
Let me put it a different way.
Let's say there's security video cameras showing a group of black kids running out of a 7-Eleven with items they didn't pay for in their hands. The courts decide that video evidence is the best form of truth out there, and the kids are accused of stealing.
Now let's say there's witness testimony suggesting that someone walked into the store while they were in line, and the guy was from a neighborhood gang and could have been carrying a weapon. If the basis of truth is slow-motion video evidence, none of that matters: the kids are convicted of stealing and everybody gets to celebrate, "But you see it! They are running out of the store red-handed with the goods! Case closed!" and everyone feels that the truth has been served. Or almost everyone.