Geographical variation of shoeprint comparison class correspondences.

The underlying principles involved in the interpretation of shoeprint comparisons have become a topical subject due to criticisms in the 2009 National Academy of Science (NAS) report on forensic sciences[1]. Difficulties in the application and understanding of these principles were also highlighted in a recent court ruling [2-5] and subsequent discussion of the ruling. We report here a survey that may inform some aspects of this interpretation and discuss the implications of findings from this survey in the light of that court ruling and more importantly the NAS report.