Blues Legend Photo Discovery: Is this Robert Johnson ...inweekly.net/.../uploads/2016/01/Blues-Legend-Photo-Discovery-2.pdf · Blues Legend Photo Discovery: Is this Robert Johnson,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Blues Legend Photo Discovery: Is this Robert Johnson,
Robert Lockwood, Jr., Calletta Craft and Estella (Reese) Coleman?
In 2008, a Vanity Fair magazine article written by Frank DiGiacomo
disclosed the existence of a heretofore undiscovered photograph which was
claimed to be a photograph of Johnson and Johnny Shines, a contemporary of
Johnson’s who was known to have traveled and played with Johnson during his
brief career.5
This photo was purchased on Ebay in 2005 by Steven “Zeke” Schein, a
guitar technician and salesman, who spent years attempting to have the
photograph authenticated.6 With the cooperation of John Kitchens, the attorney
for the Estate of Robert Johnson and Claude Johnson, Robert’s son, the
photograph was submitted to Lois Gibson, a world-renowned certified forensic
artist (CFA) and facial recognition expert, 7 to have the photograph analyzed to
compare the Johnson figure to the existing known photographs of Johnson.
5 Wald, supra., p. 113.
6 Thorpe, Vanessa. The Guardian: “Robert Johnson rare new photograph of delta blues king authenticated after
eight years”, Feb. 3, 2013. 7 DiGiacomo, supra., online copy p. 14. She is described in the article as follows: “She is also a graduate of the FBI
Academy Forensic Artist course and was deemed “the World’s Most Successful Forensic Artist” in the 2005 Guiness Book of World Records because, at the time, her sketches and facial reconstructions had helped net more than
Mrs. Gibson concluded, in an affidavit dated April 14, 2011, that based on
her analysis and within a reasonable degree of certainty, the man shown on the
left in the Johnson-Shines photo was Robert Johnson.8 She indicated in other
interviews that she believed this to be Johnson at an early age,9 an observation
also made by Claude Johnson.10 It is possible that this photograph has been
purchased by the Robert Johnson Foundation, given that the photograph now
bears a copyright notice in the name of Claude Johnson.11
While the Estate of Robert Johnson appears to have accepted the Johnson-
Shines photograph as authentic, controversy regarding its authenticity remains
rampant within the blues community. In May of 2015, two articles were
published which discussed a “study” or letter signed by 49 “music historians,
writers, producers, and musicians”12 disputing the authenticity of the Johnson-
Shines photograph and Gibson’s analysis of the Robert Johnson figure. While the
study itself remains elusive,13 the articles discuss the rationales behind its
conclusions that the Johnson-Shines photo is unauthentic, or perhaps even faked.
These range from questioning the scientific credentials of Lois Gibson (“Gibson is
a forensic artist, not a forensic anthropologist”)14, to whether the photo has been
reversed, or whether features of the photo were the result of computer photo
enhancement.15 They also point out that the photo has no known provenance, or
traceable history. They call for an end to anyone (outside of themselves)
producing any photograph that may have been of Robert Johnson.16
1,062 criminals.” She teaches Forensic Art at Northwestern University, and at other universities around the world, and has published a leading textbook in the area. 8 Gibson, Lois. “Affidavit of Authenticity for Robert Johnson Photo”, April 14, 2011. Posted on Robert Johnson
Blues Foundation web site at www.robertjohnsonbluesfoundation.org. 9 DiGiacomo, supra., online copy p. 14.
10 Id.
11 Id., p. 1.
12 Yuhas, Alan. The Guardian: “Robert Johnson photo does not show the blues legend, music experts say” ,May 23,
2015; Kaye, Ben. Consequence of Sound: “Experts say purported photo of blues legend Robert Johns is fake”, May 26, 2015. 13
A Google search by the author for the study under the names listed in the articles (Wald, Conforth, Evans, etc.) was unproductive in locating an online copy of the study. 14
Kaye, supra., online copy p. 2. 15
Yuhas, supra., online copy p. 2. 16
Id., online copy p. 1.
This raises the question as to whether the blues academic community
should be the only arbiter of what is or isn’t “Johnson”. By giving expression to
their dislike of “interlopers” offering potential new finds regarding the blues icon,
they clearly want to establish themselves as the gatekeepers of any new historical
findings in the blues arena. While they question the motives of those involved in
new findings, they ignore questions regarding their own motives.
We will leave the debate of whether the science of facial recognition, as
practiced by Lois Gibson and others, is a valid methodology to identify historical
figures to others who are far more qualified to do so. Mrs. Gibson’s great body of
work and world wide reputation as a forensic artist speak for themselves. It is
undeniable that the use of facial recognition via biometric measurements is an
established and growing science.17
The discussion that follows is a presentation of Lois Gibson’s analysis of a
recent photo discovery that purports to be a photograph not only of Robert
Johnson, but also of his “family” members, Robert Lockwood, Jr., Calletta (Callie)
Craft, and Estella (Reese) Coleman. Mrs. Gibson’s reports on each facial
comparison are attached as an appendix hereto.
17
Markowitz, Eric. Vocative.com: “Facebook facial recognition tech is now better than the FBI’s. Here’s why that is scary”, March 18, 2014..
II. The Subject Photograph.
The photograph which is the subject of this inquiry is an approximately 3” x
5” black and white photograph with a selenium toned wash (giving it a pinkish-
purple tone)18 which has a serrated bottom edge. The sharp shadowing visible
indicates that it was taken with a flash equipped camera. The photographic paper
is curled, indicative of an early photograph. It was discovered by the author in
June, 2012, in a worn “Gov. Winthrop” slant top desk, along with other
keepsakes, which had been purchased at an antique furniture auction in
Pensacola, Florida.
The photograph is a picture of four African-American individuals, two men
and two women, seated at a table in some sort of commercial establishment. The
table and chairs have tubular metal legs, and the table is covered with a
tablecloth. A variety of items are on the table, including a glass pitcher, drinking
glasses, an empty Coke bottle, a white purse, and two pairs of eyeglasses. The
subjects appear to be sitting in front of a food preparation area with a sign that
18
“Photographic Print Toning”, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/photographic_print_toning, p. 2.
reads “Keep Out.” A kitchen type sink can be seen behind the man seated on the
right.
A number of the items visible in the photograph help to place the photo in
the correct time period for a photograph of Johnson and these “family members.”
The flash bulb was patented by General Electric in 1927; flash photography
outside of a studio would have been impracticable before that date.19 Tubular
metal furniture was available in the 1920’s and first mass produced in 1930.20 The
wide cuffs on the pants of both men, and the argyle socks on Johnson, were
fashionable in the 1930’s.21 The coke bottle on the table was produced from
1915 to the mid-1950s.22 The women’s glasses and shoe styles are consistent
with the time period.23
III. Forensic facial comparisons by Lois Gibson.
In 2013, Lois Gibson, the noted Certified Forensic Artist and facial
identification expert24, agreed to analyze the subject photo and to compare the
four individuals to their known existing photographs. Her analysis and
conclusions were recorded and submitted on six “forensic facial comparison”
reports, two each on Johnson and Lockwood, and one each on Calletta Craft and
Estella Coleman. She also communicated and elaborated her findings in
numerous emails with the author.
19
Tolmachev, Ivan. “A Brief History of Photographic Flash”, http://photography.tutsplus.com, Jan. 19, 2011. 20
Stern, Monique. “Modern Furniture and the Use of Tubular Metal: A Short History”, http://www.modernfurnitureclassics.com. There will be much discussion about whether this style of table and chairs were available in the 1930s. While it is true that the style became popular in the 1950s, the paucity of available research on all the firms, large and small, who were producing various types of tubular metal furniture makes it difficult if not impossible to ascertain when the first of this type was produced. It will, I suspect, continue to be a topic of debate. If, however, one takes the position that this style was only available in the 1950s, they would have to explain the discrepancy with the clothing worn, clearly from the 1930s, and overcome the odds that four lookalikes were gathered together at the same space and time, which would be astronomical.. 21
“The Complete 1930’s Men Fashion Guide”, http://www.vintagedancer.com/1930s. The suit style worn by the Robert Johnson figure in the photo is depicted in several examples of 1930’s suits, and is nothing like the suit styles worn in the 1950s. The diamond pattern argyle socks seen on Johnson were fashionable in the 1930’s and not in the 1950’s. The women’s shoe styles were those worn in the 1920’s and 1930’s. 22
In the first of two comparison studies on Robert Johnson, Lois Gibson notes
a number of identical features shared between the two photographs. Starting
with the foreheads of each, she notes that the forehead shape is identical, that
the eyebrow placement and size are identical, and that the junction between the
nose and forehead is the same in both men. She notes that both individuals are
possessed of a left eye that is significantly smaller than the right eye. Finally, she
notes that the facial width, the cheek structure, and the length of the noses are
identical.25
25
Gibson, Lois. “Forensic Facial Comparison”, Appendix p. 1.
In the second comparison report of the Robert Johnson images, Gibson
creates transparencies of both photos and overlays the subject photo image over
the photo booth image. As seen above, and in Gibson’s own words, “Even though
the photos are taken at a different time, with a different camera angle and
lighting, the image of Robert Johnson in the probable photo can be made
transparent and laid atop the known Robert Johnson photo and all the features
align almost identically.”26
26
Gibson, Lois. “Comparison Five: Transparencies Confirming Robert Johnson Identity in New Photo”, Appendix p. 2.
b. Robert Lockwood, Jr., forensic facial comparison.
In the first of two forensic facial comparisons involving Robert Lockwood,
Jr., also called Robert, Jr., Lockwood, Lois Gibson focuses on the ear location and
structure between the subject photo and a known photograph of an elderly
Robert Lockwood. She states: “Both 1 and 2 have identical ear structure except
for the expected enlargement on 1 due to 40 plus years of cartilage growth and
the difference in lighting. Additionally, the ears are the same size and position on
the head in relation to the other features. . . . . Also, the axis of both men’s ears
is the same. Due to all these observances-if the provenance of the owners of
photo 2 is correct-it is very likely 1 and 2 are one and the same individual in
photos taken 4 or 5 decades apart.”27
27
Gibson, Lois. “Forensic Facial Comparison Robert Lockwood, Jr.”, Appendix p. 3.
In the second comparative report on Robert Lockwood, Gibson again
creates transparencies of each photo and overlays the known photo of Robert
Lockwood over the subject photo. She states, “It is impossible to take different
photos of individuals at different times and have them appear identical since
there will always be variations in the lighting, camera angle and age of the subject
being photographed. Considering this fact, the resemblance between the
proposed photo of Robert Lockwood, Jr., and the photo of an elderly Robert
Lockwood, Jr., is remarkable.” She concludes, “It is very likely the younger man is
one and the same individual as depicted in the photo of the elderly man. In other
words, the proposed photo is very likely that of a young Robert Lockwood, Jr.”28
28
Gibson, Lois. “Forensic Facial Comparison of Robert Lockwood, Jr., with Proposed Photo”, Appendix p. 4.
c. Calletta (Callie) Craft forensic facial comparison.
Calletta Craft was married to Robert Johnson on May 4, 1931, in Hazelhurst,
Mississippi.29 She was considerably older than Robert, and she and her children
moved with Robert to Clarksdale, Mississippi in 1932.30 Their marriage was
somewhat short-lived, as reports indicate that she moved back to Hazelhurst
around 1934 and died sometime thereafter.31 The only known photograph of
Callie Craft, published in the “Complete Recordings” liner notes, is that of a young
girl, so the photographic images being compared are decades apart in age.
In the forensic facial comparison of the two photograph images (above),
Gibson identifies eight different facial similarities between the two. Starting with
the fact that both women have the same light complexion, she then identifies
similarities in hair texture, eyebrows, an anomaly of the right eye, facial shape,
nose, lips and chin.32 In particular, she stresses that the right eye deformity
29
Wardlow, Gayle Dean. Chasin’ That Devil Music, San Francisco, Miller Freeman 1998, p. 201. 30
LaVere, Stephen. “Robert Johnson: The Complete Recordings”, Liner notes. USA: Columbia C346222, 1990; “Robert Johnson”, Wikipedia, supra., p. 3. 31
LaVere, supra., pps. 12-13. 32
Gibson, Lois. “Forensic Facial comparison of Second Person in Group Photo with Calletta Craft Wife of Robert Johnson”, Appendix p. 5.
visible in the earlier picture is “extremely rare,” and that the same deformity can
be seen in the woman sitting next to Robert Johnson.33
d. Forensic comparison of “Robert Lockwood, Jr.” and “Estella Coleman.”
Estella (Reese) Coleman, in addition to being the mother of Robert
Lockwood, Jr., was a long time companion to Robert Johnson and was known to
have allowed Johnson to frequently stay with her and young Robert in the West
Helena, Arkansas, area.34 Johnson became a mentor to young Robert, convinced
him to switch from the piano to the guitar, and even was said to have handmade
a guitar for Lockwood.35 Lockwood was said to be the only person that Johnson
taught to play the guitar.36 The two were known to have performed together in
numerous settings in Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee.37
There are no known published photographs of Robert Lockwood’s mother,
Estella (Reese) Coleman. This makes a direct facial comparison impossible.
However, Gibson was able to conclude that a family resemblance exists between
33
Gibson, Lois. Email to author dated March 21, 2013. The pertinent material is quoted as follows: “This is unassailable in my opinion. This woman with an extremely rare eye deformity is married to Robert Johnson at one time, then here is a photo with a woman close by his side sitting near enough inside his personal space as to denote a love interest with the same eye deformity, and all other portions of her head and face seemingly the same. It just cannot be refuted.” 34
LaVere, supra., p. 14; Wald, supra., p. 112. 35
Wald, supra., p. 112. 36
LaVere, supra., p. 14. 37
“Robert Lockwood, Jr.,” Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lockwood_Jr., p. 1.
the two, and that the visible age difference would indicate that the pictured
woman was most likely Estella Coleman, Lockwood’s mother.38
IV. Other Identifying Features.
In addition to the forensic facial identification analysis provided by Lois
Gibson, there are several other features in the photograph which point toward a
Johnson identification. These include the fedora hat worn in both photos, the
extraordinarily long hands and fingers exhibited, the height and size of Johnson,
and the presence of eyeglasses on the table.
a. Dark wool fedora hat worn indoors.
The dark wool fedora hat seen in the subject photo appears identical to the
hat Johnson is wearing in the Hooks Bros. studio photograph (see above.) Among
other things, both hats have a distinctive smooth and very wide band. The brim
size and shape of the hat appear identical as well.
In addition to the similarity between the hats themselves is the fact that
the hat is being worn indoors while seated at a table. This would be highly
abnormal, as custom at the time dictated that hats were to be removed indoors.39
It would suggest an inference that the hat was part of a performance outfit, or
that there was some other reason for this departure from established fashion
etiquette. The fact that he is wearing a fedora in the studio portrait suggests that
38
Gibson, Lois. “Forensic Comparison Mother of Robert Lockwood, Jr.”, Appendix p. 6. 39
No author identified, Vogue’s Book of Etiquette and Good Manners, New York, Conde Nast Publications, 1969, p. 5.
it was part of his performance persona, and also suggests a propensity to wear
the hat indoors.
b. Height and size.
In the “Complete Recordings” liner notes, Steve LeVere states that “Robert
Johnson was a small man, small boned.”40 Other commentators have agreed.41 In
the subject photo, the Robert Johnson figure, while seated, is no taller than the
two seated women next to him. His visible wrists and calf are slender and small
boned. This is consistent with the reported stature of Robert Johnson.
c. Extraordinarily long hands and fingers.
It is commonly accepted that Robert Johnson possessed extraordinarily
long hands and fingers.42 Both hands of the Robert Johnson figure are visible in
the subject photo, and both appear to be abnormally long from the wrist to the
end of the fingers. This is particularly striking considering the fact that Johnson
was not tall or lanky. It is, however, consistent with a known feature of Robert
Johnson.
d. Robert Johnson’s glasses.
Visible on the table are two pairs of glasses, a pair of prescription glasses
sitting upright and a pair of sunglasses sitting upside down. These would not
appear to belong to the women, as they are both wearing glasses. The
prescription glasses are on Robert Johnson’s side of the table. Judging from the
position of both pairs of glasses, a reasonable inference would be that the
prescription glasses belong to Johnson. Robert Johnson was reported to have
needed and possessed prescription glasses, although he did not like to wear
them.43 This is again consistent with a known feature of Robert Johnson.
40
LaVere, supra.,, p. 12. 41
Wald, supra., p. 112. 42
Id. 43
LaVere, supra., p. 7, column 1, third paragraph.
e. Relative ages of persons shown in the photo.
In order to be seriously considered to be an authentic photograph of
Johnson and his family group, the visible relative ages among the four persons
pictured would have to correspond to known facts. In the subject photo, the two
women appear to be significantly older than the two men. If Lois Gibson’s
estimate of Estella Coleman’s age in the photo of 38 is correct,44 then Robert
Johnson would be approximately 23 and Robert Lockwood approximately 19.45
This would date the year of the photograph to 1933 or 1934.46 Calletta Craft’s age
is unknown, but she is clearly significantly older than Johnson. All of these
relative age estimates are consistent with the known facts surrounding this group.
V. So what is it we have?
We have a historical photograph in which the four persons depicted each
resembles, in the judgment of an established Certified Forensic Artist, Robert 44
Gibson, Lois. “Forensic Comparison Mother of Robert Lockwook, Jr.”, supra. 45
Ages are estimated based on the known birth dates of Estella Coleman, Robert Johnson and Robert Lockwood, Jr. 46
See note 45, supra.
Johnson, Robert Lockwood, Jr., Calletta Craft, and Estella Coleman. What can our
logical conclusions be? First, it might be that the photograph itself is not
authentic, that it has been faked. I believe that we can eliminate this possibility.
The photograph was discovered stored in an antique desk, with other personal
keepsakes. It has been examined by a local photographic expert,47 and can be
examined by any serious inquirer. It has every indicia of an authentic period
photograph, and no indication that it is anything but.
Secondly, it might be an authentic photograph of four persons who each
resemble one of our four, but who are not them. Random lookalikes, so to speak,
who know each other, are assembled together, in the right time period, at the
same place, with the correct relative ages, etc. I don’t profess to know what the
odds against such an event happening, but I suspect they are astronomical.48
Having one person closely resemble another is unlikely enough; having three or
four together at the same time and the same place would be a staggering
coincidence.
Finally, the third and last choice is that it is an authentic photograph of
Robert Johnson, Robert Lockwood, Jr., Calletta Craft and Estella Coleman. The
photograph is an authentic photograph, and a Certified Forensic Artist has
established through forensic comparisons with known photographs a likely
identification of our four subjects. In addition, a number of features present in
the photograph lend credibility to its authentication (i.e., the hat, long fingers,
glasses, etc.) And finally, the fact that Johnson and three other “family members”
are present and identified make it highly unlikely that it is a picture of four
random lookalike individuals.
It is of course possible that someone may see this photograph and know
where the setting was, or who can personally identify one or more of the
subjects. Any information that can be gained from its distribution would be
important. It is too valuable a piece of history to ignore.
47
Conversation with Ray Malinowski, March 2, 2013. 48
A casual observation by a statistics professor at the University of West Florida was that the chances of four lookalikes being assembled together in the same space and time would be “in the quadrillions”.