Rank: Guest
|
Posted By james mackie like most companies we have a digital camera available but are digital photos accepted as evidence in the event of an accident for example?
many thanks
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman Sorry james but digital photos are not acceptable as legal evidence. They are too easy to falsify.
Would you like me to show you my photos of you doing naughty things with Britney Spears ?
And really I am not joking. If you have ever had your photo appear in the press or a trade mag then it is probably available on the web. A bit of downloading and a moderate retouching programme and you will be FAMOUS.
Stick with the kodak brownie.
Merv Newman
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Leadbetter James The Police Scientific Development Branch have produced a digital imaging procedure; it might be worth trying to find it using your favourite search engine.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil Atkinson I understood digi photos could be used provided you take contemporanous notes at the time the photo was taken describing the content and signed, dated, countersigned etc. One has to ask if it is worth the effort and I would therefore advise you use the digi for routine work (e.g. illustrating risk assessments, SSW's etc) but you should also have a cheap disposable 35mm camera for use under potentially forensic circumstances
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Craige "Would you like me to show you my photos of you doing naughty things with Britney Spears ?"
Could you please show some photos of ME doing naughty things with Britney Spears? I want to show my mates. I told them about it and they didn't believe me.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gareth Bryan All photographs can be manipulated, digital or otherwise. Scan a 35mm photo and you can then change it to your hearts content. So unless you are going to present the court with the negative and ask them to produce their own print, there is not much difference. The bottom line is someone has to verify that the photo is a true likeness.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alec Wood That procedure makes very interesting reading. Thanks for highlighting it to us. From it I would think that we can all produce a satisfactory procedure for the use of digital photographs in accident investigation and similar instances.
Remember, a photograph is rarely the lynch-pin of your evidence, normally it is just used to set the scene so that witness statements etc can be more easily understood. Personally I keep a disposable in the top drawer for serious accidents, because digital technology is not accepted by all yet, but that is the route we are going down, and sooner or later we will all have to accept that digital imaging is now the norm and develop procedures for ensuring its integrity.
Alec Wood Samsung Electronics
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuart C Digital Photos ARE admissable in evidence provided the same rules of continuity of evidence that are applied to other evidence are followed.
Evidence can be falsified for all sorts of things inclding documents, video footage and photos taken by conventional cameras. There is no legal reason why digital cameras can not be used.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mork So the Home Office didn't waste their time then!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.