Procedure and initial enquiry

Initial contact

For initial contact, a few but precise details are usually sufficient. What matters are the type of proceedings, the evidential question, and a brief description of what material is already available. At this stage it is also helpful whether the matter concerns forensic image comparison, age estimation, skeletal findings, or merely the technical preparation of measurement image data. The clearer this classification is, the more readily the appropriate course of work can be determined without unnecessary follow-up questions.

Evidential question

The evidential question should be formulated as concretely as possible. An open-ended wish that the material be examined is of little help. Helpful, by contrast, is the clear question whether a person is identical, whether an age threshold is to be assessed professionally, or whether initially only the suitability of the material is to be examined.

The clearer the evidential question, the more readily the scope of the work can be limited objectively. A merely general request for a “review of the material” is not helpful; helpful, by contrast, is the precise question what is to be answered professionally and what conclusion is needed in the proceedings.

Material situation

What matters is in what form the material is available: original file, export, printout, sequence, single image, radiological prior finding, dental records, or documented bone find. Equally important is whether comparison material already exists or would still have to be obtained.

In image cases it should also be stated whether any preselection, witness naming, photographic lineup, or technical hit list already exists. This information is not incidental; it influences the later assessment and the later judicial evaluation of the evidence.

Preliminary review or full report

Not every case immediately requires a full report. Especially where the material situation is uncertain, a preliminary review may be more sensible. It clarifies whether the material is professionally sustainable at all, which additional documents are missing, and whether initially only a technical visualisation or conversion is indicated.

This preliminary stage protects against investing effort in work whose evidential value would from the outset be narrowly limited by the initial situation. It therefore does not serve delay, but rather early clarification whether a full report is objectively supported at all.

Helpful documents

Depending on the case group, the following are particularly helpful: court order or written instruction, brief file extract, original files or quality-preserving exports, available comparison images, radiological or dental records, photographic documentation of recovery situations, as well as indications of processing steps already undertaken. It is precisely the combination of a clear evidential question, an overview of the material, and brief procedural information that most strongly facilitates the first professional classification.

It is also useful to state what is currently not available. This negative information in particular often saves follow-up questions.

Requirements for comparison images

The evidential value of an opinion depends substantially on the quality and comparability of the image material. Comparison images should therefore be taken, as far as possible, in a perspective approximating that of the questioned image. Of particular importance are gaze direction, head position, distance to the camera, focal length, illumination, and the visible facial region.

Existing photographs or police identification images are not automatically optimal where they differ clearly from the questioned image in pose, perspective, or technical quality. Where such differences exist, they must be taken into account and disclosed in the opinion. Where comparison images are supplied by third parties or produced outside a controlled recording situation, identity assurance is additionally required: it must remain traceable that the submitted images actually show the person concerned and do not create a false impression through selection, alteration, or unclear provenance. It is therefore already helpful in an initial enquiry to provide, in addition to the questioned image, information on how the material arose, on available comparison images, and on any limitations affecting the visible facial region.

What an enquiry can look like

Particularly helpful are a brief designation of the type of proceedings and of the specific evidential question.

Equally important is the information which reference, comparison, or examination records are already available and whether original files, sequences, exports, or only printouts exist.

Even a few precise details are usually sufficient to distinguish whether initially only a preliminary review, a technical visualisation, or already a more extensive expert examination is sensible.