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

MicIsGod

They like what that mean
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
20,325
Reputation
1,073
Daps
40,243
Reppin
Atl
The stylist identified the lv bags that Meg said she didn’t remember if they were hers or not. And said he put them in the trunk, but they were found in the
backseat.
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2016
Messages
18,912
Reputation
2,987
Daps
44,463
You do some googles and think you know something. Its not that simple. Kelsey is not on trial. Tory is. And her statements are a key part in this case cause there is a lack of physical evidence and witnesses that definitively implicates Tory. The Jury has no choice but to weigh heavy on kelseys statement as part of their decision.

Grounds for appeal doesn't mean they will automatically win the appeal. Improperly admitted evidence is the top reason for appeals. The judge made a call to include the whole interview even the recanted parts. I believe that evidence was improperly admitted. They could have ommitted the parts Kelsey recanted and said she lied on and played the rest.. They didnt. they played the whole tape in full knowing jury was going to hear slander and scenarios that didnt happen. She was on the stand. She signed an immunity deal to testify so they knew her story was changing. They could have asked her to give answers on the spot for the parts she recanted. There was no reason introduce known lies to jury which would only serve to negatively impact the defendant when they didnt have to.

So in appeal they would definitely argue that including false statments in her testomy that paint the defendant as guilty and in a negatively light could have prevented him from having a fair trial.

so you can't do a "simple google" and find a legal basis for your belief like i did? lol ok
well one thing about this is, yall are free to your opinions :yeshrug:

but FYI i believe the reason why it was able to come in was because the DEFENSE examined kelsey about being "forced" or under pressure or whatever to give the statement. So once the defense opened the door to that reasoning, the state was able to play it and show that wasn't the case. it wasn't about a specific lie or statement, it was more so about whether she seemed under pressure at any time during the statement which it would make more sense to get the vibe and context of the whole thing, not any specific part.

you have to understand the reasons WHY evidence is admitted, otherwise your objection may not even make sense lol
 
Last edited:

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
307,466
Reputation
-34,327
Daps
618,036
Reppin
The Deep State
So the stylist confirmed there were no guns in the girls bags??? I don't care how they make megan's character seem with drinking and partying and shyt, she was walking away when shot and no matter how anyone may feel she doesn't deserve that. Tory's long history of violence could easily be implimented into this trial, the same way Megan's drinking as an adult has.
incorrect: the stylist confirms "I've seen things that look like guns" in the bag.

You're wrong. Again.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
631
Reputation
-36
Daps
980
The stylist identified the lv bags that Meg said she didn’t remember if they were hers or not. And said he put them in the trunk, but they were found in the
backseat.
The prosecutor did a good job at trying to spin that claim the defense made to imply there could have possibly been a gun in the luggage and bag. Ej himself said Megan walked out barefoot, so she literally didn't have her shoes (wasn't just a ploy to go back), so the prosecutor say's before megan asked the driver to go back so she could get her sandals, she was most likley digging in the trunk and looking through shyt for those louie v sandals she brought. Someone who was there said it was a really good point, to throw back at the defense trying their hardest to say there was a gun in their.
 

MicIsGod

They like what that mean
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
20,325
Reputation
1,073
Daps
40,243
Reppin
Atl
The prosecutor did a good job at trying to spin that claim the defense made to imply there could have possibly been a gun in the luggage and bag. Ej himself said Megan walked out barefoot, so she literally didn't have her shoes (wasn't just a ploy to go back), so the prosecutor say's before megan asked the driver to go back so she could get her sandals, she was most likley digging in the trunk and looking through shyt for those louie v sandals she brought. Someone who was there said it was a really good point, to throw back at the defense trying their hardest to say there was a gun in there.
She went back for Tory. She came back to the car with Tory. Gator was entertaining, if this is you nikka get right.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
631
Reputation
-36
Daps
980
She went back for Tory. She came back to the car with Tory. Gator was entertaining, if this is you nikka get right.
No she legit didn't have her shoes, EJ confirmed she walked out barefoot and got in the car barefoot. Not saying she didn't also want to grab tory before they left, but she actually didn't have shoes on. Stop deflecting.
 

MeachTheMonster

YourFriendlyHoodMonster
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
69,045
Reputation
3,719
Daps
108,834
Reppin
Tha Land
Yeah you’re suspect :mjpls: It’s a full time job for you.
All i do is check a couple different sources and try to make sense of things.

You guys are content with running with half a story from Itsyaboylawyerbae, and the potty mouth chick with the big t*ts.

Then you get mad when i post further context and info.

If MORE info is “doing to much” to you then you don’t really want the truth. You just want to prove yourself correct.
 
Top