Forensic Photographic
Comparison Analysis
Richard W. Vorder Bruegge, Ph.D.

Examiner of Questioned Photographic Evidence
FBI – Operational Technology Division
Forensic Audio, Video and Image Analysis Unit
Building 27958A, Pod E, Quantico, VA 22135
703-985-1192
Rvorderbruegge@fbiacademy.edu

 Forensic Photographic Comparisons
Outline
l Recognized
l What

discipline

is it?

l Brief

History

l How is

it done? (Technique)
l Examples
l Limitations
l What

it is not
l What should be done to support it?

 ASCLD/LAB
and
Digital & Multimedia Evidence
l ASCLD/LAB

now recognizes “Digital
and Multimedia Evidence” as a
discipline subject to accreditation.
l Subdisciplines of “DME” include:
l Computer

Forensics
l Forensic Audio
l Video Analysis
l Image Analysis

 SWGIT Forensic Image Analysis

?v?ersion 1.6 

 

Secdon 12

Best Practices for Forensic Image Aoaiysis

 

DEJECTIVE

The objective of this document is to provide personnel with guidance regarding practices
appropriate when performing a varietv of analvtic tasks involving images, regardless of
the knowledge domain that is the subject of analvsis.

SWGIT PDSITIDN ION FGRENSIC IMAGE ANALYSIS

Forensic image analvsis is a forensic science. It has been practiced since the earlv davs
of photography?, dating at least to 1851 when Marcus A. Root conducted the first
documented example of Forensic Image Authentication. Through microscopic
examination, Root revealed that the color daguerrotvpe ?process? promoted by
Reverend Levi Hill was actuallv the product of hand coloring, not a breakthrough in
photographic science {DavisI Photogr'aphv, Brown Benchmark; 1995). in addition to
being an accepted scientific practice in the forensic communitv, image analvsis is also
recognized in other disciplines including medicine, intelligence, geologv, astronomv,
agricultureI and others.

Forensic Image Analysis
l

Information Extraction (through processing)
l License

plate numbers, clothing markings, etc.

Photogrammetric examinations
l Image Authenticity examinations
l Forensic Photographic Comparisons
l Facial/person-to-person comparisons
l Object comparisons (clothing, vehicles,
weapons, etc.)
l Image-to-camera comparisons
l

 SWGIT Photographic Comparisons

 

Photographic Comparisons

Photographic comparison is an assessment of the correspondence between features in
images and known objects for the purpose of rendering an expelt opinion regarding
identification or elimination [as opposed to a demonstrative exhibit}. Examples of
photographic comparisons include. but are not limited to:

'r A facial comparison between an unknown subject depicted in a surveillance image
with an identified suspect;

'r The comparison of objects such as vehicles depicted in surveillance images with
those recovered in an investigation;

'r The comparison of a questioned image with a known camera to determine if the
image was captured using that camera.

Photographic comparisons are freguentlv referred to as ?side-bv-side? comparisons since
they usuallv involve a comparison of class and individualizing characteristics in imagerv.
The scientific processes involved in photographic comparisons are comparable to those
used in other forensic disciplines such as fingerprint analvsis. An application of the
scientific method applied to photographic comparisons is [Analvsis Comparison,
Evaluation Verification). Statistical analvsis can be used as a component of the
evaluation stage of but is not required.

 

Forensic Photographic Comparisons
l

Image-to-image comparisons not new, or
unique to forensics:
l Astronomy
l Change

l Geology

Detection (planet searches)

(Photo-geology)

l Inter-comparisons

(Tectonic/impact processes, etc.)
l Change Detection (volcanism/water/dust)
l Military/Intelligence/Security
l Cuban

Applications

Missile Crisis
l Imposter Detection
l DHS and State Department Applications

 Forensic Photographic Comparisons
l

Image-to-image or image-to-object
comparisons not new to forensics:
l Latent

prints
l Footwear impressions
l Tire impressions
l Questioned Documents
l Firearm and Toolmark exams
l Firearm

l

identifications from photographs

Subject Matter Experts Draw Conclusions – and
they must understand the photographic process

 Forensic Photographic Comparisons
Historical Highlights (1/2)
l

FBI Conducted since 1960’s (and earlier…)
l JFK

Assassination

l Rifle

in backyard photos to recovered weapon (WC)
l Photo to camera comparisons (WC)
l SA Shaneyfelt testified that he had conducted “100 to 300
photographic examinations” prior to JFK case (WC)
l Facial comparisons of Oswald (HSCA)
l Bank

Protection Act of 1968

l Camera

in banks – source of evidentiary photos
l Greater need for photo-examiners in FBI

 Forensic Photographic Comparisons
Historical Highlights (2/2)
l

Case law dating from the 1970’s to today
demonstrates court acceptance of photographic
comparison testimony.
l Daubert

l

challenges met and passed in this decade.

Most publications in law enforcement journals,
conference proceedings, forensic journals, or
as chapters in books addressing broader areas.
l Many

“case studies”.
l “THE TEXTBOOK” does not yet exist.

 Some Labs Where Photographic
Comparisons are Performed
FBI – Forensic Audio, Video and Image
Analysis Unit
l U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory
l Wisconsin State Crime Laboratory in Wausau
l The Centre of Forensic Sciences (Ontario)
l Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)
l Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI)
l Target Corporation

l

 Forensic Photographic Comparisons
l

Technique – ACE-V model (like latent prints)
l Image

acquisition (film, video, digital still)
l Image processing (enhance images)
l

≠ Photographic Comparison by itself!

l Image

Analysis/observation (note features)
l Comparison (correspondence of features?)
l Evaluation (meaning of correspondence/lack)
l Sometimes

can be supported by statistics (not required)

l Verification

l

ACE is the scientific method

 Forensic Photographic Comparisons
Examples
l

Facial Comparisons/Human ID from Images

l

Vehicle Identification/Comparisons

l

Clothing Comparisons

l

Camera Identification

 Applying Statistics to
Patterned Clothing Characteristics
One seam – 1/30 chance of specific alignment
(1/30 more conservative than 1/36)
l Two seams – 1/30 * 1/30 = 1/900
l Three seams – 1/30 * 1/30 * 1/30 = 1/27,000
l

l (More

than number manufactured…identification)
l 4 seams – 1/810,000
l 5 seams - 1/24,300,000
l

In one robbery, saw 11 seams/pieces…
l (1/30)^11

= 1/1.77 E+16
(17,714,700,000,000,000)

 Camera Identification/Individualization
l Questioned

images all exhibited same
defective pixels (15 total identified).
l Total number of pixels in image 2048 x
1536 = 3,145,728 (3.1 million).
l Chance of two images having same
single bad pixel at random ~ 1 in 3.1
million squared (~ 1 in 10 to the 12th
power).
l 15 pixels? - < 1 in 10 to the 50th power.
l = Same camera.

 Forensic Photographic Comparisons
Limitations
l

Why is the field more prominent today?
l

Increase in image and video evidence in society (and need
for law enforcement analysis)
l
l
l

l

Increase in ability of law enforcement agencies to process
digital images and video
l

l

Surveillance video (public and private sector)
Digital Cameras (including cell phones)
Internet (including webcams)

Increase in computer power/reduction in cost makes equipment much
cheaper (FBI not only ones who can afford equipment)

BUT PROCESSING ≠ COMPARISON

 Forensic Photographic Comparisons
What is needed?
l

Infrastructure
l Full

time personnel, dedicated to this field
l Peer review – Opinion based conclusions demand it
l

Education
l Image

Science

l Anyone

can “look” at a picture – one needs to be trained
to “analyze”

l Comparison
l What

Analysis

characteristics are most meaningful?

l Statistics

and statistical modeling

 Forensic Photographic Comparisons
What is needed?
l

Education in Statistics
l Can’t

have statistical tables for everything.

l Photo

l Models

l

comparisons may involve ANYTHING.

often developed on a case-by-case basis

Research
l Statistics

of Facial Minutiae (including ear patterns)
l Biometrics (black box) vs. Forensic Science (why
does a technology work)

 Forensic Photographic
Comparison Analysis
Questions?
Richard W. Vorder Bruegge, Ph.D.

Examiner of Questioned Photographic Evidence
FBI – Operational Technology Division
Forensic Audio, Video and Image Analysis Unit
Building 27958A, Pod E, Quantico, VA 22135
703-985-1192
Rvorderbruegge@fbiacademy.edu