"I woke up to gunshots"...then... "I also saw the guy shoot 4-5 rounds"
EYE WITNESS SAYS FIRST SHOT CAME FROM FEMALE/KELSEYIf someone shoots a gun around you, you will more than likely have GSR on you. Thats not an indictment in itself.
But I agree. It doesn't exonerate her. But at the same time, common sense and logic has all the cards against Tory. Thats all im saying.
Especially when your clearing people of bejng suspects, knowing you got a court dage coming, and knowing your the main culprit. Make it make sense?
I can't believe people the jury and the male feminazis think Meg and Kelsey are telling the truth. Even a retard can hear their contradictions.
It was either of them, but the fact they had 47 other pieces of evidence to the defense’s 4 including the victim pointing out who shot her, the defense’s 3rd party eyewitness lowkey saying at best he shot rounds too, the charges being about him shooting, etc.5 rounds
kelsey shot one or more
which one hit meg?
If someone shoots a gun around you, you will more than likely have GSR on you. Thats not an indictment in itself.tory hoping it would die down is not absolving kelsey of having GSR and a witness pinning a flash on her
Ok. So Kelsey can be on trial too. But like I said there is way more evidence of Tory commiting the crime than anyone elseEYE WITNESS SAYS FIRST SHOT CAME FROM FEMALE/KELSEY
Eye witness firmly says Kelsey shot that gun VISUALLYIf someone shoots a gun around you, you will more than likely have GSR on you. Thats not an indictment in itself.
But I agree. It doesn't exonerate her. But at the same time, common sense and logic has all the cards against Tory. Thats all im saying.
Especially when your clearing people of bejng suspects, knowing you got a court dage coming, and knowing your the main culprit. Make it make sense
Ok. So Kelsey can be trial too. But like I said there is way more evidence of Tory commiting the crime than anyone else
Take a look at the 47 pieces of evidence. It could be like the "mounds" of evidence Amber had against Johnny which turned out to be straight up bullshyt.If someone shoots a gun around you, you will more than likely have GSR on you. Thats not an indictment in itself.
But I agree. It doesn't exonerate her. But at the same time, common sense and logic has all the cards against Tory. Thats all im saying.
Especially when your clearing people of bejng suspects, knowing you got a court dage coming, and knowing your the main culprit. Make it make sense
Ok. So Kelsey can be on trial too. But like I said there is way more evidence of Tory commiting the crime than anyone else
Meg doesn't know who shot herIt was either of them, but the fact they had 47 other pieces of evidence to the defense’s 4 including the victim pointing out who shot her, the defense’s 3rd party eyewitness lowkey saying at best he shot rounds too, the charges being about him shooting, etc.
As the defense at best you can say the testimonies don’t quite match. At best. That’s actually not quite good because people forget details all the time and people understand that.
At the end of the day, it was much closer to indicating he shot her than she shot her.
Dude really should have taken the deal for 1 year. There was too much evidence to think you can win that, especially when you compare the punishment.
Bottom line, dude could be a free man right now if he took that plea. People like Ak and Twitter gassed him up to fight/attack her character. Straight stupidity.
Problem is Tory also said she didn’t shoot her.Meg doesn't know who shot her
She looked back and saw tory with the gun.
Eye witness/3rd Party has enough to put the gun also in Kelsey's hands AND we have GSR
You can't keep skipping that.
The last person with the weapon is not the person who may have shot Meg.
Thats irrelevant and we dont need statements. We have evidence.Problem is Tory also said she didn’t shoot her.
Like I said, you’d have to do the ultimate spin to flip it. They even tried to play the “her diss record lyrics” game…
It doesn't actually matter who shot Meg. You said it yourself, these are the charges:Meg doesn't know who shot her
She looked back and saw tory with the gun.
Eye witness/3rd Party has enough to put the gun also in Kelsey's hands AND we have GSR
You can't keep skipping that.
The last person with the weapon is not the person who may have shot Meg.
- assault with a semi-automatic firearm (personal use of a firearm)
- carrying a loaded, unregistered firearm in a vehicle
- discharging a firearm with gross negligence
We dont know who shot meg. This is a gun case. This isn't about Meg.Kelsey wasn't charged when she fired the first shot.Why?
“Whose hand did you see the flashes from first?” George Mgdesyan, Lanez’s lawyer, asked.Thats irrelevant and we dont need statements. We have evidence.
Tory never said that in court. He said that on IG before the charges came hoping no one would tell who did what.
Again, tory is not about to openly implicate his sneaky link BEFORE the charges dropped.
They basically like that person who takes you to the cleaners during a divorce and gets with a new somebody. Onto the next one for them.