On March 10, 2024, Kate Middleton posted a photograph of herself and her three children to celebrate Mother’s Day in the United Kingdom. This was the first photograph released of Kate following a reported abdominal surgery which gave rise to a number of conspiracy theories about her whereabouts and wellbeing. After the photo was posted, online sleuths quickly deduced that the image had been altered, prompting an apology from Kate for her “experiment with editing”.
While this editing may have been easily spotted, other altered images are not as easily identified. As AI technology grows in popularity, so does the concern about people’s ability to discern which images are real and which are edited. The legal system places great importance on ensuring the integrity of evidence presented in court. Much like the online sleuths with Kate Middleton’s photograph, the courts take steps to verify the authenticity of photographs. Without knowing it, the public has applied many of those steps in their investigation of Kate Middleton’s photo:
- Chain of custody: Before the admissibility of a photograph is considered, the chain of custody is established. This means documenting the path the photograph takes from the moment it is captured to its appearance in court. This is the essential piece of information that we don’t know in Kate Middleton’s case. We don’t know who took the photograph, when it was taken, or who else handled the photo other than Kate before it was posted online.
- Metadata examination: Metadata is information embedded in digital photographs that details the camera settings, date, and time of capture. When such an investigation is taken in the legal system, forensic experts are often relied on to examine the metadata. With the photo of Kate Middleton, some but not all of the metadata was available. The available data established that the photograph was shot on a Canon 5D Mark IV and edited twice on a 2022 version of Photoshop, although what edits were made could not be determined. Similarly, the location of the photograph was established (Adelaide Cottage, Kate and William’s family’s home in Windsor) but not the date it was taken. If this photo was submitted to the court, this data would raise a red flag that would prompt further investigation.
- Expert testimony: In court, digital forensic experts are called upon to analyze the photo for signs of manipulation. The general public has scrutinized Kate Middleton’s photo, but the information they have is limited. Forensic experts would use specialized software on the photograph to detect alternations.
- Comparison with originals: With Kate Middleton’s photo, the public has called on Kensington Palace to release the unedited version of the photo. The Palace has refused. This has been contrasted by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s photographer, who produced the original version of their pregnancy announcement photo when it came under scrutiny. The original photo confirmed that the only change that had been made was adding a black-and-white grade to the original coloured photo. Kensington Palace’s refusal to release the unedited version of Kate Middleton’s Mother’s Day photo has fuelled the scandal. This would not be tolerated in a Canadian court of law if a photograph is to be admitted.
- Testimony from the photographer: Neither Kate Middleton nor Kensington Palace has advised who took the Mother’s Day photo of Kate and her children. Likely, if the photographer comes forward as they did with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s scrutinized photo, much of the controversy could be put to rest. In court, the testimony of the photographer can add credibility to the photograph’s authenticity by confirming the details surrounding the capture.
The importance of authentic photographic evidence
Canadian courts are committed to maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. Ensuring that photographs admitted into evidence have not been tampered with is critical. On the information the public currently has, Kate Middleton’s Mother’s Day photograph would not be admissible in a Canadian court. All evidence indicates that the photograph has been altered, without confirmation as to how it has been edited or the production of the original image. It would fail the verification process.
Lauren Cullen practices with the Siskinds Personal Injury Law department. If you have questions about the information contained within this article or any other personal injury questions, please write to [email protected] or call 519-660-7826.
