The standard of proof of shocking vs not-shocking isn't to prove innocence that it's impossible to shock the dog, it's to prove that the shock actually occurred. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. If another valid explanation exists and can't be ruled out (especially when that explanation is even supported by evidence), then it isn't proven that a shock happened.
I apologize in advance for not responding to every point, but a lot of this discussion has shifted away from evidence and into speculation about people's motives or behavior. Speculation on how people might react in certain situations or behave can't be really used as proof.