I think I’ve mentioned on previous threads how I unintentionally got myself out of jury duty a few years back.
As they were doing jury selection, I was asked if I would be able to find someone guilty based strictly on statements from witnesses with no corroborating evidence. I said no, because I know from experience that there are lots of people who are very good liars. I would want to see some physical evidence before I believe what anyone says.
So with that in mind, let’s think about the quote I posted above.
Do we have any physical evidence that definitively proves there was a third shot? No, since the police only found two shell casings, and no bullets at all. And the policeman who talked about bullet trajectory said that it would be possible for one of the bullets to go through LK and then go through the laundry room in the house. 
The ear witness who was on the phone at the time specifically said he only heard two shots. Not three shots. Only two shots. He said the phone went dead about 10 or 15 seconds after he heard those two shots.
But both LK and RG, in their sworn testimony, said that the three shots came close together. Direct quote from each of them: “Boom, boom… boom.” But if that’s the case, why did the ear witness lawyer only hear two shots?
Then we come to the dog. Do we have any physical evidence that the dog could have been involved in the events of the day? Why, yes. Yes, we do.
The dog had bitten RC within the previous day or so, which included documentation for her medical treatment. The dog also bit the first policeman who was on the scene, according to his testimony and his police report, I believe. And there were multiple bite marks on MB when he was examined by the different medical personnel throughout the day. And RG himself swore under oath on the stand that the dog even bit him that day.
So does that provide us with an independently confirmed reason why someone might have wanted to bring a way to defend themselves against the dog that day? Why, yes. Yes, it does.
(And yet again I say: Poor Rosie.)
Finally, do we have any physical evidence that MB fired the gun the day? Or that nobody else there fired the gun that day?
Why, no. No, we do not. Unfortunately, the police did not test anyone at all for gunshot residue, and did not check the weapon for fingerprints or DNA.
I could go on and on (and on and on and on and on and on and on), and I have not even gotten to all the conflicting testimony between LK and RG. Suffice it to say that they both seemed unable to even remember their stories from the previous day’s testimony, so one might wonder how they could credibly claim to remember events from 2 1/2 years ago.
But do we have any physical evidence to verify the LK/RG version of events that day? Or any physical evidence to verify who had the gun in hand when the bullets went in LK?
Why, no. No, we do not.
