Could your hobby land you in deep ****?

freeranger

freeranger

Well-known
Local time
4:26 PM
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
433
Could the fact that you take photographs of people on the street lead to a long prison sentence? It can certainly contribute to a conviction...

Barry George has just been acquitted of murdering UK News presenter Jill Dando. He was originally convicted of the crime and has served 8 years in prison.

I was shocked at some of the "evidence" of his guilt which came to light in these extracts of the police interviews he took part in:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7536815.stm

(scroll down to the video player)
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry. I am missing something. Is this guy a photographer? Was he photographing the presenter? I am unable to watch the video at the moment (at work), maybe that explains it better?
 
You need to see the video. The police insinuate that taking photographs of people (women) indicates that he could be a killer.
 
I would think that if you're already in the practice of murdering, then yes, maybe street photography isn't the least conspicuous thing you could do.

However, if you want to stay out of deep **** in the first place, then avoid murdering people :)
 
I think there's a small difference between street photography and stalking women with a camera.
 
iamzip said:
I think there's a small difference between street photography and stalking women with a camera.
Click to expand...

Obviously this is the same view that the police correctly assumed the members of the jury would have. Together with some other circumstantial evidence ("He was weird" "He once bought a replica gun" "He has a low IQ" "He changed his surname to Freddie Mercury's original surname") this innocent man was put away for eight years.

Now, personally, I think there is a huge difference between street photography and stalking ... i'd hate to think that my interest in photography could result in the nightmare that this guy had to endure.
 
I should mention that I'm not able to watch the video here at work, so my post should be taken with the appropriate amount of salt :) Yes, I posted without educating myself on the topic.. I get a free pass 'cause it's Friday!
 
Obviously this is the same view that the police correctly assumed the members of the jury would have. Together with some other circumstantial evidence ("He was weird" "He once bought a replica gun" "He has a low IQ" "He changed his surname to Freddie Mercury's original surname") this innocent man was put away for eight years.
Click to expand...
To be fair, it sounds like the original jury was convinced by the presented forensic evidence that suggested there was a small spec of gunshot residue found on his clothing, and did not convict for the emotive reasons being discussed here. When the forensic claim was declared unreliable and not admissible at the retrial, that jury cleared him.
 
freeranger said:
... i'd hate to think that my interest in photography could result in the nightmare that this guy had to endure.
Click to expand...


whether your appoach to street photograghry is unobserved stealth or in you face paparazzi if you respect other peoples privacy your not likely to have any problems....ovoiding having a low IQ and changing your name to Mercury's former name, buying replica guns and being wierd will probably help as well
 
From what I read of it, it sounds as though his photographic interests and personal oddities had little or nothing to do with his initial conviction by jury. They based their initial decision on gunshot residue evidence which was overturned. I think that this has very little to do with being a street shooter.
 
He may have taken photographs of women for pruient reasons. Street photograpy to some approaches those lines. But of course if you never photograph women, that doesn't apply. If you do photograph women, it might. :D :D :D

(Pardon me while I run to don my steel anti-flame suit.)

I really don't equate most street photography to what he probably took his photos for. But there are those who do if for less than pure reasons. Right or wrong, the police apparently tried to use that as coroborrating evidence. It might have had validity if he really committed the murder, to show a state of mind about women, if they could show he committed the murder in furtherance of his feeling for women. I can't watch the video either, so I don't know if there is any clue to his state of mind there.

I don't think there is enough in the writeup to say his photography had anything to do with the murder, if he did do it. The whole case seems a little weak from the writeup, but then I don't know how evidence is viewed in a British court. Normally that wouldn't have been enough for a conviction the the US. That isn't to say we haven't had our own travasties. We certainly have.
 
Sure he may have had pictures of many women, but did he have many of the victim?

There isn't enough information in the article for me to determine where photography actaully fit into the case, although I'm sure a trial transcript could clear that up if I was interested enough to read it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7495593.stm

The article above seems to indicate that he was a bit odd, and his oddness attracted the police to him. If you are odd enough to attract that kind of attention, you might want to clear out all your pictures that could be construed as evidence of stalking... (I'm being a bit glib here, as I'm sure none of us could even be mistaken for a stalker).
 
Last edited:
Al Patterson said:
Sure he may have had pictures of many women, but did he have many of the victim?
Click to expand...

Apparently not. Although there was a picture (amongst hundreds) of the street in which she lived, and this formed part of the evidence against him. The fact was that he lived in the neighborhood and so, I would guess, the chances of him capturing a picture of that street would be highly likely given that his hobby was photography.
 
oscroft said:
To be fair, it sounds like the original jury was convinced by the presented forensic evidence that suggested there was a small spec of gunshot residue found on his clothing, and did not convict for the emotive reasons being discussed here. When the forensic claim was declared unreliable and not admissible at the retrial, that jury cleared him.
Click to expand...

I want to know how he could fire a gun and just get one small speck of residue on himself when I come back reeking of gunpowder from even a short trip to a range.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom