The sticky brown stuff is about to hit the fan
Discussion
streaky said:
What's wrong with using the negative? And, given that the contrast in the numberplate is sufficiently strong in the negative, it looks as though that's happened is that the positive has been (effectively) over-developed. I would have thought that a good - ie. 'contrasty' - positive should be possible from the negative shown.
That said, the 'evidence' has been doctored.
Please also remember: Section 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 as amended by section 23 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 clearly specifies that only evidence produced by the speed camera is admissible in a Court of Law i.e. the original negatives.
This is the law. It is there to ensure the prosecution can always demonstrate continuity of evidence. If they cannot then their case is void. End of story.
Deadly Dog said:Ah ha! So it would appear that the prosecution would produce the negative whilst the defence would produce the positive sent to the accused. The prosecution has the evidence to support a successful prosecution. All the defence could do would be to bring the overall procedures into question ... which might (read 'should' - in law) not be enough to sway the magistrates from a guilty finding; the original evidence (ie. the negative) not being tainted.
What's wrong with using the negative? And, given that the contrast in the numberplate is sufficiently strong in the negative, it looks as though that's happened is that the positive has been (effectively) over-developed. I would have thought that a good - ie. 'contrasty' - positive should be possible from the negative shown.
That said, the 'evidence' has been doctored.
Please also remember: Section 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 as amended by section 23 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 clearly specifies that only evidence produced by the speed camera is admissible in a Court of Law i.e. the original negatives.
This is the law. It is there to ensure the prosecution can always demonstrate continuity of evidence. If they cannot then their case is void. End of story.
Still, one for the press I feel.
Streaky
streaky said:
The prosecution has the evidence to support a successful prosecution.
We're going round in circles here, Streaky; read the whole thread. The reason that they made up the evidence in the first place is that the negative did not show the number itself. They had either:
1) Enhanced the picture by some means.
2) Run the available characters, with other 'speculative' ones through the PNC, which comparing with the model and colour, tied it down to one vehicle,
neither of which creates admissable evidence for a speed camera conviction.
jeffreyarcher said:
We're going round in circles here, Streaky; read the whole thread. The reason that they made up the evidence in the first place is that the negative did not show the number itself. They had either:
1) Enhanced the picture by some means.
2) Run the available characters, with other 'speculative' ones through the PNC, which comparing with the model and colour, tied it down to one vehicle,
neither of which creates admissable evidence for a speed camera conviction.
I've had a good look at both COPIES reproduced in here. I could find no evidence of tampering. It's just that the positive COPY is overexposed and much of the number plate is "burnt out" in the copy process.
The negative COPY does not suffer from the same over exposed effect, and as such is a fairer copy of the evidential negative.
There are scaling and rotation differences in the COPIES, but these can soon be corrected so that like can be compared with like.
On close examination of the numberplate in both copies it's plain that the lightest pixels in the negative copy properly correspond with the darkest pixels on the positive copy. This is good evidence that they are both copies of the same original.
There's absolutely no evidence of tampering, and the whole thing is nonsense.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
safespeed said:
I've had a good look at both COPIES reproduced in here. I could find no evidence of tampering.
These are not the originals, i.e.
mybrainhurts said:
The pics are his demonstration of the doctoring process, not the Scamera "evidence".
and anyway,
mybrainhurts said:
What Northants police have done is erase the original virtually illegible numbers and letters, inverted the image and then typed in (in Photoshop or similar) what they thought was the right reg number, mucked it about a bit to blend in with the negative image and hoped no-one would notice. Fortunately for me they cocked the number up,<...>
jeffreyarcher said:Humm! So the 'evidence' before us which has prompted all the discussion is not the real evidence.
I've had a good look at both COPIES reproduced in here. I could find no evidence of tampering.
These are not the originals, i.e.
mybrainhurts said:
The pics are his demonstration of the doctoring process, not the Scamera "evidence".
and anyway,
mybrainhurts said:
What Northants police have done is erase the original virtually illegible numbers and letters, inverted the image and then typed in (in Photoshop or similar) what they thought was the right reg number, mucked it about a bit to blend in with the negative image and hoped no-one would notice. Fortunately for me they cocked the number up,<...>
I had missed mybrainhurts comment about the pictures not being the "scamera 'evidence'", I had proceeded on the basis of Pies reference to the top and middle photographs as being the "Original negative" and "(original) Positive scanned" and mybrainhurts later response that implied (to me at least) that the 'evidence' presented to us represented that in the accused's possession.
Thank goodness I didn't waste any trees writing this
Still, if the practice described has indeed been followed, questions about that practice and whomsoever instigated and continues to condone or, worse, encourage, it, and whereabouts else it is practiced, are still valid.
Streaky
Like others I'm in danger of being confused by the postings here.
Just a few comments on the photographic evidence as presented here.
The images shown on the web have gone through numerous conversions to just get here. All the conversions have different characteristics.
My main point is that the negative and positive will AWAYS show differently to the eye. Just look at the width of the white line markings. They are wide white stripes in the positive and thinner lines in the negative. So it shows some overexposure during the positive porcess whatever that was -scanned or emulsion. That widening effect will then account for the numbers on the plate being burnt out due to the widening of the white area at the expense of the black digits.
Look at the bright headlamps. Some detail is visible in the negative that is invisible in the positive. By the way, that detail seems to correspond to the detail in the real Porsche image headlamp (I'm not implying that this identifies the car though!).
Positive and negative images have routinely been used to add information gleaned from photographic evidence be that medical images satellite images or survailance images.
Given these images I would only say that the interpretation of digits on the negative would perhaps be a challenge as the number is not sufficiently clear as to be positively identifiable and that signs of image manipulation would need much greater analysis of the originals.
The quality of these images does not match the quality of the images I have seen before from forward camera systems and I that alone would be something that could be drawn to the attention of the legal beagles. Ones I have looked at even detail the name of the plate manufacturer and the mounting screws of the headlamps that were illuminated at the time!!! That cameras gamma response was really good when compared with the one in question here.
>> Edited by canam-phil on Sunday 28th December 11:04
Just a few comments on the photographic evidence as presented here.
The images shown on the web have gone through numerous conversions to just get here. All the conversions have different characteristics.
My main point is that the negative and positive will AWAYS show differently to the eye. Just look at the width of the white line markings. They are wide white stripes in the positive and thinner lines in the negative. So it shows some overexposure during the positive porcess whatever that was -scanned or emulsion. That widening effect will then account for the numbers on the plate being burnt out due to the widening of the white area at the expense of the black digits.
Look at the bright headlamps. Some detail is visible in the negative that is invisible in the positive. By the way, that detail seems to correspond to the detail in the real Porsche image headlamp (I'm not implying that this identifies the car though!).
Positive and negative images have routinely been used to add information gleaned from photographic evidence be that medical images satellite images or survailance images.
Given these images I would only say that the interpretation of digits on the negative would perhaps be a challenge as the number is not sufficiently clear as to be positively identifiable and that signs of image manipulation would need much greater analysis of the originals.
The quality of these images does not match the quality of the images I have seen before from forward camera systems and I that alone would be something that could be drawn to the attention of the legal beagles. Ones I have looked at even detail the name of the plate manufacturer and the mounting screws of the headlamps that were illuminated at the time!!! That cameras gamma response was really good when compared with the one in question here.
>> Edited by canam-phil on Sunday 28th December 11:04
Toffer said:
There is absolutely no need to forge anything...there are too many legitamate camera witnessed speeding offences to process!
Unless some staffer's on commission, or wants to get a particular car........??
And don't forget, this is a photo they had to produce for the victim. They couldn't offer a duff image, could they?
>> Edited by mybrainhurts on Monday 29th December 00:40
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff