Cookies on the
LGC website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we’ll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on the LGC website. However, if you would like to, you can change your cookie settings at anytime.
Question markFind out more

Facial and body comparison

An unknown male, one of a group involved in a fight outside a night club in the early hours of the morning, was arrested by the Police. LGC were asked to examine images captured from the venue's external CCTV camera and additional Town Centre CCTV footage of the incident and conduct a Facial Comparison to ascertain whether the offender and suspect were the same person. The Police provided passport style images of the suspect male acquired when taken into custody as comparative material.
A preliminary assessment confirmed that it was not possible to eliminate the suspect as a candidate for the offender but that the camera to subject range and limited scope of the passport style images precluded a meaningful Facial comparison. However, we advised that if additional CCTV footage of the suspect could be made available more robust results might be possible.
On receipt of Police Custody Suite CCTV footage it was possible to capture images with closely matching angles of view that enabled a full Facial Comparison using the three recognised methods: photogrammetry, morphology and superimposition. We concluded that there was moderate support for the contention that they were the same person. Moreover, we noted that the suspect was wearing clothing that appeared similar in type and style to that worn by the offender, including a hoodie with a prominent patterned logo on the chest. We therefore advised that, should such an item of clothing be recovered, further analysis may add weight to the contention that they were the same person.
On receipt of the item for detailed analysis we observed light-toned paint marks on the outside of the left sleeve. A detailed comparison with the hoodie worn by the offender identified similar markings and further analysis concluded that there was powerful support to the contention that they were one and the same item.
The imagery analysis, although only providing moderate support in the first instance, identified other potential areas of work that resulted in a significantly more robust and higher level of support that resulted in a successful conviction.