Video re photographs non-disclosure

[Caroline]

   Your failure to understand even the definition of hearsay doesn't bode well but here goes anyway.
     In the COLP interviews Bird is not asked the direct question, "Are you a specialist photographer?" This has led you to erroneously believe that this is evidence that he isn't a specialist. The whole interview makes pretty clear that he is exactly that though. Why would they ask such a pointless question?
     He does however concur with DS Young and Supt. McKay that crime scene photography is his specialist role. This role is referred to as a specialist role throughout the COLP interview which also refers to Bird's role as police photographer countless times. It is impossible to read the entire COLP interview without concluding that Bird is a specialist police crime scene photographer.
    You are asking us to believe that Bird, despite concurring that his role as photographer was "his specialist role", several times, does not believe himself to be a specialist.
    By inference Bird is a specialist and everyone can see this.
    CAL does not herself claim that it was Bird's second ever time in the role. She paraphrases in such an otherwise needlessly ambiguous way, that the discerning reader (not you) immediately recognises possible intention to mislead. NGB, as a legal professional, will certainly recognise what I am talking about. Seemingly unnecessary caveats on a sentence are not even particularly subtle and immediately raise questions to the informed reader.
    I am inclined to believe that CAL's caveat was not needless and that Bird had performed the role prior to being "engaged on the lab treatments".
    "The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment"
    Why not,
    1) "The Bamber case was only his second ever as photographer", or even,
    2) "The Bamber case was his second as photographer since joining Essex Police."
    If it was indeed only Bird's second time in the role then both of these sentences are more appropriate.
The caveat, in my view, is intended to mislead the reader into inferring 1 or 2 whilst avoiding saying so.

Everyone can see it? Then why do they need to keep asking him about it?

Yous said that the article said HE was a specialist and it does NOT!

Now you're accusing CAL of being deliberately misleading?

[Caroline]

OK, I'm shutting you down now, I am sure everyone else is as bored with this as I am (apart from Jackie who doesn't know any better). I'll post again on this if when I get a response.

[Jon2]

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

This cracker should never be forgotten !
Reasonable 

[JackieD]

You do realise that technology moves right?

Answer the question you stalk multiple forums. It’s what you get off on.
So sad.
See you have thrown the towel in
Gringo 1
Caroline 0

[JackieD]

This cracker should never be forgotten !
Reasonable 

Thank you Jon nearly forgot

[Caroline]

This cracker should never be forgotten !
Reasonable 

You won't be forgotten as a cracker - your place is secured on that score.

[Caroline]

Answer the question you stalk multiple forums. It’s what you get off on.
So sad.
See you have thrown the towel in
Gringo 1
Caroline 0

Nutter  - I guess you didn't understand my post. This on Ice - ice melts! 

[gringo]

Everyone can see it? Then why do they need to keep asking him about it?

Yous said that the article said HE was a specialist and it does NOT!

Now you're accusing CAL of being deliberately misleading?

   Deliberately, or otherwise, CAL's statement is ambiguous so it is by definition misleading. Do you believe that writers don't attempt to mislead?
    I didn't claim that "the article said HE was a specialist". What article are you talking about?
    It is a verbatim transcript of a recorded interview with the City of London Police. This is further supported by Bird's court transcript when he refers to his job as "police photographer". He performs a specialist role as a police photographer and is employed as a police photographer. This is agreed by the court, COLP, Bird and is a matter of official record. I know of no sensible person who would attempt to claim that Bird is not a specialist.
    I think it is safe to explore more plausible explanations for the missing negatives than the piss poor theories advanced by you. 
    Does anyone know how many photographs of the gun cupboard, specifically those taken on the 7/8/85 have been disclosed?

[Caroline]

   Deliberately, or otherwise, CAL's statement is ambiguous so it is by definition misleading. Do you believe that writers don't attempt to mislead?
    I didn't claim that "the article said HE was a specialist". What article are you talking about?
    It is a verbatim transcript of a recorded interview with the City of London Police. This is further supported by Bird's court transcript when he refers to his job as "police photographer". He performs a specialist role as a police photographer and is employed as a police photographer. This is agreed by the court, COLP, Bird and is a matter of official record. I know of no sensible person who would attempt to claim that Bird is not a specialist.
    I think it is safe to explore more plausible explanations for the missing negatives than the piss poor theories advanced by you. 
    Does anyone know how many photographs of the gun cupboard, specifically those taken on the 7/8/85 have been disclosed?

Well, of course not because to be sensible, you have to agree with you. So that you have Jackie and Jon (or Irene and Vern) backing you up! If I have to track Bird down and speak to him myself, I will do so!

[gringo]

Well, of course not because to be sensible, you have to agree with you. So that you have Jackie and Jon (or Irene and Vern) backing you up! If I have to track Bird down and speak to him myself, I will do so!

   Still crying? I doubt, with the exception of you and Jane, that there is anyone who has read the thread who cannot see that Bird's role as specialist is agreed by Bird, COLP and the court. Jackie, John, Irene, Vern, NGB and everybody else can comprehend and make reasonable inferences and all can see that I have stated nothing to disagree with. You on the other hand...
   

[JackieD]

Well, of course not because to be sensible, you have to agree with you. So that you have Jackie and Jon (or Irene and Vern) backing you up! If I have to track Bird down and speak to him myself, I will do so!

Funny how MAT just pops up out of the blue You are both an embarrassment. Both sussed out long ago. Keep up your stalking on the multiple forums you use daily

[Caroline]

   Still crying? I doubt, with the exception of you and Jane, that there is anyone who has read the thread who cannot see that Bird's role as specialist is agreed by Bird, COLP and the court. Jackie, John, Irene, Vern, NGB and everybody else can comprehend and make reasonable inferences and all can see that I have stated nothing to disagree with. You on the other hand...
   

No laughing! And you have no idea why 

[Caroline]

Funny how MAT just pops up out of the blue You are both an embarrassment. Both sussed out long ago. Keep up your stalking on the multiple forums you use daily

Who are we supposed to be stalking? Stupid woman! You turned up here to goad me not the other way around. You haven't made one single post about the case since crawling out from under your stone.

[gringo]

   As it is now generally agreed that the large amount of missing negatives is unlikely to be down to Bird being so inexperienced/incompetent, what other explanations are likely that have led to at least 40% of all negatives being missing.
   Having been reading "the gun cupboard" thread I noticed that it is claimed that Hammersley was unaware of there being a gun cupboard.
   This from Bird's COLP interview. They are asking about the 7th august:
   
   Bird:     The study
   Young:  Yeah. And the cupboard we're talking about is the one underneath the stairs you've just
               described
   Bird:     Yeah
   Young:  Did you actually put your head inside that cupboard?
   Bird:     No. No. I think if you look at the pictures there's a lot of stuff in front of it and rather than kick
               or knock anything over I just took the pictures and come out.

    Pictures? Of the gun cupboard?
   
    During Hammersley's cross examination in the trial transcript he claims to have been unaware of the gun cupboard for some weeks.
    From the video at the beginning of this thread the CCRC state, "...on the occasions that negative strips have been cut short the subject matter (with the exception of the gun cupboard) is not of significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction."
    They were looking at the pictures during the COLP interview in 1991. By 2012 the negative strips had been cut and negative strips cut short that related to the gun cupboard.
    So how many pictures of the gun cupboard taken on 7/8/85 have been disclosed to the defence?

   

[JackieD]

   As it is now generally agreed that the large amount of missing negatives is unlikely to be down to Bird being so inexperienced/incompetent, what other explanations are likely that have led to at least 40% of all negatives being missing.
   Having been reading "the gun cupboard" thread I noticed that it is claimed that Hammersley was unaware of there being a gun cupboard.
   This from Bird's COLP interview. They are asking about the 7th august:
   
   Bird:     The study
   Young:  Yeah. And the cupboard we're talking about is the one underneath the stairs you've just
               described
   Bird:     Yeah
   Young:  Did you actually put your head inside that cupboard?
   Bird:     No. No. I think if you look at the pictures there's a lot of stuff in front of it and rather than kick
               or knock anything over I just took the pictures and come out.

    Pictures? Of the gun cupboard?
   
    During Hammersley's cross examination in the trial transcript he claims to have been unaware of the gun cupboard for some weeks.
    From the video at the beginning of this thread the CCRC state, "...on the occasions that negative strips have been cut short the subject matter (with the exception of the gun cupboard) is not of significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction."
    They were looking at the pictures during the COLP interview in 1991. By 2012 the negative strips had been cut and negative strips cut short that related to the gun cupboard.
    So how many pictures of the gun cupboard taken on 7/8/85 have been disclosed to the defence?

   

Thank you for your very clear assessment of why the missing negatives were/is a major issue in this case