Click to download high-res PDF.

I’ve come up with a new illustration and redesigned chart to reflect the updated 2012 soft tissue depth data from Dr. Stephan. My goal was to have this information in a format that (I hope) will be easier for forensic artists to use. Please note that the original Stephan/Simpson publication does not number the landmarks: I added them in to make it easier when cutting and gluing tissue depths markers only.

And, I also decided to update the comparison chart including a portion of the Rhine table from 1980. Although I strongly encourage artists to use the Stephan markers, I know old habits die hard, and I thought showing a comparison of the two table might help people decide to make the leap. Remember, it’s our duty as forensic artists to stay up with current with newest research.

Click to download high-res PDF.

These charts are derived from Stephan C. “Tallied Facial Soft Tissue Depth Data (T-Tables)” 2012, available  from www.CRANIOFACIALidentification.com, and Stephan, CN and Simpson, EK (2008) Facial Soft Tissue Depths in Craniofacial Identification (Part I): An Analytical Review of the Published Adult Data. Journal of Forensic Sciences 53(6): 1257-1272.

Please see the full list of all papers used in the T-Table here.

The Stephan/Simpson T-table uses weighted means and standard deviations to pool data across prior studies (see 1-52,55-66, plus Fisher and Moorman cited in 35 and Köstler cited in 24) thereby providing soft tissue depths at twenty-five commonly measured points.

In contrast to single studies, the T-table holds three prime advantages: i) systematic and random biases specific to each investigation/measurement method are pitched against one another to triangulate upon population parameters; ii) the data are based on very large sample sizes; and iii) small differences, relative to measurement errors, are not used to tenuously sub-categorize the data (54).

I know I’m not the only one that’s noticed this: doesn’t it seem that the jawlines in 2D facial approximations come out too wide? I mean, there are times when you’re sketching that you sense something isn’t quite right, the jaw looks too square and wide, but you think, “the tissue depths are there for a reason” so you soldier on drawing what you think you should.

And then, if you get a hit and see the ID photo…there it is. Even though you got a good likeness, it would have been better if you had followed your gut and narrowed the jaw. I’ve seen this time and again, and talked to enough forensic artists to know that it was a common problem we were all facing. “Maybe the tissue depths are wrong….maybe I didn’t have the skull angled right…maybe it was just a freak thing…but how will I draw it more accurately the next time?”

Being an inquisitive sort of person, I tried to figure out why this was happening.
…and I do believe I’ve hit on it.

Here’s how we’ve been sketching the jaw, essentially connecting the gonion marker with the menton marker:

But that’s the problem. In going from 3D to 2D, we’ve been trying to connect the wrong dots. I hate to throw geometry at you, but remember your “x–y–z”  from high school? Well, I’ve adapted it for the forensic artist:

Points in 3D space can not be connected on a 2D image unless they exist on the same plane.
And clearly, gonion and menton aren’t. The forward part of the chin, pogonion (x) is coming towards you, menton (z) is pointing down, and gonion (y) is going away from you at a right angle. There is no way you can connect the gonion marker and the menton marker –with a fairly equal amount of space between the skull as we’ve been doing– on a 2D drawing, because they aren’t on the same plane.

So, here’s what happens when you keep that “x-y-z” axis in mind, and draw “forward,” towards pogonion and menton.  I added in the mid-mandibular border tissue depth (10.5 mm) from the Stephan/Simpson tables to help you visualize the foreshortening:

And here’s an overlay as a comparison to show you the difference:

I’ve gone back through my 2D approximations, compared and redrawn, flipped through some textbooks, and saw more and more evidence.  As an added bit of proof to myself, I wasn’t having the problem of wide jawlines in my 3D approximations (I use a combination method, not the American method), because the 3D to 2D conversion wasn’t throwing me off.

If nothing else, please keep this in mind the next time you’re doing a 2D approximation, and for good measure, add in that mid mandibular border tissue depth measurement!

IDFA Sketch by Natalie Murry

For anyone that’s been a forensic artist for any length of time, they should know that remote composite interviews are nothing new under the sun. I’ve done a few via video-teleconferencing, and a colleague of mine has done upwards of 20. We know it can work.

Forensic artist Gil Zamora has been doing them (with proven success) for years with the “Compositure Method.” Heck, the FBI was doing them via fax 40 years ago!

Now, the artists behind Leads Online, Natalie Murry and Greg Bean, have taken this one step further with Innovative Digital Forensic Art:

“IDFA utilizes video conferencing software that is compatible with just about any computer that is connected to the internet. It is also compatible with iPhones, iPads, and anything running the Droid operating system.”

Check this out:

I think this is an incredible move, smart as hell, and a real shot in the arm for forensic art. I’m sick of headlines moaning “Forensic Artists: a Dying Breed?” or “Forensic Artists Outpaced by Technology?”

Bah! Not by a long shot.

If you can’t tell by now, I think this is a terrific thing. It’s a shame that there is some grumbling in the ranks; a few artists sniffing that pencil and paper is king, digital forensic art isn’t really art, the artist MUST be in the same room as the witness…

Well, I think we can all agree that being there, with the witness, is ideal. But sometimes that just isn’t possible…and the alternative would be to not do a sketch? Silly.

There’s no reason to think that other forensic artists are going to be “driven out of business” by this, either. If they are, they only have themselves to blame. There’s nothing stopping any of us from setting up our own system, and you wouldn’t have to go through a company either. If you have the internet, you can do a remote interview via Skype. Talk to your agency about the possibilities. Get excited about what the future holds!

If you missed out on Betty Pat’s (last!) facial reconstruction class, don’t despair. You can still get some awesome training from Joe Mullins, who is teaching his forensic sculpting classes again in New York City, and Alexandria.

If you didn’t know this already, Joe has worked at the National Center for Missing and Exploited children for over a decade, doing both age progressions of missing children and facial reconstruction from the skull. This is quality training to be sure. Here are the flyers below; click on each for a high-res PDF you can print out!

James M. Lampinen, University of Arkansas

FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. – The National Science Foundation has awarded $300,587 to University of Arkansas psychology professor James M. Lampinen and colleague Charles D. Frowd to learn more about age progression as a tool in the search for missing children.

In about one-third of the long-term cases of missing children, investigators use photos that have been altered to suggest how a child may have aged, although making an accurate prediction about the appearance of an individual child is difficult. Despite its widespread use, little scientific research exists on the effect of age progression on recognition memory for missing children, according to the researchers. Read more…

Credit: Hyunsoo Leo Kim | The Virginian-Pilot

NORFOLK: “They say dead men don’t talk, but when they share a room with Dr. Leah Bush, they do yield a few details.

Bush, the state’s chief medical examiner, announced Thursday that one of more than 200 unidentified bodies the state has in its possession has been identified. A combination of sophisticated DNA testing and an artist’s rendering led to the discovery.

In April, Bush presented three busts that are called “facial approximations” to the public to see whether anyone could identify them. That presentation sparked an extended family member of Andre Macklin to call the medical examiner’s office. Macklin, a Portsmouth high school student, was 19 when his father reported him missing in June 1996…” Read more

An amazing story that you must read:

Houston AP   After 37 years, the 22-year-old mother has been identified by Harris County forensics experts as Gloria Faye Stringer, opening an investigation into her possible murder and inflaming the long-held suspicions of Austin County Justice of the Peace Dennis R. King, a man committed to the case for decades.

“The only thing worse than dying in a strange place is being lost at the same time and never finding your way home,” King said. “That was always the fear for me — that she had not been able to find her way home.”

It was King who helped recover Stringer’s body in 1975 and who had her bones exhumed in June 2009 hoping a forensic artist’s reconstruction of her face or DNA evidence might result in identification.

I know you want to be a forensic artist and start taking classes right this minute, but you need to do some homework first. Forensic art is a very small, very niche field, so it can be extremely competitive as well. The people who will have a massive advantage over you, no matter how well you draw, are already in law enforcement. If you aren’t, you need to be willing to join. Why? That’s where the work is. So before you plunk down your money, read the previous link and Ten Steps to Become a Forensic Artist.

If you’re still game, here are some classes to consider to get you on your way to a forensic art career. It’s always a good idea to email the instructor and get clear answers to any questions you might have. If they don’t respond, consider that a red flag.

 ***

FBI Forensic Facial Imaging
FBI Academy, Quantico, VA
Instructors: FBI Forensic Artists
AAFA: Unfortunately, all FBI Laboratory Specialized Training has been suspended until further notice. The above link will take you to forensic art services the FBI offers, and will be updated if training becomes available.

Introduction to Composite Art, Getting Started
May 7 – 11, 2012
September 24- 29, 2012
Westmont, NJ
Instructor: Charles T. Jackson
NOTE: This coursework is only open to Law Enforcement employees, regardless of capacity (Police Officer, Court Clerk, Dispatcher, Parking Enforcement, etc)
AAFA: I’ve known Det. Jackson since the first IAI conference I attended nine years ago. He’s not only an accomplished composite artist, but also one of the most enthusiastic, hard-working, and generous instructors you’re going to find. If you’re interested in pursuing a career as a composite artist, this is the class the start with.

Advanced Composite Imaging
June 4 – 8, 2012
October 22 – 26th, 2012
Westmont, NJ
Instructor: Charles T. Jackson
NOTE: This coursework is only open to Law Enforcement employees, regardless of capacity (Police Officer, Court Clerk, Dispatcher, Parking Enforcement, etc)
AAFA: Once you’ve gotten the introduction class under your belt, continue on with Det. Jackson’s advanced class. Be prepared to draw… a lot.

Mystery Solved: Facial Reconstruction
Click here for downloadable flyer
Alexandria, VA
Nine-week workshop in 3D clay facial reconstruction
Spring 2012
Instructor: Joe Mullins
AAFA: I’ve known Joe for years too, but that’s not why I recommend his classes. It’s because he’s one of the tops in the field of facial reconstruction, and will teach you everything he knows.

Forensic Imaging Techniques
Check site for upcoming dates.
University of South Florida
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
Instructors: NCMEC Forensic Artists
AAFA: I was privileged to take this class a few years ago, and can’t recommend it more highly. Learn from the best artists in digital facial age progression techniques.

Forensic Sculpture
Click here for downloadable flyer
New York Academy of Art
Summer 2012
Instructor: Joe Mullins
AAFA: If you can’t get to Virginia, go to New York City instead.  A great class, to be sure.

Composite Drawing
Check site for upcoming dates.
Evanston, Illinois
Instructor: Lois Gibson
AAFA: I’m proud to know Lois Gibson, and admire her greatly; not just for her talent, but for her tenacity in working to promote the field of forensic art. She’s a pioneer in the field and takes artists under her wing to encourage them and help them improve their skills.

Compositure Methodology Course
Online Training
Instructor: Gil Zamora
AAFA: I took Gil’s workshop at an IAI conference, and came away with my head spinning. He is immensely talented, very generous with his knowledge, and humble to boot. To watch how effortlessly he draws will amaze you.

Facial Reconstruction Sculpture
Instructor: Betty Pat Gatliff
Basic: October 1-5, 2012
Advanced: October 8-12, 2012
AAFA: Hurry and and learn from the woman that pioneered facial reconstruction. This might be your last chance; Betty Pat swears she’s retiring this time! 

2012 International Association for Identification Annual Educational Conference
July 22-28, 2012
Phoenix, AZ
AAFA: I’ve always enjoyed the IAI conferences, and this will be my 9th year in a row attending. If you want to meet forensic artists from all over the country, and get some training in the process, plan on attending.

Advanced 2-D Identification Techniques
April 30-May 4, 2012
Scottsdale, Arizona
Instructor: Karen T. Taylor
For more information contact: ktt@karenttaylor.com

Forensic Facial Reconstruction Sculpture
May 7-May 11, 2012
Scottsdale, Arizona
Instructor: Karen T. Taylor
For more information contact: ktt@karenttaylor.com

Police Composite Sketching
Online Training
Instructor: Steven Mancusi
For more information contact: smancusi@forartist.com

Stuart Parks Forensic Associates
Various Classes
Various Locations
Instructors: Rick and Carrie Parks
Note: The certification earned through these classes are not an IAI certification.
For more information contact: carrie@stuartparks.com or rick@stuartparks.com

Not every case warrants calling in a police sketch artist. It’s not because the victim of that particular crime isn’t important, and there’s no grand conspiracy plan in place either.

It’s just that there’s an awful lot of crime out there, and budgets and manpower are limited. Time is always a factor since most forensic artists do this work as a collateral duty within their agency. Is it worth it to the agency to send out a forensic artist, whose primary duty may be a homicide detective, out to do composite for a minor theft? Maybe, if there have been a rash of them, and they think it might be a serial offender and there’s been a big public outcry to get something done. But, if the only forensic artist is the detective with a full caseload, then probably not. If it were a child abduction case, then there’s no question; that detective will be out there doing a drawing if they have a good witness.Even if every agency in the United States had a forensic artist on staff, it would be tough to keep up with it all.

The other reason for considering whether to do a composite is information overload; there are only so many composite drawings you can release every week and expect the public to pay attention each time. Every artist wants to get out there and do as many drawings as they can, but agencies have to pick their battles when it comes to doing a composite.

The opposite end of the spectrum isn’t always the best approach either. “If there’s a case, there’s a face” has become the motto in some large agencies. Somewhere along the line, public opinion dictated that the agency needed to prove it was doing all it could to combat crime by having a composite done any time there was a witness who saw anything that looked remotely human. I’m being a bit facetious here, but attempting to do a composite when there isn’t anything of value to draw isn’t the wisest use of anyone’s time.

Many artists don’t have the say in whether or not a composite is done, either. The witness can tell the artist that they didn’t see a thing: it was midnight, the robber was wearing a ski mask, dark glasses, and standing behind a tree. But if it’s a hot case and their agency wants it, guess what, there’s going to be drawing.

As a colleague of mine once wisely offered, “the last two words you’ll hear me say in situations like this is “yes, sir.”

What makes a composite drawing worth using?

There are three things you need in order to produce a good quality composite:

• A witness that remembers what they saw and is able to relay it to the artist;
• An artist with solid drawing skills who is trained in the cognitive interview process; and
• Law enforcement personnel that will vigorously pursue the case.

If any one of those three things is missing or falls short of the mark, then that drastically and negatively affects the overall value of the composite.

If the witness doesn’t remember something, well, they just don’t remember. They may be able to recollect portions of the face, but vital areas could be complete blanks in their mind. Memory is a tricky thing; you can’t fault them for being human. Besides, every forensic artist I know, myself included, has a secret fear that they will someday be a witness of crime, and then we’ll be the ones on the hot-seat trying to give a description!

Many times, a forensic artist will come across the problem of an edentulous skull: how can we do a facial approximation when there are no teeth? How do you know how the mandible will articulate to the skull? Do it incorrectly, and you could significantly alter the shape of the unidentified person’s face.

A guideline offered in several forensic art textbooks is to take a pencil or dowel, pass it through the mandibular notch, under the pterygoid process (or “plate”) of the sphenoid, and out through the opposite notch. This method is known to forensic artists as the “pencil trick” and, theoretically, would give an estimate for the proper placement of the mandible, like this:

It would be great if this worked all the time…unfortunately, it just doesn’t.

I know this because I decided to test it out, all in the name of science, and pure curiosity. With access to hundreds of skulls that had their teeth, I quickly discovered that using a pencil as a guideline gives no better estimate for articulating the mandible than pure guesswork alone. Of course, we shouldn’t be guessing at this sort of thing, and using a pencil, as you’ll see, is really no help at all.

Here’s the problem: this method is dependent on two things: the shape of the wings of the pterygoid:

…and the shape of the mandibular notch. A shallow notch allows less room for the pencil to fit:

…and a deep mandibular notch like this gives more room for the pencil to fit:

Mix that up with the pterygoid, and there’s no telling what you’ll come up with. Here’s what happens (below) when the notch is shallow, and the pterygoid is simply not cooperating. There’s no way that pencil is fitting in there, without the mouth gaping open wildly. I purposely used a skull that still had it’s teeth, so you could see for yourself that the articulation is wrong:

UPDATE: Betty Pat Gatliff called me a few days and questioned whether I had a spacer over the condyle. Yes, I did, according to the directions given in Karen T. Taylor’s “Forensic Art and Illustration.” You can see the hot glue there next to the pencil holding it together:

Here’s another skull, same problem:

And the opposite can happen when the notch is very deep, and/or the pterygoid process isn’t very pronounced, or any number of varaible in between…there’s so much room, the mandible can almost fit over the top teeth. Think about it: if you were handed this skull and there were no top teeth, you’d mistakenly think that the pencil “worked” because it fit. Sure, it “fits” ….but it doesn’t give the proper articulation:

I can tell you, it didn’t take long for these problems to become glaringly apparent. After the fourth or fifth skull, I knew I was on to something.  I went through about 40 skulls in one session, and probably as many more after that testing it out (on skulls without teeth!)  Sure, a pencil worked sometimes, but sometime, or mostly, not.  And, if it is not an accurate predictor in the majority of cases, there’s no point in calling it scientifically based. 

How could we have thought for so long that this trick would always work? Skulls are obviously organic; no two are alike. And the structure of the mandible doesn’t have anything to do with the pterygoid. I’m the type of person that tends to question things, so when I’m in a room with a hundred skulls, the wheels started turning!

So, what should you do instead if the pencil trick isn’t fool-proof predictor? Your best bet is to consult with a forensic odontologist, in addition to an anthropologist. You should always be working with a forensic anthropologist when you do facial approximations anyway, whether they are 3D or 2D, so this shouldn’t be a problem (hint, hint).

Anthropologists can get clues by looking at the wear and tear on the condyle and mandibular fossa where it articulates. Depending on the condition of the skull (resorption of the bone due to ante-mortem tooth loss, or post-mortem animal and rodent activity, etc) the anthropologist might only be able to give you an educated guess. But that’s better than a Ticonderoga pencil!

*** UPDATE: Betty Pat Gatliff called me about post, and we had a lengthy conversation about it. She insisted that she’s been doing this for 45 years, and it always works for her when she has an edentulous skull. I have no doubt about that, but what I questioned was, how do any of us know it’s the *correct* spacing?

So I need to point out something that I didn’t emphasize enough in my original post: I tested this on skulls with teeth  Why? Think about it: the best way to see if a pencil is an accurate predictor of articulation is to try it on skulls that have teeth, and see if the pencil fits perfectly or not. Otherwise, if you only use edentulous skulls to test a method, how do you know you’re right? You don’t.

If you test the pencil method using a skull with teeth, it should fit snugly. You shouldn’t have to try to jam it in there, and you shouldn’t have a lot of wiggle room either. If this technique is to be viable predictor for articulation, it should work in the vast majority of cases. If it doesn’t, then it’s not quite scientific, is it?