Crime Scene Investigation: Using the right metadata to catch criminals

Under Oath

Thank you for the interesting article. I agree that more must be done to tighten up SOP and unify forces across the UK in this matter. I must point out however that when you say the court has to take the photographers word that the image is a true representation of the scene then yes, they must. That is the reason we still take the oath and applies to all other CSI work. 'Did you take that cigarette end from there at that time?' - 'Yes I did'. There is only a CSI's word to guarantee that and digital imaging is no different.

Also, when you say the majority of Police photographs aren't taken by skilled photographers, that may be true in some areas of Police work but I would certainly consider most CSI's to be skilled photographers. At initial CSI training as much time is spent learning photographic techniques as it is forensic techniques.

regards,
Rob Stewart. Ex-Cambs. CSI.

Unskilled

I began my Forensic career many years ago as a Scenes of Crime Officer, before moving through the ranks and on to more senior roles within the Civil Service. I have of course done the 'training course' at the then National Training Centre, and many other more advanced courses since. I have also trained photographers in advanced aspects of Forensic imaging and have run my own department. I have also written training manuals and was a past contributer to the Scene Hanbook. My experience agrees with Mark Woods. I would also like to say that I have found that even so called 'trained' crime scene officers can lack the required knowlege and skill to understand and overcome the complexities of difficult photographic imaging situations - either at the scene or in the lab. This has been the case with analogue and / or digital recording media for as long as I can remember. Mark, many years ago I advocated the requirement to shoot in RAW and burn the images straight to optical disk. This disk effectively became the 'negatives' which were taken by me and kept in my possesion etc etc. As I have been out of the industry for almost a decade I am amazed this issue is still ongoing, it should have been put to bed a long time ago. I am not amazed to still find people completing what is essentially an 'introduction to Forensic Photography' module at the NTC considering themselves as a genuine expert. The fact that the initial courses are introductory is not instilled upon the candidate.

Court challenges

Irrespective of the type of evidence presented to a court, if someone were to be imaginative enough, they will find grounds for a challenge. I remember a very elderly barrister telling me many years ago that (in jury trials) you only need to place some elements of doubt into a juries mind to obtain an acquittal. Therefore, casting doubts on the veracity of an image obtained by digital capture, would seem to be a good place to start. As a dedicated film user, the only two facts I know about digital is that there is no film and the cameras are battery-dependent! If I was on a jury, start arguing about RAW/JPEG or whatever and I would simply reject the lot. If this meant an acquittal, so be it

Future Generations

Having been a serving police officer I am well aware that taking photographs at scenes has been difficult with the equipment provided, and I have worked with CSIs who as far as I could see produced great photographs.
I am studying on the BSc (Hons) Crime Scene Science at Teesside University, where in the first year you are introduced to photography using the Nikon D40, and then progress to specialist photography in the second year using the Nikons D70 and D90... during the whole course you will also use photography during the crime scene practicals and assessments. Hopefully this is helping produce better photographers for police work.

The Law and Digital Photography

I have understood this problem for many years. I'm still not convinced that RAW and metada are the complete solution. But, thank you for an interesting and informative highlight to this conundrum.
Thank you,
Bruce Ford, (retired) City Photographer
Akron, Ohio

A question...

Has anyone any examples of a judge reaching a verdict of not guilty based on photographic evidence? I do not know of any - photographs usually support other evidence. There seems to be an element of creating fear over the subject of 'manipulation', it is very simple (when the Home Office guidelines are followed) to ensure images are suitable for court.
There are however plenty of cases that do not even reach court because of poorly taken images - and I would agree that this will get worse with government cut backs but also because of the willingness of officers to believe digital photography is so easy compared to film that anyone can do it. They are wrong - the police still need trained photorgraphers. If your house is burgled you would want to know that the photographs made at the scene were done correctly wouldn't you? Daily Mail readers are going to hit the roof when they find out what is really happening...