I though he was a very good witness for explaining the evidentiary value of linking ammunition to the weapon that fired it. He was concise when breaking it down in layman’s terms, bridging both science and common sense.
So did I miss something, were there no doctors in any capacity called by the state? I don't think I have ever followed a case that didn't have some evaluation by a professional doctor or have I not watched far enough yet! I am on day 2 and the state is about to rest???
Why does that matter? Is it relevant enough to discredit every witness and cause reasonable doubt that he didn’t shoot them, even though he said he did?
