Forensic Applications

  • Matthew R. BennettEmail author
  • Marcin Budka


Within this chapter we focus on forensic applications for 3D files and more generally on forensic practice where trace footwear is involved. We discuss the challenges of individualisation based on recovered footwear traces and explore the associated issues of probability. We finish with a series of fictitious cases which we hope illustrates the potential of 3D analysis in a forensic context.


Forensic Practice Footwear Evidence Shoeprints Footwear Marks Custody Suite 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Acree MA (1999) Is there a gender difference in fingerprint ridge density? For Sci Int 102:35–44Google Scholar
  2. Adair TW, Lemay J, McDonald A, Shaw R, Tewes R (2007) The Mount Bierstadt study: an experiment in unique damage formation in footwear. J Forensic Ident 57:199–205Google Scholar
  3. Ahmed AA, Osman S (2016) Topological variability and sex differences in fingerprint ridge density in a sample of the Sudanese population. J For Legal Med 42:25–32Google Scholar
  4. Anon (2007) Police set up footwear database to rival DNA evidence. Daily Mail.
  5. Barker SL, Scheuer JL (1998) Predictive value of human footprints in a forensic context. Medicine Sci Law 38(4):341–346Google Scholar
  6. Bates KT, Savage R, Pataky TC et al (2013) Does footprint depth correlate with foot motion and pressure? J R Soc Interface 10(83):20130009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennett MR, Morse SA (2014) Human footprints: fossilised locomotion?. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  8. Belvedere M, Bennett MR, Marty D, Budka M, Reynolds SC, Bakirov R (2018) Stat-tracks and mediotypes: powerful tools for modern ichnology based on 3D models. PeerJ 6: e4247.
  9. Berger MA (2005) What has a decade of Daubert wrought? Am J Public Health 95:s59–s65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Birch I, Raymond L, Christou A, Fernando MA, Harrison N, Paul F (2013) The identification of individuals by observational gait analysis using closed circuit television footage. Sci Justice 53:339–342Google Scholar
  11. Birch I, Vernon W, Burrow G, Walker J (2014) The effect of frame rate on the ability of experienced gait analysts to identify characteristics of gait from closed circuit television footage. Sci Justice 54:159–163Google Scholar
  12. Bodziak WJ (2012) Traditional conclusions in footwear examinations versus the use of the Bayesian approach and likelihood ratio: a review of a recent UK appellate court decision. Law Prob Risk 11:279–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bodziak WJ (2017) Footwear impression evidence. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  14. Bodziak WJ, Hammer L, Johnson GM, Schenck R (2012) Determining the significance of outsole wear characteristics during the forensic examination of footwear impression evidence. J For Ident 62:254Google Scholar
  15. Cassidy MJ (1980) Footwear identification. Public Relations Branch of the Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceGoogle Scholar
  16. Cole SA (2009) Forensics without uniqueness, conclusions without individualization: the new epistemology of forensic identification. Law Probab Risk 8:233–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ, Lambert JA (1998a) A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework. Sci Justice 38:231–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ, Lambert JA (1998b) A model for case assessment and interpretation. Sci Justice 38:151–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Coyle IR, Field D, Wenderoth P (2009) Pattern recognition and forensic identification: the presumption of scientific accuracy and other falsehoods. Criminal Law J 33:214–226Google Scholar
  20. Cunliffe E, Edmond G (2013) Gaitkeeping in Canada: Mis-steps in assessing the reliability of expert testimony. Can B Rev 92:327Google Scholar
  21. Damary NK, Mandel M, Wiesner S, Yekutieli Y, Shor Y, Spiegelman C (2018) Dependence among randomly acquired characteristics on shoeprints and their features. For Sci Int 283(1):73–179Google Scholar
  22. Davies CM, Hackman L, Black SM (2014) The foot in forensic human identification–a review. The Foot 24:31–36Google Scholar
  23. Davis RJ (1981) An intelligence approach to footwear marks and toolmarks. J Forensic Sci Soc 21:183–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Davis RJ, DeHaan JD (1977) A survey of men’s footwear. J For Sci Soc 14:271–285Google Scholar
  25. Davis RJ, Keeley A (2000) Feathering of footwear. Sci Justice 40:273–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dear P (2007) Treading carefully to fight crime, BBC News.
  27. DiMaggio JA, Vernon W (2011) Forensic podiatry: principles and methods. Springer, NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Edmond G, Cunliffe E (2016) Cinderella story: the social production of a forensic science. J. Crim. L. Criminology 106:219Google Scholar
  29. Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ (2000) More on the hierarchy of propositions: exploring the distinction between explanations and propositions. Sci Justice 40:3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Evett IW, Lambert JA, Buckleton JS (1998) A Bayesian approach to interpreting footwear marks in forensic casework. Sci Justice 38(4):241–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 32:15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Falkingham PL, Bates KT, Avanzine M, Bennett M, Bordy E, Breithaupt BH, Castanera D, Citton P, Díaz-Marinez I, Farlow JO, Fiorillo AR, Gatesy SM, Getty P, Hatala KG, Hornung JJ, Hyatt JA, Klein H, Lallensack JN, Martin AJ, Marty D, Matthew NA, Meyer CA, Milan J, Minter NJ, Razzolini NL, Romilio A, Salisbury SW, Scicio L, Tanaka I, Wiseman ALA, Xing LD, Belvedere M (2018) Astandard protocol for documentingmodern and fossil ichnolgoical data. Palaeotology.
  33. Fawcett AS (1970) The role of the footmark examiner. J For Sci Sco 10:227–244Google Scholar
  34. Freeman H (2010) Muddy shoe print leads to arrest in marijuana case. Herald Review March 31 2010Google Scholar
  35. Fruchtenicht TL, Herzig WP, Blackledge RD (2002) The discrimination of two-dimensional military boot impressions based on wear patterns. Sci Justice 42:97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Giannelli PC (2012) The 2009 NAS Forensic Science Report: A Literature Review. Criminal Law Bulletin 378.
  37. Grivas CR, Komar DA (2008) Kumho, Daubert, and the nature of scientific inquiry: implications for forensic anthropology. J Forensic Sci 53:771–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hammer L, Duffy K, Fraser J, Daéid NN (2013) A study of the variability in footwear impression comparison conclusions. J For Ident 63:205Google Scholar
  39. Hancock S, Morgan-Smith R, Buckleton J (2012) The interpretation of shoeprint comparison class correspondences. Sci Justice 52:243–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Henderson J, Armitage R (2018) If the shoe fits: proposing a randomised control trial on the effect of a digitised in-custody footwear technology compared to a paper-based footwear method. Crime Secur Soc 1(1)Google Scholar
  41. Kanchan T, Krishan K, Aparna KR, Shyamsunder S (2012) Footprint ridge density: a new attribute for sexual dimorphism. HOMO J Comp Hum Biol 63:468–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kanchan T, Krishan K, Geriani D, Khan IS (2013) Estimation of stature from the width of static footprints—insight into an Indian model. Foot 23:136–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kennedy RB (1996) Uniqueness of bare feet and its use as a possible means of identification. Forensic Sc Intern 82(1):81–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kennedy RB, Chen S, Pressman IS et al (2005) A large-scale statistical analysis of barefoot impressions. J Forensic Sci 50(5):1071–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kennedy RB, Pressman IS, Chen S et al (2003) Statistical analysis of barefoot impressions. J Forensic Sci 48(1):55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kennedy RB, Yamashita AB (2007) Barefoot morphology comparisons: a summary. J Forensic Ident 57(3):383Google Scholar
  47. Kerstholt JH, Paashuis R, Sjerps M (2007) Shoe print examinations: effects of expectation, complexity and experience. Forensic Sci Int 165:30–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Koehler JJ (2011) If the shoe fits they might acquit: the value of forensic science testimony. J Empirical Legal Studies 8:21–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Krishan K (2008a) Determination of stature from Foot and its segments in a north Indian population. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 29:297–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Krishan K (2008b) Establishing correlation of footprints with body weight-Forensic Aspects. Forensic Sci Int 179:63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Krishan K (2008c) Estimation of stature from Foot prints and foot outline dimension in Gujjar of north India. Forensic Sci Int 175:93–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Krishan K (2007) Individualizing characteristics of footprints in Gujjars of north India—forensic aspects. For Sci Int 169:137–144Google Scholar
  53. Krishan K, Kanchan T, Ngangom C (2013) A study of sex differences in fingerprint ridge density in a North Indian young adult population. J Foren Legal Med 20:217–222Google Scholar
  54. Krishan K, Kanchan T, DiMaggio JA (2015a) Emergence of forensic podiatry—a novel sub-discipline of forensic sciences. For Sci Int 255:16–27Google Scholar
  55. Krishan K, Kanchan T, Pathania A, Sharma R, DiMaggio JA (2015b) Variability of footprint ridge density and its use in estimation of sex in forensic examinations. Med Sci Law 55:284–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
  57. Laskowski GE, Kyle VL (1988) Barefoot impressions—a preliminary study of identification characteristics and population frequency of their morphological features. J For Sci 33:378–388Google Scholar
  58. Lewis B (2017) Barefoot-Insole-Impression Evidence: The Curious Case of Mr. Jones’s Feet. American Bar Association.
  59. Liebenberg L (2013) The origin of science. CyberTracker, Cape TownGoogle Scholar
  60. Lindley DV (1977) A problem in forensic science. Biometrika 64:207–213Google Scholar
  61. Mcarth J (2015) Sheep rustling: the costly crime that has ravaged Wales’ rural communities.
  62. Majamaa H, Ytti A (1996) Survey of the conclusions drawn of similar footwear cases in various crime laboratories. For Sci Int 82:109–120Google Scholar
  63. Margolick D (1995) Simpson’s shoe size fits bloody prints left at the crime scene, an F.B.I. expert says. New Your Times.
  64. Massey S (2004) Persistence of creases of the foot and their value for forensic identification purposes. J Forensic Ident 54(3):296–315Google Scholar
  65. Morse SA, Bennett MR, Liutkus‐Pierce C, Thackeray F, McClymont J, Savage R, Crompton RH (2013) Holocene footprints in Namibia: the influence of substrate on footprint variability. Am J Phy Anthropol 151:265–279Google Scholar
  66. Music DK, Bodziak WJ (1988) Evaluation of the air bubbles present in polyurethane shoe outsoles as applicable in footwear impression comparisons. J For Sci 33:1185–1197Google Scholar
  67. Naples VL, Miller JS (2004) Making tracks: the forensic analysis of footprints and footwear impressions. Anat Record Part B New Anat 279:9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. National Academic for Sciences in the USA published a damming report in 2009Google Scholar
  69. NPIA (2007) Footwear Marks Recovery Manual. NPIAGoogle Scholar
  70. Old Bailey Proceedings Online (, version 8.0, 01 August 2018), July 1697, trial of Margaret Martell (t16970707-46)
  71. Pastoors A, Lenssen-Erz T, Breuckmann B, Ciqae T, Kxunta U, Rieke-Zapp D, Thao T (2017) Experience based reading of Pleistocene human footprints in Pech-Merle. Q Int 430:155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pataky TC, Mu T, Bosch K et al (2012) Gait recognition: highly unique dynamic plantar pressure patterns among 104 individuals. J R Soc Interface 9:790–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Popper K (1963) Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  74. Raymond J, Sheldon P (2015) Standardizing Shoemark Evidence—an Australian and New Zealand collaborative trial. J For Ident 65:868Google Scholar
  75. Reel S, Rouse S, Vernon W. et al (2010) Reliability of a two-dimensional footprint measurement approach. Sci and Justice 50:113–118Google Scholar
  76. Reel S, Rouse S, Vernon W, et al (2012) Estimation of stature from static and dynamic footprints. Forensic Sci Int 219:283-e1Google Scholar
  77. Robbins LM (1978) The individuality of human footprints. J Forensic Sci, 23(4):778–785Google Scholar
  78. Robbins LM (1985) Footprints: Collection, analysis, and interpretation CC Thomas, SpringfieldGoogle Scholar
  79. Robbins LM (1986) Estimating height and weight from size of footprints. J Forensic Sci 31(1):143–152 Google Scholar
  80. Roberts G, Gonzalez S, Huddart D (1996) Intertidal Holocene footprints and their archaeological significance. Antiquity 70:647–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Saks MJ, Koehler JJ (2005) The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Sci 309:892–895Google Scholar
  82. Saks MJ, Koehler JJ (2008) The individualization fallacy in forensic science evidence. Vand L Rev 61:199Google Scholar
  83. Schallamach A (1968) Abrasion, fatigue, and smearing of rubber. J Appl Polymer Sci 12(2):281–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sharma BR (1980) Footprints, tracks and trails in criminal investigation and trials. Central Law AgencyGoogle Scholar
  85. 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 232:84–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Shor Y, Weisner S (1999) A survey on the conclusions drawn on the same footwear marks obtained in actual cases by several experts throughout the world. J For Sci 44:380–384Google Scholar
  87. Shor Y, Wiesner S, Tsach T, Gurel R, Yekutieli Y (2017) Inherent variation in multiple shoe-sole test impressions. For Sci Int 285:189–203Google Scholar
  88. 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 210:26–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Smith MB (2009) Forensic analysis of footwear impression evidence. Forensic Sci Commun 11(3)Google Scholar
  90. Soanboon P, Nanakorn S, Kutanan W (2016) Determination of sex difference from fingerprint ridge density in northeastern Thai teenagers. Egypt J For Sci 6:185–193Google Scholar
  91. Stone RS (2006) Footwear examinations: mathematical probabilities of theoretical individual characteristics. J Forensic Ident 56:577–599Google Scholar
  92. Stoney DA (1991) What made us ever think we could individualize using statistics? J Forensic Sci Soc 31(2):197–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Taduran RJO, Tadeo AKV, Escalona NAC, Townsend GC (2016) Sex determination from fingerprint ridge density and white line counts in Filipinos. HOMO-J Comp Hum Biol 67(2):163–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Thompson WC (2012) Discussion paper: hard cases make bad law—reactions to R v T. Law Probab Risk 11(4):347–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Thornton JI, Peterson JL (2002) The general assumptions and rationale of forensic identification. In: Faigman DL, Kaye DH, Saks MJ, Sanders J (eds) Science in the law: forensic science issues. West, St. Paul, pp 1–45Google Scholar
  96. Thornton JI, Peterson JL (2006) The general assumptions and rationale of forensic identification, in 4 MODERN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: THE LAW AND SCIENCE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY § 29:15, at 15 (David L. Faigman et al. eds., 2008–2009)Google Scholar
  97. Tuttle RH (2008) Footprint clues in hominid evolution and forensics: lessons and limitations. Ichnos 15(3–4):158–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. US Supreme Court in light of the Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 1993Google Scholar
  99. Vanderkolk JR (2004) ACE+V: a model. J For Ident 54:45Google Scholar
  100. Vanderkolk JR (2009) Forensic comparative science: qualitative quantitative source determination of unique impressions, images, and objects. Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  101. Vernon W (2006) The development and practice of forensic podiatry. J Clinical Forensic Med 13:284–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 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 Ident 49(2):142–173Google Scholar
  103. Yamashita AB (2007) Forensic barefoot morphology comparison 1. Can J Criminol Criminal Justice/La Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pénale 49(5):647–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Science and Technology, Institute for Studies of Landscape and Human EvolutionBournemouth UniversityPooleUK
  2. 2.Department of Computing and Informatics, Faculty of Science and Technology, Institute for Studies of Landscape and Human EvolutionBournemouth UniversityPooleUK

Personalised recommendations