Circa 1846 Daguerreotype – Alexander Joy Cartwright debate

[bmarlowe1]

I find that in general people interested in this subject are highly intelligent. Based on quite a few emails, I know that they fully understand that two competent experts can publish highly conflicting opinions, and they understand the reasons why. Certainly attorneys should understand this quite well. To say that either one of the experts doesn’t know how to compare faces in photographs is beyond ludicrous. I never said that about Mr. Richards.

[barrysloate]

I feel the same way Mark. I believe that both you and Corey each picked an expert with great skills to work on this project. In no way do I feel that either of the experts is incompetent, and I think that's a bad direction to take this. Perhaps both sides should agree that Mr. Richards and Mr. Mancusi simply have come up with different conclusions, and the issue may in fact remain unresolved. We could have a survey where everyone who has read both articles votes on this, but I'm going to guess nearly all of them will vote they are not sure. I would be very surprised to see too many "definitely is/definitely isn't" votes. And I don't have a solution on how both you and Corey will ever agree here. It won't happen. That's a disappointment.

[oldjudge]

Nonetheless Barry, I hope we have the vote. There are probably quite a few people who have read the article but have chosen not to enter the debate.

[barrysloate]

That's up to Corey, Mark, and Leon. They can decide whether or not a vote has merits.

[Abravefan11]

I'm sure I'll be in the minority on this, but I'm not in favor of a poll or vote. I don't think the results, whatever they may be, would add anything beneficial to the conversation. I do appreciate the newsletter being posted so that all sides and opinions can be discussed and anyone that wants to weigh in has the opportunity to do so.

[barrysloate]

I was thinking the same thing Tim, especially if nearly everyone votes they aren't sure. But we'll see what happens.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

I'm sure I'll be in the minority on this, but I'm not in favor of a poll or vote. I don't think the results, whatever they may be, would add anything beneficial to the conversation. I do appreciate the newsletter being posted so that all sides and opinions can be discussed and anyone that wants to weigh in has the opportunity to do so.

I agree with you regarding the vote.

[bmarlowe1]

>>The issue here is not competency to compare faces. The issue is knowing what differences are real or illusionary, caused by photographic illusion or studio touch up…I believe I have the right to point out that Mr. Mancusi is an artist, not a photography expert. …..Mr. Mancusi is being asked to opine on a matter that requires expertise from another field. Since you mention attorneys, that would be akin to a tax attorney being asked to opine on a matter of matrimonial law…

You are saying that Mr. Mancusi is not qualified to compare faces in photographs and has no understanding of the effects of lighting and retouching, as if one would think that was not a significant part of his job as the NYPD’s senior forensic artist for 24 years. That is of course completely ludicrous.

From p. 28:
Mr. Mancusi’s background includes decades of facial comparison experience, including frequently comparing faces in photos of varying quality, lighting, angle and facial expression as well as evaluating facial changes over varying periods of time. Forensic artists who have been formally educated in the rendering of human faces have particular expertise as to how lighting, look angle, and expression affect the appearance of facial features.

He is fully qualified to opine on the likelihood of these two faces belonging to the same person.:

[bmarlowe1]

>>As to methodology, Mr. Mancusi's belief that individual comparison of each of the A Subjects to Subject C is not necessary, that one can apply the Subject C to Subject A4 comparison conclusion to a Subject C to Subject A1, A2 or A3 comparison, is simply incorrect.

No that is not correct and you have said nothing to support that other than to repeat it. My response is on p. 28:
Mr. Richards states, “each ‘known’ image should be independently compared with the questioned image.” He asserts that it is necessary to not only compare A4 directly to C, but to also individually compare A1, A2, and A3 to C. But he does not state what difference he thinks that would make - what features of A1, A2 or A3 would compare more favorably to C? All the A's have virtually the same forehead width, so it suffices to then compare only one of them directly to C. The same can be said for the particular characteristics of the eyelid, lips/philtrum, and nose.

When you want to measure something, you don't have to go to the National Bureau of Standards to get "the" ruler. Any ruler from Walgreens will do just fine. That's because we know that the Walgreens ruler is sufficiently close to the NBS ruler to do the job.

>>As to negativity, the only one taking what I believe are uncalled for shots at competency is you against me, and you know quite well the comments I'm talking about.

So, you can question Mr. Mancusi's competency to compare faces in photos, and I can't question your competency to make that judgment? And, you can vigorously claim for years that H and G are Curry and Adams, I can’t question your competency? That’s uncalled for? You certainly challenged my competency in your response in the newsletter supplement. Give me a break.

>>I cooperated fully knowing that your intended objective is to have the HOF change the Cartwright bronze.

That is simply another mischaracterization of a private communication.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

You are saying that Mr. Mancusi is not qualified to compare faces in photographs and has no understanding of the effects of lighting and retouching, as if one would think that was not a significant part of his job as the NYPD’s senior forensic artist for 24 years. That is of course completely ludicrous.

I am sure in the 24 years Mr. Mancusi has been a NYPD forensic artist he many times had occassion in his line of work to analyze mid-19th century daguerreotypes of current crime suspects.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

I find that in general people interested in this subject are highly intelligent. Based on quite a few emails, I know that they fully understand that two competent experts can publish highly conflicting opinions, and they understand the reasons why. Certainly attorneys should understand this quite well. To say that either one of the experts doesn’t know how to compare faces in photographs is beyond ludicrous. I never said that about Mr. Richards.

The issue here is not competency to compare faces. The issue is knowing what differences are real or illusionary, caused by photographic illusion or studio touch up. And the issue also pertains to methodology. I believe I have the right to point out that Mr. Mancusi is an artist, not a photography expert. That distinction is crucial here as Mr. Richards questions the existence of a number of the differences Mr. Mancusi discusses. I make it quite clear in the newsletter supplement that I intend no disrespect by stating that Mr. Mancusi is being asked to opine on a matter that requires expertise from another field. Since you mention attorneys, that would be akin to a tax attorney being asked to opine on a matter of matrimonial law. Yes, in both instances law is involved, but the skill set and training needed are much different. I believe the iris analysis bears out my point. Having said that, I will also say that had Mr. Mancusi had (i) access to the same resolution image that Mr. Richards and (ii) the same knowledge about emulsion type in conjunction with studio lighting as Mr. Richards, I have no doubt Mr. Mancusi's analysis would have been quite competent.

As to methodology, Mr. Mancusi's belief that individual comparison of each of the A Subjects to Subject C is not necessary, that one can apply the Subject C to Subject A4 comparison conclusion to a Subject C to Subject A1, A2 or A3 comparison, is simply incorrect. I believe I have every right to point that out and the impact that has on his conclusions.

As to negativity, the only one taking what I believe are uncalled for shots at competency is you against me, and you know quite well the comments I'm talking about.

At the end of the day, as Barry points out, you came to me with this project. I cooperated fully knowing that your intended objective is to have the HOF change the Cartwright bronze. The half plate is one of the most significant photographs in the hobby. You, as you have a right to do, are making a full scale attack on what it represents. I believe I have the right to vigorously respond to what you bring up, and in the process bring to bear relevant issues as to the area of speciality of your chosen expert. And that is all I have done.

[Leon]

There has not been a definite decision made as to having a poll or not. I want to be very fair to both Mark and Corey and will look to both of them, privately, for their comments on that matter. regards