SELECTING AN EXPERT IN FACIAL FEATURES ANALYSIS
Not Every So-Called Expert is an Expert and Not All Experts Agree
by Joelle Steele
What kind of expert do you hire when you want to have a face in a photo analyzed and compared to a face in another photo to see if it's the same person? It can be tempting to try and do it yourself, but most people simply lack the knowledge of cranial and facial anatomy that enables an expert to make such an analysis. But, anatomy is not the only thing that enables an expert to compare and identify faces in photographs. Experience plays a huge role in learning the difference between a common facial trait and one that is unique or idiosyncratic. You've got to look at a few thousand photos to develop your eye. In short, it's a lot harder than you might think, and even experts don't always agree on their findings in any given analysis and comparison.
So who are these experts? What is their background? The experts are people who regularly do facial features analysis. They are experts in cranial and facial anatomy, the two most important areas of study that you absolutely must have in order to analyze and compare faces for the purpose of identifying people in photographs. They may be law enforcement forensics experts with specialty areas of knowledge of the face and head. Sometimes they are experts in a particular person, a historic figure, for example, and may know every inch of that person's head and face. Sometimes they are people like me, who studied cranial and facial anatomy for the sole purpose of learning how to authenticate identities of people in photos. They also need to have a highly trained eye for all the various facial details.
My interest in facial features came about at the same time that I became interested in genealogy. I had two friends who were trying to write family histories, and both had old photo albums for which only a handful of photos had been identified. As an artist, I always had a good eye for detail, and so I could see the differences in the faces pretty easily, but I didn't understand the construction of a face and what made any two faces so distinctly different or exactly the same. One of the friends who was doing her family history was married to a police officer, and he introduced me to another police officer, Al Iannarelli, who specialized in ear biometrics. I was immediately hooked. Al referred me to an anatomy professor who listened to what I wanted to learn and allowed me to take two of his anatomy classes without the necessary prerequisites. The professor then tutored me further and helped me to hone my skills. The rest? History! A lot of time spent looking at old photos. I have analyzed literally thousands of faces.
But what about other experts who are hired to analyze and compare faces in photos? Many people hire physical and forensic anthropologists. Bad choices, in my opinion. Physical anthropology or bioanthropology, is about human biology and how humans came into being, how we adapted and changed over time, particularly in relation to our non-human relatives, the primates. Forensic anthropologists deal mainly with bones, usually of people long dead and already turned to bone, and they are known most popularly these days for their facial reconstruction skills. I have yet to come up against the findings of a physical or forensic anthropologist who was sufficiently educated and experienced in facial features analysis and comparison to authenticate identities of people in photographs. It is usually quite far out of their areas of expertise.
The following is a true example of how four different experts from different backgrounds (that includes me) analyzed the head/face shape, eyes, and ears of two male suspects in a criminal lawsuit. Both photos were very clear and the position of the heads in both were identical. I can't use the photos or the names of the experts in this article (except that I'm one of them!). I don't have room (or time) to copy everything from the reports, but the main thing I am trying to show is how differently experts see things, or don't see them at all. And even more importantly, I want you to see how very unobservant some experts can be, and how little attention they pay to important details in their findings, especially ears and bone structure.
I'm including the findings for only three of the most significant parts of this facial features analysis, and they are representative of the rest of the reports. I have labeled the photos A and B for the purposes of this article.
FACE/HEAD
Expert #1: Law Enforcement Forensics Officer: Did not include in the analysis.
Expert #2: Forensic Anthropologist: Did not include in the analysis.
Expert #3: Physical Anthropologist: The faces are shaped similarly. The forehead of the face in Photo A is broader. The cheeks in Photo B have a sunken appearance beneath the zygomatic bone.
Expert #4: Facial Features Analyst (me): The face in Photo A is oval with a square mandible and pronounced ramus that is 16% of the height of the face. The face in Photo B is oval and the ramus is so rounded that it is barely visible and impossible to measure. The frontal bone at the hairline edge is 7% wider in the face in Photo B. The sphenoid bone is prominent in Photo A, making the face 14% wider at its widest point. The chin is 4% narrower and is slightly squared in Photo A. The chin is rounded in Photo B.
EYES
Expert #1: Law Enforcement Forensics Officer: Both subjects have light colored eyes. The lids are more exposed and visible in Photo A.
Expert #2: Forensic Anthropologist: The eyes in Photo A are larger and more open than the eyes in Photo B. The eyes seem to be farther apart in Photo B. The eyebrows in Photo B are bushier than those in Photo A.
Expert #3: Physical Anthropologist: The eyes are more prominent and the lids more visible in Photo A.
Expert #4: Facial Features Analyst (me): The eyes are 36% farther apart in Photo B. The lids are approximately 40% more visible in Photo A because the eye cover fold is recessed into the orbit. The eyes in Photo A are 35% larger in proportion to the head than are the eyes in Photo B. The eyes in both photos are light, but the eyes in Photo B have four dark flecks that are highly visible in the man's right eye, and no such flecks appear in the eyes of the man in Photo A. Under close magnification, these flecks are clearly not attributable to damage to the photo. The angles of the medial canthi in Photo B have a 4 degree difference between them. The angles of the medial canthi in Photo A do not have any difference between them.
EARS
Expert #1: Law Enforcement Forensics Officer: The lobes in both photos are detached. The lobes in Photo A are wider and flatter than the lobes in Photo B. The lower third of the helix in Photo B is squared as opposed to the rounder and narrower helix in Photo A. The ears in Photo A lay flatter against the head.
Expert #2: Forensic Anthropologist: Did not include in the analysis.
Expert #3: Physical Anthropologist: The ears in Photo B stick out more than the ears in Photo A.
Expert #4: Facial Features Analyst (me): The ears in Photo B project further from the head than do those of Photo A which are more closely laid against the skull. The helix of Photo B is squared in the lower half of the ear, and it is approximately 30% wider than in the man in Photo A. The ears in Photo B are more rounded in their overall shape and are 12% longer than the ears in Photo A. The tops of the outer edge of the helix of the ears in Photo B align exactly with the pupils of the eyes, and in Photo A they align just slightly below the lower eyelids. The bottoms of the ear lobes in both photos align exactly with the lip fissure.
What was the final decision about these two faces? Experts #1 and #4 said it was not the same person. Experts #2 and #3 said it was the same person. However, the the number of things analyzed and the amount of evidence presented by Experts #1 and #4 was far more extensive than the rather flimsy amount of analysis done by Experts #2 and #3. And, as you can probably see, I analyzed quite a bit more than anyone else did. The anthropologists analyzed the least.
This variance in how much was analyzed is not because these other experts couldn't have analyzed more things, possibly even better than I did. They simply are not trained to analyze and compare faces in photos. My checklist for traits to analyze has 89 items on it. I could practically write a book about the analysis and comparison of any two faces, especially a comparison like the one mentioned above, in which the photos were absolutely pristine and every detail was right there, clear as a bell. But what is more important, in my opinion, is that had I had the option, I would not have continued analyzing further after seeing that the shape of the head was so different between the two faces. Bones don't lie. When bones don't match up, it is not and cannot be the same person. End of story.