But within those shared constraints, the faces diverged.

The forensic Manchester reconstruction by Zedníková Malá had a methodologically disciplined quality — anatomically grounded, following the conventions of forensic practice, careful not to extrapolate beyond what the skull and tissue-depth data could support.

This produced a face that was genuine and scientifically defensible but perhaps less specific in its individual character than the others.

The face reflected the skull.

But which specific face, among the many faces consistent with that skull, the reconstructor had arrived at was shaped by forensic convention as much as by the bone.

The hyperrealistic silicone reconstruction by Daynès produced something more individuated — a face that carried the full complexity of a particular person, with the subtle asymmetries, specific character, and physical presence that living faces have.