Is this healthy skepticism you're displaying? I regret that I'm bringing your motivations into question but given that we know his case was dropped because witnesses recanted after seeing said photo of the surveillance video I'm not entirely sure why you're pressing this.

Because we hear only one, clearly biased side of the argument, and the most critical piece of evidence isn't available.

Actually the most critical piece of information is that the case was dropped and he was released from jail. Given that the US legal system hinges on a presumption of innocence this is the key indicator for us. We're forming an opinion of this city's police department and DA, not deciding their fate. If/When the police or prosecution release the tape we can change our conclusions appropriately. If they consider this to be a serious PR issue they might just do that.

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.

You should really examine why you automatically assume the author's account of his own lived experience is false.

Ignorance is an active denial of the truth, not a passive state of uninformation. Hope that helps.

I never assumed that. Would you please actually read my comments?