MS NOW95%

Erika Kirk faces Charlie’s alleged killer and conspiracists as preliminary hearing begins 25%

By Brandy Zadrozny0%

7/6/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Appeal to Authority, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 32.2% saturation with 326 hits. Analysis detected 2,174 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,013 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 37.3% and a BS Rank of 25% (15,964 of 21,168 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 75.40% of the article peer group.

PROVO, Utah  When Erika Kirk, the widow of slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk, takes her seat in the gallery of the courtroom on Monday, she will be there to watch the state make its case against Tyler Robinson, the man accused of killing her husband. 
Two dozen members of the public allowed in the courtroom, along with thousands more people online, will have eyes on Erika Kirk during the week-long preliminary hearing. 
A growing chorus of conspiracists and their followers will be examining the widow  and new CEO of Turning Point USA  for proof of the outlandish theories that have proliferated in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassination last September, including baseless claims that she helped orchestrate or cover up his killing. 
The state of Utah plans to seek the death penalty against Robinson and has charged him with aggravated murder and six other counts, including witness tampering and obstruction of justice. 
Over the next five days of preliminary hearings, prosecutors will argue that Robinson should stand trial for Kirk’s killing, calling witnesses and presenting evidence to make their case. 
Fourth District Judge Tony Graf will ultimately decide where there is probable cause to move the case to trial. 
Robinson has yet to enter a plea. 
Erika Kirk is represented by an attorney and has already argued motions before the court, including that cameras should be allowed in the courtroom and invoking her right to a speedy trial. 
She was not required to attend the hearing, but a source close to the family told MS NOW that she and Charlie Kirk’s parents, Robert and Kathryn  who rarely appear in public  felt compelled to be there “to bear witness.” 
Much of what they will hear is already a matter of public record. 
Prosecutors have previewed their case against Robinson in court documents and hearings. 
At an April hearing, prosecutors said they had surveillance video showing Robinson’s movements the morning of the shooting, including footage of him scouting Utah Valley University and returning with a rifle, taking the shot from a rooftop and then fleeing into a wooded area, where police later recovered a rifle wrapped in a towel. 
Investigators found ammunition and a tool used to etch inscriptions on the bullet casings in Robinson’s home, prosecutors said. 
They also alleged that Robinson made four separate confessions to evidence connecting him to the shooting: a note left for his roommate and romantic partner; a text exchange with that roommate; a message to an online group chat; and an admission to a family acquaintance who helped him surrender. 
Independent DNA testing by federal agencies would match Robinson to the rifle, the towel and a screwdriver, prosecutors said. 
This evidence will be introduced in court this week through law-enforcement witnesses, recorded testimony, and dozens of exhibits: videos, photographs, and Robinson’s alleged communications, including a note left for his roommate that read, “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I took it. 
” 
The preliminary hearing was set to be livestreamed. 
Robinson's attorneys fought to keep cameras out of the courtroom, arguing that media coverage had been disparaging and sensational and would taint a jury pool. 
But Judge Graf decided to allow cameras as he had for other hearings, supporting the arguments for transparency that had been made by prosecutors, the media, and Erika Kirk. 
Among those watching will be a network of conspiracist creators and their rabid audiences, who have already decided (without evidence) that Robinson is a patsy and that the case against him is rigged. 
They have already spun up fantastical alternative accounts of Kirk’s death and its supposed cover-up, over thousands of podcast episodes and online posts, and the blame has been spread widely: to prosecutors, the federal government, foreign nations, and TPUSA. 
But no one has been targeted more relentlessly than Erika Kirk. 
Conspiracists have wrongly tied her to convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein; claimed that she was part of an Israeli operation to assassinate her husband; and forwarded the theory that her marriage  and thus her two children  were a product of a long-term scheme to gain control over Charlie Kirk and TPUSA. 
Right-wing podcaster Candace Owens has been the main driver of these largely online conspiracy theories. 
And the threat these theories pose reaches beyond distorting reality, according to new research by the Network Contagion Research Institute, a nonprofit that studies online radicalization and shared its findings exclusively with MS NOW. 
NCRI's report found that Owens has "caused a measurable, statistically significant surge in death threats and calls for violence" against Erika Kirk over the past nine months. 
When Owens attacks her online  as she has done repeatedly, most recently on Shawn Ryan's podcast, where she called Erika Kirk a "psychopath" and suggested she had some hidden knowledge about her husband's death  threats against Erika Kirk follow, the report found. 
Owens declined to comment, but posted MS NOW’s emailed request to X, seemingly disputing the findings. 
“Anyone who notices Erika Kirk keeps lying is responsible for her receiving death threats,” she wrote. 
NCRI identified about 1,000 violent threats against Erika Kirk on X following Charlie Kirk’s death. 
“Owens built a narrative ecosystem that her audience turned into explicit threats,” the research nonprofit wrote, describing Owens' attacks as creating a "permission structure" for violence. 
It’s a dynamic NCRI has previously used to describe the killing of a health insurance executive and multiple assassination attempts against President Donald Trump. 
In it, a target is named, an accusation frames harm against that target as justifiable, and a community has been primed to act on it. 
Several popular online conspiracists have said they plan to attend Robinson’s preliminary hearing this week. 
Elizabeth Lane, a former model and actress who now makes conspiracy content largely about Erika Kirk posted about the hearing last week. 
“I can’t wait to see dear Erika Kirk!!!!” 
Lane wrote. 
“I hope she doesn’t cancel last minute saying she is too scared due to security threat 😂😂.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.3%Brandy Zadrozny: 4.3%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias7.3%This article: 3.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 0.2%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias3.0%This article: 11.8%Brandy Zadrozny: 2.5%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic11.8%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 0.5%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Brandy Zadrozny: 2.5%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias5.2%This article: 13.4%Brandy Zadrozny: 10.3%MS NOW: 15.5%Framing Effect13.4%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 0.9%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 0.9%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 1.0%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 26.4%Brandy Zadrozny: 13.4%MS NOW: 19.3%Negativity Bias26.4%This article: 1.6%Brandy Zadrozny: 1.8%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias1.6%This article: 5.2%Brandy Zadrozny: 1.7%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error5.2%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 2.7%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Brandy Zadrozny: 1.6%MS NOW: 2.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 1.4%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 1.3%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.7%Brandy Zadrozny: 0.6%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias6.7%This article: 4.5%Brandy Zadrozny: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect4.5%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 4.9%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 1.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 19.6%Brandy Zadrozny: 5.5%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority19.6%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 0.9%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 0.3%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 2.5%Brandy Zadrozny: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning2.5%This article: 14.5%Brandy Zadrozny: 4.3%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization14.5%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 1.2%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 20.6%Brandy Zadrozny: 5.8%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion20.6%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 1.4%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 11.1%Brandy Zadrozny: 2.4%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.1%This article: 1.6%Brandy Zadrozny: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque1.6%This article: 1.6%Brandy Zadrozny: 1.2%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof1.6%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.3%Brandy Zadrozny: 2.5%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal7.3%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.6%Brandy Zadrozny: 1.0%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.6%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 2.9%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.6%Brandy Zadrozny: 0.7%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote1.6%This article: 4.5%Brandy Zadrozny: 1.0%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection4.5%This article: 32.2%Brandy Zadrozny: 9.3%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice32.2%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 0.9%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 0.6%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Brandy Zadrozny: 1.1%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias1.5%This article: 0.0%Brandy Zadrozny: 1.3%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1013 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers6.6%attributed speech946writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 53 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 54 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 53 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageCandace Owens • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageNetwork Contagion Research Institute • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageElizabeth Lane • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageElizabeth Lane • 17 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
26 attributed words39% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+68.3 ptsWriter: 31.7%Network Contagion Research Institute: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.9 ptsWriter: 4.9%Network Contagion Research Institute: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -1.6 ptsWriter: 1.6%Network Contagion Research Institute: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.