[sawsalimb]

How very, very odd that there is no 35mm photographic record of the spot and that the forensic specialists said they were told to only use polaroid.

Why on earth,in this day and age,is the San Diego PD still even bothering with polaroids? Is thare some sort of tamper-proof requirement for photographs used in evidence?(That would be my guess as to a possible explanation,btw). Otherwise,if fast photos are needed,do what everyone else does and get a digital camera. Used in conjunction with 35mm(or large format film),to provide a tamper-resistant archive of negatives,digital pictures of a crime scene would strike me as being a lot more efficient and effective than a Polaroid. I'll add that the reason I really like my digital camera is that it's not nearly as sensitive to lighting conditions as my 35mm-the digital camera will cheerfully take pictures in low light that the 35mm would never take,without using a flash,or other supplemental light. Anyone have a good take on this?

[Kerensky]

How very, very odd that there is no 35mm photographic record of the spot and that the forensic specialists said they were told to only use polaroid.

A man's life will hang on a tiny speck of poorly documented evidence.

[Politicalmom]

I believe the photographer testified that he usually uses a 35mm, but WAS TOLD TO TAKE POLAROIDS of this evidence.

Smells rotten, to me.