FORENSIC SCIENTIST DEBUNKS PID PHOTO COMPS
Here is proof that the Wired article - in which two scientists claimed that photos taken from an internet site showed Paul McCartney was replaced - is
FROM: PID photo comps are NOT credible says forensic
This contact was very helpful and arranged a number of contact numbers of forensic experts throughout three states. I asked for an opinion that I
could post on this site that would include internet site sources for readers to make their own explorations. The text is as follows:
"The resolution of the pictures is not comparison quality- different angles
are not a scientific way to examine photographs especially to back up an
argument. Different angles are there to give an overall view only but not
for comparison. It has to theoretically be an exact of the one you are comparing it against.
*Changes in muscle movements in various photographs cannot be seen with the naked eye but can change measurements if you are comparing only
That is why unless you can see beneath the skin to the actual muscle-then
you cannot say precisely what a facial measurement is especially using two photographs that are that dissimilar in expression for comparison.
*Facial identification and reconstruction is a very complicated process
which requires measurements using actual human skeletal remains not
photographs. Even anthropologists have difficulty sometimes reconstructing
the depth of tissue around the eyes and nose to fully determine the person's
weight. This website has attempted to take photographs and apply scientific
principles in forensics that are just not applied that way.
*Eye color can be manipulated very easily and Paul could have contacts in or anything in those photos of eye comparison-that is a very weak argument
when calling your claims forensic science.
*Also with the eyes, you cannot compare photos of eyes where in one picture the person is looking in a different direction. There again, I am
referring to comparison photographs used in forensics. Those photos have to be as near exact as possible.
*Ear identification-which they refer to on their website has not been an
accepted science. Refer to www.forensic-evidence.com. It explains a few of
these principles. Holland had a case of ear id. Inspector Van der Lugt
testified to the id of an individual based on ear evidence. You can find this at
It talks about the fallibility of this idea. After all characteristics that forensic scientists look for in identifying are INDIVIDUALIZING
characteristics not CLASS characteristics like the antitragus, tragus, helix, helix rim, and antihelix The court just could not accept his testimony
because this is not yet a clear, concise science."
[edit on 10-10-2009 by Dakudo]