The ‘Nottingham’ Camera
| Published date | 01 October 1946 |
| Author | A. Pentland |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X4601900408 |
| Date | 01 October 1946 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
THE
'NOTTINGHAM'
CAMERA
question, although I was present at assizes in a murder case not long
ago when counsel tried to set this up. Incidentally, the form of the
statement will sometimes clearly indicate any questions which the
officer has put. An example of this once came to my notice, " I haven't
stolen anything else and if anyone says I have he is mistaken," asentence
capable of innocent origin,
but
. . .!
To
summarise:-
I.
The
caution has its roots in the rule that it is not for the prisoner
to prove his innocence, and that the prosecution
must
prove any
statement he makes was given voluntarily.
2.
The
Judges'
Rulesrequire
the Police to take down in writing
any statement aprisoner makes and read it over to him.
3. A very strong Court of Criminal Appeal thought no objection
could be taken to recording
that
aprisoner had been cautioned
and the statement had been read over to him.
4.
The
Police have no authority to depart from the Judges' Rules
which have operated for a considerable time and it is unwise
for individuals to adopt fancy methods of their own which may
well embarrass other officers who faithfully carry
out
the
instructions laid down by eminent authority.
A. E.
ROWSELL.
The
'Nottingham'
Camera
FOR
FINGERPRINT
REPRODUCTION
AND
CERTAIN
OTHER
WORK
By
INSPECTOR
A.
PENTLAND
Nottingham
City
Police
THE usual method employed by the police to reproduce a finger-
print for examination is an exceedingly lengthy and costly process.
The
plate, after exposure, has to be developed, fixed and dried, and
placed in contact with another sensitised undeveloped plate, which in
turn
has to be exposed and subjected to the same procedure as the
first. A print on gaslight or bromide paper is
then
made, and this in
turn
has to be processed.
This
technique requires
the
exposing of
two photographic plates or films and the making of a photographic
print, and takes anything up to two hours to complete, unless, of course,
some quick method is used for drying the materials used. Meanwhile,
the wrongdoer may well be taking the fullest advantage of the delay in
being able to examine his prints.
Until 1931 such a procedure in reproducing fingerprints was
also followed in Nottingham.
Then
the Chief Constable decided
that
something must be done to reduce as far as possible this serious time
283
To continue reading
Request your trial