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

[Umoja]

Putting Prosecution vs Tory to the side for the moment, is there a reason why interviews were not carried out immediately?

You would think that any scene covered with bullets and blood would warrant an immediate and thorough investigation. This would have put to rest a lot of issues now as by carrying out an immediate interview, you ensure the events are fresh in the witness' mind, that they have less time to doctor their story and that they have less time to collude with other witnesses.

Sort of reminds me of this



Where there is this unspoken understanding to look the other way. Makes me wonder what other fukkery celebrities get up.

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

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.

Right here shows your bias. it helps the defense because the burden is on the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. What have they proved?

They proved that the friend had a different story in Sept. But why would she lie under oath? Why would she state she didn't want to "incriminate" herself?

She feels she could be in trouble... for what exactly? if she's just a bystander or was actually thrown to the ground by Tory.. what would she be afraid of?

You want to believe they "paid" her.. but the defense attorney actually spent several minutes discussing that.. the defense attorney spent several minutes pointing to her as the shooter..

So u want to believe she accepted money and then allowed them to point to her as the shooter?

This all creates "doubt"...

 

[Jefferson Jackson]

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.



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.

that not guilty verdict looming around the corner breh.....

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

I guess It’s case closed then

You are just biased. Tell me what the prosecutors have proved. They proved she was shot. By who? She states it was Tory. if you accept that he was able to get from point A to point B to do the shooting which was a bit of a stretch but let's say we accept that.. Right now u have her word. Cool.

So now let's do witnesses. Friend changed her story. Why? She states to not "incriminate" herself and wants immunity. Why? For what purpose? We are to believe she was "paid off" but then u have the defense attorney painting her as the shooter. Why would someone agree to that? Another stretch..

DNA evidence? They got nothing..

So what have they actually proved so far?

 

[Organic Trees]

If he was so silenced and fukked over by roc nation why won't that short bytch talk on the stand? That rocks nation bbullshyt was just to take away from him actually bribing people.

Okay who’s alt is this?

 

[cauliflower]

What does that have to do with the comment you responded to of mine? Ngl every time i open this thread and see your comment i know it's gonna be some cope or some stupid shyt .

 

[cauliflower]

Okay who’s alt is this?

How original.

So why won't tory give his testimony and tell his truth after crying about "being silenced and black balled" for 2 years.

 

[Jefferson Jackson]

Okay who’s alt is this?

i'm almost certain that's Megan herself

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Right here shows your bias. it helps the defense because the burden is on the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. What have they proved?

I’m bias because i said the truth? That wasn’t even an opinion. If in your eyes facts are bias then it might be time to look in the mirror

The prosecution isn’t trying to prove Tory’s DNA on the gun beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s just a piece of evidence. The defense will always look to discredit evidence. That’s their job.

The defense is supposed to throw everything out there they can. Being how unreliable touch DNA can be. All the Jurors have to go by is that it’s “inconclusive”

They aren’t there to defend tory so there’s no reason for them to speculate much further than “inconclusive”

If the defend could have proved that he definitely didn’t touch the gun or didn’t have DNA on the gun it would help their case.

They proved that the friend had a different story in Sept. But why would she lie under oath? Why would she state she didn't want to "incriminate" herself?

Jury is gonna have to decide.

My opinion is just listen to what she said. She basically hates meg at this point. She doesn’t want to be there, and she doesn’t want to be involved in helping either one of the two former “friends” who shot each other and let her get blamed for it.

Simple answer always wins imo

She feels she could be in trouble... for what exactly? if she's just a bystander or was actually thrown to the ground by Tory.. what would she be afraid of?

Could be lots of things. She never explained it.

You want to believe they "paid" her.. but the defense attorney actually spent several minutes discussing that.. the defense attorney spent several minutes pointing to her as the shooter..

So u want to believe she accepted money and then allowed them to point to her as the shooter?

This all creates "doubt"...

I didn't say anyone paid her. Her behavior doesn’t really make sense with any logic i can apply to her. The real shooter wouldn’t come to court and discredit her accusations against the accused. So that don’t make sense. All i can come up with is that she’s mad and doesn’t want to help Meg in any way

Y’all too stuck on the word doubt.

A dude can be on camera shooting someone and the defense can say “but did we see that bullet hit the victim” and call an expert to say “yeah i would expect to see the bullet make contact”

Yeah they introduced “doubt” that’s what the defense is supposed to do. The jury would have to decide if that doubt made it to a threshold that would invalidate other evidence.

 

[cauliflower]

i'm almost certain that's Megan herself

Yup that's me

 

[Solo_87]

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.



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.

I'm alil fuzzy on the time line

So the gun wasnt tested for DNA until weeks after the incident ?

 

[Organic Trees]

How original.

So why won't tory give his testimony and tell his truth after crying about "being silenced and black balled" for 2 years.

Eventually you’ll slip up & when your troll ass get caught up it’ll be glorious

 

[MeachTheMonster]

I'm alil fuzzy on the time line

So the gun wasnt tested for DNA until weeks after the incident ?

Since Meg was adamant that she didn’t get shot at first. It was not investigated as an assault until later once she began accusing Tory. So at that point they had to go back a re-analyze the evidence they collected to apply it to an assault case.

 

[cauliflower]

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.

His lawyer also bumped the trial dates twice. That's another thing that gets lost in this.

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

All i can come up with is that she’s mad and doesn’t want to help Meg in any way

now listen to yourself.. she was supposed to be the "star witness".. She hates Meg so much that she is gonna allow Tory's defense to paint her as the shooter and not tell the jury under oath that the shooter was Tory?

Come on breh... Come on now.... That's why there's doubt. Nobody is creating the doubt narrative out of nowhere. Tory very well could have did the sh-t but so far we haven't seen much proof at least not to the extent that they have proved the case. A jury can do anything but if it's me.. so far.. i'd say lets all go home.