That statement is accurate, but it has implications you apparently fail to recognize. LE has sworn under oath, having reviewed all the video, that neither MB nor perp were seen on video after she disappeared from sight walking the main hallway. If it was not a fact, and not true, then swearing under oath, with penalty of perjury, has jeopardized this case (because of all the SW's they obtained using that lie) and can cause problems for LE and the officer who swore it to be true. There is no way, at the point of that SW affidavit, that they would not have known (or been able to know) whether MB and the perp were or were not seen again, because it's a finite amount of video to view, perhaps less than 30 minutes viewing.