Richard III and DNA testing

[trystan]

Do you think that the reconstruction expert had no idea to whom the skull may belong, in which case the result was remarkable, or did she have prior knowledge of who it might be, in which case she could have been influenced by existing portraits?

I would have imagined that the person who reconstructed the facial features of the face would have done so in a clinical impartial way. They would obviously have known who the scull was suspected to be, but I imagine that the true professional would have the integrity to make sure that their work was done in a thorough scientific way.

Trystan

[shanew147]

the reconstruction was done by Professor Caroline Wilkinson

[Greensleeves]

It always occurs to me that with these facial reconstructions, the bone structure would be true, but there are always a variety of possibilities regarding the set of the eyes, the lavishness of the eyebrows, the thickness of the lips etc - things which cannot be determined by the skeletal remains.

[Skoosh]

Perkin Warbeck, a Fleming, claimed to be one of the Princes in the Tower,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perkin_Warbeck

Skoosh.

P.S, Professor Wilkinson of Dundee Uni's reconstruction of Robert Burns face had some recourse to portraiture as the lower jaw was left in the tomb when it was opened for Burns wife and the skull was cast in plaster for phrenology purposes.

[Maggie.]

I'm sure you are right Trystan and the professional that Caroline Wilkinson is would not let the knowledge of who it was purported to be influence her in any way. But it still begs the question.


Forensic facial reconstruction is a career I would love to have followed but sadly in my far off days of career choices it did not exist.

[Maggie.]

GS, I understand that the skeletal remains reveal attachment points of muscles and ligaments that can give a fair indication of the lie of muscles, set of eyes etc. thereby giving shape of the face. Things like hair thickness and colour are more difficult.

[Ruskie]

re facial reconstruction:

I always wondered about the accuracy of facial reconstructions and never found them very 'lifelike'. I could never understand, like greensleeves, how they could estimate what the fleshy parts of the face would look like. Perhaps just a best guess? I can see how the bones are used to put down the muscle layer, but beyond that I think it must come down to interpretation.

Caroline Wilkinson does the facial reconstructions for History Cold Case. I was never particularly impressed by her reconstructions and found that they all looked quite similar. However the one of Richard III was coloured and 'dressed', so I think that made a huge difference and made him look more lifelike. I'm sure she also spent a lot more time working on him.

I also wondered if she had been influenced by images of him, but, thinking about it, as Richard has always received such a bad rap, maybe she would have been intent on giving him a completely different look to how he had been portrayed in the past? Therefore I tend to agree with Trystan. It also would have been a more interesting exercise rather than just making a 3d copy of a painting.

[youngtug]

Facial reconstruction  http://youtu.be/95ourpqaxdg

[shanew147]

some details of how the reconstruction was carried out :

  What is the method for reconstructing Richard III's face?   (BBC News)