The CCTV stills I've seen weren't clear enough to me personally to tell that he'd had either haircut (didn't he have a hat on!?) or whether he still had a goatee, but if he did indeed shear off both hair on head and face, this would of course be a ten-minute job at home with clippers, which I assume would be the more likely option rather than actually going to a barber's before stopping off for *advertiser censored* and vodka.
I would assume the reasoning behind the artist's impression is probably a combination of all three reasons listed above! Reasons 1 and 2 are sort of understandable. Reason 3 is totally plausible but seems kinda pointless, I doubt further assistance is required for the public to feel negative and scandalised...!
laserdisc10 said:The discrepancy between the vodka-vid (shorn hair, no goatee) and the artist's rendering of SH at the mag court (longer hair and goatee?) as 'artistic licence' whereby the artist who provided sketches for the media is not allowed to sketch in court and must create the sketch from memory. If that's correct, the artist did one of 3 things: (1) drew the sketch prior to the court appearance (2) drew the sketch based on existing photos of SH which the public would recognise or (3) made SH look as dangerous and decrepit as possible to cater to alleged public outrage - or some other reason altogether
I would assume the reasoning behind the artist's impression is probably a combination of all three reasons listed above! Reasons 1 and 2 are sort of understandable. Reason 3 is totally plausible but seems kinda pointless, I doubt further assistance is required for the public to feel negative and scandalised...!