Forensic Anthropology Population DataThe use of craniofacial superimposition for disaster victim identification
Introduction
Facial anthropology involves biological analysis and interpretation of the skull and/or the face and can be applied to identification of the living (biometrics, image analysis) and the dead (facial depiction, craniofacial superimposition, osteology, anatomy) [1]. Craniofacial analysis of the dead can be utilised for single unidentified human remains, multiple victims of disasters and mass graves. In the majority of forensic investigations there will be a suspect in relation to identity; in single forensic cases there may be a missing persons list, in mass disasters there may be a closed list (such as a passenger list for a transport system) or an open list (reported missing by families and/or employers) and for mass graves there may be whole missing populations. In these circumstances there may be ante-mortem data available relating to the suspects and this might include biological profiles (age, sex, stature, ethnic group), personal information (body modifications, identifying marks, clothing, jewellery, hair style, etc.), photographs (ID cards, passport images, family albums or snapshots), hair samples (collected from a hairbrush, etc.), dental records, clinical images and/or medical records [2].
However, much of this ante-mortem data may not be available, for example where the individual did not have a history of dental or medical treatment, or the available data may not be useful, for example where multiple members of the same family are missing (such as in a mass grave or mass disaster) and DNA analysis cannot separate family members. This may be significant in areas/countries with high levels of poverty, low socio-economic status and poor medical/dental practise.
Where ante-mortem images are present, craniofacial superimposition may be effective as it does not require expensive or invasive techniques and is cost and time efficient. Craniofacial superimposition is the process where ante-mortem images are aligned and matched to the skull in order to assess the relationship between the hard and soft tissues of the face. This analysis may allow positive identification, especially where multiple ante-mortem images are available and this has been accepted in international courts as a method of identification [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].
Traditionally craniofacial superimposition has been carried out by forensic anthropologists or anatomists [5], [7], [9] and the techniques incorporate similar anatomical principles [10] and anthropological standards [11] as utilised in facial depiction. Numerous computerised systems have been developed for skull-to-face alignment [8], [12], [13], [14], [15].
The first documented use of craniofacial superimposition for identification in a medico-legal investigation was in 1935 [3], with a particular case involving a Lancastrian GP and the mysterious disappearance of his wife. Dr. Ruxton claimed that his wife had left him for another man, but 2 weeks later two dismembered bodies were found in Glasgow. Police recovered two human heads and over seventy body parts wrapped in newspaper. The newspaper was from a special edition that was distributed only in the area where the Ruxtons lived. Dr. Buck Ruxton had killed his wife and her maid and removed the eyes, noses, lips, skin and teeth to avoid identification of the bodies. The police suspected that the maid and the wife were the victims and a craniofacial superimposition was carried out using ante-mortem images of the two women and photographs of the skulls [16]. The method used in this case was photographic; employing enlargement, measurable objects, anatomical landmarks and craniophore orientation [17]. Known objects in the photographs (e.g. a tiara and a picket fence) were used to enlarge the faces to life size in order to identify Mary Rogers and Isabella Ruxton.
There have been other significant forensic cases where craniofacial superimposition has been utilised for identification of human remains, including the identification of the remains of Josef Mengele [7], [18] and the identification of the victims of the serial killers, Fred and Rosemary West, in the UK [19]. Other significant cases are the Dobkin case [4], the Worlkersdorfer case [5] and the Howick Falls murder case [6]. Detailed reviews of the techniques can be found in the literature [17], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] and many case studies have also been published [8], [13], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42].
Craniofacial superimposition development has passed through three technological phases: photographic, video and computer-assisted [17], [25]. The photographic technique was pioneered in the 1930s [3], [4], [5], the video technique was developed in the 1970s [43], [44], [45] and the computer-assisted technique was introduced in the 1980s [12], [36], [46].
It is professionally agreed that craniofacial superimposition is of greater value for exclusion than positive identification [17] and that where single facial images are utilised, more than one person may appear consistent with the skull in question. Therefore, forensic practitioners must be well trained in anatomy and anthropology for the effective utilisation of craniofacial superimposition and multiple ante-mortem images of the suspect should be analysed. When evaluating anatomical consistency special attention is paid to the cranial outline, the soft tissue thickness at various anthropometric landmarks on the skull and feature relationships between the skull and the face [47].
It is vitally important to practitioners and law enforcement agencies to establish the level of accuracy of these craniofacial techniques, especially in the case of craniofacial superimposition where this may be utilised in court for positive identification. The credibility of craniofacial superimposition was first established in a study using a database of 52 skulls from the Smithsonian collection [8]. An unknown skull was shown to match an ante-mortem facial photograph, while the four most similar skulls from the collection showed distinct differences to the facial photograph. Another blind study [48] used 3 skulls and compared them to 97 lateral view and 98 frontal view photographs of subjects (including the targets); in total 585 superimpositions. False matches were recorded for 9.6% of the lateral view and 8.5% of the frontal view superimpositions and all 3 targets were correctly matched. The incidence of false matches was reduced to 0.6% when both frontal and lateral view photographs of the same individual were used, suggesting that multiple photographs are optimal to prove or disprove identity by craniofacial superimposition. A further study [17] found that the outline from trichion to gonion in the lateral or oblique view was the optimal portion for personal identification.
Technological advances in the field of facial imaging over the past 20 years have produced new opportunities for research in facial morphology and facial growth assessment [49]. Surface scanning technologies such as laser scanners, photogrammetry cameras and other three-dimensional systems (including three-dimensional digitizers and structured light systems) have advanced craniofacial landmark location [50], [51], [52] and facial anthropometry in both adults and juveniles [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]. These systems have benefited the field of orthodontic and plastic surgery with the ability to record subtle changes in surface morphology, especially important in the monitoring orthodontic treatment, facial growth and maxillofacial intervention [59], [60].
Numerous accuracy studies have been conducted on different laser scanners with regard to the accuracy from three-dimensional capture of faces of the resulting scan measurements when compared with anthropometric measurements from the face [52], [60], [61], [62]. These studies all found that laser scanners are a reliable and fast means of capturing a three-dimensional reproduction of a facial surface whilst maintaining high levels of accuracy with regard to the difference in resulting measurements between the scan and the subject. However, Aung et al. [52] did indicate that accurate location of landmarks and operator skill are important factors in achieving reliable results.
The ability of a forensic practitioner to reliably cite the accuracy of a particular method employed in forensic human identification is highly desirable. The reason for this is not simply for legal reasons but also as a moral and ethical obligation to the victims and their families. This will ensure that if the practitioner is required to provide an expert witness report to the court (with regard to the identification they have assigned to the deceased) the evidence provided is valid with the support of scientific research.
In order to improve craniofacial analysis techniques further rigorous quantitative accuracy studies need to be conducted especially with regard to the scientific method. Improving the accuracy of these techniques and increasing publication of the findings of accuracy studies will allow the use of craniofacial analysis techniques more widely in the field of forensic human identification, especially with regard to disaster victim identification and also increase the acceptance of these methods in a medico-legal investigation.
The aim of this research was to compare the accuracy of manual and computerised craniofacial superimposition techniques and to establish the application of these techniques for disaster victim identification, where there may be a large database of passport-style images, such as the MPUB Interpol database.
Section snippets
Method
This study utilised a three-dimensional laser scanning system (FastSCAN™ Polhemus Scorpion™ handheld laser scanner) [63] for collection of 3D skull models for use in craniofacial analysis.
Data collection was conducted on the William Bass donated skeletal collection from the University of Tennessee, USA, following the approval of the University of Tennessee Ethics Board. This collection consists of skeletal material and related ante-mortem images. Twenty (10 males and 10 females) crania and
Results
The CFS methods correctly matched the target to the skull at stage 3 in 40% manually and 50% by computer. It was observed that the overall correct match rate at stage 3 was 45% (see Table 1, Table 2). The false match rate at stage 3 was 15% manually and 8% by computer, giving an overall false match rate of 12%. The manual method matched 17% and the computer method matched 11% of the total faces to the skull at stage 3.
Ten (50%) of the targets were falsely rejected at stage 1 and a further one
Discussion
These results are similar to previous accuracy tests. Austin-Smith and Maples [48] recorded a 9.5% false match rate, which is similar to the 12% false match rate in this study. Yoshino and colleagues [47] also found that the profile and three-quarter views were the most valuable for craniofacial superimposition. However, the poor identification rate achieved using images in frontal view suggests that the MPUB Interpol database would not be optimal for disaster victim identification, and
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the University of Tennessee for the use of the William Bass Skeletal Collection and the University of Dundee for funding this research through the CAHID Greenhouse PhD Scholarship Fund.
References (71)
The positioning and magnification of faces and skulls for photographic superimposition
Forensic Sci. Int.
(1989)- et al.
Superimposition and reconstruction in forensic facial identification: a survey
Forensic Sci. Int.
(1995) Identification of dismembered parts: the medicolegal aspects of the Nagaraju case
Forensic Sci.
(1973)- et al.
Identity from skeleton—a case study
Forensic Sci.
(1975) - et al.
Skeletal remains of Dr. Eugenio Antonio Berrı́os Sagredo
Forensic Sci. Int. 2001
(2001) - et al.
The identification of a dismembered human body: a multidisciplinary approach
Forensic Sci. Int.
(2003) - et al.
An unusual case of cranial image recognition
Forensic Sci. Int.
(2005) - et al.
Evaluation of anatomical consistency in craniofacial superimposition images
Forensic Sci. Int.
(1995) - et al.
Evaluation of the laser scanner as a surface measuring tool and its accuracy compared with direct facial anthropometric measurements
Br. J. Plastic Surg.
(1995) - et al.
Reliability of a 3D surface laser scanner for orthodontic applications
Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop.
(2002)
Facial identification of the dead
Disaster Victim Identification
Rex vs. Dobkin: the Baptist church cellar murder’
Med. Legal Rev.
Medico-legal aspects of the Wolkersdorfer case
S. Afr. Med. J.
The identification of skeletal remains in Regina versus K and another: the Howick Falls murder case
J. Forensic Med.
Identification of the cadaver remains of Josef Mengele
J. Forensic Sci.
Computer-assisted photographic superimposition
J. Forensic Sci.
The Reconstruction of the Face from the Basic Structure of the Skull
Facial reconstruction – anatomical art or artistic anatomy?
J. Anat.
Computer-aided skull/face superimposition
Am. J. Forensic Med. Pathol.
Techniques in facial identification: computer-aided facial reconstruction using a laser scanner and video superimposition
Int. J. Legal Med.
Craniofacial identification by computer-mediated superimposition
J. Forensic Odonto-Stomatol.
Craniofacial superimposition based on genetic algorithms and fuzzy location of cephalometric landmarks
Hybrid Artificial Intelligence Systems
The Ruxton case
Med. Jurisprud. Toxicol.
Craniofacial superimposition
The Mengele report
Am. J. Forensic Med. Pathol.
Orthodontic reconstruction in a victim of murder
J. Orthod.
Developments in cranio-facial superimposition for identification
J. Forensic Odonto-Stomatol.
Development of equipment for the standardization of skull photographs in personal identifications by photographic superimposition
J. Forensic Sci.
Development and current status of skull-image superimposition: methodology and instrumentation
Forensic Sci. Rev.
Positioning the skull for superimposition
Standards for skull-to-photo superimposition
Superimposition techniques
Craniofacial Identification in Forensic Medicine
Methods of superimposition
Cited by (12)
Application of 3D imaging and selfies in forensic dental identification
2022, Journal of Forensic and Legal MedicineCitation Excerpt :Dental superimposition with 3D imaging has eliminated the need of a series of PM images when compared to the previous 2D superimposition studies7,25 and case reports.8–11 A similar study also reported the applicability of 3D imaging to test the accuracy and reliability in craniofacial superimposition where facial photographs were aligned and compared with the 3D skull models.28 The feasibility of reorienting and approximating the PM 3D scan to that of the arch alignment in the AM 2D selfie facilitated the superimposition process.
Craniofacial Superimposition
2022, Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences: Volume 1-4, Third EditionForensic dental identification using two-dimensional photographs of a smile and three-dimensional dental models: A 2D-3D superimposition method
2020, Forensic Science InternationalCitation Excerpt :The difference between visual comparison and 2D-3D superimposition match rates and opinions observed through this study were considerable, highlighting the importance of 3D imaging in photographic dental identification. 3D imaging was also used in a recent craniofacial superimposition (CSF) study by Wilkinson and Lofthouse [31] where 2D AM images were aligned and matched to the 3D skull model. The study aimed to compare the reliability of manual and computerised craniofacial superimposition techniques and its applicability for disaster victim identification.
An unusual method of forensic human identification: use of selfie photographs
2016, Forensic Science InternationalA discussion of current issues and concepts in the practice of skull-photo/craniofacial superimposition
2016, Forensic Science InternationalCitation Excerpt :Jayaprakash [1], for example, reported on case numbers from a few of countries, quoting a figure of 2307 cases done in the countries he surveyed indicating that this is a method still commonly used to aid in personal identification in many parts of the world. Recently a number of papers have been published that either reviewed the current state of the science (e.g., Jayaprakash [1]; Ubelaker [2]), or conducted validation studies to assess the accuracy of the methodology (e.g. Gordon & Steyn [3]; Gaudio et al. [4]; Wilkinson & Lofthouse [5]). A number of publications also followed from the recent European Methodologies and Protocols of Forensic Identification by Craniofacial Superimposition (MEPROCS) initiatives [6] involving a large panel of international specialists and organized by Ibáñez, Cordón, Damas, and others (e.g. Ibáñez et al. [6]; Damas et al. [7]; Campomanes-Alvarez et al. [8]; Huete et al. [9]; Ibáñez et al. submitted [10]).