By Frank Matheis and Dr. Bruce Conforth
It seems like they want to make any black guy in a hat out to be Robert Johnson!
When it comes to the esteemed bard, noted pre-war blues musicologist Prof. Dr. David Evans of the University of Memphis referred to it as “…an environment of desire, the desire to find more photos, more music and more memorabilia. There is intense interest for more photos to turn up.” They surely turned up! First the discredited photo purported to be Robert Johnson and Johnny Shines; now another photo claims to show Robert Johnson, Caletta Craft (his wife), Estella Coleman (Robert Johnson’s mistress and Robert Lockwood’s mother) and Robert Lockwood, Jr. They must hear the cash registers ringing, or is it all about assuring that long lost photos find their proper way into blues history? Who knows? Frank was assigned to write an article for Living Blues magazine in 2013, about the four folks sitting around the table, which never saw the light of day because it failed to be the fluff piece the owner of the new photo expected, so he squashed the article by threatening to sue. Now it’s all over the Internet, published in a sycophant article without so much as minimum research. The photo is reprinted from the article and shown under the Fair Use Act which allows limited use of an image for historical and criticism purposes in news articles.
Oh, that poor Robert Johnson.
Mythologized, demonized, romanticized, fabled and hyped. First, he is completely unknown, then celebrated as a propped-up “King of the Delta Blues”, then wrapped in Faustian blues folklore to the point where he now actually gets demonized with his exploited portrait painted with horns – all just because of having sung a few songs that were ridiculously tame by today’s standards. Then, he was summarily dethroned as “unimportant in his time” and as essentially having had “no real influence on the blues.” All that for a genius, itinerant blues minstrel, a young lad who had some great chops and just wanted to make some music.
The mysterious, enigmatic persona titillated blues fans, but nobody knew what he looked like. It was not until 1986 and 1989 respectively that the two, now very famous photos, that had been in the family’s possession were released. His half-sister Carrie Thompson found them. Legal squabbles worthy of a Stephen Spielberg movie ensued between historians over rights to the photos; and, separately, competing family members over the estate. The lawsuits tied these photos up for 13 years. Every blues lover has since seen these photos, but at the time they were a big deal: There is the photo booth self-portrait from 1935, which appeared in the Rolling Stone in 1986. In 1994, the US Postal Service used this image on a special edition postage stamp, sans the dangling cigarette. The other was a studio portrait taken at Hooks Brothers Photography in Memphis, circa 1935. Here Johnson sits cross-legged on a stool, with a snazzy pin-stripped suit and a short-brimmed fedora tilted ever so cool at a slight angle. He holds a Gibson L-1 flattop guitar.
The Vanity Fair Debacle
The first photo supposedly of Robert Johnson and Johnny Shines to be thoroughly debunked was the so-called Vanity Fair photo, which is now merely a subject of ridicule. 
For more than two decades, there were only two verified images of Robert Johnson with provenance – until Steven “Zeke” Schein, a New York musician and guitar salesman in Greenwich Village’s Matt Umanov’s Guitar store, spent the money he had saved for a Stella guitar on a photo he found on eBay. The print showed two musicians, one holding a guitar. Zeke honestly believed that this photo depicted Robert Johnson, who he identified by his long fingers, eyes and general facial features. The other, he surmised, was Robert Johnson’s friend and traveling companion, Johnny Shines. This, the “third” photo, was then catapulted to international prominence, and certainly notoriety, when an article appeared in the November 2008 issue of Vanity Fair carrying forth this hypothesis. Lively debate ensued in the blues community, with no shortage of opinions that ranged from vehement, even vitriolic rejection, to lambasting compound curse words. Points of doubt included the clothing worn by the musicians, which appear to be Zoot Suits popular in the 1940s, after Robert Johnson’s death. Photo-imaging experts have strongly argued that the photo is a reversed composite, and also questioned the position of the two musicians, which appears to be in a strange overlap that would be physically impossible. Not only that, but the person purported to be Robert Johnson is holding what looks like a prop guitar without strings. The second musician, claimed to be Johnny Shines, has not been corroborated by anyone, so this is more conjecture than even hypothesis. Candidly, virtually nobody in the music community accepts the photo as authentic.
The subjective opinions of blues aficionados and Robert Johnson fans was trumped by seemingly objective authentication by high-profile and renowned forensic artist Lois Gibson, who touts an impressive résumé, including her work with the Houston Police Department. Lois Gibson provided the needed “proof” and sanctified the photo by saying, “…it appears the individual is Robert Johnson. All the features are consistent, if not identical…” No other corroboration of Gibson’s findings was published.
However, in May of 2015, the photo was debunked in a report that Bruce co-authored and that was read, critiqued, and signed by 48 of the world’s most important blues scholars and historians, including Elijah Wald, David Evans, Jim O’Neil and Amy van Singel (co-founders of Living Blues), Gayle Dean Wardlow, Bruce Iglauer, Tony Russell, Lawrence Cohn, Scott Barretta, Barry Mazor, and 38 others, including Frank Matheis. The report and the article concerning it went viral and at its peak had over two million Internet hits. Read it here. Among the many things the report points out is that the photo is printed in reverse: the buttons on the men’s clothing are on the wrong sides of their suits. If the photo were printed correctly it would show the alleged Johnson figure to be left-handed, which Johnson was not. It also stated the facts that when Robert Lockwood and Honeyboy Edwards were shown the photo, neither recognized either of the people in it ¬– and they were the only two men alive at the time who knew both Johnson and Shines. The photo was made out to be from 1933 or ’34, but Johnson did not meet Shines until 1936. There are numerous other faults, but the end result is the same: it’s not Robert Johnson, nor Johnny Shines.
It should be pointed out that in the case of Robert Johnson and others, if and when purported photos turn up, positive identification is increasingly difficult and faced with a myriad of obstacles, but there is seemingly a steep financial incentive to do so. Few, if any, surviving family members or friends remain to validate images. It is also very difficult to attempt identification of the artist(s) when they were younger, or older. Like any historical analysis, there is a certain amount of speculation and, hopefully, legitimate forms of validation.
Here we go again: The so-called “fourth photo”
In March 2013, Living Blues editor Brett Bonner assigned Frank to write an article about a recently found photograph, a 3×5 inch snapshot, possibly a black-and-white with a colored wash, recovered from an old Governor Winthrop desk by a law professor in Florida. (His name has been withheld from this article under threat of a lawsuit. Let’s call him Mr. R.) He speculated that the photo of four African American individuals found in the back of the cabinet might be Robert Johnson, Caletta Craft (his wife), Estella Coleman (Robert’s mistress and Robert Lockwood, Junior’s mother) and Robert Lockwood, Jr. (who was four years RJ’s junior). This supposition seems to be a stretch, since it is unlikely that Robert Johnson, who was known for having had multiple women in very separate situations, would bring his estranged wife and mistress together in this way. Mr. R. based his supposition on a series of circumstantial indicators: RJ’s lazy eye; the fedora hat; long fingers; facial similarities, etc. He then compared the people in the found photo with existing images of Robert Johnson and Robert Lockwood and concluded that he had a winner. Mr. R decided to validate his hunch and he took the photo around to a set of people for expert opinions.
After contacting Living Blues, the editor Brett Bonner referred him to notable blues experts, Dr. David Evans and Gayle Dean Wardlow. All expressed considerable skepticism. Mr. R. then submitted the photo to forensic analysis and hired Lois Gibson, the same forensic artist about whom they read in Vanity Fair, who validated the “third” Robert Johnson photo as published in 2008. Gibson compared the facial features of both Robert Johnson and Robert Lockwood from existing photos against the newfound photo. The result of Gibson’s forensic analysis supported the hypothesis set forth by Mr. R. She evaluated the photo as follows: Robert Lockwood: “…If the provenance of the owners of the proposed photo is correct, it is very likely that 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 younger Robert Lockwood Jr.” The big question is what provenance? The owner of the image overtly implied his belief of whom he thought the image depicted, and who he wanted them to be, but there was not provenance, no corroboration from anyone. Gibson paid particular attention to the left ear, which is seen in profile of an established photo of the elderly Robert Lockwood in comparison to the new photo. She stated, “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…” The Robert Johnson comparison closed without such a conclusive evaluation, as the forensic report focused on comparing and contrasting facial features, with notable similarities, but the person was not positively identified.
Mr. R. now believed that he had the needed authentication and again approached editor, Brett Bonner, who assigned the article to Frank, who showed the photo to series of blues scholars and musicians: Dr. David Evans, Gayle Dean Wardlow, Dr. Adam Gussow, and to Bruce, who is a Prof. of American Culture at the University of Michigan (and currently finalizing a major biography of Robert Johnson with Gayle Dean Wardlow) and who is on the executive board of the Robert Johnson Blues Foundation; author Elijah Wald; and, harmonica player Wallace Coleman, who knew Robert Lockwood from his association in Cleveland, and editor, Brett Bonner. Frank posed the fundamental question: What does it take for the blues community to accept a photo into the historical archives? What does someone have to do to prove authenticity? What do we do in this day and age when it is harder and harder to find witnesses who could corroborate the place and time and people in a photo? In the case of this photo, what more is needed? After all, they have in hand an authentication by a noted expert.
With permission from Mr. R, Frank then shared the result of the forensic report with the scholars to gauge their assessment of both the report and the possible authenticity of the photo now: Editor Brett Bonner formulated what would constitute “authenticity” in Living Blues, “First and foremost is provenance. What is the story behind the photo and how many steps removed from its origin is it? I’ve been lucky at Living Blues, for the most part the historical photos I publish come from the musicians (or their families) themselves. I don’t know if at this point we can have 100% guarantees with newly found early historical blues photos. Expert forensic analysis certainly has to play a more important role. But so does common sense.” Dr. Adam Gussow stated, “Dr. Gussow, who stated, “There is no reason to accept the findings based on one authentication. Multiple, repeated results are required to validate the photo.” He used an apt example, “In the financial crisis, the very rating agencies that are supposed to maintain check and balance were being paid by the banks they were supposed to monitor, creating a structural problem.” Dr. Evans was generally skeptical of the supposed provenance of the photo and the random nature of the find, pointing out to the near astronomical odds and unlikely series of events. He accepted that there was some resemblance, especially to Robert Lockwood, but he noted, “I’ve met people that look like me.” He stated that for authentication there needs to be some connection through family, friends or community. Gayle Dean Wardlow, one of the nation’s foremost blues historians, also took issue with the photo, questioning in particular the physical stature of the purported Robert Johnson. “They called him Little Robert. The man in the photo looks taller and broader than Robert.” Wardlow indicated that he still believes that the most acceptable authentication of a newfound photo would be personal identity from someone who had known or seen the subject. Harmonica ace Wallace Coleman, a mate of Robert Lockwood, was shown the Lois Gibson analysis and he concluded that there was a “possibility” that it could be Robert Lockwood. When prompted to quantify the probability, he stated, “20%.”
Bruce then pointed out that for a photo to be authenticated, multiple repeated validations are required. He immediately questioned the validity of the comparison Robert Lockwood’s ears, which was a central point of Lois Gibson’s analysis. He pointed to a Nov. 2010 article in WIRED, “Ears could make better IDs than fingerprints”, by Dave Mosher. This article highlights a study about a new computer shape-finding algorithm called “image ray transform” presented at the IEEE Fourth International Conference on Biometrics Sept. 29,2010, which states that the outer ear may prove to be one of the most accurate ways to identify people. It quotes the leader of the research, “When you’re born your ear is fully formed. The lobe descends a little, but overall it stays the same. It’s a great way to identify people,” said Mark Nixon, professor at the University of Southampton, England.
Elijah Wald, noted author and musician, simply said, “The attempt to associate random photos of black men with the only black man some people seem to care about is horseshit, and depressing horseshit at that,” perhaps the most blunt and truthful assessment.
Frank spoke to Lois Gibson directly, in a taped interview, and she made a strong, specific and detailed explanation of her points of interest, noted findings and evaluation. The consensus among all those interviewed was that forensic science should be used to apply scientific and technological methodologies to investigate and establish facts, to prove or disprove a hypothesis. However, before a photo or other artifact is accepted into the historical record it must have established provenance– the connection to family, friends, or community. As in all good science, repetition of results validates findings. Multiple validations are required. So far we had one, but from a highly controversial source.
To that avail, Frank contacted Professor Mark Nixon at the University of Southampton, England, a global expert in computer facial recognition and ear analysis, and asked him to compare the left ear images of the purported Robert Lockwood Jr. to the actual photo of the elder person. He responded, “… I would consider it unlikely that the ears came from the same person. The original study in recognizing people by their ears, by Iannarelli, suggested that ears are invariant throughout life…We published a study over 9 months, and the ear was invariant (as to be expected). But large changes like the ones between the two photos are more the domain of surgery. I could label the areas scientifically (and they are broad areas and not detail, e.g. the inter-tragic notch and the ascending helix) and give you a load of references. The paper attached has a lot of the (medical) physiological work and some of the scientific work too. Naturally, it’s about reasonable doubt, as such I can state I am confident that the subjects with these ears are very unlikely to be the same.”
The Plug was pulled on Living Blues, another fool was found
When Frank shared this finding with Mr. R., who had all along claimed that his sole motivation was the interest of blues history, Mr. R turned sour. He wrote an email the next day, on March 6, 2013, to Living Blues editor Brett Bonner, alleging, “…misfeasance at best and malfeasance at worst” and “a hatchet job” on Frank’s part, even though Mr. R. had actually not even read the article. That prediction would have proven untrue, because Living Blues is not a tabloid rag. The article, as researched and written, was very fair but not sycophant. The lawyer threatened a lawsuit promising “…considerable risk” if we published the article. Apparently, the concept of First Amendment free speech has not sunk in on the law professor. The plug was pulled on the article, and Living Blues kept to the terms demanded by Mr. R. As a writer for serious and respected magazine, held to high journalistic standards, Frank investigated instead of writing a fluff piece to validate someone’s delusion, no matter how strongly they want to believe it. Frank stated, “Before we would support the claim that this was in fact a historically relevant photo, we needed at least a second scientific verification, and it was clearly not there. If we had done as this man desired, and as he eventually succeeded in getting it published in an environment with much lower journalistic standards, Living Blues would have been the laughing stock of the blues community. This claim never held water and the owner of the picture suppressed the article, before he even read it, because he believed it would not be in his favor.”
Who knows how many other magazines and websites Mr. R. approached in the thirty-three subsequent months. Finally, on Dec. 17, 2015, Dylan Baddour published an article in mysanantonio.com titled “New photo of bluesman Robert Johnson unearthed; only third photo in existence.” In this article, they showed the pictures that Mr. R. would not allow Living Blues to publish. The photos are now out in the open, as is his identity. Read the article here. Almost comically, as a telltale indicator of the sloppiness of this article, Baddour is calling this a “third” photo of Robert Johnson in his headline, ignoring the fact that his source Lois Gibson validated the Vanity Fair photo, which would make this the fourth, if it had any validity whatsoever. An ironic math error, indeed.
Baddour quotes Lois Gibson as she shrugs off the wide scale rejection of her so-called authentications, “These blues people are not specialists in facial structure. I am,” she said. “They would not know a superciliary arch from a philtrum.” Maybe, but to enter a photo into the historical record requires more than anatomical jargons. Yet, how does she respond to the scientific assessment of Professor Mark Nixon at the University of Southampton, England, a global expert in ear analysis? While blues scholars and historians may not know as much about facial features anatomy, they do know how to do research, and it does not take much effort to show that the two Robert Johnson photos are not the first time Gibson’s claims have been questioned.
It’s just four folks sitting around a table on a hot day
Bruce points out that there is sufficient doubt that new photo could possibly be of Robert Johnson, Calleta Craft, Robert Lockwood, and Estella Coleman. The woman identified as Craft looks nothing at all like the known photo of her and she died in 1932! 
Here’s an authentic photo of Calletta Craft, and she looks nothing like the woman in the claimed photograph. Further, Gibson’s analysis of the supposed Robert Johnson figure is murky at best since the lower half of the alleged Johnson figure’s face is obscured by his hand and the glass he’s holding making only the upper portion of his nose and eyes visible. The dating of the photo is also questionable. Since Craft died in 1932 that would mean the photo would have to be from 1931. That would make Robert Johnson 20 years old and Robert Lockwood 16, while the two men in the photo appear older than that. Further, the quartet is sitting around a table and on chairs of bent-chrome design that, although invented in the late 1920s, didn’t become commonly popular until after WWII. The women’s clothing and strapped shoes are not 1931 vintage, nor are their eyeglasses or hairstyles, and even the Coca Cola bottle on the table is of a size that wasn’t used until 1950. There is simply no way this photo could be from 1931 or even 1932 and it clearly does not depict the people claimed to be. Subsequently debunked photos that Lois Gibson has “authenticated” further shed considerable doubt on the highly unlikely scenario that the owner of this picture would like you to believe. There is no provenance or historical accuracy in this assessment.
More trouble in authentication land
Bruce reports that in September 2015, the Houston Chronicle ran an article, perhaps not by coincidence, also authored by Dylan Braddour, titled “Lost photo of Jesse James, assassin Robert Ford is found, authenticated.” Read it here. Allegedly, Gibson was presented with a tintype photo of two men about which she stated: “I know faces inside and out, and I worked exhaustively on this, I am positive it’s Jesse James.” Enter James relative Eric F. James, co-founder of the James Preservation Trust, dedicated to archive the family history, as well as to address issues about the veracity of Jesse James family history, genealogy, images, and documents. In a manner similar to the alleged Robert Johnson photo, Eric James was presented with the photo in 2013. After thoroughly examining the two men, James concluded as published on his blog (Read it here) (see, BOB FORD-JESSE JAMES PHOTO HOAX CABAL and LOST JESSE JAMES/BOB FORD PHOTO – NOT LOST, NOT AUTHENTICATED both of Nov. 2015) that, “The image provided me was so blatantly false about being either Jesse James or Woot Hite, I told (the owner) not to waste any money for an authentication.” But, just like the Johnson photo, the owner, who up to that point had tried, many times unsuccessfully, to get people to authenticate the photo, then turned to Gibson, who had previously authenticated a tintype image of Billy the Kid. At that time, Gibson fell under intense scrutiny and was widely derided among the western artifact collector community. As James was to state, “No evidence exists that Lois Gibson performed any scientific authentication of image assessment, or that she is qualified to do so. In her biographical statement, Gibson says she is a forensic artist… She claims no forensic science training, though. Gibson’s breach of standards was first to alter the image to her preference by reversing the image. In the field of legal evidence, this is termed “tampering. In a series of plates Gibson manufactured and developed her suppositions with no reference to actual history that is known or recognized.”
James then describes how Gibson allegedly ignored any contextual data in attempting to prove her point, “Gibson commits the authenticator’s crime of comparing one fake photo to another fake photo. She misidentified the comparison fake photo as being “Historically accepted group shot of Jesse James and cohorts, circa 1880.” A check of any Jesse James history book tells us that Jesse had no cohorts in the early 1880s, other than the despicable Ford brothers.” Further, Gibson attempted to introduce other characters from Jesse’s life as evidence that the photo she is presenting is authentic. Eric James stated, “Incredibly, stunningly, and arrogantly, Gibson no longer can control her hoax. She goes full-bore con game. Lois Gibson not only introduces a third, previously unknown, and additional fake image of Jesse James, Gibson throws in a fake image of Zee Mimms-James, Jesse’s wife, to boot. To the trained eye, this third Jesse looks nothing like Gibson’s other two fake Jesse James photos. Nor does it compare to any known and authenticated historical image of Jesse and his wife.”
One Robert Johnson hoax after another
There seems to be a thriving business of memorabilia and photos associated with Robert Johnson in hoax after hoax – photos, guitars, etc. Bruce debunked two separate claims of ownership of the Gibson L-1 Johnson is holding in the famous Hooks Brothers portrait – Acoustic Guitar #272 – August 2015. There are also meaningless claims that Johnson’s recordings are at the wrong speed. Hopefully the definitive biography of Johnson that Gayle Dean Wardlow and Bruce are completing will put an end to much speculation and conjecture. We don’t expect to stop people from attempting to profit from allegedly discovering and/or “authenticating” fallacies, but we can call it what it is: Elijah Wald was right. This is horse manure not worth your time, or mine.
——
Dr. Bruce Conforth teaches American Culture with an emphasis on folklore, blues and popular culture at the University of Michigan. He had earned his doctorate in Ethnomusicology and American and African American Studies from Indiana University and has been a professor since 2001, because, in his own words, “It is important to pass on traditions.” He is a notable musician, author, ethnomusicologist and the founding curator of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
Frank Matheis is the publisher of thecountryblues.com and a contributing writer to Living Blues and formerly to Blues Access. He is an award winning radio producer and DJ, whose programs have been heard on three continents. Currently he is partnering with harmonica ace Phil Wiggins to co-author a book about the acoustic blues in Washington, D.C.