Blackcap Blog

Published at 08:21 on 12 September 2025

Note: I typed most of this last night, before this morning’s news conference. Since then:

• The suspect has been captured alive.
• The suspect’s family suspects guilt (to the point that they turned him in).
• The suspect’s family allegedly has vouched for increasing political outspokenness.
• The bullet casings allegedly were inscribed with political messages (a manifesto, of sorts).

All of the above are consistent with a credible accusation and a political motive.

Yesterday I wrote:

Given the current state of American politics, we may never know who did it or what their motives are. Utah is a ruby-red state. Yes, it is one with an LDS-inspired version of conservatism that differs substantially from Trump fascism, but it is still a right of centre state that is willingly going along with Trump fascism, whose governor has already labelled this a “political assassination.” Moreover, Trump is certain that the Left is to blame. Therefore, there is pressure to find a leftist to blame. The already-politicized FBI is assisting the State of Utah and local authorities in attempting to locate a suspect. Finally, it is well-known that police lean to the Right politically.

Some elaboration is in order.

First, nothing in the above should be taken as implying that there will be a false accusation, only that there might be. It is merely uncertain if the State’s accusation will be accurate and in good faith. It is not certain the State’s accusation will be inaccurate and/or in bad faith.

As such, some guidelines for judging the quality of an accusation seem in order.

If the accused is captured alive, guilt is more likely. A living man and his attorney can cross-examine the prosecution and blow apart a flimsy, Trumped-up case. A dead man tells no tales. Effectively, a suspect that is shot and killed is a suspect that has been summarily executed. Now, sometimes suspects, particularly murder suspects, get shot and killed for a good reason: they know they are going to be locked up for the rest of their lives or executed, they want to avoid this fate, and as such are willing to take extremely desperate measures to avoid capture. So being shot and killed does not prove a frame-up. It merely fails to provide strong evidence against a frame-up. The part about summary execution brings us to our next point.

If the accused is denied due process, actual guilt is vastly less likely. If, for reasons of “national security” we suddenly can’t give the accused a full, fair jury trial for the crimes he is accused of, this is without doubt the most suspicious thing possible. So suspicious, in fact, that it becomes quite safe to assume he or she is in all likelihood the victim of a frame-up. It is hard to lie convincingly in a persistent and detailed fashion. This is one of the things that makes the trial process work: if the prosecutors are trying to frame the accused, or the accused is lying about his or her guilt, the liar’s story is extremely likely to collapse due to internal contradictions.

Pay particular attention to the jury part. The conviction must come from a fairly-selected, disinterested, impartial jury of the accused’s peers. Utah may be a red state, but Kamala Harris won 37.81% of the vote there. 12 citizens sit on a jury, all 12 must reach a unanimous verdict, and it is highly unlikely that all 12 will be Trump fascists. Also, while Utah is a red state it is also a heavily Mormon state. The LDS church places a high emphasis on honesty; it is going to be difficult to get a jury with many Mormons on it to go along with a flimsy frame-up. We must have a fair selection of jurors; any verdict is thus much more likely to rest on the merits of the case, and not political bias on part of the jury. If the Trump regime somehow starts arguing we for some reason can’t trust this matter to a jury trial, or that the normal standards for juries cannot be followed, that is an absolutely deafening alarm klaxon going off.

The more stereotypical the accused is, the more likely s/he is being framed. By this, I mean stereotypical to your average Trump fascist. If they trot out, for example, a genderqueer women’s studies major with purple hair, a septum ring, and a history of being a loud woke activist interested in cultural issues, particularly if they have no prior interest in guns or politically-motivated violence, this is a huge red flag. It is just too convenient, too easy for Trump’s base to hate. Note that if this card is played, it probably won’t be as exaggeratedly stereotypical as my hypothetical example.

Pay attention to what the killer’s friends and family say. Most killers are known to be violence-prone or unstable before they kill. Pay attention whether friends and family say “he’s been worrying me for a while” or if they say “we had no idea,” or if it is “this just doesn’t make sense to me.”

If a political motive is alleged, a manifesto makes it much more likely the accused is guilty. Killing another human being is an extreme measure. Most who do it for political motives feel compelled to explain those motives. Being an extreme measure, it tends to be something that people do only if they feel very strongly about a cause. Such individuals are almost never quiet about their political beliefs. Friends and family should easily be able to vouch for such outspokenness. The absence of both a manifesto and political outspokenness mean the motive was probably not political.

Lack of shooting experience makes guilt less likely. The killer shot Kirk dead at a range of about 200 yards. Now, while this does not require elite sniper skills, it does require some experience as a shooter. My guess is that the guilty party is probably a hunter. Hunting is very popular in Utah, so this is probably the most plausible way for him to have acquired such skills. But however he acquired his shooting skills, he has to have acquired them. If we are asked to believe he walked into Wal-Mart, walked out with a rifle, and got off a lucky shot, that sounds fishy.

As I type this, it appears that the murder weapon has been found. It is a .30-06 bolt action rifle, a very common deer-hunting firearm. This adds credibility.

Dissent makes guilt less likely. It is very unusual for those involved in law enforcement and criminal justice to dissent about the process. In fact, I cannot readily think of any examples of such. If we start seeing police or prosecutors publicly not going along with something, particularly if they allege political interference, pay close attention to what they have to say.

Participation by political appointees makes the process less credible. The more things are done by career law enforcement officers and prosecuting attorneys, the better. The less, the worse.

As I type this, FBI director Kash Patel has announced his intention to participate directly in the investigation. Given that Patel is a political appointee who has been widely criticized for his lack of relevant experience, this undermines credibility in the process.

Note that none of the above guideposts are strictly definitive. The real answer as to the plausibility of the government’s case will have to be a judgement call based on multiple factors. But my guess is it should be pretty easy.