Is film better for the truth?

[MattKing]

You speak from the Canadian aspect, I am in UK! We have different but similar procedures I have experience of presenting photographic evidence in front of a jury and shooting down a defence question about accuracy. So long as the continuation trail is complete and the evidence can be cross referenced then the risk of questioning the accuracy is reduced to virtually nil.

As for forensic evidence about stab wounds that is not in the scope of this thread. That is a totally different matter dealt with outside my scope. What this does show that that either film or digital evidence can hold its own in a court if presented in a straightforward and accurate way, with all the 'T's crossed and all the 'i's dotted.

I understand what you are saying. I'm saying that the photographic evidence alone wouldn't have been sufficient to prove the case. The continuity issue is about the quality of the photographic evidence, not its sufficiency.
We share a lot of evidence law with the UK.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Neither version of the drone video evidence showed what was needed to be shown, in order to support what either the prosecutor or the defence said it supported.
The jury ignored it, and acquitted the accused.

How do you know the jury ignored it? You weren't in the jury. In any case, the point is editing created a major legal issue. That's what we're discussing, Not how the jury decided.

Here's another article.

Kyle Rittenhouse defense asks for mistrial over drone video evidence

The defense team in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial has asked for a mistrial over disputed drone video.

www.wisn.com

 

[BMbikerider]

I understand what you are saying. I'm saying that the photographic evidence alone wouldn't have been sufficient to prove the case. The continuity issue is about the quality of the photographic evidence, not its sufficiency.
We share a lot of evidence law with the UK.

I am not saying photographic evidence alone would convict, but that is NOT the point, The discussion was film digital better for truth. My reply encompassed this and my conclusion was, there was not a lot between them so long as the evidence continuity was complete and intact. The proof I mentioned in my first post, referred to the proof of the identity of the suspect, not the actual act of wounding. They all tied together quite nicely.

When I started out in early 1960's I was using a MPP 5x4 camera where the negatives in B&W were a lot fewer and far between and easier to keep track of case by case. Even a serious road crash rarely had more than 8 or 9 pictures which I processed and printed - No lab technician in those days! This lasted more or less intact until I retired in 2000, when I was using a Pentax 6x7 and colour negative and an automated processor which I operated..

With todays plethora of digital cameras, mobile phones, whatever, I don't envy the exhibits officer having to keep track of everything in the correct order to present it before a jury.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am not saying photographic evidence alone would convict, but that is NOT the point, The discussion was film digital better for truth. My reply encompassed this and my conclusion was, there was not a lot between them so long as the evidence continuity was complete and intact. The proof I mentioned in my first post, referred to the proof of the identity of the suspect, not the actual act of wounding. They all tied together quite nicely.

When I started out in early 1960's I was using a MPP 5x4 camera where the negatives in B&W were a lot fewer and far between and easier to keep track of case by case. Even a serious road crash rarely had more than 8 or 9 pictures which I processed and printed - No lab technician in those days! This lasted more or less intact until I retired in 2000, when I was using a Pentax 6x7 and colour negative and an automated processor which I operated..

With todays plethora of digital cameras, mobile phones, whatever, I don't envy the exhibits officer having to keep track of everything in the correct order to present it before a jury.

Let me guess: you did not add or delete items from the photographs which you presented, right?

 

[jnamia]

The dispute was what I explained it to be. The prosecutor submitted a tampered version of the original to prove guilt. The original version proved the defendant's innocence.

when in this discussion did anyone even suggest tampering with "evidence" was OK ? this thread isn't about "evidence" in a trial but digital vs analog even thought the OP specifically said for it not to be, unfortunately some folks on this website always have an axe to grind ..

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Let me guess: you did not add or delete items from the photographs which you presented, right?

I would think that if you're asked at trial if you Photoshopped it, and you did, just about any answer even a minor edit would create a lot of doubt in the jury's mind. It doesn't even have to be adding or deleting elements. The best approach would be to do nothing. Just furnish the image exactly how it came out of the digital camera. If film, an exact print without any embellishments with the negative as a backup to be used by the opposing side.

 

[MattKing]

I am not saying photographic evidence alone would convict, but that is NOT the point, The discussion was film digital better for truth.

That is where the discussion started .
The issue I'm referencing here is the argument that has been made that the film based photograph must be better for establishing truth because of how useful it is as evidence in court.
And that is something that is seriously misunderstood.

 

[MattKing]

How do you know the jury ignored it? You weren't in the jury. In any case, the point is editing created a major legal issue. That's what we're discussing, Not how the jury decided.

Here's another article.

Kyle Rittenhouse defense asks for mistrial over drone video evidence

The defense team in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial has asked for a mistrial over disputed drone video.

www.wisn.com

There was no legal issue created by the result. No mistrial was ordered. Instead, the judge let the jury continue, and the jury voted to acquit.
All the argument about the video was immaterial, even if people were interested in it.
If the judge had ordered a mistrial, it would have created an interesting legal issue in a subsequent appeal.
If the jury had relied on the video and the prosecution's characterization of it, and voted to convict, then it would have created an interesting legal issue in a subsequent appeal.
But instead, it was just a matter of curiosity, and nothing really came of it.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

There was no legal issue created by the result. No mistrial was ordered. Instead, the judge let the jury continue, and the jury voted to acquit.
All the argument about the video was immaterial, even if people were interested in it.
If the judge had ordered a mistrial, it would have created an interesting legal issue in a subsequent appeal.
If the jury had relied on the video and the prosecution's characterization of it, and voted to convict, then it would have created an interesting legal issue in a subsequent appeal.
But instead, it was just a matter of curiosity, and nothing really came of it.

If the jury voted to convict, then the issue to declare a mistrial would have been on the table for the judge to initially decide. Only if he didn't decide to declare a mistrial could it have become an issue on appeals.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Main problem with this thread is that people keep mentioning "truth" when what they are actually talking about is "veracity". They are not the same. They are not even synonyms—a closer synonym for "veracity" would be "truthfulness", which isn't the same as "the truth."

Interestingly, you always have truthfulness when you have veracity, but you can have truth without veracity—i.e., without strict accordance with the facts.

Point in case, any black and white photograph taken in a photojournalist context by Cartier-Bresson, Capa, Gene Smith and countless others. Nothing but the truth, but since the actual scene they captured was, of course, in color, not in black and white, no veracity. In other words, veracity is about accuracy, truth is about meaning. Black and white is never accurate, but can nevertheless capture the meaning, or the truth, of a moment.

Gene Smith understood the difference between the two. When he added the silhouette of a hand and a saw handle, both taken from another negative, to a photograph of Albert Schweitzer, he couldn't care less about veracity. For him, it was a matter of reaching, of expressing some deeper level of truth about Schweitzer. Same when he altered the eyes of one of the grieving women in the Wake of Juan Carra Trujillo photograph: truth, not truthfulness.

 

[BMbikerider]

Let me guess: you did not add or delete items from the photographs which you presented, right?

Absolutely not! That would create doubt as to the accuracy what was being shown. They were always printed straight without even any burning or dodging and always the full negative or as close as possible

 

[BMbikerider]

That is where the discussion started .
The issue I'm referencing here is the argument that has been made that the film based photograph must be better for establishing truth because of how useful it is as evidence in court.
And that is something that is seriously misunderstood.

I retired in July 2000 but kept in touch with friends with whom I worked with and they were still using film until around 2005 when the protocols were established about using digital. There was a lot of opposition to the change over because there was a fear that their work and honesty would come under closer scrutiny in an attempt by the defence looking to discredit prosecution evidence as a way to get their clients off.

I am glad to say, that actually never took place because the production of photographs in court was watertight. Yes there were some that would try to worm their way into the system. However so long as the computer printout of the sequence how the photograph was produced was fully explained to them in a step by step basis there were no problems.

Actually from what I was told, explaining the sequence to a clueless lawyer was like telling a child how to use a knife and fork without stabbing or cutting themselves. Because images were always shot in RAW and the prints were from Jpeg there was always going to be slight colour changes and trying to explain the difference between the two, apparently left them floundering to understand.

 

[MattKing]

The lawyers who make good use of photographic evidence tend to be very well versed in how things work .
The same goes for medical evidence, fingerprint evidence, actuarial evidence, etc., etc.