So how is this any different than what has been possible in conventional"wet
photography" except that it does seem to be more readily available now in
digital.
I attended the last Evidence Photographers International Council yearly
meeting last November in Phoenix and the prior two yearly meetings and
digital is becomming a larger and larger part of their presentations, with
more of their presentatons involving digital. The audience at one of the
sessions I attended was polled as to their use of digital photography in the
court and as I recall, there were some participants using digital with no
problems - yet. The consensus was that digital photography evidence is as
believeable as the photographer/person presenting it. As I stated in a prior
post, it becomes part of your testimony.
Ken Waller
----- Original Message -----
From: Treena Harp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: Date backs
> I do believe you are correct, sir! So far, the Evidence Photographers
> International Council (great website - www.epic.com - check it out
> sometime!) hasn't said anything against the use of digital images as
> evidence, but I know the day will come when they're challenged in some
> high-profile case. Many departments in our area, especially large ones,
use
> expensive digital imaging equipment. I do indeed believe then it will come
> down to a matter of departmental (or a subcontractor's) reputation.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 9:30 AM
> Subject: Re: Date backs
>
>
> > In a message dated 2/20/01 5:18:33 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> > << would this really be acceptable as evidence? the date back can be
set
> to
> > most any time/date one feels like rather easily >>
> >
> > Hah! You sound like a defense attorney<g>.
> >
> > A copy of the negative(s) accompanied by a notarized statement from the
> > investigator-law enforcement officer attesting to the authenticity of
date
> > and time is usually sufficient* to affirm the details "seen at the
scene."
> > *"Eeedch" for digital "photographs" because digital ~images~ can be
> > "manipulated" in the camera or after the fact by nearly anyone who can
run
> > and chew gum at the same time...even me.
> >
> >
> > Mafud
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > -
> > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
> >
>
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
>
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
