|Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 11:55 am: ||
You seem to be seeking comparison of the backside of your four-year-old son against a magazine reproduction of a photograph of an infant's naked backside from several years ago... to determine if there is proof to support your belief that the image depicts your son. Such examinations, involving non-impression images of creases, are not normally within the realm of friction ridge identification procedures in forensic laboratories, even considering potential wrist or back-of-knee crease comparisons.
The spatial resolution of the original photo, coupled with the degradation normally inherent to moire patterns in magazine printing processes, may mean that any permanent creases present will not be discernible enough to facilitate meaningful comparisons (insofar as crease identifications by a Latent Print Examiner).
The type of examination you are requesting is sometimes performed by government experts to identify child victims in pornography investigations. Because you did not mention any prurient intent related to the magazine image, such government agencies would not normally get involved in your situation.
You will find persons willing to accept money (in advance) for services in evaluating your evidence. Before paying a single peso, I recommend you verify that the expert you retain has been previously accepted in court as an expert in the same type of examinations you are seeking, in the same country where your attorney intends to file suit. Your best bet may be to locate a retired government crime laboratory expert with considerable experience in child pornography image identification (identification of children). Such persons are not normally also Latent Print Examiners. I recommend that you talk with Philippine police experts who coordinate with the FBI's international child pornography activities as described here.
There any many factors to be considered, including how to prove with scientific reliability the frequency that moles of the size and shape that you described appear on the back of legs ...how accurate the location of the mole on the model's leg can be determined because of image distortion (camera geometry) ...how you can prove that the apparent mole on the model's leg is not a piece of dried leaf or dirt, etc.
Good luck in your endeavor.
|Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 04:34 am: ||
Can flexion creases on the posterior popliteal area* and proximal wrist flexion creases be used in identification?
My 4 year old boy's image was used for an advertisement without my permission. The incident occured when he was just 18 months old.He was naked and his back was facing the camera at the time the photograph was taken.
Since the scene was on the beach and devoid of any landmarks or objects that would help to establish the location, we only have the entire back of my son's naked body to aid in proving his identity.
A close examination of photographs of the image on the advertisement revealed identifiable creases on the right palm, wrist area and the popliteal area (the area behind his right knee)
From a layman's point of view, both sets of creases found on the model's image and on my son bear very strong similarities. I also found a small mole on the upper portion of my son's right thigh that can also be found on the same spot on the model's body.
I intend to file a case against the company that had unlawfully appropriated my son's image for their ad. But first I need to have the evidence in my possesion validated by an expert.
Can you give me advice on the best course of action?
* Explanatory photo link added by Webservant.