I do believe you are correct, sir! So far, the Evidence Photographers
International Council (great website - www.epic.com - check it out
sometime!) hasn't said anything against the use of digital images as
evidence, but I know the day will come when they're challenged in some
high-profile case. Many departments in our area, especially large ones, use
expensive digital imaging equipment. I do indeed believe then it will come
down to a matter of departmental (or a subcontractor's) reputation.
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: Date backs
> In a message dated 2/20/01 5:18:33 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << would this really be acceptable as evidence? the date back can be set
to
> most any time/date one feels like rather easily >>
>
> Hah! You sound like a defense attorney<g>.
>
> A copy of the negative(s) accompanied by a notarized statement from the
> investigator-law enforcement officer attesting to the authenticity of date
> and time is usually sufficient* to affirm the details "seen at the scene."
> *"Eeedch" for digital "photographs" because digital ~images~ can be
> "manipulated" in the camera or after the fact by nearly anyone who can run
> and chew gum at the same time...even me.
>
>
> Mafud
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
