[theymakemesick]

"My friend"? Apparently you don't understand my position on the case. Good to know that you don't mind using photoshop in crime prevention though. Yes, there is something in the colorized photo that isn't in the b&w photo, the embedded "H".

[muawiyah]

It's in the very first photo. Since we don't need to know about it once the perp is ID'd, it's existence is irrelevant.

However, simply changing the contrast gives you some of the element. Courts have been accepting such things for many years. Remember, this is a digital picture to start with, not an analog B&W piece of film. That means that the "print" you are looking at in the first picture is not the "real" picture anyway ~ it's just one of an infinite variety of pictures possible with analysis of the pictels. BTW, even in that infinitude the perp is still identifiable, not some other guy!

[JustaDumbBlonde]

The "H" is clearly visible in the B&W photos ... I recognized it as an Astros cap the very first time they flashed the pic on TV, not because of the star but because of the "H" on the star.

muawiyah is absolutely correct ... there is no need to introduce a colorized version at a trial of the perp. You can't throw out evidence that is never introduced in the first place.