Candace Owens, the outspoken conservative commentator and media personality, has ignited a firestorm of controversy following her recent claims about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA. In a series of videos and social media posts, Owens reviewed back-angle footage of the shooting and declared that there was “no blood,” raising questions, doubts, and speculation across political and media circles.
🎥 The Footage That Sparked It All
On September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk was fatally shot at Utah Valley Campus during a public event. The tragedy shocked the conservative movement and prompted a swift investigation. Within two days, authorities arrested Tyler Robinson, 22, in connection with the murder. But as the investigation unfolded, Candace Owens—Kirk’s longtime friend and fellow commentator—began to publicly question the official narrative.
Owens obtained footage from a camera positioned directly behind Kirk at the moment of the shooting. In her analysis, she repeatedly emphasized one detail: “There’s no blood. There’s no blood from the back,” she said. “I’m very confused. Not by what I saw, but what I didn’t see”.
Her remarks were part of a longer commentary in which she replayed the footage multiple times, trying to understand the trajectory of the bullet and the absence of visible gore. “The thing that really stood out to me… is that there’s no blood. So I think a lot of people were wondering if that bullet pierced and went out the back,” she added.
🧠 Doubts About the Investigation
Owens’ skepticism didn’t stop at the footage. She also questioned the FBI’s handling of the case, particularly their search for the bullet. “I thought the feds were saying they were looking for a bullet at some point, which is now very alarming to me,” she said. “How could they be looking for a bullet, because if I’m not seeing any blood, what are we to take from that?”
Her implication was clear: if the bullet didn’t exit Kirk’s body, and there was no blood visible from the back, then something about the official account might be missing—or misleading. Owens stopped short of accusing authorities of a cover-up, but her tone suggested deep unease.
🍦 The Ice Cream Twist
Adding another bizarre layer to the story, Owens claimed that Tyler Robinson went to buy ice cream immediately after the shooting. She shared an image of Robinson at a Dairy Queen outlet in Orem, Utah, wearing a maroon t-shirt and a cap. The timestamp on the photo, according to Owens, was 6:38 p.m.—just minutes after the murder.
“This is exclusive,” she said, suggesting that the image had not been released by law enforcement. However, there has been no official confirmation of the photo’s authenticity, and critics have questioned whether it might be doctored or misdated.
🔍 Cameragate and the Mystery of the Missing Angle
In her YouTube episode titled “Who Moved The Camera Right Above Charlie’s Head?” Owens delved into what she called “Cameragate.” She claimed that two individuals were seen removing the camera positioned above Kirk just four minutes after the shooting. “What gives?” she asked, pointing to what she believes is suspicious behavior.
Owens suggested that the removal of the camera could have been an attempt to suppress evidence or control the narrative. She also criticized mainstream media for allegedly misrepresenting her relationship with Kirk and for failing to ask hard questions about the shooting.
🗣️ Public Reaction: Supporters and Skeptics
The reaction to Owens’ claims has been polarized. Her supporters praised her for asking uncomfortable questions and refusing to accept the official story at face value. “Candace is doing what real journalists should be doing,” one commenter wrote on social media.
Others, however, accused her of sensationalism and conspiracy-mongering. “This is irresponsible,” said one critic. “She’s exploiting a tragedy to push her brand and stir up controversy.”
Even within conservative circles, opinions are divided. Some see Owens as a truth-seeker, while others worry that her approach could undermine the credibility of the movement and distract from the real issues surrounding Kirk’s death.
🧩 What Does “No Blood” Really Mean?
The absence of visible blood in the footage doesn’t necessarily mean there was no injury. Medical experts have pointed out that depending on the angle, lighting, and quality of the video, blood may not be immediately visible. Additionally, if the bullet did not exit the body, external bleeding could be minimal.
Still, Owens’ insistence on this point has fueled speculation. Could the footage have been altered? Was the camera angle misleading? Was there a delay in the bleeding? These questions remain unanswered, and law enforcement has not publicly addressed Owens’ claims.
🧠 The Psychology of Doubt
Owens’ reaction reflects a broader trend in American discourse: the rise of skepticism toward official narratives. In an era of misinformation, deepfakes, and media distrust, many people are more willing than ever to question what they’re told. Owens taps into that sentiment, positioning herself as a voice of dissent.
Her approach is reminiscent of other high-profile figures who have challenged mainstream accounts—from political events to public health crises. Whether one agrees with her or not, Owens’ commentary forces viewers to confront uncomfortable questions about truth, evidence, and authority.
🕊️ Remembering Charlie Kirk
Amid the controversy, it’s important not to lose sight of the tragedy itself. Charlie Kirk was a prominent figure in conservative politics, known for his fiery speeches, youth outreach, and unapologetic views. His death has left a void in the movement and sparked mourning across the country.
Owens has described Kirk as her “best friend,” and her emotional investment in the case is evident. Her quest for answers may be driven not just by political motives but by personal grief.
🔮 What Comes Next?
As the investigation continues, more details may emerge to clarify—or complicate—the narrative. Owens has promised to release additional footage and commentary in the coming weeks. Meanwhile, the FBI and local authorities have remained tight-lipped, focusing on building a case against Robinson.
Whether Owens’ claims lead to new revelations or fade into the background remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: her voice will continue to shape the conversation, for better or worse.
