To The Editor:
I was just reading the March Bar Bulletin, titled “The Rights Issue.” I am thinking that the proper name would have been “The Lefts Issue.”
The lead off story on abortion was so biased and unashamedly one-sided that the potential message was lost. To not even touch upon the state’s rights side of the argument demonstrates the author’s lack of appreciation (perhaps even understanding) for the many legal arguments and consequences the abortion issue raises.
The school rights article was equally as biased and lacking in substance (as evidenced by the following “artistic liberty:” “Moments after the banner was displayed, the principal tore it from the student’s hands.”) That is not how it happened.
As a reader, I enjoy the argument. I want to hear quality, well reasoned and logical argument. The Bar Bulletin should have taken this opportunity to provide such argument to its readers. I am not interested in a bunch of boo-hooing over the court and the current state of popular opinion.
Not surprising, the authors were both members of the respective organizations supporting their points of view. While that is not in itself a problem, when no opposing view is offered, it detracts from the message. A point-counterpoint type of scenario would have been much more productive and informative.
I know KCBA sits in the Ninth Circuit, but come on, you can do better than this.
–Michael J. Laszlo Boulder, Colo.
Editor’s Note: While the Bar Bulletin occasionally publishes a point-counterpoint article, such as suggested by Mr. Laszlo, these typically are limited to current, Washington issues that are the subject of public and legal debate. They also require far more advanced planning than we can typically devote. The last such article was on same-sex marriage. Otherwise, we run the articles submitted by our volunteer writers and offer those such as Mr. Laszlo the opportunity to respond either by letter or by article. This was precisely the genesis of the Commentary article in the March issue: “Convenience at a Steep Price: The Other Side of Plan B.”
To the Editor:
“The Evidentiary Problem with Digital Photographs” as written by Matthew King (January Bar Bulletin), misses a few points regarding the new digital medium in court.
Legal photographic professionals do not have the described issue of compression/decompression with images as we photograph in RAW mode. The image data, if compressed at all (depending on the camera) is done “losslessly” so there is no deterioration of the file due to compression artifacts.
These RAW files need to be decoded and processed by software provided by the camera manufacturer (usually poor or barely acceptable) or through expensive third-party programs. A jpeg file always has some level of potentially destructive compression applied.
We provide both processed and unprocessed images for introduction as evidence. Any question of manipulation can easily be answered by opening an unprocessed image and comparing it with the evidence in question.
The best recommendation is to hire an expert with the experience and lighting techniques that will benefit both you and your client.
—Carl Murray Seattle Photography, Inc.
Go Back