How does Bodycam video compare to Polar Vantage V2 heart-rate data for identifying gym assault perpetrators?

I ran into a case where a guy was knocked out in the weight room and the only evidence left were two streams: a 30 fps bodycam clip from the gym's security system and the victim's Polar Vantage V2 HR file (100 Hz PPG sampling). Here’s the rundown:

• Resolution & frame rate: Bodycam gives visual context – who was where, weapons, posture. At 30 fps you miss micro‑movements, but you still see the swing. HR data has no visual, just spikes.
• Temporal accuracy: Bodycam timestamps are synced to NTP server, ±0.5 s. Polar timestamps drift up to 2 s if GPS lock is weak. In a 5‑second assault that drift can flip cause/effect.
• Forensic value: Video can be enhanced (FFmpeg de‑interlace, frame interpolation) to identify facial features. HR data can reveal sudden tachycardia >180 bpm, arrhythmia, or a drop to <30 bpm indicating cardiac arrest. Useful for confirming injury severity.
• Chain of custody: Video files are MD5‑hashed on upload, easy to verify. HR logs are stored locally on the device; need a USB pull‑out and export via Polar Flow, which can be tampered.
• Legal admissibility: Courts accept bodycam footage as direct evidence (assuming no privacy violation). HR data is considered expert testimony; you need a medical examiner to interpret the PPG/ECG trace.

Bottom line: For catching the perp, bodycam wins – you get a suspect’s silhouette, direction, and possibly a weapon. HR data is a solid secondary source to corroborate the victim’s physiological response, but it won’t name the attacker.

Anyone used a similar combo in a gym incident? Got any tips on syncing the timestamps more precisely?