A comparison of the length and width of static inked two-dimensional bare footprints found on a hard compared to a soft surface.

Mike Curran, Isabelle Holmes

    Research output: Contribution to JournalArticle

    Abstract

    In forensic intelligence-gathering it would be useful to evaluate if there are differences between static inked bare footprints captured on hard surfaces compared to soft surfaces. This was undertaken using samples from 30 undergraduate students. Initially a static footprint was taken for each participant on a hard surface and this was followed by a static footprint on a soft surface. On both occasions, the participants stood on an inkless mat and then on reactive paper, creating a two-dimensional print. The Reel method was used to analyse each footprint and the print was measured to see whether a difference existed between length and width (forefoot and rearfoot width) on a hard surface compared to a soft surface. The conclusion from this study was there is a statistically significant increase in length and width of a static bare footprint on a soft surface as opposed to a hard surface. If a forensic footprint examiner compares static bare footprints found on a soft surface and compares them to a static bare footprint of the same foot taken later, then the increase in both length and width of the footprints on a soft surface should be considered in the evaluation.
    Original languageEnglish
    JournalScience & Justice
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 4 Mar 2019

    Fingerprint

    Students

    Cite this

    @article{381f18cc621c4df5b4018a9e8755fa15,
    title = "A comparison of the length and width of static inked two-dimensional bare footprints found on a hard compared to a soft surface.",
    abstract = "In forensic intelligence-gathering it would be useful to evaluate if there are differences between static inked bare footprints captured on hard surfaces compared to soft surfaces. This was undertaken using samples from 30 undergraduate students. Initially a static footprint was taken for each participant on a hard surface and this was followed by a static footprint on a soft surface. On both occasions, the participants stood on an inkless mat and then on reactive paper, creating a two-dimensional print. The Reel method was used to analyse each footprint and the print was measured to see whether a difference existed between length and width (forefoot and rearfoot width) on a hard surface compared to a soft surface. The conclusion from this study was there is a statistically significant increase in length and width of a static bare footprint on a soft surface as opposed to a hard surface. If a forensic footprint examiner compares static bare footprints found on a soft surface and compares them to a static bare footprint of the same foot taken later, then the increase in both length and width of the footprints on a soft surface should be considered in the evaluation.",
    author = "Mike Curran and Isabelle Holmes",
    year = "2019",
    month = "3",
    day = "4",
    doi = "10.1016/j.scijus.2019.03.004",
    language = "English",
    journal = "Science & Justice",
    issn = "1355-0306",
    publisher = "Elsevier",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - A comparison of the length and width of static inked two-dimensional bare footprints found on a hard compared to a soft surface.

    AU - Curran, Mike

    AU - Holmes, Isabelle

    PY - 2019/3/4

    Y1 - 2019/3/4

    N2 - In forensic intelligence-gathering it would be useful to evaluate if there are differences between static inked bare footprints captured on hard surfaces compared to soft surfaces. This was undertaken using samples from 30 undergraduate students. Initially a static footprint was taken for each participant on a hard surface and this was followed by a static footprint on a soft surface. On both occasions, the participants stood on an inkless mat and then on reactive paper, creating a two-dimensional print. The Reel method was used to analyse each footprint and the print was measured to see whether a difference existed between length and width (forefoot and rearfoot width) on a hard surface compared to a soft surface. The conclusion from this study was there is a statistically significant increase in length and width of a static bare footprint on a soft surface as opposed to a hard surface. If a forensic footprint examiner compares static bare footprints found on a soft surface and compares them to a static bare footprint of the same foot taken later, then the increase in both length and width of the footprints on a soft surface should be considered in the evaluation.

    AB - In forensic intelligence-gathering it would be useful to evaluate if there are differences between static inked bare footprints captured on hard surfaces compared to soft surfaces. This was undertaken using samples from 30 undergraduate students. Initially a static footprint was taken for each participant on a hard surface and this was followed by a static footprint on a soft surface. On both occasions, the participants stood on an inkless mat and then on reactive paper, creating a two-dimensional print. The Reel method was used to analyse each footprint and the print was measured to see whether a difference existed between length and width (forefoot and rearfoot width) on a hard surface compared to a soft surface. The conclusion from this study was there is a statistically significant increase in length and width of a static bare footprint on a soft surface as opposed to a hard surface. If a forensic footprint examiner compares static bare footprints found on a soft surface and compares them to a static bare footprint of the same foot taken later, then the increase in both length and width of the footprints on a soft surface should be considered in the evaluation.

    UR - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1355030618302788

    UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/comparison-length-width-static-inked-twodimensional-bare-footprints-found-hard-compared-soft-surface

    U2 - 10.1016/j.scijus.2019.03.004

    DO - 10.1016/j.scijus.2019.03.004

    M3 - Article

    JO - Science & Justice

    JF - Science & Justice

    SN - 1355-0306

    ER -