Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 1 Part 13) (9/9/26)

Transcript

Tyler Robinson Preliminary Hearing Transcripts (Day 1 Part 13) (9/9/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 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 dive right back in to
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: day one of the Tyler Robinson prelim hearing. Question. All right.
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: I think you related that originally the SBI was directed
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: to come down just to see if you could help.
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: Is that fair to say? Answer. Yeah, that was all
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: I knew when I left the office was that go
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: down and see what services, what we can do to help. Question.
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: And I asked you earlier if that role changed, and
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: I believe you said it did. Answer. Yep. Question. Okay,
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: so let's talk about that. How did your role change
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: from what you initially came down to do, whatever it
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: evolved into? Answer, having been on scene for a little while,
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: there were some conversations and discussions that took place, and
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: I was informed by my lieutenant that myself and Agent
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: Davis would be taking lead on the investigation on behalf
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: of the State Bureau of Investigations. Question, so the SBI
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: was going to lead the investigative agency? Answer, correct. Question,
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: and you are going to be the lead case agent. Answer, yes, sir.
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: Question along with Agent Brown. Answer, Agent Davis. Question or
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: Agent Davis. Answer, yep. Question, okay. What does it mean
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: to be the lead investigator or lead case agent? Answer,
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: it depends on the situation, but predominantly, you're responsible for
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: kind of directing the investigation, coordinating information that's coming in. Typically,
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: scenes are fairly chaotic initially, so you're trying to process
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: as much information as possible and make as much use
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: of the available resources that you have. Kind of an
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: organizational role would probably be a good way to describe it. Question, okay,
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: so you played an active role in organizing. Answer, in
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: coordination with the administration of all the agencies that were
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: on scene, yeah. We were trying to coordinate efforts to
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: get to pertinent information as quickly as possible. Question, do
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: you recall whether assignments were made, at least with the
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: SBI agent that responded with you? Answer, yeah. We have
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: a core group within major crimes that were assigned specific tasks. Question, okay.
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: And did they include the agents that you mentioned just
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: a minute ago? Answer, yes, I believe so. Question, so
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: each one of those agents with SBI were given a
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: specific assignment? Answer, yeah. With the information we had, the
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: agents were assigned to do specific things. Question, and do
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: you remember specifically what assignments and who they were given to? Answer, yeah.
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: Sergeant Falmina was asked to coordinate with the state crime
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: lab and the responding crime scene techs to manage the
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: process and he identified crime scenes. Sergeant Mark Bricker was
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: put in touch with UVU's surveillance and operations team To
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: start working through any available footage. Or information. That we
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: had been recorded. Sergeant Clark was tasked with the area canvas.
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: Around the campus area. Looking for information. Or any available information.
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: From the immediate area around the campus. Sergeant Ellie Schultz.
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: Was working with the SIAC. And other administration. To try
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: and manage the flow of information. That had started to occur.
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: Question okay. You said initially. When you showed up. Things
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: were a bit chaotic. Answer yes. Question, did that have
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: something to do with all the different agencies that had responded? Answer, yeah,
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: and I think initially, there was still some uncertainty as
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: to whether we were working with an active shooter or
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: an active crime scene. The campus is spread over a
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: large area, and so getting that deemed to be safe
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: is quite a process, and it involved a lot of people.
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: Question gotcha, do you know if the campus was deemed
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: safe eventually? Answer, eventually my understanding is that the campus
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: was locked down and secured and we were able to
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: start getting people in to start processing crime scenes and
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: doing additional things. Question, okay. It sounds like that chaos
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: eventually subsided. You got organized and assignments were made. What
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: was the first thing that you did as lead investigator? Answer, well,
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: it kind of became organized chaos, but we did have
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: a plan and our priority was determining whether we had
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: an ability or a way to be able to identify
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: who had been involved in the shooting. Question, okay. Answer,
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: that was our primary focus at the time. Question, okay,
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: did that include collecting information that was becoming available? Answer, yeah.
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: We were getting a large volume of information from the
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: general public, phone tips, people sending videos, analysts were scrolling
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: through social media and social sites as people were posting
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: information onto the internet. So there was a lot of
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: information coming in, a lot of things that needed to
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: be processed through and worked. Question, okay, were videos coming in? Answer, yeah,
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: cell phone videos were coming in. If you imagine there's 3,000
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: people at the event and everybody has a cell phone,
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: there was a lot of information that people were willing
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: to share with us. Question, right, do you know whether
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: you or someone else at the SBI collected or received
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: a video from an Amanda Wright? Answer, yeah, I know
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: a cell phone video was collected from Amanda Wright. Question,
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: and do you know? Hull cuts him off. By Amber Wright. McBride,
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Hull. Amber Wright. Question. Oh, I'm sorry. Amber. Well,
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: you tell me Amanda or Amber. Answer. Amber. Question. Okay.
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: I apologize for that wrong first name. Do you know
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: who or how that video was collected? Answer. Yeah. I
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: spoke with Ms. Wright directly on the phone to arrange
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: a time to go and collect that video. Unfortunately, she
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: wasn't available that day, but Agent Davis was able to
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: go meet her directly and collect the video. Question, and
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: do you recall what date you actually spoke to Ms. Wright? Answer,
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: if I can refresh my recollection, I specifically. Question, sure,
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: let me ask you this before you do that. Answer, yes, sir. Question,
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: so you have in front of you what, your police report? Answer,
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: I have some notes and a timeline from my investigation
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: that was part of discovery. Question, in referencing that timeline
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: or those notes, will they help you recall the day
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: that you called Ms. Wright? Answer, they will, yes. Question, okay.
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: Why don't you go ahead and refer to that? Don't
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: read from it out loud. Just take a minute. Let
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: me know when you've come across that information and once
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: you've refreshed your memory. Kathy Nestor jumps in. Your Honor,
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: when he's done, may I take a look at the
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: material as well, please? Judge Graff, you may. Now back
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: to Mr. Hull. Question. Ms. Wright was contacted on April 7th.
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: Question by Mr. McBride. Okay. Did you want Kathy Nestor? Yeah. McBride. Okay.
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, Ms. Nestor, if you'd like to come forward. Ms. Nestor,
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: may I approach your honor? Mr. Hull, that is my
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: times and dates. Question by Mr. McBride. Yep. Judge Graff, Mr. Sturgill,
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: when you go back, if you wouldn't mind shifting the
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: lectern to my right. Question, so you've had a moment
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: to look at your notes? Answer, yes, sir. Question, did
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: that help you remember the date that you contacted Ms. Wright? Answer,
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: it did, yes. Question, okay. Why don't you go ahead
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: and tell us what date you contacted Ms. Wright? Answer,
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: I contacted her. I think it was April 6th specifically,
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: but Agent Davis met with her on April 7th. Question, okay. Well,
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: that was going to be my next question. So you
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: actually talked to her or was it on the phone? Answer,
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: it was, yes. Question, and did you arrange a time
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: for either you or Agent Davis to go get the
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: video from Ms. Wright? Answer, yes. Question, is that how
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: it happened? Answer, yes. Question, and then you didn't go.
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: It was Agent Davis that went. Answer, correct. Question, okay, gotcha.
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: And so what, if anything, has been done with that
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: video in preparation for today? Answer, my understanding is that
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: some edits were made by your office in order to
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: protect some of the participants in the video. Question, okay,
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: let me ask you this. Did you or Agent Davis
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: visit with Ms. Wright again? Answer, yeah, that was in April.
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: And that was where my correction was. The video was
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: originally provided to Agent Mortensen, so I misspoke. Question okay,
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: let's go back and let's make sure this is very clear. Answer, sure.
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: Question okay, so someone with the SBI collected a video. Answer, yes.
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: Question from Amber Wright. Answer, yes. Agent Mortensen contacted Ms.
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: Wright on October 8th, and a video was provided to
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: him electronically on October 11th. Question okay, and now we'll
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: ask the next question. What if anything has been done
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: either by you or another agent with that same video
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: in preparation for today's hearing? Question, we contacted Ms. Wright
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: to arrange a meeting so that Ms. Wright could review
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: the video and that we could verify firsthand with her
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: that the video was what she had taken on September
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: 10th at the event at UVU. Question, okay, and who
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: had that follow-up visit with Ms. Wright? Answer, that was
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: Agent Davis. I was not able to attend. Question, okay.
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: And you know what happened because you spoke with Agent Davis? Answer,
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: I spoke to Agent Davis and he provided me with
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: a written statement that Ms. Wright had completed. Question, okay. Answer,
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: an 1102. Question, okay. And so you have seen that
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: written statement? Answer, I have, yes. Question, and you've read
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: through it. Answer, I have. Question, do you recall whether
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: the statement was on a form or a piece of
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: scratch paper? What do you recall? Answer, my recollection was
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: it was unofficial, I believe, a State Bureau 1102 statement,
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: which is a written form that's filled out by a
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: witness that contains the 1102 warning. Question, and by that,
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: do you mean the advisory that the statement that's written
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: on that piece of paper is going to be used
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: at a prelim hearing? Answer, yeah. Question, it includes that advisory? Answer, yes. Question,
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: does it also include a warning? That if someone provides
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: a false statement, in this case, Ms. Wright, that it
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: could be punishable by a Class A misdemeanor? Answer, it does, yes. Question,
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: all right. And what do you recall in the essence
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: of that written statement from Ms. Wright? I mean, what
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: does it basically say? To this, we have an objection.
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: Kathy Nestor. Object, Your Honor. At this point, we want
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: to assert our standing objection to the constitutionality of allowing
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: a Ms. Wright statement when she is not here to
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: present it in court or be cross-examined. We did include
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: those constitutional arguments in our standing objection. Also, this does
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: fall under the type of document that should be safeguarded
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: under Rule 4.202-02.8f, as in frank, and or should be
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: classified as protected under Subsection 5.0, as in orange, because
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: the disclosure could jeopardize the life safety or property of
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: the witness. It's also technically a victim's. I mean, if
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: she's present under the current theory... and the information she's
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: technically could be classified as a victim of the event.
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: So it also should be protected under that. So we
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: would object to it being read in public. It would
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: not be admissible at trial in the current format that
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: is due to its hearsay nature. We do think it
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: would negatively impact our client's right to a fair trial.
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: And furthermore, I believe the witness herself has requested that,
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: particularly because the video contains images of minor children, which
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: I know the state has made an effort to redact,
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: But nevertheless, the reference to the minors, I think, would
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: still fall under the protection. And so for all the reasons,
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: we want to object to that coming out in public,
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: and being discussed in the public forum, and being published
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: in any way. And we object to it coming in.
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, alright, and so? If you wouldn't mind just
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: restating the rule that you're relying upon, so I can
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: fully look at your objection. Nestor? It's the UCJA, the Utah,
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: oh gosh, Code of Judicial Administration. I just blanked. The
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: Utah Code of Judicial Administration for Rule 4202.028F, as in Frank,
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: and or 5-0. Judge Graff, all right, thank you. I'm
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: just getting there. I want to review this before I
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: hear from Mr. Sturgill. All right, I've reviewed that. Now
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: the prosecution. Well, Judge, let me address, I guess, a
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: couple of things Ms. Nestor actually brought up. I think
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: both the 1102 statement that we intend to produce and
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: sort of refer to the video, so let me address
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: each of those one at a time. With regard to
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: the 1102 statement that was prepared by Ms. Wright, Judge,
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: it was gathered in compliance with the Utah Rules of
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: Evidence 1102, specifically subsection B8. It's a statement that was
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: gathered by an SBI agent. It was prepared with knowledge
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: of the advisory that was going to be used at
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: the prelim hearing, and it also included the warning that
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: that if a false statement's given, it's going to be
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: a Class A misdemeanor. Judge, I don't know what additional
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: foundation you'd like. Well, that's kind of where I was going.
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: Judge is, I was trying to lay a little bit
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: more foundation just to introduce that statement alone. I haven't
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: gotten yet to the video, but with regard to the
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: 1102 statement, it's been collected in compliance with Rule 1102,
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: as I stated, B3 or B8. And as we all know,
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: Rule 1102 allows reliable hearsay as does the State Constitution,
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: Article 1, Section 12. Judge Graff, so what exhibit will
• 13:12
  Speaker 1: this be? I want to look at it, not for
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: the purpose of has the magistrate taken it into evidence,
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: but to see if it comports with Rule 1102 as stated,
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: because I haven't seen it. And I haven't done the
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: analysis to see what the objection is. Prosecution, Judge, it
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: states Exhibit 6.1. Kathy Nestor, in your honor, just for
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: the record... We just want to make a record, too,
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: that it's difficult for the court to make a reliability
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: finding when the individual is not here to be tested
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: and cross-examined. And for those same reasons that we list
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: in our standing objection, we just want to reiterate to
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: the court that we think it really hampers you from
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: making that reliability determination. Judge Graff, thank you. Anything further, prosecution? Answer, well,
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: just the 1102 doesn't require that, judge. It doesn't require
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: the witness be here to corroborate the statement. Judge Graff,
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: all right, all right. I've had a chance to review
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: State's Exhibit 6.1, taking into note what Ms. Nestor said.
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: You see JA4-202.02 in referencing the section she did. Prosecution
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: jumps in and, Judge, I don't mean to interrupt, but
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: I had not yet addressed the rule. I would simply
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: just add to that the judicial rule. It has nothing
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: to do with admissibility. It's simply publishing it. I'm sorry.
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff, okay. So let me just hear your full argument. Answer,
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: I didn't realize you wanted to hear all of it.
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: I thought you were going to rule on 1102. Judge Graff, well,
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: I want to focus on the 1102. I want to
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: keep this clean. All right, folks, we're going to wrap
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: up right here. And in the next episode, we're going
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: to pick up with the prosecution making their case to
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: Judge Graff. And that will be at 44832. All the
• 14:57
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: the description box.