From: gremlin@interserv.com
Subject: Re: Bulletin Board # 30
Reference digital photos:
I recently experienced a situation with the local Police where I had taken several photos of a person stealing precious metals. I used a Casio digital camera. I uploaded the digital photos to a PC, then printed them on a HP Color Laser printer. The images were very crisp and showed exactly what I wanted them to. When I turned the photos over to the PD, they weren't smart enough to realize the photos came from a digital camera. The DA's office recognized the digital photos and called me on the phone. He asked if I still had the photos stored on the camera. When I replied, Yes, he asked if I could bring the camera and the PC software in to the lab. I turned the camera and software over to the lab and watched while they uploaded the photos into the PC and printed "certified" copies. The lab tech stated the digital photos were more dificult to alter than conventional film as long as they were stored in the camera. The certified copies must have worked because we got a guilty plea and restitution on the stolen gold.
From: Rivers1133@aol.com
Subject: Re: Bulletin Board # 30
I testify frequently concerning photographs in courts, especially homicide cases. The key point is that all photographic work can be manipulated. By adjusting the color balance I can make bruises really look deep purple/red. Of course the fear of the computer photography is that objects can be placed in or removed out of the picture, almost undetected. In discussion with the State's Attorney's Office, the key point when I testify and the question I am always asked on the stand is, " Is this photograph a true representation of the crime scene as you saw it on such in such date?" To which I answer yes to each and every photo entered into the trial. The same testimony should hold true to digital photography, but it can be manipulated much easier, and someone is going to make good money when they get the expertise to examine photo work and testify concerning digital alteration.
If you get any information of digital testimony I would be interersted. I know that HQ AFOSI, Mike Hastings, has really jumped on the digital photography band wagon. He also stated that when HQ moves to Andrews, he will not be doing anymore photographic wet work, strictly digital. In fact he will most likely do any of his wet work with my crime lab down in Charles County, MD. He feels law enforcement will be all digital in 10 years.
Steve Rivers
Forensic Crime Lab
Charles County Sheriff's Office
From: "Samuel M. Kirton"
Tim
The issue of digital imaging, or digital anything for that matter, is going through the courts. During May 12-16 97 in Las Vegas, the FBI hosted a Digital Imaging Seminar For Law Enforcement. I delivered a presentation on developing standardized agency policy for the use of
digital imaging. Several presentations were delivered on case precedent; most interesting was "State of Washington :vs: Eric Hayden". The precedent established by this case alone was significant as it validated a level of manipulation by fast fourier transform. The Federal
Rules of Evidence (FRE) 1001 and 1002 tend to be used in support of digtial imaging.
The proceedings of the seminar will be published and available through the government printing office. It should be a good reference and I am not saying that just because my paper will be published in the proceedings.
In addition, I recommend you look on the web Indiana University Institute for Forensic Imaging. Search that site for "Herbert L. Blitzer". Herb has written volumes on digital imaging.
sam sends....
Anyone else with any input to the dialog thus far, or any more cases or references?
Subject: Re: Bulletin Board # 30
The following is in reply to Bulletin Board #30, Item 1, Digital Imaging.
smkirton@erols.com