its funny how people say stuff like 'i aint here to say whats true or not', 'i dont have a dog in this fight/race', 'i dont care either way'...then go on to spit a bunch of subjective/speculative framing based on an already existing bias.


>1) Why would Meg's friend have GSR on her hands? Who was she
>shooting at? Tory? Doesn't make sense. What DOES make
>sense...Tory slid her the burner to pop Meg, then got it back
>from her afterward. And because it was Tory's gun...easy to
>point the finger at him.

gsr can get on multiple people (including someone who didnt pull the trigger) in close quarters in a variety of ways.

the prosecution already touched upon the scenario that they believe accounts for this. im not gonna spend any time going to flag down the information and post it here for you.

im gonna put the onus on you to go do some brief/light research on the subject youve chosen to discuss and formulate an opinion on. i suggest you go do that before commenting.

and its unnecessary for me to respond to anything else you posted since its mostly just wishcasting your arbitrary/subjective impression of how/why things played out or will play out. a lot of coulda/woulda going on in there.

i mean...youre making claims/arguments to defend tory that the defense hasnt even made lol.

kinda peculiar for someone who 'aint here to say whats true or not'...dont you think?

how about we just sit back and slow down a bit and stick to the hard *facts* as they come out during trial?

deal?