Forensic facial comparison: current status, limitations, and future directions.

Simple item page
dc.article.start-page1269en_ZA
dc.citation.doi10.3390/biology10121269en_ZA
dc.contributor.authorBacci, Nicholas
dc.contributor.authorDavimes, Joshua G.
dc.contributor.authorSteyn, Maryna
dc.contributor.authorBriers, Nanette
dc.date.accessioned2022-02-09T08:11:40Z
dc.date.available2022-02-09T08:11:40Z
dc.date.issued2021-12-03
dc.descriptionFacial 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 2193en_ZA
dc.description.abstractGlobal 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.en_ZA
dc.description.librarianLTM2022en_ZA
dc.facultyFaculty of Health Sciencesen_ZA
dc.identifier.citationBacci N, Davimes JG, Steyn M, Briers N. Forensic facial comparison: Current status, limitations, and future directions. Biology. 2021;10(12):1269. DOI: 10.3390/biology10121269.en_ZA
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10539/32729
dc.journal.issue12en_ZA
dc.journal.linkhttps://www.mdpi.com/2079-7737/10/12/1269en_ZA
dc.journal.titleBiologyen_ZA
dc.journal.volume10en_ZA
dc.language.isoenen_ZA
dc.publisherMDPIen_ZA
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licenseen_ZA
dc.schoolSchool of Anatomical Sciencesen_ZA
dc.subjectHuman identificationen_ZA
dc.subjectFacial identificationen_ZA
dc.subjectCCTVen_ZA
dc.subjectPhotographyen_ZA
dc.subjectForensic facial comparisonen_ZA
dc.titleForensic facial comparison: current status, limitations, and future directions.en_ZA
dc.typeArticleen_ZA
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
biology-10-01269.pdf
Size:
2.69 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
School of Anatomical Sciences (Journal Articles)
Academic Wits Research Outputs (All submissions)