 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2010Photography and forensic science
Ran across some interesting posts about faked photos. Led me to this: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=5-ways-to-spot-a-fake Then, ran across some opinions that RAW files cannot be faked? Wait a minute! The demosaicing algorithms are public knowledge. Algorithms are simply mathematical manipulations that surely are reversible. What am I missing here? > Ran across some interesting posts about faked photos. Led me to this: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > simply mathematical manipulations that surely are reversible. What am I > missing here? There is no reason that a raw cannot be faked from a high res JPG or TIF. However it won't map back exactly as the original. How much weight from given pixels to 'de-mosaic' into the RGB "sets" is plain guess work.  Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. >> Ran across some interesting posts about faked photos. Led me to this: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > TIF. However it won't map back exactly as the original. How much weight > from given pixels to 'de-mosaic' into the RGB "sets" is plain guess work. Right, the raw files are a grid of red, green and blue pixels, when demosaiced, the green ones (twice as many) are given priority for lightness/darkness and the others are spread around to average things out. I don't know how you'd ever figure out how to un-average them back to the exact same places given each pixel has contributions from probably at least 9 adjacent pixels. You could make a raw file but not the same raw file. So you could make a totally fake picture but not modify a picture where authorities had a copy of the original raw. >There is no reason that a raw cannot be faked from a high res JPG or >TIF. Oh yes there is. Jpg images are 8-bit-per-colour, and while tif may have more bpc, if either are coded for viewing the levels defined by those bits will be evenly distributed in a display gamma space, typically around gamma 2.2 - 2.5. eg. in any image coded for viewing, levels 0, 45, 90, 135, 180, 225, 255 will result in 7 almost evenly spaced shades of grey. Raw is encoded linearly, before any gamma for display is applied. Processing the raw image into jpg or tif applies a response curve, based on a gamma curve. This stretches out the codes in the shadows and compresses the codes in the highlights. Consequently, when all of the raw codes may have unique jpg and tif codes in the shadows many of the raw highlights map to the same code in the jpg and tif, especially with recent cameras with 14-bit ADCs. eg, with a 14-bit raw file, levels 2 & 3 would probably map to around levels 2 & 3 in a 8bpc jpg or tif, but level 15880 and next 45 or so levels in the raw would all map to level 252 in the jpg. Consequently, working back from the gamma space jpg or tif to the raw with linear space will leave hundreds of missing codes in the highlights, making it simple to differentiate true raw from one that has been reverse engineered from jpg or tif, even without manipulation. You can try to mask the missing codes using a variety of techniques, but they remain pretty easy to distinguish from real raw images. Then there is the characteristic banding and mapped hot pixels present in most raw images, which make it possible to prove that a reverse engineered raw could never have been created by the same camera as another real raw. Mapped hot pixels are pretty much undetectable to the end user, but are close to being a signature in every image that a camera takes. SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) > Then there is the characteristic banding and mapped hot pixels present > in most raw images, which make it possible to prove that a reverse > engineered raw could never have been created by the same camera as All what you say is well and true, but at a casual glance at a converted fake raw to JPG, it will escape notice, esp. if reduced in size. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. >> Then there is the characteristic banding and mapped hot pixels present >> in most raw images, which make it possible to prove that a reverse >> engineered raw could never have been created by the same camera as > >All what you say is well and true, but at a casual glance at a converted >fake raw to JPG, it will escape notice, esp. if reduced in size. And plausible values can be interpolated, semi-randomized (say with dark-frame data from the intended "source" camera), etc. >> Then there is the characteristic banding and mapped hot pixels present >> in most raw images, which make it possible to prove that a reverse [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >converted fake raw to JPG, it will escape notice, esp. if reduced in >size. Yes, if you convert the fake raw back to jpg then you get the same, or similar, continuum of levels in the jpg that you started from, but relatively trivial analysis of the fake raw shows that it is fake to begin with. I understood the original question related to the verification of the raw image. Shoot with jpg only and almost anyone can fake your images. SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >>> Then there is the characteristic banding and mapped hot pixels present >>> in most raw images, which make it possible to prove that a reverse [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I understood the original question related to the verification of the > raw image. Shoot with jpg only and almost anyone can fake your images. The Nikon that does image manip detection does it on JPG's as well. If you produce a "camera original" image in court, the s/w will indicate whether that particular one has been modified since taken. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. >> There is no reason that a raw cannot be faked from a high res JPG or TIF. > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > end user, but are close to being a signature in every image that a > camera takes. Would it be possible to steal someone's jpg and create a fake raw file, assuming the original photog didn't shoot raw? You could fake the hot pixels for your own camera. > Would it be possible to steal someone's jpg and create a fake raw > file, assuming the original photog didn't shoot raw? You could fake > the hot pixels for your own camera. Jens Duttke, the author of PhotoME did a proof-of-concept: http://www.photome.de/rawwriter_en.html He notes: Since this is only a proof of concept, an expert can still see, that the image wasn't taken using a real FZ-30. There are many indicators like noise, CAs, hot pixels, the limited color depth of JPEG etc. to determine that this image wasn't created by a digital camera. But if I would investigate more time into this program, it would be easily possible to add noise, CAs and hot pixels to the image, so that even experts have problems to validate the image. SignatureJoe Makowiec http://makowiec.org/ Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/ >Would it be possible to steal someone's jpg and create a fake raw file, >assuming the original photog didn't shoot raw? You could fake the hot >pixels for your own camera. Not practical - faked missing codes don't match the noise homogeneity of a real raw, whatever means is used to create them. How would you know the hot pixels in your camera without disassembly? SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >>Would it be possible to steal someone's jpg and create a fake raw file, >>assuming the original photog didn't shoot raw? You could fake the hot [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >a real raw, whatever means is used to create them. How would you know >the hot pixels in your camera without disassembly? Shoot a few dark frames at the exposure/ISO/etc. of the target image. >>>Would it be possible to steal someone's jpg and create a fake raw file, >>>assuming the original photog didn't shoot raw? You could fake the hot [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Shoot a few dark frames at the exposure/ISO/etc. of the target image. That only shows the residual hot pixels. Thousands of hot and dead pixels are present on every camera sensor and are mapped out at the factory so you never see them, but their effects are there, hidden in every image the camera takes, just like a fingerprint. You can read the factory defect map out of the camera with the correct manufacturer's disassembly tools but, as I asked, how do you know where they are without disassembly? SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >>>>Would it be possible to steal someone's jpg and create a fake raw file, >>>>assuming the original photog didn't shoot raw? You could fake the hot [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >disassembly tools but, as I asked, how do you know where they are >without disassembly? If you can't get a reading on it from a dark frame (and/or similar image sampling), it's not going to be detectable in an image and is therefore moot in regards to image authentication via raw image analysis. >>>Shoot a few dark frames at the exposure/ISO/etc. of the target image. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >therefore moot in regards to image authentication via raw image >analysis. Wrong. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they aren't detectable. The point of a factory defective pixel map is to activate algorithms which reduce the visibility of defective pixels, by nearest neighbour cloning, in the final image. If you know where the defective pixels are, it is very easy to detect the application of these cloning algorithms - especially in areas of fine detail. However it is much more difficult, almost impossible, to do this without the defect map to begin with. SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >>>>Shoot a few dark frames at the exposure/ISO/etc. of the target image. >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >more difficult, almost impossible, to do this without the defect map to >begin with. Did I say "see"? This is digital. We have numbers to work with. >>>If you can't get a reading on it from a dark frame (and/or similar >>>image sampling), it's not going to be detectable in an image and is [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Did I say "see"? No, you said "detectable" - as did I. >This is digital. We have numbers to work with. Numbers don't help, especially when most of the precision has been thrown away in creating that final 8bpc jpg. With no way to even reproduce the original fully functioning pixels with the same precision as an original raw, you have even less chance of finding the defective pixels in a bit reduced jpg let alone recreating the same relationship between defective pixels, even if you could find them, and their neighbours. Its a one way street - without the key (the defective pixel map) there is no way to unlock the door. SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >>>>If you can't get a reading on it from a dark frame (and/or similar >>>>image sampling), it's not going to be detectable in an image and is [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Numbers don't help, especially when most of the precision has been >thrown away in creating that final 8bpc jpg. Numbers is all that there is. > With no way to even >reproduce the original fully functioning pixels with the same precision [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >neighbours. Its a one way street - without the key (the defective pixel >map) there is no way to unlock the door. You don't need to recreate the original raw, just create a plausible raw file with realistic sensor noise. Assuming you have access to the camera you want the synthesized raw image to *appear* to have come from, you can get that from dark frame RAWs. In fact, the more loss there is in the JPEG, via rounding or compression, the less the original sensor's noise will be detectible and the easier it would be to fake a raw. >>>This is digital. We have numbers to work with. >> >>Numbers don't help, especially when most of the precision has been >>thrown away in creating that final 8bpc jpg. > >Numbers is all that there is. When the numbers are the same they don't tell you anything. >You don't need to recreate the original raw, just create a plausible >raw file with realistic sensor noise. I didn't say you did need to recreate the original raw but, as explained previously, you can't simulate realistic sensor noise in the raw since so much of the data is thrown away to get to jpg in the first place. For example, going back to the linear space used in raw from jpg leaves many missing codes, especially in the mid tones and highlights. If you add enough noise to conceal these missing codes then you are adding much more noise than would be in true raw file, and that is simple to detect. It might work in the shadows, but that's about it. >Assuming you have access to the >camera you want the synthesized raw image to *appear* to have come >from, you can get that from dark frame RAWs. No - you can't get the factory defect map from a dark frame! >In fact, the more loss there is in the JPEG, via rounding or >compression, the less the original sensor's noise will be detectible >and the easier it would be to fake a raw. Rubbish - compression artefacts of jpg are completely different from noise. Apart from anything else, jpg compression aretefacts have a significant spatial component due to the 8x8 dft core, whilst the noise on raw has no spatial component with low correlation between pixels. Adding sufficient random noise to conceal these spatial jpg artefacts makes it very easy to differentiate the fake raw since, as above, the noise levels as a function of image brightness would be very different from a genuine raw. SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >>>>This is digital. We have numbers to work with. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >When the numbers are the same they don't tell you anything. Which let's you tell the story you want to tell, without the JPEG contradicting you. >>You don't need to recreate the original raw, just create a plausible >>raw file with realistic sensor noise. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >more noise than would be in true raw file, and that is simple to detect. >It might work in the shadows, but that's about it. Who said anything about getting it from the JPEG? Get the noise profile, via dark frame exposure(s), from the camera to which you want to attribute the picture. It's actually better if the JPEG obscures all the real source camera sensor noise. Covers your tracks. >>Assuming you have access to the >>camera you want the synthesized raw image to *appear* to have come >>from, you can get that from dark frame RAWs. >> >No - you can't get the factory defect map from a dark frame! Don't need it. If it's being filtered out of the data going into the RAW files produced by the camera you want the picture to appear to have come from, it doesn't matter. To fake the RAW for that camera you need to add the noise that *does* get through to the RAW. Otherwise you're saying "Here's the RAW for that shot, which clearly came from my camera. Ummm... not sure why the dark & cold pixels got through to this one and not my other RAW shots from this camera, but that's no reason to be suspicious. Honest!" >>In fact, the more loss there is in the JPEG, via rounding or >>compression, the less the original sensor's noise will be detectible [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >noise levels as a function of image brightness would be very different >from a genuine raw. So smooth them out at a higher bit-depth, convert to the curves & bit-depth the RAW gives, and apply the sampled sensor noise accordingly. IIRC there are existing programs that will do that kind of de-noising. (It's not like there isn't a demand for it.) Come to think of it, instead of a dark frame it might be better to expose a grey card then normalize to find the up *and* down adjustments from the mode for each channel. >>>You don't need to recreate the original raw, just create a plausible >>>raw file with realistic sensor noise. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Who said anything about getting it from the JPEG? The OP. In case you have forgotten, the question is recreating a believable raw from jpg. >Get the noise profile, via dark frame exposure(s), from the camera to >which you want to attribute the picture. That gives you the dark *spatial* noise which, as explained several times, isn't the issue since the shadows are pretty much reproduced in jpg directly from the raw in the first place. Now, where do you get the noise for the mid tones and highlights? That is the noise that is needed to obscure those missing codes that appear when you go from something like gamma 2.5 space, required for the displayable image, to linear space. In a genuine raw it will be greater than the dark noise, from basic physics, but it will be much lower than the missing code gaps and will have a completely different spatial spectrum to the dark spatial noise. >It's actually better if the JPEG obscures all the real source camera >sensor noise. Covers your tracks. No it isn't - as explained, jpg compression results in very predictable spatial noise effects due to the DCT at the heart of the jpg coding algorithm. It is nothing like real noise in a raw image and does nothing at all to fill in the missing code gaps. >>>Assuming you have access to the >>>camera you want the synthesized raw image to *appear* to have come [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >RAW files produced by the camera you want the picture to appear to >have come from, it doesn't matter. Of course it matters. You seem to be assuming that it is perfectly filtered out - it isn't. How well each defective pixel is filtered changes from image to image due to the local scene content and illumination in the region of each defect. You can't extract the map from one image, even from 1000 images. However, with access to the defect map the identification of just one which is a single level different from that which should be computed by the concealment algorithm proves beyond doubt that the image is not a genuine raw from that camera. >>>In fact, the more loss there is in the JPEG, via rounding or >>>compression, the less the original sensor's noise will be detectible [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >bit-depth the RAW gives, and apply the sampled sensor noise >accordingly. What would you propose to "smooth them out" with? Sampled sensor noise won't do it because the missing codes are much larger than the sensor noise amplitude. In the highlights, the difference between two adjacent codes in the source jpg results in 45 missing codes between levels in a curve corrected, linear 14-bit raw. The sensor noise for a decent camera is probably 5-10 levels. Add any more than that and your image is obviously fake. >IIRC there are existing programs that will do that kind >of de-noising. (It's not like there isn't a demand for it.) Point to one, then! I don't think there is any demand for it at all, hence this thread. SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >>>>You don't need to recreate the original raw, just create a plausible >>>>raw file with realistic sensor noise. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >The OP. In case you have forgotten, the question is recreating a >believable raw from jpg. Of course. And now we're discussing *how*. Specifically, we're discussing how to add realistic (as possible) sensor noise as would be expected in a RAW file. >>Get the noise profile, via dark frame exposure(s), from the camera to >>which you want to attribute the picture. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >and will have a completely different spatial spectrum to the dark >spatial noise. I believe you deleted the part of my post where I proposed getting noise source from a grey frame. If you think it will differ along the linear range from dark to light, feel free to take sample shots at several brightnesses and apply them, mapped by the de-noised source image. >>It's actually better if the JPEG obscures all the real source camera >>sensor noise. Covers your tracks. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >algorithm. It is nothing like real noise in a raw image and does >nothing at all to fill in the missing code gaps. And so you remove that noise. >>>>Assuming you have access to the >>>>camera you want the synthesized raw image to *appear* to have come [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >algorithm proves beyond doubt that the image is not a genuine raw from >that camera. Well it's good that there is a further test to authenticate a RAW beyond a cursory inspection, but how often are RAWs subjected to that level of scrutiny. I put forth that most claims of "I have the RAW image" would be checked pretty much by looking to see if it's visually the same image, and is in fact in the RAW format for some camera. And what we're talking about here goes a step or two beyond that. A perfect forgery? No. There is no such thing. Good enough to get away with it? For most cases, yes I think so. >>>>In fact, the more loss there is in the JPEG, via rounding or >>>>compression, the less the original sensor's noise will be detectible [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >camera is probably 5-10 levels. Add any more than that and your image >is obviously fake. Increase the color-depth to 16 or 32 bit before removing the JPEG artifacts. >>IIRC there are existing programs that will do that kind >>of de-noising. (It's not like there isn't a demand for it.) >> >Point to one, then! I don't think there is any demand for it at all, >hence this thread. No demand for software to remove JPEG artifacts? http://www.google.com/search?q=remove+jpeg+artifacts (Add quotes around the search terms and there are still over 2000 results.) >>>Who said anything about getting it from the JPEG? >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >discussing how to add realistic (as possible) sensor noise as would be >expected in a RAW file. As already explained, so much data is lost in going from raw to jpg that it requires more noise to be added on the return that the noise level is no longer comparable with that of an original raw. >>>Get the noise profile, via dark frame exposure(s), from the camera to >>>which you want to attribute the picture. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >I believe you deleted the part of my post where I proposed getting >noise source from a grey frame. It would be irrelevant what colour raw frame you recovered the noise from - it would be much lower amplitude than the noise you need to add to conceal the missing codes. >If you think it will differ along the linear range from dark to light, >feel free to take sample shots at several brightnesses and apply them, >mapped by the de-noised source image. Of course the noise varies with intensity, and more codes are missing in the highlights than in the shadows - the point is that little higher than the shadows you run out of enough noise to conceal the missing codes. So adding enough noise to do that makes the result clearly more noisy than a genuine raw. >>>It's actually better if the JPEG obscures all the real source camera >>>sensor noise. Covers your tracks. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >And so you remove that noise. So you are left with missing codes - play on the swings or play on the roundabout, its all just play and no progress! >Well it's good that there is a further test to authenticate a RAW >beyond a cursory inspection, but how often are RAWs subjected to that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >checked pretty much by looking to see if it's visually the same image, >and is in fact in the RAW format for some camera. Unlikely, since the whole point of raw is that it purports to be original data and cannot be viewed directly as an image. > And what we're >talking about here goes a step or two beyond that. A perfect forgery? >No. There is no such thing. Good enough to get away with it? For most >cases, yes I think so. Anyone contesting the veracity of a raw image would be examining the raw data, its distribution in a full width histogram and the noise amplitude in that data. The OP wanted something that would fool all of the people all of the time. Your solution doesn't fool neither some of the people all of the time, nor all of the people some of the time but you think its enough to fool some of the people some of the time. That is a long way short what the OP asked for. >>What would you propose to "smooth them out" with? Sampled sensor noise >>won't do it because the missing codes are much larger than the sensor [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Increase the color-depth to 16 or 32 bit before removing the JPEG >artifacts. Increasing the bit depth changes nothing, however suggesting that it does demonstrates how little you understand of the problem. Taking 8 bit data and extending it to 16 or 32 bits is no different than adding decimal places to decimal data. You start with 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. and get 1.000, 2.000, 3.000, 4.000 etc. instead. There is no more data between levels 3.000 and 4.000 than there is between levels 3 & 4, so when you convert to linear space you have *exactly* the same number of missing codes. >>>IIRC there are existing programs that will do that kind >>>of de-noising. (It's not like there isn't a demand for it.) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >No demand for software to remove JPEG artifacts? No demand for software to remove missing codes in reverse engineered raw! SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >>>>Who said anything about getting it from the JPEG? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >So you are left with missing codes - play on the swings or play on the >roundabout, its all just play and no progress! Okay, you seem to be having trouble wrapping your head around this. More further on... >>Well it's good that there is a further test to authenticate a RAW >>beyond a cursory inspection, but how often are RAWs subjected to that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Unlikely, since the whole point of raw is that it purports to be >original data and cannot be viewed directly as an image. But if most people think as you seem too, they may simply assume that synthesizing a RAW file is impossible, so why bother checking the one they are seeing for authenticity if it looks ok? I say that since there have been no RAW forgeries that any of us here have ever heard of, the bar is in fact that low. >> And what we're >>talking about here goes a step or two beyond that. A perfect forgery? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >That is a long way short what the OP asked for. I think you're putting words in the OP's mouth. >>>What would you propose to "smooth them out" with? Sampled sensor noise >>>won't do it because the missing codes are much larger than the sensor [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >convert to linear space you have *exactly* the same number of missing >codes. Try this as a proof-of-concept... 1. Create a grayscale gradient from black to white at the highest color-depth available to you. 2. Reduce the color depth, with dithering. 3. Get a count of unique colors. 4. Increase the color depth and count colors again - note they are the same, as you would expect. 5. Apply any de-noising algorithm at your disposal to get a smooth gradient. 6. Check the color count once again. I feel confident enough to let *you* check to see if this glove fits. You'll find that there are also colors added once you enlarge the image if the JPEG is at a lower resolution than the forged RAW. (In such a case you would produce a deliberately out-of-focus raw, and claim that that was why the JPEG was at a lower resolution.) >>>>IIRC there are existing programs that will do that kind >>>>of de-noising. (It's not like there isn't a demand for it.) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >No demand for software to remove missing codes in reverse engineered >raw! So you're saying it can't be done because, to your knowledge, nobody's done it yet? I would say that the first attempts may be crude, but sufficient. As experience at detection and production increase, however, so will the quality. The methods I have suggested offer only a first approximation. They may never be close enough to perfect to evade any possible detection, but I think the bar will be raised before we come to the limits. >>Unlikely, since the whole point of raw is that it purports to be >>original data and cannot be viewed directly as an image. > >But if most people think as you seem too, they may simply assume that >synthesizing a RAW file is impossible, so why bother checking the one >they are seeing for authenticity if it looks ok? Because I don't think that it is impossible to attempt to fake a raw file, just that it is impossible to succeed so it certainly is worth checking for authenticity. >I say that since there have been no RAW forgeries that any of us here >have ever heard of, the bar is in fact that low. Fortunately you aren't a lawyer and I certainly wouldn't want someone as casual as you conducting my defence (or prosecution for that matter)! As Rumsfeld said "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!" The fact that both Canon and Nikon sell Original Data Verification kits strongly suggests that people have tried, despite what you have failed to hear. eg. http://www.canon.co.jp/imaging/osk/index.html >I think you're putting words in the OP's mouth. I disagree. >Try this as a proof-of-concept... > >1. Create a grayscale gradient from black to white at the highest >color-depth available to you. > >2. Reduce the color depth, with dithering. Dithering is not required for reducing the colour depth and adds nothing to this stage except add further noise. >3. Get a count of unique colors. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >5. Apply any de-noising algorithm at your disposal to get a smooth >gradient. A smooth gradient at the expense, in this proof of "misconcept", of lost resolution. And I mean resolution, not pixel count! Same thing as happens with your jpg artefact removal. >6. Check the color count once again. > >I feel confident enough to let *you* check to see if this glove fits. The colour count increases by as much as you are prepared to trade missing codes for resolution. Now try your same assessment with, instead of a simple greyscale, a pixel interleaved opposing greyscale. ie. all the even pixels transition smoothly from peak black on the left to peak white on the right and all the odd pixels transition from peak black on the right to peak black on the left. This has only one axis of full resolution, a real image has full resolution in both axes and in three colours. >You'll find that there are also colors added once you enlarge the >image if the JPEG is at a lower resolution than the forged RAW. (In >such a case you would produce a deliberately out-of-focus raw, and >claim that that was why the JPEG was at a lower resolution.) It would not be an "out of focus" raw. It would be a raw without focus. The two are very different - and obviously so. >So you're saying it can't be done because, to your knowledge, nobody's >done it yet? No, I am saying it can't be done because the laws of mathematics, not to mention the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, forbid it. Something *you* seem to be having a problem "getting your head round". SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >Now try your same assessment with, instead of a simple greyscale, a >pixel interleaved opposing greyscale. ie. all the even pixels >transition smoothly from peak black on the left to peak white on the >right and all the odd pixels transition from peak black on the right to >peak black on the left. Those odd pixels should, of course, be peak black on the right to peak white on the left. ie. in 8bpc, a 1024 pixel wide image from left to right would be: 255, 0, 254, 1, 253, 2, 252, 3, 251, 4, 250, 5 .... 254, 1, 255, 0 SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) > In article <deimn5dre5t9rb0168ik1givutcve79gm1@4ax.com>, John A. >>I say that since there have been no RAW forgeries that any of us here >>have ever heard of, the bar is in fact that low. > Fortunately you aren't a lawyer and I certainly wouldn't want someone as > casual as you conducting my defence (or prosecution for that matter)! You'd want some lawyer who'd believe you innocent after seeing you commit the crime live on television. > As Rumsfeld said "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!" > The fact that both Canon and Nikon sell Original Data Verification kits > strongly suggests that people have tried, despite what you have failed > to hear. The absence of evidence ... good point, there is no evidence shown of faked RAWs. It is interesting that nearly none of the new 'security' measures since 9/11 would have prevented the attack[1][2][3] yet you'd cite it as strong suggestion that it would: after all, the measures *are* in place. http://www.tsa.gov/311/ http://xkcd.com/651/ -Wolfgang [1] for example, no liquids in bottles larger than 100ml were necessary! And a broken plastic bottle is nothing against a ceramic knife, especially when it's deposited by the cleaning crew beforehand. [2] while it could have been prevented by agencies not sitting on or not recognising relevant data. [3] and the only attack that failed to pan out was when passengers fought back. Based on that, one should *arm* passengers (preferably with guns that don't hole the pressure chamber), not disarm them ... but I digress. >... but I digress. You certainly do, consistently! SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >>... but I digress. > You certainly do, consistently! Interesting that you have NO WORD to add to the arguments against your arguments ... except some snide remark against my person. Does that mean I am right? -Wolfgang >>>... but I digress. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >against your arguments ... except some snide remark against >my person. Does that mean I am right? No, you didn't post any arguments, just personal comment. Should I assume from your irrelevant response that you disagree that using a reduced data set jpg to create a raw which is indistinguishable from an (not *the*) original raw is a contravention of the second law of thermodynamics? To do so would be to assume that you didn't have a clue, but I was being diplomatic and giving you the opportunity to rant in digression, as is your frequent want. SignatureKennedy Entropy's not what it used to be! (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >>>>... but I digress. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > No, you didn't post any arguments, just personal comment. If you insist. So I posted a "just personal comment" on how your "X exists because people try to do something X is supposed to stop" arbument doesn't work in the real world based on observations in the real world. And what do you answer? Nothing. And what do you answer when poked? That: > Should I assume from your irrelevant response that you disagree that > using a reduced data set jpg to create a raw which is indistinguishable > from an (not *the*) original raw is a contravention of the second law of > thermodynamics? Please refer to my original posting before you a.s you me. > To do so would be to assume that you didn't have a clue, but I was being > diplomatic and giving you the opportunity to rant in digression, as is > your frequent want. Your Honor, McEwen's ability to make up things other people supposedly said when they said something completely else is precious. I move he's to wear a red nose. Thank you. -Wolfgang >>>>>... but I digress. >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >And what do you answer? Nothing. >And what do you answer when poked? That: And that, as usual from you, is nothing but personal comment that was totally unrelated to the previous discussion. Your comment above has nothing whatsoever to do with people faking, or attempting to fake, raw files or the difference between the fake and a genuine raw - nor did your original post. Nothing I have said involves any compulsory process, as in your irrelevant comments. "X exists" in this case not because "people try to do something X is supposed to stop" but simply because the laws of mathematics *define* X's existence. It is entirely *optional* whether X is utilised - but I would expect any decent legal team to utilise the existence of X should it be required, rather than simply assuming that people don't do things that X can detect. The difference between a fake raw and a genuine raw exists - it isn't invented to stop people faking raw files! Any disputed raw file should be examined to determine if it is genuine and should not be assumed to be genuine simply because it is a raw file. Your comparison with air travel restrictions is irrelevant personal comment on a completely unrelated issue - I don't expect you to understand that, but I let you rant about it. >> Should I assume from your irrelevant response that you disagree that >> using a reduced data set jpg to create a raw which is indistinguishable >> from an (not *the*) original raw is a contravention of the second law of >> thermodynamics? > >Please refer to my original posting before you a.s you me. You original post was irrelevant argumentative twaddle, merely demonstrating what an a.s you are! >> To do so would be to assume that you didn't have a clue, but I was being >> diplomatic and giving you the opportunity to rant in digression, as is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >supposedly said when they said something completely else is >precious. I move he's to wear a red nose. Thank you. You dispute your frequent rants on this forum? Googling the group's archive shows otherwise. I suggest you search on "Weisselberg" - you are quite unique and there is no shortage of irrelevant rants on your part. SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >>If you insist. So I posted a "just personal comment" on how >>your "X exists because people try to do something X is >>supposed to stop" arbument doesn't work in the real world >>based on observations in the real world. >>And what do you answer? Nothing. >>And what do you answer when poked? That: > And that, as usual from you, is nothing but personal comment that was > totally unrelated to the previous discussion. Ah, yes, facts contrary to your arguments are that. I agree. You win. > Your comment above has nothing whatsoever to do with people faking, or > attempting to fake, raw files or the difference between the fake and a > genuine raw - nor did your original post. Since you'd never lie, you must be too uneducated to read my original post. > Nothing I have said involves any compulsory process, as in your > irrelevant comments. "X exists" in this case not because "people try to > do something X is supposed to stop" but simply because the laws of > mathematics *define* X's existence. Yes, Kenny dear litte boy, Original Data Verification kits exist simply because the laws of mathematics *define* their existence. Obvious, now that you state it. But you sounded quite different in the posting I replied to. > Your comparison with air > travel restrictions is irrelevant personal comment on a completely > unrelated issue - I don't expect you to understand that, but I let you > rant about it. I understand that it blows a great big hole in your claim that | The fact that both Canon and Nikon sell Original Data Verification kits | strongly suggests that people have tried [to fake RAWs] > You original post was irrelevant argumentative twaddle, merely > demonstrating what an a.s you are! Oh, look, it's the pot calling fresh fallen snow black. >>Your Honor, McEwen's ability to make up things other people >>supposedly said when they said something completely else is >>precious. I move he's to wear a red nose. Thank you. > You dispute your frequent rants on this forum? Your Honor, again McEwen makes up something I never have said. I move he wear a dunce cap. Thank you, your Honor, yes, he looks much better that way. -Wolfgang PS: Don't bother replying. You are denser than a neutron star and I don't continue arguing with fools or dense walls, I ignore them. PLONK. > Ran across some interesting posts about faked photos. Led me to this: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > simply mathematical manipulations that surely are reversible. What am I > missing here? Some Nikon DSLRs have a forensic marker that can be put in their NEF files that makes it obvious if the file has been changed in any way. People may be thinking of that. Nikon has a subsidiary called Nikon Forensic Services which trains people in forensic photography and performs other services. Otherwise, what Alan said. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor > "Charles" <charlesschuler@comcast.net> said: >> Ran across some interesting posts about faked photos. Led me to this: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Some Nikon DSLRs have a forensic marker that can be put in their NEF >files that makes it obvious if the file has been changed in any way. Ditto Canon. It's useful for police departments. SignatureRay Fischer rfischer@sonic.net >> "Charles"<charlesschuler@comcast.net> said: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Ditto Canon. It's useful for police departments. How does one detect that one is taking a picture of a printout of a doctored picture? SignatureBertrand > > C J Campbell<christophercampbellremovet...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> "Charles"<charlesschu...@comcast.net> said: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > How does one detect that one is taking a picture of a printout of a > doctored picture? Very low dynamic range, a photo of a print is never going to look that same as a original photo. Scott >Ran across some interesting posts about faked photos. Led me to this: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >simply mathematical manipulations that surely are reversible. What am I >missing here? Not all mathematical manipulations are reversible. Consider simple addition. If the answer is 5, you don't know whether it was 1+4 or 2+3. -- Doug >>Ran across some interesting posts about faked photos. Led me to this: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Not all mathematical manipulations are reversible. Consider simple addition. If >the answer is 5, you don't know whether it was 1+4 or 2+3. -- Doug The thing is, when faking a RAW file you're not trying to reproduce the one-and-only original RAW. You're just trying to produce a RAW that *could* produce the JPEG/TIFF/whatever you have on hand. More than one possible RAW file to produce it? So what? Pick one that seems the most plausible and run with it. >> Ran across some interesting posts about faked photos. Led me to this: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Not all mathematical manipulations are reversible. Consider simple addition. If > the answer is 5, you don't know whether it was 1+4 or 2+3. -- Doug Perfectly Reversible is not required. An astute estimate of the weightings from 3 color pixels to single color pixels in a small area is all that is needed (combined with appropriate weights of those colours from adjacent pixels). Mathematics is replete with estimation techniques where perfect solutions do not exist or where they complex or computationally intensive. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. >>> Ran across some interesting posts about faked photos. Led me to this: >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Perfectly Reversible is not required. No, of course not. I was addressing the narrow point of "mathematical manipulations that surely are reversible." They most likely are not. However, as you point out, they don't have to be. Even the article says: "Whatever demosaicing algorithm is applied, the pixels in the final digital image will be correlated with their neighbors. If an image does not have the proper pixel correlations for the camera allegedly used to take the picture, the image has been retouched in some fashion." So RAW files can probably be faked. You just have to be careful about it. -- Doug >>>> Ran across some interesting posts about faked photos. Led me to this: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > manipulations that surely are reversible." They most likely are not. However, > as you point out, they don't have to be. Your entire message (above) implied there was no way out. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. > So RAW files can probably be faked. You just have to be careful about it. I think they can and I think they will. My guess is that digital images, both RAW and JPG, will be weak evidence (or inadmissible) in many courts of law. Not an important issue to me ... just curious about it. Thanks to all who responded. > I think they can and I think they will. My guess is that digital images, > both RAW and JPG, will be weak evidence (or inadmissible) in many courts of > law. Then no email would ever be evidence, since it is so trivial to fake ... fingerprints are fakeable, too. -Wolfgang >> So RAW files can probably be faked. You just have to be careful about it. > > I think they can and I think they will. My guess is that digital > images, both RAW and JPG, will be weak evidence (or inadmissible) in > many courts of law. It's no different from any physical evidence: counsel has to be able to show that there is a proper chain of custody. Without that, the evidence will be indamissible. This is so with film, too, and is not different from the rule that you have to prove a chemical analysis has not been tampered with. See http://federalevidence.com/taxonomy/term/59, and "In order to be admissible, a photograph must be shown to be an accurate representation of the thing depicted as it appeared at the relevant time. See United States v. Stierwalt, 16 F.3d 282, 286 (8th Cir. 1994)" Andrew. > It's no different from any physical evidence: counsel has to be able to > show that there is a proper chain of custody. Without that, the > evidence will be indamissible. This is so with film, too, and is not > different from the rule that you have to prove a chemical analysis has > not been tampered with. Not quite. A chain of custody _is_ necessary if one needs to prove something about the physical photograph itself in a criminal trial. Such might be the case, say, if possession of the photograph itself is illegal or when forensic evidence is recovered from the physical print. It's rarely necessary when a photographic is being admitted for the image it purports to represent. In fact, usually the photographer need not testify. > "In order to be admissible, a photograph must be shown to be an accurate > representation of the thing depicted as it appeared at the relevant > time. See United States v. Stierwalt, 16 F.3d 282, 286 (8th Cir. 1994)" That can be done, and usually is done through witness testimony. It's often as simple as: Q: Witness, I present this object to you and ask you to examine it. Does this photograph fairly and accurately portray the scene you observed at the location and the time in question? A: Yes. Q: Your Honor, move to admit. In the case you cite, the court said "The photographer spoke to no one who was present the night of the incident, and no witness testified that the photograph was an accurate representation of the view from the Explorer into the Omni when the drug deal took place." The court did not even hint at a chain of custody requirement. If the photograph is the used to draw additional scientific results, such as the length of skidmarks, etc, the court can require additional technical information such as shooting data. In the case of an unattended photograph, testimony is normally required as to the proper operation of the equipment which produced it. Once admitted, of course, the opposing side is free to cross-examine and otherwise challenge the authenticity of a photograph. That then becomes an issue for the trier of fact to decide. SignatureMike Benveniste -- mhb@murkyether.com (Clarification Required) Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain >> It's no different from any physical evidence: counsel has to be able to >> show that there is a proper chain of custody. Without that, the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > A: Yes. > Q: Your Honor, move to admit. Well, alright, I should have said you *only* have to be able to show that the photograph is accurate, by some means or other. The point I was trying to make is that there is no special rule of evidence that will disallow digital photographs. > Once admitted, of course, the opposing side is free to cross-examine > and otherwise challenge the authenticity of a photograph. That then > becomes an issue for the trier of fact to decide. Right, so being able to show a chain of custody is potentially useful if there is a possibility that a photograph has been tampered with. Andrew. >>> It's no different from any physical evidence: counsel has to be able to >>> show that there is a proper chain of custody. Without that, the [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > was trying to make is that there is no special rule of evidence that > will disallow digital photographs. Correct. However the problem regarding photographic evidence does not come from digital photographs taken to record a crime scene, or for making a forensic analysis. It comes when third party images are introduced as evidence. The phone camera shot taken by a passer-by for example. These are frequently presented for admission as evidence and are easily challenged at many different levels. In these cases there is no chain of evidence, there is no digital authentication, they are as valid as hearsay. Occasionally, as in the case of the current BART cop shooting trial where there are multiple camera phone still and video images of the shooting from different angles, from the train and in the station, they are good evidence and unimpeachable. >> Once admitted, of course, the opposing side is free to cross-examine >> and otherwise challenge the authenticity of a photograph. That then >> becomes an issue for the trier of fact to decide. > > Right, so being able to show a chain of custody is potentially useful > if there is a possibility that a photograph has been tampered with. Maintaining a chain of evidence for all physical evidence is more than potentially useful, it is essential. Without establishing, or breaking the chain of evidence, any physical evidence is subject to impeachment. The opposing side is always free to challenge any evidence be it photograph, blood splatter, DNA, etc. and a broken chain of evidence for any item of evidence will open the window to claim tampering, or contamination. The other thing to consider is the art of the Court Room theater, where sowing the seeds of doubt regarding a piece of evidence is sufficient to influence a gullible jury, even if the evidence presented is untampered with and valid. SignatureRegards, Savageduck > However the problem regarding photographic evidence does not come from > digital photographs taken to record a crime scene, or for making a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > from different angles, from the train and in the station, they are good > evidence and unimpeachable. Thanks SD. That added a lot to the discussion. > The opposing side is always free to challenge any evidence be it > photograph, blood splatter, DNA, etc. and a broken chain of evidence for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > influence a gullible jury, even if the evidence presented is untampered > with and valid. A good judge will weigh evidentiary value vs. prejudicial potential. Unfortunately, sometimes judges do bow to political influences. SignaturePeter >> The opposing side is always free to challenge any evidence be it >> photograph, blood splatter, DNA, etc. and a broken chain of evidence [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > A good judge will weigh evidentiary value vs. prejudicial potential. > Unfortunately, sometimes judges do bow to political influences. Especially certain members of our Supreme Court. SignatureRegards, Savageduck > Correct. > However the problem regarding photographic evidence does not come from [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > evidence, there is no digital authentication, they are as valid as > hearsay. Not so. Whether it's a professional photographer or a cell-phone snap, the same rule applies. All you have to do is call the third party and lay the foundation that I outlined earlier. Jurors will often give more credibility to the bystander's photograph than one taken by the police, because they assume bystanders are neutral parties. Nor is a photograph a legal statement, so it can not be hearsay. Under the FRCP, they are covered under Article X, not article VIII. > Maintaining a chain of evidence for all physical evidence is more than > potentially useful, it is essential. Without establishing, or breaking > the chain of evidence, any physical evidence is subject to impeachment. The point that you are both missing is that in general photographs are considered documentary and/or illustrative evidence and _not_ physical evidence. http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_questions/4-apr08.shtml With blood spatter or other physical samples, you need the actual physical sample that was collected. Not so with documentary evidence. At worst, all you need to do is produce an "original document," and for electronically stored data the legal definition of an original has evolved to the point where it's almost meaningless. > The opposing side is always free to challenge any evidence be it > photograph, blood splatter, DNA, etc. and a broken chain of evidence for > any item of evidence will open the window to claim tampering, or > contamination. They are free to challenge it as long as they have a good faith basis for doing so. But the evidence is in, along with the testimony that the photo, _as it exists in court_ is a fair and accurate representation. So effectively, they have to convince the jury not just that the photograph was altered, but that the witness was lying on the stand. Tough job. > The other thing to consider is the art of the Court Room theater, where > sowing the seeds of doubt regarding a piece of evidence is sufficient to > influence a gullible jury, even if the evidence presented is untampered > with and valid. If I was trying to impeach a photograph introduced as evidence, I'd _love_ for you to try to establish a chain of custody for just this reason. Each witness you call gives me another chance to plant seeds of doubt through repetition in cross-examination. Q: Isn't it true that you weren't there when this photo was taken? A: Yes. Q: So if was inaccurate or unfair you wouldn't be able to tell, correct? A: Yes. ... etc. SignatureMike Benveniste -- mhb@murkyether.com (Clarification Required) Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain >> Correct. >> However the problem regarding photographic evidence does not come from [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > taken by the police, because they assume bystanders are neutral > parties. Crime scene and forensic photographs collected by qualified photographers and recorded according to procedure, are far more telling as evidence. This is because a chain of evidence can be demonstrated, and when presented in correct sequence demonstrate a far broader picture of the total crime scene and other evidence in that contained area. > Nor is a photograph a legal statement, so it can not be hearsay. > Under the FRCP, they are covered under Article X, not article VIII. I was addressing the quality of evidence, that a cell-phone snap, or even an opportunist PJ photograph, introduced at trial is as questionable as hearsay, not hearsay. >> Maintaining a chain of evidence for all physical evidence is more than >> potentially useful, it is essential. Without establishing, or breaking [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > are considered documentary and/or illustrative evidence and _not_ > physical evidence. Who said photographs are physical evidence? They are as you state documentary evidence, however once forensic techniques such as IR of UV photographs are used, those photographs and the reports are a class of physical evidence. Other examples of photographs, video and audio being physical as well as documentary evidence, would be crimes recorded by camera, in a store or bank & surveillance photography of a crime in progress. > http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_questions/4-apr08.shtml > > With blood spatter or other physical samples, you need the actual > physical sample that was collected. True > Not so with documentary > evidence. Not necessarily true. > At worst, all you need to do is produce an "original > document," and for electronically stored data the legal definition > of an original has evolved to the point where it's almost > meaningless. This is why those original crime scene and forensic photographs, recorded with an intact chain of evidence are "good" evidence, and the casual late entry cell-phone or PJ shot can have an element of questionability about them. >> The opposing side is always free to challenge any evidence be it >> photograph, blood splatter, DNA, etc. and a broken chain of evidence for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > They are free to challenge it as long as they have a good faith basis > for doing so. But the evidence is in, Not necessarily. It has to be admitted as evidence first, and there are times that may not be simple. > along with the testimony that > the photo, _as it exists in court_ is a fair and accurate representation. > So effectively, they have to convince the jury not just that the > photograph was altered, but that the witness was lying on the stand. > Tough job. How much experience do you have collecting evidence, or presenting and supporting, any sort of evidence in a Court? I have 25 years in Law enforcement, doing just that. I retired as a Lieutenant a year ago. For the last 6 years of my career I led investigations into a shopping list of crimes, including assaults & batteries with deadly weapons, sexual battery, rape, murder, murder-suicide, conspiracy investigations involving drug trafficking, murder, attempted murder, and California street & prison gang crimes. All of these required the collection, or the supervision of collection of evidence of all types from crime scenes, or surveillance photographs, videos and audio. >> The other thing to consider is the art of the Court Room theater, where >> sowing the seeds of doubt regarding a piece of evidence is sufficient to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > A: Yes. > ... etc. ...and you gained this insightful Court Room experience, how? SignatureRegards, Savageduck > Crime scene and forensic photographs collected by qualified > photographers and recorded according to procedure, are far more telling > as evidence. This is because a chain of evidence can be demonstrated, > and when presented in correct sequence demonstrate a far broader picture > of the total crime scene and other evidence in that contained area. I think we'd better agree to disagree on this one. Police photographers are still police, making it easier for the defense to assert bias in favor of the prosecution or motive for altering the shot. The question is one of believability, not one of detail. In fact, in at least one case I know of, the court stated that the poor quality of a photograph lends weight to its authenticity. US vs. Edward F. Nolan, Jr., 818 F.2d 1015. >> Nor is a photograph a legal statement, so it can not be hearsay. Under >> the FRCP, they are covered under Article X, not article VIII. > > I was addressing the quality of evidence, that a cell-phone snap, or > even an opportunist PJ photograph, introduced at trial is as > questionable as hearsay, not hearsay. Again, not so. Hearsay is generally inadmissible since it can't be cross-examined. It can be extremely detailed and of extremely high quality and still be inadmissible. The passer-by snap may not show as much detail as a carefully planned after-the-fact crime scene photo, but it can be far more probative. The chain of custody of the Zapruder film is perfectly clear. It doesn't make what it shows any less questionable nor any less subject to interpretation. > Who said photographs are physical evidence? Read what you wrote, especially the paragraph beginning. "Maintaining a chain of evidence for all physical evidence..." If photographs are not physical evidence, then that entire section of your post was moot. > They are as you state documentary evidence, however once forensic > techniques such as IR of UV photographs are used, those photographs > and the reports are a class of physical evidence. Cite please? They are not according to any legal theory I've been taught, and the law on this was established long ago with X-rays. UV and IR photos are used to illustrate the testimony of whoever is interpreting the test and result. What _is_ necessary for IR and UV photography is evidence of the _equipment_ used to gather them and it's capabilities and correct operation at the time the photograph was taken. Here, a chain of custody of the _gear_ is more important than that of the photo. >> Not so with documentary evidence. > Not necessarily true. Cite please? You continue to argue by assertion. > This is why those original crime scene and forensic photographs, > recorded with an intact chain of evidence are "good" evidence, and the > casual late entry cell-phone or PJ shot can have an element of > questionability about them. "Late entry?" Introducing a fact not in evidence? Again, the question is one of believability, not of detail. I know that many cops and ex-cops hated for amateurs to photograph them while they are working, but there are literally hundreds of cases where amateur photography and video have been the strongest evidence in the case. >> They are free to challenge it as long as they have a good faith basis >> for doing so. But the evidence is in, > > Not necessarily. > It has to be admitted as evidence first, and there are times that may > not be simple. You've already agreed that the trier of fact is the one who determines if a photograph has been altered or not. For them to do so, it must have been admitted into evidence. > How much experience do you have collecting evidence, or presenting and > supporting, any sort of evidence in a Court? A fair amount, but I admit it's been quite a few years. > I have 25 years in Law enforcement, doing just that. I retired as a > Lieutenant a year ago. For the last 6 years of my career I led > investigations into a shopping list of crimes, including assaults & > batteries with deadly weapons, sexual battery, rape, murder, > murder-suicide, conspiracy investigations involving drug trafficking, > murder, attempted murder, and California street & prison gang crimes. Congratulations, and I honor and respect your service. I stopped practicing law quite a while ago, but the basics of evidence and admissibility haven't changed. I know of no cases where a court has refused to admit a digital photograph based on the lack of a chain of custody. I know of no cases where a "fakery" defense rested on a chain of custody. I _do_ know of some child pornography cases where the defense claimed that the contraband image was totally computer generated and therefore failed to meet the legal definition, but a chain of custody wouldn't have helped there either. If you know of such cases, please cite them here. I do note with irony that you are trying to bolster your believability based on a showing of ethos rather than on even documentary evidence. > ...and you gained this insightful Court Room experience, how? When the facts are against you, attack the presenter, right? See above. I freely admit that I don't have the extensive courtroom experience you have, but when one's opponent gives me the gift of multiple opportunities to reinforce my case, I know how to take advantage of it. SignatureMike Benveniste -- mhb@murkyether.com (Clarification Required) Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain >> Crime scene and forensic photographs collected by qualified >> photographers and recorded according to procedure, are far more telling [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > favor of the prosecution or motive for altering the shot. The question is > one of believability, not one of detail. Good crime scene photography is captured with the Court and eventual prosecution in mind, but it is first an investigative tool and method of freezing the crime scene in time. The methodology is to record all within the scene without bias. For the most part the bulk of crime scene photographs are superficially dull and uninteresting. The dramatic shots are effective to evoke emotional responses in Court, but in many cases are the least useful. In the great majority of cases, crime scene photography is clinical and unbiased, so that the investigation can progress in an unbiased way. I am afraid Hollywood and TV has put too much into selling what is not reality. > In fact, in at least one case I know of, the court stated that the > poor quality of a photograph lends weight to its authenticity. US [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > not show as much detail as a carefully planned after-the-fact > crime scene photo, but it can be far more probative. Agreed on my misuse of hearsay to denigrate the casual passer-by snap shot. However there can be issues with these shots. There is an exception with regard to shots capturing the crime in progress, and even those can be left open to interpretation. > The chain of custody of the Zapruder film is perfectly clear. It > doesn't make what it shows any less questionable nor any less > subject to interpretation. The Zapruder film became valuable as an investigative tool and historic document. However its value in a criminal trial would have done nothing more than demonstrate the crime had taken place. It established the sequence JFK and Connelly were shot. It established the timing of those shots. What it did not demonstrate was also quite evident. As you say all open to interpretation. >> Who said photographs are physical evidence? > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > operation at the time the photograph was taken. Here, a chain > of custody of the _gear_ is more important than that of the photo. ...and that is certainly part of the procedure, and part of the Court Room procedure training the officer or criminalist would have received. >>> Not so with documentary evidence. >> Not necessarily true. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > "Late entry?" Introducing a fact not in evidence? It has been attempted. > Again, the > question is one of believability, not of detail. For Court presentation agreed. For investigative purposes there are other issues. > I know that many > cops and ex-cops hated for amateurs to photograph them while they > are working, but there are literally hundreds of cases where amateur > photography and video have been the strongest evidence in the case. That may well be true, however once a crime scene has been secured, there is a general feeling in Law enforcement that any intrusion can contaminate that crime scene. This is certainly a bias which is a fundamental in training, and is emphasized throughout your career. There are also times when investigators will seek out these amateur videos or snap shots, particularly if they record the crime taking place. Today there is a very disciplined methodology to the photography, video & still, of crime scenes, and it is highly improbable that a casual snap shooter is going to capture more than an overview shot. That is unless the casual shooter has entered and contaminated the crime scene before it was secured by police. >>> They are free to challenge it as long as they have a good faith basis >>> for doing so. But the evidence is in, [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > When the facts are against you, attack the presenter, right? I was just trying to establish your credentials and the basis of your position. That had not been made clear until now. I believe most regulars in this group are aware of my old profession. > See above. I freely admit that I don't have the extensive > courtroom experience you have, but when one's opponent gives > me the gift of multiple opportunities to reinforce my case, I > know how to take advantage of it. Well it seems that on quite a few points we will have to agree to disagree. The bottom line for all of this is the undeniable issue of Court room dynamics dictated by each table, and the presiding Judge. ...and certainly regardless of the quality of evidence, once one side or the other is given the opportunity to introduce doubt, that evidence can be sidelined in the minds of the jury. ...or it can be given a value far beyond its true significance. There is an element of the theater in many of those presentations. SignatureRegards, Savageduck > In the great majority of cases, crime scene photography is clinical and > unbiased, so that the investigation can progress in an unbiased way. I > am afraid Hollywood and TV has put too much into selling what is not > reality. The jury knows who pays crime scene photographers, and who pays them. And they watch TV and movies, so it's easier to create doubt no matter how professional and clinical the photographer actually is. After all, Gus Grissom hangs out with Jim Brass, not with the defense attorneys. As prosecutors are finding out with the "CSI effect," the impact of TV on juries is very real and exploitable. >> "Late entry?" Introducing a fact not in evidence? > It has been attempted. With every type of evidence imaginable, yes. The problem is the late entry itself. > Today there is a very disciplined methodology to the photography, video > & still, of crime scenes, and it is highly improbable that a casual snap > shooter is going to capture more than an overview shot. That is unless > the casual shooter has entered and contaminated the crime scene before > it was secured by police. I agree that interfering with a crime scene is not only stupid but criminally stupid, but the antagonism towards "civilian" photography goes well beyond that. For example, how is someone filming an arrest, such as happened here, contaminating a crime scene? http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/12/police_fight_ cellphone_recordings/ > I was just trying to establish your credentials and the basis of your > position. That had not been made clear until now. I believe most > regulars in this group are aware of my old profession. Again, I look forward to you citing such cases. > The bottom line for all of this is the undeniable issue of Court room > dynamics dictated by each table, and the presiding Judge. ...and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > beyond its true significance. There is an element of the theater in many > of those presentations. There is undoubtedly an element of theater in any trial. If you're going to claim that digital watermarking and the like add gravitas to the prosecutions case, I'll happily defer to those people who spent their careers in the trenches. The reason there have been fairly few "faked photo cases," is that it's typically a lousy trial tactic for either side. It's easier to create doubt in the interpretation or witness bias than in the actual photograph. As an example, consider O.J.'s civil trial. In that trial, the defense tried to assert the shoe photos were faked. It failed miserably, even though the damning photos were taken by a civilian, there was no chain of custody, _and_ some of the photos were "late adds" to the plaintiff's case. SignatureMike Benveniste -- mhb@murkyether.com (Clarification Required) Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain >> Crime scene and forensic photographs collected by qualified >> photographers and recorded according to procedure, are far more telling [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >favor of the prosecution or motive for altering the shot. The question is >one of believability, not one of detail. Claims by the defense that the police are corrupt seldom go over very well with juries. SignatureRay Fischer rfischer@sonic.net > Claims by the defense that the police are corrupt seldom go over very > well with juries. Alleging corruption is a very different thing than implying bias. There are many ways to present a photograph so that it is still accurate and fair, but still generates the emotional response you are looking for. Compare, for example, a mug shot to a good professional portrait. We expect our judges and juries to be impartial, but we shouldn't expect the same thing from the police or state criminalists. SignatureMike Benveniste -- mhb@murkyether.com (Clarification Required) Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain >> Claims by the defense that the police are corrupt seldom go over very >> well with juries. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > We expect our judges and juries to be impartial, but we shouldn't > expect the same thing from the police or state criminalists. Why not? Your prejudice against police and state criminalists is showing. An investigator, or criminalist with a bias against any potential suspect is not doing their job. That sort of bias can lead to errors in logic, and closes the investigation to eliminate other possibilities. It also brings the entire investigation into question and could lead to impeachment of all aspects of the investigation. You should have an expectation of an impartial investigation, anything else would be an ethical failure. Certainly some officers might have opinions, but when they voice those opinions within an investigative team, they should be prepared to support their argument with more than "gut" feeling or assumptive opinion. Good investigative work requires far more than following hunches and maintaining a "Dirty Harry" sneer. The path to your conclusions is one which, when handed to DA investigators (now they might be biased) they can follow to give the prosecutorial team what they need. As you know the same evidence those police and criminalists, you claim you have no expectation of impartiality from, is going to be available to the defense on discovery, and will be challenged. Now that is as far as the collection of evidence and investigation goes. That does not mean that once that investigation has lead to the likely subjects in any case, you might not have the opinion the individual is a POS. I have certainly known many a POS and poor excuse for humanity in my time. I have also witnessed some tragedies which have destroyed lives, where the guilty party was also a victim of circumstance. The real biased opinions lie with the trial DA and the defense attorney. SignatureRegards, Savageduck >> We expect our judges and juries to be impartial, but we shouldn't >> expect the same thing from the police or state criminalists. > > Why not? Because by its very nature, the system forces such a bias on them. Rightly or wrongly, we judge the effectiveness of a police department by the "solve" rate. In the case of a crime lab, their funding, recognition and promotion depends on their work resulting in convictions, not on exoneration. In fact, the legal system recognizes that the bias exists and accounts for it procedurally. That's why the the rules for questioning under cross examination differs from that of direct testimony. And when it comes to investigating alleged internal misconduct, such as altering photos, police departments and other law enforcement agencies recognize the potential for bias as well. That's why internal affairs divisions exist. It's also why surveys consistently show huge majorities (80+%) of people saying serious complaints against the police should be investigated independently in addition to IAD. > Your prejudice against police and state criminalists is showing. I find it ironic that I'm being accused of prejudice because I imply other people have bias. If you look at threads in different newsgroups, you'll find people accusing me of exactly the opposite bias. I've been challenged off of juries both by plaintiffs suing the State and defense attorneys. Who's right? Which bias do I have? How am I supposed to tell? There's no way for anyone be objective about themselves. But from verifiable facts, you'll see that there's no real reason for me to have a bias either way. I've never been arrested, charged, or (as far as I know) investigated for any criminal activity. I haven't been cited for speeding ticket or any other moving violation for almost 20 years. I've been the victim of an armed robbery, of vandalism, and of credit card fraud, and in each case the police dealt with the situation professionally. I've been a witness for the prosecution in a felony theft case, and was treated fairly by all parties. My wife has been a consultant trainer for both the State Police and parole officers. > The real biased opinions lie with the trial DA and the defense attorney. That's the amazing thing about the adversarial system. Everyone thinks everyone else is biased. I firmly believe that everyone is right in that assumption. I will say this, though. Defense attorney's _love_ it when cops claim they aren't biased. Turning again to the O.J. case simply because most people know the players, Mark Fuhrman got caught by one of the oldest tricks in the book that way. We all have biases. While a professional tries not to let them impact their work, no one succeeds all of the time. But thanks for the civics lesson. SignatureMike Benveniste -- mhb@murkyether.com (Clarification Required) Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain >>> We expect our judges and juries to be impartial, but we shouldn't >>> expect the same thing from the police or state criminalists. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Rightly or wrongly, we judge the effectiveness of a police department > by the "solve" rate. I think closure rate rather might be a better label. Ultimately we take the results of our investigations with our conclusions, present them to the DA's Office and work with the DA investigators to weigh their decision to move forward with prosecution or reject the case. ...and rejection by the DA's Office is something which happens more frequently than the public would want to know. > In the case of a crime lab, their funding, > recognition and promotion depends on their work resulting in convictions, > not on exoneration. I have worked extensively with the California DOJ Forensic Lab, FBI Labs and several private contracted labs. At no time have I perceived a bias aimed at conviction. However once there was sufficient weight to push the investigation in a certain direction, there was always an effort to confirm and substantiate results to support conclusions. > In fact, the legal system recognizes that the bias exists and accounts > for it procedurally. That's why the the rules for questioning under cross [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > (80+%) of people saying serious complaints against the police should be > investigated independently in addition to IAD. As a supervisory investigator, I have had the unpleasant job of being assigned to several IA investigations and leading the investigative interviews with mine & other agencies. Some of those involved Citizen Complaints and others were for violations of Department rule, or felonies they had been charge with. These IA investigations and interviews are far different to what some imagine, as they have to be conducted within the rules set out by POBAR, or the "Public Safety Officer Procedural Bill of Rights Act." Check Government Code Secs. 3300-3311 >> Your prejudice against police and state criminalists is showing. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > challenged off of juries both by plaintiffs suing the State and defense > attorneys. Maybe I should have said, your illumination of the prejudice of the general public with regard to Law enforcement. > Who's right? Which bias do I have? How am I supposed to tell? > There's no way for anyone be objective about themselves. But from [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > know the players, Mark Fuhrman got caught by one of the oldest tricks in > the book that way. Agreed. There was a botched trial if there ever was one, and Furman certainly played his part as fuel for the Corcoran coup de gras. > We all have biases. While a professional tries not to let them impact > their work, no one succeeds all of the time. > > But thanks for the civics lesson. Well the good thing about our little OT excursion was, it did not degrade into the usual NG spitting and fuming. SignatureRegards, Savageduck >>>> We expect our judges and juries to be impartial, but we shouldn't >>>> expect the same thing from the police or state criminalists. [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > Well the good thing about our little OT excursion was, it did not degrade > into the usual NG spitting and fuming. I've been lurking in this discussion with interest. In real life I have seen both sides, actually three sides of the issue. Most in law enforcement are good people who try to do an honest job. there are some bad apples who succumb to temptations. (e.go. Many years ago the newspaper headlines declared that $350,000 was found at a crime scene. The defendant told me the amount was closer to $500,000. Investigative dropsy is not an uncommon occurrence in narcotics investigations. If a highway patrol officer does not issue his unofficial quota of tickets over an extended period of time, he will lose his seat. There are "pressures" to solve cases, especially sensitive ones. There are law enforcement people who have taken shortcuts that tends to exclude exculpatory evidence. Fortunately, this happens rarely and the work of defense counsel and IA investigators keeps the bad apples to a minimum. Just a short summary of my observations. SignaturePeter >> Claims by the defense that the police are corrupt seldom go over very >> well with juries. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >fair, but still generates the emotional response you are looking for. >Compare, for example, a mug shot to a good professional portrait. That has almost nothing to do with police work and everything to do with lawyers in courts. They select the evidence to be presented, and if a photo is believed to be biased then it's the job of the attorney to show how and why. >We expect our judges and juries to be impartial, but we shouldn't >expect the same thing from the police or state criminalists. Now all you have to do is show any bias. Granted, forensic photos of victims are often emotionally disturbing, but that does not make them biased. SignatureRay Fischer rfischer@sonic.net >>> Claims by the defense that the police are corrupt seldom go over very >>> well with juries. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > victims are often emotionally disturbing, but that does not make them > biased. ...er thanks Ray. SignatureRegards, Savageduck >> So RAW files can probably be faked. You just have to be careful about it. > >I think they can and I think they will. My guess is that digital images, >both RAW and JPG, will be weak evidence (or inadmissible) in many courts of >law. Wrong guess. I have first hand experience that the digital images produced by speed cameras are exceedingly strong evidence in court! ;-) SignatureKennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) >>> So RAW files can probably be faked. You just have to be careful about >>> it. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Wrong guess. I have first hand experience that the digital images > produced by speed cameras are exceedingly strong evidence in court! ;-) LOL. I should have said "some digital images ...." I live in Naples, FL and the new traffic cameras here are generating a nice income (for the company that installed them and for Collier county). They are mostly focusing (no pun) on right-turn on red violations (not coming to a full-stop) and that is really pissing off many drivers here. I have to agree as the many ugly crashes here are seldom due to right-turn on red violations. Anyway, back on subject. Dedicated cameras for security and or violation detection are not what I was trying to get at. Thanks for your post. > > In article <hksu67$cd...@news.eternal-september.org>, Charles > > <charlesschu...@comcast.net> writes [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Thanks for your post. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/05/2811384.htm?site=news http://tinyurl.com/police-cameras-1 http://tinyurl.com/police-cameras-2 Well the list goes on and on, it would seem that there is no problem with photos from digital cameras being used in court. Scott Well the list goes on and on, it would seem that there is no problem with photos from digital cameras being used in court. I predict many of them will be challenged in court. Who, what, when, where and why ... Even for shots from the hands of a forensenic CSI, the defense will be in a position to pose some chalenging questions. The fact that they "can" be faked is going to play a major role. Again, I'm not involved in any litigation and I am not a member of the legal system. I just find it to be an interesting issue. Have served jury duty several times and was amazed at how little details can become major issues and destroy an argument. > Well the list goes on and on, it would seem that there is no problem > with photos from digital cameras being used in court. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > will be in a position to pose some chalenging questions. The fact that they > "can" be faked is going to play a major role. It's important to remember that evidence is photographed multiple times from multiple angles, different focal lengths and so on. It could be easy enough to show that where one image is plausibly tampered with, it would be exceedingly unlikely that a set of the same scene can be tampered with without showing an error. Coupled to the anti-tamper encoding available on some cameras it would very difficult for the "opposition" to prove tampering conclusively. Then couple in the sworn testimony of the photographer, chain of evidence, and there is little room to show so to a jury. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. >> Well the list goes on and on, it would seem that there is no problem >> with photos from digital cameras being used in court. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Then couple in the sworn testimony of the photographer, chain of > evidence, and there is little room to show so to a jury. There are different types of photographic evidence, all can be used for investigation, prosecution, conviction, and even exoneration. The most obvious are crime scene shots. A series of crime scene shots are usually taken by a qualified crime scene photographer. They are shot in a specific sequence, starting with overview shots outside the crime scene, moving into the crime scene proper. Many times there will also be simultaneous video of the scene which will include the photographer collecting his evidence shots, and making a parallel record of the items collected in the photographs. Since 1997 my agency added digital to polaroid & 35mm. ( We had some Polaroid in storage, but it hadn't been used for years.) Around 2004 digital shot with forensic authentication encoded in RAW was generally accepted. 35mm started fading from use, though it is still used. There are new techniques such as 3D digital crime scene photography, which is becoming more common as an investigative tool. http://www.crime-photo.com/ There is also IR and UV for forensic use. http://www.forensicmag.com/articles.asp?pid=122 ...and the FBI publishes stuff such as this from time to time, http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/jan2009/research/2009_01_research01.htm Each shot will be documented on a series of photo evidence cards which detail the sequence of shots, identify the photographer, file number of the shot, and note on what is shot. If there are shots of physical evidence, blood splatters, weapons, wounds, damage to property, etc. scale makers and/or rulers will be placed along side the item shot. The approximate (always approximate) dimensions are written on the photo evidence card, by the photographer or a designated scribe. As you stated the sworn testimony of the photographer along with an established chain of evidence, and the documentation included with each shot, is for the most part what establishes the untampered authenticity of each photograph, digital or film. The thing to remember is even negatives can be tampered with, and certainly chemical prints can be altered in a darkroom as easily as digital in CS4. So there is still quite a bit dependent on the theater of the Court room, though I do not know of a successful impeachment of digital photographic evidence recorded by a qualified crime scene photographer in California. I cannot speak for other jurisdictions. CSI magic as depicted by CBS is not quite reality. ...yet. SignatureRegards, Savageduck > CSI magic as depicted by CBS is not quite reality. ...yet. Indeed. Further expectation of such has driven up prosecution costs where not even relevant to the case. CSI "jury expectation" has actually influenced a lot of cases where the CSI-conditioned jury expects dazzling evidence preparation from the prosecution only to get story boards and a plastic bag with a handkerchief shown as evidence... in dismay for the lack of high tech evidence, juries have acquitted where perhaps they should not have ... http://www.cspo.org/documents/csieffectheinrick.pdf Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. >> CSI magic as depicted by CBS is not quite reality. ...yet. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > http://www.cspo.org/documents/csieffectheinrick.pdf Of course, the cause of acquittal might also be due to prosecutorial errors and/or bumbling, think O.I. Simpson. It also might be good defense counsel, or even a belief in actual innocence. The press rarely presents exculpatory evidence. SignaturePeter >>> CSI magic as depicted by CBS is not quite reality. ...yet. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > defense counsel, or even a belief in actual innocence. The press rarely > presents exculpatory evidence. Yup. In the O.J. Simpson case, the DNA evidence was there, and was strong even in the face of some bungling on the part of criminologists, investigators and prosecutors. There was sufficient DNA & blood evidence to place Simpson at the crime scene at the time of the murders. Then the DA's screwed up and fell for Johnny Corcoran's glove ploy without knowing what the result would have been. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Add to that Corcoran playing the race card to a jury not able to digest the forensic evidence. Of course the CSI shows were 10 years away then. Today the outcome might have been different. SignatureRegards, Savageduck >>> CSI magic as depicted by CBS is not quite reality. ...yet. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > defense counsel, or even a belief in actual innocence. The press rarely > presents exculpatory evidence. Prosecutorial failure rates should be about constant in the pre-CSI and post CSI eras. The profession has noted the bias described. Why I added a link. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. >>>> CSI magic as depicted by CBS is not quite reality. ...yet. >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > post CSI eras. The profession has noted the bias described. Why I added a > link. Overcoming CSI expectation adds an additional burden to the prosecutor. Failure to recognize this additional burden can lead to acquittal. But, it can be done and the prosecutor has an obligation to recognize this. Just as a defense attorney may very well play on the effect as an evidentiary failure. SignaturePeter >>>>> CSI magic as depicted by CBS is not quite reality. ...yet. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Just as a defense attorney may very well play on the effect as an > evidentiary failure. Did you read the linked article at all? Certainly it can be "explained" - but there was no reason that the physical evidence was even needed in many cases - but the CSI effect kicked in and _dominated_ the decision. That is not a prosecutorial error or fault. Signaturegmail originated posts are filtered due to spam. >>>>>> CSI magic as depicted by CBS is not quite reality. ...yet. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > kicked in and _dominated_ the decision. That is not a prosecutorial error > or fault. Perhaps I was not clear. Needed or not, the lack of such evidence needs to be covered, just as both sides cover possible prejudice on the part of the jurors. SignaturePeter >> CSI magic as depicted by CBS is not quite reality. ...yet. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >http://www.cspo.org/documents/csieffectheinrick.pdf See also: http://xkcd.com/683/ > http://www.cspo.org/documents/csieffectheinrick.pdf Given that the author doesn't know the difference between a grand jury and a petit jury, and thought that Perry Mason "always got a conviction," I can only wonder at the quality of the rest of the research. SignatureMike Benveniste -- mhb@murkyether.com (Clarification Required) Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain >>> Well the list goes on and on, it would seem that there is no problem >>> with photos from digital cameras being used in court. [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > CSI magic as depicted by CBS is not quite reality. ...yet. Once again, thanks. I have learned some interesting things here and am delighted that this thread has been constructive and has remained civil. There is still hope for Usenet! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.