Former Navy SEAL Rob O’Neill said he remains deeply skeptical of the official account of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, telling Newsmax host Ed Henry that he does not believe Kirk was shot in the way prosecutors and investigators have described.
Appearing on Newsmax’s “Ed Henry The Big Take,” O’Neill did not present new physical evidence or accuse a specific person of staging the killing. Instead, he based his doubts on his experience in shootings and his interpretation of video showing the fatal attack.
“I just don’t think he got shot,” O’Neill told Henry. “I don’t think Charlie Kirk got shot the way they’re saying.”
The statement came after Henry confronted him with evidence discussed during preliminary court hearings, including bullet fragments, a recovered rifle, and DNA allegedly connecting accused shooter Tyler Robinson to the weapon.
O’Neill acknowledged that Robinson could still have been involved, but said the footage continued to look wrong to him.
O’Neill Said the Video Looked “Off”
Henry began the discussion by replaying comments O’Neill had made several months earlier, when the former SEAL first questioned the circumstances surrounding Kirk’s death.
In that earlier appearance, O’Neill said he had participated in many shootings and killed people at close range, yet had never seen clothing move the way Kirk’s shirt appeared to move in the footage.
“That looks like an explosion to me,” he said in the clip.
O’Neill also questioned the response immediately after Kirk was struck, claiming people near him appeared more concerned with removing SIM cards from cameras than providing first aid.
Those claims were presented as O’Neill’s personal interpretation of the video, not as confirmed findings from investigators.
Henry noted that the remarks had spread widely online and attracted attention from people who already doubted the official version of events.
Video evidence can be powerful, but it can also be misleading when viewers lack the original recording, camera specifications, frame rate, medical evidence, and full sequence of events. Experience with firearms may inform an opinion, but it does not replace forensic analysis.
Jack Posobiec Pointed to Evidence Presented in Court
Before speaking with O’Neill, Henry had interviewed conservative commentator Jack Posobiec, whom he described as a friend of Kirk.
Posobiec challenged O’Neill to provide evidence supporting his suspicions.
According to the clip Henry played, Posobiec said an autopsy showed Kirk was struck by a .30-caliber bullet and that bullet fragments had been recovered.
He also said investigators recovered a .30-06 rifle and found DNA matching Robinson.
“I’d just love to ask Rob if he has any evidence to back anything of that up,” Posobiec said.
Henry gave O’Neill an opportunity to respond, noting that several months had passed since his first comments and that more evidence had now been discussed in court.
The host asked whether those developments had eased O’Neill’s concerns or made him more suspicious.
O’Neill’s answer separated two questions. He said Robinson might be the suspect, but he still doubted that the visible injury occurred in the manner authorities had described.
“It could be Tyler Robinson,” O’Neill said. “I just don’t think he got shot.”
That distinction allowed him to avoid making a direct claim about who killed Kirk while continuing to challenge the central conclusion that a sniper’s bullet caused the injury seen on camera.
Former SEAL Leaned on His Combat Experience
O’Neill repeatedly pointed to his background as the reason he trusted his own reaction to the footage.
He described himself as a sniper who had seen people shot and said the angle and movement around Kirk’s neck appeared unusual.
“It looked off,” he told Henry. “It seems like a cover-up.”
However, O’Neill also admitted that he had not conducted the kind of detailed research Posobiec had done.
“I don’t do the research on this either, but Jack has,” he said, before arguing that Posobiec lacked comparable experience with lethal shootings.
O’Neill said he was unwilling to let people without that experience tell him his observations were wrong.
“I saw that happen,” he said. “That looked off.”
His combat background gives weight to his personal reaction, but it does not automatically settle the medical or ballistic question. A complete conclusion would require autopsy findings, bullet-path analysis, weapon testing, video examination, witness testimony, and other evidence that cannot be replaced by watching a public clip.
That does not mean O’Neill should be prevented from raising questions. It does mean his certainty should be weighed against the fact that he openly said he had not studied the entire evidentiary record.
O’Neill Said He Knew Kirk Personally
The former SEAL said reviewing the footage was emotionally difficult because he had known Kirk.
“I don’t like rewatching it,” O’Neill said. “I knew Charlie Kirk. This isn’t fun for me.”
He insisted that he was not trying to prove a detailed alternative theory or identify another suspect.
His position was narrower: something appeared to happen around Kirk’s neck, but he did not believe the visible event matched the official shooting account.
“That’s all I said,” O’Neill told Henry.
The personal connection may explain why he reacted strongly, but it may also complicate his ability to assess the footage at a distance. Trauma, grief, and familiarity with the victim can sharpen suspicion while making detached analysis harder.
O’Neill nevertheless framed his comments as an effort to protect open discussion rather than promote a complete conspiracy theory.
He said people who asked questions were often shouted down or accused of blaming someone else.
Henry Asked What Could Change His Mind
With Robinson’s trial expected in September, Henry asked O’Neill what evidence he would need to see before accepting the prosecution’s account.
O’Neill did not request a specific medical report, video enhancement, ballistics test, or expert witness.
Instead, he asked for “an honest dialogue.”
He said people with relevant experience should be allowed to ask questions without immediately being attacked or accused of promoting another explanation.
Henry responded by saying Newsmax would continue to give O’Neill room to speak and praised his military service.
The exchange ended without resolving the disagreement between O’Neill’s reading of the footage and the physical evidence Posobiec said had emerged in court.
That unresolved gap is the most important part of the segment. O’Neill offered suspicion based on experience and visual interpretation, while Posobiec pointed toward forensic evidence that, if accurately presented and accepted by the court, supports the prosecution’s account.
The Claim Remains Unproven
O’Neill’s comments are likely to fuel more speculation around a politically charged murder that has already generated intense public attention.
His statement that he does not believe Kirk was shot should be understood as an unproven opinion, not a finding supported by new evidence revealed during the Newsmax interview.
He did not dispute every part of the case against Robinson. In fact, he said Robinson could still be the person responsible.
What he questioned was the mechanism of Kirk’s death and whether the public video showed the event prosecutors say occurred.
That leaves major unanswered questions. If Kirk was not shot, O’Neill did not explain what caused the fatal neck injury, how the recovered bullet fragments fit into the case, or why a rifle and matching DNA were allegedly linked to Robinson.
Those gaps do not make questions forbidden, but they make the alternative claim incomplete.
The court process will offer a more reliable setting for testing the evidence than television commentary or slowed-down social media footage. Prosecutors will be expected to explain the weapon, bullet path, forensic findings, and Robinson’s alleged connection to the attack, while the defense will have an opportunity to challenge those claims.
For now, O’Neill remains unconvinced.
He told Henry he believed what he saw looked strange and that his experience prevented him from simply accepting another person’s explanation.
Whether that instinct points to a genuine problem in the case or a mistaken reading of traumatic footage will depend on evidence presented under examination, not confidence alone.
Raised in a small Arizona town, Kevin grew up surrounded by rugged desert landscapes and a family of hunters. His background in competitive shooting and firearms training has made him an authority on self-defense and gun safety. A certified firearms instructor, Kevin teaches others how to properly handle and maintain their weapons, whether for hunting, home defense, or survival situations. His writing focuses on responsible gun ownership, marksmanship, and the role of firearms in personal preparedness.
