The official ‘Tory Lanez vs Megan Thee Stallion’ trial thread.

[spliz]

An innocent woman is not pleading the fifth.

An innocent woman does not take an immunity deal.

An innocent woman doesn't have GSR and an independent eyewitness who said the muzzle flash came from her.

If Tory bribed Kelsey, why is Tory's lawyer still adamant on proving she is the shooter?

The prosecution was literally banking on Tory taking a plea but he wanted to take it all the way. That's another thing that gets lost in all of this.

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

You'd expect to see someone's DNA clearly on that weapon.

Again.. i'm on nobody's side here but the prosecution has not proved much.. def not beyond a reasonable doubt. all that DNA on there also suggests a struggle for the gun is plausible

 

[cauliflower]

Sloppy police work they should have tested her dna.

You're right, nearly everything about this case was sloppy. They didn't even put markers for megan's blood. I don't think taking kelsey's DNA would have changed anything, they still have no clear DNA or finger prints to pin towards anyone.

 

[Elim Garak]

You're right, nearly everything about this case was sloppy. They didn't even put markers for megan's blood. I don't think taking kelsey's DNA would have changed anything, they still have no clear DNA or finger prints to pin towards anyone.

Perhaps but if I'm a detective I would leave no stone unturned I wouldn't assume anything and would check everything within the law.

 

[DapMeUp!]

I've noticed breh, it's like they're scared to read something that ruins those fantasies in their head. Haven't seen one level headed tory fan YET.

If you make claims about one's inconsistencies, you should be able to back that up.

The irony

People have pointed out inconsistencies in here and the same question seems to be asked...you can go back in the thread and read it breh, it's literally why I have the troll you responded to blocked because he was given a list of inconsistencies and changed parts of the story, ignored it and continued to ask the same question

People are tired of repeating the same things if you want to know what people believe they are you can go back and read.

 

[spliz]

The irony

People have pointed out inconsistencies in here and the same question seems to be asked...you can go back in the thread and read it breh, it's literally why I have the troll you responded to blocked because he was given a list of inconsistencies and changed parts of the story, ignored it and continued to ask the same question

People are tired of repeating the same things if you want to know what people believe they are you can go back and read.

Exactly. lol.

 

[CrimsonTider]

has @CrimsonTider @Danny Ocean @MeachTheMonster @iamduval etc. commented on Tory having no dna on the mag and 4 sets of dna on the gun.. none being conclusive to Tory and the expert stating that if Tory pulled down on a trigger 5 times you'd expect to see his dna?

I guess It’s case closed then

 

[Keep_It_Hip_Hop_Fam]

Do you remember what she plead the fifth for. She answered the question while also pleading the fifth.


A woman who want to say everything she said in a 80 minute recorded interview was false, does.
A woman who was bribed and wants to create "reasonable doubt" does.



For the 4th time, that witness also said he saw the muzzle flash but had no clue where it came from. He said he saw two men beating one woman and a 3rd person joined, then he said he saw 2 women beating one another . Go ahead and read the transcripts thoroughly your fukking self

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/61c7688f0576a36a6106137b/t/626575019838821c9585e4c1/1650816258084/12-14-21-PETR-PLIM+%281%29..pdf





That's the point of court , got to get wins where you can even if it contradicts multiple other things.

From the transcript, he cannot say definitively who fired the gun, all that he can say is that he observed that a muzzle flash came from closer to the woman. Therefore he is not saying definitively he saw Kelsey or Tory had the gun in her/his hand, he is saying he only observed the muzzle flash closer to the female victim. An inference would have to be made from that.


Now two men are fighting a woman. What would give a woman an advantage that would require two men to fight her? Could it be that two men were needed to disarm a female with a deadly weapon?

 

[cauliflower]

Again.. i'm on nobody's side here but the prosecution has not proved much.. def not beyond a reasonable doubt. all that DNA on there also suggests a struggle for the gun is plausible

You never know. I think the recorded interview (although it's not evidence) helped the prosecution yesterday and makes it clear something happened between September and now, I also remember someone saying the juror's were taking notes during that audio. If you're suggesting the DNA on the gun (which can't be pinned to anyone) was a struggle, then i'd assume more than just the ground would be shot at. All i know is Kelsey definitely annoyed the fukk out of the judge saying she can't remember shyt lol.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

has @CrimsonTider @Danny Ocean @MeachTheMonster @iamduval etc. commented on Tory having no dna on the mag and 4 sets of dna on the gun.. none being conclusive to Tory and the expert stating that if Tory pulled down on a trigger 5 times you'd expect to see his dna?

Most shootings get convicted with no DNA evidence.

It’s one experts opinion that his DNA “should” be on the gun.

But in court “should” gets you nowhere.

There are lots of explanations as for why Tory’s DNA test would come up inconclusive. Unless the defense can pinpoint one of them and prove it. Then the DNA results are a wash. Doesn’t really help or hurt either side.

 

[cauliflower]

From the transcript, he cannot say definitively who fired the gun, all that he can say is that he observed that a muzzle flash came from closer to the woman. Therefore he is not saying definitively he saw Kelsey or Tory had the gun in her/his hand, he is saying he only observed the muzzle flash closer to the female victim. An inference would have to be made from that.


Now two men are fighting a woman. What would give a woman an advantage that would require two men to fight her? Could it be that two men were needed to disarm a female with a deadly weapon?

Read the transcripts. Don't ask me. This man said so many different things contradicting his statement.

 

[Black]

damn did Tory Lanez get his dikk to be bigger, because shorties(da big titty twin in houston) use to say his shyt was like 5inches and he a skinny dude so that is beyond laughable...

so how does he have three bad joints in one night going crazy for him and two of them are best friends fighting over this dude small Johnson , if he got some penile increase like he did for his hair, he need to share that info??

This post is outrageous.

 

[Jefferson Jackson]

You're right, nearly everything about this case was sloppy. They didn't even put markers for megan's blood. I don't think taking kelsey's DNA would have changed anything, they still have no clear DNA or finger prints to pin towards anyone.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

As always you just gotta read.

https://www.court-martial-ucmj.com/dna-is-touch-or-transfer-dna-reliable-evidence-of-guilt/#:~:text=The%20accused’s%20DNA%20could%20have%20gotten%20on%20her,challenge%20the%20admissibility%20and%20reliability%20of%20such%20evidence.

touch DNA does not necessarily indicate a person’s direct contact with the object. Rather, according to [experts], abandoned skin cells, which make up touch DNA, can be left behind through primary transfer, secondary transfer, or aerosolization.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dawson, 340 Conn. 136, 153, 263 A.3d 779 (2021). Even when a person touches an object, “DNA is not always detectable, meaning that it is possible to have someone touch an object but not leave behind detectable DNA because … some people leave more of their skin cells behind than others, i.e., some people are better ‘shedders’ of their DNA than others. There are also other factors that affect the amount of DNA left on an object, such as the length of contact, the roughness or smoothness of the surface, the type of contact, the existence or nonexistence of fluids, such as sweat, and degradation on the object.” Id., 154.

A person doesn’t even have to touch a weapon to leave trace DNA. And just because a person does touch something it doesn’t automatically mean their DNA will be traceable.

The DNA on that weapon didn’t even have to come from immediately before the shooting. Who knows who handled that gun in the days-weeks leading up to testing.

 

[cauliflower]

The irony

People have pointed out inconsistencies in here and the same question seems to be asked...you can go back in the thread and read it breh, it's literally why I have the troll you responded to blocked because he was given a list of inconsistencies and changed parts of the story, ignored it and continued to ask the same question

People are tired of repeating the same things if you want to know what people believe they are you can go back and read.

I can read any and everything that is truthful and multiple sources back it up.




I didn't see where anyone mentioned the inconsistencies in megan's story, where was that said at? I was mostly pressing @splitz for that info bc that's exactly what he claimed to be true, why can't he just simply point it out?