Blog Archives

Forensic Artists' Comparisons of Billy the Kid

10/13/2014

Several of my forensic art colleagues recently have created quite a stir by confirming different photographs as being “newly found” images of Billy the Kid. Billy the Kid, born William Henry McCarty, Jr., was a colorful western outlaw of the 1800’s. There are several books and movies about his life as well as biographical information available on the Internet, so I’ll not dwell on the history of this figure. Why this iconic figure came to the attention of forensic artists is that there is only one known, authentic ferrotype of him. This ferrotype (tintype) was sold at auction for 2.3 million dollars, making it one of the most expensive photographs ever sold at auction.

Needless to say, that a lot of money, which means a previously undiscovered image would command big bucks.

The first artist started out comparing these two images (below) and concluded that he was convinced it was the same person. Hmmm. The problem was that the ferrotype that he used for comparison was reversed, as ferrotypes often were. The location of the pistol, buttons, and belt buckle show that the artist was working off a mirror image. Once you look at the corrected image, the ears don’t match. Then there’s the matter of the eyebrows, which go from black and thick on the genuine image to thin and light on the photo. And where did the pronounced bulges under the eyes on the questioned photo go on the genuine photo? The angle of the eyes? Nostril shape? The head shape is similar, as is the small mouth and narrow nose, but the rest of it doesn’t match.

The second artist did an impressive display with comparison images, and was paid for her time. In this case, the artist compared both correct and mirror images of Billy the Kid, depending on which one made her point. For example, on the face she used the correct ferrotype, but when she compared the pinky ring, she used the reversed image. In fact, she goes on to say, “And if you look at the two photographs they're almost identical except that one he's got a cowboy outfit, the other one he has a suit." Um, no. It only works on the reversed, mirror image. On the facial comparison, she ignored the ears and eyebrows, as the previous artist did, and decided the eye shape was due to having “some booze, partied with some saloon girls and just got wild.”

It’s not unusual for a forensic artist to be approached on photographic comparisons. I’ve been promised vast fame should I confirm a previously unknown Abraham Lincoln photo, or Amelia Earhart. Such claims should always be approached with caution so as to not be caught up in the hype of a “new discovery.”

Reversed Billy the Kid ferrotype

Comparison photo. What happened to the eyebrows? Where did those bags under the eye come from? And the ears match because the image above is reversed.

Amazing. They're standing the same...as long as you use the reversed image of Billy the Kid. Check out the button location.

1 Comment

Jack the Ripper: Case Solved or Work of Fiction?

10/3/2014

0 Comments

Over the past month I’ve had a lot of radio interviews about a new book, Naming Jack the Ripper, by Russell Edwards. Edwards, it seems, purchased a shawl in 2007 at auction. Family legend claimed this shawl was found at the scene of Ripper’s fourth victim, Catherine Eddowes. A man named Amos Simpson, a constable at the scene, after asking permission of the authorities present, picked up the shawl and took it home to his wife. The good woman, horrified at the blood-soaked piece of material, put it away in a trunk in the attic. And so it sat for over a hundred years, passed down with the story of its gristly origins. In 1991, the family donated it to the Scotland Yard’s Crime Museum. Without proof of its provenance, the shawl once again languished in storage. In 2001, the family took it back and, by 2007, were ready to sell.

After purchasing the shawl, amateur sleuth Russell Edwards tracked down the descendants of both Catherine Eddowes and one of the suspects: Aaron Kosminsky, a Polish barber. He collected DNA from both, had the shawl tested, and had a perfect match. Case solved after 126 years.

Or was it?

Let’s go back and revisit the crime scene. On September 30, 1888, at approximately 1:45 AM, PC Edward Walkins discovers Catherine Eddowes’ body in Mitre Square near the Whitechapel section of London. The arriving Detective Inspector as well as the Metropolitan Police immediately ordered a door-to-door search. Evidence collected at the crime scene included such items as a button, thimble, and six pieces of soap. According to Casebook.org, below is a partial list of her possessions inventoried at the scene:

·       2 small blue bags made of bed ticking

·       2 short black clay pipes

·       1 tin box containing tea

·       1 tin matchbox, empty

No mention of a more than 6 foot long by two foot wide silk shawl. I’m to believe that everything down to a button was collected, but not this shawl?

So, did the conversation at the scene go like this?

Simpson: “Er, Inspector, I was wondering if I might have a word with you?”

Inspector: “Yes, what is it? I’m busy.”

Simpson: “See that pretty shawl? The one lying in the woman’s blood next to her body?”

Inspector: “Yes. Obviously not hers. Must have been left here by Jack the Ripper. What about it?”

Simpson: “Even though it’s the only evidence we have of the Ripper, and could be an important lead in the case, could I have it? My wife’s a dressmaker and would love to have that.”

Inspector: “Sure. Take it. I’m sure we’ll find something else in the way of evidence.”

What an incredibly lame story. As a plot for a novel, I’d be laughed out of my critique group. No shawl was found at the scene. Nor was there any record of any “Amos Simpson.”

Let’s ignore this fictional origins of the shawl. We’re still left with the irrefutable DNA evidence. Russell Edwards tells us that he collected the DNA evidence from the descendant of Catherine Eddowes … wait … stop right there … HE collected the evidence? So Edwards has in his possession both the DNA and the shawl? And it’s a perfect match…?

What about the DNA of Aaron Kosminsky, the Polish barber named as a possible suspect in the Ripper murders? Edwards said he also collected the DNA from … an unnamed person. Yes, we are to take his word for it that this … person … is a descendant. Once again, Edwards was the one collecting the DNA. And once again, it’s a perfect match to … what’s-her-name.

Edwards created a work a fiction, starting with the premise of “what would happen if a shawl from the Ripper murders were tested for DNA….” He should have run his idea past a good critique partner or two. He will sell a boatload of books. But only this one story. Once folks start to really think about the premise, and put it together, he’ll never be able to “sell” anyone again on any amazing “finds” he will have in the future.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

0 Comments

Forensic Artists' Comparisons of Billy the Kid

Jack the Ripper: Case Solved or Work of Fiction?

Carrie Parks

Archives

Categories