The spread of misinformation across digital platforms can pose significant societal risks. Claim verification, a.k.a. fact-checking, systems can help identify potential misinformation. However, their efficacy is limited by the knowledge sources that they rely on. Most automated claim verification systems depend on a single knowledge source and utilize the supporting evidence from that source; they ignore the disagreement of their source with others. This limits their knowledge coverage and transparency. To address these limitations, we present a novel system for open-domain claim verification (ODCV) that leverages large language models (LLMs), multi-perspective evidence retrieval, and cross-source disagreement analysis. Our approach introduces a novel retrieval strategy that collects evidence for both the original and the negated forms of a claim, enabling the system to capture supporting and contradicting information from diverse sources: Wikipedia, PubMed, and Google. These evidence sets are filtered, deduplicated, and aggregated across sources to form a unified and enriched knowledge base that better reflects the complexity of real-world information. This aggregated evidence is then used for claim verification using LLMs. We further enhance interpretability by analyzing model confidence scores to quantify and visualize inter-source disagreement. Through extensive evaluation on four benchmark datasets with five LLMs, we show that knowledge aggregation not only improves claim verification but also reveals differences in source-specific reasoning. Our findings underscore the importance of embracing diversity, contradiction, and aggregation in evidence for building reliable and transparent claim verification systems