What is the difference between the cameras like photo radar, and the cameras at the banks the prisons, and the ones at home etc.?

Robber can say anything he wants. The proof is in the film.

“It’s not me” is not a defense, an alibi is I was on Mars or the Moon and can prove it.

The robber would most likely not even get to a court room. The cops would present him with the evidence, which would be the video and anything else they have. They’d try to get him to confess. They might put him in a lineup and let someone pick him out. The DA might talk to his attorney and cut a deal. No trial would be necessary. He’d plead guilty.

If he goes to trial, they’ll pull out all kinds of evidence to prove his guilt. Eyewitness accounts, fingerprints, if he tried to sell the stolen goods to someone, etc.

Photographic evidenced (yes, of the pristine/untouched variety) is considered damning evidence/proof of guilt. Unless he had an airtight alibi (say, such as he was spotted with the pope that day), he’s cooked.

…Or she’s cooked as the case may be. :-)