All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 19, 2022 - MyronGainesX
02:27:45
Fed & Lawyer Explain Torey Lanez Trial! DAY BY DAY Trial Analysis w/ Time Stamps! Ft.@LegalMindset
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And we are live.
What's up, guys?
Welcome to Feda.
I'm here with Andrew from Legal Mindset, man.
We're going to be breaking down the Tory Lanes and Meg the Stallion trial.
Guys, it's going to be the most definitive and comprehensive breakdown of this trial on the internet.
There's nobody else more qualified to talk about this crap.
Let's get into it, guys.
It's going to be a good one.
I was a special agent with homeless investigations, okay, guys.
HSI.
The cases that I did mostly were human smuggling and drug trafficking.
No one else has these documents, by the way.
Here's what Feda covers.
Dr. Lafreo confirmed lacerations due to stepping on glass.
Murder investigation.
And he's positioning.
On February 13, 2019.
Racketeering and Rico conspiracy.
Young Slime Life here and after referred to as YSL to the Federal 6-9.
And then this is Billy Seiko right here.
Now, when they first started, guys, 6ix9ine ran well.
I'm a Fed.
I'm watching this music video.
You know, I'm bothering my hella.
Hey, this shit lit.
But at the same time, I'm pausing.
Oh, wait, who this?
Right?
Who's that in the back?
Firearms and violence.
AKA Bush I see violated.
They're wanting to stay away from the dick.
This is the one that's going to fuck him up because this gun is not traceable.
Well, it happened at the gun range.
Here's your boy 42 Doug right here on the left.
Sex trafficking and sex crisis.
They can effectively link him paying an underage girl.
I'm going to local 501, right?
And the first bomb went off right here.
Second down back path.
The site second explosion.
Brothers, the Zokar Sarnev and Tamer Land Sarnev.
When the cartel ships drugs into the country.
This guy got arrested for espionage, okay?
Trading secrets with the Russians for monetary compensation.
The largest corrupt police bus in New Orleans history.
So he was in this bad boy.
Alright, we are live What's up, guys?
Welcome to Feda.
I'm here with Andrew from Legal Mindset.
So, guys, quick announcements real quick.
FreshofFit.locals.com.
Check us out over there, rumble.com slash FreshAffit.
But without further ado, guys, today is a big day.
We're going to go ahead and cover this case.
You guys have been requesting this quite a bit.
So I went ahead and brought in the heavy guns.
Andrew, Andrew, I know who you are, but the audience might not.
Can you introduce stuff to the people real quick, man?
Yeah.
How's it going, everybody?
I'm Andrew, LegalMindset.
LegalMindset.locals.com.
Get on that Locals and Rumble, Rumble train.
But I am a practicing Florida attorney, got over 10 years of experience.
I've been covering cases like this type of case on my channel for the past couple years.
And, you know, I loved diving into this and getting into the actual statutes.
A lot of jokers out there, they're not lawyers.
They don't know how to read the statutes.
They don't know how to go in there and look at police reports, look at cases.
But if you have an actual lawyer who's actually looking at these things, who's experienced with them, which is me, I love doing this and I do it on a regular basis on my channel, Legal Mindset.
So I'm happy to do that here with my good friend, Myron, who has been my friend for a long time.
And I'm always glad to come in and help him out with anything he ever needs.
Yeah, no, absolutely, man.
And I'm really happy to have you here, bro, because this is a big one.
And I've been getting an overwhelming amount of requests for this.
So real quick, guys, before we even get into this, I think it's very important that the person that's dispensing the information is qualified to give you the information.
So let me give you a little bit on my background because I know we probably got some new viewers here.
You'll probably be watching this on the replay, which, by the way, I'm going to break this trial down.
We're going to break this trial down day by day, witness testimony by witness testimony, and give you guys the whole breakdown on what the Fifth Amendment is, what, you know, immunity really is, how it works.
We're going to break down everything as far as how trials go.
Now, with that said, as you guys know, former special agent with Homeland Security Investigations.
I've been to several trials.
And as a matter of fact, I've also done a trial where I was the lead case agent.
What does that mean?
That means that I have prepared for trials where I was the one gathering the witnesses, getting the reports ready, getting witnesses prepped up for trial, which we're going to talk about that.
The prosecution here made some mistakes about now prepping their witnesses.
We'll get into that a little bit later.
But I have definitely done a trial before at a federal level.
And when it comes to the feds and trials, we don't fuck around.
There's a reason why the feds don't lose.
This is a state trial, guys, which is a little bit more of a circus.
I ain't going to lie to y'all.
And you guys are going to see some of the crazy things that's going on in this trial as we get into it.
But I've definitely been testified in federal trials and I've been to several state trials as well.
I've never had to testify at a state trial, thank God.
However, I have been to them for other cases that I was involved in that might have been narcotics, whatever, maybe like that.
So definitely very aware of how the judicial system works from the law enforcement perspective and also for preparing for trial.
Because when you prepare for trial, guys, as the lead investigator, it is your job to gather all the facts and make the prosecutor's job a lot easier because the prosecutor can't prosecute the case without the evidence that you have to go ahead and gather, which we're going to talk about some of the failures here by the police to gather the evidence.
And some of the W's as well.
They did have some W's as well.
But what about you, Andrew?
Can you give your background for the people real fast?
Yeah, no, like I said, I'm practicing attorney, 10 years of experience.
I've been in tons of cases.
I've seen stuff like this regularly as I go into court.
I've covered cases like this.
This is a very interesting case, too, because it's a firearms case.
And whenever you bring in firearms issues, and this is something I cover a lot on my channel, you obviously invoke the Second Amendment.
There's some of the charges here.
There's one of the charges in particular that I think might be pushing up against that, but it's a very fascinating case.
And like I said, this is in my bailiwick.
This is something I covered, something I know about statutes that I know.
I do not practice in California.
This is a California case.
But when you read one statute in one state, they very much usually mirror statutes in other states.
The only difference is California has a little bit extra because they like to regulate guns a lot more than my home state of Florida, you know, and our home state of Florida.
And I think an important thing as well is that you've litigated before, of course.
So and a lot of lawyers, guys, have not litigating basically means like arguing in court.
So Andrew understands completely, you know, the rules of procedure, how things work, et cetera.
So definitely, you guys are going to get some experts level stuff right now.
So anything else before we go?
So we spoke about our backgrounds, our qualifications.
Did you want to go over what?
Actually, you know what?
This is what I'll do.
I'll go ahead and introduce you guys to who Meg Thee Stallion is, Torrey Lanes, et cetera.
Because some of you guys might not be in the hip-hop scene.
Some of you guys might not be aware of who these individuals are, which is totally cool.
We're bringing you guys up to speed real fast.
So Meg the Stallion, here she is, guys.
Megan Javon Ruth Pete, born February 15, 1995, known professionally as Megan Thee Stallion, pronounced Megan Thee Stallion, is an American rapper and songwriter, originally from Houston, Texas.
She first garnered attention when videos of her freestyle became popular on social media platforms such as Instagram.
Megan Stallion signed to 300 Entertainment 2018, where she released the mixtape Fever 2019 and the extended play Sugar 2020, both of which reached the top 10 of the Billboard 200.
So, and you guys.
Most importantly, most importantly, she's got that WAP, right?
The number one, that number one song.
Well, everybody knows when I say Meg the Stallion, they immediately think WAP.
And right here, if you go here, she earned her first and second number one singles on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 with the remix of her song Savage, featuring Beyonce, and her feature on Cardi B's single WAP, the latter of which was her first number one in several other countries, as well as the Billboard Global 200 charge.
So as you guys can see here, distinguished artists hit the billboard, you know, top 200 and number one, which not many artists are able to acknowledge, right?
Or not, sorry, not able to reach.
Then you got Tori Lanes here.
Daystar Samuel Shua Peterson, born July 27th, 1992, known professionally as Tori Lanes, is a Canadian rapper, singer, songwriter, and record producer.
He received initial recognition from the mixtape Conflicts of My Soul, the 416 story released in August of 2013.
In 2015, Tori Lane signed to record producer Benny Blanco's Mad Love Records through Interscope.
Okay.
So he is the accused.
And then you got Kelsey Nicole, which she doesn't have a Wikipedia page, but here she is, guys.
This is Meg the Stallion's former best friend/slash assistant.
As you guys can see, she just had a child, which we're going to talk about that in the trial here in a little bit.
But yeah, her and Meg have known each other since college, very close, but this is her IG right here.
She is one of the main witnesses in the case.
And I do want to add that she is a prosecution's witness.
Okay.
So Meg is the victim, allegedly.
Tori is a perpetrator, allegedly.
Allegedly.
And Kelsey is a witness, allegedly, I guess.
And one of the important facts, guys, we're going to come back to this is that Tori Lane's Daystar Peterson, he is a Canadian citizen.
So we're going to get into how that matters because legally that is something that does matter.
And that's why you got to know the background of these people because some of these facts really matter a lot.
Something like that is very relevant in this case.
And it's a big reason why Tori guys can't take a plea.
I know some of you guys are like, oh, why doesn't Tori just take a plea?
It's not that serious.
He probably could get a plea down to like, you know, aggravated assault.
It ain't that big a deal.
He probably won't get that much time.
You want to talk about eight USC 1227, right?
And you know about that?
The reason why he can't take a plea, guys, and he has to fight this thing to the death is because he's a Canadian national.
Okay.
So that means if he's arrested and convicted of this crime, what's going to happen is Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations is going to lodge something called the detainer.
Okay.
And this detainer means as soon as he gets out of prison, they're going to go ahead and grab him up right as he's getting his bag, like, yeah, I'm free.
They're going to get his ass right then and there.
And a lot of times, the jails will hold the prisoner until immigration comes on their release day, right?
As a courtesy, and then they'll pick him up, arrest him.
Now he's in federal custody.
He's on a plane going back to Canada and he will be inadmissible and coming back to the United States.
It will be something called excluded immigration law.
So he can't afford to lose this trial, guys, because if he loses his trial, he'll be convicted of felony, he'll be deported.
And worst part, he's an entertainer and a musician.
We know the United States is one of the biggest markets when it comes to hip-hop.
If he can't tour and do music here in the United States, it's gonna hurt him significantly because most artists make most of their money from touring, guys.
All right.
So this is high-stakes stuff here.
And okay, so you can say something you want to call it.
Oh, yeah, no, I was going to say, I was going to say, yeah, deportable offense under eight USC 1227 is any crime which has a sentence of one year or more.
So that's a felony offense, right?
So essentially, anything that's a felony offense is going to get you.
That's an easy way to do it.
But even misdemeanors, like if they were to go past that, for you know, there's not a lot of misdemeanors to do for misdemeanours.
Two crimes of moral interpretude.
We'll get you to moral interpretation.
So, um, so I think he already has arrests for other stuff.
So let's say he gets arrested for and he takes even a misdemeanor in this case.
It could still mess him up where they're going to be like, you know what, bro, you're a nuisance.
You've been arrested before.
You're causing problems.
We're just going to remove you.
We're going to revoke your visa because he's probably here on an entertainer visa.
So we could just revoke his visa.
Like, I doubt he has a green card.
So green cards are a little bit harder to take, but even then, if he gets convicted of two crimes, they get rid of him.
And then if he's here on a visa, they can definitely yank that.
So people, people don't understand how hard it is.
Like, especially, you know, I'm over here in Seoul, South Korea.
That's something I didn't tell you guys here.
You know, I'm living in Asia.
You know, when you're living in another country and you don't got that passport, you don't got that citizenship, right?
You are on a thin line.
You are on a thin line.
The excuses that they have to deport your ass are wide.
You don't have rights like a normal citizen.
Your rights are far diminished as a person who's just visiting a country who's just there on a visa.
Yep.
So, yeah, and I don't know Tori's immigration status, but more than likely, he either has an entertainer visa or he has a green card.
He has an entertainer visa.
They could take that for any reason, pretty much.
And then a green card, they could take it even if he's convicted of two misdemeanors of moral interpretude, or if he's convicted of felony, definitely going to lose that green card.
So there's a lot writing here.
You know, he can't just plead guilty to anything, guys.
So for all you guys are saying, he should have just took the plea.
Can't, bro.
So I'll hit these chats real quick.
Christina, can you pull them up?
And then I'll go and then we'll go ahead and get into the first stuff.
Stopping by to show love.
Thank you so much.
Beats by ISO.
What else?
Anything else?
I saw that earlier one about how many states can regulate this, the regulate handguns.
Yeah, there you go.
How are the states able to bypass the Second Amendment regulate handguns?
They just do it.
Let me explain this very quickly.
One of the charges in this is, and this is one of the charges against Tori Lane's is possession of an unregistered firearm.
I got it right here.
I got it right here.
And this is under California Penal Code, Section Part 6, Title 4, Division 5, Chapter 3, Carrying a Loaded Firearm.
Right?
So this is the one here.
You are not on your side, Andrew Hitchcroft.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Let me just get this thing real big for you guys.
Yeah, I know.
I got that laser vision.
I got those laser eyes, but you know, let me get down here for you guys to section six.
All right.
So you have to be the registered person with the Department of Justice listed as the owner of the handgun, right?
Now, this, in my humble opinion, is unconstitutional.
This is violative of the Second Amendment.
How do states do that?
Well, states can do whatever they want until you challenge the law.
See, this is how this is the frustrating thing with states, particularly states like California.
Governor Gavin Newsom has said on the record that he knows things are unconstitutional when he passes it, but he knows it is a tactic to delay because someone has to challenge that law to get overthrown.
We just saw a huge case in New York, New York versus Bruin, where their registration requirement got overturned, got found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The problem is it goes back to the same New York legislators, the same New York courts to reformulate that.
They're going to do everything they can to stop you from legally carrying a firearm.
The people that are out there that want to carry firearms and are doing crimes that are carrying them illegally, they're carrying them regardless.
But they want to do everything they can to stop people from legally carrying firearms.
That's something I've been covering on my channel for a long time.
So, I'm not surprised about this, but I will say if Tori Lanes was just convicted on this charge and this charge alone, this could go to the Supreme Court.
So, wouldn't that be crazy?
Torrey Lanes versus the United versus California would be the case.
That would be fucking nuts.
But we'll talk about whether we think he's going to get convicted later in this.
Once we go through all the evidence, I guess that's a perfect this case is the BET version of Amber Heard versus Johnny Depp.
Okay, what else do we got?
Anything else, Christina?
These two guys analyze your case.
You know, you're in trouble.
Yeah, I brought the big guns in.
If I brought Andrew in, y'all know it's a big deal.
And we're going to go over this.
Don't worry.
The timestamps are going to be super fucking detailed.
So, from this point forward, guys, I'm not going to read chats unless they're 50 and up because I really want to get through this.
We got a lot to cover.
We're going to go day by day.
Is there anything else, Christina, before?
Okay, pull them up.
And then, guys, do me a favor: like the video, subscribe to the channel, then also subscribe to Legal Mindset.
He's tagged in a title.
Let's go ahead and get him to 100,000 subscribers, get him a plaque.
Almost there, baby.
Of course, my Osama Bin Laden, aka Myron's grandfather, goes, Glad to be back for your grandson.
Thank you so much, Bin Laden.
I appreciate it.
I thought you were good, Mo.
And the Bible BBL Giller Free goes, always wonder why the driver was not subpoenaed if he is the key witness and saw everything.
That's a good question.
We could give you guys theories on that as well.
Why I think he probably wasn't subpoenaed.
Anything else?
Cool.
No, let's just rock and roll.
All right.
So, with that said, guys, like I said, like the video, subscribe to the both channels.
And let's get into this.
So, anything that, oh, let's go over the charges, Andrew, real fast.
Yeah, sure, sure.
So, we got three charges.
I already brought up the one for possession of an unregistered firearm, right?
A loaded, unregistered firearm.
That's one.
Second is assault.
Well, it's under the assault statute.
Let me pull this up right here.
Yeah.
Yeah, this is under chapter 246.3, which is except as authorized by law.
This is 246.3A here.
Except as authorized by law, any person who willfully discharges a firearm in a grossly negligent manner, which could result in injury or death to a person, is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail, not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to a subsection H. So this is for discharging a firearm in a negligent, grossly negligent manner.
Now, let me be very clear.
I know when some people hear negligence, they just mean, oh, that was something that a reasonable person wouldn't do.
No, grossly negligent is a high standard, something that you knowingly do, and you know it could cause harm to others.
Something like firing into a crowd, something like you know, Russian roulette.
That's grossly negligent, right?
If you know there's bullets in the gun and you're passing that gun around, that's grossly negligent.
That's something you know is bad.
So it's a higher level than just, hey, you know, I was driving down the road and I, you know, wasn't, I looked at my phone and then I got in a car crash.
That's negligent.
That's not necessarily grossly negligent.
So this is a pretty, a pretty high standard, not something that is on the negligence standard.
That's one charge.
And the next charge we got against him is over here, which is 245A1.
Any person who commits an assault upon a person of another with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm.
Oh, this is for other than a firearm.
Sorry.
Probably one of the.
Here we go.
Two, two, it's two.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Any person who commits an assault upon a person upon the person of another with a firearm shall be punished by imprisonment in the state of two, three, four years or in a county jail, not less than six months and not exceeding one year.
So boom, there you go.
Now, and I want to say these statutes, this is very typical.
Myron, I know you've seen this a lot, where one statute will have, it'll have a punishment for not for non-firearms and for firearms, right?
So this is all under here.
Even below this, you see there's punishment for people with machine guns.
So you've got everything covered in one statute.
It's just subsections of that one statute.
Yeah.
And this is assault and battery.
So this is a type of assault and battery charge.
And then there was, was there one more?
Didn't they get him for them or something?
The third one was carrying of a loaded firearm in public, the unregistered firearms.
So unregistered firearm, discharging it in a grossly negligent manner.
I think they hit the day of the trial.
Didn't they?
Didn't they?
Or a day before the trial, they hit him with that discharging one randomly.
Yes, yes.
They hit him with the discharging one.
This is the one over here, the grossly negligent discharge.
They hit him with this very, very, very shortly, proximate to the trial, which means they're reaching.
That is actually a sign of desperation on the side of the prosecution.
If they thought they had it, they wouldn't be adding charges.
When they start adding charges, that means they think what they got isn't going to stick.
Yeah, and to do it right before the trial is strange.
Extremely strange.
But that's the state for you.
All right.
So, okay.
So now that you guys know, so let's go over the facts of the case overall, and then we're going to go ahead and get into each day of the trial.
This is basically what happened, guys.
They went ahead.
There was a party at Kylie Jenner's home.
Meg thee stallion and Kelsey were present.
Torrey Lanez came after the fact.
Pretty much everyone agrees that they were at this party.
It was going on.
There were some other celebs there, etc.
Then at some point in the evening, they left the party.
And when they left the party, there was arguments in the vehicle.
The vehicle had stopped.
Meg got out of the vehicle and she was shot by somebody.
Meg alleges that it was Tori.
Tori saying he didn't shoot or he's basically staying silent on the subject.
There's evidence all over the place that points to this and that, but no one really knows who shot Meg.
And Tori ended up getting charged because the weapon was found in the front seat when they got arrested.
He was also in the front seat.
So they went ahead and charged him because of constructive possession.
And as you guys know on FedIT, right, we were the first ones to show y'all that police report, which I'll go ahead and pull it up for you guys real quick.
And there's some really good facts in that police report.
And Myron went through and found the best facts here and circled them because these are the ones you need to laser in on.
Yeah.
So here's the police report, guys.
Here's the arrest report.
As you guys can see, day start.
I got to get police report first.
We're the first ones to break it.
Okay.
This police report.
It was a pain in the ass to get, but we're able to get it.
And so here's his booking documents and everything else like that.
So as you guys know, this happened on the 12th of July.
Okay.
And this is the charge carrying concealed weapon in the vehicle originally.
So they ended up arresting him.
Right.
And I'll go over the witnesses here a little bit later.
But the biggest thing is, let's see here.
Based off the location where the handgun was located and where Peterson was seated prior to being detained, officers formed the opinion that Peterson was in constructive possession of the handgun.
Okay.
And that's why they ended up arresting him because he was in the front seat at first when they pulled them over.
But let's be clear.
Constructive possession.
What does that mean?
That does not mean actual possession.
That does not mean he actually had it on him.
He did not actually have it on him.
They would have said he actually possessed the firearm.
It was just within his alleged reach, which is why they say he was in constructive possession of the firearm.
Yeah.
So, and as you guys can see here, I'm going to show you guys some footage of when they got arrested.
Okay.
So the DA's office says Lane's, whose legal name is.
You guys can see right here.
Here's the escalade.
Here's Lanes, right?
Proned out in his swim trunks because they had a pool party at Kylie Jenner's place and they were coming back.
All right, that sucks, bro.
In the middle of the highway, like prone out for sure.
Right.
And then Daystar Peterson.
So this is what you call a felony stop, by the way, guys.
Okay.
A felony stop is when you go ahead and you, you know, you stop the vehicle.
They got lights on it.
They're trying to see what the hell's going on.
Obviously, the police had information that a shooting had just occurred.
They don't know what's going on.
So they have to take extreme procedures like this.
So here's Meg thee Stallion now coming out.
And as you guys can see, she's hobbling.
Shot Megan's feet.
She's in the bikini, so they have they have her blurred.
During an argument in the Hollywood Hills, July 2015.
When we flashing that WAP, year old Robert was arrested last night or the night of the shooting, but was released after posting bail.
He now faces two felony charges and is set to be arraigned Tuesday in LA.
If convicted, he faces.
And they got Kelsey out and they pretty much took all of them into custody.
Okay, guys.
So that's the general facts of the case, right?
Because we don't know for sure who shot who.
This trial has raised quite a bit of questions, but there was a party.
Meg was there.
Tori was there.
Kelsey was there.
They all left together.
There was an argument or a disagreement in the vehicle.
Meg ended up getting out and she ended up getting shot.
There were five shots that were fired.
That pretty much has been the story between everybody, but no one can actually conclusively identify who the shooter was.
So anything you want to say, Andrew, before we get into the first thing?
No, I think, I think, you know, this is the, these are the facts.
Like when you go back and you look at it, you know, you have to reconcile these initial facts with what they're saying at trial.
And does this line up?
Does this line up with, you know, the police report, the things we know, the things we see from this testimony?
Does this line up with what they're saying at court?
Because the whole thing is, you can say, you can say one thing at court, right?
A year later, shit happens, things go down.
You're no longer fucking the guy you were fucking a year ago.
You feel a certain way about it now.
You can change your testimony.
And that happens a lot, especially when you get something that happened a year, two years ago.
And this is now two years ago, right?
My mom's about two years ago.
That's a lot of time.
It's a lot of time to change your story.
Yep.
So, okay, so we're going to go day by day here, guys.
So, day one of the trial is opening statements.
Andrew, you want to take it away and explain what opening statements?
Yeah, so opening statements, the point of opening statements is to lay out your theory of the trial.
Now, people, human beings tend to pay attention to two things the most, what you say in the beginning and what you say at the end.
So, it really matters how you start.
out your case and how you end it.
You got to start strong and end strong.
And what people are going to check for in that opening statement is the theory of the case.
What's the story?
So the prosecution is trying to lay out their story.
Hey, here's our story.
Here's why Tori Lanez did this.
Watch us prove these crimes.
We're going to show you these things.
We're going to prove these things at trial.
We're showing you how he had the handgun, how he shot it, how he injured Meg, how he assaulted Meg.
We're going to show you that during this trial.
And then you have to go and do that.
And then your closing is saying, hey, look, we told you we were going to do this and we did this.
Mic drop.
Bam.
And those two things need to be tight.
You cannot go and change your theory of the case or change your story during the trial.
You're going to lose credibility with the jury.
You're probably going to lose some credibility with the judge.
And you're just going to completely flop.
So your opening needs to be strong and it needs to line up with exactly what you're going to show during the trial.
This becomes relevant, especially for the prosecution.
Bam.
So now you guys know what opening statements are.
Very important because I agree with you 100% on that, Andrew.
The people remember what happens at the beginning and at the end.
You go back and you look at the OJ trial.
What does everyone remember?
If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.
Yep.
So they always remember the opening and the closing statement.
So guys, opening statements, the prosecution always goes first.
I want to let you guys know this as well.
It is on the prosecution, aka the prosecutors and the detectives and the police to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Tori shot Meg the Stallion.
So you got to understand that the prosecution has got to put the case together, not the defense.
The defense is there to kind of question the evidence, but they don't necessarily have to put their own witnesses on.
They don't have to really do anything.
They just have to defend against the prosecution.
All right.
So prosecution always goes first, guys, in opening statements.
And what the prosecution basically said in opening statements, they open up and they say, dance, bitch, dance.
Okay.
They open with that, which is, as you guys know, what Tori Lane's allegedly said to Meg the Stallion before he shot her five times.
And basically, they say there was an argument at the party about Tori's music.
Okay.
Meg was insulting Tori's music.
Meg gets out the car and Tori, out of anger of what she had said about his music, gets out the car, yells, dance, bitch, and shoots at her.
Okay.
They said that there was fragments, bullet fragments in her foot.
And they also said in opening statements, which is going to be funny later on, Kelsey will come in and testify and show you guys that Tori was the shooter and he shot her.
Okay.
They also show text messages between Tori and Meg and Kelsey where he's apologizing profusely.
And they basically use that to insinuate, what is he apologizing for?
He's the shooter.
We have an overwhelming amount of evidence, et cetera, which is what you're doing a lot of the times with opening statements.
You're posturing to let the other side know we're going to kill y'all.
Then the defense goes up and they're opening statements and they say, do you have anything?
Go ahead, Andrew.
Now, one thing on the prosecution, real quick, the prosecution, if there's a crime and there's elements of a crime, they got to prove all of them.
They got to prove every single element.
So if there's one thing they're missing, if there's a single thing, the prosecution cannot win, which is why they have to say exactly like Myron said, we have a bunch of evidence.
We're going to prove this with overwhelming evidence because they do have to provide overwhelming evidence for every single element of the crime.
The defense just has to poke holes in one piece of that pie.
They have to get one little hole in their theory of the case.
One little piece of evidence is broken.
That's reasonable doubt.
They're innocent.
That's all they got to do is they muddy the waters a little bit, guys.
That's their job is to muddy the waters.
Okay.
So now the so now the defense, guys, says, okay, well, the prosecution isn't telling you guys about an eyewitness, okay, who saw them fighting.
Okay.
And I know what they're talking about.
I could pull up the police report and show you guys here in a second.
And then also, they said gunpowder was found on Kelsey.
They said the fight wasn't a fight between Tori and Meg.
It was a fight between Kelsey and Meg because Meg was sleeping with a bunch of guys that Kelsey had dealt with prior to include Ben Simmons, the baby, and Tori Lanez.
Okay, so the defense goes in and kind of pictures, shows Meg as a jealous, angry friend who backstabs her friend with men.
And they also said, And by the way, this is relevant.
This is relevant as the motive, right?
This is all very, very relevant as motive.
Sex, relationships, these are the strongest motives.
When people end up getting killed, when people end up getting in altercations, it often is about, I mean, Myron talks about this on both of his shows.
It's often involving a man and a woman for clear reasons we all know about in society.
Absolutely.
And then they also said that the gun was in the front seat.
Meg was originally in the front seat.
And they theorize that Torrey isn't the shooter.
Kelsey is the shooter.
Okay.
Now, that's very important because they're going to take this theory that Kelsey was really the shooter and run with it.
And you guys are going to see how things unfold later on.
So that's the opening statements, right?
Then the prosecution starts to call their witnesses.
Okay.
They called a police officer that was at this.
Actually, you know what?
Before I talk about this police officer, I want to show.
Actually, no, no, no, I could pull that up later.
And by the way, the prosecution always goes first, sort of the order of operation for witnesses is usually prosecution, defense.
Sometimes the prosecution gets to open up again after that.
And then the defense may get to rebut that.
Obviously, within each witness, right?
Prosecution calls a witness, defense gets to cross, cross-examine, cross-examine witness.
That's the normal procedure for a trial.
Prosecution goes first, then the defense.
Prosecution can sometimes open up again if there's certain things they need to address, and then defense can rebut that again.
So that's typically how the flow of the case goes.
Perfect.
Yep.
And that sets the stage because the first witness they pretty much called, they were all law enforcement officers.
Now, what the, so as you guys know, just like Andrew described, the prosecution calls the witnesses typically first because they're the ones that are, the burden of proof is on them.
So the police officers typically are almost always, law enforcement officials are always the prosecution's witness, right?
So they get one of the police officers that was actually at the scene on the stand that took the initial reports, right?
And he's on direct.
So when you're on direct guys, the prosecutor is asking you leading questions.
Tell us about your training experience.
What did you see when you showed up that night?
Tell me about this.
Tell me about that.
The prosecutor's job is to kind of throw you some softballs, make you look good, make you look credible.
And their job is to kind of, you know, nudge you in the right direction as far as like what to say, right?
Then the defense goes on cross-examination, which do you want to explain what cross-examination is real quick to the people, Andrew?
Yeah, cross-examination.
So there's different rules for direct and cross-examination.
Direct examination is really, you're supposed to be letting them tell their story, right?
Because they're a friendly witness.
They're a witness that you've called up.
So you're kind of just letting them tell their story, letting them tell what they saw, what they felt, and what they maybe what they heard, but not what they heard from another person, what they heard in terms of things going on, right?
Because there's always something called hearsay.
Hearsay is statements made to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
And you need to have the actual person who experienced the thing there in court.
So when they're on direct examination, they're trying to give their story of what they experienced.
Cross-examination on the other side is not friendly.
It is against the interest, right?
So you're allowed to ask leading questions.
You're allowed to ask questions that aren't friendly.
You're allowed to ask yes or no questions.
You're allowed to not allow them to explain their story.
In fact, oftentimes it's better to just get a yes or a no, because if you let them explain, they're going to say shit that they don't, that you don't want them to say.
So you want yes or no.
And what you're trying to do is usually, usually in cross-examination, the goal is to show that that witness is full of shit in one way or another, either because they're lying, either because they don't have the expertise, you know, the proper expertise or training if they're an expert or whatever.
You're trying to discredit that witness, to impeach that witness, trying to catch them saying something that they said before that is different from what they're saying now, and therefore say they're not a credible witness.
This person is here.
They're talking to you.
They're not a credible witness.
You, the jury, cannot believe them.
So that is the chief role of cross-examination.
Thank you very much, Andrew.
And I see, you guys are not going to get a breakdown like this anywhere else on the internet.
You got two experts in the field breaking down this trial for you guys step by fucking step, explaining what each term means.
Now, the other thing I also want to say with the cross-examination, when you guys are watching law and order and all this other stuff, and the lawyers are getting animated and like, is it true that my client did this, blah, blah, blah.
Typically, that's on cross-examination.
You're grilling the hell out of that witness to make them shake them up, catch them in a lie, discredit them, or best yet, get them to lie under oath.
Okay.
This is what the defense was able to successfully do with the OJ Simpson trial with Mark Furman.
Okay.
As you guys know, Detective Furman, they had went ahead and they cross-examined him and made him look really bad.
And he actually had to take the fifth, okay?
Which we're going to talk about the fifth here in a little bit.
But that's the point of a good cross-examination.
Okay, guys, is you're grilling that witness to destroy their credibility.
Now, so now that I set the stage there, the defense goes in to cross-examine this police officer.
And I ain't going to lie, guys.
They fucked him up.
Okay.
Basically, what they find is the police didn't properly mark evidence at the scene.
The bullets, the blood, the pendant, the nail that was found, everything there was not properly done where you're able to accurately assess the movement of the victim.
Now, you're probably wondering, well, Maya, why the fuck is that relevant?
Well, when you're talking about a case here where every second counts, you need to know the exact path of the victim, the bullets, and everything else so you can match things up and make sure stories corroborate because you got three drunk people that are given crazy stories that contradict each other.
Well, the only thing that's going to be able to tell you the truth is the evidence.
But the problem is that the evidence wasn't marked properly with markers.
So there's no real, there's no definitive answer to the victim's movement pattern because the evidence wasn't properly marked and tagged appropriately.
So, and you guys got to remember, I want to make this extremely clear for you guys.
The prosecution's job is to go in there, show definitively, this is what happened.
You cannot refute this evidence.
This is why DNA, this is why ballistics, this is evidence that doesn't necessarily need anybody besides an expert witness, right, to explain it to you, but it speaks for itself, all right?
It's self-standing evidence.
Go ahead.
And let's look at some of the evidence they got to prove here, some of the basic evidence.
Number one, the first thing is they got to prove Tori Lanez is a shooter, right?
So number one, they got to prove that.
That's one thing that people forget.
You got to prove this.
This is the guy that fired it.
Remember, there's four people in that car.
His security guard is in that car, right?
You got Harris in that car.
You got Meg DeStallen in that car.
So you got to prove that it wasn't any of them that fired that gun definitively.
Then you got to prove that they fired it at Megan.
And then beyond that, there's the actual injuries to Megan.
You got to prove, hey, those are attributed to Tori Lanes personally firing it at Megan.
You've got a lot of things here that they've got to prove.
Now, some of the crimes, like, for example, just possession of the loaded firearm, that one, a little bit lower.
But you still got to prove Tori Lane's had the gun and that Megan the stallion was the one he was aiming it at or pointing it at.
So you've got all those things you've got to prove.
That's actually, these are actually major things in this case where you need evidence like that.
And they really fucked that up.
And Myron, if that happened to you, if that happened in your experience as a law enforcement officer, what would happen to those officers who fucked that up?
Man, see, at the federal level, they wouldn't even, if there was, if the evidence wasn't marked properly at the scene where you were able to, you know, conclusively say this is the, this is how she walked.
We could tell from the blood pattern.
The shell casings are here, which means the firearm was fired from here.
If you're not able to, you know, you know, ABC123, line that all the way up, the prosecutor is not even indicting.
You know what I mean?
Yep.
We're going to talk about that here in a second with our theories as far as like why they indicted this case, why they decided to take this thing in the first place.
But this is not the first time that the Los Angeles prosecutions team has taken cases, a trial that they may have, should have, may have not should have.
So anyway, so the defense goes after how the police marked the evidence at the scene, okay?
Which, you know, is not a good thing.
Now, the prosecution also, I want to say this, they used Tori's jail call where he's apologizing profusely during the calls for Hale was drunk.
I'm really sorry, blah, blah, blah.
Right.
But the jail calls don't admit that he shot anybody.
Okay.
And the defense goes ahead and says, well, this could be him apologizing for putting Kelsey on the spot about the sexual relations.
Exactly.
Boom.
Shot.
It could have been anything, right?
And the other thing, too, I want to let you guys know is the detective that brought this jail recording in because typically when you bring in a jail recording or whatever, you have to bring an investigator in to tell you, hey, this is where I got it from.
This is how he sees this evidence.
This is where I got it from.
Show the chain of custody, all this stuff.
The detective that brought it in had only listened to it a week or so prior to the trial.
He had never heard it prior.
Okay.
Which also I want to make you guys aware, the lead detective on this investigation, it's a guy named Detective Stogner.
Okay.
He's on admin leave and or getting terminated right now.
He's not testing.
Okay.
Which is a huge fucking.
So it's very obvious to me that the detective that they brought in right to talk about this jail call.
isn't the lead.
He was probably assigned this case out of emergency because the lead detective is in trouble.
Okay.
So anytime you have issues like this where the lead investigator is being investigated or they might get terminated or there's some kind of misconduct or whatever, this is a big problem because this is the guy that's responsible for gathering all the evidence.
Okay, guys, anytime an investigation like this happens where there's a shooting, it's going to trial or whatever, it's not the police officers that are gathering the evidence.
They show up to the scene, they kind of mark it off, whatever, but it's the detectives that take lead in the investigation and run the case.
So the lead detective is responsible for getting all the witnesses, for getting all the evidence together, for running the test through ballistics, for getting the experts together.
They're responsible for it.
So the fact that the lead detective is under investigation and may or may not get terminated is a huge L for the prosecution.
Now, here's the other thing, too.
I want to let you guys know.
This comes from me preparing for a trial.
When I had my trial, okay, the prosecutor gets every single witness and debriefs them and prepares them for the trial.
And prior to him bringing in these witnesses, especially the law enforcement witnesses, they ask, do any of you guys have Giglio issues?
What is a Giglio?
Well, Giglio, guys, can you talk about it real quick?
Andrew, I'll pull it up for the people.
Yeah, sure, sure, sure.
You know, that specific, well, actually, no, hold on.
Let me make sure I got that.
Giglio is basically when you have a character issue.
Okay.
Okay.
Yes, yes, yes.
So if you have a particular issue that's going to be impeachable, right?
So you're going to be able to impeach you based on character.
They're going to see there's some sort of problem with your credibility, right?
So you're going to have a credibility lapse.
So they're going to attack you on that because that's impeachment, right?
Once again, going back to the core point, finding out you're a lying piece of shit, right?
And there's lots of reasons why you might lie.
And there's lots of reasons why, for example, when he goes back to the recording, the jailhouse recording, what that pops up into my head, right, is, yo, this fact that at the time of the, of the shooting, right?
And I'm putting that in air quotes because it's fucking alleged, right?
At the time this allegedly happened, they didn't know that they were both fucking the same dude.
I think, I think Meg said that she knew that Harris was like into Tory Lane's, but they didn't know.
And Harris certainly didn't know that Meg was fucking fucking Tori Lane's.
So this is like, these are major issues.
These are major character issues.
So when you hear somebody apologizing, like that could just be like, yo, sorry, I was fucking your girl and I didn't tell you.
You know, by the way, that's what happens in the industry.
So whenever you have a trial, right, you as a lead investigator, you got to get all the law enforcement personnel that's going to testify, which in this case, the lead investigator himself is in trouble, which is a big problem.
A Gigli or Brady list is a list compiled usually by a prosecutor's office or a police department containing the names and details of law enforcement officers who have had sustained incidents of untruthfulness, criminal convictions, candor issues, or some other type of issue placing their credibility into question.
And guys, when it says candor issues or like, you know, they call it conduct unbecoming a lot of the times.
Yeah.
Basically, if you get in trouble for some shit where, you know, you mishandled evidence or you get into a domestic violence argument with your wife or you go ahead and you get in trouble where you get a DUI or you get any of this stuff.
This all can make you considered a bad witness for the government and the prosecutor might not put you on the stand.
Okay.
So, and this is what they do before every single trial where they ask questions, which is probably why they disqualify this investigator where he's not going to testify.
But the fact that it's one thing if a witness on the case has issues with, you know, Giglio or Brady or any of this other stuff, but when it's the lead investigator, oh man, that and here's the thing, guys, it all goes back to due process because all like Giglio, Brady, all those cases, they go back to due process.
There's a duty on the prosecution to turn over all evidence to the defense that pretty much proves the accused is innocent.
So if there's anything that proves the accused is innocent or reduces it or, you know, makes him look more innocent, they have to turn that over.
They've got a duty to do that.
So that's where this stems from.
They have to disclose.
There's a duty to disclose, a duty of candor.
You have to be honest.
You can't be a dirty prosecutor.
Now, are there dirty prosecutors out there?
Absolute fucking lootly.
I've seen them all the time.
There are dirty prosecutors out there.
However, on the books, on paper, you are supposed to do these things.
You're supposed to turn this over.
So that's why it's so important that you get your witnesses straight.
So the first day was all law enforcement.
So what do we got here?
So we know one of the police officers from the scene testified.
They attacked how they carted according off the area, how they marked the evidence.
The lead detective is under investigation, has Giglio and Brady issues.
They couldn't bring him on, which is a huge problem, right?
And then, which I'm actually shocked that they even still went to trial with the lead investigator being in trouble like this.
That actually, I was very shocked because normally when you have a Brady or Giglio issue with one of the witnesses, that in itself is bad.
But for the main lead detective to have it and have to be off the case when he probably dealt with a majority of the evidence, majority of the interviews, most of the evidence.
He gathered everything.
That's a problem.
So now we're going to go into day two.
Okay.
Did you have anything before day two?
No, no, hit day two.
Run right into it.
So day two, guys, is Meg's testimony.
So Meg thee Stallion herself goes ahead and takes the stand.
Okay.
Now, since she's a prosecution's witness, prosecution hits her with the direct, as like you guys said, as you guys learned from Andrew before.
Direct typically is more friendly.
They're a friendly witness.
They're going to ask some questions to get their side.
They want to get the entire story.
Now, I also want to say this too.
And Andrew, I want you to chime in on this.
Typically, when witnesses, like the witness that was the most affected, whether it was someone that got shot, stabbed, or whatever, their job is to go on the stand and make you feel bad for them.
Their job is to appease at their heartstrings.
That's what they're going there to do.
They're there to cry.
They're to kind of create this aura of, look at me, I'm the victim.
Feel sorry for me.
Because you guys got to remember, all of this is being done in front of a jury.
Okay.
Yes.
Boom.
That's it.
And people do not like juries do not, in general, if you said, random person off the street, do you like throwing people in jail?
They're going to say fuck no.
People do not like putting people in jail.
And you know what they don't like?
Victimless crimes.
And especially if the victim doesn't give a shit about the crime, they're like, why are we putting someone in jail for this?
Why are we sending somebody to jail for this?
Our human nature is not to throw people in jail, despite what people may think.
It is not to throw people in jail.
And especially with a jury, you've got lots of different people.
Remember, there's a jury process, there's jury selection.
So typically, it's a pretty fair jury.
Maybe it's a little bit more defense bias or prosecution bias, but typically it's a pretty fair jury.
So there's going to be some people that really don't want to convict on that.
Their inclination, their natural state is not to convict.
So if you get up there as a witness, as the person who's supposed to be injured, and you're not sympathetic, or even worse, if you come off as a bitch, if you come off as a liar, they're not going to be inclined to convict.
Yeah.
So keep that in mind, guys.
So, so they ask her on direct, you know, how long have you known Tori?
She says for a short amount of time.
And they ask her, did you have sex with Tori Lanez?
And she says yes.
Okay.
Finally, she says that she hooked up with Tori Lanez, which, if you guys don't know, okay, and I'll share a screen with you guys real fast here.
Okay.
Because that's not what she said a couple months ago when she went on this interview with Gail.
Okay.
So we'll go ahead and play it real quick.
I think I had it right here.
In this interview, guys, they asked her, Did you have sex with Tori?
And she basically dating.
What was the nature?
Okay, so what was the nature?
We're not dating.
We were really close.
We were friends.
We hung out.
And his mom passed too.
So when I felt like we were bonding over the bath.
And did you have an intimate relationship with him?
Oh, okay.
Look at her eyes.
That fucking body language.
Look at that.
Look at that shit.
I want y'all to pay attention to what she says.
Did you guys have a relationship?
Okay.
This is what she says.
Like sexual?
Yeah.
Did you?
Yeah.
Stupid.
Yeah, sexual.
Did you, Megan?
Did you have a sexual relationship with Tori Lane?
Yes.
That is a direct question, my friends.
Okay.
And she look at her body language.
She's looking away.
She's closing her eyes.
She's looking down.
She, this is, this is, this is some bullshit right here.
This is some bullshit.
And what does she say?
Um, have a sexual relationship with Tori.
So what?
Bruh.
Stop the cap.
Yeah, she only counts it as sexual if it's like in the poop shoe.
I like, I don't know.
Like, what is like, like, like, what is she trying to define here?
You know, it's the whole like a blowjob isn't sex, you know, like, you know, if I, if I only have sex, then wearing a condom that doesn't count, it wasn't sexual.
Like, come the fuck on.
When she said bonding, when she said bonding, it was clear they were fucking.
It was clear.
I mean, Myron, this is the perfect point.
You know, when you got these thought crimes out here, you can call this right away.
You see this line, you see, you know, it.
And by the way, why wouldn't she own it?
She owns the lot.
Why wouldn't she just say, Yo, I'm this dude?
Like, how does that hurt her?
I don't know.
Like, from like, you know, the other thing that like boggles my mind.
If I was the prosecutor, right, on this case, I would tell her, Don't talk about this investigation anywhere.
Like, I am shocked that she actually gave an interview and talked about the case on a national television show.
Incredible.
Like, what?
I mean, yo, what would you say?
This is admissible, by the way.
This is admissible.
What would you do if you were the prosecutor?
Like, would you be shocked that, yo, your star witness goes on a television show and says all this stuff about an active investigation that's going to go to trial, right?
And then, on top of that, she gives contradictory statements on a television show versus in trial.
Incredible, guys.
So, she goes on trial and she pretty much contradicts herself and says, Yes, we did have a sexual relationship, right?
And everyone in the audience is like, Oh shit, because this is the first time she's actually admitted that she hooked up with Tori because she didn't want to say it for all these months for obvious reasons.
She didn't want to hurt her image, she didn't want to look like a whore, etc.
And now that it's all coming out in the trial, and we've talked about this on Fresh and Fit, guys, all the guys that she's hooked up with because this kind of came into it, her sexual past and her testimony.
How long is that list, Myron?
I'm just curious.
How long is that list for Megan's Talent?
I'm sure it's like fucking going on like legal-sized paper.
You know, you're brought it up, I think, 10 different celebrities is what Fresh when we were on the show, if I recall correctly, because we broke this down on Fresh and Fifth.
You guys want to go and break that down?
We're keeping this on the legal side, but this all came out during her testimony, how many people she was hooking up with.
But we know the baby, Tori Lanes, and Ben Simmons were some of the prominent ones that came out during this trial.
But it's relevant.
See, the thing is, this is the crossover, right?
Because it's relevant as to her motives and as to her credibility.
Like, these things are relevant.
If she's known to be a person who does this, she's known to have a past with other celebrities.
Why did she choose to lie about this one in specific?
Why is she lying here?
This doesn't, it doesn't make any sense.
I mean, if I was the defense, I will play this clip and be like, You can't believe her.
Like, what the, you know, but um, so anyway, so she admits that she had sex with Tori, right?
Then they asked her about Kelsey.
She's been friends with Kelsey since uh freshman year in college, so they know each other for a while.
Um, she got to the party first, she says that there were a lot of people there, okay?
And she said she invited Tori after the fact.
Then, um, at the end of the party, it was just her, Kelsey, and Kylie Jenner.
All right, she said it got late, she wanted to leave because her wig was coming off, okay.
And I'm not, yes, guys, that is that, that is what she said, all right.
She felt comfortable, she wanted to go home.
So, she didn't want um, Tori, however, didn't want to leave, all right?
So, um, they left and they argued in the car, all right.
And the argument ensued after Tori says, Uh, why are you snaking your friend?
Okay, and that's when Tori drops the bobshell that him and Megan had been hooking up, okay.
So, everyone's arguing the car, or she says a fight occurs, right?
Then she says, Um, she gets out, looks back, and sees Tori shout, Dance, bitch, and then he shoots.
So, he says, Dance, bitch, and then she looks back and she sees him.
She, however, did not see Kelsey, only Tori.
And then she says, Tori was shooting over the window from the driver's side, may have been standing on something.
Now, just for you, for reference purposes, guys, Tori is somewhere between five foot three to five foot six, okay?
So, he's not that tall.
Escalade is a big ass car, okay?
So, that was a little strange, it didn't make too much sense.
And then, also, there's a discrepancy here because keep in mind, guys, when the prosecutor illustrated the story in opening statements, they said Kelsey went to Meg after she was shot, okay?
And then Tori approached after beat on Kelsey, which is why her chain and her nail fell off as he was trying to get back to get to Meg after he shot her.
But Meg said she got shot, and then Tori and Kelsey came at her together, which there's, you know, which one is it, right?
Um, and then also they asked her, Why did you go to the police before?
Why did you lie and say that you stepped on glass?
And she said she didn't want to go to the police before because of the George Floyd protest.
as you guys know we talked about the george case as well back in may of 2020 in case you guys are living under a rock in the united states here george floyd had been killed and um in milwaukee no no um minneapolis excuse me minneapolis in minneapolis and uh he got he got killed and there was a bunch of race riots all over the united states at that time this only occurred about two months prior after so she did it to protect tori from getting killed and she was scared of the police that's why she didn't go to the police and tell the story straight in the beginning is what she says Well,
and the thing, but that's kind of, I'm calling bullshit on that because here's the thing.
This is that's complete bullshit because she was literally interviewed by police and gave answers.
So instead of lying during that interview by police, because she did talk to police.
So her being scared of police is fucking irrelevant completely to her lying on the police report.
If you want to pull that, I don't know if you still got that one up.
I do.
There's that she gave for the police report.
And so she was sitting in front of a cop.
And by the way, that cop didn't kill her.
That cop was perfectly fine with her, let her go, had a nice day, walked out just fine, right?
So here is a highlighter for you.
Yep.
Pete was transported.
Cedars, go ahead.
No, no, no.
Okay, okay.
Pete was transported to Cedar Sinai.
By the way, it's the best, the best hospital in LA for lacerations to her left foot.
Well, at the hospital, Pete advised Officer Gomez and Majiha that she was involved in a verbal argument with Harris.
She stated that Smith, Peterson, Harris herself left the location.
She did not give officers a specific location and did not give any other information regarding the incident, but she was right in front of the cops and boom.
You know, she said that, hey, there's a verbal argument here.
And I believe it goes down to say that her up there, a little bit right there, in the middle, injuries and MT.
Pete was transported to Cedar Sinai and was treated by Dr. Lafredo for lacerations on her left foot.
Dr. Lafredo confirmed the laceration due to stepping on glass.
Yep.
That's big.
That's big right there.
So you got a doctor.
This is the presumptive cause until now, until just now, that the presumptive cause was stepping on glass.
And at no point did Meg correct the doctor on that and say, no, Doc, this is me getting shot.
Yeah.
Yep.
Because she said I stepped on glass.
And then the doctor actually confirmed it because he said there was lacerations, which do you want to tell the people real quick as far as like, yeah, laceration typically means something like a cut or some damage to the skin.
It does not mean gunshot wound.
If there was a gunshot wound, they would clearly label that.
Like the victim, that she had a gunshot wound to her left foot.
They would have made that very, very clear in the police report.
The doctor would have made that clear if there's a gunshot wound.
I mean, y'all have seen the TV shows where they're like, I got a gunshot wound.
Don't take me to a hospital.
Yeah.
Because they don't want it to go down as gunshot wound because they track that shit closely because it matters.
And don't worry, guys.
We'll talk about because a doctor did testify at the trial.
So don't worry.
But this is the original police report that we're talking about.
And I'll cover that as well.
I think he testified on day five, but we're on day two right now.
So, okay.
So now that we covered Meg on direct, here's Meg on cross.
Okay.
So on cross, guys, oh, my bad.
On cross, which, as you guys remember, cross-examination means the defense is now asking Meg questions, which means they're not going to be as nice with her.
Okay.
Which is, by the way, not hard because she's clearly lied at this point.
So their job is actually kind of easy with Meg because she's already been out there and lying.
She's already made contradictory statements.
So she tells the defense she denied.
She denied Kylie, told her to leave.
Security didn't want to leave, but she admitted that she wanted to leave with Tori, right?
So she kind of contradicted herself.
She denied Kelsey and Tori had a relationship to a degree.
However, she admitted that Kelsey did confront her in the vehicle about said relationship.
Then when she asked about the snaking comment, right, with as far as like her having sex with other dudes, she just said, I don't know, right?
For embarrassment reasons, I'm sure.
Right.
And then Meg was in the front passenger seat, gets out of the car, walks in front of the vehicle.
And then this is what she said happened.
So just so you guys know what the seating arrangement was in the vehicle prior to the shooting, you got the security guy in the front.
Well, I think it was Tori security.
Then you have Meg the stallion in the front seat, front passenger seat.
Then you have Kelsey directly behind her.
And Tori was behind, was to the left of Kelsey.
So Tori was sitting behind the driver.
So one more time, because you guys, this is very important, guys.
Security is driving.
Meg is in the front seat.
Meg decides in the front seat where the gun was found, by the way.
Kelsey is behind her.
And then Tori is in the back seat behind the driver.
So Meg exits the vehicle, and she's saying this under oath of the defense.
She says she gets out the vehicle, right?
And Tori gets out of the front passenger, out of the back seat behind the driver, gets around the vehicle, goes into the front passenger seat, gets a gun and shoots her.
Okay.
And she said this all happened in a matter of seconds because when she gets out the vehicle, she walks in front of the vehicle and then she's directly in front.
And then she hears dance bitch, looks back, and she says Tori is shooting at her over the glass.
Okay.
And she wasn't sure if he was standing on something.
Now, guys, mind you, from like a logically, from a logical standpoint, right?
That's pretty quickly for quick for him to get out the car, run around, pull the gun out, which was in the front seat, point it at her, dance bits, and shoot.
And also, she said that Kelsey at this point is still in the car, or she didn't know where she was, but she didn't see her around.
Okay.
So it's very hard to believe those facts.
And once again, this goes back to why facts are important.
Like when you start trying to make shit up, you know, and you start to be like, this guy did this, this, and this, and this, in like the span of a couple seconds, you're like, all right, I'm calling bullshit on that.
It needs to be something that people are going to believe.
You need to have a credible story that people are going to believe actually happened.
And then the other thing I also want to say is she denied that her and Kelsey had an altercation, right?
But there was jewelry on the finger and a fingernail on the floor, right?
And this all occurred in a few seconds, all right?
Of her getting out the vehicle and walking in front and then her getting shot at, right?
So there's some discrepancies here, of course.
Let's see here.
Let me just make sure.
Okay.
So now that we went over, so Meg's testimony pretty much finished there, right?
And she gave heartfelt testimony saying she got shot at, you know, she wished she had died instead versus going through all this stuff.
And, you know, she did her job.
Her job is to go up there, kind of, you know, take the victim narrative, get the jury to feel for her.
That's what you got to do in a trial, guys.
You know, it is what it is.
And obviously, the prosecution is going to prepare her for this, right?
So now we get it to day three.
This is where it shit starts to get crazy.
All right.
Anything you want to say, Andrew, before I get into day three?
No, no.
I mean, once again, you've seen a story that's constructed that's looking bad.
So the prosecution's chase.
We're on day fucking two.
And usually it takes a couple days for the prosecution to fall apart, but they're already hurting at this point.
This is not looking good.
Always imagine what a jury is thinking as they're watching this shit.
Are they saying, is this believable or not believable?
Can I get behind this or not?
And the prosecution, if they don't start out strong, they're going to lose that jury quick.
Yep.
Now, guys, real quick, before I get into this, I'll go ahead and give you guys a quick recap, but we got 5,000 plus of you guys watching.
So do me a quick, solid like your video, guys.
Get us up to like, we should be at like 4K likes because we're giving you guys a really in-depth breakdown.
So let me give you guys a recap for some of you guys that are just joining us in the show.
We went over the intro.
We went over our qualifications, our background.
As you guys know, I used to be a special agent with Homeland Security, done trials, went to trial on one of my own cases.
And I've also been a part of several trials, testified many times.
Andrew, practicing attorney, understands the rules and procedures of how the law works, et cetera.
He's litigated before, unlike a lot of you attorneys that call yourselves lawyers.
You guys have never stepped in a courtroom and actually litigated, which means argue a case.
We went over the days of the trial.
Day one was opening statements.
We broke down what an opening statement is.
The prosecution went up there, said, hey, dance bitch.
And they went over how Tori was culpable.
He shot Meg five times.
There was an argument.
Kelsey was assaulted by Tori during the process of this.
And they said that Kelsey is going to go ahead and testify on behalf of the state.
Then the defense went up there and they said that Kelsey was the shooter.
They theorized that she is the shooter.
They said that there's not enough evidence to go ahead and go after Tori.
And there's residue on Kelsey.
And it's not clear that Tori was actually the shooter.
And this is an opening statement.
It's day one.
The police get basically this all law enforcement that goes on day one.
The defense is able to go ahead and attack the police's evidence saying, hey, you guys didn't properly mark the blood, the bullets, and everything else at the crime scene.
So there's no clear path of what the hell actually happened, who was where, when the shots were fired, et cetera.
And as you guys can see, we got this testimony that's all over the place because all three parties were drunk, right?
And the evidence at the scene wasn't properly documented.
So defense attacks him on that.
Prosecution kind of counters, hey, we got a jail call where Tori is apologizing profusely for the shooting, but the defense comes in and says, well, we don't necessarily know what he's apologizing about.
Keep in mind that Tori had outed Meg for having sex with a bunch of guys that Kelsey had hooked up with in the past, and this was a lover's feud.
Then on day two, Meg the Sty takes the stand.
She says basically that she finally admits that her and Tori had a sexual relationship.
She says that her and Kelsey did not have an altercation.
She says that the argument was predominantly with her and Tori.
She also says that she got, she got, she heard, she walked in front of the vehicle and Tori got out of the vehicle, got into the front passenger side area where she was originally sitting.
A gun comes out of somewhere.
He yells, Dance Bitch.
She looks back, sees him shoot, but at this time, she did not see Kelsey shoot.
Okay.
Which kind of contradicts the prosecution story because they're saying that the prosecutor said that Kelsey went to Meg after she was shot, which the story is kind of all over the place.
So yeah, you see, this is the problem.
We're creating two different stories here.
Like there's two different narratives, there are two different timelines.
There's people that are involved, people that are not involved.
And this is how you know: okay, one of two things is happening here: either somebody is lying or memory, which is very true.
This does happen in trials after two years, is kind of suspect.
They're either remembering it wildly wrong or somebody's fucking lying.
And then on Meg on Cross, basically, what the police was, what the defense was able to gather was Meg denies that the altercation was there on cross.
However, even though there was Julia fingernails on the floor, and then they're able to assess that Meg walked in front of the vehicle, she heard Dance Bitch get shot five times.
And she said, claims that Tori was sitting in the back passenger seat, and this all happened within a matter of seconds.
Okay.
So that's the story from Meg's side.
All right.
Now, or a summary.
Now we're going to get into day three of the trial.
All right, guys.
Now, Kelsey takes a stand.
Okay.
And who is Kelsey?
Kelsey is Meg's assistant/slash best friend.
And keep in mind, guys, that she's the prosecution's witness.
So, as we discussed before, when a prosecutor's witness comes up, prosecution gets first crack at them on direct.
So, as soon as Kelsey sits in the chair, she goes ahead and takes the Fifth Amendment.
One, two, three, four, fifth.
Yeah.
Now, Myron, Myron, I think you got the Fifth Amendment pulled up, my friends.
Let's give everybody a little quick refresher on the Fifth Amendment.
Yeah, so the Fifth Amendment is stemmed in our Constitution.
Yes, it is.
It's a great amendment.
Great, great, great amendment, right?
All right.
So, you've got the Fifth Amendment here.
You know, no person, hold on, let me blow this up here.
There you go.
Okay.
No person shall be held to answer for capital or otherwise infamous crimes unless a presentation or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the naval land or naval force or in the militia when actual service or time were danger.
By the way, that's why the military does not play by the same rules as people not in the military.
They don't have the same rights.
Nor shall any person be subject to the same offense to be put twice in jeopardy of life or limb.
That's double jeopardy.
You cannot be charged with the same crime twice.
But by the way, it only applies to each particular jurisdiction.
So a state and the federal government can charge you with the same crime, but a state can't do it twice.
Nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.
Boom, there it is.
So the fifth that we're talking about, there's a lot of rights in here, but the fifth we're talking about is you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself.
What does that mean?
If what you are saying is going to force you, if saying something in court is going to implicate yourself and open you up to a potential crime, you can plead the fifth.
Bam.
And mind you, there's a lot of different crimes you can be opened up to, even, for example, perjury.
Right?
Perjury is something you can be opened up to.
Absolutely.
So you just say, hey, listen, if this is something that can get me in trouble, if this is something that you guys can come and come after me for, I'm pleading the fifth.
Now, Myron, as an LEO, what do they typically offer?
Their own witnesses when they need to plead the fifth.
What do they do?
What do they throw out there as a bone?
Now, they go ahead and they offer her immunity.
Okay, guys, which let me tell you guys, this, and I want to make this very clear.
If you're the government and your witness gets on the stand and says, I'm taking the fifth, that is fucking crazy to me.
Because when you have a witness for trial, guys, you prep your witness, you get them ready.
Okay, this is the testimony that we're going to, you know, here are the questions.
Here's what the defense is probably going to ask you on cross, et cetera.
You got to prepare your witness because you guys got to remember that regular witnesses don't understand how the judicial process works.
They don't understand how questions work.
They don't understand the severity of lying under oath.
You have to explain all these things to them before trial.
So the fact that she was a prosecution's witness and took the fifth, I was like, what the fuck is going on here?
Like, that's unheard of.
Okay.
So she takes the fifth.
So the prosecutor offers her something called use immunity.
Okay.
Explain this difference because there's different types of immunity.
Use immunity is under 18 USC 6002.
But Myron, what is the difference between use immunity and the other type of immunity, which is transactional immunity?
So the use immunity, guys, right, is when they basically can't use anything that you say in the testimony you're about to give against you, all right?
Particular to that testimony, right?
They can't use any of the statements you make against you in that particular testimony.
Transactional, though, covers you even more.
And that's basically they can't charge you with anything on that crime on that day, essentially.
It's kind of like almost like a, like a full protection.
Now, just so y'all know, this happened in the middle of the trial.
So they're, and the prosecutor gets caught with his pants down.
So he's like, what the hell are we going to do?
So they have a sidebar, which do you want to explain something?
Yeah, so sidebars, you go talk, the lawyers come up, the judge comes up, you talk about it, right?
But you're not in presence of the jury because it's stuff the jury doesn't really want to hear.
And by the way, this looks really fucking horrible because they did see the jury did see her plead the fifth.
They got her up on the stand.
She gets there, sits her ass down, she pleads the fifth.
That looks horrible to a jury.
That looks absolutely insane to a jury.
And they're going to understand that there had to be some wrangling to get her back in.
It's not a good look.
It's really a bomb against the prosecution.
And so when they're going up there and they're doing a sidebar, they're negotiating this out, saying, hey, we're going to offer her this.
You know, we're going to move on with this.
Because otherwise, if they didn't offer her that and think she was going to change her testimony, she's got to get off the stand.
That's it.
They can't have her up there just pleading the fifth.
Yeah.
And she's done.
You cannot do that.
You can't put somebody back on the stand unless you know they're going to accept immunity.
They're going to proceed.
So the sidebar was saying, look, we're offering immunity.
She's going to proceed.
And one clear thing, let me just explain this very quick about the use immunity.
So they may not be able to use your testimony, but you know what they can do?
They can go out and find other evidence that you committed that crime and use it against you.
That's why you should always, if you're ever in this situation, and I hope you're never in this situation, but you should always go for that higher level so they can't actually charge you with the crime because they can go and say, oh, no, we're not using your court testimony.
We're just using your text message and your emails and the stuff we found over here and these other witnesses that we find over here.
Oh, we're not using the testimony.
We don't need that.
We're going to use this other stuff to get you.
And I'm really glad you said that because if you do get the use immunity, and we've done this before on proffers, right?
Especially like when you're debriefing an informant and they're protected for what they say, a lot of the times if you lie, right, when you get that protection, they're going to come after you.
And what you've essentially done is, though they can't use that testimony against you, you give them a good point to go ahead and subpoena certain things, maybe get a search warrant here, get a search warrant there, or request it, get a witness here, get a witness there.
And they can build a case around that evidence that you gave, even though they can't use that particular testimony against you.
They could find corroborating factors to come after you later on, which is why her attorney, after she said, I plead the fifth and they said, we'll give you immunity.
He argued use immunity is not enough because he knows this.
They can still use this against her and come back later on and get corroborating factors to come after her.
So he says, I want transactional immunity.
Well, I'll tell you guys right now, an ADA can't sign off on transactional immunity.
That's got to go up to the highest level.
That's the district attorney that's got to sign off on something like that because that's essentially protection from everything.
Okay.
So since they're sitting there in the trial, they need the testimony.
They don't got time like that to go back to the fucking DA and be like, yo, I need a transactional immunity approval, blah, blah, blah.
Because then you've got to ask permission from the judge to delay the case.
And the judge is going to be like, nope, we got to go.
They might allow you to move the witness later, but they're not going to, they're not going to let you delay the trial.
Nine out of 10 times, they're going to say, yo, we're moving.
This is on the docket.
We're going now.
You cannot delay this trial.
We're in.
So you either got to drop that witness or figure this shit out.
Right.
And they don't have time to do that.
So they go on the record and they say, we will not prosecute her, which is pretty damn good.
They go on the record and say, we will not prosecute her.
She has immunity.
And, you know, they're on the record saying that.
So Kelsey's like, okay.
And she decides to testify.
All right.
So, because remember, guys, you can only take the fifth when you're going to be prosecuted.
But if you're not going to get prosecuted, you are compelled to testify now because you no longer have the fear or the potential to be went after or charged.
So she has immunity now.
So with that immunity, now she is compelled to testify.
All right.
And I also want to say this too.
You can only take the fifth if you're criminally culpable of something.
So the fact that she took the fifth, I mean, that's pretty self-explanatory in itself, right?
So you know, you know, and she's not on trial here.
This is not the trial of Harris.
This is the trial of Tori Lane, which is great.
Yo, this is wild.
But anyway, so she goes, I don't want to be here, right?
And she's triggered.
And they say, why?
And she said, because of lies from Megan.
And, you know, basically she says, I never took any hush money.
And Meg is trying to say I'm a bad friend.
Then they asked her, did you shoot Meg?
And she goes, no.
How'd you meet Tori?
She says she met him at a Rock Nation event.
She said that Meg hooked her up with Tori.
And then Kelsey, Meg hooked Kelsey up with Tori.
And then Kelsey got COVID and went to Texas.
As you guys know, her and Meg the Stallion are from Texas.
And then Meg started smashing Tori while she was away in Texas, sick with COVID.
Now, this is all unbeknown to her, by the way.
Okay.
She did not know any of this stuff was going on.
So she also says that they were really drunk and that it wasn't a big party, as Meg had stated in her testimony.
It was a small party.
Tori didn't want to leave because he was flirting with Kylie.
Okay.
And then she also says that they got there around 3 p.m.
So they had been there all day.
And they left first.
So this is interesting because Meg didn't say this in her testimony, but Kelsey says in her testimony that they left first.
Meg and Kelsey left.
But then they went back because Meg was mad and she wasn't too happy about Tori and Kylie.
So she goes ahead and says, yo, I left my slipper at the spot.
So they go back to Kylie's house.
Kelsey's in the car.
Meg goes inside.
Short time later, she comes out with Tori and Kylie's escorting them out.
Okay.
And Kelsey says that Meg told her that Kylie basically kicked him out.
All right.
Then they get in the vehicle.
And at this point, all three of them are arguing with each other and everyone's intoxicated.
So you guys can only imagine, right?
So Tori was trying to get it on with Kylie.
He's got to come out.
He got kicked out.
They're arguing.
And then Tori, right, drops the bomb.
Yo, you're going to, you're snaking your friend, blah, blah, blah.
Kelsey, did you know that I was fucking with Meg?
Meg fucked with Ben Simmons.
She fucked with the baby, who Kelsey had also messed with as well.
Which is all facts.
That part is facts.
Yes.
So Kelsey, guys, had never heard this information before.
So now everybody's arguing.
All right.
So she gets the drug.
Someone's in the chest said, poor driver.
Yeah, poor driver, bro.
How are you having to be there for that bomb when you realize like your bestie is fucking the dude that she put you with, right?
And when she, she suddenly, she set you up with this dude, she was fucking him.
Yep.
At that time.
And you're just finding this out from him, not from her.
And you're drunk.
So emotions are like extra highlighted, right?
So they're all arguing.
And also Meg had this Tori saying that his irrelevant.
He only got popping because of a Jack Harlow feature, et cetera.
And then Tori, you know, it talks back to her like, fuck you, blah, blah, blah.
So they're all shitting on each other.
All three of them are arguing.
And Kelsey confirms this, that all three of them are arguing.
Okay.
And then a key moment, they say, they ask her, did Tori make a threat to shoot?
She responds, yes.
And then they ask for context under which Tori made the threat to shoot.
And what does she do?
She invokes the Fifth Amendment.
There you go.
There you go.
Why did she invoke the fifth there specifically?
That is not just a reasonable doubt.
That's a crater.
That is a crater.
Why did Tori Lane did Harris invoke the fifth at that specific moment when asked for context on why he threatened to shoot Meg?
He's willing to admit that he threatened to shoot her, but why?
Yep.
And it gets, hold on, but it gets better.
So then, right, she confesses, guys, that she lied to the police to protect herself.
All right.
So the prosecutor obviously is like, whoa, because guys, you got to remember, this is their fucking witness.
Their direct examination.
This is supposed to be a friendly witness to them.
So the prosecutor, shocked about this, is like kind of caught with their pants out.
So what do they do?
They play a portion of the interview from September of this year, 2022, when they interviewed her, where she said Tori was a shooter, et cetera.
All right.
And Kelsey says she lied in that interview.
All right.
So, yeah, wild.
So her and the prosecutor then at this point go back and forth.
The prosecutor keeps asking her, why did you lie?
Is it true that such and such happened?
Why did you lie?
And she keeps responding to protect myself.
When she goes deeper, protect yourself out, she says to protect myself.
She didn't want to get beyond anything else besides saying to protect herself, right?
And this is on direct, by the way, guys.
She also acknowledges that Tori Lanes offered her $1 million, but she didn't take it.
And she said, Tori said, don't say anything, but she didn't specify what she didn't want her to say, what he didn't want her to say.
And then also, Kelsey sent a text message to the security saying Tori shot her.
And then Kelsey denies seeing the shooter.
She just heard shots.
And then Kelsey also said that both of them were outside the car when shots happened.
However, Meg said Kelsey was in the car or she didn't see her at all, right?
But Kelsey confirmed that both of them were actually outside the vehicle when the shots happened, right?
So, yeah, crazy stuff.
So then now on cross, so the defense goes ahead.
So this is, see, once again, she's countered herself.
She's literally pointed herself at a liar.
She's already destroyed her reputation before cross-examination.
That's supposed to be what you do on cross-examination.
She's already done it to herself.
It's like you played yourself meme, you know, you 100% played yourself.
So the cross-examination, frankly, they've got a pretty easy job here.
They do mess it up a little bit, though.
We'll get to that.
Yeah.
So this is on direct and she confessed that she lied to the police, et cetera, right?
And remember, I want you guys to make this clear.
Kelsey only did one interview with the prosecution and she did it in September of this year.
Mind you, this event happened in July of 2020.
So she didn't actually come in for an interview until September of 2022, almost over two years later.
All right.
So the defense now, they cross-examine her and they say, you got immunity.
Have you been paid off?
And then the defense actually makes a good point here.
They say she didn't make a statement until September.
So how did she accept the bribe money that the prosecution is alleging that she took and goes ahead and gives incriminating statements against Tori?
All right.
So guys, let me slow it down so you guys understand this.
The prosecution was saying that Kelsey, even though it's their witness, after all this craziness happened, they made allegations that she potentially was paid off by Tori Lanez and his legal team.
All right.
Then the defense comes in and says, well, how is that possible that she got paid off by the Tori's Lane's defense team when she had not been interviewed until two years later in September?
And when she came in to do her interview, she went ahead and gave you guys incriminating statements against Tori because when she went to the police guys, she said that Tori Lanez was a shooter.
She said that Tori Lanez assaulted her.
She said that she went to go console Meg after she had been shot.
Tori Lanes gets out the car and she gets in between Meg and him and she fights Tori off and Tori beats on her, messes up her weave, her chain falls off, her nail falls off, etc.
Okay?
That's what she originally told the investigators when she went or not the investigator.
She this is what she told the prosecution, right?
Then the defense asks her, which I guess is a pretty good line of questioning, why did you lie?
Was there pressure to lie?
And did we pressure you to lie?
Did Tori or his team pressure you to lie?
She says no.
Then they say, did the prosecution pressure you to lie?
She says yes.
Oh shit, there you go.
And that little bit, that little bit there, it's a huge win for the defense, but it did open the door to them bringing in the full recording of the previous interview with the prosecutors.
Now, what does opening the door mean?
Let me explain it a little bit.
So typically you only allow evidence in, like I said, if it's with somebody actually testifying to that evidence and the verifiability of that evidence in court.
So typically recordings are not allowed in, particularly if you can just ask the person yourself directly, right?
If Meg, if you can just ask Meg or ask Kelsey Harris or ask Tori Lanes, you just ask them directly.
You don't have to bring in other evidence.
However, because they mentioned the prosecution and mentioned this note about them asking him to lie, they brought in the recording, the previous recording, in order to what they wanted to do was show context.
And what they wanted to show was that they didn't do anything dirty.
That is a major accusation, by the way, whether it's against the prosecution or defense.
You cannot pay somebody or tell somebody to lie.
You will get disbarred for that.
As an attorney, I can tell you, we do not take that lightly.
If you are caught paying off a witness or telling a witness straight up to lie, no, that's it.
That's a wrap.
That's a wrap.
Now, lawyers have very creative ways.
I know lawyers that have creative ways of talking about this, of not telling them to lie, but telling them to be careful about stuff.
Yes, lawyers can do that.
But you cannot tell somebody to get up there on stand and lie.
Not permissible.
It's a huge ethical breach.
Yeah.
And not to mention criminal, you could definitely criminal charges for that as well.
That's getting disbarred.
So, okay.
So she goes ahead and she confirms that there was a physical altercation between her and Meg, but she said it was only a bump, which, I mean, talking about a fist bump, what are you talking about?
What are you talking about here?
Which is kind of strange because a bump would knock your nail off and your chain on the floor.
And, you know, there's clearly a physical altercation.
So, so basically the story she said before about Tori Lanes assaulting her and shooting, shooting at Meg or whatever, she said all of it was a lie, guys.
So all of that testimony is basically thrown out now.
Okay.
So she also says her and Meg haven't spoken since that night.
And then the defense asked her, did you hear dad's bitches?
He said, now, where do you think that came from?
Right.
Which you could take that for a face value, what is it, what it is.
And then the defense asked her, the defense asked her about Tori Lane's having a deal with Rock Nation and that falling through before the incident happened.
She did not know about it.
And then Kelsey confirmed that Meg was mad about the Jenner situation.
She also said that Meg was mad when she left and they went back for the sandal.
And then she also said Meg got out originally the vehicle in a bikini and they coaxed and she sat at a bus stop and then they coaxed her to get back into the vehicle.
And then they stopped again and that's when the shooting happened.
And Meg had denied this in her testimony.
She only remembers getting out one time.
Okay.
And then the prosecution is going to, and then, okay, so day five now, right?
So that was day four.
So obviously Kelsey had two days of testimony, guys, because she threw a wrench and everything.
And honestly, the prosecution now at this point, they're throwing anything at the fucking wall because she kind of messed with the procedures.
And the judge isn't too happy about her recanting all her statements and saying, I'm going to take the fifth and, you know, delaying the trial or whatever.
So now the judge is like, all right, I'm going to let anything in as far as like, you know, because now the prosecution said, oh, we got some other text messages we want to bring in.
Oh, we got a detective that can verify that Tori Lanez was doing some things on Instagram.
And normally this stuff would never be allowed into trial.
But since Kelsey kind of came in and went back on her story, he's like, bro, we got to get the truth.
So basically he's allowing in other pieces of evidence that otherwise may have never been able to be allowed in.
What's your thoughts?
Quick point on this.
Quick point on this.
This is, I think this is a sign of desperation on the part of the prosecution.
And understand, we always think about trial as trial, but a lot of lawyers forget and even people out there forget the appeal is very important as well.
And the judge letting each piece of evidence, each single piece of evidence they allow in that they previously didn't, that they're making a judgment call to allow that piece of evidence in, whether it's a single text message, whether it's a video, a recording, whatever.
Each piece of evidence is something that's potentially impermissible and giving them another grounds for appeal.
So if let's say, hypothetically, Tori Lanez is convicted here, all these things they're doing, all these things that normally wouldn't come in, they're allowing in, these are all appeal points.
And honestly, each one of them gives Tori Lane's a huge chance to recover, even if he's convicted.
So frankly, the defense, through the prosecution's desperation, has actually got a big win here.
Even if they were to lose at trial, I think they have a massive chance to win any appeal, even if he was convicted, because they're allowing evidence in that they shouldn't have to allow in, but they're only doing that because they're fucked, because Meg the Stallion and Kelsey Harris did not give the prosecution what they needed to convict Tori Lanez.
And also something that I found, we found this interesting right before the pod, and I'll show you guys this as well, is that, hold on one second.
If you go back to the police report, guys, all right, I'm going to, and I highlighted this for y'all real fast.
Um, so here is after the incident, right?
My partner admonished Harris per LAPD form uh 1503.
Their LAPD form, guys, is the Miranda rights, okay?
Because remember, they're showing up on the scene, they just know someone had been shot, they don't know who the shooter is.
So, to be safe, they're going to mirandize everybody, right?
She goes, She responded, yes, yes, and yes, and yes.
When after she wanted to talk about what happened, Harris said, I really want someone to represent me.
Why is she saying that?
Now, I'm what I'm saying.
This is a relevant question.
Like, why is she, why does she need that representation right away?
Now, the other thing, too, is that our investigation revealed that on 7-12, 2020, at approximately 430 hours, a physical altercation between Harris and Pete.
Remember, guys, Harris is Kelsey, Pete is Meg the Stallion.
Yep.
Occurred at 1841 North Nicholas Canyon Boulevard.
An unknown suspect fired approximately five rounds.
Smith, Peterson, Pete, and Harris entered the black escalate and flee southbound on Nicholas Canyon Road.
Based on Peterson's seating position and the position of the firearm, Peterson was the last person to have constructive possession of the firearm.
And as you guys know, when they fled the scene, he just jumped in the front seat.
And when they stopped them, he was with the gun, which was in the front seat underneath like a Gucci bag, if I'm not mistaken.
Some kind of bad.
And once again, this is like you're playing musical chairs.
He just happened to be the guy that was sitting there next to the gun.
That does not imply he's actually the one that fired.
He had possession of the gun.
And from what I understand, there's not enough proof.
They haven't, they never presented or the case in trial has not presented evidence that he's actually the one that fired him.
Conclusive evidence.
Testimony is one thing, but actual fingerprints on the gun, other things that might be able to say, hey, he's the one who fired this gun at that point.
And I got evidence for that one as well, which I'll share with you guys here in a second.
But also, I want to point out that this witness, Kelly Sean, advised he lived on 1841 with Courtney Ave.
He stated he heard arguing outside his bedroom.
He looked outside and observed a black escalade.
He stated the passenger door was open and observed four suspects, two females and two males.
Kelly stated one male was heavyset and the second was a thin build.
He stated the rear passenger exited from the vehicle, one of the females, and began fighting with the other female.
Boom!
So we have a witness, Sean Kelly, who is saying that these bitches were fighting.
And once again, this is something that you're getting from a neutral party.
You're getting it from somebody who doesn't have an interest here, who's not screwing somebody else, who's not involved here.
There's no emotions.
There's no politics.
A neutral observer who says this, and they give some pretty good details.
I mean, and they're accurate about them.
For example, the fact it was a black escalate.
They noticed these details.
So this witness actually seems pretty reliable here.
So, and I think this is the guy that they're probably going to call, by the way, because they are going to call one of the witnesses.
And I think this is going to be the guy.
They didn't name him, but I'm pretty sure this is going to be him.
So at one point, Kelly observed one female crawl out of the black escalade and onto the driveway of 1841 North Nichols Canyon.
Kelly heard approximately four to five gunshots.
Kelly stated both males were punching close fists, one of the females and dragged her into the vehicle.
The vehicle fled southbound on Nichols Canyon Road, briefly stopped at a driveway and continued southbound towards Hollywood Boulevard.
So, hey, you know what I mean?
You got an eyewitness saying that the two females were fighting, even though Meg was saying that there was no physical confrontation between her.
And then Kelsey said there was a physical confrontation, but she downplayed it and said that it was just a bump.
So it's probably somewhere in the middle here, right?
Okay, so let's go ahead and get into day five of the testimony.
And this is where the DNA experts come in, guys.
All right.
So day five of the trial, just like Andrew said, they played the entire interview with Kelsey and the prosecutors, okay, where she gave the testimony about Tori Lane's shooting, assaulting her, being the main guy, et cetera, right?
Hold on, Myron, this was a little bit weird, wasn't it?
The recording was a little bit weird because it was recorded with prosecutors, but not with law enforcement, right?
Yes.
There was no detectives during this interview, which I don't know what the hell they're doing over there with the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office, but the fact that they went ahead and conducted an interview with a witness without an investigator there baffles me.
Because I'll tell you guys this from my personal training and experience when I was an agent.
Prosecutors aren't involved in interviews until after the judicial process is kind of underway.
And there's always an investigator there because you typically don't want prosecutors to be direct witnesses.
You cannot make them direct witnesses.
You cannot make the person who is prosecuting the case a witness in the case.
You've got to remove them from the case.
So are you going to remove that prosecutor so you can put him on the stand to testify to the recording to testify to that interview?
No, of course you're not going to do that.
So, this move by them, it was either brain dead or, I mean, I don't know what's going on in LA.
Utter incompetence, LA tax dollars at work.
I don't know what to tell you guys.
And the other thing, too, is there wasn't an investigator there.
The prosecutors did it.
The only time I've ever seen prosecutors like run interviews typically is if it's like a deposition, which this, to my knowledge and understanding, was not a deposition.
It was not a deposition.
Otherwise, it would have been admitted.
It would have been admitted it was a deposition.
You should tell them what a deposition is.
Yeah, so a deposition is an on-the-record under oath, you know, transcription.
There's case, there's questions that are asked by both sides for a witness.
It is on oath.
It is admissible in court.
It's part of discovery.
You sit someone down, usually for multiple hours, sometimes the entire day.
You're peppered with questions.
You're grilled with questions.
You have to answer.
Now, your counsel can make objections, and those objections are ruled on later as to what is admissible and inadmissible.
But generally, you're asked questions, you have to answer, and then you go through it from both sides, and that is admissible in court.
This recording was not a deposition because it was previously inadmissible in court, but only later, only because the prosecution's reputation was attacked, their credibility was attacked, the system was attacked, did the judge say, okay, now we're going to let this in.
Yeah.
And not only that, you know what, now that I think about it, yeah, because a deposition can be used without the person even being there.
That's the whole purpose of doing the deposition.
You do it so it stands by itself and you don't even have to bring that witness in because that witness was cross-examined by defense as well, because the defense has a right to be there at that deposition.
Think of it as kind of like a recorded portion of the trial, right?
And typically you do depositions when someone isn't going to be available in rare situations where you think a witness might die because they're old or sick or something like that.
Also to impeach a witness, right?
So if you think a witness is going to lie, you depose them under oath and you're like, okay, what is the truth?
And what you're trying to do, particularly on cross, is get them saying something at trial that is not consistent with their under oath deposition.
Because then, by the way, they're committing perjury.
Now, I will say one thing about perjury really quickly, because I get a lot of questions on this.
This is one of my most frequently asked questions about trials.
Andrew, are they going to charge them with perjury?
Okay, on the books, they could.
Are they going to in reality?
No.
Perjury is rarely ever charged against witnesses because the general principle, they don't want to discourage people from testifying.
If the law enforcement, whether it's state, federal, whatever, was known to go after everybody, there would be no witnesses.
It's got to be egregious for them to go after you for lying under oath.
You know what I mean?
It can be done, but it's got to be pretty egregious.
It can be done.
It's got to be really bad.
Like Martha Stewart, or when they don't have anything else, then they'll come after you for false statements.
That's why they got it.
They were going to get Martha.
Martha was going down no matter what.
They're like, fuck that shit, bro.
We know you were inside of trading.
We got you.
1001.
18 USC 1001.
False statements.
All right.
So day five, guys, they play the full interview, okay?
Because Kelsey Royale fucked up as a witness for the prosecution, right?
And her interview was very detailed.
She gave, you know, details about the party, when she showed up, intricate details of who was there, et cetera, right?
She told them Tori hopped in the front seat and shot Meg.
She said that Julie on the floor was because Tori attacked her, right?
When they asked her about the jewelry and the nail on the floor.
And then she didn't say that Meg and her fought, which, as you guys know, when she came in the second time at the actual trial, she said they did have an altercation, okay?
Even though she downplayed and said it was a bump.
Then the DNA experts came in.
They said that the magazine was tested and four DNA profiles were found on the magazine of the firearm.
However, Tori's was not on it, which is a W for him.
Then that is a massive W, by the way.
That's a huge W. Then they said the gun had four DNA profiles on it, but it was inconclusive.
But the DNA experts did say, because remember, there's two DNA experts.
There was one for the state and one for the defense.
So Tori hired his own independent DNA guy, and then the state had their DNA guy.
But both DNA experts concluded, right, that if Tori shot the gun five times, it would be probable that his DNA would be on the gun, which they weren't able to conclusively prove that.
Guys, that is massive.
If your own expert that you're putting on the stand is not giving you what you want, that's that is for trial.
That is horrible.
That's going to look terrible to a jury.
Right there, that alone could be the fact that sinks it in the eyes of the jury.
Because typically here's what happens: the prosecution has their witness and they'll say, well, this DNA looks good.
It matches Tori Lane.
We have it on here.
And he's one who could be the shooter.
He could possibly be the shooter.
The defense comes up and says, nope, there's not enough DNA on here to prove that.
I use this method to analyze it.
And it's some competing valid method.
And hey, there's not enough to analyze this.
And you can't conclusively say that he was the shooter.
And you get a war of the experts.
Your expert says one thing, their expert says another thing.
That happens at a lot of trials.
However, when you have your own expert that doesn't tell you what you want, it's devastating because we've found at trials over centuries of looking at trials at experts versus late witnesses, people, particularly juries, put a crazy amount of trust in experts.
I don't know why you guys trust people with degrees like doctors, lawyers, whatever.
Apparently you trust us.
I don't know why, but it's your mistake.
But the point is, is that people will really, really, really trust that testimony more than even Meg or even Tori.
They'll say, hey, the expert says there's no DNA on here.
So it must not be him.
That to me, that is huge.
That is massive.
So, and I found that interesting because both of them were like, hey, it's probable that if he shot the gun five times, right, as alleged, his DNA would be on it.
And then the Tori's guy took it a step further.
He said, Torrey's DNA guy said, if he fired it five times, it should be conclusively on that his DNA should be on it conclusively, which at that point, the prosecution, right, did their job and they went ahead and said, well, how do you know that?
What's your, you know, aren't you Tori's witness?
Blah, blah, blah.
But even their def, even their DNA guy said that, yeah, I mean, if someone shot the gun five times, it would be probable that you would be able to find their DNA.
But Tori's DNA guy said, no, it would be conclusive if he shot it five times.
So that's when the DNA pushed him a little.
The prosecution pushed him a little bit and tried to discredit him.
However, their own witness even said, yeah, it would be probable that there'd be DNA on it.
Because you guys got to remember, when you fire a gun, there's recoil, okay?
There's residue coming out, et cetera, right?
Which also, I want to let you guys know, the defense, when they went after Kelsey, they said that, yo, you had gun residue on you, too.
Right?
So that's another interesting point.
Okay, what else here?
And then also on the last day of trial, Meg's security guard went missing.
They can't find him to testify.
And to be honest with you guys.
It's weird.
That's weird.
That's a weird fact, man.
It's a weird fact, weird timing.
But to be honest with you, I don't think he's that important of a witness because all he really got was he got the text message from Kelsey saying that Tori shot her.
So all he would do is come in and kind of come in and be like, on this day in time, did you go ahead and get a text message from Kelsey saying that Tori shot her?
Yes, I did.
Okay.
So I don't really know how that would help too much, but whatever.
And then also, I talked about earlier that it wasn't the police.
It was the prosecutors that went ahead and did the interview, which was weird.
And the cross-examination actually talked about that.
Why was it only lawyers interviewing her and why wasn't an investigator there?
And the other good point the defense made was she didn't have immunity back in September of 2022.
So she was more incentivized to lie.
One more time for y'all.
She did not have immunity in September of 2022 when she went in and did the interview.
So she was more incentivized to lie.
So when she comes in under oath, she takes the fifth.
Whoa, what?
What the hell are you taking a fifth for?
We already talked over this.
And then she goes ahead and says, oh, I want to take the fifth.
Okay, we'll give you the immunity.
Then she says, I lied to y'all back in September.
That explains everything.
That fits the theory of the case, is that, especially the theory of the case, that Harris is culpable here, that Harris had a key in this.
And once again, line it up with that motive.
She just found she's drunk, emotional, and she just found out her dude that she's fucking with is fucking all these other people.
Wild.
So that is what happened, guys, summarized over the five days.
Andrew, but you're expert.
What do you, what do you think with all this so far?
Looks really, really, really bad for the prosecution.
There's almost none of these cases that they can, none of these charges that they can get him on definitively.
If they can prove that he actually touched the gun, which doesn't seem like there's any proof here, maybe they could get him for carrying a loaded firearm and not being the registered owner under California law.
That one law that I said is probably violative of the Second Amendment, which is, by the way, why they have those laws so they can get you on something.
But other than that one, which I don't even think they can get because they lack the DNA evidence to prove he ever touched the gun, I think this entire thing gets thrown out.
I think this is a giant L for the prosecution based on what we've seen so far.
Unless there's something else they're pulling out in this final week, this looks like a giant L for them in my experience.
And once again, you're going to have to convince the jury.
It was the prosecution's duty to convince the jury.
Did they do that?
I don't know where.
Where would they do that in this case?
Yeah.
So guys, there's 6,100 plus of y'all watching right now.
I need you guys to get us up to at least, we should be at like three to 4K easily, guys.
If you guys want me to give you my prediction on what I think is going to happen, I need you guys to like the goddamn video.
And I hate asking this.
And I also need you guys to go ahead and take this time to subscribe to the channel and also subscribe to Andrew's channel, Legal Mindset.
He's tagged in the title.
Subscribe to the channel.
Let's get him to 100,000.
Almost there, baby.
I need you guys to like the video.
I'm not going to go in and give you guys my prediction until I get this thing to at least 3K likes.
We got to get the goddamn likes up.
It's very easy.
We gave you guys a whole bunch of sauce.
While I wait for you guys to get the goddamn likes up, I'll go ahead and give you guys a quick recap on what happened.
All right.
So first week of the trial, trial began last Monday, guys.
Okay.
So day one, they went ahead with opening statements.
We described what opening statement is.
The prosecution opened up painting Tori Lanez as the alleged shooter, right?
And they opened up with dance bitch, and then, which is allegedly what Tori Lane said before he shot Meg.
Then the defense went in with their theory that Kelsey was actually the shooter.
There was gunshot residue on her as well.
And that this wasn't necessarily an argument between her and Meg, sorry, between Tori and Meg, rather an argument between Kelsey and Meg over the fact that Meg had slept with men that Kelsey had been involved with prior to include Tori Lanes, the baby, and Ben Simmons, and maybe some other dudes, right?
So Meg's sexual history definitely came into this.
Then on day one, the law enforcement were pretty much brought in.
On direct, you know, everything went smooth because the prosecutors asking them questions.
Then on cross, right, the defense basically were able to illustrate that the police did not follow standard evidentiary procedure correctly and they didn't mark the evidence appropriately with the bullets and the blood at the crime scene.
So there was, there's no real definitive pattern, right, or movement that can be proven of the witness and slash victim in this case.
So they don't really know who shot who.
Okay.
So they attack the evidence in that perspective, right?
Which is the defense's job.
Then the prosecution was saying, hey, we got jail calls of Tori Lane's profusely apologizing when he was in prison.
And, you know, the defense's argument to that, well, you guys know now that he could have been apologizing for outing Meg's sexual history to Kelsey, which started the whole altercation, them fighting.
So they created some more plausible deniability that he might have not been apologizing for shooting because he never said, I'm sorry for shooting.
He just said, I'm sorry.
And no one really knows for what.
And the defense say it could be from outing Meg.
Then on day three, right, this is day one.
So day two, excuse me, Meg thee Stallion goes and takes a stand.
She gives her story, powerful testimony.
I'm the victim, blah, blah, blah.
She did a good job of getting the pulling at the heartstrings.
She gives some, she gives a story that, to be honest with you guys, doesn't make too much sense.
But go back in the video.
I'm going to put time stamps up that goes exactly over what she said in her testimony.
Then on Cross, she also had some testimony that was questionable, but guys go back and watch it.
I'll put the timestamps up for you guys on the show.
So don't worry.
And then day three, obviously, the explosive testimony from Kelsey, where she takes the fifth before she even gets on the stand.
As soon as she gets on the stand, she admits that she had lied to the prosecution back in September when she had come in for an interview.
When asked multiple times why, she said to protect herself.
And this obviously builds more ammunition for the defense's argument that she could have been potentially the shooter.
And when she was asked if Tori Lanez threatened Meg to shoot her, she says yes.
And then they ask, well, under what context?
And then she takes the fifth again, which we went over the Fifth Amendment.
You only get Fifth Amendment privileges when what you are going to say is more than likely going to incriminate you, which she ended up getting immunity.
So, yeah, the prosecution can't really go after her.
And then on Cross, she went ahead and contradicted a bunch of the things that Meg said, which, you know, will be in detail in the timestamps.
And then we went on to day five where the DNA experts confirmed that Tori Lane's DNA was not on the magazine and that the gun itself had four different DNA profiles, but it was inconclusive.
And the DNA experts also say that if the gun had been shot five times by Torrey Lanes, his DNA more than likely would be on it or should be on it conclusively, according to the other DNA expert from Torre's side.
But both DNA people to note from the state and from Torrey's defense team both concluded that, hey, it was inconclusive and it should be there if he fired five times.
And I guess that's the general overall summary.
Anything else you want to say?
And we're not at closing arguments yet.
So we're not there yet.
So we still got to know.
Yeah, we probably got, I think my over-undermy ring is I think they want to, and let me tell you about judges, they like to finish things before Christmas.
Sorry, go ahead.
They like to finish things before Christmas.
So I do not think this thing goes longer than the end of this week, including closing arguments.
So that judge has probably told them, listen, Muslim motherfuckers, I'm not going out here and unboxing some shit with some whiny ass kids and then coming back here into court.
The judge is probably, because the judges, they're real people.
The jury is real people too.
And the jury is going to be pissed off if this thing gets dragged out.
Mind you, the longer these things go, it's probably worse for the prosecution, particularly if the jury perceives the prosecution as drawing this thing out.
So I think this thing wraps this week.
I think we get a verdict this week 100% in this case.
That's where I'm at.
I agree with you 100% on that.
I want you guys to know, like when trials occur, the judge, their main focus is getting the jury to not be agitated, annoyed, and for them to be able to, you know, process the case, understand the case, and most importantly, make their ruling on the case as far as who they think is, you know, culpable in the crime or not culpable in this case, potentially.
So the judge's prime concern is always the jury, guys.
I mean, when I went to trial, the judge will yell at the prosecutors and or the defense if they if they stall the trial because he looks at it like yo these jurors are here on their free time they're you know they're missing work they're they're not watching television they're not watching certain coverage on this case they're missing a lot of stuff for this case as a civil duty so we need to go ahead and respect that so the judge uh always wants the the jury to not be agitated annoyed and another thing too is this has all been the prosecution's case mind you the
defense they can put on a case they can bring up witnesses but they don't have to all they got to do is poke holes and they've already done that and in fact the prosecution is probably its own worst enemy at this point so the defense doesn't need to get up there and give a lot they just have to go up there poke a couple holes in the story of the prosecution and that's it they're done they can sit down and they can rest their case so i think we're going to see not too much from that and also remember and this is very important is that tory lanes is probably not
going to testify in this he's probably taking the fifth because which in this case as his attorney if i was tory lane's attorney i would say do not get up there take the fifth sit down there's no reason to get up there it's just going to look bad there's going to be able to ask you questions attack your credibility get into things that might make you look bad do not get up there so i expect that tory lanes will take the fifth and will not get up there to testify good point on this topic let's talk about potential witnesses that they're going to bring in they talked
about potentially bringing kylie jenner as a witness they cut which would be bombshell i mean that would take that would put some napalm on this picture kylie comes in they they talked about obviously that witness that saw the fight they're going to bring him in the security guard and then the defense wants to bring back one of the police officers which that's not a good thing they probably want to um cross him some more and attack the prosecution's case even more so um they also want that detective to come in but that's not going to happen the the one that's under investigation at stock and or
stagnant whatever his name is i i would love i would love to see kylie come back in and be like yo these hells were mad because he was just trying to smash me like i mean that i mean that would be that would be the nuclear bomb on this case yeah so so So, um, those are the witnesses that are more than likely going to come in.
But I agree with you, Andrew.
They're 100% going to want to wrap this up before Christmas.
He's not going to want the trial to lag on beyond Christmas.
I think they're going to go at what they'll probably do is they'll probably finish all the witnesses by this week, get the jury to deliberate, and hopefully they can go ahead and get some kind of decision by the end of the week and be done with it for Christmas because Christmas is this weekend.
So, yeah, it's coming up.
So, I mean, they don't want to be, they don't want to be doing that.
They don't want the jury out there.
They usually promise the jury to keep it as quick as possible.
And mind you, the jury is going to make their decision quickly if they push it closer to Christmas.
So they know if this thing wraps on Thursday, that jury is coming back by the end of Friday with a verdict.
They're not going out there over that weekend and saying they got to come back the next week.
Mind you, you're paid a very low amount for this.
This is not a profitable venture for you to be sitting in court.
You are not paid a lot of money.
This is not fun.
This is not cool.
It's a pain in your ass.
Nobody wants to be there.
They all just want to go home.
So they are not going to be favoring the prosecution if the prosecution pushes this towards the weekend.
They might just, if this wrapped on Friday morning, they might walk back in there before lunch and give a verdict saying, look, we already decided this guy's not guilty.
So here's my prediction on it.
And guys, get the likes up.
So we went over everything.
At this point, I would be shocked if Tori Lanez was found guilty.
I would honestly be shocked because you guys got to remember, like I said at the top of the podcast, it's the prosecution's job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not probable cause, which is all the way down here.
They need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Tori was the shooter.
Tori was in possession of the firearm.
Tori discharged the firearm, etc.
The DNA evidence alone is inconclusive that he was the one that shot the gun five times.
Okay.
And you got witness testimony that contradicts itself all over the place.
Everyone was drunk.
You got Megdestine, the primary witness against Tori, lying on random interviews, giving contradictory statements to what the prosecution is even saying.
Then the person that was supposed to be the prosecution's star witness gets on the stand and takes the fifth and then admits everything she told the prosecution was a lie.
And then she goes ahead and says, I'm taking the fifth and I have to protect myself.
Well, what the hell can that be insinuating?
Well, it can insinuate that you her and well, we already know that her and Meg were actually the ones arguing and fighting, right?
And to include Tori as well.
And there was a physical altercation.
So now it's probable or possible that Kelsey shot Meg.
That is a legitimate theory now at this point.
And guess what that does?
That creates a magic term, which is reasonable doubt, my friends.
And once there's reasonable doubt, which is the defense's job, you can't convict somebody because we don't know if he was a shooter definitively beyond a reasonable doubt.
And I agree with you, Andrew, at this point, because some people said, oh, Tori's going to take the stand, Tori's going to take the stand.
I mean, anytime I've ever seen a defense attorney put their witness on the stand, it's always been an L. It's it almost never works.
Never, never.
I mean, do you think it's going to put it?
I think the only cases in which you have to do it are cases where it's self-defense.
So we've looked at that in some of the officers' situations.
Kyle Rittenhouse, you have to go on there to establish certain facts if it's a self-defense case.
If it's not self-defense, if you're not out there asserting that I was in fear for my life personally and that is why I killed somebody, if it's not self-defense, there's no reason for you to be getting up there on the stand.
None whatsoever.
Especially in this case where one of the prosecution's witness did the work for you.
So I only see it as problematic because it's not like Tori was sober.
You know what I mean?
And he remembers everything clear, like, no, like, I remember this and that.
He was drunk too.
So his testimony is not, I don't, like, Kelsey already did the work for him, to be honest with you.
So if I would be shocked if his defense put her on the stand at him on the stand at this point.
Yeah, Tori Lanez would not be well served to be on the be on the stand.
And frankly, you know, I don't think even the bodyguard that was there that night, I think Jaquan Smith, I don't think he would be a good witness either.
I think you just kind of want to have both of those guys off the stand.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And he, you know, I'm surprised they didn't call him, but I mean, probably because he's a part of Tori's team.
Yes.
He's an employee of Tori's team.
So they know there'd be, you know, potential conflict there.
Also, I mean, he could probably plead the fifth as well because he's implicated in potential crimes there or as an accessory to potential crimes as an agent of Tori Lane's.
Exactly, which is why I think that the prosecution was like, no, fuck no, we're not going to do it.
They're dumb.
They're not dumb.
They're not dumb.
They're not going to call it.
Yeah.
They're not going to bring him on as a witness.
The defense might put him on.
Now, with with all the craziness going on, and all like all the defense has been able to create a circus here to some degree.
And their theory that Kelsey is the shooter now actually can stand because Kelsey is saying, I take the fifth.
Well, what would a rational person think?
Why is she taking a fifth?
Was she the shooter?
You know, and then the way that she took the fifth was problematic because they're like, all right, did Tory threaten Meg to shoot her?
Yes.
Okay.
Under what context did he threaten her?
I take the fifth.
What?
Well, yeah, the context because you need the context because the context matters.
It's motivation.
You need to prove motive.
Why did Tori Lanez shoot, you know, shoot Meg the Stallion?
It's, it's, it's crazy, man.
But my prediction is there is no way at this point that he's going to get convicted.
And let's say he does, he does get found guilty.
He has appeal upon appeal that he could file on this thing.
This thing was a clown world circus, which is coming in state court.
And by the way, not just for trial, but throughout the whole process of how the interviews were conducted, how things went down, evidence preservation.
There's all sorts of issues with this trial.
I think he would definitely win an appeal, which is why I think he probably doesn't have to worry too much about being deported.
I think that he's probably all right on that, because it probably would be his deportation, I imagine, would be stayed pending the appeal.
I think they would let that resolve.
What do you think was the biggest mess up from this overall, whether it be from the defense or from the state?
Well, I think number one, having an expert get up there and testify against your interest, that is a massive fail.
That's one.
And the other one is obviously what happened with Kelsey Harris.
To have somebody get up on the stand and drop that and you haven't negotiated that beforehand looks horrible to a jury.
That looks like that person is guilty and they have something to hide.
If the first word, remember what I said?
What do they remember?
The first thing and last thing.
So same thing for a witness.
They remember the first things the witness said and the last things the witness said.
So the first thing they remember is I played the fifth.
And the last thing is, did the prosecution ask you to lie?
Yes.
Yeah.
That's what they get from Kelsey Harris.
Just those two things.
That's that's not looking good.
Even though she didn't say that the prosecution made her lie, the fact she said, well, the prosecution basically she said the prosecution pressured me.
Yeah.
So, you know what I mean?
Like a jury can look at that because you guys got to remember the jurors are regular people like every day.
Like they're kind of like, they're like, like to them, they're looking at this like, what the hell?
This is weird.
So can you convict a man, right, with all this evidence that shows that he might have not been the shooter?
And you guys got to remember that Tori.
Gross negligence.
And when the standard for a lot of these is gross negligence, and you got to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.
So you've got to prove that he was grossly negligent beyond a reasonable doubt.
So that he was acting in a way that was, you know, wantonly malicious almost.
You're acting a way that, like I said, firing into a crowd, doing something really reckless beyond a reasonable doubt.
They haven't even come to like greater, they haven't even beat 50%, right?
They haven't even beat probability, flip of a coin, that it was Tori Lanes.
And at that point, that's not criminal, people.
That might be civil.
It ain't criminal.
It's definitely not criminal.
And by the way, I think they lose in a civil suit.
I think Meg would never take him in a civil suit because I think even there, she cannot prove that he was the proximate cause of the damage.
Oh, I'll tell you this.
If he wins this thing, he has a defamation suit coming for her so bad.
Oh, bro.
If he gets acquitted of these charges, Meg the Stallion, not only is she going to get ridiculed, but she is going to get destroyed by Tori Lanez's defamation lawyer.
She could.
She could.
Now, it might be the bigger law might be in the media.
The bigger L might be in the media, right?
She's probably going to take a bigger L in the media that she went in defamation court.
You're seeing even now in defamation court with Johnny Depp versus Amber Heard, Amber's appealing that already.
So that's all that's all cut up in the weeds for a while.
It doesn't hit them right away.
So they've got that delay built in there and also a potential to reduce the amount of the damages.
But I think the amount that she's taken an L in media and people like you that are putting out the truth on this, it's helping because there's people out there that are focusing on this story.
And when I read about this online, all I see is shit like, oh, Meg the Stallion is subject to so much online hate, this and that.
They're not talking about the facts of the case.
They're not talking about the facts of the incident.
They're out there spouting bullshit.
And there's certainly a lot of these people are not lawyers.
And they're certainly not former law enforcement agents.
So they don't know what the fuck they're talking about when they talk about this.
And I'll tell you guys this.
So I wrote down some of the mistakes that I think the prosecution has done on this thing.
Number one, they clout chase this thing, man.
Let's just keep it a thousand.
You know what I mean?
Like, if this was just a regular situation with some regular people with these facts, I don't think the DA would go as hard as to take this thing.
But they took it because obviously it's high profile.
You got a black woman being shot by a black man.
And it's like, let's go ahead and, you know, prosecute this.
Meg is the victim, etc.
So it's a clout chase.
And this is, you know, failed Los Angeles before.
Obviously, look at the OJ trial, which is probably one of the biggest black guys in Los Angeles prosecution prosecutor history.
Then you got, they interviewed Kelsey way too late.
They interviewed her two years after the fact, which to me is in fucking sane that investigators didn't go ahead and get an interview from her right after.
Okay.
Then you got the lead detective is on admin leave or potentially getting terminated, which to me is crazy, bro.
Like if you got, if you had a federal case and the main case agent was in serious trouble like this, bro, I mean, you'd be damn near close to like, can we still do this thing or whatever?
But obviously at this point, it's a high-profile case.
The DA can't dismiss the case, right?
So they had to see it through.
That's why you got a detective that comes in.
Oh, yeah, I listened to the jail calls a week ago.
What the fuck?
Yo, this case has been going on for two plus for two plus years.
You're telling me that you just listened to the jail calls a week ago when this stuff, when this shit happened back in July of 2020, what the hell are you talking about?
That is sloppy.
That is sloppy for you.
Especially when you have somebody that's of the profile of Tori Lane's, you need to take this shit seriously.
You guys half-assed this.
Like, that's not possible.
So, one of the detectives, yeah, I listened to it last week.
Incredible.
So, that's how I knew that they just brought some random guy in to take over this case because this other guy got in trouble.
And let me be honest with y'all: anytime you absolve a case from someone else and it gets dropped on your lap, you're not going to take it seriously because it's not your baby.
If anything, I guarantee the LAPD is like, fuck, bro.
I don't want to do this shit.
This is a pain in the ass.
This is bringing all this media scrutiny.
Like, this is annoying, you know.
And then also, the police that arrived on the scene, not properly coordinating off the area and marking the bullet cases and everything properly, big fucking L for them as well.
You know, because the number one way to destroy a case from the police is to attack the evidence and attack the way in which the evidence was gathered.
In this case, you got a detective that's in trouble administratively that has Giglio issues.
Now, you also got police officers that showed up at the scene that didn't gather the evidence properly so that you can have a clear picture of what the hell happened.
You got DNA experts saying, yo, we can't conclusively say that Tori Lane's DNA is on the gun, okay?
But if he did shoot it five times, we should probably see his DNA on the gun.
None of this is a W for the prosecution.
It's a big L altogether.
So this all together put it, you know, Kelsey going at their primary witness, taking the fifth, and the inference that she could have been potentially the shooter.
All of this has created reasonable doubt that Tori Lanez is innocent.
And I would be shocked if they found him guilty.
There's no way.
There's no way.
And from what people I've seen, the jury's already kind of been like, what the hell is going on?
When Kelsey took the fifth and gave contradictory statements, they were like, whatever.
And then you got Meg the Stallion lying on other interviews and then coming in under oath and then giving another story.
So what's literally the prosecution?
The prosecution does not have a single credible witness.
Single credible, especially the eyewitness testimony.
It doesn't have one.
This is a case where, frankly, I am shocked they brought this based on the facts.
Lack of credibility for these witnesses.
You gotta have one.
You don't have one.
Yo, now that you say that, the prosecution doesn't have one credible witness.
Even the detective that ran this case is under investigation.
What the fuck is going on, bro?
You're right.
They really don't even have a credible witness.
No.
No, not even there.
And their expert didn't even help them out.
This is so bad.
This is like, literally, are you guys making a mockery?
Like, is this a game to you guys?
Like, fucking with somebody's life?
Like, the ability to get him deported?
Is this a fucking game to you that you brought this?
And that's why you guys say there's definitely political pressure.
There's some sort of something.
There's something going on here to bring this case because this is just absolutely a clown show.
This would not be brought in most jurisdictions where I've, you know, litigate where I've, you know, served, where I've been.
It's been, it's been something that really hasn't come up in anything I've seen based on this lack of evidence.
They wouldn't even indict.
No, no.
I don't even think, or if they did indict, they would dismiss the indictment after shit like this.
And the other thing, too, by the prosecution that really shocks me.
Do you guys not fucking prepare your witnesses?
Like, what the hell is this?
If you go to trial, you got to prepare your witnesses.
Like, how do you have a witness come in and take the fifth?
That tells me they did not prepare her.
That's crazy to me, bro.
That is crazy to me.
This is just sloppy police work, inexperienced prosecutors, clout chasing DA's office, trying to go ahead and get a profile, a high-profile case, regardless of what the evidence is.
Like, you said it perfectly.
They don't have one credible witness on the prosecution side.
And guys, trust me, I looked at this case, like, okay, let's see what Meg got to say.
I did look at it impartially, but as I continue to go through the evidence, listen to the testimony, everything else, bro, this is a fucking L for the prosecution all the way.
And that's how, and that's how I started too, Myron, because we all come in with our opinions, right?
And we all have our biases, right?
But I come in like, okay, let me look at the legal perspective, which is agnostic to biases and prejudice and whatever.
And let me look at the jury's perspective.
How is this jury going to view this?
And it doesn't look good.
I don't give a shit whether they've listened to WAP or not.
This does not look good.
This does not sound good, right?
Don't die there, Myron.
It does not matter.
It literally does not matter because this looks like there's a bunch of liars for the prosecution and they've really not got shit on this guy.
They've got accused and they're trying to lock him up for a long time, a significant period of time.
Roy has a lot to lose here, man, because not only is he going to go to prison, he's going to get deported.
He's going to get deported.
He'll never be able to come back to the United States again.
He will be an excluded alien, right?
Which means he can't come back, which means he can't do shows in the U.S. He can't perform in the U.S. He can't do anything.
And for anyone that knows anything about the music industry, most artists make most of their money from touring and doing appearances and doing club walkthroughs.
Especially in the U.S., especially in the U.S., like definitely in the U.S. So he would have to rely on the Canadian audience and being international, which he would still do okay, but he will lose a significant amount of money.
And here's the thing y'all don't know too.
Tori's already been blackballed by the industry, like significantly since this, because like Meg, right, is smart.
She went ahead and took the victim route.
And now does she take the victim route?
Yeah.
I'm a black woman and I was victimized.
Yeah, that's double.
That's two points.
Yeah.
Immediately she's going to get public sympathy.
We live in a world nowadays where it's believe all women.
You know, we saw the same thing happen with Johnny Depp and Amber Heard, right?
And hey, man.
And we're seeing, and Myron, the thing is, like, you know, and I know you try to keep the two things separate, but the thing is, we're seeing more and more bleed over this into the courtroom.
And we're seeing more and more how mainstream media and pop culture is trying to literally impact the courtroom.
They're trying to lay down cover fire.
They're trying to lay down a narrative.
And they're also trying to tell you as the case is going on, as we're literally seeing these facts, they're trying to tell you, oh, but Meg is still the victim here, guys.
They're literally trying to gaslight you live and pretend like everybody is an idiot who can't just pay attention to the trial, watch, see what actually happens.
They're just lying and lying and lying.
And we're seeing this on a regular basis, which is really that nexus of law and pop culture, which I'm always here for, because it's infecting all aspects of our life.
Because that's the one place, Myron, I think, where we can say, hey, the process is pretty fair.
And the fact that it's fair, the fact that it works out, not all the time, not all the time.
Sometimes it's unfair, but the fact that it works out, at least more often than not, they don't like that because in the courtroom, it's facts over feelings.
Big facts, man.
In modern day America, modern day Western Europe, you know, Canada, we can't deal with that.
Not we, because obviously Myron and I can deal with it.
But most people out there cannot deal with facts over feelings.
And courtrooms get rid of that.
They get rid of the bullshit.
They get rid of the lies and they call you out.
If you've said something that's a lie, they call you out on it.
That's something mainstream media doesn't do.
It doesn't happen really anywhere except for in the courtroom.
Absolutely, man.
And that's, that's why rule of law and, you know, you got to come in with facts and our feelings.
It's so important.
I mean, we live in a world now where, you know, that woman, what's her, I forget the lady's name that was writing a book, but she came out of nowhere and just accused Brett Kavanaugh of like assaulting her like 30, 40 years ago.
And I was like, what the hell?
And the dude had to actually take the stand.
He had to go ahead and give a whole testimony under oath about I didn't do this, blah, blah, blah.
And off of an allegation with zero proof, we live in a crazy world now, guys, where it's believe all women or whatever.
And I'm glad that these cases are kind of being brought out into the limelight.
And you guys are seeing, yo, women are capable of lying too.
Oh, yeah.
We got this case.
Shit, I've been covering Courtney Clennam.
That one got bumped, but that one's going to be big when it goes down.
I mean, you're seeing on that one, Courtney Clenny.
Yeah, it got bumped.
It got bumped for some guys.
Just so y'all know, this is the OnlyFans girl that stabbed their boyfriend right here in Miami up the road.
Andrew's been following that one very closely.
We should probably do a breakdown on that one.
Oh, we definitely, we definitely will, especially when it gets closer to the actual trial.
It got bumped till February.
I'm not sure whether trial is going to actually go in February or not.
There's a hearing then, so they'll probably set it.
They'll probably set it either near, you know, Florida.
Florida, California, and Texas are the worst states, bro.
They never go.
I'm going to tell you, I'm going to tell you one thing.
If you waive your right to a speedy trial in Florida, you are fucking waving your right.
You're giving them the infinite ability to extend that thing forever.
And a lot of defense attorneys, a lot of defense attorneys will tell you to extend it.
Three or four, but you do not do it.
Like Melly's been in jail since like 2018, 2019, dude.
Yeah.
He starts to went to trial.
They've been pushing back that trial.
That's what happened.
You waive your speedy trial.
They're like, oh, okay.
We're just going to drag our feet on this thing.
Yep.
Why should we?
Why should we care?
We got 500 cases right back here.
We got a process.
Yep.
And she got denied bond too, right?
Yes.
Yep.
Yep.
She got denied bond because she's clearly a flight risk.
She transferred a million dollars to her dad.
You know, she literally was up in up in Hawaii, and her dad's been there, by the way, the entire time on the footage.
If you look through the footage, been simping for her the entire time.
That dad's been enabling her bad behavior, right?
You know, so her testimony, like much like this testimony, is kind of changing, right?
She went from, hey, I threw the knife to, oh, now it's self-defense.
And now, okay, maybe I did actually stab him, right?
So the story is changing over time.
You're seeing with these girls a little bit of a trend here, but the problem is it's hashtag believe all women.
It's, oh my God, look at this poor girl.
She was taking advantage of her by her boyfriend, forcing her to do OnlyFans, forcing her to do porn.
You know, same thing that Mia Khalifa.
It's some, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Well, it's gonna forced her, it's it's building in that direction.
I'm seeing it going that direction.
Similar to Mia Khalifa, right?
Right?
Mia Khalifa's story right now is that she was, you know, this is what she was pushed into when she was young and vulnerable.
This is where we're going.
And once again, this is coming from pop culture in the mainstream into the courtroom.
Yeah.
And people are getting mad because we're spitting facts.
Dude, you know, you know what's crazy about this Courtney Clinton story?
Because I remember she originally said she threw the knife and then they're like, that doesn't make sense because the force at which the knife hit him is indicative of someone actually stabbing him.
There's no way you could have thrown it with that much force to hit him.
Worse than that, Myron.
They said it's not physically possible for anybody to sink a knife in that deep from that distance.
They said it's physically impossible.
That's what the MLB pitcher couldn't have done.
Nope.
Nope.
Not with a not that deep of a cut, not that deep of a wound from that distance with throwing arms.
Doesn't matter if you're in the Olympics, you're not making that happen, bro.
That much accuracy in that area where he would bleed out.
Like, bro, it is crazy to me.
Like, the like, and here's the other part, too.
I'm really glad that you mentioned that self-defense people that self-defense defendants typically have to hit the stand.
That means she's going to have to testify.
Yes, she's going to have to get on the stand in order to prove self-defense.
So, you're going to get a great case there when that ever, whenever, whenever that actually goes, it's going to be a great case.
Um, so I'm going to be covering that one, and that's the type of stuff I like to cover on my channel, like legal mindset.
And I like to give you guys a little background, like Myron does, and then cover it through the case.
If it's a case like that, I may actually be watching the whole trial on my channel just streaming a lot.
What do you, what, what are your, what are your predictions so far, just off of the evidence you have?
She's not on everything I have, I'm not getting her, I'm not getting self-defense off that.
You know, I'm not getting self-defense off that at all.
In fact, I think, based on the evidence, um, you could even get malice off of this really from her.
Um, I do, I do think that she was so that so they understand like yeah, so malice and malice can be formed in a second, but malice is knowingly and intentionally doing something.
So, I'm killing them with malice aforethought, meaning I thought about it and I did it, right?
So, I picked up the gun and I shot him, I picked up the knife and I stabbed him.
And you did it knowingly, it wasn't an involuntary movement, it wasn't a reaction.
It was I picked it up and I knowingly went over there and got him.
This isn't to be confused with premeditation, guys, where it's like, I really planned this out, you know what I mean.
And now, I don't think that's going to be the I don't think that's going to be what's levied.
They can probably get her on manslaughter or something less, and I think they will charge her with something less and get her on something less.
But I'm saying that I think even this one, you could, if you wanted to, get her on that.
I think she was definitely um, you can see from her previous videos and looking at even some of the calls and other evidence that she was intoxicated.
Whether she was drunk or on drugs, I don't know.
We'd have to see toxicology, but uh, definitely a lot of factors in that one.
That point is it true that he actually physically assaulted her like she claims.
Uh, there was no proof of that, I don't think that I've seen so far that I've seen so far.
Unless they got evidence that we don't know about and they've got their own medical expert they're going to enter, right?
These are all things for trial where they might get their own expert in there and say, oh, look, she had this and this on her, which were indicating physical abuse.
And then the prosecution could get up their witness and say, nope, this could be this dumb hoe falling drunk down the stairs.
And this is why she got this injury, right?
And there's video of her assaulting him in an elevator.
And then on top of that, I heard friends, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong here.
I heard there were friends that had seen her beat on him, but never him beat her.
Yes.
Yes, there's friends that have testified that have come out and put that out there that they've seen her beating on him, her taking advantage of him, and that she targets rich black simps.
That's literally what the words were from the friends.
Oh, God.
So, well, yeah, there's a lot of stuff going on there.
Yeah.
Yeah, because he was like a crypto trader or something like that, if I'm not mistaken.
It's something in that field.
Dude, I mean, look, this is an L all around.
I mean, at the end of the day, it sucks because the guy lost his life, but this is why I tell y'all, man, you got to be careful with these women sometimes, man.
Like, this is wild stuff.
You got Amber Heard lying on Johnny Depp, saying he did all this stuff to her.
All of it was false.
She ends up taking the L. Now you got Meg the Style saying Tori Lane shot her.
Nothing to corroborate that.
She's over here lying in interviews.
Her testimony is contradictory to her best friend's testimony.
You got Courtney Clenny over here saying she threw a knife at her boyfriend with perfect precision and hit him in that aortic valve and he bled out.
Meanwhile, a fucking MLB pitcher can't even throw it that hard.
Like, bro, what the fuck is going on here, man, with these girls?
It's wild.
And the last thing you want to do is lose your life, right?
You want to lose your life simping.
You want to, I mean, look, because at the end of the day, look, at the end of the day, even if she's guilty, a human life was lost.
Like, that's not coming back.
Like, a guilty verdict doesn't resurrect this guy from the grave, right?
He died for this.
You know, so you don't want to be out there simping or white knighting or whatever and ending up dead.
Because yeah, we'll take, well, we'll hear your case.
We'll cover it.
I'll come out there and push for justice, but it's not going to bring your life back.
So the best thing is preventative medicine if you keep watching this.
Yeah, you guys just got to be careful, bro.
Like, you got three instances here.
This is 2022 is about to be the year that like 20, 2022, like 2022, like going into 2023, 2024, because Clenny's probably going to go on trial.
Yeah.
It's going to be the year of just exposing girls that lie on dudes, bro.
Yep.
This is crazy.
This is about to be three L's back to back to back.
But the pendulum is swinging back the other way and the truth is swinging back the other way because people are out here spitting truth on a regular basis.
And you all know that Myron is always willing to do that.
And that's why I'm always willing to come on with him at any time.
And that's all I'm about.
We would tell you, if the guy was in the wrong, we would tell you, yo, this guy, he fucked up, blah, blah, blah.
If Tori really shot her, I'd be here.
Like, yo, yeah, he, yo, he more than likely shot her.
But guys, with the evidence at hand right now, because these are all the main witnesses that went.
Everybody at this point, guys, is going to be what I call like an accessory witness.
The star witnesses are done, bro.
All right.
So off of the main testimony, what's the witness going to say?
Oh, I saw the dude, the girls fighting.
We know that already.
You know, what's the other police officer going to say?
Well, the defense is going to come in and tear him up.
That's only going to help the defense.
So who's the prosecution going to call?
They have no one else to really call.
That's pretty much it.
You know, and we, and just like Andrew said perfectly, they don't have one credible witness, man.
So anyway, it is what it is, man.
We'll see what happens this week.
I think they're going to wrap it up.
We'll see what happens.
But Andrew, where can the people find you?
Dude, you guys can find me on my channel, LegalMindset on YouTube and on Rumble.
I do put some exclusive content on Rumble sometimes as well.
Also, more importantly, legalmindset.locals.com.
That is my exclusive community.
I put exclusive content out there almost every day during the week.
I have after parties after my shows.
We just talk, drop the suit, talk to completely unscripted, unfiltered, 100% uncensored.
So that's a great place to find me as well.
LegalMindset.locals.com.
Otherwise, subscribe to my channel.
I'm almost to 100K.
So we're on the push to 100K.
I want to do it in the next couple of months.
We can do it.
And you know what?
Just because I love you, I'm going to run through these super chats real quick before we get off.
All right.
So I got here.
Buy one BBL.
Get one free.
Always wonder why the driver was not subpoenaed if he is the key witness and saw everything.
We went answered that already.
Why we, you know, of course, that's speculation why we think he wasn't called, but that's why the prosecution is smart enough to understand.
We're not going to bring in someone from Tori's team to testify.
Cool Brees TV goes, this trial became peg the mega for real.
Okay.
Roy Littlepage goes, just watch the Zodiac, bro.
IHOP stands for International House of Pancakes.
Enjoying this breakdown.
Keep it up.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
Maddie Ciesio goes, Tori should have chose the other lane.
SMH.
Yeah, it happens.
Just came from the Rolo, but I've been wanting to hear about this.
Got you, Christopher Harris.
Time stamps will be back.
I'm going to put detail stamps in this for y'all, by the way.
Who needs a British black single mama who won't listen when you got a Latina in America that will W Christina?
Shout out to Christina.
She helping out behind the scenes.
Can you break down the Stuart Rhodes and Oathkeeper case?
He just convicted of sedacious conspiracy for the Capitol Riots.
I was one of the jurors.
Heard of this?
Whoa.
The Capitol Riots.
Yeah, I mean, obviously, there's the J6 stuff.
I mean, that stuff is still very spicy to talk about on YouTube.
That stuff that might have to be a Rumble exclusive because when you start talking about J6, people get really, really triggered.
And right now, they're actually going back and doing a lot of, I don't know if you heard about this, Myron, but a lot of people are getting strikes for old stuff they're talking about, like around J6 and around Rona and stuff like that.
So I know about it, but I try to keep it pretty close to the vest because if you get into the facts about that stuff, people get very, very angry because there's a certain narrative.
And whenever you disrupt the narrative, people get angry.
Bam.
All right.
Fair enough.
King Life goes, Can the prosecutor just rest the case and dismiss at this point?
No, they're too deep, bro.
They're going to have to hold this L. Three Niglitz, Megan Thee Stallion is my queen.
I know he's trolling.
Hey, Myron, love this channel.
Can you do a breakdown of killing of Don Henry and Kevin Ives case?
Never heard of it.
Maybe I will down the road.
Christopher Harris, fire emojis.
Thank you so much.
Amen.
Daniel goes, another killer collab coverage of another Amber Turd type trying to destroy this man's life.
This expose is very important.
Thank you guys.
We got you guys.
This is better than corn.
P. Okay.
That's from Monkey D.U.Sup.
WRDA goes, I think Meg shot herself.
Just saw the gun in the car.
Tori came out the car to call Meg down.
Meg was the one saying, dance, bitch, dance.
Okay, that's, I guess, you're, I don't think so.
But I will say this too.
Oh, important thing.
They didn't collect DNA from Meg or from Kelsey, guys.
Weird, weird that they didn't do that.
Weird that they didn't do that, right?
Oh, boom, so convinced that Tori was the shooter.
So they did not collect evidence.
Sorry, the DNA from those two, but there were four DNA profiles on that farm.
So I would not be surprised if everyone in that vehicle touched the gun at some point, potentially.
Let's see here.
The truth will prevail from Charles.
Torrey is not guilty.
Myron, and this is why they deserve less.
Yes, book coming soon.
Why women deserve less?
Kelsey shot Meg and Tori said, Damn B. Okay.
Meg put the beats on Kelsey.
Kelsey pulled the burner.
Okay.
Osmosis.
And then Meg built like Bojack Horseman.
Meg built like big game James Worthy.
Oh my God.
And then, dude, these Meg built like in the chats are like destroying me, man.
Like, they're so good, man.
Shout out to the chat.
And then someone said here from Terry Brown, E-Bro and Maul should be embarrassed.
I don't know why.
I don't know if they don't know why they should be embarrassed.
Maybe they said something to the contrary of what we said.
But y'all got the facts now, man.
Pretty much.
This is the testimony from five days of trial.
The main stuff was covered this week, guys.
Anything else at this point, the witness put all their best stuff out there, and it was an L. I'm just going to be sitting with popcorn, waiting for the closing argument.
And I'm going to cover that.
I'll probably do that whenever it comes out because I just want to see what they have to say.
Like, what shit are they going to try to say to salvage this?
Like, what are they going to say at the closing when you do it?
Yeah, I'll let you know.
I'll let you know.
We'll react to it together and see what happens.
Yeah, that could be a great one because, I mean, like, honestly, like, shit, it's this at this point is insane.
It's really insane.
Absolutely.
Guys, I hope you guys enjoyed this stream, bro.
This was probably the most definitive, most comprehensive breakdown on this trial on YouTube because you got two experts.
Someone that's been to trial before in a criminal case and ran a trial as a lead investigator.
You got a practicing attorney who's actually litigated.
A lot of you attorneys have never argued in court before, which is a big fucking problem, right?
So, guys, hope you enjoyed that breakdown.
I'm going to put detailed timestamps in here day by day, witness by witness, you know, portion by portion, definitions, all that stuff is going to be in the description box.
So, this will be your one-stop shop to get the stuff.
Make sure you subscribe to Legal Mindset.
Okay, get him to 100,000.
I want you guys to prioritize his channel over mine.
I don't even give a fuck.
I'll have him 100K.
Help him hit 100,000.
Like the video.
Hope you guys enjoyed this one.
And Andrew, I'll give you the last word.
What do you got to say to people?
All right, man.
Come over there, guys.
Make sure you're subscribed.
Make sure you're checking in.
Also, subscribe to Myron.
And make sure you're staying tuned with all your favorite creators because, guys, a rising tide rises all boats.
We all grow together and we all come together to give you facts over feelings.
Bam.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Peace out, guys.
I'll see you on the next episode of Fed It probably on Thursday.
BTK, I'm thinking, later.
I'm a special agent with homeless investigations.
Okay, guys.
HSI.
The cases that I did mostly were human smuggling and drug trafficking.
No one else has these documents, by the way.
Here's what FedIt covers.
Dr. Lafredo confirmed lacerations due to stepping on glass.
Murder investigation.
Reaching in his jacket.
You don't know.
And he's positioning on February 13, 2019.
Racketeering and Rico conspiracy.
Young Slime Life, here and after referred to as YSL, the Defendants.
6ix9ine.
And then this is Billy Seiko right here.
Now, when they first started, guys, 6ix9ine ran with.
I'm a fed.
I'm watching this music video.
You know, I'm bobbing my head like, hey, this shit lit.
But at the same time, I'm pausing.
Oh, wait, who this?
Right?
Who's that in the back?
▲
Export Selection