Video re photographs non-disclosure

[Jane]

This is Bird in conversation with Supt McKay.

"Supt MCKAY.  With the greatest respect to you you were there as a photographer.
BIRD.  I was down at the other end of the scale so to speak. Well I was. There's no one lower than me. The van driver and photographer."

Then there's this.

"BIRD. Yeah.  A spare pair of hands if they need it. But my main job is to produce the photographic album.
Supt MCKAY.  Ok you then go on to the mortuary on the same day obviously to do your specialist job again, take the photographs, yeah."

I've quoted, to the best of my knowledge, accurately, to a comma. I have NO idea what meaning Gringo is trying to attach to it, but it reads to me exactly as if whilst McKay is doing his damdest to push a "specialist" label onto Bird -although why this should be so important, only he can judge- Bird is refuting this at every stage. In his final sentence, it sounds as if McKay has heard enough of Bird disagreeing with him. This time, he doesn't ask a question of Bird -the omission of a question mark isn't mine- he makes a statement of the fact that he believes it to be. Now, I can't say for certain, but I'm fairly sure there isn't an acquiescing response from Bird in which he concedes himself to be what Gringo is claiming him to be, for the simple reason that Caroline would NEVER leave herself open to ridicule in such a way. 

[Caroline]

   You misquoted yourself. You claimed that I had invented the second part of the sentence. Do you accept that this is false and that you were wrong?
     The rest of your post is simply regurgitating what has already been debunked or making misleading claims about what I have said.
     I am careful with my words and I read and think before replying. This probably explains why the claims that I made at the start all still stand, whilst your claims have evolved to the point that rather than relying on COLP interviews and court transcripts, as you initially attempted to do, you are left with the hearsay of a murder porn writer who paraphrases in her own words, not Bird's, and you can't even quote that accurately.
   The sentence ends when you get to the full stop, not before.
 

No, I didn't misquote anything.

You're not careful, you're obsessed and you like to change the argument to suit. You initially said that the COLP statement referred to Bird as a specialist, I said it didn't and it doesn't. Everything he states about himself, shows that he thought of himself as a novice and the fact that he'd only done the role twice - proves it. You can bang on about full stops and comprehension as much as you like, it won't change the fact that Bird was inexperienced. Not and idiot as you said I implied, simply INEXPERIENCED IN THE ROLE OF PHOTOGRAPHER! Cook directed him at the scene, a specialist would have taken control.

[gringo]

No, I didn't misquote anything.

You're not careful, you're obsessed and you like to change the argument to suit. You initially said that the COLP statement referred to Bird as a specialist, I said it didn't and it doesn't. Everything he states about himself, shows that he thought of himself as a novice and the fact that he'd only done the role twice - proves it. You can bang on about full stops and comprehension as much as you like, it won't change the fact that Bird was inexperienced. Not and idiot as you said I implied, simply INEXPERIENCED IN THE ROLE OF PHOTOGRAPHER! Cook directed him at the scene, a specialist would have taken control.

   You demonstrably misquoted your own source which was itself hearsay.
    You claimed that I invented the second part of the sentence. Are you that dense really?
    I again quoted it in full. How are you not misquoting?
    Your interpretations of the COLP interview are baffling. Which things that, "he states about himself, shows that he thought of himself as a novice..." proves this. Could you point out these references from which you have been able to infer this? References where this is reasonably inferred. Things like, "there's nobody lower than me, the van driver and the photographer" cannot by any measure be taken to infer novice status onto Bird. Unless you are claiming that the van driver was also inexperienced, not a specialist van driver or whatever.
    It is clear to all that the "nobody lower" reference is a comment on the perceived status amongst other officers of the photographer and van driver and nothing to do with their expertise or otherwise.
    You claim to not read my posts in full before firing off your increasingly bizarre shouty, sweary rants.
You wear this as a badge of pride as if not reading before replying is somehow clever.
    Just because you don't read them doesn't mean that others don't. This has the effect of making you look either stupid or dishonest because you keep repeating things that have been demonstrably debunked. Just because you haven't read it doesn't change this simple fact. Other readers can see that you are repeating demonstrable and demonstrated falsehoods repeatedly and are left puzzled by your seeming inability to understand simple concepts.
    Your new supporting evidence that you appear to have attempted to lever in, I will debunk now before you start repeating it ad nauseam in support of your tendentious claims.
   "...simply INEXPERIENCED IN THE ROLE OF PHOTOGRAPHER! Cook directed him at the scene, a specialist would have taken control."
     Had you watched the video and read things properly you would not make mistaken conclusions such as this. To recap for you, the SOC officer directs the photographer as to what he wants photographing. This makes obvious sense doesn't it? The photographers specialist role is taking photographs. The SOC officer's specialist role is to record accurately the crime scene. You wouldn't want officer's deciding themselves what they should do. A chain of command is required. This is standard practice and does not demonstrate in any way what you claim it does. Again anyone can see this, it isn't really disputed that this is the case. As far as I am aware Cook did not set up his equipment or tell him how he should take pictures. Cook was SOC officer. Who else would you expect to take charge of the scene?
     Do you imagine that experienced photographers just take pictures of what they themselves regard as important and ignore the SOC officer?
    And it is notable that nobody else is using Bird's inexperience/competence as an excuse for the number of missing negatives. Not EP, none of the number of photographic experts who have examined them. Just you and Jane.
    You have done yourself no favours and if you actually read the full thread you will see that Jon's observations are accurate.

    You could start by explaining your accusation of me inventing parts of quotes. Do you still stand by this claim? Or were you mistaken?

[Jane]

   You demonstrably misquoted your own source which was itself hearsay.
    You claimed that I invented the second part of the sentence. Are you that dense really?
    I again quoted it in full. How are you not misquoting?
    Your interpretations of the COLP interview are baffling. Which things that, "he states about himself, shows that he thought of himself as a novice..." proves this. Could you point out these references from which you have been able to infer this? References where this is reasonably inferred. Things like, "there's nobody lower than me, the van driver and the photographer" cannot by any measure be taken to infer novice status onto Bird. Unless you are claiming that the van driver was also inexperienced, not a specialist van driver or whatever.
    It is clear to all that the "nobody lower" reference is a comment on the perceived status amongst other officers of the photographer and van driver and nothing to do with their expertise or otherwise.
    You claim to not read my posts in full before firing off your increasingly bizarre shouty, sweary rants.
You wear this as a badge of pride as if not reading before replying is somehow clever.
    Just because you don't read them doesn't mean that others don't. This has the effect of making you look either stupid or dishonest because you keep repeating things that have been demonstrably debunked. Just because you haven't read it doesn't change this simple fact. Other readers can see that you are repeating demonstrable and demonstrated falsehoods repeatedly and are left puzzled by your seeming inability to understand simple concepts.
    Your new supporting evidence that you appear to have attempted to lever in, I will debunk now before you start repeating it ad nauseam in support of your tendentious claims.
   "...simply INEXPERIENCED IN THE ROLE OF PHOTOGRAPHER! Cook directed him at the scene, a specialist would have taken control."
     Had you watched the video and read things properly you would not make mistaken conclusions such as this. To recap for you, the SOC officer directs the photographer as to what he wants photographing. This makes obvious sense doesn't it? The photographers specialist role is taking photographs. The SOC officer's specialist role is to record accurately the crime scene. You wouldn't want officer's deciding themselves what they should do. A chain of command is required. This is standard practice and does not demonstrate in any way what you claim it does. Again anyone can see this, it isn't really disputed that this is the case. As far as I am aware Cook did not set up his equipment or tell him how he should take pictures. Cook was SOC officer. Who else would you expect to take charge of the scene?
     Do you imagine that experienced photographers just take pictures of what they themselves regard as important and ignore the SOC officer?
    And it is notable that nobody else is using Bird's inexperience/competence as an excuse for the number of missing negatives. Not EP, none of the number of photographic experts who have examined them. Just you and Jane.
    You have done yourself no favours and if you actually read the full thread you will see that Jon's observations are accurate.

    You could start by explaining your accusation of me inventing parts of quotes. Do you still stand by this claim? Or were you mistaken?

Ha! Pathetic moron!  It's taken you the best part of 4 hours to dream that one up.

[Caroline]

   You demonstrably misquoted your own source which was itself hearsay.
    You claimed that I invented the second part of the sentence. Are you that dense really?
    I again quoted it in full. How are you not misquoting?
    Your interpretations of the COLP interview are baffling. Which things that, "he states about himself, shows that he thought of himself as a novice..." proves this. Could you point out these references from which you have been able to infer this? References where this is reasonably inferred. Things like, "there's nobody lower than me, the van driver and the photographer" cannot by any measure be taken to infer novice status onto Bird. Unless you are claiming that the van driver was also inexperienced, not a specialist van driver or whatever.
    It is clear to all that the "nobody lower" reference is a comment on the perceived status amongst other officers of the photographer and van driver and nothing to do with their expertise or otherwise.
    You claim to not read my posts in full before firing off your increasingly bizarre shouty, sweary rants.
You wear this as a badge of pride as if not reading before replying is somehow clever.
    Just because you don't read them doesn't mean that others don't. This has the effect of making you look either stupid or dishonest because you keep repeating things that have been demonstrably debunked. Just because you haven't read it doesn't change this simple fact. Other readers can see that you are repeating demonstrable and demonstrated falsehoods repeatedly and are left puzzled by your seeming inability to understand simple concepts.
    Your new supporting evidence that you appear to have attempted to lever in, I will debunk now before you start repeating it ad nauseam in support of your tendentious claims.
   "...simply INEXPERIENCED IN THE ROLE OF PHOTOGRAPHER! Cook directed him at the scene, a specialist would have taken control."
     Had you watched the video and read things properly you would not make mistaken conclusions such as this. To recap for you, the SOC officer directs the photographer as to what he wants photographing. This makes obvious sense doesn't it? The photographers specialist role is taking photographs. The SOC officer's specialist role is to record accurately the crime scene. You wouldn't want officer's deciding themselves what they should do. A chain of command is required. This is standard practice and does not demonstrate in any way what you claim it does. Again anyone can see this, it isn't really disputed that this is the case. As far as I am aware Cook did not set up his equipment or tell him how he should take pictures. Cook was SOC officer. Who else would you expect to take charge of the scene?
     Do you imagine that experienced photographers just take pictures of what they themselves regard as important and ignore the SOC officer?
    And it is notable that nobody else is using Bird's inexperience/competence as an excuse for the number of missing negatives. Not EP, none of the number of photographic experts who have examined them. Just you and Jane.
    You have done yourself no favours and if you actually read the full thread you will see that Jon's observations are accurate.

    You could start by explaining your accusation of me inventing parts of quotes. Do you still stand by this claim? Or were you mistaken?

No, I didn't misquote anything.

You're not careful, you're obsessed and you like to change the argument to suit. You initially said that the COLP statement referred to Bird as a specialist, I said it didn't and it doesn't. Everything he states about himself, shows that he thought of himself as a novice and the fact that he'd only done the role twice - proves it. You can bang on about full stops and comprehension as much as you like, it won't change the fact that Bird was inexperienced. Not and idiot as you said I implied, simply INEXPERIENCED IN THE ROLE OF PHOTOGRAPHER! Cook directed him at the scene, a specialist would have taken control.

[Caroline]

    Yes it does state that he is a specialist or professional photographer.
 

Where?

[Jon2]

Carolines logic ,
they framed him , with the silencer ,
they would not frame him with the 200 cut photographs .

[Jon2]

It's as if WE have a vested interest? Have you not seen how much gringo has vomited this weekend? I haven't even read most of it but he's still obsessed enough to keep going. Gringo's argument was DEAD in the water as soon as I posted that he had only been a photographer once previous to the WHF murders and he knows it. However, he has invested too much BS in his argument and committed himself to making Bird 'highly qualified' that he now can't back-down. Join him if you like, but if you argue from his stance, best get a chair cuz he doesn't have a leg to stand on

Again your reading skill's are found wanting here .

[Caroline]

Again your reading skill's are found wanting here .

Your reading AND writing skills are wanting everywhere! 

[gringo]

Carolines logic ,
they framed him , with the silencer
they would not frame him with the 200 cut photographs .

   An oxymoron surely

[Caroline]

   I'm a moron surely

Yes you are!

[JackieD]

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 '.

Well said Jon you are absolutely right

[JackieD]

Your reading AND writing skills are wanting everywhere!

Jon is one of the most articulate posters on this forum. Your personal remarks and personal insults are unacceptable. You continue to be an embarrassment. What a sad angry women you are.

[gringo]

No, I didn't misquote anything.

You're not careful, you're obsessed and you like to change the argument to suit. You initially said that the COLP statement referred to Bird as a specialist, I said it didn't and it doesn't. Everything he states about himself, shows that he thought of himself as a novice and the fact that he'd only done the role twice - proves it. You can bang on about full stops and comprehension as much as you like, it won't change the fact that Bird was inexperienced. Not and idiot as you said I implied, simply INEXPERIENCED IN THE ROLE OF PHOTOGRAPHER! Cook directed him at the scene, a specialist would have taken control.

Ha! Pathetic moron!  It's taken you the best part of 4 hours to dream that one up.

Where?

This is Bird in conversation with Supt McKay.

"Supt MCKAY.  With the greatest respect to you you were there as a photographer.
BIRD.  I was down at the other end of the scale so to speak. Well I was. There's no one lower than me. The van driver and photographer."

Then there's this.

"BIRD. Yeah.  A spare pair of hands if they need it. But my main job is to produce the photographic album.
Supt MCKAY.  Ok you then go on to the mortuary on the same day obviously to do your specialist job again, take the photographs, yeah."

I've quoted, to the best of my knowledge, accurately, to a comma. I have NO idea what meaning Gringo is trying to attach to it, but it reads to me exactly as if whilst McKay is doing his damdest to push a "specialist" label onto Bird -although why this should be so important, only he can judge- Bird is refuting this at every stage. In his final sentence, it sounds as if McKay has heard enough of Bird disagreeing with him. This time, he doesn't ask a question of Bird -the omission of a question mark isn't mine- he makes a statement of the fact that he believes it to be. Now, I can't say for certain, but I'm fairly sure there isn't an acquiescing response from Bird in which he concedes himself to be what Gringo is claiming him to be, for the simple reason that Caroline would NEVER leave herself open to ridicule in such a way.

    Ha ha. You are both unintentionally comedy gold.

    I'll go through some of your most idiotic ramblings.
    Caroline posted this:  The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment.
    It is the CAL hearsay. When I pointed out the ambiguity and questioned the qualifying, "while he was engaged on the lab treatment" part of the sentence, you posted this:
    What is it you find difficult in the sentence ...... 'The Bamber case was only his SECOND as photographer' - It doesn't say it was his second time 'while on the course' - you're amazing, you just invest stuff.
           I then pointed out that you are misquoting yourself as well as making false accusations to me and still you deny it. Care to comment?

     You are still denying that it is stated that Bird is a specialist and ask; "Where?"
      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
   
    You pathetically dispute this by claiming it only says that he does a specialist role, not that he is a specialist. Nobody but you interprets this as meaning that Bird isn't a specialist. It is self evident that Bird and the other two officers are all specialists. There is no ambiguity really.
    The full interview which I will link to is even more clear when read in full that Bird's role was photographer and that he was clearly a specialist. Given that he was employed as a police photographer (court record), he is also by definition a professional photographer. Caroline and Jane have selectively quoted and deduced wholly misleading interpretations in a transparent and failed attempt to give a false impression of Bird's status. Full COLP interview linked below. Worth reading and everyone can see your duplicity:

    http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7461.0.html

   This gem courtesy of Jane: 
"BIRD. Yeah.  A spare pair of hands if they need it. But my main job is to produce the photographic album.
Supt MCKAY.  Ok you then go on to the mortuary on the same day obviously to do your specialist job again, take the photographs, yeah."
...Now, I can't say for certain, but I'm fairly sure there isn't an acquiescing response from Bird in which he concedes himself to be what Gringo is claiming him to be, for the simple reason that Caroline would NEVER leave herself open to ridicule in such a way. 

   Here is the rest of that part of the interview:
   Bird: Yeah. A spare pair of hands if they need it. But my main job is to produce the photographic album
  McKay: Ok you then go on to the mortuary on the same day obviously to do your specialist job again, take the photographs, yeah
  Bird: Yeah

  It is in the link above. But at least that's one little mystery cleared up for you. You now can be certain that Bird did "give an acquiescing response in which he concedes himself to be what Gringo claims". It is contrary to what you were fairly sure about but at least you can be certain now.
  It also may cause you to question your own reasoning. It is obviously and demonstrably not a wise decision to hang your reasoning on the belief that:  Caroline would NEVER leave herself open to ridicule in such a way. 
   She just has by your own definition.

   Would have posted earlier but amongst other things had a bit of company round and earlier was cooking and baking. Home made Hunters Chicken and a home made with fresh ingredients Lemon Meringue. Lovely with a cuppa and a nice joint whilst exposing your duplicity.
   And I didn't forget you in my endeavours and in response to your kind invitation earlier,
   Think you need to walk the dog, fix your car or bake a pie before you burst a blood vessel.
   I baked you a Humble Pie. And if you have read this far then you have just had it.
   

[Caroline]

    Ha ha. You are both unintentionally comedy gold.

    I'll go through some of your most idiotic ramblings.
    Caroline posted this:  The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment.
    It is the CAL hearsay. When I pointed out the ambiguity and questioned the qualifying, "while he was engaged on the lab treatment" part of the sentence, you posted this:
    What is it you find difficult in the sentence ...... 'The Bamber case was only his SECOND as photographer' - It doesn't say it was his second time 'while on the course' - you're amazing, you just invest stuff.
           I then pointed out that you are misquoting yourself as well as making false accusations to me and still you deny it. Care to comment?

     You are still denying that it is stated that Bird is a specialist and ask; "Where?"
      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
   
    You pathetically dispute this by claiming it only says that he does a specialist role, not that he is a specialist. Nobody but you interprets this as meaning that Bird isn't a specialist. It is self evident that Bird and the other two officers are all specialists. There is no ambiguity really.
    The full interview which I will link to is even more clear when read in full that Bird's role was photographer and that he was clearly a specialist. Given that he was employed as a police photographer (court record), he is also by definition a professional photographer. Caroline and Jane have selectively quoted and deduced wholly misleading interpretations in a transparent and failed attempt to give a false impression of Bird's status. Full COLP interview linked below. Worth reading and everyone can see your duplicity:

    http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7461.0.html

   This gem courtesy of Jane: 
"BIRD. Yeah.  A spare pair of hands if they need it. But my main job is to produce the photographic album.
Supt MCKAY.  Ok you then go on to the mortuary on the same day obviously to do your specialist job again, take the photographs, yeah."
...Now, I can't say for certain, but I'm fairly sure there isn't an acquiescing response from Bird in which he concedes himself to be what Gringo is claiming him to be, for the simple reason that Caroline would NEVER leave herself open to ridicule in such a way. 

   Here is the rest of that part of the interview:
   Bird: Yeah. A spare pair of hands if they need it. But my main job is to produce the photographic album
  McKay: Ok you then go on to the mortuary on the same day obviously to do your specialist job again, take the photographs, yeah
  Bird: Yeah

  It is in the link above. But at least that's one little mystery cleared up for you. You now can be certain that Bird did "give an acquiescing response in which he concedes himself to be what Gringo claims". It is contrary to what you were fairly sure about but at least you can be certain now.
  It also may cause you to question your own reasoning. It is obviously and demonstrably not a wise decision to hang your reasoning on the belief that:  Caroline would NEVER leave herself open to ridicule in such a way. 
   She just has by your own definition.

   Would have posted earlier but amongst other things had a bit of company round and earlier was cooking and baking. Home made Hunters Chicken and a home made with fresh ingredients Lemon Meringue. Lovely with a cuppa and a nice joint whilst exposing your duplicity.
   And I didn't forget you in my endeavours and in response to your kind invitation earlier,
   Think you need to walk the dog, fix your car or bake a pie before you burst a blood vessel.
   I baked you a Humble Pie. And if you have read this far then you have just had it.
   

Get some help gringo. I haven't read any of your post - except the last line - try eating your own pie because you need a lesson in humble. Not sure why Bamber attracts people like you but it takes all sorts!