For the various detractors..
Would it make a difference to you if you realized that the son could see the mother through one of three windows into that building?
He wouldn't need to be texted to come inside, as he had a clear vantage point. It also can explain why she told him to go to the car. Chances are very good that his mother let him know where the gun was in case of emergencies too, given that they do live in Chicago. Really they could live in bumfukk suburbia and she could let him know where its at for emergencies.
For the few posters that believe she was not speaking to her son when she said go to the car..
The building is small, there are two doors in the front. Look at where the son is and if anyone is in front of him. Look at where the mother is looking as she says go to the car.
Would that not make more sense than this woman sending texts that have yet to be proven, to a minor for a kill order?
The incident happened the night of the 18th, they turned themselves in sometime during the 21st and the article in the OP was posted at 10:30am on the 22nd.
Are you under the impression that they got the phone records the day they turned themselves in? Clearly it wouldn't have been beforehand because up until at least 10pm on the 20th, tweets were still going out asking for info about the possible suspects.
Since you didn't directly answer any other question I posed, I will ask you directly. In what way did the prosecutor get empirical evidence of texts? Did they get the phone records in a lawful manner in under half a business day? Or did they have the phones in their possession to see it themselves and by what way did they acquire those phones? Or were they told by the suspects (which still wouldn't be empirical data)?
And if you do decide to respond this time and pick one, are you willing to help me understand why empirical data is alleged when the rest of the reporting of known facts are not?