new imagery interpretation report · 2014. 2. 5. · document forensics (imagery/audio) based in...

RESTRICTED LGC/342/2010/Treholt

0

IMAGERY INTERPRETATION REPORT

EXHIBIT: LGC/342/2010/Treholt

Dated: 3 December 2010

Case: Arne Treholt Author: Clive Richard Burchett Specialist Field: Imagery Interpretation On Behalf Of: Stabell & Co On Instructions Of: Harald Stabell


1

Witness Statement (Criminal Procedure Rules, r. 27.2; Criminal Justice Act 1967, s. 9, Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, s.5B)

Statement of Clive Richard Burchett Age……….Over 18 Occupation…………Imagery Interpreter This statement, (consisting of one page, signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.

Dated 03 December 2010 …………………….......

Clive Richard Burchett I am Clive Richard Burchett, Lead Forensic Imagery Investigator with LGC Digital & Document Forensics (Imagery/Audio) based in Cambridgeshire. As a senior intelligence specialist and Imagery Analyst I have over 32 years experience of advising on imagery analysis issues and producing Imagery Analysis reports from all types of imagery. My experience and qualifications are detailed at Annex 2 of the attached report. On 18 November 2010 the scanned images listed in Annex 1 to this report were received, and downloaded via Fileflow Technologies, from Helge Hovland of Studio Technika. Also on 18 November 2010, Geir Selvik Malthe-Sorenssen, on behalf of Advokatfirmaet Stabell & Co, attended the St Neots office of LGC Forensics with additional copy images and a briefcase; purported to be the same briefcase as carried by Arne Treholt at the time of his arrest at Fornebu on 20 January 1984. The briefcase was photographed and filmed and then returned to Mr Selvik Malthe-Sorenssen. As a result of our imagery interpretation, an independent report has been produced that I now submit as Exhibit LGC/342/2010/Treholt.

Signed …………………….......

Clive Richard Burchett


2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction.

1. On 20 January 1984 a series of photographs were taken of Mr Arne Treholt prior to his arrest at Fornebu. Mr Treholt was carrying a briefcase that is now the subject of debate. This briefcase was alleged to have been photographed in the apartment of Mr Treholt prior to the day of his arrest, however, it has since been alleged that the apartment photographs were, in fact, taken after his arrest.

Instructions.

2. We have been instructed to prepare an imagery interpretation report to determine whether or not any of the stickers and tape residue that are present on the briefcase today was present on the briefcase when photographed at Fornebu on the 20 January 1984.

Summation

3. Notwithstanding the stated limitations it was possible to carry out a meaningful reconstruction and comparison of the provided briefcase and the briefcase carried by Mr Treholt at Fornebu. It is important to note that it is assumed that the briefcase provided to LGC Forensics and the briefcase carried by Mr Treholt at Fornebu is one and the same item.

4. With the aid of a photogrammetric and morphological comparison it was possible to determine that the end of the briefcase on the Fornebu photograph was the end of the provided briefcase with the “apple” sticker.

5. It was also confirmed by morphological comparison that the reflections in front of the combination block on the Fornebu photograph are inconsistent with the presence of the tape residue on the provided briefcase. However, the reflections are consistent with those observed on the end of the provided briefcase without the tape residue.

Conclusion

6. In my opinion the photographic and imagery evidence lends strong support to the contention that the adhesive residue, as it now appears on the provided briefcase, is not present on the briefcase photographed on the 20 January 1984 at Fornebu.

7. However, the initial appearance of the sticker to which the adhesive residue relates is not known. It must, therefore, be accepted that it is possible that, if the original sticker had a mirrored, polished or metalled surface, or other tonal variations, a similar reflection to that evident on the photographed briefcase at Fornebu might result.


3


4

EXPERTS DECLARATION

8. I am an expert in Imagery Interpretation and Imagery Comparison and I have been instructed to provide a statement in this case. I confirm that I have read guidance contained in a booklet known as Disclosure: Experts’ Evidence and Unused Material which details my role and documents my responsibilities, in relation to revelation as an expert witness. I have followed the guidance and recognise the continuing nature of my responsibilities of revelation. In accordance with my duties of revelation, as documented in the guidance booklet:

a. I confirm that I have complied with my duties to record, retain and reveal material

in accordance with the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, as amended;

b. I have compiled an Index of all material. I will ensure that the Index is updated in

the event I am provided with or generate additional material; c. In the event my opinion changes on any material issue, I will inform the

instructing solicitor, as soon as reasonably practicable and give reasons.

9. I confirm that I have read the booklet known as Disclosure: Experts Evidence and Unused Material, and that I am aware of my responsibilities as an expert witness to reveal to the Prosecution Team any information that might undermine my evidence.

10. I understand that my overriding duty is to the Court, both in preparing reports and in giving oral evidence. I have complied, and will continue to comply, with that duty.

11. I have set out in my report what I understand from those instructing me to be the questions in respect of which my opinion as an expert is required. I have done my best, in preparing this report, to be accurate and complete. I have mentioned all matters, which I regard as relevant to the opinions I have expressed. All of the matters on which I have expressed an opinion lie within my field of expertise.

12. I have drawn to the attention of the Court all matters, of which I am aware, that might adversely affect my opinion. Wherever I have no personal knowledge, I have indicated the source of factual information. I have not included anything in this report that has been suggested to me by anyone, including those instructing me, without forming my own independent view of the matter. Where, in my view, there is a range of reasonable opinion, I have indicated the extent of that range in the report.

13. At the time of signing the report I consider it to be complete and accurate. I will notify those instructing me if, for any reason, I subsequently consider that the report requires any correction or qualification. I understand that this report will be the evidence that I will give under oath, subject to any correction or qualification I may make before swearing to its veracity. I have included in this report a summary of my instructions.


5

14. I know of no conflict of interest of any kind, other than any which I have disclosed in my report. I do not consider that any interest that I have disclosed affects my suitability as an expert witness on any issues on which I have given evidence. I will advise the party by whom I am instructed if, between the date of my report and the trial, there is any change in circumstances which affect my answers to either of the above two points.

15. I confirm that, insofar as the facts in my report are within my own knowledge, I have made clear which they are and I believe them to be true and the opinions I have expressed represent my true and complete professional opinion.

16. All the information I have given above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I will notify those instructing me of any change in this information. I am aware that any false or misleading information I have given in this document, or any deliberate omission of relevant information may lead to disciplinary or criminal proceedings.

THE REPORT

17. Introduction. On 20 January 1984 a series of photographs were taken of Mr Arne Treholt prior to his arrest at Fornebu. Mr Treholt was carrying a briefcase that is now the subject of debate. This briefcase was alleged to have been photographed in the apartment of Mr Treholt prior to the day of his arrest, however, it has since been alleged that the apartment photographs were, in fact, taken after his arrest.

18. Instructions. We have been instructed to prepare an imagery interpretation report to determine whether or not any of the stickers or tape residue that are present on the provided briefcase today were present on the briefcase photographed at Fornebu on the 20 January 1984.

19. Report Format. This report is divided into two sections. The first section, together with Annex 1, deals with the current instructions and contains details of the documents examined, equipment used, and the strength of the conclusions. The second section in the form of Annex 2 covers details of my experience and qualifications.

20. Acquisition of Imagery. The scanned images of Mr Trebolt at Fornebu were downloaded onto the computer equipment detailed at Annex 1, from a website hosted by Fileflow Technologies as sent by Helge Hovland of Studio Technika. This facility allows the images to be examined at length and the features of the briefcase studied in detail. The provided briefcase was photographed and videoed by LGC Forensics. The most appropriate images of the provided briefcase were selected, the features thoroughly scrutinised and a comparative assessment made.


6

21. Imagery Limitations. The scanned greyscale [black and white] photographs are of good quality taken under natural lighting conditions [Figure 1]. We have been advised by Stabell & Co that the original photographs were taken with Kodak Tri X 5063, 135 film; possibly with a 200mm lens, at 12:30pm. The scanned images, in my opinion, are consistent in format with having been taken with a camera fitted with a telephoto lens.

22. There will inevitably be some distortion, albeit slight, caused by the movement of the subject and, potentially the camera. In terms of detailed interpretation the distance from subject to camera and lighting conditions renders the imagery fair-to-good as far as a comparison of the briefcase is concerned.

Fornebu [20th January 1984]

Figure 1.


7

23. Comparative Imagery. The comparative material comprises:

a. Good quality reconstruction images of the provided briefcase taken by Helge Hovland of Studio Technika AS under artificial lighting conditions [Figure 2].

Figure 2.

Downloaded from Folder 18.Nov geir s


8

b. Good quality images and digital video of the provided briefcase taken by LGC Forensics under both artificial and natural lighting conditions [Figures 3 and 4].

Figure 3.

LGC Photographs


9

24. Illustrations and Scope. For comparative purposes some of the following images used as illustrations in this report may have been rendered in greyscale and rotated where appropriate. It is important to note that all the available imagery was used in making this comparison and not only the few frames that have been selected as illustrations. These illustrations are necessarily of a slightly lesser quality than the images viewed on high resolution displays from which the interpretation has been conducted.

Figure 4.

LGC Video


10

Task 1: Determine whether or not any of the stickers and tape residue that are present on the briefcase today was present on the briefcase when photographed at Fornebu on the 20 January 1984. Description of the provided briefcase

25. The provided “Samsonite” briefcase is covered in a dark brown/maroon coloured leather type material with a matte silver metal trim. The locking mechanism and clasps on the top surface are predominately highly reflective in nature with a centrally mounted, dark toned handle over a metal combination lock. The clasps at each end of the briefcase each have two machined “squares”: one has a matte appearance and is depressed into the surface [Figure 5, blue squares and arrows] the other is made up of indented “dots” [Figure 5, red squares and arrows].

26. One end of the briefcase has a round, worn, red toned, “apple” sticker positioned between the two squares [Figure 5, yellow arrows]. An area of, by observation, adhesive residue consistent with the remains of a removed sticker, is also present and covers part of the shiny metal surface and matte silver metal trim between the blue square and the handle [Figure 5, yellow dashed area].

Figure 5.


11

Comparison of the Provided Briefcase and the Briefcase Photographed at Fornebu

27. An important aspect of the debate over the briefcases is the small red toned “apple” sticker on the one end [Figure 5, yellow arrows]. Before we can determine whether or not the adhesive residue is evident on the photograph of the briefcase at Fornebu we must first confirm which end of the briefcase is nearest the camera.

28. When looking at the Fornebu photograph a dark tone is clearly evident, however, we need to ascertain whether or not the feature is the apple sticker or a reflection on the polished metal surface.

Method

29. Comparisons. In accordance with current guidelines, three comparative tests are generally held to be valid for imagery comparisons of the features of an object. These tests are Photogrammetry [measurement], Morphological Examination [visual appearance] and Superimposition [of one image upon another.

a. Test 1 – Photogrammetry. This process uses imagery from similar viewpoints

in an attempt to establish potential significant differences in the spatial proportions of features. If possible, measurements are taken in an attempt to quantify any differences/similarities.

b. Test 2 – Morphological Examination and Comparison. In this process, the

imagery is studied and a search for differences is made, as one significant difference would permit the conclusion that the persons being compared were not the same. If no significant differences are found, then similarities are observed and reported, feature by feature, and listed for the attention of the Court.

c. Test 3 – Imagery Superimposition. Finally, a third test using superimposition

techniques is applied in order to verify, or otherwise, the results from the previous two tests.

30. The nature of the imagery precludes the meaningful use of the Superimposition test in this case, however, we have used the photogrammetric and Morphological tests to try and eliminate the provided briefcase as a candidate for the briefcase photographed at Fornebu. It is important to note that elimination is the fundamental aim of the process.


12

Test 1 - Photogrammetry

31. To accomplish this comparison, comparative imagery of the provided briefcase taken from similar viewpoints to the photograph of the briefcase at Fornebu were used in order to make an assessment of spatial proportions. The left image shows the Fornebu briefcase, the second and third images show the provided briefcase from both ends [Figure 6].

32. The relative positions of the indented “dots” square and the furthest edge of the depressed square are shown by the red and blue lines respectively. The solid yellow line shows the position of the base of studs securing the handle. Notwithstanding the slight differences in viewpoint, the dark tone on the Fornebu case [Figure 6, pink arrow] can be seen to be in a similar position to the dark toned “apple” sticker [Figure 6, pink arrow] on the middle image.

33. Comment: There is also a dark tone in this area on the end without an “apple” sticker; this is discussed further under the next test; Morphological Interpretation.

34. At this stage of the process, the imagery evidence, does not allow the elimination of the contention that the Fornebu briefcase has the apple sticker on the end closest to the camera.

Fornebu End with Apple Sticker

End without Apple Sticker

Figure 6.


13

Test 2 - Morphological Interpretation

35. In this test the patterns and tones that are present on the briefcase photographed at Fornebu are compared with the comparative images in order to assess which may be physical features on the briefcase and which may be caused by the prevailing lighting conditions.

36. As stated in the previous test, there is an area of dark tone on the end of the briefcase without the “apple” sticker that is in a similar position to the dark tone on the Fornebu briefcase [Figure 7, yellow arrow]. This area of dark tone, however, covers the vast majority of the upper polished metal surface at this end of the case; with the exception of the edge of the depressed matte square and indented “dots” [Figure 7, blue and red arrows respectively].

37. In my opinion the dark tone on the reconstruction imagery is caused by reflection of the dark toned clothing on the polished metal surface. The brighter returns from the edge of the depressed matte square and far side of each of the indented “dots” being as a result of the reflection of concentrated light to the camera.

LGC Reconstruction – End without sticker

Figure 7.


14

38. On some of the reconstruction images the end of the briefcase with the “apple” sticker and adhesive residue also demonstrates a dark toned reflection, probably from the clothing. There is, however, a clear contrast between this area of tonal change and the apple sticker [Figure 8A, green and yellow arrows respectively].

39. The formation of the dark tones on the end with the “apple” sticker is more consistent with the appearance of the Fornebu case [Figure 8B, green and yellow arrows] than the reflection on the end of the provided briefcase without the sticker.

40. In my opinion the photograph of the briefcase at Fornebu strongly supports the contention that the “apple” sticker was in place on this end of the briefcase.

Reconstruction End with sticker

Figure 8.

Reconstruction End with sticker

Fornebu

A

B

Reconstruction End without sticker


15

41. As a consequence we can now carry out a comparison between the end of the provided briefcase with the “apple” sticker and the Fornebu photograph to determine whether or not the adhesive residue present on the briefcase today was present on the 20 January 1984 at Fornebu.

42. The area between the depressed matte square and combination block is shown below between the blue and yellow lines [Figure 9]. The adhesive residue starts just in front of the combination block [right image, green line] and ends at the indented square. This line has been projected over the left and centre images [green dotted line].

43. It is noted that on the right image [With Residue] the reflections from the end of the combination block with the “apple” sticker, comprising the two light toned mounts split by the dark toned space between, and possibly the base of the handle, do not extend past the green line. Accepting that there is a slight difference in angle of view, there are reflections from the same features, and of broadly consistent form and size, on the left and centre images [Fornebu and Without Residue], that clearly extend past the green dotted line [Red arrows].

44. In my opinion the differences in reflection, whilst slightly effected by angle of view, can be robustly attributed to the presence of a matte surface, consistent in position, shape and size to the area of adhesive residue present on the provided briefcase, not being present on the briefcase photographed at Fornebu.

Without Residue Fornebu With Residue

Figure 9.


16

LEVELS OF SUPPORT

45. No scale exists to precisely quantify the likelihood of two images being of the same object or feature. However, there is an accepted scale used by practitioners in this field to express a subjective opinion of significance that is informed by experience. The scale utilises the following phrases:

Lends no support. Lends limited support. Lends moderate support Lends support. Lends strong support. Lends powerful support.


17

Summation

46. Notwithstanding the stated limitations it was possible to carry out a meaningful reconstruction and comparison of the provided briefcase and the briefcase carried by Mr Treholt at Fornebu. It is important to note that it is assumed that the briefcase provided to LGC Forensics and the briefcase carried by Mr Treholt at Fornebu is one and the same item.

47. With the aid of a photogrammetric and morphological comparison it was possible to determine that the end of the briefcase on the Fornebu photograph was the end of the provided briefcase with the “apple” sticker.

48. It was also confirmed by morphological comparison that the reflections in front of the combination block on the Fornebu photograph are inconsistent with the presence of the tape residue on the provided briefcase. However, the reflections are consistent with those observed on the end of the provided briefcase without the tape residue.

Conclusion

49. In my opinion the photographic and imagery evidence lends strong support to the contention that the adhesive residue, as it now appears on the provided briefcase, is not present on the briefcase photographed on the 20 January 1984 at Fornebu.

50. However, the initial appearance of the sticker to which the adhesive residue relates is not known. It must, therefore, be accepted that it is possible that, if the original sticker had a mirrored, polished or metalled surface, or other tonal variations, a similar reflection to that evident on the photographed briefcase at Fornebu might result.

Clive Richard Burchett 03 December 2010 Lead Forensic Imagery Investigator Assisted by: Jacqueline Michelle Butterwick 03 December 2010 Senior Forensic Imagery Investigator


18

ANNEX 1 List of Documents LGC Forensics has Examined Date Ref No Description 18 November 2010 18.Nov geir s Downloaded Folder from File Flow

Technology website LGC/342/10/Photographs LGC Colour photographs of the

recovered briefcase LGC/342/10 LGC Video imagery of Briefcase No reference English Translation of Expert Opinion

from Helge Hovland, Studio Technika. List of Equipment Used Equipment 1 LGC Forensics Digital Imagery Workstation. 2 Olympus Digital E410 Camera 3 Canon Legria HF20 HD Video Camera


19

ANNEX 2 DETAILS OF QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE Clive Richard Burchett MCGI Following a science based education as a Chemical Laboratory Technician I was commissioned as an officer in the Royal Air Force (RAF) in 1976; I attended the Joint School of Photographic Interpretation (JSPI) from where I qualified as an Imagery Analyst (IA) in 1977. I was trained in all aspects of optical, infrared and radar imagery analysis. Initially employed as a Strategic IA at the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre (JARIC), I subsequently served with Tactical Air Reconnaissance squadrons in Germany and Belize, Central America, before returning to JARIC as a squadron executive officer. In 1985 I was appointed an Instructor at JSPI where I trained both UK Military and civilian, and overseas students. After further specialist training in the USA, I designed, developed and taught advanced imagery exploitation techniques to practicing IAs. Promoted to Squadron Leader in 1989 I joined the Intelligence staff of the NATO Maritime Headquarters, Northwood before tours within the Ministry of Defence (MoD) with responsibility for: targeting, the provision of advice on air reconnaissance issues and the development of future air reconnaissance sensors, exploitation techniques and equipment. I also deployed in support of operations in Iraq. In 1996, I took command of No 13 Squadron RIC operating the Tornado aircraft in the low level, air reconnaissance role and introduced new, state-of-the-art, exploitation equipment into service. In 1998 I was selected to undertake a training needs analysis that resulted in the introduction of a new training regime for members of the RAF’s intelligence specialization. I also deployed to Kuwait as an Air Advisor to the Media organizations covering operations in the country. Promoted to Wing Commander in 1999, I moved to the British Embassy in Washington D.C. as the UK’s specialist Air Intelligence advisor tasked to sustain and enhance the UK's Strategic Intelligence relationship with American and Canadian Intelligence Agencies. In 2002 I transferred to the NATO Air Headquarters in Germany as Chief Joint Targets where I was responsible for the development of doctrine and techniques. I deployed to Afghanistan to implement the revised procedures in support of NATO’s UN mandated operations. In 2005, I became the UK’s Seconded National Expert to the European Union Military Staff, Brussels responsible for the provision of Strategic and Operational intelligence and imagery exploitation advice. On retirement in 2008 I joined Kalagate Ltd. as Operations Director with responsibility for the coordination of the forensic imagery analysis effort and production of Expert Witness reports. I joined LGC Digital & Document Forensics (Imagery/Audio) in 2009. I am a member of the Forensic Imagery Analysis Group, a sub-group of the British Association for Human Identification (BAHiD); have a BTEC Advanced Award in the Principles of CCTV; and am a graduate of the Cardiff University Bond Solon Expert Witness program. I have presented at a range of conferences and attended the Royal Court of Justice, Crown Courts and Magistrate Courts in support of Prosecution and Civil cases.


20

Jacqueline Michelle Butterwick BSc (Hons) In July 2003 I graduated from The University of Central Lancashire with a Second Class Honours (1st Division) Bachelor of Science in Forensic Science. Areas of study included Forensic Anthropology, Forensic Taphonomy, Human Remains Recovery, Forensic Medicine, and Crime Scene Investigation amongst others. I am a Forensic Imagery Interpreter and Senior Investigator at LGC Forensics, based in Cambridgeshire. I have produced independent Imagery Interpretation reports in over 50 cases per year for each of the last 7 years since my employment in November 2003. This has included comparative interpretation on faces, clothing, weapons, vehicles, as well as mensuration, together with chronological reports, amongst others and is usually supported by specialist techniques such as photogrammetry, and stereoscopy. I have given evidence on such matters at Crown Courts. In March 2004 I attended the Sira Introduction to Image Processing Course and in May 2004, I successfully completed the Police Air Reconnaissance Imagery Analysis Course at the Joint School of Photographic Interpretation, Chicksands. In March 2006 I successfully completed the Cardiff University Bond Solon Expert Witness Certificate. I have also completed Expert Witness Training at LGC Forensics. In July 2007 I was awarded a Level 3 BTEC Advanced Award in Principles of CCTV, an approved programme at Tavcom Training Limited. I am a member of the Forensic Imagery Analysis Group [FIAG], a sub group of the British Association for Human Identification [BAHID]. I have lectured to Forensic Science Students at Anglia Polytechnic University, The University of Central Lancashire and Manchester University.