Facial reconstruction case study – Wes Neville

This is a facial reconstruction that Wes did when he worked at the Florence County Sheriff’s Office in South Carolina in 2004. This is an interesting case, which highlights the  team aspect of an artist working together with the consulting anthropologist. Despite the skull not having a nasal spine, Wes called on his years of experience and suggested to the anthropologistthat the victim would have a downward tilted nose. The anthropologist agreed, and the result was a successful facial reconstruction with a positive ID.

The following is Wes’ explanation of the case:

On August 8th, 2000, skeletal remains were located in a wooded area near Steinhatchee, Florida (Taylor County). Traditional methods for identifying the remains were exhausted, and in February, 2004, an Investigator with the Taylor County Sheriff’s Office (FL) contacted me about possibly sculpting a facial reconstruction/approximation for their John Doe.

A complete Anthropological report from the University of Florida (Dr. Falsetti), along with law enforcement reports and crime scene photographs were provided to assist in the reconstruction process.

Due to trauma caused by a .38 caliber bullet,  the left half of the maxilla, was missing, as well as portions of both orbits, and the nasal opening.

The nasal bone was unique, and considered a possible excellent identifier. Although the nasal spine was not present on the skull, the base of the nasal opening had a noticeable downward slope. In addition, the bone between the nasal spine and the teeth was straight vertically with no curvature; this in itself would result in a “uniqueness” in the victim’s appearance. Taking these factors into consideration along withthe victim’s approximateage and the lengthof the nasal bone and the way it extended abnormally forward led me to believe the victim’s nose would have a noticeable downward slope with a noticeable drop off from the nasal bone. I contacted the Hillsborough County Medical Examiner’s office about my findings and the onsite Anthropologist agreed.

In addition to the skull, the Investigator in charge provided photographs of both a wool hat and a pair of glasses located at the scene in various poses. The glasses were graphically placed on the sculpture. Utilizing the glasses nose piece, I was able to appropriately size the glasses to the sculpture. The hat found on-scene was in poor condition due to weather damage; however, I was able to include a sketch of the hat onto a two-dimensional drawing.

In March 2004, a CD containing a variety of photos of the sculpture and various sketches was provided to the Investigator to be distributed as needed.

Originally, investigators entered the somewhat generic parameters of their doe into NCIC, and 15,800 possibilities came back. The task seemed overwhelming. In the summer of 2004, a civilian noticed a likeness between the facial reconstruction posted online with that of missing person “Larry F.”  listed on the NYPD Missing Persons website. The approximate time of death, time the person went missing, and physical stature were consistent with the skeletal remains, thus increasing the belief that the two were one and the same. The Taylor County Sheriff’s Office and the NYPD Missing Person Unit were contacted about the possible match. Both sides agreed to pursue the possible match. When the brother of the deceased saw the reconstruction, he left little question that they were, in fact, looking at his brother who disappeared in January, 1999.

Dental records matched, but authorities wanted definitive confirmation through the use of DNA. On December 27, 2004, the results came back with a positive.

In early 2005, the brother provided updated photos of his brother stating that “the reconstruction looked more like his brother than the image NYPD had on the missing person’s site.”  The uniqueness of the nose was apparent in the new photos of the victim.