Digital shoeprint comparison often requires the calibration of the image resolution so that features, such as patterns in shoeprints, can be compared on the same scale. To enable scaling, a shoeprint photograph can be taken with a forensic ruler in the same frame to obtain the pixel distance between two nearby graduations. However, manually measuring the number of pixels is a time-consuming process.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFThe 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.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFThe 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]. 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.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFFirst, the clothing and shoes from 29 participants who had recently filled their vehicles with petrol were analysed for any traces of petrol. No traces of petrol were found on any of these items. Secondly, the clothing and shoes from 17 participants who had recently used a petrol-powered lawn mower were also analysed for petrol.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF