These are responses from Don Bruce a current forensic photographer with the New Zealand Police Service. This followed my request to the Photography Society of new Zealand. Initial responses were provided via a pdf document but copied here.
- For you, what are the important aspects of forensic photography?
Primarily to record all visual evidence and present it to the court in an un-biased and objective way. In cases where there is a victim of a crime, I would consider myself to be their advocate.
- Forensic photography creates a permanent visual record of the crime scene in the state in which it was originally found and plays a huge role throughout the entire Can you explain how you approach this or does it depend on the individual circumstance?
Totally agree that images taken are a permanent visual record and can
play a large role in the investigative process. I also believe images can play a big role in the court process as well.
Every case is different but my approach is always the same, be it assault victim, vehicle crash or homicide scene. I try to find out as much about each incident by talking to the victim or investigator. Then recording as much visual evidence as possible.
- The images play a key role in reconstructing the events which took place and give jurors a clear image of the How difficult is it achieve this? What are the key areas to consider and avoid?
Not difficult, I simply record visual evidence. It is up to the investigator and prosecutor to present that evidence to the court. For large cases such as homicides we can make up court books that include diagrams and maps to go with the images, but in Auckland this is now done by our reprographics section at the direction of the investigators.
We avoid presenting images that are too graphic and explicit. For instance an image of a victim covered in blood is of no value. It’s better to have their wounds cleaned to show their actual injuries. We will also not show images of genitals, even from an autopsy, out of respect for the victim.
- How do you separate your personal professional photography skills from that of being a forensic photographer or are they complimentary?
I use techiniques from my work in my personal photography and vice versa.
- What’s in your kit bag? How has this changed if at all? (assume you have only used digital equipment)
Currently we use Canon equipment in our everyday work. This includes: Camera body 5D Mk4, 16-35mm f2.8 lens, 24-105mm f4 lens, 50mm macro lens, 100mm macro lens, macro ring light, 600D speedlite.
We also have access to other lenses: 65mm5:1 macro lens, 70-200 f2.8lens and 100-400 f4-5.6 lens.
We also use infra-red and ultraviolent sensitive cameras and an assortment of filters. Also a studio with lights and other accessories. Apple computers with Adobe software for processing.
I started in the days of film, but since moving to digital in 2006 this equipment has remained the same since then, apart from upgrades.
In the last couple of years we have also added drones for some aerial images.
- Are there any special techniques that you use to ensure all evidence has been captured?
As I mentioned before I will always talk to the investigator and/or victim about what is required to be photographed.
I will also try to take my photographs in some sort of order, for instance when photographing a house I will do the external photos first then go from room to room in a clockwise direction and to photograph a victim start from their head and work down. Once done I would then go back and discuss with the investigator or victim what photographs had been taken and ask if there was anything else that needed to be photographed. Sometimes I might also notice things that they have missed as well.
It is also important to ensure evidence such as exhibits or bruises are shown in relation to their location. For example a close image of a bruise also needs a second image showing its location on the body.
- Has there ever been a case where images that you have taken have affected the outcome of a case?
We don’t get to go to court very often, but I would think that in most cases our images have some bearing on the outcome of a case, be it conviction, aquittal or even taken into account by the judge when sentencing.
There was one case early in my career that does come to mind where I had photographed most of the shoeprint evidence in various forms. A family of burglars was charged with about 200 break-ins, mostly at service stations and liquor shops in the wider Auckland area. They would take in wool sacks and be wearing gloves so didn’t leave fingerprints. They did however leave their shoe impressions in dust, dirt and various other substances on floors, counters and doors that they kicked in.
I spent 2 days in court being cross examined on the evidence I had photo graphed. Fortunately as well as the images I had taken extensive notes about their location etc. All those charged were convicted on those scenes we could prove their shoes prints were found.
- Have your professional skills ever been questioned during an investigation? Personally No
- There have been cases reported of mistaken identity (ID shots) or false memory in court cases how important do you think forensic photography is in playing the part of scene sitting and memory recall of witnesses?
I think it is very important, as images are generally taken very soon after an incident and can help a witness recall memories about what happen. Images are also an important tool for the witness to convey to the court what happened by pointing out items and locations of interest in scenes.
- Do you think the image only shows the facts?
I consider images and video to generally be factual but must be used in context. Obviously images can be manipulated but we record in RAW format, which like a film negative is saved and filed straight from the camera. The digital meta-data within the image will prove that it has not been altered.
- How much of the process is based on your perspective? Do you think this could affect the outcome or does the camera never lie?
I have a pragmatic and un-biased approach when using photography as an investigative forensic tool.
Visual perspective can be altered by the use of different lenses, but where this is important we will ensure that the perspective is as close as possible to what the human eye sees.
It is important however, to remember that it is impossible to recreate exactly for each person involved, what they see, or saw, as everyone’s eyes are different.
Also their interpretation of what they see is affected by past memories and experiences.
Using my skills as a forensic photographer, I can only record the physical evidence that the camera records and present that to the judge or jury to interpret for themselves.
Michele Usher 