Yes. The video at the bottom is a video of the second robbery—the robbery that occurred after he was arrested and where the actual robbers got shot. It is not the video that was used to identify him.
This is explained in the second paragraph on the page.
What I also understand is that it is the _only_ video we actually have chance to see.
>...the only thing worth questioning here is if that shot is in fact real–something that could only be evaluated if they released the tape. But since they're not exactly going out of their way to do that I can only assume that it would be against their interests.
The police and prosecution have the latitude to release that video and could certainly do so to exonerate themselves. Releasing it is what the police should have done immediately after his case was dropped if their interest was is in catching a robber on the loose or demonstrating publicly that they did have the right man and the prosecution was dropping the ball.
In other words, you think that they didn't release the video because they have something to prove. I think that they didn't bother because they have couple overworked clerks and hundred cases just like this — regardless of whether the video proves innocence or guilt. I honestly don't see this case as important enough for any officials involved to have any special motives or do anything other than bare minimum required.
Really what I'm saying is that if I'm going to try to extrapolate something more from the information presented that would be the direction, not "Can we be sure he hasn't faked this picture?". My point is that you're speculating that someone is guilty despite a strong piece of neutral information: the DA dropped the case and he was released from jail.
Sure, it's possible the attorney faked the picture and it's all bullshit, but there's nothing to demonstrate that as being likely besides your own biases.
While this could be not the only surveillance video in this case it doesn't really collaborates anything said in the post.
Where did I state something even remotely close to this?
You're implying that we shouldn't take the story at face value OR that the author is being dishonest about his experience.
Then you say, "Meanwhile, the only video attached to the post is pixelated to the highest degree, and you certainly can't see facial features on it. Am I missing something here?"
A clear call for proof.
It seems that in your worldview, one either believes the author, or calls him a liar. But in real life, the third option is actually more optimal in majority of cases. This third option is doubt.
I'm merely pointing out that the original comment is automatically assuming that the author's story is untrue. And that the comment makes a clear call for more proof.
Of course I do, because this is the default attitude one should have when approaching such stories on the internet.
This whole story could be complete fiction that never took place from the beginning to the end, unless you actually make an effort to locate and probably contact (since I don't think they would bother to publish any involved materials) the officials and departments involved. Have you?
This web-page is literally the only source we have. How the hell are we supposed to trust it by default?
Healthy skepticism is good but the only thing worth questioning here is if that shot is in fact real–something that could only be evaluated if they released the tape. But since they're not exactly going out of their way to do that I can only assume that it would be against their interests. Until they produce it I'll have to take his word at face value.
Yes, but as far as we know, it's just a picture on the internet.
To draw the photo taken by his attorney into question relies on assuming his guilt, his attorney's misconduct and the prosecutor taking that misconduct without putting up a fight. Occam's razor and all that.
Am I missing something here?