Did Candace Owens or her lawyers file public statements about police interactions in 2025?

1. Owens’ own public push for footage and questions about police evidence

Candace Owens used X and podcast appearances in 2025 to urge locals to check surveillance from early September and to flag what she described as “missing” footage of the suspect, Tyler Robinson, turning himself in — language picked up by outlets including the Times of India, Hindustan Times and Reuters summaries cited by those outlets ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Reporters record Owens asking for camera footage from September 4–13 and publicly asserting that the purported footage “does not exist anymore or…maybe it never existed in the first place” ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. Claims about police actions and security that Owens publicised, not legal filings

Reporting shows Owens publicly accused Turning Point USA and others of misrepresenting events, and questioned security and police walkthroughs around the rooftop where Kirk was shot; those are rhetorical and social‑media/podcast accusations reported in the press, not described as formal legal notices from counsel ^{[4] [7]}. The Times of India and other outlets documented Owens’ list of alleged “TPUSA verifiable lies” and her claims about police and security actions ^{[4] [7]}.

3. No sourced reporting of lawyers filing police‑interaction statements on Owens’ behalf

Available sources detail Owens’ posts, podcast statements and media interviews and report at least one defamation suit initiated against her by the Macrons, but they do not report that Owens’ lawyers filed public statements specifically about police interactions in 2025 ^{[5] [6]}. If such attorney‑filed statements exist, they are not mentioned in the materials provided; therefore this article cannot confirm them from current reporting (not found in current reporting).

4. The legal and media context: defamation suit and intense public narrative

By mid‑ to late‑2025 Owens had become the subject of a Delaware defamation suit by Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron, who allege a “relentless” campaign of false claims; that lawsuit is in the public record and framed much coverage of Owens’ subsequent claims ^{[5] [6]}. Media outlets covering Owens’ assertions also emphasize that she has provided little or no independent evidence for more explosive claims, and reporting notes government denials on some points (for example, French ministry comments about alleged training activity) ^[6].

5. Competing perspectives reflected in the coverage

Coverage shows two clear narratives: Owens and her allies treat missing video, alleged inconsistencies and unanswered questions as proof of a broader cover‑up ^{[1] [2] [4]}. Mainstream outlets and officials, and the plaintiffs who sued her, treat her claims as unproven and legally actionable — noting lack of evidence and pursuing defamation remedies ^{[5] [6]}. Reporting to date records Owens’ public activism and the Macrons’ legal response; it does not record an appearance in court filings by Owens’ lawyers specifically addressing police evidence and interactions in a way that’s been reported here (not found in current reporting).

6. What readers should watch next

Look for two kinds of documents to settle this question: 1) court filings or press releases from Owens’ counsel that explicitly reference police interactions or investigative footage, and 2) published police or sheriff’s office statements or body‑cam/release notices addressing the “missing footage” claims. Current reporting lists Owens’ public posts and the Macrons’ suit, but does not cite lawyer‑filed public statements from Owens about police interactions in 2025 ^{[5] [1] [2] [6]}.

Limitations: this analysis uses only the provided reporting; it does not incorporate court dockets, police press releases or social‑media posts beyond those cited in these sources, so it cannot definitively say such lawyer filings do not exist — only that they are not mentioned in the available material (not found in current reporting).