Video re photographs non-disclosure

[gringo]

How has my 'theory' changed you lunatic? I SAID Bird was NOT a specialist and I am STILL saying that. It's no longer a theory though because it was only his SECOND time as a photographer!

Sound bites like 'murder porn' and 'fake news' just make you sound like a paranoid, obsessed fool.

  Your theory has changed because you claimed that COLP and Bird never said that Bird was a specialist. You even posted snippets of an interview to prove it which turned out to prove the opposite. It is now apparent that both Bird and COLP did say that Bird was a specialist. They said it in the interview that you posted only selectively from. The court transcript also shows that Bird was employed as a photographer but you just ignore court transcripts.
    Now the theory relies on just you and Jane saying that Bird wasn't a specialist with no evidence to back up this claim apart from two quotes removed wholly from context and an abundance of evidence to counter it. You don't have a good track record when using out of context quotes as it usually turns out to show the opposite of whatever your spin is.
   What of the above is incorrect?
   

[Caroline]

  Your theory has changed because you claimed that COLP and Bird never said that Bird was a specialist. You even posted snippets of an interview to prove it which turned out to prove the opposite. It is now apparent that both Bird and COLP did say that Bird was a specialist. They said it in the interview that you posted only selectively from. The court transcript also shows that Bird was employed as a photographer but you just ignore court transcripts.
    Now the theory relies on just you and Jane saying that Bird wasn't a specialist with no evidence to back up this claim apart from two quotes removed wholly from context and an abundance of evidence to counter it. You don't have a good track record when using out of context quotes as it usually turns out to show the opposite of whatever your spin is.
   What of the above is incorrect?
   

What have aI posted out of context? You're talking out of your backside!

My theory was that Bird was never called a specialist? What? How is that any kind of a theory? You're just twisting because you've been proven WRONG! My theory IS that he wasn't a specialist - HE was never referred to as a specialist, the ROLE was and it was a role which he did TWICE! He was learning the ropes and as such was NOT actually a specialist himself.

This was my first post, I stated CLEARLY that I didn't believe he was a professional photographer and he wasn't!

The video claims that Bird was a professional police photographer - seems he wasn't, it was one of his roles. He was also involved in chemical fingerprinting but his main job was to prepare albums. He had two colleagues and it was 'the luck of the draw; as to which of them would be assigned what - they were on a rota. He described himself as 'the lowest of the low' as far as rank is concerned. The guy clearly was NOT a professional photographer, which makes it more likely that some of the pictures would have been unusable. I agree they shouldn't have been cut but the video is misleading! (And the guys voice is STILL dull!) 

[gringo]

What have aI posted out of context? You're talking out of your backside!

My theory was that Bird was never called a specialist? What? How is that any kind of a theory? You're just twisting because you've been proven WRONG! My theory IS that he wasn't a specialist - HE was never referred to as a specialist, the ROLE was and it was a role which he did TWICE! He was learning the ropes and as such was NOT actually a specialist himself.

This was my first post, I stated CLEARLY that I didn't believe he was a professional photographer and he wasn't!

   You posted parts of the COLP interview out of context, making claims based on one quote which didn't stand up to scrutiny when read in full. You know you did this.
     Your theory was that Bird produced an unlikely amount of unusable photographs because he wasn't qualified, had done no courses etc. You misused and misinterpreted the COLP interview in an attempt to prove your point although it turned out not to.
     You have no idea whatsoever what experience Bird had and clearly no idea of his level of competence/expertise.
     The court transcript states that he was employed as a police photographer.
     Your quote from CAL says way less than you imagine it does.
     In fact we will take it apart now to see if it is the iron cast proof of Bird's inexperience that you claim it to be.
     Here is your post re the CAL "interview",

    The last Scene of Crime officers arrived. Detective Inspector Ron Cook joined the police in 1958 and became a fingerprint officer in 1964. Seventeen years later he was promoted to Detective Inspector and was one of two deputies working at SOCO in Chelmsford under DCI Charles ‘Geordie’ Wright. Cook was accompanied by Detective Constable David 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. Along with Chris Bews and Taff Jones, Bird had recently worked on the Bull murder in Coggeshall. When told at headquarters to collect five post-mortem kits for White House Farm, he assumed it was a wind-up: ‘Then I looked at the superintendent’s face and saw

   The first part that you quoted, according to your spin, showed that Bird had just started a course when that is far from clear:
       "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."
     First of all it is not clear whether this means that he was working on the course in 1976 when he joined or in 1985.
     Secondly rather than just starting the course, it is clear that it is in fact part of an ongoing course.
     Taken alongside the court transcript where Bird states that his role is a police photographer (and this is a court transcript not some paraphrasing by an author who normally writes about sensational past infamous murders aka murder porn ) I am more inclined to believe that Bird was employed as a photographer by EP in 1976. He was undergoing a series of training courses and was clearly something of a photography expert.
     The second sentence you quote seems designed to mislead by CAL herself. Appearing to say one thing but couching it with unnecessary qualifiers.

     "The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment"
 Why is the "while he was engaged on the lab treatment" stuck on the end of this sentence. It is a common tactic when attempting to mislead. If it was Bird's second assignment then the sentence need only say that. It would be unnecessary to qualify the statement by adding "while he was engaged on the lab treatment"
     This suggests to me that it possibly wasn't Bird's second assignment ever as a police photographer but his second since being engaged on the lab treatment. The number of assignments prior to being engaged on the lab treatment being left unstated.
     This is why I asked if you could post the full interview to clear this up. Despite your protestations about spin etc. one of us is always prepared to discuss full transcripts whilst the other prefers misleading, removed from context bite size pieces.
     Whether you like it or not CAL's previous output qualifies her as a writer of murder porn. She is not a credible investigative writer/journalist so nothing less than a verbatim interview would count as credible evidence from a writer with her background. 

 

[Caroline]

   You posted parts of the COLP interview out of context, making claims based on one quote which didn't stand up to scrutiny when read in full. You know you did this.
     Your theory was that Bird produced an unlikely amount of unusable photographs because he wasn't qualified, had done no courses etc. You misused and misinterpreted the COLP interview in an attempt to prove your point although it turned out not to.
     You have no idea whatsoever what experience Bird had and clearly no idea of his level of competence/expertise.
     The court transcript states that he was employed as a police photographer.
     Your quote from CAL says way less than you imagine it does.
     In fact we will take it apart now to see if it is the iron cast proof of Bird's inexperience that you claim it to be.
     Here is your post re the CAL "interview",

    The last Scene of Crime officers arrived. Detective Inspector Ron Cook joined the police in 1958 and became a fingerprint officer in 1964. Seventeen years later he was promoted to Detective Inspector and was one of two deputies working at SOCO in Chelmsford under DCI Charles ‘Geordie’ Wright. Cook was accompanied by Detective Constable David 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. Along with Chris Bews and Taff Jones, Bird had recently worked on the Bull murder in Coggeshall. When told at headquarters to collect five post-mortem kits for White House Farm, he assumed it was a wind-up: ‘Then I looked at the superintendent’s face and saw

   The first part that you quoted, according to your spin, showed that Bird had just started a course when that is far from clear:
       "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."
     First of all it is not clear whether this means that he was working on the course in 1976 when he joined or in 1985.
     Secondly rather than just starting the course, it is clear that it is in fact part of an ongoing course.
     Taken alongside the court transcript where Bird states that his role is a police photographer (and this is a court transcript not some paraphrasing by an author who normally writes about sensational past infamous murders aka murder porn ) I am more inclined to believe that Bird was employed as a photographer by EP in 1976. He was undergoing a series of training courses and was clearly something of a photography expert.
     The second sentence you quote seems designed to mislead by CAL herself. Appearing to say one thing but couching it with unnecessary qualifiers.

     "The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment"
 Why is the "while he was engaged on the lab treatment" stuck on the end of this sentence. It is a common tactic when attempting to mislead. If it was Bird's second assignment then the sentence need only say that. It would be unnecessary to qualify the statement by adding "while he was engaged on the lab treatment"
     This suggests to me that it possibly wasn't Bird's second assignment ever as a police photographer but his second since being engaged on the lab treatment. The number of assignments prior to being engaged on the lab treatment being left unstated.
     This is why I asked if you could post the full interview to clear this up. Despite your protestations about spin etc. one of us is always prepared to discuss full transcripts whilst the other prefers misleading, removed from context bite size pieces.
     Whether you like it or not CAL's previous output qualifies her as a writer of murder porn. She is not a credible investigative writer/journalist so nothing less than a verbatim interview would count as credible evidence from a writer with her background.

NO! That's what your nasty little mind is saying I did because you have now realised that Bird was NOT a specialist and you're TRYING to scratch back some credibility, however, you failing miserably and just sound like a complete crank.

I haven't read all of your post, just the first paragraph because I'm not giving you any more time!! I think you're showing yourself up and  it is clear (even from his own mouth) that Bird was NOT a specialist, police photographer, he was NEVER described as that and he was only on his second case in the role.

Those ARE the facts - so stick em in your sombrero, take a wack at your pinata, down a couple of slambers and chilli out!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSXQFzeAd-Y

[gringo]

NO! That's what your nasty little mind is saying I did because you have now realised that Bird was NOT a specialist and you're TRYING to scratch back some credibility, however, you failing miserably and just sound like a complete crank.

I haven't read all of your post, just the first paragraph because I'm not giving you any more time!! I think you're showing yourself up and  it is clear (even from his own mouth) that Bird was NOT a specialist, police photographer, he was NEVER described as that and he was only on his second case in the role.

Those ARE the facts - so stick em in your sombrero, take a wack at your pinata, down a couple of slambers and chilli out!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSXQFzeAd-Y

   Everyone accepts that Bird was a specialist but you just keep pretending otherwise. Bird, COLP and the court describe him as such. How can you dispute this?  It is a matter of record. His own mouth describes him as exactly that despite you claiming otherwise. Are you disputing that also? It too is a matter of record and spelt out in full for you. Are you so blinded by your bias that you can no longer understand plain English if it challenges your preconceptions? 
    Those are the facts so read the COLP interview completely and perhaps a little slower to help with your comprehension issues, then read the court transcript of PC Bird and it should become clear to you that PC Bird was a specialist police photographer.
    Unless CAL has a complete interview with Bird, I would leave that if I were you. You struggle with literal scripts so I doubt that you can raise your game enough to deal with attempting to infer original meaning from paraphrased text. A bridge too far with your comprehension level.

[Caroline]

   Everyone accepts that Bird was a specialist but you just keep pretending otherwise. Bird, COLP and the court describe him as such. How can you dispute this?  It is a matter of record. His own mouth describes him as exactly that despite you claiming otherwise. Are you disputing that also? It too is a matter of record and spelt out in full for you. Are you so blinded by your bias that you can no longer understand plain English if it challenges your preconceptions? 
    Those are the facts so read the COLP interview completely and perhaps a little slower to help with your comprehension issues, then read the court transcript of PC Bird and it should become clear to you that PC Bird was a specialist police photographer.
    Unless CAL has a complete interview with Bird, I would leave that if I were you. You struggle with literal scripts so I doubt that you can raise your game enough to deal with attempting to infer original meaning from paraphrased text. A bridge too far with your comprehension level.

Just read the first line this time - who is everyone? You? The CT? You might like to TRY and convince everyone that he was a specialist, but you're doing a VERY poor job given that he was only on his second case in the role. Your notion that he'd been on a course for 9 years (laughable in itself) and had only got to his second case as a photographer is absolutely desperate! 


No tengo problemas para comprender, pero ciertamente lo haces!

[David1819]

I’ve just read Birds COLP interview transcript. He does say he was a specialist.

What’s the fuss over?

[gringo]

Just read the first line this time - who is everyone? You? The CT? You might like to TRY and convince everyone that he was a specialist, but you're doing a VERY poor job given that he was only on his second case in the role. Your notion that he'd been on a course for 9 years (laughable in itself) and had only got to his second case as a photographer is absolutely desperate! 


No tengo problemas para comprender, pero ciertamente lo haces!

Everyone is PC Bird (COLP interview, court transcript), COLP( interview with Supt. McKay), The court (court transcript of PC Bird) and anyone who can read and comprehend, which explains your difficulty.
     I didn't say that he had been on a course for 9 years, perhaps you need to re-read  the post that you previously claimed to have not read.
    You have no idea how many times he had photographed crime scenes. You have leapt to conclusions based on insufficient information and your own biased and subjective approach. You do not know that it was Bird's second assignment no matter how many times you claim otherwise.
    If you were truly objective you would show full transcripts not partial misleading excerpts.
    CAL does not trump Bird, COLP and the court especially given the fact that she is a creative writer who uses paraphrasing whilst the others are all verbatim transcripts from legal proceedings.
    It would also seem reasonable to conclude that the cutting of negative strips prior to 2012 and the missing photographs, especially of the gun cupboard are much more likely to be a result of malfeasance by EP than incompetence by Bird.
   
   

[gringo]

I’ve just read Birds COLP interview transcript. He does say he was a specialist.

What’s the fuss over?

   I know that, you know that, everyone can see that. I think Caroline is blowing a fuse or two.

[Caroline]

I’ve just read Birds COLP interview transcript. He does say he was a specialist.

What’s the fuss over?

Where does Bird state that HE was a specialist photographer? He refers to a 'specialist ROLE' but he never refers to HIMSELF as a specialist. Bearing in mind that the Bamber case was only the second time he had undertaken the role of photographer - are you (like gringo) suggesting that this qualifies him as an experienced police photographer?

[Caroline]

Everyone is PC Bird (COLP interview, court transcript), COLP( interview with Supt. McKay), The court (court transcript of PC Bird) and anyone who can read and comprehend, which explains your difficulty.
     I didn't say that he had been on a course for 9 years, perhaps you need to re-read  the post that you previously claimed to have not read.
    You have no idea how many times he had photographed crime scenes. You have leapt to conclusions based on insufficient information and your own biased and subjective approach. You do not know that it was Bird's second assignment no matter how many times you claim otherwise.
    If you were truly objective you would show full transcripts not partial misleading excerpts.
    CAL does not trump Bird, COLP and the court especially given the fact that she is a creative writer who uses paraphrasing whilst the others are all verbatim transcripts from legal proceedings.
    It would also seem reasonable to conclude that the cutting of negative strips prior to 2012 and the missing photographs, especially of the gun cupboard are much more likely to be a result of malfeasance by EP than incompetence by Bird.
   
   

Bird never stated HE was a specialist, you've decided to give him this accolade! He was talking about the ROLE, as were COLP. He was new to the role - it was only his second time in practice. This is just silly!

[gringo]

Bird never stated HE was a specialist, you've decided to give him this accolade! He was talking about the ROLE, as were COLP. He was new to the role - it was only his second time in practice. This is just silly!

    DS Young:     Actually could I clarify that bit. Am I right in saying that it's actual your, when you were
                        headquarters, it was your specialist role for major incidents.
   PC Bird:         There was three of us as that specialist role.
   Supt. McKay: Of taking photographs
   PC Bird:         Yeah

   Are you now claiming that Bird regards his role as a specialist role but that he isn't a specialist despite doing a specialist role? Wouldn't someone performing a specialist role be regarded as a specialist by default? You really are tying yourself in knots now.
    There is no credible evidence to show that it was his second time as a police photographer. You have no evidence whatsoever to show Bird's inexperience and only introduced this when your initial assertions regarding his competence and lack of training were shown to be wrong.
   

[Caroline]

    DS Young:     Actually could I clarify that bit. Am I right in saying that it's actual your, when you were
                        headquarters, it was your specialist role for major incidents.
   PC Bird:         There was three of us as that specialist role.
   Supt. McKay: Of taking photographs
   PC Bird:         Yeah

   Are you now claiming that Bird regards his role as a specialist role but that he isn't a specialist despite doing a specialist role? Wouldn't someone performing a specialist role be regarded as a specialist by default? You really are tying yourself in knots now.
    There is no credible evidence to show that it was his second time as a police photographer. You have no evidence whatsoever to show Bird's inexperience and only introduced this when your initial assertions regarding his competence and lack of training were shown to be wrong.
   

A pilot is a specialist role as is a surgeon but you ONLY become a specialist in such a role when you again experience. Bird was inexperienced.

How many times did Bird act as police photographer including his WHF stint?
Two Times
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbkInTnNQ28

[gringo]

A pilot is a specialist role as is a surgeon but you ONLY become a specialist in such a role when you again experience. Bird was inexperienced.

How many times did Bird act as police photographer including his WHF stint?
Two Times
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbkInTnNQ28

   Your only evidence of Bird's inexperience is an ambiguously paraphrased quote from a writer who makes a living writing about infamous murders. This isn't evidence in any real sense of the word.
   

[Caroline]

   Your only evidence of Bird's inexperience is an ambiguously paraphrased quote from a writer who makes a living writing about infamous murders. This isn't evidence in any real sense of the word.
   

Yes it is because she interviewed him and sourced the reference. There is nothing ambiguous about it. You're trying to muddy the waters but they're crystal clear!