Tyler Robinson expresses regret and wishes he hadn't done it

Guardian and BBC lead on the regret testimony, and NBC’s short video blurb does the same; OAN and Fox also carry the quote. But Daily Caller’s two identically titled items, “Camera Operator Accidentally Reveals Alleged Handwritten Admission of Guilt From Tyler Robinson,” do not mention Robinson “wishes he hadn’t done it” at all. They focus instead on the accidentally shown handwritten note, quoting: “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I took it.” That is a clear emphasis split inside the right-leaning set, not just across sides. The strongest word-choice gap is how Kirk and Robinson are labeled. Guardian calls Kirk a “far-right pundit” and later a “far-right activist.” BBC calls him a “conservative activist.” OAN also says “conservative activist,” while Fox opens with “Charlie Kirk’s accused assassin” and “suspected killer” for Robinson, and later says “a sniper’s bullet killed Kirk.” For the same proceeding, Guardian/BBC mostly use “killing,” “fatal shooting,” and “murder suspect,” while OAN and Fox repeatedly use “assassination.” Some facts travel unevenly. BBC reports the alleged motive text: Robinson said he had “had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.” None of Guardian, NBC, OAN, Daily Caller, or Fox includes that line. On the other side, Fox alone gives extensive courtroom reaction details: Robinson “appeared to watch it closely,” “appeared uncomfortable,” Erika Kirk “could be heard crying,” and Kirk family members “scoffed.” Those observations are absent from Guardian, BBC, NBC, OAN, and Daily Caller. Guardian gives the most detail on Erika Kirk’s transparency request, including the three-page filing, the claim that the family was “denied” the ability to “meaningfully observe,” and the warning that conspiracy theories would “continue to proliferate.” BBC mentions the dispute more briefly. OAN and Fox mention redactions, and Daily Caller mentions evidence kept from the public, but none carries Guardian’s quoted filing language. The unanswered question across all of them: what specific legal exposure required Twiggs to receive immunity, given that multiple outlets say Twiggs was not accused of involvement or wrongdoing?