Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 3 Part 4) (10/4/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 3 Part 4) (10/4/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. In
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: this episode, we're going to pick back up with the
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: Tyler Robinson transcript from day number three of the prelim hearing.
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: Once again, prosecution is doing the questioning. Question, all right,
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: turning to a different topic. Judge, I'm aware that there
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: are going to be some objections about this and we'll
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: have to address, but I just want to lay a
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: little bit of foundation first before we get there. You've
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: mentioned them already. Are you familiar with an individual named
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: Lance Twiggs? Answer, yes, I am. Question, and who is
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: he in regards to the investigation? Answer, he's the roommate
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: of Tyler Robinson. Answer, was he interviewed as part of
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: the investigation? Answer, he was. Question, how many times? Answer,
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: two times. Question, when was the first time? Answer, the
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: first time was early morning hours of September 12th, and
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: that occurred at St. George Police Department. Answer, so... We've
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: heard of several people coming in and being spoken with
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: at Washington County Sheriff's Office. Answer, correct. Question, Mr. Twiggs
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: was spoken with at St. George PD? Answer, correct. Question,
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: do you know who was present for that interview? Answer,
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: it was FBI agent Larson and agent Ling. Question, are
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: you aware of Mr. Twiggs' buccal swab that was taken
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: at the time? Answer, I don't recall that happening there.
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: I believe it happened later. I'd have to, but it
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: did occur. That was obtained from him. Question, okay, but
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: you're not sure if it happened on the 12th. Answer,
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: I don't recall if it was there later or at
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: his residence. Question, but ultimately a buccal swab was obtained
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: from Mr. Twiggs. Answer, yes, it was. Question, do you
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: know if his phone was taken from him? It was. Answer, question,
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: when did that happen? Answer, so it was during the
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: interview with the FBI at St. George Police Department. They
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: conducted an interview of him and then he provided his phone.
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: He did it voluntarily also, provided it to those agents. Question,
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: and that would have been on September 12th, 2025. Answer, correct. Question,
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: you mentioned the second interview of Mr. Twiggs. Answer, there
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: was a second interview, yes. Question, and when did that
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: take place? Answer, April 20th of this year. Question, where
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: was that? Answer, happened at the Utah County Attorney's Office. Question,
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: who was present at the second interview. Answer, it was Mr. Twiggs,
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: his attorney, Jill Cottrell. It was Lauren Hunt, Sam Peed,
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: with the U.S. Attorney's Office, Ryan McBride, Sergeant Elsholes, well,
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: now it's Lieutenant Elsholes, and myself. Question, we've talked about
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: two interviews of Mr. Twiggs, one on the morning of
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: September 12th, 2025, and the second on April 20th, 2026.
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: Are you aware if both those interviews were recorded? Answer,
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: they were. Question, have you reviewed those recordings? Answer, I have. Question,
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: before Mr. Twigg's interview on April 20th, 2026, well, first,
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: let me ask you this. Are you aware of what
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: the use of immunity means? Answer, yes. Question, what does
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: it mean? Answer, it's a letter. Use of immunity is
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: essentially giving the individual, during the limited time of their statement,
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: They're given that immunity from statements that are made in
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: regard to an incident, but it does not preclude them
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: from prosecution from evidence that would be known or found
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: then or later outside of that interview. It just gives
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: them limited immunity during the time of the interview. Question, okay,
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: so for any statement made during the interview, they're given
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: immunity for that, but they're not generally prohibited from being
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: potentially prosecuted outside of that interview. Is that fair? Answer,
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: that's my understanding, yes. Question, was Mr. Twiggs given use immunity? Answer, yes,
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: he was. Question, by what offices? Answer, the Utah County's
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: office as well as the United States Attorney's office. Question,
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: you mentioned that both of Mr. Twiggs' interviews were recorded.
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: Have you reviewed those recordings? Answer, yes, I have. Question,
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: do they fairly and accurately depict those interviews? Answer, yes,
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: they do. Question, we've talked about 1102 statements. We've talked
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: about a form that you talked about that there is
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: an admonition On there, that warns that if false statements
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: are given pursuant to 1102, then that the person may
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: be subject to a Class A misdemeanor. Is that fair? Answer, yeah,
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: that's correct. Question, was a similar admonition given to Mr.
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: Twiggs during his second or before his second interview on
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: April 20th, 2026? Answer, yes, it was. Question, by whom? Answer,
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: by Ryan McBride with the Utah County Attorney's Office. Question,
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: and again, were you present for that interview? Answer, I was. Question,
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: did Mr. Twiggs say that he understood that admonition? Answer,
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: he did, yep, yes. Question, was he told that the
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: April 20th, 2026 interview was being taken in lieu of
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: him having to come and testify at the prelim hearing? Answer,
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: yes it was, yes he was. Question, alright judge, I'm
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: aware that the defense counsel has objections to this recorded 1102.
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: I think now is probably a good time to address them.
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: But I do have, I guess, I understand. that they're
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: suggesting redactions to the video. I have some procedural objections first,
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: and if Your Honor sustains those, I think it may
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: make the substance of the statements or the objections or
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: the redactions that the defense is proposing moot. So I'm
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: wondering if Your Honor will entertain my response procedurally first
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: before we get into the substance of what the defense
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: is objecting to. Does that make sense? Judge Graff? Yeah,
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: if you want to move it, because right now nothing's
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: before me. Prosecution? Yes, well, I want to move. so
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: defense proposed about a day and a half ago they
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: created a transcript. Mr. Novak has proffered this earlier to
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: Your Honor on April, and I'll give you a little
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: more proffer. On April 28, 2026, the Utah County Attorney's
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: Office provided this recorded 1102 statement of Mr. Twiggs to
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: defense counsel. They have acknowledged the receipt and mentioned the
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: recorded statement at previous hearings. In fact, they even filed
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: a brief that Your Honor has decided on about whether
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: 1102 can be applicable to Mr. Twiggs at the hearing,
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: which Your Honor has ruled upon. Monday at about 4 p.m.,
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: defense counsel sent us a transcript that was prepared by defense,
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: the defense team, and it had significant redactions that they
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: were suggesting. It was about a 21-page transcript, and their
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: suggested redactions are approximately 11 pages of it. In total,
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: redactions appear on 16 of 21 pages. my procedural objections
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: into this area, that this is essentially by surprise. We
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: were already a day into the prelim hearing. Defense counsel
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: had been aware since at least April 28th, 2026, when
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: the recorded 1102 of Mr. Twiggs was provided to them,
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: that this is how we intended to proceed. And like
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: I said, they had already briefed the 1102 issue as
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: it relates to Mr. Twiggs. At the time, they did
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: not raise any objections to the substance of it, or
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: propose any redactions that they wished. And yeah, frankly, it's
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: by surprise, and it's at this point disrupting the hearing.
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: I did mention that the defense prepared a transcript of
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: this recorded interview. How the state intended to present it,
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: and how we have given it into discovery to defense,
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: is it's a video, audio, and visual. Making redactions to
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: that is not simple as a transcript where you can
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: just block out sections of text, so it's far more
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: complicated than that to edit or redact portions of the
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: video at this time. so we would object procedurally basically
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: on the timeliness of it that they had the opportunity
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: to make these objections if they had them at the
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: time when the 1102 issued in regards to Lance Twiggs
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: was briefed and decided by your honor. They did not
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: do that or raise the issue at the time, so
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: we would object just procedurally on those grounds. Additionally, the
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: remedy requested, which I'm assuming is that we make redactions
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: to the video or present it as a transcript rather
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: than a video, is disproportionate. Even assuming if there was
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: an isolated statement that the court would not ultimately consider, again,
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: as Mr. McBride pointed out, and as Your Honor has
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: stated throughout the hearing, this is a prelim hearing. To
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: the court, it's not the jury. The court is fully
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: capable of disregarding any statement that determines exceeds the proper scope.
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: As Mr. McBride cited this morning, several cases give Your
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: Honor the authority and presumption that judges are able to
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: basically make the difference between what's admissible evidence and and
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: disregard what may not be at a prelim hearing or
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: even at a bench trial. State vs. Adams is one
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: of those cases. If your honor wants the citation again,
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: I'm happy to give it. State vs. Featherston is another one.
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: That one is 781 P2D 424. State vs. Hannigan is
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: another one. 2004 Utah APP 165 and State vs. Rosecrans
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: 2024 Utah APP 128. And those cases all stand for
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: the notion that essentially judges, and this is a quote
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: from Rosecrans, judges are not subject to many of the
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: same concerns about prejudice and improper influence as jurors. So again, procedurally,
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: the remedy asking us to now, in the middle of
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: a week-long prelim hearing, of which everyone was aware, edit
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: or alter, or redact portions of this video recording 1102,
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: that remedy is disproportionate. If there are any potentially objectionable
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: statements within that, Your Honor, has the ability to disregard them.
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: So we would prefer not to get into the substance
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: and argue each statement line by line. And we would
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: prefer to just move for its admission and have the
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: court use its discretion as a judge to take what's
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: proper versus improper, disregard anything the court might find improper.
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: If we could, we would like to move into substantive objections.
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: Then we're happy to, But if the court can rule
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: on those procedural objections, first, it may make... any substantive
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: objections moot. Judge Graff, all right, so you're moving into
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: evidence state exhibit 16. Prosecution, yes. Judge Graff, and as
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: it relates to publication, what's your request? Question, so judge,
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: we believe and I believe this has been discussed before
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: on the record. that the state is in agreement that
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: the media should not have the ability to handle or
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: replicate certain exhibits, because its video, Mr. Twiggs, is shown
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: certain exhibits. So we would agree that this should not
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: be captured by cameras and projected by the media outside
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: the courtroom. But we would like at least the audio,
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: and maybe even the video within the courtroom itself, to
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: be captured. That's the state's position. Judge Graff, alright, I
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: want to make sure I understand. So your request is
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: that the video not be projected and captured by the
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: video camera. but the video and audio is played in
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: the courtroom, and the audio is able to be transmitted,
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: just not the video via the camera. Is that my understanding? Prosecution, correct.
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: That's the state's position. Judge Graff, all right. And in
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: regards to the exhibit at State Exhibit 16, is there
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: any portion of that recorded statement that occurred before the
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: 11-2 warning was given to Mr. Twiggs? Answer, not that
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: we are presenting today. Judge Graff, okay, all right. Turning
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: to the defense. And that's where we're going to pick
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: up in the next episode, with Mr. Novak making the
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: defense's case. All the information that goes with this episode
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: can be found in the description box.