Were there discrepancies between the timeline Owens presented and verified phone/location data or surveillance footage?

1. What Owens said: timeline and surveillance allegations

Candace Owens has asserted there are irregularities around Charlie Kirk’s death and has publicly raised questions about timelines, phone/location evidence and surveillance activity. She alleged that Egyptian planes tracked Erika Kirk nearly 70 times over recent years and suggested foreign surveillance flights could be connected to the assassination narrative, while also airing doubts about the official investigative timeline and personnel continuity ^{[1] [2]}.

2. What the reporting actually provides: assertions, not independent verification

The articles cited report Owens’ claims and outline what she presented (for example, the repeated aircraft-tracking allegation and her presentation of purported archived messages), but they do not publish or adjudicate primary data such as phone records, cell-tower pings, geolocation metadata, or unredacted surveillance footage that could independently corroborate or contradict her timeline ^{[1] [2]}. In other words, media summaries document the allegation; they do not supply the underlying forensic evidence.

3. Pushback from commentators and how it frames credibility

Commentators and critics have characterized Owens’ line of questioning as conspiratorial and noted that she leans on “just asking questions” innuendo and alternative narratives rather than verified evidence; one outlet frames her investigation as piling together innuendo and minor discrepancies to suggest a broader plot, and explicitly criticizes her for dismissing straightforward accounts ^[3]. That criticism highlights a competing perspective: raising questions publicly is distinct from producing verifiable forensic proof.

4. Specific factual claims in play and what sources say about them

Two concrete claims appear across reporting: (a) Owens’ assertion that Egyptian aircraft tracked Erika Kirk nearly 70 times, and (b) her release or citation of private messages she says came from Charlie Kirk predicting danger. The Economic Times-style summary reports the aircraft-tracking allegation and the roughly “70 times” figure attributed to Owens ^[1]. IBTimes UK summarizes her disclosure of purported private texts and notes critics challenged screenshot authenticity while Owens defended them ^[2]. Neither piece independently validates those datasets; both present the claims as Owens’ allegations and note external skepticism ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Missing pieces and what would be needed to resolve timeline discrepancies

To evaluate whether Owens’ presented timeline conflicts with verified phone/location data or surveillance footage, journalists or investigators would need access to primary records: authenticated call-detail records, handset GPS logs, carrier cell-tower handoffs with timestamps, verified flight-tracking logs for the Egyptian aircraft cited, and original surveillance video with chain-of-custody documentation. Available reporting does not include those materials or an independent forensic analysis of them ^{[1] [2]}.

6. How to read competing narratives: motives and agendas

Owens frames her work as uncovering overlooked irregularities and expresses mistrust of institutional continuity in the investigation ^[2]. Critics argue she is amplifying conspiracy theories and selectively using anomalies to construct a broader plot ^[3]. Both positions carry possible agendas: Owens’ public profile and political alignment give her incentive to spotlight perceived injustice or wrongdoing; critics and columnists have incentives to defend institutional findings and to caution against misinformation. The articles explicitly show those competing frames without adjudicating factual claims ^{[1] [3] [2]}.

7. Bottom line — what can and cannot be concluded from current reporting

Current sources document Owens’ allegations and the controversy they sparked but do not provide or cite authenticated phone/location records or unedited surveillance footage that would confirm discrepancies between her timeline and verifiable data. Therefore, one can report that she has alleged discrepancies and presented purported supporting material, and that commentators dispute her approach — but available sources do not independently verify whether her timeline conflicts with primary forensic evidence ^{[1] [2] [3]}.