I think looking at video footage and canister marks (e.g. bouncing of a solid object and leaving marks) is far more objective then any witness (especially when a projectile is involved in a crowded/dynamic scene - we humans are limited in our abilities). I am surprise that their attorney is not aware that witnesses are not considered a reliable source vs. footage and ballistic marks. I doubt that is the case - if he represented the apposing side he would be clear in video and physical evidence much more reliable.
UN Security Council condemns North Korea launch, vows action (Reuters)