In the field of composite image making there are generally three schools of thought
on the use of reference images. There are those who do, those who sometimes
do, and those who don’t use them at all.
With the popularity of the crime scene and courtroom drama, average citizens
have become aware of the potential for drama in the courtroom. What they might
find surprising is the fact that the “drama” depicted on the television
regarding courtroom testimony is not all that different from the reality. Strategies
regarding eliciting testimony from expert witnesses do in fact focus on shortcomings
in the handling of crime scene processing, collection and submission of evidence,
and the processes used in the development of many different admissible results
from photographs to DNA. In many cases that do go to trial, adherence to standard
operating procedures guides the investigator through the gauntlet of questioning
without incident. Some Composite Artists however, still choose to throw caution
to the wind, and prepare an image with essentially no answers to the questions
regarding the foundation of the image.
In the field of composite image making
there are generally three schools of thought on the use of reference images.
There are those who do, those who sometimes do, and those who don’t use
them at all. The “sometimes” and “never use them” artists
have a myriad of reasons why they do and do not use them, and feel strongly
that it is fine as along as the witness is satisfied with the final outcome.
But in a litigious society such as ours, it is just a matter of time until
we find one of these artists in a courtroom attempting to explain away their
possible influence in a final image, and cannot due to serious gaps in their
process that allows for this type of allegation. How will this artist respond
to the use of facial features drawn without the input of a witness or victim
to create what is referred to as a “base face?” How does this artist
separate him or herself from the facial features used even if they were placed
on the page after the interview was completed? Does that artist leave him or
herself open to the allegation that they had a “preconceived notion” regarding
the suspect image? Or even worse, is the artist attempting to direct the image
due to knowledge of a suspect in the case? Are these questions likely to occur?
No they are not. There is very little testimony required in the field of composite
image making. But to continue to practice a process that allows for scrutiny
and lengthy discussion during a prosecution, regardless of the statistical
frequency, is simply irresponsible and unprofessional. How can a determination
of “expert” be confidently ruled when the artist is simply unable
to demonstrate visually how he or she arrived at the image in question?
In
a conversation with Lt. Roy Paschal, of the South Carolina Law Enforcement
Division, I found that he has testified to approximately five percent of
the composite images that he has completed over his 28-year career. He said
that
very often his testimony is relatively routine, but does recall a case where
the defense required him to explain in deep detail each and every facial
feature used in the image. Being an artist who uses and documents reference
images,
he was prepared. He likened the level of preparedness required to that of
the Crime Scene Photographer. The photographer may only ever testify to his
or
her taking of a particular picture or series of photographs, but he or she
is prepared at all times to present the processes and settings that went into
making those images to make them admissible in a trial.
But are courtroom testimony issues all a composite artist should be concerned
with? Composite artists are open to the scrutiny of their peers and the public
with the publication of each and every composite developed in a critical
case. As a result those peers and civilians are in a position to recognize
the fact
that sometimes a series of drawings look very similar. A focused detective
may conclude that the cases may be connected. The other side of the coin
is the detective who openly discusses the possibility that the artist is
just
reproducing the same face time after time. An artist who does not use reference
images is defenseless against this type of inference. An artist who uses
reference images, and carefully documents witness guided deviations, is
prepared at any
given time to demonstrate what step by step process was used in each case,
what reference images were selected by the witness, and what if any deviations
were required by the witness from the selected images. This ability could
be the difference between being a composite artist who is able to make
significant contributions to criminal cases for an entire career, and being
an artist whose image outcome is consistently questionable.
Reference images used should involve a very diverse selection of features
that include ancestry, sex, and weight concerns, as well as the gamut of
different shapes and sizes of facial feature possibilities. What source
of reference images the artist uses is entirely a personal choice. Over
the years artists have used old mug shots, laminated pictures cut out of
the newspapers and magazines, and of course the FBI Facial Identification
Catalog (FIC). (Figure 1) The FBI FIC has been available to law enforcement
officers for many years and has served well as an organized source of facial
features for males of several races. The shortage of male images of some
ethnicities and a complete disregard of female features leaves the FIC
slightly shy of complete considering the diversity of criminals presenting
in this day and age. The FBI is reportedly very near completion of a new
and improved facial imaging catalog that includes men and women of many
ethnic backgrounds and accessories commonly worn by today’s criminal
element. As always, release of the FIC will be strictly limited by the
FBI, but full availability criteria has yet to be announced.
Figure 1
Documentation of deviations varies, but overall should just represent copies
of the image used, specificity of the feature used from the image, and
deviations from the selected image. For example, the victim or witness
stated that the suspect feature was slightly narrower than the feature
in the selected image. With the FBI FIC, the recording of the number associated
with the selected image and notation of deviations if any are indicated.
A standardized form for organizing the collected information can be very
simple to prepare in today’s word processing software formats, and
can also be adjusted according to the needs of the individual artist. An
organized form makes referencing the initially selected images easier to
find, and also allows for a more organized rechecking of the features when
the image is developing. (Figure 2)
Figure 2. Sample of an Information Fact Sheet that may be used for compiling
details for composite images and organizing the information collected. The
facial features listed follow the reference pages in the FIC so that the progression
from one feature to another is smooth. The head shape on the back of the sheet
is used to get an idea of a hairline, or how far a hat sits down. The witness
can even be allowed to draw on the face.
An artist constructing a composite image using features selected by the witness
or victim as a guide will very often be initially closer to the basic structure
of the suspect image than the artist starting an image without. The reference
image guided “base face” will generally require fewer corrections
and leaves the artists to get right into the shading of the image rather than
making feature by feature corrections. The time savings can be compared to
baking a cake with all of the ingredients handy, as compared to going back
and forth for each individual ingredient. Having made thorough notes during
the interview also gives the artist the opportunity to check and be sure that
each selected feature had been as accurately drawn as possible, prior to finalizing
of the image. The ability to look back and compare is the difference between
the artists who use the reference images and the artists who do not. It is
very possible to completely forget a feature like facial hair or glasses when
you have not taken sufficient notes. The witness has to now remind the artist
of these features, or they might be forgotten all together. These types of
omissions weigh heavily on the credibility of the artist and can be avoided
simply by thorough note taking.
As with any other discipline encompassed under
the umbrella of forensics, a professional composite artist must be prepared
at all times to competently explain his or her process, and demonstrate how
they arrived at the final outcome in each and every case prepared. The future
of the field and the continued confidence in final composite images depends
on it.
Charles Jackson is a Detective and Forensic Artist for the Haddon Township
Police Department. Detective Jackson has been with the department for 18 years
in several capacities and has been active in the composite art field for the
last 13 years. Haddon Township Police Department, 135 Haddon Avenue, Westmont,
NJ 08108. 856-854-1176 ext. 153. cjackson@haddontwppolice.comwww.forensicartnj.com
