[AlexanderHowl]

The reliability and admissibility of video evidence is a constantly evolving topic in the field of criminal justice. While the general consensus is that video evidence helps support physical forensics evidence, the problem is that contemporary technology can allow people to alter video data in a fashion that leaves traces that are quite difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish from normal recording errors. If the system used to record the digital video was connected to the Internet on any level, a good defense attorney can create reasonable doubt about its authenticity by suggesting that the video file could have been altered/planted by third parties to incriminate their client in order to hide the identity of the 'real' killer.

Of course, even physical forensics evidence is not perfect. Familial DNA matches may incriminate the wrong relative, fingerprints have a 1:64 million chance of being being identical, and stuff like bite marks and palm prints are pretty much considered to be the pseudoscience of forensic evidence right now. This is why prosecutors usually prefer a plea deal, especially when they have suspects who have the resources for a decent defense lawyer, as they know that most criminal trials depend on a good story rather than on good evidence, and a decent defense lawyer only has to convince one juror that the story told by their side is better than the story told by the prosecution.