> Prosecutors said ShotSpotter picked up a gunshot sound where Williams was seen on surveillance camera footage in his car, putting it all forward as proof that Williams shot Herring right there and then.
The police used the altered location of the shot to imply that the defendant's story about what happened wasn't true. Which was that another person in another var at a different location did the shooting.
They used the altered location data alongside video evidence to imply the defendant and the victim were alone at the shot location and therefore the defendant was the only possible suspect.
> The police used the altered location of the shot to imply that the defendant's story about what happened wasn't true. Which was that another person in another var at a different location did the shooting.
Ok that would make more sense, but I definitely did not take that away from the article. I’m sure there are better sources on this case though.
>I’m sure there are better sources on this case though.
Yet another example of why you cannot get your information from one source. Even if they are not trying to mislead, the one author might not have all of the information to provide in thier writings.
The fact that some of the evidence the police used to say who did what where was manufactured by the company.