It starts with the distance the weapon was from the victim and if the victim was standing, basic geometry. The closer the victim was the sharper the entry angle would be if the bullet came from the floor. If the bullet entered at a very numerically low angle (assume 0 degrees being straight in) say 10 degrees or less he was shooting at her and not the floor. If the bullet came from the floor and the victim was relatively close (like in the same room) you would see an angle of 30 degrees or more. Rarely do you see a bullet ricochet at a sharp angle they skip like a rock thrown on a pond. At sharper angles they tend to fragment and you get shrapnel effect and not one projectile.
If the bullet entered from a low angle (the floor) the exit blood splatter would be high as well and you would see blood high on walls or ceiling.
So, I agree with you.
Interestingly, there is no blood splatter that we know of. No pics from LEO anyway.
The victim only shows a little blood draining from one nostril and the blood from the back of her head. No obvious facial swelling, no other blood splatters.
And my contention was, and remains, that shot from 10 feet with ANY round from an AR-15 (assuming it wasn’t a .22LR configuration), the physical evidence would be enormously different.
The floor divot is almost secondary. It’s obvious SOMETHING made a hole in the floor...very recently. And something one couldn’t make with a hammer-type object, no matter how hard you hit it. Angles, geometry, etc. are interesting, but the point is that if the bullet hit the floor, he didn’t intend to shoot her.
No one knows what a bullet will do to any certainty if shot a concrete floor covered with linoleum.