Then that wasn't a fake report. It was just presented a false way.That was just the initial report from when meg said her wound was from glass and the doctor examined it as so.

She later said she was shot and had another doctor examined more thoroughly and had it confirmed it was from bullet fragments

The trial isn't done. Verdict is next week.

Go to page 271 for the latest update.

No matter what the jury decides, no one will really know for sure what happened that night.

Read what you’re quoting

The object here is to get to beyond a reasonable doubt

How is Tory’s DNA inconclusive and a female’s DNA present if he, and he alone shot 5x? That plus her literally saying she’s a liar is all the reasonable doubt you need

You can have your opinion on what happened, I know I do

But the defense ran way more dna test on the gun than the prosecution and came to a pretty clear conclusion

The prosecution literally and factually put a person on the stand who told them that they lied to them, proving how unreliable she is

I dug a little deeper and there was actually 4 possible contributors which is at least 1 male and possibly females. Also his DNA wasn’t found on the magazine. But the DNA on the firearm is inconclusive. So this isn’t really saying much more then what the prosecutor’s DNA expert said

Let me explain

If the idea is beyond a reasonable doubt,

Then inconclusive = not there in this context because literally inconclusive means you can’t prove that his DNA was on the gun

And if it’s possible that a woman was a contributor then again, you have reasonable doubt

If someone is the sole shooter of 5 shots, then as the Defense’s witness stated, it more than likely would not be inconclusive

Yes sure I agree that is weird but I was just correcting the information u said about only a female’s DNA being found on the gun. In the same instance, wouldn’t Kelsey’s DNA be conclusive if she was the shooter? It’s weird that the DNA isn’t conclusive in general. Maybe the gun was wiped down before the police came? Or maybe it wasn’t really 5 shots?

I think our scope of what happened that night is too limited to truly entertain them all wiping the gun down tbh

4 contributors is crazy though when Meg said tory was the lone shooter

Four possible contributors which all could have been the same person. So it’s not really saying much. It’s just inconclusive. What we do know for a fact is Tory’s DNA isn’t on the magazine. It’s crazy how they’re spreading that Tory’s DNA is 100% not on the firearm and it’s only a female’s DNA on the gun all over Twitter though which is just cap.

What isn’t cap though, is that the defense ran significantly more test, and still couldn’t definitively conclude Tory’s DNA present

How is this even possible if he’s the lone shooter shooting 5x?

I’m not asking as a pro tory guy and I have limited knowledge of gun and dna forensics but genuinely idk how that’s possible

The silver lining would have been if only female dna was found on the gun but that’s not true. We know that Megan was shot but the DNA on the gun is inconclusive. Does this account for the possibility of the shooter wiping the gun down before the police arrived ?

Well, Kelsey wasn’t tested for DNA and we’ll find out why hopefully next week

She and tory tested positive for GSR, and Tory’s DNA came back inconclusive. It only makes sense that Kelsey’s DNA is needed to omit her as being the potential shooter as again, the prosecution’s claim is that tory and tory alone did this

As for it potentially being wiped down? Maybe, s*** it probably was but who knows

Ppl getting too caught up in the weeds here

1) Tory’s dna test came back inconclusive and he plus Kelsey’s GSR test came back positive. Based on this, you can’t rule out Kelsey’s potential involvement in the shooting, whatever that involvement may have looked like

2) Kelsey’s September interview is polarizing, but shouldn’t amount to much. She already told everyone she lied in the interview, lied in the text msgs, and didn’t see tory shoot the gun. If you don’t believe her testimony this week, then you can’t believe what she said in the interview, as you’re overtly saying she’s unreliable. I think it matters that when pressured under oath, with the threat of perjury looming, that she said she lied in that September interview. It is a fact that there was no police presence during that interview, which can dramatically alter the way one responds to questioning

It all ultimately amounts to being far, far away from beyond a reasonable doubt unless you’ve already made up your mind, which the jury could have and the judge may have.

Tory's verdict gonna be Aladeen

You are HIV Aladeen

Her saying that she lied in that interview years later doesn’t really mean much. She’s an unreliable witness and honestly her earliest recalling of the incident is more credible imo

The GSR is easily explained by her just being near the gun, correct? We already know that unless they’ve said how much GSR is actually on the both of them

Shootin a nigga for f***ing yo nigga is some jason’s lyric movie type s***, this why you dont keep guns around Niggas on alcohol

Watching you niggas try and work your way through law is literally hilarious lmao

tory dna not found on the gun but a womans was so its more likely tory was near the gun when it was fired rather than being the one that fired it

Nigga said he dug a little deeper

I mean this trial entertaining ain't it

How is she gonna walk now