Facial Reconstruction Essay

Crime has existed in societies across the world for centuries. Forensic science has given insight into the world of crime and has been able to unmask the secrets of crime scenes. For example, the archaeological exhumination of buried remains has been helpful in many investigations, and the information that can be obtained has been used to identify unrecognizable victims (Id, 2010). As the prevalence of crime increases, so does the need and use of forensic techniques, especially in regards to identifying deceased persons. As such, over the past decades, forensic anthropology has evolved and has given birth to an extensive array of technological advancements, from computerized databanks to advanced methods of facial reconstruction (Adebisi, 2008).

For example, the facial reconstruction of a skull may lead to recognition by a member of the public, which can then consequently reveal that individuals identity (Adebisi, 2008). However, the facial features that are created from reconstruction are not expected to be an exact replica of the person to be identified. As a result, many forensic scientists have criticized this method for being unreliable and having a low statistical success rate (Jain et al., 2011). Thus, this method is generally considered the last option in forensic investigations after exhausting other lines of enquiry, such as dental record assessments, missing person files, and clues left at the crime scene (Wilkinson, 2010). Facial reconstruction of a skull can be traced back to ancient cultures, where the skull would have plaster moulded around it and decorated to look like the face of the deceased. It was only in the early nineteenth century, through the work of Mikhail Mikhaylovich, that facial reconstruction was used to reconstruct a face in a criminal case (Adebisi, 2008). Since then, there have been numerous changes in both efficiency and use of reconstruction techniques. Currently there are two main methods of doing facial reconstruction: the traditional reconstruction method and the computer-aided 3D reconstruction method. Each method of reconstruction can produce an approximate face and have their own

The 2D approach usually requires collaboration between forensic anthropologists and artists (Walsh-Haney, 2002). In this approach, the artists would make a sketch based on the characteristics of the individual and mark on the paper the average thickness of soft tissue. However, since the artists are simply making a sketch, although it may be quick and timely, some facial features may not be accurately portrayed and lead to a wrong identification (Wilkinson, 2004). Nevertheless, whichever approach is chosen, facial reconstruction still requires a detailed analysis of the skull. Essentially, the process begins with the study of the skull for characteristics that may give clues, such as the size of the jaw, teeth, facial asymmetry, and overall profile of the facial bones (Wilkinson, 2004). Once the features are determined, sculpting (for 3D cast) begins by applying tissue depth markers on 21 specific areas on a cast skull. These depth markers are required for reproduction of the facial features as they show the average tissue thickness in particular anatomical areas. Based on these characteristics, a face can be reconstructed step by step. This process is time consuming, and even then the shape of the eyes, nose, and mouth are largely speculation (Vaneziz et al., 1989). Unfortunately, the skull cannot give every clue