Anyone else have alarm bells going off about the statements about buffering? He's very careful to represent storage of the images as an accident caused by the incident, which is slightly odd in itself - why not simply say it records everything it sees and that that was very useful in this case?
Then if there was no storage, how come there are images for several minutes before the assault? It must have been at least a ring buffer, so there WAS storage (albeit temporary).
I'm not condoning the violence that was done to him in any way. But this dissembling makes me want another witness before I take this at face value.
He's very careful to represent storage of the images as an accident caused by the incident, which is slightly odd in itself - why not simply say it records everything it sees and that that was very useful in this case?
Probably because he either believes French law forbids recording people without their permission, or doesn't know one way or the other (I'm in the second camp) -- so he has to emphasise that it was not his intention to take these pictures, to make it clear that he wasn't doing anything wrong in that regard.
Then if there was no storage, how come there are images for several minutes before the assault? It must have been at least a ring buffer, so there WAS storage (albeit temporary).
I'm not condoning the violence that was done to him in any way. But this dissembling makes me want another witness before I take this at face value.