This quotation is especially true for forensic artists and other professionals working with facial images and reconstructions. Faces are important means of identification, but very often the work of cameras and electronics are considered the “final word” on the image of a suspect. Despite the reliance on these devices, they have limitations and in some cases, the hand is quicker than the eye of a camera.

We are all familiar with surveillance cameras and the role they play in solving crimes such as robbery, but all too often, video images are unclear. The poor quality of these images can be due to any number of issues, including cameras that are:

• Not working properly
• Pointed at an angle that makes it impossible to view a suspect’s face
• Out of focus, causing blurry or fuzzy images
• Set with bad lighting, causing shadows
• Poor quality

One would think that the performance of these cameras would be tested upon installation, but that is often not the case. Excuses range from saving money by not testing to assuming the installers have run a preliminary test strip. Despite the money spent on equipment and installation, video cameras often fail to perform as expected.

Within the last decade, video enhancement tools have become very helpful for those investigating certain types of crime. Several companies offer sophisticated tools to enhance video, but sometimes a forensic artist can be used to produce the ‘enhancement.’ Forensic artists can view a film and try to produce a composite drawing that can potentially produce more leads on a case.

In the example shown (Figure 1), the still photograph taken from a surveillance video came from a small store owner who questioned the authenticity of the person presenting himself as a police officer. The suspect was asking for a charitable donation for a police athletic league to help underprivileged children. He was collecting some hefty checks from local merchants — all in the name of doing good.

Figure 1: Video still photograph (approximately the same size as presented to the artist).

To aid in identification of the suspect, Adobe Photoshop was used to try to enhance features, but only increased the distortion level of the image (Figure 2). Further enlargements only created more pixilated dots and fuzziness. In this type of case, a forensic artist may be able to help.

Figure 2: A computer-enhanced video still photograph often grows to be larger in pixel-type dots and gets grainy in texture.

A forensic artist can often see facial structures clearly and replicate them easily in a pencil-drawn portrait. In this case, the image showed the suspect’s face at an angle, but for identification, a portrait (face-forward) is preferred. Knowledge of facial anatomy and artistic drawing can be employed to foreshorten and pivot shapes and produce a composite drawing. As Sidaway and Hoggett explain in their book, Mastering the Art of Drawing, “This particular portrait gains much of its strength from the fact that there is direct eye contact between the subject …and makes the viewer feel involved in the scene.”²

To replicate the still photograph with detail, a forensic artist can use the visible forehead contouring and bony structures, and selected full front facial features can be drawn in similar proportions. With a magnifying glass, fingerprint loop, or microscope, more detailed shapes, shadows, and images can be readily seen for the artist to replicate and place in proportion. Features such as a jawline (lower mandible) can break in a normal range or in an abnormal (or extreme) shape. When features are unclear or grayed in the image, the forensic artist knows to go the normal route, rather than guess, until further information can be obtained.

Lighting and angle of a video camera are other aspects that can help or hinder in image capturing. A forensic artist can be an asset in recreating the facial image captured on videotape, as it is just one frame of a moving motion.

Once the drawing based on the still photograph (Figure 3) was prepared, it was presented on a local newscast. Within minutes and before the show had ended, someone saw the picture on the newscast and called in a name and address of a potential suspect. The caller was a probation officer who recognized the suspect’s characterization and gave a lead that turned out to be correct.

Figure 3: Drawing from video by forensic artist.

Figure 4: Photograph of suspect arrested.

However, in comparing the composite drawing to the mugshot (Figure 4) taken upon the suspect’s booking and arrest, there were some discernible distinctions — most notably that the suspect had shaved off his moustache. Also evident in the mugshot picture was the difference in jawline. Even with that deviation, the probation officer could see enough of a likeness to recall a name promptly.

Not all forensic artists do this type of work, but this is an example of where an artist may be more powerful than computer programs available to most small- and medium-sized agencies.

In the case presented here, a little ingenuity, facial anatomy knowledge, and artistic drawing produced a composite drawing from a video still that assisted in narrowing the suspects and resulted in an accurate investigative lead. This is some of what forensic artists can do to help aid in finding leads that might have been glossed over by the public eye.

Bibliography
1. Facial Expression, Gary Faigin, Watson & Guptil Publications, New York, 1990, p.8. ISBN: 0-8230-1628-5.

2. Sidaway and Hoggett, "Mastering the Art of Drawing," Anness Publishing Ltd., 2005, London, ISBN 0-681-37574-4, p.230.

Barbara A. Martin Bailey is an active and certified IAI Forensic Artist. As a forensic artist, she is currently assigned to the Forensic Science Laboratory with the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office for the last 29 years, in Pontiac, Michigan. She is the American Director for the regional IAI group, Michigan-Ontario Identification Association, and she can be reach at martinba@oakgov.com.