Encyclopedia of Biometrics

2009 Edition
| Editors: Stan Z. Li, Anil Jain

Forensic Barefoot Comparisons

  • Brian A. Yamashita
  • Robert B. Kennedy
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73003-5_103



Forensic barefoot comparison, or barefoot morphology comparison, describes the comparison of impressions of the weight-bearing areas of feet in an attempt to include or exclude a suspect as someone linked to a crime scene. A bare or socked foot impression found at the crime scene can be compared to inked barefoot impressions and footprint casts taken from a suspect. Similarly, a link to footwear matched to a crime scene can be determined by comparing the insoles of the crime scene footwear to footwear seized from a suspect, or to inked impressions and casts taken from a suspect.


Barefoot morphology comparison refers to the examination of the weight-bearing areas on the bottom of a human foot, when ridge detail is not present, to establish a link between the bare foot of an individual and a footprint impression found at a crime scene [ 1, 2, 3]. In the case of footwear linked to a crime scene,...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. 1.
    Bodziak, W.J.: Footwear Impression Evidence, pp. 381–411. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kennedy, R.B.: Bare footprint marks. In: Siegel, J.A., Saukko, P.J., Knupfer, G.C. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences, pp. 1189–1195. Academic Press, London (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kennedy, R.B., Yamashita, A.B.: Barefoot morphology comparisons: a summary. J. Forensic Ident. 57(3), 383–413 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lemieux, M.: Histoire de Pied/a foot story. Identif. Can. 25(4), 16–17 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Watkins, D., Brown, K.C.: The case of the toe print. J. Forensic Ident. 57(6), 870–873 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McCafferty, J.D.: The shoe fits. The Police J. 28(2), 135–139 (1955)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Puri, D.K.S.: Footprints. Int. Police Rev. 187, 106–111 (1965)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Robbins, L.M.: The individuality of human footprints. J. Forensic Sci. 23(4), 778–785 (1978)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lovejoy, O.C.: Methods of Footprint Analysis. Seminar in Footprint and Shoeprint Identification. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 29 April 1984Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bodziak, W.J., Monson, K.L.: Discrimination of individuals by their footprints. Paper presented at 11th meeting of International Association of Forensic Sciences, Vancouver, BC (1987)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kennedy, R.B.: Uniqueness of bare feet and its use as a possible means of identification. Forensic Sci. Int. 82(1), 81–87 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kennedy, R.B., Chen, S., Pressman, I.S., Yamashita, A.B., Pressman, A.E.: A large-scale statistical analysis of barefoot impressions. J. Forensic Sci. 50(5), 1071–1080 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    DiMaggio, J.A.: The Foot as a Forensic Tool. Paper presented at the 55th annual meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Chicago, IL (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Massey, S.L.: Persistence of creases of the foot and their value for forensic identification purposes. J. Forensic Ident. 54(3), 296–315 (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Richard, C.: Case law: [2002] Ontario superior court R. V. Arcuri. Identif. Can. 25(4), 18–20 (2002)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian A. Yamashita
    • 1
  • Robert B. Kennedy
    • 2
  1. 1.Forensic Identification Operations Support ServicesNational Services and Research, Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Royal Canadian Mounted Police (retired)OttawaCanada