This case, and this discussion, should make some things very clear to anyone who has not reflected realistically on things:
- The triers of fact must piece together fragmentary evidents with gaps and sometimes with contradictons;
- the testimony of the defendant is going to be self-serving, by definition;
- the same may apply to the testimony of wtnesses who knew the victim;
- any contadictions in statements and testimony, and any discrepant facts, may serve to damage the credibility of any wintess, or of the dfendant, if he or she does not testify; and
- relevant evidence regarding state of mind can be critical.
This whole thing should drive a nail through the heart of that ol' "a good shoot is a good shoot" idea.
There
is no such thing as a "good shoot" if it can possibly be avoided.