@Stigma

Did you see ABC News edit the footage yourself? Did you watch the live broadcast yourself to verify the discrepancy yourself?

You're reaching for an impossible standard, unnecessarily so. One would have no basis to believe nearly anything ever in history, if they believed only things they witnessed personally firsthand. Granted, that represents the highest standard, but far from the ONLY one.

Sounds like you are trying to restrict inquiry to Deductive logic, which proceeds in linked individual steps, and cannot generate new truths.

I'm looking at this with Inductive Logic, wherein all knowledge I have available gets brought to bear on addressing and solving an inquiry.

What about, audio desync? The amount of youtube livestreams I've watched where that occurs is a lot.

Or, what about mistake in the editing room?

Highly unlikely to happen by accident from a professional mainstream broadcast company, whose every moment of production has a control room with a team of technicians each in charge of monitoring and correcting in real time, their assigned aspect of the output.

The audio casually coming unsynced might seem plausible 50 years ago, using a kinescope to convert film to television signal, where the audio signal is separated from the video signal and temporally offset from it, as the film goes through the projector lens and the audio decoder in different parts of the machine, and the way the film gets threaded through, or splices, can desync the audio and video.

But this does not apply with videotape technology which interleaves audio and video information, and far less so with digital recording and playback technology where the information comes in packets containing address and sync information.

To decouple the audio from the video in either of the news feeds shown requires deliberate effort. And to believe that the sync in one appears to tie a brief subtle nod of acknowledgement to the charges, and the other to stating that the charges have been read, yet the sync in one or the other got offset by chance yet both sync perfectly to appear as a response to the audio, happened perfectly entirely by chance, does not stand up to statistical plausibility.

Or, his acknowledgement via body language doesn't move the dial on his actual trial and amounts to nothing whether it happens at that moment

This alteration was not made or intended for the trial. It got made to manipulate public opinion, by supporting the desired narrative in body language easily readable by most neurotypical viewers, even those who are not native speakers of English.

We've seen a narrative about what happened start getting manufactured and manipulated starting literally minutes after the shooting happened.

On a Red Pill platform. Don't you want to apply a higher standard of belief in presented narratives. Than the low bar on normal spaces like those you mentioned or the original broadcast audiences?