Affiliate Marketing Secrets

Okay !
Pretend that Person A shot a guy and Person B was probably a accessory to the murder. After a altercation with a man at a night club. Person A and B drove over to the other guy’s house that was affiliated with the altercation. Person A shoots a shot into the house and someone is hit and dies.
Now, Person B didn’t shoot and the detectives knows that from witnesses that say they seen Person A with a gun that night at two different locations.
Person B tell detectives that he seen no gun that night at all. But says that YES person A shot the gun into the house that night. ” But person B said that because he really didn’t know what he was facing and was a bit nervous of the outcome.
Person A denies all aallegationsand is being charged with 2nd degree murder.
If the case goes to trial and none of the wwitnessesshow up to say that Yes I seen Person A with the gun what will happen.
If Person B shows up and changes his story saying that he said that because he felt frighten and scared what will happen.
Will the detectives have enough evidence to charge either man.
No evidence, Gun Powder, Nor Shell Casings or fingerprints.
What could the outcome be to this?

when will they dispatch american tobacco companies as well those pesky terrorists murder 443,000 americans each year,
World Health Organisation Official figures,,,,,,,, a organisation not affiliated with republicans or democrats, i think…..

I’m working on my first novel after a long dry spell (thank you, writer’s block). I’ve taken inspiration from Stephen King’s “Dark Tower” series, Lord of the Rings, Gangs of New York, Anne Rice’s “Beauty” series, the movie Moulin Rouge… There’s a lot going on in my head, but here’s the basic plot:
Backstory:
Main character is seeking revenge for the massacre of her home some years back. (Think Fable 1 and Gangs of New York).
Plot:
She moves to the capitol city where the king lives. It’s kind of a big brother society, medeivel in a way but in no way conforming to history. After some planning, she meets the king (a known lecher) and he tries to seduce her, but she won’t give in. He invites her to live at court, and so she does, all the while planning to murder him in the most public way possible.
She ends up getting to know him very well and sees the duality in his personality. He used to be a tyrant, but now that he’s conquered the lands he wanted he has mellowed out and become somewhat soft, although he is merciless when opposed by an underground faction of rebels who oppose his right to his crown.
She becomes active with the group of rebels in the meanwhile in her attempt to assassinate him. They eventually all come to rely on her conviction that he should be put down and help her plan to murder him and replace him with the king’s first son born of the marriage his parents arranged before he had his parents and former wife murdered in his campaign for uncontested control.
In the end, she decides that she will convince the king to formally make an edict that his son should be his successor. He insists that she become queen so they may both adopt him, and she agrees having truly fallen for him.
Shortly after he makes the edict and they are married, he begins to get word of the underground resistance group the main character and his son are still affiliated with. He begins to go mad with paranoia and sets up a group of inquisitors to find out the group so that he may have them all killed.
The main character, given the choice to betray the resistance group or be killed along with the king’s son, makes the decision to kill the king and then herself, leaving the good-hearted son to rule.
And that’s essentially it. Sorry for the length. Opinions? Thanks!