After I posted that last statement, I realized this point would be made. What I was referring to was a general statement that if there was a video of the offense, it would be telling as to what actually happened in that room (irrefutable evidence)
the videos in question are, questionable. It was pretty common knowledge that she was intoxicated from what I read. So those videos could be under duress, or true evidence that they did nothing wrong. Here’s the problem I have though, if nothing illegal happened in that room, why do you need to make video in the first place?
I stand by my original position though, I question what the “new” evidence was/is, that brought this to where we are today