It's taken you ALL night to come up with this? 
In Birds OWN WORDS in an interview with CAL - Bird stated that it was only the second time he had acted as photographer. He was undertaking a course when the murders occurred but had been in the force since 1976. Clearly he had had other duties prior to the Bull case. The FACT that WHF was only the second time he had acted as photographer means he was NOT the specialist as you have been claiming he was. Yes, I was wrong about the the course - I concede that however, I have maintained that he was not a professional, experienced, specialist photographer and as it was ONLY the second time he had undertaken the role - your claim and the claim of the CT is not only misleading, it is completely WRONG!
It is stupid of you to try suggest that I posted only part of the COLP statement for underhanded reasons when the full thing is readily available on the forum. The fact is, that Bird was NOT an experienced photographer which is what I said all along and you have claimed he was! By the way, I think I made it clear that Bird didn't describe himself as a specialist and HE made it clear it wasn't his main job. However, you have been arguing that he was a professional - a specialist and now that has been shown to be not the case, you're making it about me! Just concede he wasn't the specialist you thought he was - it won't hurt!
PC Bird: There was three of us as that specialist role.
Wrong yet again, at least you're consistent.
You have shifted position massively, made a number of demonstrably false and misleading statements, as I have highlighted, and you have fallen way short of demonstrating anything.
You have used partial transcripts which give a false impression and then denied doing so for underhanded reasons without offering a reasonable explanation why you did. The transcripts demonstrated the opposite of what you claim when read in full. It seems apparent that your intent was to give a misleading impression of PC Birds role.
PC Bird, contrary to your ridiculous and ever evolving argument, has unequivocally been demonstrated to be the specialist/professional claimed.
The only reason that you ever attempted to advance this specious argument was to make the thoroughly unsupported claim that the reason for hundreds of missing negatives was because Bird was some sort of random officer assigned the duties with no training.
The excerpt that you posted from the CAL book, which you apparently place more store in than the COLP interview and court transcript, is not particularly clear and if you posted a fuller version we could interpret it more accurately.
For instance; "Cook was accompanied by Detective Constable Bird, who joined the force in 1976, working on murder photography and chemical treatments as part of a crime scene investigation course. The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment..."
Was he working on murder photography and chemical treatments in 1976 when he joined or 1985.
Is the qualifying "while he was engaged on the lab treatment." there for a reason. Is CAL saying that it was only his second case ever as a photographer or his second while engaged on the lab treatment.
Does CAL mention any other courses. Is CAL a reliable source?
Do you believe CAL's murder porn is a better source than
COLP interviews and the court transcript which make crystal clear that the role that PC Bird normally fulfilled as a police officer was Police Photographer and that he was unequivocally a specialist in this role. These points are made explicitly.
