Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Forensics Applications

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Human Footprints: Fossilised Locomotion?

  • 723 Accesses

Abstract

Traces left by track-makers whether walking or running in bare feet or encased in foot wear have the potential to help place an individual at a crime scene or to help investigators work out the pattern and sequence of actions that took place. While in Europe few people may move about barefoot, in other parts of the world a significant proportion of people may still be habitually unshod either out of preference or socio-economic necessity. In this context much of what we have discussed in this book is relevant to the forensic investigator and in this chapter we apply this knowledge within a forensic context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adair TW, Lemay J, McDonald A et al (2007) The Mount Bierstadt Study: an experiment in unique damage formation in footwear. J Forensic Identif 57:199–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander A, Bouridane A, Crookes D (1999) Automatic classification and recognition of shoeprints. Image Process Appl Seventh Int Conf 465(2):638–641

    Google Scholar 

  • AlGarni G, Hamiane M (2008) A novel technique for automatic shoeprint image retrieval. Forensic Sci Int 181:10–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley W (1996) What shoe was that? The use of computerised image database to assist in identification. Forensic Sci Int 82:7–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker SL, Scheuer JL (1998) Predictive value of human footprints in a forensic context. Med Sci Law 38(4):341–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates KT, Savage R, Pataky TC et al (2013) Does footprint depth correlate with foot motion and pressure? J R Soc Interface 10(83):20130009

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett MR, Huddart D, Gonzalez S (2009) Preservation and analysis of three-dimensional footwear evidence in soils: the application of optical laser scanning. In: Ritz K, Dawson L, Miller D (eds) Criminal and environmental soil forensics. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 445–461

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett MR, Falkingham P, Morse SA et al (2013) Preserving the impossible: conservation of soft-sediment hominin footprint sites and strategies for three-dimensional digital data capture. PLoS One 8(4):e60755. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060755

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger MA (2005) What has a decade of Daubert wrought? Am J Public Health 95:s59–s65

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanc Y, Balmer C, Landis T et al (1999) Temporal parameters and patterns of the foot roll over during walking: normative data for healthy adults. Gait Posture 10(2):97–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodziak WJ (2000) Footwear impression evidence. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Buck U, Albertini N, Naether S et al (2007) 3D documentation of footwear impressions and tyre tracks in snow with high resolution optical surface scanning. Forensic Sci Int 171:157–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Bull PA, Parker A, Morgan RM (2006) The forensic analysis of soils and sediment taken from the cast of a footprint. Forensic Sci Int 162:6–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassidy MJ (1980) Footwear identification. Public Relations Branch of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole SA (2009) Forensics without uniqueness, conclusions without individualization: the new epistemology of forensic identification. Law Probab Risk 8(3):233–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G et al (1998a) A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework. Sci Justice 38:231–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G et al (1998b) A model for case assessment and interpretation. Sci Justice 38:151–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyle IR, Field D, Wenderoth P (2009) Pattern recognition and forensic identification: the presumption of scientific accuracy and other falsehoods. Crim Law J 33:214–226

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Aout K, Meert L, Van Gheluwe B et al (2010) Experimentally generated footprints in sand; analysis and consequences for the interpretation of fossil and forensic footprints. Am J Phys Anthropol 141:515–525

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis RJ (1981) An intelligence approach to footwear marks and toolmarks. J Forensic Sci Soc 21:183–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis RJ, Keeley A (2000) Feathering of footwear. Sci Justice 40:273–276

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio JA, Vernon W (2011) Forensic podiatry: principles and methods. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Du Pasquier E, Hebrard J, Margot P et al (1996) Evaluation and comparison of casting materials in forensic sciences applications to tool marks and foot/shoe impressions. Forensic Sci Int 82:33–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Evett IW, Lambert JA, Buckleton JS (1998) A Bayesian approach to interpreting footwear marks in forensic casework. Sci Justice 38(4):241–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ et al (2000) More on the hierarchy of propositions: exploring the distinction between explanations and propositions. Sci Justice 40:3–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Facey OE, Hannah ID, Rosen D (1992) Shoe wear patterns and pressure distribution under feet and shoes, determined by image analysis. J Forensic Sci Soc 32:15–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Falkingham PL (2012) Acquisition of high resolution three-dimensional models using free, open-source, photogrammetric software. Palaeontol Electronica 15:1T:15p

    Google Scholar 

  • Fruchtenicht TL, Herzig WP, Blackledge RD (2002) The discrimination of two-dimensional military boot impressions based on wear patterns. Sci Justice 42:97–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Geradts Z, Keijzer J (1996) The image-database REBEZO for shoeprints with developments on automatic classification of shoe outsole designs. Forensic Sci Int 82:21–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Giles E, Vallandigham PH (1991) Height estimation from foot and shoeprint length. J Forensic Sci 36(4):1134–1151

    Google Scholar 

  • Grivas CR, Komar DA (2008) Kumho, Daubert, and the nature of scientific inquiry: implications for forensic anthropology. J Forensic Sci 53:771–776

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancock S, Morgan-Smith R, Buckleton J (2012) The interpretation of shoeprint comparison class correspondences. Sci Justice 52:243–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannigan TJ, Fleury LM, Reilly RB et al (2006) Survey of 1276 shoeprint impressions and development of an automatic shoeprint pattern matching facility. Sci Justice 46:79–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Hueske E (1991) Photographing and casting footwear/tiretrack impressions in snow. J Forensic Identif 41:92–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy RB (1996) Uniqueness of bare feet and its use as a possible means of identification. Forensic Sci Int 82(1):81–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy RB, Yamashita AB (2007) Barefoot morphology comparisons: a summary. J Forensic Identif 57(3):383

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy RB, Pressman IS, Chen S et al (2003) Statistical analysis of barefoot impressions. J Forensic Sci 48(1):55–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy RB, Chen S, Pressman IS et al (2005) A large-scale statistical analysis of barefoot impressions. J Forensic Sci 50(5):1071–1080

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerstholt JH, Paashuis R, Sjerps M (2007) Shoe print examinations: effects of expectation, complexity and experience. Forensic Sci Int 165:30–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler JJ (2011) If the shoe fits they might acquit: the value of forensic science testimony. J Empir Legal Stud 8:21–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishan K (2008a) Determination of stature from Foot and its segments in a north Indian population. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 29:297–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishan K (2008b) Establishing correlation of footprints with body weight-Forensic Aspects. Forensic Sci Int 179:63–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishan K (2008c) Estimation of stature from Foot prints and Foot outline dimension in Gujjars of north India. Forensic Sci Int 175:93–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishan K, Kanchan T, Sharma A (2011) Sex determination from hand and foot dimensions in a North Indian population. J Forensic Sci 56:453–459

    Google Scholar 

  • Laskowski GE, Kyle VL (1988) Barefoot impressions–a preliminary study of identification characteristics and population frequency of their morphological features. J Forensic Sci 33(2):378–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucock LJ (1967) Identifying the wearer of worn footwear. J Forensic Sci Soc 7:62–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Massey S (2004) Persistence of creases of the foot and their value for forensic identification purposes. J Forensic Identif 54(3):296–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikkonen S, Suominen V, Heinonen P (1996) Use of footwear impressions in crime scene investigations assisted by computerised footwear collection system. Forensic Sci Int 82:67–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne R (2001) Operation Bigfoot–a volume crime database project. Sci Justice 41:215–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan RM, Freudiger-Bonzon J, Nichols KH et al (2009) The forensic analysis of sediments recovered from footwear. In: Ritz K, Dawson L, Miller D (eds) Criminal and environmental soil forensics. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 253–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Napier TJ (2002) Scene linking using footwear mark databases. Sci Justice 42:39–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Naples VL, Miller JS (2004) Making tracks: the forensic analysis of footprints and footwear impressions. Anat Record B New Anatomist 279:9–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Pataky TC, Mu T, Bosch K et al (2012) Gait recognition: highly unique dynamic plantar pressure patterns among 104 individuals. J R Soc Interface 9:790–800

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavlou M, Allinson NM (2009) Automated encoding of footwear patterns for fast indexing. Image Vision Comput 27:402–409

    Google Scholar 

  • Petraco ND, Gambino C, Kubic TA et al (2010) Statistical discrimination of footwear: a method for the comparison of accidentals on shoe outsoles inspired by facial recognition techniques. J Forensic Sci 55:34–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Pringle JK, Ruffell A, Jervis JR et al (2012) The use of geoscience methods for terrestrial forensic searches. Earth Sci Rev 114(1):108–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Qamra S, Sharma BR, Kaila P (1980) Naked foot marks – a preliminary study of identification factors. Forensic Sci Int 16:145–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins LM (1978) The individuality of human footprints. J Forensic Sci 23(4):778–785

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins LM (1985) Footprints: collection, analysis, and interpretation. CC Thomas, Springfield

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins LM (1986) Estimating height and weight from size of footprints. J Forensic Sci 31:143–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum D, Becker HP (1997) Plantar pressure distribution measurements. Technical background and clinical applications. Foot Ankle Surg 3:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum D, Hautmann S, Gold M et al (1994) Effects of walking speed on plantar pressure patterns and hindfoot angular motion. Gait Posture 2(3):191–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Saks MJ, Faigman DL (2008) Failed Forensics: how forensic science lost its way and how it might yet find it. Ann Rev Law Soc Sci 4:149–171. doi:10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.4.110707.172303

    Google Scholar 

  • Schallamach A (1968) Abrasion, fatigue, and smearing of rubber. J Appl Polym Sci 12(2):281–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma BR (1980) Footprints tracks and trails in criminal investigation and trails. Central Law Agency, Allahabad

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheets HD, Gross S, Langenbug G et al (2013) Shape measurement tools in footwear analysis: a statistical investigation of accidental characteristics over time. Forensic Sci Int 232:84–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Skerrett J, Neumann C, Mateos-Garcia I (2011) A Bayesian approach for interpreting shoemark evidence in forensic casework: accounting for wear features. Forensic Sci Int 210:26–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith MB (2009) Forensic analysis of footwear impression evidence. Forensic Sci Commun 11(3)

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone RS (2006) Footwear examinations: mathematical probabilities of theoretical individual characteristics. J Forensic Identif 56:577–599

    Google Scholar 

  • Thali MJ, Braun M, Buck U et al (2005) VIRTOPSY-scientific documentation, reconstruction and animation in forensics; individual and real 3D data based geo-metric approach including optical body/object surface and radiological CT/MRI scanning. J Forensic Sci 50(2):424–428

    Google Scholar 

  • Theeuwen ABE, van Barneveld S, Drok JW et al (2001) Enhancement of muddy footwear impressions. Forensic Sci Int 119:57–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuttle RH (1986) Review of ‘Footprints. Collection, analysis, and interpretation’. Am Anthropol 88:1000–1002

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuttle RH (2008) Footprint clues in hominid evolution and forensics: lessons and limitations. Ichnos 15(3–4):158–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernon W (2006) The development and practice of forensic podiatry. J Clin Forensic Med 13(6):284–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernon W, Parry A, Potter M (1999) Moving towards consensus: the first draft of an evaluative instrumental grid to interpret shoe wear patterns. J Forensic Identif 49(2):142–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamashita AB (2007) Forensic barefoot morphology comparison 1. Can J Criminol Crim Justice/La Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pénale 49(5):647–656

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Science and Technology, Bournemouth University, Talbot Campus, Poole, UK

    Matthew R. Bennett

  2. Department of Musculoskeletal Biology, University of Liverpool, Institute of Aging and Chronic Disease, Liverpool, UK

    Sarita A. Morse

Authors
  1. Matthew R. Bennett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarita A. Morse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bennett, M.R., Morse, S.A. (2014). Forensics Applications. In: Human Footprints: Fossilised Locomotion?. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08572-2_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation