The Microphone Under Charlie Kirk's T-Shirt

Examining the theory that the device fixed to Kirk's upper chest was weaponized.

Several readers of my post yesterday (Medical Examiner’s Wonky Conduct in Tyler Robinson Trial) have asked me what I think of the theory that Charlie Kirk’s fatal neck wound was inflicted by the microphone or some other audio recording device that appears to be fixed to the upper left side (facing Kirk) of Kirk’s chest.

I was already familiar with the theory that it was this device that inflicted Kirk’s fatal neck wound.

Upon hearing this theory, I naturally thought of the exploding pagers that were clandestinely deployed on Hezbollah agents on September 17-18, 2024.

Benjamin Netanyahu seems to have alluded to these exploding pagers when he gifted President Trump a gold-plated pager on February 4, 2025.

In this incident, the pager batteries were packed with six grams of military grade high explosive that created a high energy blast, killing or maiming the Hezbollah agents who wore the pagers and anyone else who happened to be around them at the time they exploded.

Initially, it seemed to me that, IF Charlie Kirk was equipped with a similar exploding device, it would have produced an explosive blast radiating from the device. IF it were equipped with a lens device to direct the blast, it would—it seemed to me—injure the chest area to which the device was fixed, and not produce the wound that appears on Kirk’s neck.

Nevertheless, my reader comments yesterday prompted me to examine this theory and my initial assumptions about it.

Coincidentally, last night I got a last-minute invitation to join an old friend for dinner who happens to be a collector of all kinds of military grade weapons.

“You should take a closer look at the microphone,” he advised me. “I too think it looks pretty weird.”

This morning I asked a professional audio and video technician to look at a video of Charlie Kirk being shot.

He made the following observations:

1). There appears to be an unusually bulky device fixed to the left side (facing Charlie) of his upper chest.

2). It seems odd that this device appears to be fixed — probably taped to his chest — on the left side and angling up in a diagonal direction instead of being fixed in the middle of his chest in vertical position, with the microphone receiver directly under his mouth.

3). Advancing the video frame by frame, the first thing that moves is the t-shirt, which seems to billow up before the wound on the neck appears.

To see what the audio-video technician is referring to, watch the video below. Place it in full screen mode and advance the timer frame by frame.

CAUTION: The video is very upsetting to watch, so viewer discretion is strongly advised.

From working with forensic scientists on my previous books, I have learned to be extremely cautious in my interpretations of photo, video, and audio recordings. Thus, I want to emphasize that I am NOT drawing any conclusions from watching this video.

However, reviewing this video prompts me to believe that Tyler Robinson’s defense attorneys should carefully consider the following questions.

Question 1: Is it possible that the purported audio-recording device fixed to Kirk’s upper chest was fashioned into a gun-like device that could fire a small projectile a few inches with enough velocity to pierce the carotid artery and jugular vein on the right side (facing Kirk) of his neck?

Question 2: Can the prosecutor rule out this possibility? If so, by what means?

Question 3: Was the device fixed to Kirk’s chest immediately presented to law enforcement for forensic examination with a documented chain of custody? If so, how exactly was the chain of custody documented?

Question 4: Was proper first aid applied in an attempt to staunch the massively bleeding wound on Kirk’s neck?

Question 5: How much time elapsed between Kirk sustaining the neck injury and being examined by an independent medical doctor with sufficient training to analyze the wound and form an opinion about what caused it?

Question 6: Was Kirk still alive at the time his security team placed him in the backseat of the suburban?

Question 7: If so, at what time did Kirk die? Was he dead on arrival at the hospital?

Question 8: Who, apart from the Medical Examiner (who did NOT appear at the preliminary hearing) conducted a full examination of the wound? Did a doctor at the hospital document the characteristics of the wound?

I ask these questions because they pertain to another (rather diabolical thought) that I had while contemplating this theory — namely, IF the microphone was indeed fashioned into a gun-like device, it wasn’t necessary for this device to kill Kirk, only to induce the spectacle of heavy bleeding from his neck.

IF the device failed to kill Kirk, he could have been allowed to bleed out or additionally suffocated in the suburban before it reached the hospital.

IF I were orchestrating this crime with a gun-like device fixed to Kirk’s upper chest and pointed at his throat, I would consider diverting attention from the true murder weapon by having a diversionary actor fire a rifle at the same time from the roof of the Losee student center, provided the rooftop wasn’t secured.

With the use of radio or hand signals visible through a telescopic sight, the shooter could time the shot to coincide with the microphone-gun firing. The shooter could fire either a blank cartridge or a loaded cartridge at a high elevation so that the bullet would fly over the crowd and land on Utah Lake 1.5 miles to the west.

And indeed, upon closer analysis of the audio track, I believe I hear an initial bang that sounds like it is propagated near Kirk, instantly followed by what sounds like a heavy caliber gunshot—not the report of a supersonic bullet breaking the sound barrier, but the shot itself—fired in the direction of the recording microphone.

IF I am hearing what I think I am hearing, it is consistent with a rifle cartridge discharging a fraction of a second later from a position in the open air over a hundred yards away.

Because the shooter would play the role of a diversionary actor and not the killer, he could be any impressionable fruitcake young man who could be manipulated—as distinct from a trained assassin whose identity would raise red flags if he were caught.

In addition to serving as a diversionary actor, the impressionable young man could, if caught, serve as a patsy.

If I were Tyler Robinson’s defense attorney, I would consider that something along the following lines happened to my client.

—Robinson was somehow persuaded to participate NOT as the killer, but as a diversionary actor who received assurances that he would escape.

—Was told not to bring his cell phone with him onto the roof because his cell phone position could be subsequently pinpointed if he later fell under suspicion.

—Was told to leave his cell phone at a designated place to serve as his alibi for a designated period of time before, during, and after the murder.

—His cell phone was used by another actor to send incriminating text messages to his intimate friend after the murder was perpetrated.

Again, I am NOT concluding that this is what happened. I am merely proposing that defense counsel should consider that Tyler Robinson was in some way manipulated to participate as a diversionary actor and then framed for the actual murder.

I present these reflections as a starting point for additional analysis and discussion. Please let me know what you think in the comments, and please like and share this post with your friends.