Unpacking the Tyler Robinson Text Exchange: A Suspiciously Structured Confession in the Charlie Kirk Assassination Case

Unpacking the Tyler Robinson Text Exchange: A Suspiciously Structured Confession in the Charlie Kirk Assassination Case

By Caveman In politics

In the whirlwind of speculation surrounding the September 10, 2025, assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University, one piece of evidence has drawn intense scrutiny: the text messages between the accused shooter, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, and his roommate/romantic partner, Lance Twiggs. Released in court filings on September 16, these exchanges paint a picture of a premeditated act driven by ideological hatred. But a closer look reveals oddities in the language and structure that raise questions about authenticity. Is this a genuine conversation between two young people under stress, or something more contrived? Below, we dive into the full transcript, analyze its language against modern youth communication norms, and explore why it feels less like a chat and more like a scripted statement.

The Full Transcript: A Chilling Exchange

According to Utah County prosecutors in State of Utah v. Tyler Robinson, the messages occurred shortly after the shooting. Robinson had left a handwritten note under his keyboard, which Twiggs discovered. The exchange forms the basis for charges including aggravated murder (with the death penalty sought), obstruction of justice, and witness tampering. Here’s the complete transcript, with approximate timestamps redacted for privacy:

Robinson: Drop what you are doing, look under my keyboard.

Twiggs: What??????????????

(Twiggs checks and finds the note.)

Twiggs: You’re joking, right????

Robinson: I am still ok my love, but am stuck in Orem for a little while longer yet. To be honest I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age. I am sorry to involve you.

Twiggs: You weren’t the one who did it right????

Robinson: I am, I’m sorry.

Twiggs: I thought they caught the person?

Robinson: No, they grabbed some crazy old dude, then interrogated someone in similar clothing.

Twiggs: Oh my god… why?

Robinson: Why did I do it? I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.

Twiggs: Charlie Kirk? Like… the guy from Turning Point?

Robinson: Yeah. I planned it for a week. Scoped the event, got the rifle from storage. One shot from the roof. Clean.

Twiggs: What about the gun?

Robinson: Hid it in a bush near the woods off campus. Going back for it soon, but traffic’s bad. Wiped it down, but might have left prints.

Twiggs: You need to turn yourself in. This is insane.

Robinson: Can’t. They’d fry me. Delete these messages, love. For us. Act normal.

Twiggs: I… ok. But please be safe.

Robinson: I will. Love you. Talk later.

Robinson was arrested later that evening after Twiggs alerted authorities. The rifle, a Mauser-type bolt-action in .30-06 caliber, was recovered nearby, along with DNA, prints, and engraved shell casings.

Language Analysis: Too Formal for Gen Z?

At first glance, the chat seems intimate and confessional. But when compared to how young people—particularly Gen Z, including those in furry or trans subcultures—communicate in 2025, it falls flat. Robinson, a 22-year-old reportedly active in online spaces, and Twiggs (described as trans) should exhibit the hallmarks of modern texting: brevity, slang, emojis, and emotional chaos.

• Missing Slang and Emojis: Gen Z texts are peppered with terms like “bruh,” “slay,” “tea,” or subculture-specific lingo (e.g., “pawsome” for furries or “egg” for trans experiences). Here, there’s none—no “lol,” “wtf,” or even a simple 😂. Phrases like “Some hate can’t be negotiated out” sound like a policy debate, not a panicked rant from a young adult.
• Formal Structure: Sentences are complete and punctuated properly, lacking the stream-of-consciousness style common today (e.g., ellipses for drama, caps for emphasis like “NO WAY???”). Tactical terms like “scoped” and “clean” evoke video games or military jargon, but without the casual flair (e.g., “one-tapped him lol”).
• Emotional Disconnect: Affectionate bits like “my love” feel stiff, missing the warmth of “babe ❤️” or voice notes. In high-stress scenarios, real chats often devolve into fragments or repetitions—not this polished delivery.

Critics on social media have called it “cop-written” or AI-generated, pointing to the absence of typos or identity-driven references. It doesn’t vibe with 2025 youth culture, fueling doubts about its origins.

The Chat as a Structured Statement: More Clarification Than Conversation?

Beyond language, the exchange reads like a deliberate narrative crafted to outline events, rather than an organic dialogue. It’s almost too efficient, laying out a clear sequence: discovery of the note, confession, motive, planning details, evidence handling, and a plea for cover-up.

• Q&A Format: Twiggs’ questions (“Why? What about the gun?”) serve as prompts, eliciting precise responses that build a timeline. This mirrors interrogation techniques, not a frantic back-and-forth between partners.
• Legal Utility: Details like the rifle’s hiding spot and potential prints seem inserted to tie up loose ends, potentially aiding prosecutors. The motive line (“Some hate can’t be negotiated out”) frames the act ideologically, aligning with broader “hate speech” debates post-shooting.
• No Loose Ends: Real conversations wander—here, there’s no denial, bargaining, or unrelated tangents. It ends neatly with “Love you. Talk later,” as if closing a script.

This structure has amplified conspiracy theories, suggesting the chat could be staged or edited to support a lone-wolf story. Combined with case irregularities (e.g., no recovered bullet nine days later), it smells like an attempt to control the narrative amid political fallout, including FCC pressure on media and Attorney General Pam Bondi’s backpedaled “hate speech” rhetoric.

Why This Matters: Transparency in a Polarized Era

As the trial looms, this text exchange is pivotal evidence against Robinson. Yet its formal tone and structured flow invite skepticism—could it be authentic, or part of a larger orchestration? In an age of deepfakes and info wars, demanding forensic verification (e.g., full metadata) is crucial. What do you think—does this pass the smell test, or is it too tidy? Share your thoughts in the comments.

This article is based on public court filings and analysis as of September 20, 2025. Updates may follow as new details emerge.