You have to understand that we are communicating through typing on the internet. There is no way that any of us can really make an informed decision without being there in person or talking over the phone. Communicating in person or over the phone is a much better way of relaying thought. I was only showing that the police need something that they can prove to be able to go to someone and accuse them of the most serious crime of attempted murder. The officers should have immediately gotten a warrant to secure the weapon [through a search of the man's house and property] and test for gun shot residue. They did not do that. There can be any number of reasons why they did not do so. But first... to search someone's property and building they need probable cause to do so. You saying that this guy shot him is not probable cause. You saying that you saw this guy shoot your husband IS probable cause. So what the police had to go on at that time is your husband saying that he heard a woman's voice pointing out to the alleged shooter your husband. Did your husband actually see the woman or the shooter?
Can you elaborate? What was insinuated? What is strange about what the investigator is doing? We have gotten a lot of details about the incidents but not too much regarding the investigation.
