[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 6/22/01
Time: 5:30:51 PM
Charlie,
What impressed me about the photo was that it appeared to be taken in such a way that it COULD NOT be definitively identified (lots of flexibility). That's how it was with photo after photo in the case as well as with the diagrams - none of which was to scale - and the correct scale DID MATTER. You have no idea what hell I went through trying to put the eight blood drops that Fung collected on the Rockingham driveway, the walkway and in the foyer in the right place. All of the photos were badly blurred, cropped out of context or taken at an angle that defied anyone but an expert to figure out where they belonged in relationship to one another. I am an expert and it took me months to get it right. Had it not been for the photo of the gate in Vannatter and Lange's Evidence Dismissed, I never would have gotten it.
Whoever took the photo of the box on the tub didn't appear to do anything out of the ordinary with respect to the general quality of the photos in that case. As far as who owns them is concerned, I learned in a publishers' seminar in Chicago three years ago that any document used in court is public property. I had to get permission from Fuhrman's publisher (it cost 125 bucks) to print one of his drawings in Iago because it was not used in court. That's why Laura Heart McKinney fought so hard to hang on to HER tapes. Once they became evidence in a public trial she no longer had a proprietary claim to them.
On the other hand, "possession is nine-tenths of the law." I don't know where the Freedom of Information act fits into this, but if someone with a legal right to them has them in his or her possession I wouldn't count on the law to make them accessible.
If someone has better information than this, I sure would like to hear it. --Jasper