Who killed Charlie 3/6: Etsy witches or You-Know-Who?

0:00 Outline
0:26 What people are saying
7:46 What the feds are saying
12:02 Speculation
31:02 Culture Apothecary interviews
37:46 Double standards
40:54 “A man need’s a name”
1:01:55 Charlie’s legacy
1:04:32 Scientific and scriptural analysis
1:12:37 Conclusion

In this third installment of our miniseries on the assassination of Charlie Kirk, we delve deeper into some intriguing developments. We examine the County Sheriff's account of Tyler's arrest without a confession and court documents that indicate his father is a retired Sheriff’s deputy—a fact the Sheriff sought to conceal. Additionally, it was revealed that the Sheriff was informed of Tyler’s surrender through their mutual friend, who is a retired detective. This raises questions about whether this could be an inside job or a coverup impossible to disprove due to sheer coincidence.

The involvement of Zionist money in this case cannot be ignored; for instance, Ben Shapiro paid TPUSA $1M and Bill Ackman offered a $1M reward to whoever turns in the shooter. Tyler's father, together with the Sheriff’s close friend—a retired detective—turned him in to their mutual friend: the Sheriff. Critics of Israel’s involvement argue that Charlie was always a pro-Israel figure, as evidenced by his letter of support to Netanyahu before his death (which could easily be forged). However, this hypothesis is not predicated on Kirk's change of heart but rather Israel’s objective interest in immortalizing his "legacy" and the mission of TPUSA.

TPUSA is a major conservative youth organization in the US that can be used to target outliers like Nicholas Fuentes, Candace Owens, and Tucker Carlson. The battle for American public opinion on Israel has significant implications for Israel's survival, as it invests enormous amounts of money to influence this perception. Despite losing ground among the general public in America, Israel remains committed to securing its interests through various means.

The Pride flag and Israeli flags have become symbolic elements in this case. Those who accept Israel’s involvement are generally independent reporters with close ties to Charlie, such as Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens. These individuals call for fighting against Zionists but often face aggressive campaigns aimed at discrediting or silencing them led by the very same entities they oppose.

Conversely, influencers who reject the Israel hypothesis are usually third parties with Zionist platforms or sponsors whose audiences number in the millions. They dismiss the idea that Israel is behind the assassination as "absurd" like in Asch’s conformity experiment. However, if police failed to capture the shooter immediately (which they did not), they may have to create a story—a tactic often employed by law enforcement and judiciary authorities who are not experts on the matter.

In conclusion, there is undoubtedly more to this case than meets the eye. Although conspiracy theories like the exploding lapel mic might seem far-fetched, given Israel's history of successful assassinations, nothing can be ruled out entirely. For instance, shortly after the assassination, Netanyahu joked about exploding pagers at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and that everyone carries Israeli cellphones; see IsraeliPM, “PM Netanyahu’s Remarks” (15 Sep 2025) YouTube. The involvement of Zionist money and their influence over US public opinion are clear indicators that there is much more to uncover in this tragic case.