Abstract:
Global escalation of crime has necessitated the use of digital imagery to aid the identification
of perpetrators. Forensic facial comparison (FFC) is increasingly employed, often relying on poorquality
images. In the absence of standardized criteria, especially in terms of video recordings,
verification of the methodology is needed. This paper addresses aspects of FFC, discussing relevant
terminology, investigating the validity and reliability of the FISWG morphological feature list using a
new South African database, and advising on standards for CCTV equipment. Suboptimal conditions,
including poor resolution, unfavorable angle of incidence, color, and lighting, affected the accuracy of
FFC. Morphological analysis of photographs, standard CCTV, and eye-level CCTV showed improved
performance in a strict iteration analysis, but not when using analogue CCTV images. Therefore,
both strict and lenient iterations should be conducted, but FFC must be abandoned when a strict
iteration performs worse than a lenient one. This threshold ought to be applied to the specific CCTV
equipment to determine its utility. Chance-corrected accuracy was the most representative measure
of accuracy, as opposed to the commonly used hit rate. While the use of automated systems is
increasing, trained human observer-based morphological analysis, using the FISWG feature list and
an Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification (ACE-V) approach, should be the primary method of facial comparison.
Description:
Facial identification is an emerging field in forensic anthropology, largely due
to the rise in closed circuit television presence worldwide, yet there is little published research in
it.
School of Anatomical Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences,
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2193
