Author Topic: Bird Was a 'Specialist' Photographer?  (Read 638 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Caroline

Bird Was a 'Specialist' Photographer?
« on: August 03, 2018, 06:39:26 PM »
Really?
« Last Edit: August 06, 2018, 06:34:32 PM by John »

Offline Caroline

Re: Bird Was a 'Specialist' Photographer?
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2018, 03:03:31 AM »
Well, this clinches it

The last Scene of Crime officers arrived. Detective Inspector Ron Cook joined the police in 1958 and became a fingerprint officer in 1964. Seventeen years later he was promoted to Detective Inspector and was one of two deputies working at SOCO in Chelmsford under DCI Charles ‘Geordie’ Wright. Cook was accompanied by Detective Constable David Bird, who joined the force in 1976, working on murder photography and chemical treatments as part of a crime scene investigation course. The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment. Along with Chris Bews and Taff Jones, Bird had recently worked on the Bull murder in Coggeshall. When told at headquarters to collect five post-mortem kits for White House Farm, he assumed it was a wind-up: ‘Then I looked at the superintendent’s face and saw
 

Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (p. 179). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6400
  • Total likes: 129
  • "They think it's all over"....
Re: Bird Was a 'Specialist' Photographer?
« Reply #2 on: August 05, 2018, 12:03:06 PM »
What's the argument?  Is it a number of negs were destroyed on the basis they didn't develop properly or whatever the tech expression is? 

I think I recall KNGB posting about this and saying they should have been retained for audit purposes which I agree with.  It then protects both sides.  What does the police training manual say?

I think even professional photographers ended up with a lot of duff ones prior to the digital world.  I seem to recall during the 80's I was always going to weddings which often seem to end in dispute with wedding photographers as the photographers charged per shot with many duff ones. 

Of course those who see a conspiracy everywhere will say these destroyed images might be capable of acquitting JB difficult to see how IMO.
Justice 4 Sheila and Jeremy: victims of poorly arranged 'Baby Scoop Era' adoptions.  Australia has apologised
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg time for UK to do the same https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/04/baby-adoption-practices-of-past-demand-inquiry-say-law-firms

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6400
  • Total likes: 129
  • "They think it's all over"....
Re: Bird Was a 'Specialist' Photographer?
« Reply #3 on: August 05, 2018, 12:26:33 PM »
It took this prof? photographer 720,000 photos and 6 years to get this shot:

https://www.boredpanda.com/perfect-kingfisher-dive-photo-wildlife-photography-alan-mcfadyen/

I accept there's motion involved. 
Justice 4 Sheila and Jeremy: victims of poorly arranged 'Baby Scoop Era' adoptions.  Australia has apologised
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg time for UK to do the same https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/04/baby-adoption-practices-of-past-demand-inquiry-say-law-firms

Offline Caroline

Re: Bird Was a 'Specialist' Photographer?
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2018, 05:19:37 PM »
What's the argument?  Is it a number of negs were destroyed on the basis they didn't develop properly or whatever the tech expression is? 

I think I recall KNGB posting about this and saying they should have been retained for audit purposes which I agree with.  It then protects both sides.  What does the police training manual say?

I think even professional photographers ended up with a lot of duff ones prior to the digital world.  I seem to recall during the 80's I was always going to weddings which often seem to end in dispute with wedding photographers as the photographers charged per shot with many duff ones. 

Of course those who see a conspiracy everywhere will say these destroyed images might be capable of acquitting JB difficult to see how IMO.

I agree that they shouldn't have been removed for the reasons you mention.

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6400
  • Total likes: 129
  • "They think it's all over"....
Re: Bird Was a 'Specialist' Photographer?
« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2018, 07:14:29 PM »
I wonder if DC Bird took photos of the opium poppies?
Justice 4 Sheila and Jeremy: victims of poorly arranged 'Baby Scoop Era' adoptions.  Australia has apologised
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg time for UK to do the same https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/04/baby-adoption-practices-of-past-demand-inquiry-say-law-firms

Offline Real justice

Re: Bird Was a 'Specialist' Photographer?
« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2018, 10:04:22 AM »
Seems like there has been some movement on Dislosure within the CCRC,

Disclosure – Update on CCRC’s current position and programme of work
On 20th July the House of Commons Justice Committee published a report entitled “Disclosure of evidence in Criminal Cases”. The CCRC was one of a number of organisations which had provided the Justice Committee with written submissions on the subject, in the course of the Committee’s inquiry. The Committee’s report was critical of the current practice of police and prosecutors in respect of disclosure, and again highlighted the problem of non-disclosure of relevant unused material in criminal cases. The Justice Committee report followed on from the July 2017 report “Making it Fair” – the result of a joint inspection by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate – into disclosure of unused material in volume cases in the Crown Court. That report had itself been highly critical of the approach of police and prosecutors to the disclosure process.

The CCRC has long recognised the significant problems in this area, and the CCRC’s Chair, Richard Foster, has highlighted the issue in successive Annual Reports to Parliament, explaining that: “a major cause of miscarriages of justice continues to be non-disclosure, at or before trial, of material which could have been of assistance to the defence” (Annual Report and Accounts 2017). Mr Foster has also written to the Law Officers, DPPs here and in Northern Ireland, and to senior figures in the police, highlighting the CCRC’s experience on the issue of disclosure, and stressing that disclosure problems are not only a recent phenomenon. Around one fifth of our referrals over the years (more than 130) to the Court of Appeal, including some of our most recent cases but also some of our earliest, have turned on non-disclosure.

The CCRC observes that other organisations – most notably the CPS and the Attorney-General’s Office – have recently undertaken review work aimed at live prosecutions, prosecutions which have recently been dropped by the CPS, and the operation of the disclosure regime overall. Although such work is vital and is to be welcomed, the CCRC considers that it is equally important for any review of disclosure to consider completed cases that have resulted in convictions. The CCRC’s Chair has emphasised this same point in a recent letter to the Attorney-General. It is this need to consider completed cases which has led the CCRC to devise the internal review which is discussed below.

The CCRC’s recent and ongoing work in connection with disclosure can be summarised as follows:

The CCRC has liaised with the Attorney-General’s Office, the CPS, HMCPSI, and the Metropolitan Police in relation to developments on the issue of disclosure.
The CCRC has recently completed updated internal training to its staff in relation to how we address disclosure issues in our own case reviews.
The CCRC has devised an internal review which will sample closed CCRC cases.
In relation to the CCRC’s internal disclosure review, although a number of details are still to be resolved, it has been decided that:

The review will sample 306 rape convictions which were closed by the CCRC between April 2016 and March 2018.
For each case which is sampled the CCRC will consider the approach of and the interaction between the CPS and the relevant police force regarding disclosure in the case itself.
For each case which is sampled the CCRC will consider its own previous approach (during the previous CCRC review of the case) to the disclosure process in the prosecution in question. The CCRC’s previous approach to disclosure in these cases will be assessed against current best practice.
It is anticipated that the internal review will report on its conclusions by 29 March 2019.


This from the Justice Committee

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/justice-committee/inquiries/parliament-2017/disclosure-criminal-cases-17-19/

« Last Edit: August 06, 2018, 10:08:26 AM by Real justice »

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6400
  • Total likes: 129
  • "They think it's all over"....
Re: Bird Was a 'Specialist' Photographer?
« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2018, 12:24:53 PM »
Seems like there has been some movement on Dislosure within the CCRC,

Disclosure – Update on CCRC’s current position and programme of work
On 20th July the House of Commons Justice Committee published a report entitled “Disclosure of evidence in Criminal Cases”. The CCRC was one of a number of organisations which had provided the Justice Committee with written submissions on the subject, in the course of the Committee’s inquiry. The Committee’s report was critical of the current practice of police and prosecutors in respect of disclosure, and again highlighted the problem of non-disclosure of relevant unused material in criminal cases. The Justice Committee report followed on from the July 2017 report “Making it Fair” – the result of a joint inspection by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate – into disclosure of unused material in volume cases in the Crown Court. That report had itself been highly critical of the approach of police and prosecutors to the disclosure process.

The CCRC has long recognised the significant problems in this area, and the CCRC’s Chair, Richard Foster, has highlighted the issue in successive Annual Reports to Parliament, explaining that: “a major cause of miscarriages of justice continues to be non-disclosure, at or before trial, of material which could have been of assistance to the defence” (Annual Report and Accounts 2017). Mr Foster has also written to the Law Officers, DPPs here and in Northern Ireland, and to senior figures in the police, highlighting the CCRC’s experience on the issue of disclosure, and stressing that disclosure problems are not only a recent phenomenon. Around one fifth of our referrals over the years (more than 130) to the Court of Appeal, including some of our most recent cases but also some of our earliest, have turned on non-disclosure.

The CCRC observes that other organisations – most notably the CPS and the Attorney-General’s Office – have recently undertaken review work aimed at live prosecutions, prosecutions which have recently been dropped by the CPS, and the operation of the disclosure regime overall. Although such work is vital and is to be welcomed, the CCRC considers that it is equally important for any review of disclosure to consider completed cases that have resulted in convictions. The CCRC’s Chair has emphasised this same point in a recent letter to the Attorney-General. It is this need to consider completed cases which has led the CCRC to devise the internal review which is discussed below.

The CCRC’s recent and ongoing work in connection with disclosure can be summarised as follows:

The CCRC has liaised with the Attorney-General’s Office, the CPS, HMCPSI, and the Metropolitan Police in relation to developments on the issue of disclosure.
The CCRC has recently completed updated internal training to its staff in relation to how we address disclosure issues in our own case reviews.
The CCRC has devised an internal review which will sample closed CCRC cases.
In relation to the CCRC’s internal disclosure review, although a number of details are still to be resolved, it has been decided that:

The review will sample 306 rape convictions which were closed by the CCRC between April 2016 and March 2018.
For each case which is sampled the CCRC will consider the approach of and the interaction between the CPS and the relevant police force regarding disclosure in the case itself.
For each case which is sampled the CCRC will consider its own previous approach (during the previous CCRC review of the case) to the disclosure process in the prosecution in question. The CCRC’s previous approach to disclosure in these cases will be assessed against current best practice.
It is anticipated that the internal review will report on its conclusions by 29 March 2019.


This from the Justice Committee

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/justice-committee/inquiries/parliament-2017/disclosure-criminal-cases-17-19/

Thanks for the above.

Is JB claiming non-disclosure of negs?  I thought it was a case that some negs were destroyed on the basis they were duff? 
Justice 4 Sheila and Jeremy: victims of poorly arranged 'Baby Scoop Era' adoptions.  Australia has apologised
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg time for UK to do the same https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/04/baby-adoption-practices-of-past-demand-inquiry-say-law-firms

Offline Real justice

Re: Bird Was a 'Specialist' Photographer?
« Reply #8 on: August 06, 2018, 12:37:18 PM »
Thanks for the above.

Is JB claiming non-disclosure of negs?  I thought it was a case that some negs were destroyed on the basis they were duff?
I don’t know if an appeal has been submitted yet Holly and on what grounds, he said it would be early this year but I’ve not heard anything as such.  Would still be hard for Bamber I would have thought, there can’t be much left to disclose, coupled with the fact what was destroyed by EP.  I think disclose for Bamber is a case of what has been lost, so if the Negs aren’t there, they are not going to help him.  I can’t honestly see EP leaving anything in play that could help him.   8(0(*

Offline Caroline

Re: Bird Was a 'Specialist' Photographer?
« Reply #9 on: August 06, 2018, 12:38:10 PM »
Thanks for the above.

Is JB claiming non-disclosure of negs?  I thought it was a case that some negs were destroyed on the basis they were duff?

Yes, both he the CT and Gringo.

Offline Real justice

Re: Bird Was a 'Specialist' Photographer?
« Reply #10 on: August 06, 2018, 01:06:08 PM »
Thanks for the above.

Is JB claiming non-disclosure of negs?  I thought it was a case that some negs were destroyed on the basis they were duff?
Looks like there is a meeting in October, a big pow wow, so something might be said at the meeting, unless it’s another money grabbing event.  Lookout has been invited so she keeps saying, you will know what day it is in October because Lookout won’t be online, there’s a first for everything.  @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*

Offline Caroline

Re: Bird Was a 'Specialist' Photographer?
« Reply #11 on: August 06, 2018, 01:15:25 PM »
Looks like there is a meeting in October, a big pow wow, so something might be said at the meeting, unless it’s another money grabbing event.  Lookout has been invited so she keeps saying, you will know what day it is in October because Lookout won’t be online, there’s a first for everything.  @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*

My invite must have gotten lost in the post?  8)><( @)(++(*

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6400
  • Total likes: 129
  • "They think it's all over"....
Re: Bird Was a 'Specialist' Photographer?
« Reply #12 on: August 06, 2018, 01:37:09 PM »
I don’t know if an appeal has been submitted yet Holly and on what grounds, he said it would be early this year but I’ve not heard anything as such.  Would still be hard for Bamber I would have thought, there can’t be much left to disclose, coupled with the fact what was destroyed by EP.  I think disclose for Bamber is a case of what has been lost, so if the Negs aren’t there, they are not going to help him.  I can’t honestly see EP leaving anything in play that could help him.   8(0(*

I agree anything non-disclosed by way of docs, negs, video, audio or any other material that could assist JB will have been destroyed.  Why would EP or anyone squirrel away anything that could come back to haunt when they could simply destroy it? 

I bought a book on the w.e 'The Secret Barrister'.  I don't have it to hand at the mo but when I do I'll quote some interesting figs about appeals.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Barrister-Stories-Law-Broken/dp/1509841105
Justice 4 Sheila and Jeremy: victims of poorly arranged 'Baby Scoop Era' adoptions.  Australia has apologised
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg time for UK to do the same https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/04/baby-adoption-practices-of-past-demand-inquiry-say-law-firms

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6400
  • Total likes: 129
  • "They think it's all over"....
Re: Bird Was a 'Specialist' Photographer?
« Reply #13 on: August 06, 2018, 01:39:32 PM »
Looks like there is a meeting in October, a big pow wow, so something might be said at the meeting, unless it’s another money grabbing event.  Lookout has been invited so she keeps saying, you will know what day it is in October because Lookout won’t be online, there’s a first for everything.  @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*

I think it's one of these justice days with guest speakers. 
Justice 4 Sheila and Jeremy: victims of poorly arranged 'Baby Scoop Era' adoptions.  Australia has apologised
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg time for UK to do the same https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/04/baby-adoption-practices-of-past-demand-inquiry-say-law-firms

Offline Real justice

Re: Bird Was a 'Specialist' Photographer?
« Reply #14 on: August 06, 2018, 02:02:58 PM »
I agree anything non-disclosed by way of docs, negs, video, audio or any other material that could assist JB will have been destroyed.  Why would EP or anyone squirrel away anything that could come back to haunt when they could simply destroy it? 

I bought a book on the w.e 'The Secret Barrister'.  I don't have it to hand at the mo but when I do I'll quote some interesting figs about appeals.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Barrister-Stories-Law-Broken/dp/1509841105
Nearly got that book myself Holly.