The video has him making a claim to the police. When you make assertions like "none of them challenges any of his statements" or "why did they cut the video at that point" and then fill in your own answers and use that as the basis for further speculation you're building a weak argument.I appreciate a reply in good faith. I still find the coverage biased. As to the question of what it is evidence of, surely of what was alleged? One can decide that in the end the evidence does not prove the allegation, but nothing is even called 'evidence' without an allegation, which we have. We have at least two 'types' of evidence in the video - the evidence of witness and documentary evidence. There are two witnesses - TR and his daughter. The video also documents the police talking to him about the allegation. They obviously know they are being filmed and none of them challenge any of his statements. No other motive has been given for the assault. Even people with previous don't - let's say 'necessarily', to be on the safe side - just commit acts of random violence.
Unfortunately there is a real problem where victims were ignored.
This man has capitalized on that in the past and he may be capitalizing on it now.
His daughter's testimony should be taken by a trained police detective or a counselor and it should be taken seriously.
It's evidence of something, but what? It is not proof that what he is alleging is true, and that is the point.
These things do happen and what his daughter is saying on the video may be true, and it's a shame that it's being handled this way if so.