Question on a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H7/H 9 camera in an old murder case

All I can say is that the time and date are available in the exif







--
He worships me so much he even took my name. How awesome is that!

Western Bearcat said:

Can you explain this situation?

Click to expand...

If there were image files on a memory card that was inside the camera, and if some of them contained date/time text visually superimposed on the image itself, those particular files must have been created or modified outside of the camera and saved to the memory card. They could have been made with a different camera or with a computer-based image editor.

Western Bearcat said:

In an old murder case that involved a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H7/H 9 camera, police were able to recover deleted photos from the camera that they claimed were taken on the day of the murder. Oddly, police claimed some recovered photos had date AND time on them when they were recovered and some did not.

NOTE: This camera that contained the photos was found in a washing machine and had apparently been run through a wash cycle, according to police.

My understanding , from the manuals on this camera, is that:

"Cannot insert dates on images.
•This camera does not have a feature for superimposing dates on images. By using “Picture Motion Browser,”you can print or save images with the date" (page 35).

Photos, using the “Picture Motion Browser," do show the date BUT NOT THE TIME.

How can a camera that does not insert date and time on photos, suddenly acquire that capability once in the hands of the police? The police later "confirmed" the date and times on the photos with EXIF data although no EXIF data was ever displayed during the trial or any place to this day.

Can you explain this situation?

Thanks for your attention to my question.

Click to expand...

The date and time information is in the EXIF information of all digital cameras. There is also a ton of other info including location if the camera is GPS capable.

The date / time data in the EXIF is only as accurate as the user used to set up the camera. Can be affected by DLST or use in a different time zone, or by intentional incorrect settings.

Jack R. Grouell said:

The date / time data in the EXIF is only as accurate as the user used to set up the camera. Can be affected by DLST or use in a different time zone, or by intentional incorrect settings.

Click to expand...

True but in the case mentioned all they had to do was see if the date in the camera was accurate.

Actually, they would have to verify that the time/date setting in the camera was accurate at the time the pictures were taken - that is when the EXIF data is recorded. Easy enough to "correct" the settings after the pictures were taken.

tbcass said:

Western Bearcat said:

In an old murder case that involved a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H7/H 9 camera, police were able to recover deleted photos from the camera that they claimed were taken on the day of the murder. Oddly, police claimed some recovered photos had date AND time on them when they were recovered and some did not.

NOTE: This camera that contained the photos was found in a washing machine and had apparently been run through a wash cycle, according to police.

My understanding , from the manuals on this camera, is that:

"Cannot insert dates on images.
•This camera does not have a feature for superimposing dates on images. By using “Picture Motion Browser,”you can print or save images with the date" (page 35).

Photos, using the “Picture Motion Browser," do show the date BUT NOT THE TIME.

How can a camera that does not insert date and time on photos, suddenly acquire that capability once in the hands of the police? The police later "confirmed" the date and times on the photos with EXIF data although no EXIF data was ever displayed during the trial or any place to this day.

Can you explain this situation?

Thanks for your attention to my question.

Click to expand...

The date and time information is in the EXIF information of all digital cameras. There is also a ton of other info including location if the camera is GPS capable.

Click to expand...

That doesn't address the OP's question, which is about superimposing the time/date onto images. The cameras in question can't do that. Look at my answer.

I found 2 websites detailing the story, and they just mention "timestamps".

You must have seen the photos? Are you sure the timestamps were not overlayed for 60 minutes viewers?

It would not be the first time 60 minutes has altered information and not revealed doing so.

sludge21017 said:

I found 2 websites detailing the story, and they just mention "timestamps".

Click to expand...

I found some references too, showing some of the photos, and I don't see any kind of info actually superimposed on the images.

sludge21017 said:

You must have seen the photos? Are you sure the timestamps were not overlayed for 60 minutes viewers?

It would not be the first time 60 minutes has altered information and not revealed doing so.

Click to expand...

Seems like a case of incorrect interpretation of the reports.

Thank you for your answer, sybersitizen. That was exactly the answer I was hoping for.

I probably didn't make my comment clear to everyone. The cop that found the camera in the washing machine was the lead investigator in this case. I'm not sure exactly how long he had the camera in his possession before he turned it over to the computer specialist cop (forensic computer specialist?) to see if the deleted photos could be retrieved. When the computer specialist cop retrieved the photos, some were already marked with date and time. Later, the other photos (the ones without date and time) showed up with date and time on them, but the computer specialist cop claimed under oath during the trial that he didn't mark any photos and didn't know who did. As far as I know, no one has ever taken responsibility for marking any of the photos with date and time. Not surprisingly, the dates and times on the photos matched the police time-line.

Thanks a lot.

Here is the comment I'm working on and want to post on some of the news sites that carry stories on the case. It is accurate? If not, where is it incorrect? Warning: This is the Jodi Arias case. I know this case is very controversial and 99.9% of people think she is guilty, a horrible person, hate her and wish she was dead. But, there are people who have studied the evidence for years and we feel it is not as "overwhelming" as reported. NOTE: SHE IS WAITING FOR THE RESULT OF HER APPEAL RIGHT NOW. HER CHANCE OF A NEW TRIAL IS PROBABLY VERY SLIGHT BUT WHO KNOWS. Thanks again. Here's my comment if everyone hasn't slammed their computer shut.

WERE "JUNE 4, 2008" NUDE PHOTOS OF JODI ARIAS AND TRAVIS ALEXANDER TAMPERED WITH BY UNKNOWN PERSON(S) BEFORE THE TRIAL?

One 3-letter word may aid Jodi Arias in her case. Detective Michael Melendez answered "yes" to Juan Martinez's trial question when the answer should have been a definite "no."

(1.1 ) Jodi Arias Trial:

Juan Martinez: "And so, the photographs, at least some of them, come with date & time?"

Detective Michael Melendez: "YES."

(1.2) If any photos had date & time on them, someone SECRETLY marked the photos BEFORE Detective Melendez received Alexander's Sony Cyber-shot camera & the Memory Stick Duo containing photos that were found in Alexander's washing machine on June 10, 2008. The fact is, Alexander's camera DID NOT have a function/capacity to place date & time on photos.

(1.3) Source: Sony Cyber-shot Instruction Manual DSC-H7/H9:https://www.docs.sony.com/release/DSCH7.pdf

CANNOT INSERT DATES ON IMAGES.
•THIS CAMERA DOES NOT HAVE A FEATURE FOR SUPERIMPOSING DATES ON IMAGES.
. By using “Picture Motion Browser,” one can print or save images with the date" (page 35).

Using "Picture Motion Browser," one can print dates on the photo BUT NOT THE TIME.
See sample photo using "Picture Motion Browser"
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2081706

(1.4) Were ALL of the photos altered? Were the photos even taken on June 4, 2008 as police claimed? Or, did the photos come from one of Arias' old memory cards she left at Alexander's house as she suggested during her July 15/16, 2008 interrogation by Detective Esteban Flores. Did they come from Alexander's computer or his cell phone? Why would someone SECRETLY alter photos if the State really had a legitimate case against Arias?

In retrospect, why didn't police just give the camera/ Memory Stick Duo to Detective Melendez in the exact condition they were found, let him recover the deleted photos and allow him to use EXIF data to place date and time on the photos? Instead, when Detective Melendez received the photos, some photos already had date and time on them (again Alexander's camera couldn't put date and time on photos), so someone must have removed the photos, marked date and time on some of them and left the other photos without date and time.

Lastly, is the Memory Stick Duo still in existence so information can be re-examined? Rumors suggest it has been lost. Hopefully not.

Western Bearcat said:

Thank you for your answer, sybersitizen. That was exactly the answer I was hoping for.

I probably didn't make my comment clear to everyone. The cop that found the camera in the washing machine was the lead investigator in this case. I'm not sure exactly how long he had the camera in his possession before he turned it over to the computer specialist cop (forensic computer specialist?) to see if the deleted photos could be retrieved. When the computer specialist cop retrieved the photos, some were already marked with date and time. Later, the other photos (the ones without date and time) showed up with date and time on them, but the computer specialist cop claimed under oath during the trial that he didn't mark any photos and didn't know who did. As far as I know, no one has ever taken responsibility for marking any of the photos with date and time. Not surprisingly, the dates and times on the photos matched the police time-line.

Thanks a lot.

Click to expand...

Well, all I've done is confirm that the camera models you mention cannot superimpose date/time data onto their images ... so if those things appear on any photos they would have to be produced by some other means.

I did some more looking around and found a site with some photos that display superimposed dates and times:

https://trialbypictures.wordpress.com/

The date/time data shown in those photos was apparently added with the help of a computer. A giveaway on one of them is the presence of the text 'Unallocated Clusters', which is a term related to data storage analysis.

Aside from confirming what is logically possible or impossible, I know nothing else about the case, and nothing else about the photos related to the case or used as evidence in it.

sybersitizen said:

tbcass said:

The date and time information is in the EXIF information of all digital cameras. There is also a ton of other info including location if the camera is GPS capable.

Click to expand...

That doesn't address the OP's question, which is about superimposing the time/date onto images. The cameras in question can't do that. Look at my answer.

Click to expand...

It wasn't 100% clear to me whether the date was on the photo or it was retrieved from the EXIF. It wasn't clear whether the OP actually saw the photos or read about it second hand and just assumed the date was superimposed, hence my post.

--
Tom