I don't really agree that those are the only options that make sense (though none of this makes a whole lot of sense even if White <modsnip> is both truthful and accurate). I think it's correct to say that the man with dreads does not fit in with the two scenarios you've outlined, but I don't think the eyewitness testimony covers what we've been told or seen in the videos, either: a) initial reports said she was walking with a woman; we don't know who made that report or if it was just a typo, or what, but I'm not sure that it's been ruled out or contradicted by police; at least not to my knowledge b) the person in the video with her isn't wearing black pants, as described by the witness, c) the clothing in the jewelry store video looks a lot like (to many, of course not all) the outfit worn by the man with dreadlocks, d) the man (or woman) with her in the jewelry store looks, to some, as if he or she has long hair.
So, I would say that the witness may very well have seen what he said he did, and the video is distorted, or else there is some other explanation. Perhaps he was wrong and the guy wasn't wearing black pants or didn't have short hair. I don't know. I don't really think the case is closed on any possibility at this point.
