"when the computer is damaged, e.g. by falling and hitting the ground (or by a physical assault), buffered pictures for processing remain in its memory, and are not overwritten with new ones"
This sounds bogus. The stills presented in the post suggests they were taken by design rather than some random stills "remaining in memory" after the alleged assault.
There are frames from earlier in his McDonald's visit that it would not make sense to still exist in memory for "processing". I'm not questioning the alleged events, but wondering why he would give such an unlikely explanation of the existence of these stills? Is it illegal to video in a retail establishment in France?
Consider how long ago these events are in his narrative. He gives a still of 'Possible Witness 1' who he met and talked with as he entered the store. Presume that that image is at the end of their conversation (as it will have been pretty long).
He then describes going to the counter and ordering food. That is to say, his daughter ordered food in French. That's a minute or two of activity, at the least.
Then he goes and sits down to eat his food. Assuming really prompt service and that he was attacked almost as soon as possible in the narrative, that's at least another half-minute to take a seat and unwrap your sandwich.
There are then a series of images and a description of him trying to reason with several people who 'deliberated on [his documentation] for some time' before pushing him out. That, to me, is at least five minutes of confrontation.
I can't see why his image buffer would be over seven minutes long.
The earlier frames can be explained by having a larger buffer than is strictly necessary for typical use and rather than removing them as soon as they're processed, just leave it to get overridden.
Why you would have a buffer that large for realtime processing, I'm not too sure, but there probably is a reason.
This sounds bogus. The stills presented in the post suggests they were taken by design rather than some random stills "remaining in memory" after the alleged assault.
There are frames from earlier in his McDonald's visit that it would not make sense to still exist in memory for "processing". I'm not questioning the alleged events, but wondering why he would give such an unlikely explanation of the existence of these stills? Is it illegal to video in a retail establishment in France?