...A TRYPTYCH...
This is one of those trick questions, can you spot the differences between these three images?
Image 1 on the left is from the 1958 Inquest, this is the version that has 122 pages and not 102. It contains images of all of the exhibits including two close-up images of the plaster bust. Image 2 is a standard front-face image of the bust in situ at the SA Police Museum and image 3 shows a disembodied hand supposedly retrieving hair samples from the eyebrow area of the bust.
There are a few differences some of which could be explained away but at least two are markedly different. You may want to compare some of the other images of the bust, plenty of them on the web.
UPDATE November 19th 2023:
1A: Right ear outer helix, smooth
1D: Definite indent to the right nostril circled, clearly visible
2D: No indent visible to the right nostril
3D: Very slight marking to the right nostril, lighting issue?
The comparisons show distinct visible differences with Image 2 being the odd one out. In the comments you will find a reference to the 'bump' across the forehead, it does not appear in either image 1 or image 3. That could be a lighting issue but that would not explain the clear profile image of 1 and 3 which show a clean defining line between the left extremities of the images and the surrounding background. I would say that the bump marking is questionable.
Whilst there are three visible and questionable differences, the major issue is the hairline, with image 2 being distinctly different from the other 2 images.
NOVEMBER 17th UPDATE, NEW COMPARISON IMAGE:
Also, note that Paul made it very clear that he had used the post-autopsy photos to model the face because the face on the body that he was working on looked nothing like him.
To me the first one has more of a natural look just by looking at the creases and lines and the 3rd picture is more smooth and touched up,and the second I can’t really tell the difference from the 1st picture and Just in my own opinion it seems the bust on the first picture is layed on top of the corpse, judging how the brow area looks caked in something.
ReplyDeleteAgree with that, the crease marks are noticeable, that would be the sort of detail that I think would be down to Paul Lawson and his skills. Staying with the first image, forward of the right ear and upwards a little there are what appear to me black scratch marks which might be an effort by the photographer to add a touch of realism perhaps.
ReplyDeleteAgain on the first image, the right side of the nostril has a pronounced indent on the first image that is less obvious on the other two images.
Image two there is a 'bump' across the forehead which you cannot make out anywhere near as clearly on the other two pics. Over the years that has been put down to Paul reproducing the marks on the man's head which occurred during the autopsy. The top of the skull is removed and replaced in the process and normally you wouldn't see the resultant mark which is barely visible on the post autopsy photographs. It could have moved during the time the body was in the cooler, bear in mind the body was moved 50 times during the period between December 10th and mid March when the Laurie Elliot, the embalmer did his work.
I agree with you on the third image and interestingly it doesn't become obvious until you have a comparison image alongside it. It certainly looks to have been touched up around the face area and you would wonder why that was done, possibly just a graphics person trying to improve the appearance.
Back to the crease marks, here we have the body of a man who supposedly came from Europe. Given that Northern Europeans tend to have fair and smooth skin, do these marks suggest that he may have come from a Southern European area where sunlight would cause this kind of marking? Open to suggestions on that of course.
There is one other aspect of these images that is quite puzzling, I'll put it in the next comment below.
Part two
ReplyDeleteWhen you look at the hairline on image 2, you will see how the hair at the forward peak has been modelled to sweep from the left across to the right. Yet clearly in image 1 and image 3, the hair has the appearance of being swept up and backwards at the exact same point. I will put an image up later today to better illustrate what I mean.
Does this mean that there was a second bust? Or could it be that someone has reworked the original one? Interesting that it relates to the hair given the DNA extraction issues.
Take a look, would be interested in your thoughts.
Hey it’s John, yeah I think it’s a second bust, has to be! Do you know if plaster busts disintegrate if not stored in a proper case or temperature?
ReplyDeleteIt depends on the plaster mix to an extent and it is also about the mix used to create the mold. In the SM case, the mix used was suitable for re use. In other words some are one time mold mixes but not this one. I would think that they would keep quite well but I am not an expert in the subject. I do know that the casts are subject to shrinkage dependant on the environment, thus in a perspex case it should be fine.
ReplyDeleteI am not totally convinced that it's a second bust at this stage. Still thinking about the likelihood of someone modifying the original and why would they do that.
That third photo with the shading looks a lot like the post autopsy pic you had on here.
ReplyDeleteAnd in the middle image the man's left eye looks to be closed but not in the other two pics.
ReplyDeleteWhat's Sanders on about now? Anemptyglass altered? Not from here it ain't, still the same user friendly layout.
ReplyDeleteWho cares?
Delete