in their relationship, but to describe him as a 'woman; as some reports currently do, seems to be an exaggeration. Maybe he was rather a mentally and socially insecure person, who wanted to experiment and test boundaries influenced by drugs and a fluid social setting.

All of this is of course dependant on the reliability of the sourse who claimed to be a close friend for more than six years. The disappearance of Twigg; the suggestion that he was caught on camera on the roof and walking away only 30 minutes after the shooting; his part in allegedly implecating Robinson with the written conversation; his failure to support or defend his claimed lover; why he was not detained by police; all raise questions as to Twigg's part in the events as described. Is it even possible that he was the person on the roof not Robinson and that Robinson's silence is now protecting him?

The claimed questionable relationship between Robinson and Twigg, including the way the latter was treated by police and his subsequent 'disappearance' is definitely one of them. I would want to see far more evidence from friends and aquaintances before I would be prepared to accept it as it has been presented, especially if the alleged confessional note is all we have to go on. As we shall see, the exchange is treated by the prosecuting authorities as de facto proof of motive and effectively an admission of guilt, despite its many obvious limitations and countervailing indications.

The questionable implicating printed dialogue

Within two days of the shooting, there was a concerted FBI attempt by dubious means, of painting Robinson into the role of lone gunman to the exclusion of any other actor or organisation – not even his 'furry friend' who supplied the self-implicating document.

Incidentally, wouldn't a true friend just have burned the thing when or if he found it? What could have motivated him to hand it to the police – if indeed he did?

For example even the context is questionable the first and most obvious being how the text got where it allegedly did under Robinson's key board and how if it replicated a conversation that had already taken place, it would be regarded as novel and revelationary? Why would you print out a typed version of a conversational exchange, particularly if it implicated you in a serious crime, let alone such a high profile murder?

The relationship between discovering a confessional transcript of an earlier conversation makes no sense, particularly when it was found on the 10^th or 11^th September, 2025 and the text makes clear it took place whilst Robinson was “still in Oram” - i.e. the murder location.

The prosectors want us to believe that the text proves both Robinson's guilt and his intention to evade capture but none of the facts support it. Why would anyone leave a weapon that could be linked to him and the murder in a place so close to the scene and easily discovered. Why, if as alleged he carried to and from the roof would he not carry it to his car, and speed off putting as much distance between him and the scene as possible. He does quite the opposite driving his car to the supermarket about half an hour later and is then caught nonchalantly on video at the Dairy Queen six hours later.

Muliple problems with the document

He hasn't fled, he makes no attempt at disguise, he does not look perturbed. He does not look anything like a hardened criminal, a killer of Charlie Kirk or a criminal on the run. This normal behaviour, still in the same red T-shirt he was filmed wearing at ten oclock that morning, is exhibited when he is filmed at the gas station refuelling his car at 7.23 am the next day.

So what is the prosecution claiming? That Robinson and Twigg had the conversation whilst the accused was still in Oram, but when he got back home around 8 or 9 the next day he made a paper copy of it and placed under his keyboard for Twigg to find? What precisely would be the point of that if they had already had the conversation?

Is it a transcript of an earlier conversation or not? If it was, what was the point of putting it under his key pad for Twigg to 'discover'? It would reveal nothing new to Twigg, leaving aside the question of whether or not they had met on his return. It would make far more sense if in fact Twigg had made the copy of a converstion and placed it under the key pad. That at least would have some logistic sense. But that is not the prosecutor's story which in contrast makes no sense at all.

There is absolutely no logic to the FBI's interpretation of it. Note how they state the conversation followed Twigg finding the note. So when is it claimed Twigg actually found the note. It physically had to find its way to 'under the key pad', yet clearly the conversation supposes Robinson still at the crime scene before the act - “I'm going to take it”. But then again it appears to be timed after the act but before he has collected the rifle. He still appears intent on collecting it obstructed only by a remaining squad car so presumably some time in the afternoon?

That they afforded such a tawdry document credance, suggest only incompetence or complicity in an attempt to set Robinson up.

The corny communication composed by whom?

'FotR Quote': “We know that

When good fortune favors two such men
It stands to reason we deserve it too.”

The following from: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-17/charlie-kirk-alleged-killer-tyler-robinson-charge-sheet-details/105782040

“The court documents say that the roommate found a note under Mr Robinson's keyboard that said: "I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I'm going to take it."

“Authorities claim that the following text exchange then occurred between the pair, with the roommate later passing the messages onto the police investigation of Mr Kirk's death.

Robinson: I am still ok my love, but am stuck in orem for a little while longer yet. Shouldn't be long until I can come home, but I gotta grab my rifle still. To be honest I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age. I am sorry to involve you.

Roommate: you weren't the one who did it right????

Robinson: I am, I'm sorry

Roommate: I thought they caught the person?

Robinson: no, they grabbed some crazy old dude, then interrogated someone in similar clothing. I had planned to grab my rifle from my drop point shortly after, but most of that side of town got locked down. Its quiet, almost enough to get out, but theres one vehicle lingering.

Roommate: Why?

Robinson: Why did I do it?

Roommate: Yeah

Robinson: I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out. If I am able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence. Going to attempt to retrieve it again, hopefully they have moved on. I haven't seen anything about them finding it.

Roommate: How long have you been planning this?

Robinson: a bit over a week I believe. I can get close to it but there is a squad car parked right by it. I think they already swept that spot, but I don't wanna chance it

Robinson: I'm wishing I had circled back and grabbed it as soon as I got to my vehicle. … I'm worried what my old man would do if I didn't bring back grandpas rifle … idek if it had a serial number, but it wouldn't trace to me. I worry about prints I had to leave it in a bush where I changed outfits. didn't have the ability or time to bring it with. … I might have to

abandon it and hope they don't find prints. how the f*** will I explain losing it to my old man.

Only thing I left was the rifle wrapped in a towel.

Remember how I was engraving bullets? The f***in messages are mostly a big meme, if I see "notices bulge uwu" on fox new I might have a stroke

Alright im gonna have to leave it, that really f***ing sucks.

Judging from today I'd say grandpas gun does just fine idk. I think that was a $2k scope ;-;

Robinson: delete this exchange

Robinson: my dad wants photos of the rifle … he says grandpa wants to know who has what, the feds released a photo of the rifle, and it is very unique. Hes calling me rn, not answering.

Robinson: since trump got into office [my dad] has been pretty diehard maga.

Robinson: Im gonna turn myself in willingly, one of my neighbors here is a deputy for the sheriff.

Robinson: you are all I worry about love

Roommate: I'm much more worried about you

Robinson: don't talk to the media please. don't take any interviews or make any comments. … if any police ask you questions ask for a lawyer and stay silent

END QUOTE

Discussion of the transcript

Given the apparent importance attached to this document by the prosecuting authorities, treating it effectively as an admission of guilt and facilitating the most serious charges within less than seven days – exceptionally proficient by any estimation – ensuring it is genuine and not fraudulent could not be of greater importance. Besides the time-line reservations above, the document shouts fraud. It has been generally traduced. If we can see it, isn't it incredible that trained murder detectives couldn't?

Let's take a look in more detail.

The first paragraph places the text, post murder in Oram and allegedly prior to his ability to collect “his” - actually his grandfather's – rifle. This despite the fact that in the very first sentence, the proposed act is in both past and future tense. He says, “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I'm going to take it.”

Despite the confusion we must presume he means he is still intent on doing it and it was written before doing so. but that flatly contradicts his admission that he had shot Kirk. So was he going to do it or had he done it?

Then we have his problem of collecting the gun which in time must place it after the shooting and his apparent escape off the roof? The text could not be written or spoken both before and after the fact. It is a miss-mash of intention and completion.

Then again later he refers to the “'feds' (having) released a photo of the rifle, and its very unique”. Two issues with this. First, clearly the published photograph does not match a pre- WW II rifle as described, owned by his grandfather. It is a much newer model with composite materials not wood. Second, the announcement that the gun had been found and a photo purpotedly of it lying in a cardboard box, was not made until Thursday 11^th when Robinson had already returned to his base in St George.

If the conversation took place as the text suggests prior to him leaving Oram, he could not have been aware of a published photograph that appeared the next day. If he was aware of the photograph, the note must have been written on his return. Similarly it states, “Im gonna turn myself in willingly, one of my neighbors here is a deputy for the sheriff.” which places him back home.

So we see the transcript of the alleged mobile phone text conversation, if indeed that was what it was, places him in time and place, both before and after the crime; both on the 10^th and 11^th of September; both at Oram and St George! There is also the internal contradiction of him saying in one instance, “I haven't seen anything about them finding it.” and then later stating, “the feds released a photo of the rifle”! Of course this is an utter absurdity and totally delegitimises the FBI claim that it is a genuine document, authored by Robinson, and an admission of guilt. No sane court would allow it to be admitted as evidence of such.

Why after allegedly hawking the rifle around the streets implausibly under his flimsey clothing, from before 12 mid-day then escaping carrying it - neither suggestion being either plausible or supported by the very dubious video evidence placed in the public domain - he decided to abandon it in the nearby woods, rather than conveying it safely to his car, is never explained. It is contradictory and irrational and Robinson's character suggests neither.

The facts of the case suggest rather that no rifle was carried onto the roof, or off it. This presupposes the released video by the FBI truly is Robinson entering and exiting the roof of the Losee Centre building which is far from ceratain. (There are many reasons to doubt the probity and accuracy of the released video) Notice also how he fails to give “orem” its capital letter, which is perhaps surprising from an intelligent, well educated 22 year old? In fact the alleged transcript is shot through not only with typographical and grammatical errors, but also employs terms more likely used by law enforcement such as “squad car”, “vehicle”, “interrogated”, “drop point”, “locked down”, “swept”, “circled back”

He says he “still has to grab his rifle” despite surmising that it had likely already been discovered. Would he really have chanced going back either on foot or in his vehicle to recover it given the number of police searching the area and now on alert for any suspicious activity?

After admitting he had killed Kirk, and apologising to his room-mate for involving him (how was he involved other than now being informed?) there are two very suspicious give-aways of fraudulent authorship.

He says “they grabbed some crazy old dude, then interrogated someone in similar clothing.” Similar clothing to what and how at that stage would Robinson know what clothing he was wearing? More importantly, how would he have known what had happened, after he had immediately legged it from the scene? Did he somehow glean this information from news reports on his I-phone, or is it indicative of someone else writing it after the event? Or worse, writing it prior to the event, replicating a script for the whole operation?

Later he refers to Fox News. Fox News is a well known right wing/republican outlet. It appears a tad strange that a person who hated Kirk, a Trump supporter, enough to murder him, would follow Fox News for information.

Despite what he describes as a 'lock-down', he naively believes he can 'grab his rifle unseen' and if sucessful believes he will have left no evidence. Really? Despite the fact that he must know he was caught on multiple cameras both arriving and leaving? Despite a bullet fired and its inevitable foresic examination? Despite finger prints and foot prints? Despite allegedly leaving a screw-driver at the scene? Despite the rifle and towel that had probably by now been discovered? Despite knowing his I-phone could be tracked for minute by minute location and use information? Really?

And whilst we are at it, having surveyed the scene at around ten o'clock, why did he intentionally take a route and choose a shooting position that he well knew would be captured on camera? The story line id conflicted. Was his intention to run and avoid detection, or give every assistance to law enforcement finding him. Further was his unique arrangement of being taken into custody an indication of guilt or of realistic anxiety that if he didn't he would likely be shot “resisting arrest”?

Allegedly asked by Twigg how long he had been planning it, he gives a very curious reply. “A bit over a week I believe.” Why the doubt? Why only a week? So we are meant to believe that an intelligent young man of 22, with no criminal record or history of violence or even anger managemt problems, decided to murder someone because “he had had enough of Kirk's hatred”, and had hatched a plan and carried it out, when all his prepation was limited to a walk about a couple of hours before? Sorry, I just don't buy it. Not to mention the inherent contradiction of murdering someone to irradicate hatred.

He claims not to have had the “time or ability” to take the rifle back to his “vehicle” - not 'car' or 'motor', 'wheels', 'ride' or any of the other American slang words for his 'Dodge Challenger'. Just 'Dodge' even. (Not a Dodge Avenger you notice but perhaps theatrically the next best thing??)

Then, having just murdered a man in cold blood, the only thing that apparently worries him is explaining the loss of the rifle to his “old man”. Only the family would know if this appelation rings true and this is how he referred to his father. It sounds contrived to me.

Then he back tracks, saying “the only thing I left was the rifle wrapped in a towel.” The 'only thing' – really? That surely was the most significant thing. What could he have left of greater significance? Interestingly for some reason he overlooks the screw-driver completely. Perhaps that was because it was a later addition to the scrip presented to the public by police?

Ostensibly he also admits to engraving all four bullets – one fired – in the rifle. He says, “Remember how I was engraving bullets? The f***in messages are mostly a big meme, if I see "notices bulge uwu" on fox new I might have a stroke”. What sort of contrived nonsense is that?

Now there is a small but significant divergence: the claimed Robinson note refers to “uwu” whereas reports of the inscriptions by Govenor Cox refers to “OwO”. Or is the UwU a misspelt abbreviation of Utah Valley University (UVU)? Who is right?

Following from https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/notices-bulge-owo-whats-this explains the significance of the term and its use:

“Notices Bulge / OwO What's This? is a copypasta parodying both furries and online roleplay subcultures, which is typically used online as a method of trolling. The meme originated from these communities around early 2013 and spread online over the following years. In mid-September 2025, following the murder of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk, the alleged shooter, Tyler Robinson, notably included the meme in an inscription on a bullet casing found during the investigation, causing the meme to spike in virality.”

Another source provides this: The phrase is known online as a meme tied to roleplaying and is linked with the furry community. It is often used as a joke to mock others in internet groups, according to Dessert news. "OwO" is a chat face where the O’s are wide eyes and the w is a small mouth. “What’s this?” adds a tone of curiosity. The phrase shows up often in gaming streams.

Would either party get it wrong? Who is the more accurate. As the alleged originator you would have expected Robinson to get it right, though OwO seems to be generally accepted as the correct version. It is a small indicator that maybe Robinson wasn't the author of the text exchange?

The remaining three unused casings had the following inscriptions:

“Hey fascist! CATCH!” with arrow symbols

“O Bella ciao, Bella ciao, Bella ciao, Ciao, ciao”

“If you read this, you are GAY Lmao”

A prosecution case shot through with holes?

This case has attracted unprecedented attention partly as a result of the high profile and influence of the victim and his close association with Donald Trump, the current President and partly because of the way it happened in front of several thousand spectators and media. It was undoubtedly intended to be a public execution, carried out with skill and resources far beyond those of a 22 year old middle class student, who nevertheless played an important role, whether he was fully apprised of its significance or not.

Tyler Robinson has claimed he was never on the UVU campus. If that is true, the person caught on camera must be someone else and a dead ringer. What cannot be denied however is that he appears to have been in the vicinity of the campus, at least from around 8 o'clock on the 10^th September 2025 until at least 6.30 pm when he is caught on camera at the Dairy Queen. His Dodge Challenger is also on video before and after the shooting in various spots although it is not clear who is driving it. It could be someone else entirely for all we know.

Why was Robinson in the vicinity of UVU?

What we don't know, what has not been revealed by the police or explained by Tyler himself is what he was doing in the vicinity UVU at the critical times or if he admits to being the person in the various videos and photographs, or indeed the man on the roof seen escaping from it? What was he doing so far from home on at least the tenth and eleventh, if it wasn't to kill Kirk? Had he been asked or instructed to be there for some other purpose? Was he there to see Kirk but not to kill him? Did some malign indivual or organisation choose him, manage him, specificaaly be the fall guy or 'patsy' in the mould of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Apparently Robinson claimed he had never been on the UVU campass - ever! Can we believe he made the claim or alternatively if it was true? If it was the photo images would either have to be fabricated or of a look-a-like person. Both are possibilities but then we come to another: that Robinson was actually on the campus at the time of the shooting, not on the roof but in the crowd!

I have come across two images that appear to support this theory. If accurate both create further intriguing questions as to why he was there and what for?

FBI certainty and speed gives rise to suspicion

In stark contrast to the tardiness of the security operation, the FBI were quick off the blocks to issue video snippets and photographs, allegedly identifying the individual, the method and the motivation, so that within only the magic '33 hours' the suspect was not only in custody but declared with certainty to be the killer. We must conclude that either the FBI and Utah police were super efficient in this case or Robinson was super stupid. Neither seem likely.

There are around 20.000 recorded homicides in the United States each year. In one sense Kirk's was just another. Although most murders have a family or relationship connection and a fairly obvious set of circumstances, less than 6 out of 10 are ever cleared up. The proportion is actually much lower as many thousands of murders are never recorded, lost amongst the enormous number of missing persons. Yet in the Kirk case, where you would expect the killer to plan meticulously both the deed and escape, we are told that within a week the attacker is caught, charged and case closed. Remarkable no?

Choice of particular photographs and vieo suspicious

Within less than two days the FBI had circulated selected video and photographic images to the press. Of the thousands attending the event, even those seen carrying weapons or even claiming to be the killer, only these revealed the wanted man. Despite tens of high quality cameras on the UVU campus, only five or six were released at a small number of specific locations. Why just a few? Why do they exclude the most significant view of him taking up position, apparently assembling and disassembling the rifle on site and critically lying prone to take the shot?

Preposterous police account

The public was fed a frankly preposterous story that Robinson chose to walk about a mile to his chosen spot with a dismantled 44'' rifle under his skinny black jeans and T-shirt, less than half an hour before Kirk was due to appear. Presumably with heightened security presence and camera awareness, walking awkwardly whether there was a rifle under his clothes or not, yet nobody noticed or challenged or raised the alarm even when he paraded himself on the roof? Only a failed B movie director would come up with such plot outline.

Even the circulated photos contradict themselves. He is videoed passing the failed State Govenor's house dragging his right leg ostentaciously; he is photographed going down the underpass steps awkwardly, but by the time he climbs another flight and turning the corner on the landing, he is bending both knees! With the greatest will or imagination, a dismantled Mauser under his light weight clothes is quite implausible. Yet incredibly Cash Patel and the FBI show absolutely no scepticism and want us to swallow their fable. Can we even be sure the man in the image wearing dark glasses is Robinson? If not I agree he must be a 'dead ringer' as I have already suggested.

In murder cases police regularly reconstruct the crime to gain greater insight into it. I notice they haven't reconstructed this one. I would suggest it is because it is simply impossible. The fact that prosecutors intend, against all reason and common sense, to stick to their fabricated story proves this murder eminates from government itself.

Fiddler on the roof caught on camera – or not?

Then we arrive at the crucial phase of the alleged operation: the time on the roof and taking the shot which I believe even if it was Robinson, it proved that he was NOT the killer of Kirk.

First we are told told Robinson was in position there for a clear eight minutes before the shot rang out. We have heard nothing of the person or people that were monitoring the cameras. We know that there was manual control because when he climbs off the roof, the camera follows him. That would only happen if there was someone watching and controlling the device.

The cameras are ultra modern and were obviously supervised, at such a high profile and mass attended event. Kirk was not President, but he was very close to him and Trump had survived two assassination attempts in recent past. Kirk was not universally popular and had received threats. The absence of any sign of security is inexplicable but may be explained by crass incompetence but even so what cannot be explained away so easily is why the supervisors of the site cameras, undoubtedly on high alert, did not notice a lone gunman where he deffinitely aught not to be, acting suspiciously for a full eightminute before the shot rang out.

It is inconcievable that they would not be aware. So in addition to questioning why the whole eight minutes of the preparation of the shot not taken, why I would ask did they not zoom in? Why did they not raise the alarm? Why was the crucial eight mitues not recorded or shown? Even the most inane operator would have done so. The official excuse for this segment not being recorded or released to the public is an insult to its intelligence.

Bartholomew video

The roof-top performance must have registered with on-site security at the time, because

in the Bartholomew video footage, which itself and the filmer's behaviour raises serious questions as to whether he was in on the operation, by the time he has walked to the escape position (and how would he know its significance because he only heard the shot and had no idea where it taken from or the shooter's escape route?) police were already at the shooter's recent location - as can be seen in this screen shot of his video. The fact that police were directed so soon after the shot but not in the eight minutes before raises serious questions of manipulation.

Is the roof escape video fraudulent?

Of course all of this reasoning turns on whether the video released is genuine or not? It could be fraudulent or manipulated. In such cases it is a very real possibility. What is there in the footage to certify it accurately records what there at 12.23 to 12.25 pm on the tenth? It could have been filmed on a completely different day with a completely different person or indeed with no person at all, just AI!

There are some very sound reasons why this could be the case. The fact it excludes the first eight minutes as discussed above – the most crucial period; the fact that it only shows a running man; the timing positively does not allow for a Mauser rifle to be disassembled; there is absolutely no indication of a disassembled or complete rifle if it wasn't, being carried on the roof or off it, despite what proponents have attempted to argue; shadow disappears when over the light surface, explanations for which are unconvincing; as is the explanation for the 'disappearing walker' behind the tree; the ten feet jump proves there was no rifle hidden on his person or in the back-pack.

FBI explanation a travesty

The fact that the issued video is so poor quality and indistinct, is a major red flag as to its reliability. The operators who clearly move the camera to follow his movement to the road and wood, had had ten minutes (eight before the shot and two after) to raise the alarm and focus in on him. That they didn't should make us question its fundamental voracity.

Another man another roof location?

Now another reason to those above I seem to have discovered. I have not seen anyone else refer to it. It is another shot of him on the roof that contradicts the well known one. It places him in a completely different section as determined by the adjacent trees. If I am right, and there is no other plausible explanation, it suggests another 'dry run' and completely undermines the publicised version. (See below)

Problems with the shot itself

So now we come the shot itself: It is possible that Robinson or some other person could have fired a Mauser rifle from that position to kill Kirk about 140 metres away but everything points against it, in fact rules it out!

By all accounts one rifle shot rang out that fits the Mauser but it is not clear which Mauser or its firing position. It might have been fired by someone else from somewhere else. There is a distint possibility that the shot was coordinated and timed precisely to cover the true fatal shot from a different actor, weapon and position. This is not fanciful as there is clear video evidence of simultaneous reaction to ear-phone messaging and arm signalling precisely timed to the shot.

In any event it could not have been a rifle bullet of that caliber from that weapon and position that delivered the fatal shot. As has been demonstrated many times, the injury inflicted and the motion of his body would have been dramatically different. Without being too gory, his head would have been severed, yet apologists for the government are still claiming the red spot that is caught on video, low down on the left side of Kirk's neck was an entry wound. Nothing could be further from the truth. In addition a rifle bullet would have continued on its way, possibly seriously injuring anyone in its path. The force of the bullet would have also thrown him backwards. As can be seen, in fact he was forced to his left, indicating that a much smaller calliber bullet came from his right (viewer's LEFT)! It is still a mystery where it actually came from but the top of the building to his right or even a drone are possibilities.

And these are not the only significant problems that negate the official story and make it quite impossible. Cash Patel wants us to believe that despite the unrealistic suggestion the rifle was taken onto the roof hidden under light weight clothes, Robinson could have put it together using just a screwdriver with no clamp or assistance, then taken a very accurate shot without the possibility of testing the accuracy of the sight that had been dismantled. Just ONE fatal shot. Not another to make sure. Just one.

Then we are asked to believe that despite needing to get the hell out of there, he used the screw driver (which he conveniently forgot to take with him) to dismantle the rifle again so as to be able to carry it off the roof some how undetecible the watching cameras. Except taking the videos timings, he doesn't long enough to do so. Immediately after the shot he runs, which means he must have the complete rifle, except there no sign of such when he jumps from the roof.

Even if this were not the case, the found rifle was fully, if inaccurately assembled. How would he have done so with the screwdriver left behind? Perhaps he packed two???

CONCLUSION

It beats me how the Prosecuting Authorities in the State of Utah would seem intent on pursuing the charges laid before the Court.

Some may be applicable regarding a certain level of involvement yet to be decided if indeed it was Robinson on the roof in the alleged firing position, but him being the murderer if definitely and definitively ruled out by all the observable factors alluded to above.

Kirk could not have been shot from the front, could not have been shot with the identified weapon or one like it.

That alone is enough to prove Robinson's innocence.

In any just and uncorrupt system the charges would be thrown out at a preliminary stage. Worryingly however, knowing the failures in previous cases and the imbalance of the criminal justice system, that is unlikely.

The State requires a fall Guy, and Robinson finds he is it.

This murder is clearly not down to a one-off, out of character, isolated actor but a carefully planned and executed assassination.

The Google searches of places and personnel at least a month before the operation from Washington and Israel prove that.

Nor is it parochial. It required the involvement of not only the 'Turning Point USA' team (their actions and behaviour both before and after the shooting are odd to say the least) but higher levels of the Secret State.

Probably, if the Google searches and Netanyahu denials are factored in, foreign state actors as well!

Motive is easily identified: Charlie Kirk's influence on young voters and his changing position on Israel and Middle East. That would be viewed as seriously threatening to both US and Israeli Zionist policy and hegemony.

The movement of Kirk's body alone, proves the fatal shot came from his right even though the body guard sought to disguise it by pushing him to the ground.

The real shooter or method has not been revealed though an unidentified man was pictured leaving the scene holding one. Also allegedly a weapon was located on the terrace to the left of the stage. Also two unidentified military types were apparently caught on camera exiting the Liberarts building following the shooting, not claimed by any enforcement or personal protection organisations.

Alternatively the shot may have come from ajacent buildings or even a drone! Some of those close to Kirk seem to have expected it and even gestured to that effect. After the shot one took up an inexplicable position to film Kirk's dispatch and his personal manager, close to him at all times, just walked off nonchalantly as if nothing untoward or unexpected had happened!

Discussion

Let's take a look in more detail.

He says he “still has to grab his rifle” despite surmising that it had likely already been discovered. Would he really have chanced going back either on foot or in his vehicle to recover it given the number of police searching the area and now on alert for any suspicious activity?

He says “they grabbed some crazy old dude, then interrogated someone in similar clothing.” Similar clothing to what and how at that stage would Robinson know what clothing he was wearing? More importantly, how would he have known what had happened, after he had immediately legged it from the scene? Did he somehow glean this information from news reports on his I-phone, or is it indicative of someone else writing it after the event? Or worse, writing it prior to the event, replicating a script for the whole operation?

Despite what he describes as a 'lock-down', he naively believes he can 'grab his rifle unseen' and if sucessful believes he will have left no evidence. Really? Despite the fact that he must know he was caught on multiple cameras both arriving and leaving? Despite a bullet fired and its inevitable foresic examination? Despite finger prints and foot prints? Despite allegedly leaving a screw-driver at the scene? Despite the rifle and towel that had probably by now been discovered? Despite knowing his I-phone could be tracked for minute by minute location and use information? Really?

Allegedly asked by Twigg how long he had been planning it, he gives a very curious reply. “A bit over a week I believe.” Why the doubt? Why only a week? So we are meant to believe that an intelligent young man of 22, with no criminal record or history of violence or even anger managemt problems, decided to murder someone because “he had had enough of Kirk's hatred”, and had hatched a plan and carried it out, when all his prepation was limited to a walk about a couple of hours before? Sorry, I just don't buy it. Not to mention the inherent contradiction of murdering someone to irradicate hatred.

He claims not to have had the “time or ability” to take the rifle back to his “vehicle” - not 'car' or 'motor', 'wheels', 'ride' or any of the other American slang words for his 'Dodge Challenger'. Just 'Dodge' even. (Not a Dodge Avenger you notice but perhaps theatrically the next best thing??)

Then, having just murdered a man in cold blood, the only thing that apparently worries him is explaining the loss of the rifle to his “old man”. Only the family would know if this appelation rings true and this is how he referred to his father. It sounds contrived to me.

Then he back tracks, saying “the only thing I left was the rifle wrapped in a towel.” The 'only thing' – really? That surely was the most significant thing. What could he have left of greater significance? Interestingly for some reason he overlooks the screw-driver completely. Perhaps that was because it was a later addition to the scrip presented to the public by police?

Ostensibly he also admits to engraving all four bullets – one fired – in the rifle. He says, “Remember how I was engraving bullets? The f***in messages are mostly a big meme, if I see "notices bulge uwu" on fox new I might have a stroke”. What sort of contrived nonsense is that?

Now there is a small but significant divergence: the claimed Robinson note refers to “uwu” whereas reports of the inscriptions by Govenor Cox refers to “OwO”. Or is the UwU a misspelt abbreviation of Utah Valley University (UVU)? Who is right?

Following from https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/notices-bulge-owo-whats-this explains the significance of the term and its use:

The remaining three unused casings had the following inscriptions:

“Hey fascist! CATCH!” with arrow symbols

“O Bella ciao, Bella ciao, Bella ciao, Ciao, ciao”

“If you read this, you are GAY Lmao”

A prosecution case shot through with holes?

This case has attracted unprecedented attention partly as a result of the high profile and influence of the victim and his close association with Donald Trump the current President and partly because of the way it happened in front of several thousand spectators and media. It was undoubtedly intended to be a public execution, carried out with skill and resources far beyond those of a 22 year old middle class student, who nevertheless played an important role, whether he was fully apprised of its significance or not.

Tyler Robinson has claimed he was never on the UVU campus. If that is true, the person caught on camera must be someone else. What cannot be denied however is that he appears to have been in the vicinity of the campus, at least from around 8 o'clock on the 10^th September 2025 until at least 6.30 pm when he is caught on camera at the Dairy Queen. His Dodge Challenger is also on video before and after the shooting in various spots although it is not clear who is driving it. It could be someone else entirely for all we know.

What was Robinson doing in the vicinity if he wasn't the shooter?

What we don't know, what has not been revealed by the police or explained by Tyler himself, is what he was doing in the vicinity UVU at the critical times or if he admits to being the person in the various videos and photographs, or indeed the man on the roof seen escaping from it? What was he doing so far from home on at least the tenth and eleventh, if it wasn't to kill Kirk? Had he been asked or instructed to be there for some other purpose? Was he there to see Kirk but not to kill him? Did some malign indivual or organisation choose him, manage him, specificaaly be the fall guy or 'patsy' in the mould of Lee Harvey Oswald?

In stark contrast to the tardiness of the security operation, the FBI were quick off the blocks to issues video snippets and photographs, allegedly identifying the individual, the method and the motivation so that withing only the magic 33 hours the suspect was not only in custody but declared with certainty to be the killer. We must conclude that either the FBI and Utah police were super efficient in this case or Robinson was super stupid. Neither seem likely.

Within two days the FBI had circulated selected video and photographic images to the press. Of the thousands attending the event, even those seen carrying weapons or even claiming to be the killer, only these revealed the wanted man. Despite tens of high quality cameras on the UVU campus, only five or six were released at a small number of specific locations. Why just a few. Why do they exclude the most significan view of him taking up position, apparently assembling and disassembling the rifle on site and critically lying prone to take the shot?

The public was fed a frankly preposterous story that Robinson chose to walk about a mile to his chosen spot with a dismantled 44'' rifle under his skinny black jeans and T-shirt less than half an hour before Kirk was due to appear, with presumably some heightened security presence and camera awareness, walking awkwardly whether there was a rifle under his clothes or not, yet nobody noticed or challenged or raised the alarm even when he paraded himself on the roof? Only a failed B movie director would come up with such plot outline.

Even the circulated photos contradict themselves. He is videoed passing the failed State Govenor's house dragging his right leg ostentaciously, he photographed going down the underpass steps awkwardly, but by the time he climbs another flight and turning the corner on the landing he is bending both knees. With the greatest will or imagination, there is not a dismantled Mauser under his light weight clothes, yet incredibly Cash Patel and the FBI show absolutely no scepticism and want us to swallow their fable. Can we even be sure the man in the image wearing dark glasses is Robinson. If not I agree he is a 'dead ringer'.

Then we arrive at the crucial phase of the alleged operation: the time on the roof and taking the shot which I believe even if it was Robinson, it proved that he was NOT the killer of Kirk. We are first told Robinson was in position there for a clear eight minutes before the shot rang out. We have heard nothing of the person or people that were monitoring the cameras. We know that there was manual control because when he climbs off the roof, the camera follows him. That would only happen if there was someone watching and controlling the device. The cameras are ultra modern and obviously supervised, especially at such a high profile and mass attended event. It is inconcievable that they would not be. So in addition to questioning why the whole eight minutes of the preparation of the shot not taken, why I would ask did they not zoom in? Why did they not raise the alarm? Why was the crucial eight mitues not recorded or shown? Even the most inane operator would have done so.

The roof-top performance must have registered with on-site security at the time, because in the Bartholomew video footage, which itself and the filmer's behaviour raises serious questions as to whether he was in on the operation, by the time he has walked to the escape position (and how would he know its significance because he only heard the shot and had no idea where it taken from or the shooter's escape route?) police were already at the shooter's recent location as can be seen in this screen shot. The fact that police were directed so soon after the shot but not in the eight minutes before raises serious questions of manipulation.

Of course all of this reasoning turns on whether the video released is either genuine or reliable. It could be fraudulent or manipulated. In such cases it is a very real possibility. What is there in the footage to certify it accurately records what there at 12.23 to 12.25 pm on the tenth? It could have been filmed on a completely different day with a completely different person or indeed with no person at all, just AI!

There are some very sound reasons why this could be the case. The fact it excludes the first eight minutes as discussed above; the fact that it only shows a running man; the timing positively does not allow for a Mauser rifle to be disassembled; there is absolutely no indication of a disassembled or complete rifle if it wasn't, being carried on the roof or off it, despite what proponents have attempted to argue; shadow disappears when over the light surface, explanations for which are unconvincing; as is the explanation for the 'disappearing walker' behind the tree; the ten feet jump proves there was no rifle hidden on his person or back-pack.

Nothing in the FBI narrative bears even the slightest examinination. Only recently my friend related the fact that he was caught travelling at three miles an hour over a speed limit which cost him a hundred pounds and three points on his licence. He was sent the camera photo which showed his face clearly. The camera was a mile distant! The fact that the issued video is so poor quality and indistinct is a major red flag as to its reliability. The operators who clearly move the camera to follow his movement to the road and wood, had had ten minutes to raise the alarm and focus in on him. That they didn't should make us question its fundamental voracity.

So now we come the shot itself: It is possible that Robinson or some other person could have fired a Mauser rifle from that position to kill Kirk at about 140 metres but everything points against it, in fact rules it out!

By all accounts one rifle shot rang out that fits the Mauser but it is not clear which Mauser or its firing position. It might have been fired by someone else from somewhere else. In any event it could not have been a rifle bullet of that caliber from that weapon and position that delivered the fatal shot. As has been demonstrated many times, the injury inflicted and the motion of his body would have been dramatically different. Without being too gory, his head would have been severed, yet apologists for the government are still claiming the red spot that is caught on video, low down on the left side of Kirk's neck was an entry wound. Nothing could be further from the truth. In addition a rifle bullet would have continued on its way, possibly seriously injuring anyone in its path. The force of the bullet would have also thrown him backwards. As can be seen, in fact he was forced to his left, indicating that a much smaller calliber bullet came from his right (viewer's LEFT)! It is still a mystery where it actually came from but the top of the building to his right or even a drone are possibilities.

Even if this were not the case, the found rifle was fully, if inaccurately assembled. How would he have done so with the screwdriver left behind? Perhaps he packed two???

CONCLUSION

In light of all the video and other evidence made available to the public from both official and unofficial sources, it is patentently clear that the FBI hypthesis for the killing of Charlie Kirk is quite untenable. It beats me how the Prosecuting Authorities in the State of Utah would seem intent on pursuing the charges laid before the Court. Some may be applicable regarding a certain level of involvement yet to be decided if indeed it was Robinson on the roof in the alleged firing position, but him being the murderer if definitely and definitively ruled out by all the observable factors alluded to above. Kirk could not have been shot from the front, could not have been shot with the identified weapon or one like it. That alone is enough to prove Robinson's innocence. In any just and uncorrupt system the charges would be thrown out at a preliminary stage. Worryingly however, knowing the failures in previous cases and the imbalance of the criminal justice system, that is unlikely. The State requires a fall Guy, and Robinson finds he is it. This murder is clearly not down to a one-off, out of character, isolated actor but a carefully planned and executed assassination. The Google searches of places and personnel at least a month before the operation from Washington and Israel prove that. Nor is it parochial. It required the involvement of not only the 'Turning Point USA' team (their actions and behaviour both before and after the shooting are odd to say the least) but higher levels of the Secret State. Probably, if the Google searches and Netanyahu denials are factored in, foreign state actors as well! Motive is easily identified: Charlie Kirk's influence on young voters and his changing position on Israel and Middle East. That would be viewed as seriously threatening to both US and Israeli Zionist policy and hegemony. The movement of Kirk's body alone, proves the shot came from his right even though the body guard sought to disguise it by pushing him to the ground. The real shooter or method has not been revealed though an unidentified man was pictured leaving the scene holding one. Also allegedly a weapon was located on the terrace to the left of the stage. Alternatively the shot may have come from ajacent buildings or even a drone. Some of those close to Kirk seem to have expected it and even gestured to that effect. After the shot one took up an inexplicable position to film Kirk's dispatch and his personal manager, close to him at all times, just walked off nonchalantly as if nothing untoward or unexpected had happened!

Tuesday, 28 October 2025