Images from a store surveillance camera showing an attempted robbery at the Sunoco A-Plus store on West Jefferson Street in Butler on April 16 make clear the need for better positioning of surveillance equipment to better capture the faces of those committing a crime.

While the image of a woman captured by the camera shortly before the robbery might eventually be helpful in determining her identity, the image of the man who attempting the robbery probably is, by itself, useless.

Had the camera been recording from a position closer to eye level, the police might now have much better images with which to work.

Other businesses with security cameras, for their own protection and well-being, need to consider how the positioning of their equipment squares with what existed on the night the A-Plus incident took place. If it is similar to what existed at A-Plus on the night of the robbery, then they might consider better positioning or additional camera angles.

The other potential problem in regard to the A-Plus images is the timing of their release to the public — and that isn't necessarily the fault of the city police.

It took until May 23 for the city to get back the still images and an image CD from the Allegheny County Audio-Visual Laboratory. The images weren't released to the Butler Eagle until Friday, and they were published in the newspaper's Sunday edition, which actually hits the streets Saturday.

If the police were able to gain access to the still images more quickly and disseminate them to the public more quickly, the possibility that someone who witnessed something that night might come forward would have been increased. People tend to forget things that they view as irrelevant at the time but that in fact might be very relevant.

How many people really remember if they were out and about on April 16 more than a month and a half later?

Granted, there are potential problems with positioning surveillance equipment lower; in the case of the A-Plus incident, the clerk might have been in front of the camera when the robbery attempt was taking place.

But unless surveillance equipment is going to be of value in providing a quality image, it's really a waste of money beyond some value tied to crime deterrence.

Maybe affordable-yet-superior surveillance technology capable of consistent crime-solving has yet to be realized for businesses the size of A-Plus. If so, low-quality video images will be of limited value to police.

Perhaps the woman who appears on the April 16 surveillance image knows the identity of the robber who demanded four cartons of cigarettes while pointing his hand at the store clerk in a gun-shaped gesture. If she doesn't, it seems police will remain at the dead end where they currently are stymied.

The police already might have a suspect if the surveillance equipment on April 16 had been capable of focusing on the face of the suspect, rather than on a human form without any facial features evident.