BREAKING: Audio Recording Confirms No Autopsy For Charlie Kirk
(m.youtube.com)
Comments (32)
sorted by:
If true, they broke the law. The Utah law requires an autopsy. This whole thing, hopefully holds down long enough to allow the arrests and the pressure to be applied properly. Because when it blows, it needs to be in the background.
From what I could find:
But also found:
It does seem one should have been performed in this case though, especially with the type of wound not matching what would be expected according to the official narrative.
"Must investigate" and "may perform" are important distinctions
THX, Great Dig . . .
Not looking good. Who could skirt the law for an autopsy on a murder victim? BIG COVERUP!
The wording does not say they must do an autopsy, it states that they "may" do an autopsy, coroners discretion.
Why should there be an autopsy for a man who is not dead?
Oftentimes there isn't an autopsy performed on gunshot victims-the examiner can determine cause of death on initial examination of the corpse.
Though i believe in this instance they should have performed one anyway since it's an assassination and globally influential.
I wonder if this is just kayfabe, and we'll (hopefully) see the real story behind his assassination...
Time to face facts
FBI is in on the assassination and the coverup of it
Kash Patel is not who you thought he was - neither is Bongino
Nor is Blondie
Who made the decision to exclude a autopsy? Would his wife make the final decision? They are protecting the real murderes. I heard Charlie's bodyguards were from Israel. The boy on the roof is a patsy. I saw a old man in a gray shirt kneel down and remove the explosive device from Charlie's body. He handed it to a man with a black shirt / khaki pants who shoved it in his pocket and walked away.
Apparently the wishes of the family are overridden in a murder investigation, so Erika can't be blamed for it if there really wasn't an autopsy.
Did you see this on video or were you there. I have not seen anything like that, but that is very important information if true.
I saw it on video. Go to the 3:00 mark in video below. Watch the old man who comes in from the left, grey shirt. He takes something from Charlie and hands it to the man in black shirt / khaki pants. He puts it in his pocket and walks away.
https://gab.com/RealStewPeters/posts/115265583524729989
Stew Peters did a video about the exploding microphone theory that brought together some analysis others had done. I know a lot of people don't like him, but he was sourcing the videos from other people and it was very interesting.
The energy transfer to the body and his body's initial backward movement and enlarging of his neck and back indicate a bullet strike. An explosion of a microphone would be way more obvious...rip apart the shirt etc.
From what i gather, they're saying "explosion" as if a projectile came from it.
Yeah but the motion of the body and energy transfer just arent consistent with that
There was a tiktok version of this video. I just looked for it, it has been deleted.
Are the police talking about Charlie's body being picked up instead of going to the coroner for an autopsy?
Firearm homicides automatically get autopsies. It's absolutely crucial for a prosecution and defense in court......I'm calling BS.
Can you think of a reason the police would have said what they did here, if an autopsy had actually been done?
It sounded like maybe they were saying another party (state coroner or medical examiner) was doing the autopsy and the hospital needed to sign off that they had not done one?
I just listened again and the cop's exact words were, "he didn't go in for an autopsy" and it was just signed off by the dr at the hospital
But wouldn't that be standard practice? Don't bodies normally get transferred to the coroner? It seemed odd that the police were having to add something to the report as if there was an unusual occurrence.
Dude was shot. We know the cause of death and even if he was assassinated by other means he was still dead by assassination. We know this what do we need an autopsy for?
Because it will prove where the bullet or explosive device came from with the enter and exit wounds.
As if the people responsible need an autopsy or not to get away from this scot free
If there is no autopsy, then defendant can claim reasonable doubt about cause of death and cannot be convicted.
I mean, in defence, the accused could just say they never fired, and perhaps the wound was caused by a tiny exploding drone made of glass. You would need a medical report on the wound to show it was 100% consistent with gunshot (from the gun that was also proven fired by the defendant)
More bullshit. Wow
Please share your source for this. Thanks