Video re photographs non-disclosure

[lookout]

Can we just agree that there are photographs in this case which remain undisclosed and should be examined by an impartial observer..

That's fair enough Steve.

[Caroline]

Can we just agree that there are photographs in this case which remain undisclosed and should be examined by an impartial observer..

Yes, I can agree that, what I can't agree on, is that Bird was a specialist nor let some idiot conspiracy theorist post bull in order to further their agenda.

[gringo]

No, I haven't posted hearsay at all - she has written what HE TOLD her and you're simply unable to accept that you were wrong about him being a specialist. Silly man, you went too fact and now you just don't have the bollocks to admit it.

   Of course it is hearsay. She has paraphrased and you have no idea of what he told her. Look up the definition of hearsay.
    "information received from other people which cannot be substantiated"
    "the report of another person's words by a witness"
   I'd say the above definitions accurately describe CAL's words.

[Caroline]

   Of course it is hearsay. She has paraphrased and you have no idea of what he told her. Look up the definition of hearsay.
    "information received from other people which cannot be substantiated"
    "the report of another person's words by a witness"
   I'd say the above definitions accurately describe CAL's words.

It can be substantiated you idiot! Now you've changed the argument to this! Seriously, you need to see someone!

[gringo]

Yes, I can agree that, what I can't agree on, is that Bird was a specialist nor let some idiot conspiracy theorist post bull in order to further their agenda.

  Brilliant. So you now agree that photo's remain undisclosed. You have spent the last two days claiming that they were unusable due to Bird's inexperience /incompetence or whatever.
     
   
     

[Caroline]

  Brilliant. So you now agree that photo's remain undisclosed. You have spent the last two days claiming that they were unusable due to Bird's inexperience /incompetence or whatever.
     
   
   

No, I have SAID (YOU IDIOT) that the reason given by EP is REASONABLE given that Bird was inexperienced. Whereas you, have posted nothing but utter bull. You have twisted and squirmed - changing your argument from one moment to the next because you made the claim that Bird was a professional, specialist photographer when he was nothing of the sort and you don't have the bollocks to admit your were talking crap. AND CAL's comments are NOT hearsay because they CAN be substantiated by Bird himself

[gringo]

It can be substantiated you idiot! Now you've changed the argument to this! Seriously, you need to see someone!

   Hmmm. How can it be substantiated? It is the definition of hearsay.
     I haven't changed the argument.
     My argument was simply that the large number of missing negatives, added to the fact that negative strips had been cut whilst in EP's possession between 2001 and 2012, and the unwillingness of EP to release those negatives suggests that EP are withholding the pictures because they would contradict the official version of events.
    You suggested that the large number of missing negatives was because Bird was just a lowly officer who had randomly been assigned photographic duties and that because there was nobody lower than him and the van driver, this explained the large number of "unusable" photographs.   
    You then went on to claim that Bird was not a specialist photographer and never referred to as such. When it was pointed out that he was referred to as specialist by COLP you claimed to mean that he had never referred to himself as a specialist. This was also a false claim by you which was established by again consulting the COLP interview that you were quoting from. The court transcript also showed unequivocally that he was a police photographer.
    Having had to backtrack from your dubious claims of random assignments, lack of specialism, not done any courses and various other "facts" that you introduced to explain the large number of unusable photographs as each was shown to be false, the final card to play was inexperience, despite having no evidence.
    Shouting abuse only shows that you are angry and have no argument. It makes no further point than that. Denying that what CAL says is hearsay is as stupid as denying that Thursday is the day after Wednesday.
    My argument is still the same. EP have withheld photos and the cutting of the negative strips suggests nefarious intent. The notion that 40% of all photos taken were unusable due to inexperience/ incompetence is fanciful. There are much more believable scenarios than this to explain the large number of undisclosed negatives.
    EP, to my knowledge, have never suggested Bird's inexperience to be a factor in the non disclosure. That's just you advancing specious evidence free hyperbole. In fact EP's explanation so far is that it was standard practice to cut the strips to remove unexposed film which is contradicted by the evidence of Mr. Goss of the Metropolitan police who saw them in 2001 in uncut form.

    The explanation given to the CCRC by EP should also be revisited given the new evidence. Claiming that it was standard practice to cut the negative strips is unsustainable now that we know that they were uncut in 2001. EP should be made to explain this misleading statement given to the CCRC.
    It should also be clear to the objectively minded that the CCRC are too ready to accept weak explanations from the police when "investigating" discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence and are too keen to brush over matters when more digging is appropriate.
    The acceptance of the standard practice argument being a case in point. It should not be too much of a challenge to verify that claim rather than just accepting it with no further enquiries. Are negative strips cut up in other cases? Shouldn't be difficult for the CCRC with their powers to find out.
    The explanation offered by the CCRC regarding the missing negatives is much worse than this in my view. It is a nonsensical claim that the missing negatives were of no relevance. How can anyone possibly know that? They did concede that the missing negatives which are related to the gun cupboard may be relevant and "of significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction", but that was it.
    This is pathetic from an organisation supposedly designed to uncover the sort of malpractice that appears evident here. The CCRC are much criticised, the rate of referrals is extraordinarily low and many believe their role is more gatekeeper than seekers of injustice. It is exactly this kind of practice which encourages this view.
     The video does demonstrate that a lot of pertinent information has been discovered and anomalies found. Having watched the video again with a bit more attention paid, the scale of EP's withholding of evidence is shocking even to an old sceptic like me.
     Although it should go back to the CoA and JB seems confident of this, I myself am not so sure. Hope I'm wrong.
   


   

   
   
   
   

[Caroline]

   Hmmm. How can it be substantiated? It is the definition of hearsay.
     I haven't changed the argument.
     My argument was simply that the large number of missing negatives, added to the fact that negative strips had been cut whilst in EP's possession between 2001 and 2012, and the unwillingness of EP to release those negatives suggests that EP are withholding the pictures because they would contradict the official version of events.
    You suggested that the large number of missing negatives was because Bird was just a lowly officer who had randomly been assigned photographic duties and that because there was nobody lower than him and the van driver, this explained the large number of "unusable" photographs.   
    You then went on to claim that Bird was not a specialist photographer and never referred to as such. When it was pointed out that he was referred to as specialist by COLP you claimed to mean that he had never referred to himself as a specialist. This was also a false claim by you which was established by again consulting the COLP interview that you were quoting from. The court transcript also showed unequivocally that he was a police photographer.
    Having had to backtrack from your dubious claims of random assignments, lack of specialism, not done any courses and various other "facts" that you introduced to explain the large number of unusable photographs as each was shown to be false, the final card to play was inexperience, despite having no evidence.
    Shouting abuse only shows that you are angry and have no argument. It makes no further point than that. Denying that what CAL says is hearsay is as stupid as denying that Thursday is the day after Wednesday.
    My argument is still the same. EP have withheld photos and the cutting of the negative strips suggests nefarious intent. The notion that 40% of all photos taken were unusable due to inexperience/ incompetence is fanciful. There are much more believable scenarios than this to explain the large number of undisclosed negatives.
    EP, to my knowledge, have never suggested Bird's inexperience to be a factor in the non disclosure. That's just you advancing specious evidence free hyperbole. In fact EP's explanation so far is that it was standard practice to cut the strips to remove unexposed film which is contradicted by the evidence of Mr. Goss of the Metropolitan police who saw them in 2001 in uncut form.

    The explanation given to the CCRC by EP should also be revisited given the new evidence. Claiming that it was standard practice to cut the negative strips is unsustainable now that we know that they were uncut in 2001. EP should be made to explain this misleading statement given to the CCRC.
    It should also be clear to the objectively minded that the CCRC are too ready to accept weak explanations from the police when "investigating" discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence and are too keen to brush over matters when more digging is appropriate.
    The acceptance of the standard practice argument being a case in point. It should not be too much of a challenge to verify that claim rather than just accepting it with no further enquiries. Are negative strips cut up in other cases? Shouldn't be difficult for the CCRC with their powers to find out.
    The explanation offered by the CCRC regarding the missing negatives is much worse than this in my view. It is a nonsensical claim that the missing negatives were of no relevance. How can anyone possibly know that? They did concede that the missing negatives which are related to the gun cupboard may be relevant and "of significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction", but that was it.
    This is pathetic from an organisation supposedly designed to uncover the sort of malpractice that appears evident here. The CCRC are much criticised, the rate of referrals is extraordinarily low and many believe their role is more gatekeeper than seekers of injustice. It is exactly this kind of practice which encourages this view.
     The video does demonstrate that a lot of pertinent information has been discovered and anomalies found. Having watched the video again with a bit more attention paid, the scale of EP's withholding of evidence is shocking even to an old sceptic like me.
     Although it should go back to the CoA and JB seems confident of this, I myself am not so sure. Hope I'm wrong.
 

By asking HIM! He is still alive!

[gringo]

By asking HIM! He is still alive!

   So you agree that it is still unsubstantiated, otherwise there would be no need to substantiate it, would there? And implicitly you also agree that that it cannot be substantiated with the information currently available or you wouldn't need to ask Bird himself.
    But regardless of this,
    Hearsay: the report of another person's words by a witness
    How do CAL's word not fit the above definition?

   If you want to substantiate your little piece of hearsay then contact PC Bird, ask him directly whether WHF was only his second job ever as a police photographer and then post a verbatim script of your questions and his answers. You will then, and only then, be able to credibly claim that it is not hearsay.

   No paraphrasing or interpretations though, verbatim scripts only, we need more than hearsay (the report of another person's words by a witness).
   
   

[Caroline]

   So you agree that it is still unsubstantiated, otherwise there would be no need to substantiate it, would there? And implicitly you also agree that that it cannot be substantiated with the information currently available or you wouldn't need to ask Bird himself.
    But regardless of this,
    Hearsay: the report of another person's words by a witness
    How do CAL's word not fit the above definition?

   If you want to substantiate your little piece of hearsay then contact PC Bird, ask him directly whether WHF was only his second job ever as a police photographer and then post a verbatim script of your questions and his answers. You will then, and only then, be able to credibly claim that it is not hearsay.

   No paraphrasing or interpretations though, verbatim scripts only, we need more than hearsay (the report of another person's words by a witness).
   
   

No I don't agree, it IS substantiated - you're the one suggesting it isn't. I completely accept CAL's comments - you're the one who has a problem so I suggest you contact her. Of course you wouldn't be honest enough to come back here and admit you were wrong - so I won't hold my breath.

[gringo]

No I don't agree, it IS substantiated - you're the one suggesting it isn't. I completely accept CAL's comments - you're the one who has a problem so I suggest you contact her. Of course you wouldn't be honest enough to come back here and admit you were wrong - so I won't hold my breath.

   "it can be substantiated you idiot", not "it is substantiated erm you idiot (presumably)". You aren't even consistent from one post to the next.
    I am not "suggesting" anything, I am stating as fact.
    Hearsay: the report of another person's words by a witness.

    You are struggling with really basic meanings here.
    CAL witnessed PC Bird talking. CAL reported, albeit paraphrased, the word's of PC Bird. CAL's report of these words is hearsay. It isn't arguable.
    Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. It isn't a matter of opinion whether CAL's report of Bird's words are hearsay, it is an objective fact.
    Why on earth would I bother to contact CAL? That would still be hearsay. I suggested that if you wanted to substantiate it then to contact Bird and it was you who first brought up the notion that it could be substantiated by asking him directly. As I have already pointed out, this tacitly acknowledges that it requires substantiating, or to put another way, that it is currently unsubstantiated and that you implicitly acknowledged this.
    You are all over the place here. One minute it needs substantiating then it doesn't. You seem to believe that hearsay can be defined by whether you believe the person relaying the hearsay to you or not.
   Why do you imagine that the onus is on me to prove/disprove how many times Bird photographed crime scenes? You introduced the hearsay of CAL, not me. I just pointed out that it was hearsay and ambiguous. It is you, not I, who made the claim so it is not really on me to prove/disprove it.
    CAL's ambivalent hearsay would not be accepted as evidence in any serious forum and as such can be dismissed. I have no need to investigate further. 
   

[JackieD]

Gringo Caroline’s normal response is to get shouty she does it all the time.

The facts are in almost every case of a conviction being overturned there happens to be a case of non disclosure

There is not a single excuse for missing negatives in the Bamber case not one.

Any prisoner that spends a day in prison because evidence being withheld when they are innocent is a day to long

The people responsible for wrongly withholding photos/evidence etc should be bought to account

[Jane]

Whatever it was that caused Gringo to start this pettiness is clearly still a huge itch which continues to irritate and forces him to scratch it in a very public and unattractive way, demonstrating, by his continuing to move goalposts, that, by playing semantics, his ONLY interest lays in trying to force, what he believes to be his superior knowledge, on the person he's made his adversary -and who is more than knowledgeable and experienced enough at debate to know exactly what his game is, and to deal with it appropriately. To this end, despite the links to their words being provided, he of the overblown ego, insists that he -and so he'd have all of us believe, ONLY he, knows the 'real' meaning of words spoken by the various players, thus attempting to drown their right of voice with his own.

 It's looking more and more as if, the only meaning ANY of this has, for Gringo, is entirely personal. WHO of us now actually CARES how qualified -or NOT- was Bird? He took pictures -he drove vans, too- he wasn't required to be David Bailey, Patrick Litchfield, or Testino. SOME of his pictures were probably duff.  Perhaps, with hindsight even the duff ones could have been included. BUT THEY WEREN'T. Although, HAD they been, Gringo would have no excuse for this stultifying diatribe. Get over it Gringo. It happens to the best, whatever their qualifications. But you prefer to drag this on and on and............How long now? 3 days? Give it up. You're making yourself look pathetic, petty minded, and boring.

[Jon2]

Whatever it was that caused Gringo to start this pettiness is clearly still a huge itch which continues to irritate and forces him to scratch it in a very public and unattractive way, demonstrating, by his continuing to move goalposts, that, by playing semantics, his ONLY interest lays in trying to force, what he believes to be his superior knowledge, on the person he's made his adversary -and who is more than knowledgeable and experienced enough at debate to know exactly what his game is, and to deal with it appropriately. To this end, despite the links to their words being provided, he of the overblown ego, insists that he -and so he'd have all of us believe, ONLY he, knows the 'real' meaning of words spoken by the various players, thus attempting to drown their right of voice with his own.

 It's looking more and more as if, the only meaning ANY of this has, for Gringo, is entirely personal. WHO of us now actually CARES how qualified -or NOT- was Bird? He took pictures -he drove vans, too- he wasn't required to be David Bailey, Patrick Litchfield, or Testino. SOME of his pictures were probably duff.  Perhaps, with hindsight even the duff ones could have been included. BUT THEY WEREN'T. Although, HAD they been, Gringo would have no excuse for this stultifying diatribe. Get over it Gringo. It happens to the best, whatever their qualifications. But you prefer to drag this on and on and............How long now? 3 days? Give it up. You're making yourself look pathetic, petty minded, and boring.

Pathetic post ,
Gringo as wiped the floor with Caroline on this subject , and Caroline is 'the best ' the guilty side as to offer .
Its as if you have a vested interest in this case !
Saying EP , may have a resonable excuse for cutting photographic strips is fanatical from ' the guilter's '.




 

[Jane]

Pathetic post ,
Gringo as wiped the floor with Caroline on this subject , and Caroline is 'the best ' the guilty side as to offer .
Its as if you have a vested interest in this case !
Saying EP , may have a resonable excuse for cutting photographic strips is fanatical from ' the guilter's '.

I'm not sure how you can say Gringo has wiped the floor with Caroline when all he's done is play semantics and attempted to put different interpretation on others' words. All Caroline does is present the links to facts. She doesn't attempt to make liars of those who spoke original words. It's no less fanatical, perhaps to assume that every picture taken was a perfect representation of what it was depicting. It is Gringo who is making himself look pathetic and petty.