Update at the end.
Candace Owens people spoke with Lance Twiggs’s family who feel there are more people involved in the murder of Charlie Kirk. Neighbors and the family told her unusual traffic would appear at the house they rented from family in the days before the shooting. They weren’t a couple who hosted parties The cars had different license plates.
Drugs kept Lance from living with the family. Tyler and Lance were living in a townhouse owned by Lance’s family.
It’s a tragic decline of two young people. They say Twiggs rarely went outside. I get the impression these two lived in the fake underworld of the Internet.
This is interesting.
Axios reported that they were told off the record that Lance Twiggs is a person of interest.
Updated with a link to the full video. Tyler is a remorseless sociopath or psychopath, and Candace raises good questions about the roommate. Candace said she’s a “confirmed conspiracy theorist on this”. She’s right about that. However, there are some good questions raised.
She thinks it’s a government conspiracy and I whole heartedly disagree, but I could be wrong. I do think it’s possible people knew and encouraged it, especially his furry trans friend.
She keeps suggesting Israel’s to blame which I think is absurd. She is under fire for it.
[I have updated this a few times.]
That is good investigative work by Owens. If there were suddenly lots of strange visitors at their place, Twiggs had to know something was happening. Since he seldom went out, he was there. He has lots of explaining to do. But the FBI has been, and will continue, to mislead us.
Owens accurately described the break Kirk made with Israel. I knew about it somewhat, but I was unaware of how deep it was. It is easily evident in the stunning statements Kirk made the past few months. Denying that the rift happened is to deny Kirk’s own words, which makes one not a fan of Kirk. In the midst of the grief over this murder, if someone is to deny Kirk’s own words, then that someone is in a confused state.
There is no bullet, no eyewitness, and no photo of the accused holding the gun. That makes this a circumstantial case. I can believe he may have shot. Since the bullet exists, and could be easily located, a coverup is certain. The problem may be the bullet does not match the gun. The defense would exploit the lack of a bullet in the evidence.
Comments are closed.