Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence

[Erik Narramore]

Was a video made of the crime scene?  If there is such a video, was it exhibited at trial?  If not, why?

I believe there may have been a video montage made of the crime scene photographs.  Is that true?

On the photographs, were any photographs taken by anybody other than David Bird, the crime scene photographer?  If so, have these been catalogued and disclosed?

Is there any evidence to suggest that any of David Bird's photographs have been held back?

Do we know what cameras David Bird used and what type of film and what procedures he followed for storage and production of the film?

Do we have David Bird's pocketbook?

Audio evidence - If the police lines were being recorded during the incident, then where is the audio?  Has it been disclosed?

[Erik Narramore]

David Bird -

It seems to me that the original film negatives are evidence in their own right.  I assume they were exhibited at court?  It also seems to me that the chain of custody of the negatives and resultant photographs, the camera equipment used at the scene (including the camera make and model and flash equipment) and the specification of the film roll and the development techniques used and type of paper, etc. are all relevant considerations, simply because they affect how the end result will appear.

Do the original photographs and negatives still exist somewhere?

[Erik Narramore]

I'm just curious as to why the defence never asked for access for their own photographic experts to those negatives (assuming they didn't)?  I'd be screaming for them.  It's absolutely fundamental and I'm surprised there wasn't a big legal battle over disclosure before trial.

To me, photography is a pivotal element of the whole case because a lot of the glib-sounding conclusions of the pro-guilt side are based on what we see of Sheila in those crime scene photographs, which seem on their face to be consistent with the forensic and autopsy findings: i.e. that Sheila had minimal or no injuries other than the gunshot wounds and nothing on her hands or feet.  For all we know, she might have had bruises and cuts up her arms and we would be oblivious because of the way the photographs came out of development.

I suppose those were different times with a certain amount of deference to the authorities, and maybe even defence lawyers didn't question things like that.

As for the police destroying crime scene photographs in a case where it is known the convicted offender protests his innocence, I'm astonished.  Surely that should be illegal?  Surely the conviction is, potentially, legally unsatisfactory on that basis alone?

And how can they withhold photographs from a trial?  I could understand it if they said that the withheld photographs are non-material and in the interests of trial efficiency are not disclosed for that reason, but can be examined by the defence on request; but didn't the defence ask about them?