«

I under stand that the "film" is acceptable but not digital ones?

I did once for a case of car hitting the fence. No problem.

=bob=


"Era" <> wrote in message
news:429d27c2$...
>I under stand that the "film" is acceptable but not digital ones?

Era commented courteously...

> I under stand that the "film" is acceptable but
> not digital ones?

Here's another question best left to your favorite
attorney friend.

As to digital, most commonly available prints today are
digitized from negs/slides anyway. Still, your point is
valid. If UFO pictures can now be done in PS CS or PSP,
why not fake pics for a criminal or civil trial - for
either side?

As always, it boils down to what the jury and/or judge
will or won't believe from the testimony of witnesses, as
augmented by graphics.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

Era wrote:
> I under stand that the "film" is acceptable but not digital ones?

In France a digital picture can be accepted as an oral (not made under
oath) testify, but it has NOT the power of a physical proof (as could
have an original negative or slide).

But, in the country of the http://www.stellaawards.com/ , I would think
that anything could be possible??? ;o)))

Greetings from France
Nicolas

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 13:13:05 +1000, Era <> wrote:

>I under stand that the "film" is acceptable but not digital ones?

You've heard wrong.

Here are some good articles on the subject.

http://www.ndaa-apri.org/publication...r_10_2002.html

http://www.policecentral.com/wp-crimescene.htm

What is important is the "Chain of evidence" be maintained.


************************************************** ******

"The condition of civil affairs in Texas is anomalous,
singular, and unsatisfactory."

Maj. Gen. Philip H. Sherdan
to
Bvt. Maj. Gen. John A. Rawlins
November 14, 1866

Era wrote:
> I under stand that the "film" is acceptable but not digital ones?


It depends on how qualified the opposing attorney is.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

You understand wrong. Film or digital must be backed up by the photographer
saying they are accurate representations of the scene.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Era" <> wrote in message
news:429d27c2$...
> I under stand that the "film" is acceptable but not digital ones?

Era wrote:
> I under stand that the "film" is acceptable but not digital ones?
As long as the 'chain of custody' is maintained on the camera/card, then
they should be admissible.


--
Ron Hunter

>I did once for a case of car hitting the fence. No problem.

Your testimony was admitted, and the photograph supported your sworn
statements. That's distinct from a photograph being admitted without
someone to testify as to its contents and origin and custody.

If a party fakes a photograph, and it's found out, someone will face a
perjury charge for it. The photograph is never "sworn in" as a
witness, and it won't be shown to a jury in a criminal trial unless
someone has sworn before the judge as to what it contains. No
different for a photograph, a digital photograph, or a sketch on a
cocktail napkin.

Standards for evidence vary greatly among jurisdictions, and between
civil and criminal courts.

Era <> wrote:
>I under stand that the "film" is acceptable but not digital ones?

A new feature of the Canon 20d is the ability to add an encryption key
to a photograph to ensure that alterations are detected. They market
it for police work.

--
Ray Fischer