Well she obviously asked him about his career and learned that at the time, he was undertaking a course on scenes of crime investigation and that this was on his second stint as a photographer.
She is a well respected author and your accusation of 'Crime Porn; is totally unfounded. I was sceptical about her book but it is a comprehensive account and if she lied about sources, she could be sued if those sources are still alive.
You don't know do you?
That is why I referred to it as an "ambiguously paraphrased quote"
This is why a verbatim script of an interview is important if you are attempting to reach objective truths. We have no idea of a persons bias or agenda so a verbatim interview is informative. What someone says somebody else said is less accurate. I am sure that everyone agrees with this self evident truism.
You do not know what questions were asked of Bird and by extension you don't know the answers he gave. Why do you think that CAL stuck the qualifying "while he was engaged on the lab treatment" on the end of the sentence.
"The Bamber case was his second as photographer"
"The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment"
"The Bamber case was his second as photographer since joining Essex police"
Can you tell the difference between those sentences and the differences in how they may be interpreted. This is called ambiguity. If it was Bird's second case since joining EP then 1 and 3 would both be accurate.
If he had been a photographer since 1976 but had previously worked in some dept. other than lab treatment and since he had moved to labs this was only the second case since that move then 2 is true, however misleading.
I nor you know any of these details or the questions asked and answers given.I ask for a full transcript whilst you leap to the conclusion that suits your argument without further evidence.
As I mentioned previously, qualifying statements stuck on the end of a sentence is a common writing tactic when attempting to convey a false impression whilst avoiding lying. It is a red flag that CAL has stuck this on the end of the sentence. Were it really only Bird's second assignment then it is an unnecessary and pointless addition to the sentence. I suspect that it's presence is neither unnecessary or pointless.
You literally have no evidence of Bird's alleged inexperience and one ambiguously worded claim by a writer whose main output of work is writing on historic infamous murders rather than say a writer with a reputation for investigative work is not evidence at all.
When we know what questions were asked and the replies then it would be worth discussing. As it stands it tells us nothing. That you regard it as cast iron proof says a lot about you.
