Kleinberg, Krista F. (2008) Facial anthropometry as an

241 Pages·2008·4.78 MB·English

Kleinberg, Krista F. (2008) Facial anthropometry as an evidential tool in
forensic image comparison.
PhD thesis.

http://theses.gla.ac.uk/245/

Copyright and moral rights for this thesis are retained by the author

A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or
study, without prior permission or charge

This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first
obtaining permission in writing from the Author

The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any
format or medium without the formal permission of the Author

When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the
author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given

Glasgow Theses Service
http://theses.gla.ac.uk/
[email protected]
FFaacciiaall AAnntthhrrooppoommeettrryy aass aann EEvviiddeennttiiaall TTooooll iinn FFoorreennssiicc IImmaaggee
CCoommppaarriissoonn

Submitted to the University of Glasgow for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
By
Krista F. Kleinberg, RPh
Forensic Medicine and Science
Division of Cancer Sciences and Molecular Pathology

March 2008

©Krista F. Kleinberg
Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my supervisors, Dr. Robert A.
Anderson, Dr. J Paul Siebert, Professor Peter Vanezis, and Professor A. Mike
Burton, for their time, guidance, encouragement and patience in the
development of my research project. I would like to give an extra special thank
you to Dr. Anderson and Dr. Siebert. Their help during my time at the University
of Glasgow cannot be over stated. The end result is not only my completed
thesis but also my love of forensic science and the discovery of new ideas and
thoughts.

I wish to extend special thanks to my University Advisor, Dr. Mike Edward and
colleagues Maria Vanezis and Sarah Sholl, and to Fran Ackermann who was
instrumental in guiding me through the PhD process.

I want also to extend my thanks to John C. Hay and to the volunteers who
graciously lent their free time to help with the research process. For their
continued help and support I wish to thank Elizabeth Stein and Yvonne Spence
and lastly to my friends and family for their never-ending encouragement.

To my Dad and Mom, Michael and Marcylyn, I owe my deepest gratitude for
supporting my desire to return to school and to study an area that has meaning
and importance in today’s world. Thank you so much for your love and support.
ii
List of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
List of Contents iii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures xii
Glossary of Terms xv
Summary 16
1 Forensic Science and Human Identification 19
1.1 Aims and Scope of Present Study 21
2 Craniofacial Identification 23
2.1 Introduction 23
2.2 Anthropometry 23
2.3 Photogrammetry 28
2.3.1 Introduction 28
2.3.2 Forensic Photogrammetry 29
2.4 Morphology 31
2.5 Superimposition 35
2.6 Facial Reconstruction 40
2.6.1 Traditional methods 40
2.6.2 3-D Facial Reconstruction Using Computer Graphics 41
2.7 Eye Witness Identification 44
2.7.1 Police Line-ups 44
2.7.2 Mistaken Identification 46
2.7.3 Psychological Facial Recognition 47
2.8 Identification through Biometrics 48
2.8.1 Security Biometric System: Facial Recognition 50
2.8.2 Pose Invariant Facial Recognition Systems 52
2.9 Video Surveillance 54
2.9.1 The Role of Video Surveillance in Crime Detection/Prevention 54
2.9.2 Positive and Negative Aspects of Video Surveillance 55
2.10 Forensic Image Analysis 57
2.10.1 Resolution 57
2.10.2 Digital Image Enhancement Guidelines 57
2.11 Police Photographs (“Mug Shots”) in the United Kingdom 59
iii
2.11.1 Trends from 1989 59
2.11.2 Forensic Identification National Database (FIND) 60
3 Facial Landmarks 62
3.1 Introduction 62
3.2 Landmarks 62
3.3 Linear Measurements 69
3.4 Proportions 71
4 Pilot Anthropometry Laboratory Study of Still Images 74
4.1 Introduction and Aims 74
4.2 Experimental Section 74
4.2.1 Subjects 74
4.2.2 Equipment and Photography 75
4.3 Derivation of Anthropometric Measurements 78
4.3.1 Data Processing 79
4.3.2 Tests Used 80
4.4 Results 80
4.5 Discussion 86
4.5.1 Experimental Set-up 86
4.5.2 Landmarks 87
4.5.3 Proportions and Angle Measurements 88
4.5.4 Modelling the Data 90
4.6 Conclusions 95
5 Investigation of Uncertainty of Anthropometric Measurements 97
5.1 Introduction and Aims 97
5.2 Errors in Facial Proportions Resulting from Variations in Landmark
Placement 98
5.2.1 Materials and methodology 98
5.2.2 Results 100
5.3 Errors in Facial Proportions Resulting from the Process of Taking
Photographs 103
5.3.1 Materials 103
5.3.2 Methodology 105
5.3.3 Results 109
5.4 Estimation of Uncertainty 121
5.5 Discussion 124
5.5.1 Introduction 124
iv
5.5.2 Landmark placement 124
6 Anthropometry Study of Paired Still and Video Images 130
6.1 Introduction 130
6.2 Materials and Methodology 130
6.2.1 Subjects 130
6.2.2 Data Collection 132
6.2.3 Experimental Design 132
6.3 Results 140
6.3.1 Comparisons within a Single Sample 140
6.3.2 Re-landmarked Images in Sample 1 145
6.3.3 Between Sample Comparisons 149
6.3.4 Removal of Lowest Variant Elements 165
6.3.5 Subsample of Images Requiring Human Verification 177
6.4 Discussion 178
6.4.1 Overview of the Study 179
6.4.2 Limitations of the Study and Further Work 186
6.4.3 Conclusions 188
7 Discussion of Anthropometry 190
7.1 Probability 191
7.2 Landmark Placement 193
7.3 Other Research into Anthropometric Analysis 195
7.4 Conclusions 198
8 Final Conclusions and Suggestions for Further Work 203
8.1 A Retrospective Overview of the Project 203
8.2 Future Research 205
8.3 Final Words 207
References 209
Appendix- Low Variant Proportions 224
Appendix- Morphological Analysis 226
Publications
v
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Comparison of anthropometric measurements taken from a Bust of
John Paul Jones and the corpse in question [23] ...Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 3.1 Definitions of Landmarks Used in this Study..............................63
Table 3.2 Landmarks Used in the Study by Purkait [148] ...........................66
Table 3.3 Linear Measurements used in the Present Study.........................70
Table 3.4 Proportions selected for the Present Study ...............................72
Table 4.1 List of five subjects and their nationalities.................................75
Tables 4.2a-b Means and Relative Standard Deviations for (a) Proportions and (b)
Angles in five subjects ....................................................................81
Table 5.1 Average and range of coefficients of variation for measurements of
proportions in video images and database photographs for intra-operator study.
..............................................................................................100
Table 5.2 Each image was measured 6 times by each operator. The table lists the
average (n=6) and range of coefficients of variation obtained by each operator for
measurements of proportions of each video image for inter-operator study......101
Table 5.3 The coefficient variation (CV %) of 59 proportions obtained from
photographs of a subject taken by 10 operators at three different camera angles.
Proportions with “ ’ ” indicate the left side of the face................................110
Table 5.4 The coefficient variation (CV %) of 59 proportions for the series of
photographs in which a single volunteer took photographs of 10 different subjects.
Proportions with “ ’ ” indicate the left side of the face................................114
Table 5.5 The coefficient variation (CV %) of 59 proportions for the series of
photographs in which a single volunteer took photographs of a single subject. The
height of the camera was not adjusted to accommodate the sloping floor.
Proportions with “ ’ ” indicate the left side of the face................................116
Table 5.6 The coefficient variation (CV %) of 59 proportions for the series of
photographs in which a single volunteer took photographs of a single subject. The
height of the camera was adjusted to accommodate the sloping floor. Proportions
with “ ’ ” indicate the left side of the face...............................................119
Table 5.7 Contributions to the uncertainty of anthropometric measurements ...122
Table 6.1 Definitions of two Samples used in the present research study.......132
Table 6.2 Definitions given to correct and incorrect face matches................134
Table 6.3 Relative frequency histograms illustrating comparisons of the mean
absolute differences between proportions in true negative faces within a single
sample......................................................................................141
Table 6.4 Relative frequency histograms illustrating comparisons of the Euclidean
distances between proportions in true negative faces within a single sample....142
Table 6.5 Relative frequency histograms illustrating comparisons of Cosine θ
distance equations (raw values) in true negative faces within a single sample for
Sample 1 (a) and Sample 2 (b). Normal curves are superimposed in (c). ........144
Table 6.6 Relative frequency histograms illustrating comparisons of Cosine θ
distance equations (mean subtracted) in true negative faces within a single sample
for Sample 1 (a) and Sample 2 (b). Normal curves are superimposed in (c). ....144
Table 6.7 Relative frequency histograms illustrating comparisons of Cosine θ
distance equations (Z-normalized) in true negative faces within a single sample for
Sample 1 (a) and Sample 2 (b). Normal curves are superimposed in (c). ........145
Table 6.8 Superimposed normal curve histograms illustrating true positive and
true negative face comparisons of the Cosine θ (raw and mean subtracted)
distance equations in six re-landmarked images from Sample 1 using one
experienced operator.....................................................................147
Table 6.9 Superimposed normal curve histograms illustrating true positive and
true negative face comparisons of the Cosine θ (Z-normalized) distance equations
in six re-landmarked images from Sample 1 using one experienced operator and
all operators. ..............................................................................148
Table 6.10 Relative frequency histograms illustrating comparisons of the mean
absolute difference between proportions of Sample 1 vs. the matched faces in
Sample 2 showing true positive cases (a), true negative cases (b), both cases
together (c), and both cases superimposed (d).......................................151
Table 6.11 Relative frequency histograms illustrating comparisons of the mean
absolute differences between proportions of Sample 1 vs. the matched faces in
Sample 2 using Z-normalized values showing true positive cases (a), true negative
cases (b), both cases together (c), and both cases superimposed (d). ...........152
vii
Table 6.12 Relative frequency histograms illustrating comparisons using the
Euclidean distance between proportions of Sample 1 vs. the matched faces in
Sample 2 using Z-normalized values showing true positive cases (a), true negative
cases (b), both cases together (c), and both cases superimposed (d). ...........153
Table 6.13 Relative frequency histograms illustrating comparisons using the
Cosine θ distance (raw) between proportions of Sample 1 vs. the matched faces in
Sample 2 using Z-normalized values showing true positive cases (a), true negative
cases (b), both cases together (c), and both cases superimposed (d). ...........154
Table 6.14 Relative frequency histograms illustrating comparisons using the log of
proportional values to derive the Cosine θ (raw) distance of Sample 1 vs. the
matched faces in Sample 2 showing true positive cases (a), true negative cases
(b), both cases together (c), and both cases superimposed (d)....................156
Table 6.15 Relative frequency histograms illustrating comparisons using the log of
proportional values to derive the Cosine θ (mean subtracted) distance of Sample 1
vs. the matched faces in Sample 2 showing true positive cases (a), true negative
cases (b), both cases together (c), and both cases superimposed (d). ...........157
Table 6.16 Relative frequency histograms illustrating comparisons using the log of
proportional values to derive the Cosine θ (Z-normalized) distance of Sample 1 vs.
the matched faces in Sample 2 showing true positive cases (a), true negative
cases (b), both cases together (c), and both cases superimposed (d). ...........158
Table 6.17 Relative frequency histograms illustrating comparisons using the
Cosine θ (Z-normalized) distance of Sample 1 vs. the matched faces in Sample 2
showing true positive cases (a), true negative cases (b), both cases together (c),
and both cases superimposed (d). Statistics to determine Z-normalized values
were derived from Sample 1. ...........................................................160
Table 6.18 Relative frequency histograms illustrating comparisons using the
Cosine θ (Z-normalized) distance of Sample 1 vs. the matched faces in Sample 2
showing true positive cases (a), true negative cases (b), both cases together (c),
and both cases superimposed (d). Statistics to determine Z-normalized values
were derived from Sample 2. ...........................................................161
Table 6.19 Relative frequency histograms illustrating comparisons using the
Cosine θ (Z-normalized) distance of Sample 1 vs. the matched faces in Sample 2
showing true positive cases (a), true negative cases (b), both cases together (c),
viii
and both cases superimposed (d).Statistics to determine Z-normalized values
were derived from a summation of the two samples.................................162
Table 6.20 Summary of the conditions imposed and results achieved in the
comparison of faces in Sample 1 and Sample 2. Results are illustrated by the
superimposed normal histogram curves showing the amount of overlap in true
positive (dot) and true negative (solid) faces indicating the chance of
misclassification...........................................................................163
Table 6.21 Relative frequency histograms of the element mean of Sample 1 and
the element mean of Sample 2.......................................................166
Table 6.22 Relative frequency histograms of the element standard deviation for
Sample 1 and the element standard deviation for Sample 2........................166
Table 6.23 Descending order of element standard deviations in each sample
place on a line graph.....................................................................167
Table 6.24 Relative frequency histograms illustrating comparisons of Cosine θ
distance equations (Z-normalized) within a single sample for Sample 1 (a) and
Sample 2 (b) with 5% of lowest variant elements removed. Normal curves are
superimposed in (c). .....................................................................169
Table 6.25 Relative frequency histograms illustrating comparisons of Cosine θ
distance equations (Z-normalized) within a single sample for Sample 1 (a) and
Sample 2 (b) with 10% of lowest variant elements removed. Normal curves are
superimposed in (c). .....................................................................170
Table 6.26 Relative frequency histograms illustrating comparisons of Cosine θ
distance equations (Z-normalized) within a single sample for Sample 1 (a) and
Sample 2 (b) with 25% of lowest variant elements removed. Normal curves are
superimposed in (c). .....................................................................170
Table 6.27 Relative frequency histograms illustrating comparisons of Cosine θ
distance equations (Z-normalized) within a single sample for Sample 1 (a) and
Sample 2 (b) with 50% of lowest variant elements removed. Normal curves are
superimposed in (c). .....................................................................171
Table 6.28 Relative frequency histograms illustrating comparisons using the
Cosine θ (Z-normalized) distance of Sample 1 vs. the matched faces in Sample 2
showing true positive cases (a), true negative cases (b), both cases together (c),
and both cases superimposed (d) with 5% of lowest variant elements removed
from vector.................................................................................172
ix