Re: Authenticity, was RE: Epson or HP for alt-phot ... ? (some OT)

• To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
• Subject: Re: Authenticity, was RE: Epson or HP for alt-phot ... ? (some OT)
• From: Carl Weese <cweese@earthlink.net>
• Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 07:55:55 -0500
• Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
• Organization: Carl Weese Associates
• References: <20000322143449.16116.qmail@hotmail.com><v04210102b4ff480f61e5@[165.247.196.118]>
• Reply-to: cweese@earthlink.net
• Resent-message-id: <0FRV00AMVL7IHW@duke.usask.ca>
• Resent-reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca

Sam,

Courts as I understand it _never_ accept a photograph as credible
evidence on its own: it is evidenciary only accompanied by credible
interpretation. Forensic photographs, for example, are used to support
forensic expert testimony, not as "facts" in their own right.

---Carl



Sam Wang wrote:
> 
> 
> Does anyone know at what point do the courts cease to consider a
> photograph to be creditable evidence?
> 
> Sam

-- 
Website with online galleries and workshop information at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cweese/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Authenticity, was RE: Epson or HP for alt-phot ... ? (some OT)
    • From: Darryl Baird <dbaird@flint.umich.edu>

• References:
  • Re: Epson or HP for alt-phot ... ? (some OT)
    • From: Thor Bols <thorbols@hotmail.com>
  • Authenticity, was RE: Epson or HP for alt-phot ... ? (some OT)
    • From: Sam Wang <stwang@mindspring.com>

• Prev by Date: Re: Gum vs. Kallitype
• Next by Date: Re: Polaroid 20x24" film
• Prev by thread: Re: Authenticity, was RE: Epson or HP for alt-phot ... ? (some OT)
• Next by thread: Re: Authenticity, was RE: Epson or HP for alt-phot ... ? (some OT)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread