Video re photographs non-disclosure

[guest7363]

This was an argument that lasted for days and it was obvious from the off that he was new to the role but as always - it got twisted.

There is one thing about CAL Caroline, she did her research

[Kaldin]

Apparently there was no sign of any scratches when the area was first photographed. They appeared later because Sutherst examined the area and didn't find any debris left behind, meaning that whoever did it cleaned up after them .

Yes, but there weren't any close ups of that area when the kitchen was first photographed, so what was Mr Sutherst comparing the later photographs to?

Mr Sutherst didn't go to the farm did he? I thought he worked from photographs. Nobody could see such minute flakes of paint - even if they had fallen on the floor.

[Caroline]

There is one thing about CAL Caroline, she did her research

Exactly but the fact that Bird was new to Crime Scene Photography just didn't suit. Had it not been for CAL's book, this is a FACT we never would have known and it has implications for how the negatives were dealt with.

[lookout]

Yes, but there weren't any close ups of that area when the kitchen was first photographed, so what was Mr Sutherst comparing the later photographs to?

Mr Sutherst didn't go to the farm did he? I thought he worked from photographs. Nobody could see such minute flakes of paint - even if they had fallen on the floor.

Sutherst was relying on photographs as he hadn't physically seen the fireplace at WHF.
Initially on crime scene photographs which had been taken by " police photographers " no scratches could be seen.
It was over a month that Sutherst had looked at photo's of the fireplace and had reconstructed the evidence by examining the area and looking for chipped paint on the floor.
Sutherst had ony learned that the fireplace photo's  he looked at  and which were shown at trial had been taken on the 10th of September.

[Caroline]

Sutherst was relying on photographs as he hadn't physically seen the fireplace at WHF.
Initially on crime scene photographs which had been taken by " police photographers " no scratches could be seen.
It was over a month that Sutherst had looked at photo's of the fireplace and had reconstructed the evidence by examining the area and looking for chipped paint on the floor.
Sutherst had ony learned that the fireplace photo's  he looked at  and which were shown at trial had been taken on the 10th of September.

This is nothing to do with the topic we were discussing nor the thread title.

[lookout]

This is nothing to do with the topic we were discussing nor the thread title.

Photographs ??

[Caroline]

Photographs ??

It's about non-disclosure and my point for bumping up the thread was to post a response to a question I asked CAL, whoch I promised to post once received.

[Kaldin]

Sutherst was relying on photographs as he hadn't physically seen the fireplace at WHF.
Initially on crime scene photographs which had been taken by " police photographers " no scratches could be seen.
It was over a month that Sutherst had looked at photo's of the fireplace and had reconstructed the evidence by examining the area and looking for chipped paint on the floor.
Sutherst had ony learned that the fireplace photo's  he looked at  and which were shown at trial had been taken on the 10th of September.

Yes I know, but there aren't any close ups of the scratched area from the initial crime scene photos, so how could he know if there were scratches or not? Same with the floor.

[lookout]

There is one thing about CAL Caroline, she did her research

She's also admitted to using gossip from the internet---to add spice to the drama I suppose. I bet she's rubbing her hands too !! Wow, the people who've made a fortune from the downfall of an innocent man is obscene.

[Jane]

She's also admitted to using gossip from the internet---to add spice to the drama I suppose. I bet she's rubbing her hands too !! Wow, the people who've made a fortune from the downfall of an innocent man is obscene.

Are you saying that she claimed to use unverified material without substantiating it?

[guest7363]

She's also admitted to using gossip from the internet---to add spice to the drama I suppose. I bet she's rubbing her hands too !! Wow, the people who've made a fortune from the downfall of an innocent man is obscene.

Oh I didn’t know that Lookout? 

[lookout]

Yes, but there weren't any close ups of that area when the kitchen was first photographed, so what was Mr Sutherst comparing the later photographs to?

Mr Sutherst didn't go to the farm did he? I thought he worked from photographs. Nobody could see such minute flakes of paint - even if they had fallen on the floor.

He'd compared them to police photographs. He had powerful equipment being a photographer attached to forensics.

[lookout]

It's about non-disclosure and my point for bumping up the thread was to post a response to a question I asked CAL, whoch I promised to post once received.

Non-disclosure of photographs then.

[lookout]

Yes I know, but there aren't any close ups of the scratched area from the initial crime scene photos, so how could he know if there were scratches or not? Same with the floor.

That's because we've never seen the originals of when it was a murder/suicide.

[lookout]

Are you saying that she claimed to use unverified material without substantiating it?

Why not ? It stretches the drama out and adds extra spice to those who can't tell the difference between guilt and innocence.