Welcome
Expert witness work in forensic image comparison, forensic age estimation, skeletal identification, and measurement image data.
The practice works primarily for courts, public prosecutors’ offices, police authorities, administrative fine authorities, and other public bodies, as well as for lawyers. What matters is a clear evidential question, suitable material, and an assessment grounded in specialist methodology. This includes the preliminary review of the material, the written expert report, and—where required—the oral explanation at the hearing. The pages provide a compact overview of fields of practice, material requirements, documents, and the procedure for the respective instruction.
Anthropological image comparison in judicial and administrative proceedings on the basis of traceable feature analysis.
What matters are recognisability, comparability, and the question what conclusion the available material can actually support in professional terms.
Expert assessment of legally relevant age questions in living persons while observing the legally permissible framework of examination.
The focus lies on age thresholds, the overall appraisal of the findings, and the methodologically restrained evaluation of the collected findings.
Anthropological examination of human skeletal remains, bone finds, and osteological comparison findings in the context of identification.
Central issues are the state of preservation, the biological profile, comparison material, and the proper handling of the finding and recovery situation.
Technical preparation of measurement image data through decryption, export, and traceable provision in usable form.
The technical conversion remains separate from the actual expert report, but it may be a prerequisite for later specialist assessment.
The assessment requires a clear separation between technical visualisation, material review, and the actual specialist evaluation. Not every image is suitable for an identity assessment, not every comparison image allows the same degree of feature comparison, and not every question supports the same scope of conclusion. Where the material imposes limits, this is stated expressly. What matters is a morphological feature analysis rather than mere impressions of similarity or automated claims of a hit. The expert conclusion is therefore formulated as a verbally reasoned statement of probability and not as pseudo-mathematical precision.
The assessment takes account of image quality, perspective, comparability, occlusion, preselection, and limits of inference. The evaluation steps are justified in writing and clearly distinguished from a mere preliminary review or a suitability review.
For an initial enquiry, four pieces of information are especially helpful: the type of proceedings, the specific evidential question, a brief overview of the available material, and an indication of the form in which that material exists. Relevant information therefore includes whether original files, exports, printouts, sequences, radiological records, or other comparison findings are already available, and whether any preselection, witness nomination, or prior identification has already taken place. Also helpful are a court order, a written instruction, or a brief file extract, insofar as this is procedurally possible.
A court order, a written instruction, or a brief file extract additionally facilitate the initial assessment. This makes it possible at an early stage to clarify whether the material actually supports the evidential question, what scope is appropriate in substantive terms, and whether initially only visualisation, a suitability review, or already a more extensive expert assessment is indicated.
