Candace Owens drops new Charlie Kirk SD card footage as questions mount over the moments after the shooting
Candace Owens is drawing attention to a tense moment in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s fatal shooting at Utah Valley University. The screenshot shows a post claiming that Candace Owens has released previously unseen footage involving SD cards removed from a camera positioned behind Kirk. The footage has sparked renewed debate over who handled the recording, why one particular card was taken and what happened immediately afterward.
Candace Owens footage puts Charlie Kirk SD card under scrutiny
The image shared by Jody Chase on X prominently features Candace Owens discussing what she describes as newly released footage. The post claims the video shows what happened to the SD cards after they were removed from the camera sitting directly behind Kirk.Owens focuses on the actions of a person identified in her commentary as Terrell. According to her description, the footage appears to show him taking one SD card, placing it in his pocket and then using his phone instead of collecting additional cards from nearby cameras.She says:“And, um, now appears to be the moment to not tell you what Terrell did, but to rather show you and let you draw your own conclusions about whether Terrell appeared concerned about anything other than that particular footage, okay? Here is what Terrell did thereafter, seen for the first time. Terrell is there. He looks around again, nervously, and he puts the SD card in his pocket and he zips up.He doesn’t run to the other cameras and try to grab the SD card. Instead, what he does is he whips out his phone and he begins texting with someone. And that’s what he does.He’s texting with someone to say what? Who’s he texting? What’s he saying? If he’s just out there fighting evil and worried about securing the footage, why didn’t he grab the other SD card or three of them in a row? Who is he in communication with after he grabs that? Because I got to tell you something, Andrew, were it me and I was amongst my peers sitting on a jury, I would not accept your narrative that he looks like he’s worried about people stealing. Not about the hats, not about the other footage, not about the cameras.”The point Owens emphasizes is not simply that the SD card was removed. Her attention is on what she believes happened after that moment. The image has therefore become a focal point for viewers trying to understand the sequence of events surrounding the footage.
Charlie Kirk investigation questions grow over SD card footage
Owens then moves from describing the footage to explaining her interpretation of the behavior she says viewers can see. She stresses that her conclusion is an opinion and raises several possible explanations while questioning why that particular recording appeared to receive immediate attention.She continues:“It looks to me like, and again, this is my opinion, it looks to me like he’s completing a task and checking in with someone to say that a task is completed.Maybe I don’t know. I’m open to everything. Maybe there was some police officer who told him to take that footage in particular.I’m told that didn’t happen. And I will say this, that when someone demonstrates that they are capable of lying to you, you have a right to take note. And Terrell lied to me.He lied to me about his fears regarding Google. It is therefore my opinion on the basis of everything that we are observing with our eyes, everything that I am observing with my two eyes, his mannerisms, the beeline to that footage so quickly, within four or five minutes, as if that had to be secured. The 1102 statement where we know that that footage in particular was clipped, I’m speculating because it was zoomed in.The questions that Kathy Nestor asked thereafter, things that she asserted about, they don’t know whether or not that footage was edited. Your claim that the FBI has it, why? It’s a Utah case. Why would the FBI have the SD cards? When I observe everything with my eyes, again, I don’t think they’re going to call me for jury duty in Utah, but it demonstrates to me that that footage was prioritized.So now the question is why?”The distinction matters. The image and commentary raise questions, but they do not independently establish why the SD card was removed, who was contacted afterward or whether anyone acted improperly.Those answers would require evidence beyond an interpretation of body language or a short sequence of video. Records concerning the footage, its chain of custody and any official investigative findings would be needed to establish what actually occurred.For now, the image has placed the SD card back at the center of an increasingly debated story. Its significance will ultimately depend not on speculation, but on what the complete footage and verified evidence show.
