Blues Legend Photo Discovery: Is this Robert Johnson,

Robert Lockwood, Jr., Calletta Craft and Estella (Reese) Coleman?

©2015 Donald A. Roark

The life of blues icon Robert Leroy Johnson has been well chronicled in

countless publications, books, documentaries and popular movies.1 The legends

surrounding him are known as well: the journey to the crossroads to sell his soul

to the devil for virtuosity on the guitar, his phenomenal, even supernatural

musical ability, the tragic circumstances of his early and untimely death.

One area of Johnson’s life which is still subject to debate is whether

photographs purported to be Johnson (and others) which continue to surface can

be verified as authentic, in spite of the fact that few if any of those who were

associated with Johnson remain alive today.

To date, there are only two photographs of Johnson which are universally

accepted as authentic. The first is a postage-stamped size photo taken in a dime

store photo booth, and the second is a studio portrait taken in the Hooks Bros.

studio in Memphis in 1937.

1 Robert Johnson. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Johnson; Wald, Elijah. Escaping the Delta:

Robert Johnson and the Invention of the Blues, Amistad, 2004, p. 106.

These photographs were given to Steve LeVere, a blues researcher, by

Carrie Thompson, Johnson’s half-sister, in the 1970s. 2 Another photograph

reportedly taken during the Hooks Bros. session was said to be in the possession

of Mack McCormick, a Smithsonian researcher, but it has never been published

and its whereabouts, if it does exist, are currently unknown.3

In 1998, a brief, 10-second clip of what were basically home movies shot in

Ruleville, Mississippi, surfaced which showed an African-American man playing a

guitar on the street in front of a movie theater. He appeared to be particularly

skilled and had long, spider-like fingers. Many academics in the blues community

concluded that this was, in fact, Robert Johnson.4 This created quite a stir in the

community until it was pointed out that the movie advertising poster in the

background could be seen and identified, and the movie it was advertising played

in that theater on January 30, 1942. Since Johnson had died on August 16, 1938,

the man shown in the movie clip could not have been Robert Johnson. The

resulting embarrassment set the tone for future discoveries, and an institutional

skepticism regarding Johnson photos became the rule of the day among

academics and blues historians.

2 DiGiacomo, Frank. “Searching for Robert Johnson,” Vanity Fair, November, 2008. Online copy at

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/11/johnson200811, online copy p. 10. 3 Id., online copy p. 11

4 Cheeseborough, Steve. “Robert Johnson on Film?”, Living Blues No. 140 (Jul/Aug 1998), 8; Youtube video, posted

Oct. 28, 2009, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSV69B02UaK.

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

“CocaCola Bottle History”, http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/ETclamSETH14/bottlehistor.html. 23

See note 21, supra. 24

See note 7, supra.

a. Robert Johnson forensic facial comparison.

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”.

Appendix

Appendix, Page 1.

Appendix, Page 2.

Appendix, Page3.

Appendix, Page 4.

Appendix, Page 5.

Appendix, Page 6.