Thanks for the update (and all the work!). Since we're waiting for Shirley's DNA and then (if I understand you correctly) either you or the detective will submit her (or Namus will find the match), it seems silly for us to keep questioning this possible match. I say, people who consider Shirley to be a match should keep researching that angle and people who don't can keep researching other options. At this point, I don't think you should have to keep defending this possible match to us, because you've already gotten the ball rolling with the detective. Time will (hopefully) tell! :twocents:
Well, the truth is that I already know it's her. And please don't take that as arrogance, it's not. There was a miscommunication, I suppose, when I first commented and presented the overlay. I said it was a "perfect match" and you guys pointed out that it was unlikely because "perfect matches", based on the same overlay technique have fallen flat before. Well I have since seen an example of those overlays and the distinction is that those were not perfect matches. They were not painstakingly measured, as was mine, and the features did not line up.
I respect everybody's right to post their own opinions and theories here, and I merely ask for the same in return. So while I won't re-post the overlay, I do want the chance to at least explain how meticulously I created it, without it being dismissed out of hand based on a lack of information.
Those other overlays were not perfect matches. The one I did is. I spent an entire day making sure that both images were the EXACT same size and angle, down to a third of a millimeter, which was the smallest unit of measure. The proportions were maintained exactly. No wiggle room. Then I lined up both right eyes, again down to a third of a millimeter. I went back and forth repeatedly until they were EXACTLY one over top of the other.
At that point either everything would fall into place (if it was Shirley) or it wouldn't (which would mean it couldn't be Shirley). And by "falling into place", I mean as precisely as the right eye did under such a small unit of measure. It did. Everything from one picture laid precisely over the other. Now just to verify that the mouth was correct too, I tested my own face making similar expressions. It was identical to how Shirley's mouth lined up. They line up at the separation in the teeth, at the top of the bottom lip. And if you could arc the line of the straight mouth it would align perfectly with the smiling mouth. I lined the noses up separately too, because of the slight variation in photos. Also a perfect match. Not because they "look right" but because all of the spacial elements fall on the grid in the exact same locations...without variance of more than + or - 1/3 mm. That would be "statistically impossible"...maybe not to have two matching faces in the same world...but certainly out of the few people missing that otherwise match demographically. The starting measurement for Jane Doe's left eye was something like dot number 2034 on a grid of thousands of dots, and Shirley's fell on the exact same number -- 2034.
So, I guess that's what I was trying to convey before. I am a detail person and I can linger on details for days in order to ensure absolute precision. Actually, I have Autism and that is one of the things that we do exceptionally well. We "connect dots", so to speak.
This doesn't mean that others have to believe me or agree with me. But I did want the chance to defend the process I used as it had been called into question.
