Which is the official story?
What if his door could and cannot be "left ajar" without physically placing some object between the door and its casing to prevent it from fully closing?
Wouldn't this mean that her already highly implausible accounting becomes even less plausible?
His door could not and cannot be left ajar so that story is almost 100 percent certain to be a lie.
If the latch had been disabled by placing some thin plastic in place to block the mechanism, will reasonable handling of that frail plastic key cause the door, loaded shut by a spring, to reveal it isn't latched without going beyond reasonable fumbling and manipulating of just the key?
No, you have to put more force into it than the key will reliably transmit to moved the door from its held closed, but unlatched position.
You can accept these things as fact, since it has been demonstrated and recorded made available for anyone curious to see for themselves.
So how did she really get the door open?
What if she had a master key or a key nefariously coded to open his door?
What if he actually opened the door and was that close illuminated by the hallway lighting?
Further, Mr. Jean's apartment facing the open and illuminated courtyard and with blinds fully opened, add in light from the hallway, simply isn't dark by any reasonably sighted person's standards.
It is obvious she saw him well enough to rapidly determine the threat posing "silhouette" wasn't compliant, shoot with intent to kill the silhouette hitting center mass with one shot, missing a likely intended head-shot with another and allegedly administered CPR without ever turning on the lights!
The question is; if it were so dark that she could not and failed to reasonably determine she was not at her apartment and after ignoring countless illuminated door number indicators on her way there, why did she stop shooting him without KNOWING her allegedly perceived threat had been neutralized and she was truly out of danger? He was after all, still alive. How could she ascertain her silhouette posed no further threat and had no weapons accessible?
If Ms. Guyger lacks sufficient rods in her eyes, she likely shouldn't have been allowed to drive at night, much less carry a firearm between sunset and sunrise.
It is unfortunate that night vision isn't measured and certified for driver's licenses. I'm curious how many everyday people could not pass vision requirements for a pilot's license, much less more rigorous testing which address low light vision.
I'm going to say the number unable to pass a pilot's vision test is a big number and even larger for those that cannot pass the most rigorous military testing.
However, her deviating far beneath the norm and having poor low light vision that suddenly and miraculously improves when the lead starts flying is just another of many highly incredulous suppositions stacked on so many more already stretching her zero credibility.
The door wasn't left open or ajar and how did she get back in upon abandoning him to make her phone call from the hallway before response teams arrived?
Did she deliberately and carefully leave her vest and backpack to prevent the door from closing or did she go back into the apartment after leaving him there? The answer to that is known.
Do impartial, unbiased and legitimate panelists exist able to muster sympathy sufficient to not convict her for her actions solely attributable to her created situation?
She needlessly and intentionally took a man's life, abandoned him to bleed out while talking on the phone, and gave an accounting (multiple accountings actually) requiring anyone believing this isn't a murder to completely and willfully divorce themselves from reason.