But they did.... they didn't say she was the shooter but it came out that she was heavily involved, gun residue, pegged as the shooter by an eyewitness, though I would throw out the whole testimony because the person was all over the place... etc...
So if you throw the eye witness out.
You have a victim I’Ding the shooter.
You have the gun and the accused shooter on the scene at the time of the shooting.
That’s an open and shut case.
That's where reasonable doubt comes into play and Kelsey told two different versions of what happened. And AGAIN... something you have avoided like the plague, the driver did not testify.
The women were clearly fighting. We are supposed to believe that tory hopped out of the car and just started shooting everywhere for "no reason" ... What was the motive here?
It’s not up to the jury to pull outside theories out of their ass.
Kelsey was not on trial. No one accused her of shooting meg.
This is you reaching for shyt. They ruled on the case as presented.
“reasonable doubt” isn’t throwing everything at the wall to hope something sticks.
If Kelsey and tory were both shooting the gun how would anyone be able to tell which bullet hit Meg... and it was fragments, a bullet didn't travel through her foot dummy
