Not to mention that looks like a really doctored photo.

Why is there glare on the driver's side window but not on the driver's side rear? They would be at the same angle away from the helicopter.

And a huge black streak going down on a window that should have amazingly low contrast if it wasn't for the "glare" and how would a huge glop of blood blast on to the window and then streak down in a perfectly matched diameter of the original splatter? The streak then appears to go 30 degrees to the rear of the car which is on level ground, why wouldn't it just streak straight down?

You can't say it is because he leaned on the car because he fell in the opposite direction of the way the streak is going.

I can't believe they are actually presenting that as evidence as it would not hold up in court at all.

I am going to wait to see the actual crime scene photos when this goes to trial versus a zoomed in edited low res frame from a video taken 200+ feet away.

I am not sure this 'enhancing' of the photo is any proof what so ever.