Crime Scene Photography

[winger]

In the "old" days the photographic print shown to a jury had to be physically linked to a particular negative, in turn to a particular camera, time, and place. Legal council could demand that these links be proved before the crime scene picture could be admitted as evidence.

Now that the system has gone digital the question of physical links has been put aside. All that is required to authenticate a crime picture is that some breathing and conscious human being has to get into the witness box and swear "Yep, that's the way it was." The crime scene picture has passed in substance from being evidence to becoming mere testimony.

In Massachusetts, photos were not considered evidence at the police level but were entered into evidence in court. Putting a photo into evidence lets the jury see it during deliberations. Even before digital, all that mattered in court was the photographer testifying that the photos were a "true and accurate representation" of what was seen. While there are Federal Rules of Evidence in the US, different states can handle some things differently. In some states, witnesses like forensic chemists get sworn in as expert witnesses. In MA, that was NOT the case. We testified to our opinions on the evidence when asked, but our opinions were along the lines of, "The testing showed that the green acrylic fiber at the scene was consistent in size, chemical composition, and color with the green acrylic sweater in Item 1 and could share a common origin."

 

[cowanw]

Ambrotypes were the medium of choice for the first police department (Glasgow) to use photography in the identification of miscreants and in the investigation of a crime, the first decisive murder evidence being an ambrotype of a bloody footprint which implicated Jean McLachlan in the murder, in 1862, of Jessie McPherson of 17 Sandyford Place in Glasgow.

 

[jtk]

Lots of interesting historic information on this thread. Sorry to divert too much to Weegee, though he seemed an obvious angle.

 

[BMbikerider]

Having had a certainb degree of involvement with CSI photography (We used to call it Scenes of Crime in UK) the most difficult and time consuming task is to ensure the continuity of the evidence. By this I mean, the person who took the photograph had either to process the film to make the negative himself or hand it to a lab assistant to do on his behalf. Then there was the additional task of proving by way of statements what he, the photographer and the lab assistant did before the developing and what happened to the negatives afterwards.
You had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the negatives were not tampered with in any way. Now with the advent of the 'new' process this is even more important because the images (note - not negatives) can be so easily altered on a computer. It must be the exhibits officer worst nightmare to keep them secure.

People such as Weegee would not even be allowed to get near to a scene and if he did, if the picture he took compromised the investigation, the film would be siezed. I never came across anyone like him but I know of a situation where the scene was compromised by a news photographer despite a warning. The 'gentleman' was sent to prison for a short while for perverting the course of justice.

 

[jtk]

Having had a certainb degree of involvement with CSI photography (We used to call it Scenes of Crime in UK) the most difficult and time consuming task is to ensure the continuity of the evidence. By this I mean, the person who took the photograph had either to process the film to make the negative himself or hand it to a lab assistant to do on his behalf. Then there was the additional task of proving by way of statements what he, the photographer and the lab assistant did before the developing and what happened to the negatives afterwards.
You had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the negatives were not tampered with in any way. Now with the advent of the 'new' process this is even more important because the images (note - not negatives) can be so easily altered on a computer. It must be the exhibits officer worst nightmare to keep them secure.

People such as Weegee would not even be allowed to get near to a scene and if he did, if the picture he took compromised the investigation, the film would be siezed. I never came across anyone like him but I know of a situation where the scene was compromised by a news photographer despite a warning. The 'gentleman' was sent to prison for a short while for perverting the course of justice.

Amusing. On the other hand, has any crime been solved or sentence passed in the last decade or two thanks to film..vs you-know-what ?

 

[BMbikerider]

I ceased to have any involvement with scenes of crime photography in the early part of the new century, but yes in 2000 there was a conviction in UK for a serious assault thanks to a fellow photographer being able to demonstrate the severity of the injuries which the defence tried to pass off as 'trivial'. (It involved heart surgery as a result of the attack). The suspect received 12 yrs 'inside'. That was photographed on a medical Nikon using colour film both after the event and in hospital during the operation. 5 years later 'the other medium' would have done the same job equally as well but the continuity of evidence would have had to be EXACT. There is no margin for error.

 

[jtk]

I ceased to have any involvement with scenes of crime photography in the early part of the new century, but yes in 2000 there was a conviction in UK for a serious assault thanks to a fellow photographer being able to demonstrate the severity of the injuries which the defence tried to pass off as 'trivial'. (It involved heart surgery as a result of the attack). The suspect received 12 yrs 'inside'. That was photographed on a medical Nikon using colour film both after the event and in hospital during the operation. 5 years later 'the other medium' would have done the same job equally as well but the continuity of evidence would have had to be EXACT. There is no margin for error.

Amusing. Unfortunately for that line of thinking, digital "continuity" is easy to track....as we see regularly with police bodycam videos. Nothing is more precise than digital data.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Sorry JTK, but this is totally untrue.

PE

 

[Sirius Glass]

Amusing. Unfortunately for that line of thinking, digital "continuity" is easy to track....as we see regularly with police bodycam videos. Nothing is more precise than digital data.

Sorry JTK, but this is totally untrue.

PE

JTK, I agree with PE. You are just wrong.

 

[msage]

In the early 80s I saw a Bertillon chair in a belgian police station.

I wonder when these chairs were phased-out.

As fingerprinting took hold the Bertillon method was phased out. I have a mug shot card (Seattle PD) from 1914 that was has Bertillon measurements and fingerprints (Henry Classification) on it. I think it disappeared in the 1920's?

 

[AgX]

I was not referring to Bertillonage, a system where several body measurements were taken, that all in all were considered to be sufficient to describe a person.
Instead I meant a wooden chair that remotely controlled swivelled to let one make what you in the US call mug shots, from at least two angles.

 

[BMbikerider]

Police bodycams in the UK are sealed and the evidence is almost impossible to tamper with. The evidence trail is complete as far as the officer is concerned when the recording is downloaded by someone who is competent to do so. ANYONE who handles the download afterwards will have to prove that they did not alter the recording. That is basic procedure.

With film, the person who processed the film and has control of it will have to make a statement confirming that the processed film is in his possession and control and the negatives have not been altered in any way. Quite simple really. It really is very difficult to alter negatives without leaving evidence of tampering. Examination of a negative using a microscope would show if any mischief that had taken place.
To be honest in 20 years, I cannot ever remember photographic evidence ever being challenged.

 

[jtk]

Amusing. On the other hand, has any crime been solved or sentence passed in the last decade or two thanks to film..vs you-know-what ?

Police bodycams in the UK are sealed and the evidence is almost impossible to tamper with. The evidence trail is complete as far as the officer is concerned when the recording is downloaded by someone who is competent to do so. ANYONE who handles the download afterwards will have to prove that they did not alter the recording. That is basic procedure.

With film, the person who processed the film and has control of it will have to make a statement confirming that the processed film is in his possession and control and the negatives have not been altered in any way. Quite simple really. It really is very difficult to alter negatives without leaving evidence of tampering. With digital recording from whatever source is a minefield as it is so very easy to do. Irrespective of any record of control.

While film records are no-doubt useful, I suggest that there are NO examples of reliance on film, as opposed to digi, among forensic professionals today.

Non-digital folks might imagine it difficult to confirm tampering with digital records, but that kind of highly detailed analysis and confirmation is routine today and doesn't even require physical presence of the professionals doing the digital confirmation.

If a police forensic photographer relied on film today, given the demise of virtually all local professional photolabs, it would be professional malpractice.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Police bodycams in the UK are sealed and the evidence is almost impossible to tamper with. The evidence trail is complete as far as the officer is concerned when the recording is downloaded by someone who is competent to do so. ANYONE who handles the download afterwards will have to prove that they did not alter the recording. That is basic procedure.

With film, the person who processed the film and has control of it will have to make a statement confirming that the processed film is in his possession and control and the negatives have not been altered in any way. Quite simple really. It really is very difficult to alter negatives without leaving evidence of tampering. Examination of a negative using a microscope would show if any mischief that had taken place.
To be honest in 20 years, I cannot ever remember photographic evidence ever being challenged.

I agree, body cams are secure..... However, image quality is very poor.

Other digital cameras produce files which are not as tamper proof.

PE

 

[BMbikerider]

While film records are no-doubt useful, I suggest that there are NO examples of reliance on film, as opposed to digi, among forensic professionals today.

Non-digital folks might imagine it difficult to confirm tampering with digital records, but that kind of highly detailed analysis and confirmation is routine today and doesn't even require physical presence of the professionals doing the digital confirmation.

If a police forensic photographer relied on film today, given the demise of virtually all local professional photolabs, it would be professional malpractice.

To preserve integrity of the image never ever did the film used in crime scene go out to professional labs to be processed. That would introduce another link in the chain that would have to be proved. All police scenes of crime departments operated their own laboratories in both B&W and latterly colour.

No where in the thread did I say that film was best for recording evidential material but with digital it just that little bit harder to keep the continuity intact. I do believe there is software that will record every time that a file is opened and especially where image enhancement has to be done, every step is recorded but this is only carried out by someone who is trained and competent to operate it and that is accepted as secure. Don't forget photography can be used to prove a persons innocence as well a guilt.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Yes, there is "Version Control" software that marks all files with use and update information.

PE

 

[jtk]

To preserve integrity of the image never ever did the film used in crime scene go out to professional labs to be processed. That would introduce another link in the chain that would have to be proved. All police scenes of crime departments operated their own laboratories in both B&W and latterly colour.

No where in the thread did I say that film was best for recording evidential material but with digital it just that little bit harder to keep the continuity intact. I do believe there is software that will record every time that a file is opened and especially where image enhancement has to be done, every step is recorded but this is only carried out by someone who is trained and competent to operate it and that is accepted as secure. Don't forget photography can be used to prove a persons innocence as well a guilt.

Surely we all know that digital file manipulation is recorded and easily documented by only relatively skilled IT people. That's neither news nor rocket science.

That body cameras are inferior to more conventional digital cameras is only true if we forget that body cameras produce "motion pictures"... much better than stills for their purpose. And of course, most DSLRs also shoot video...like most phones. All police commanders in my city have carried DSLRs for high quality stills for a very long time.

Police departments in the US relied on C41 and convenient mini-labs for decades...until the inconvenience of film led to its death for police, as with most other professional applications. Time flies.

 

[bdial]

Back when I had to do such things, my favorite crime scene photos were of the clean spot on an otherwise dusty table where some Airman's stereo had been.

 

[Arvee]

While in college I served an internship for the local police department's forensics lab documenting photographically anything needed for police work. My first autopsy (murdered young woman) abruptly ended my internship. Definitely not my kind of photography!!

 

[Photo Engineer]

We took and processed many of the accident and crime scene photos on our Air Base.

Some were pretty gruesome. Some were posted in a conference room from time to time during investigations (I think). I was not one of the investigators. We did photo intelligence.

PE

 

[BMbikerider]

Farming out any sort of photographic work to a mini lab which will not be CLOSELY CONTROLLED is just asking for trouble, that is why the UK Police Service never ever did, and still don't.

Perhaps our requirements for evidence integrity is a tad higher.

 

[faberryman]

All police commanders in my city have carried DSLRs for high quality stills for a very long time.

Amazing they have enough room on their belts with the rest of the paraphernalia they carry.

 

[jtk]

Amazing they have enough room on their belts with the rest of the paraphernalia they carry.

fwiw I shouldn't have said DSLRs are "carried"... they're in vehicles of field commander rank that manages beat cops. The And yes, cops carry way-too-much weight, including bullet proof vests. And they all WEAR body cameras which they turn on and off depending on situation (that on/off is a problem). Happily those body cameras record SOUND and VIDEO, which is required by law ... and a lot more valuable as evidence than still photos.