Picturing Shoeprints

Shoeprint

Shoeprint in blood on black nylon before enhancement (a) and after enhancement with three techniques (b, c, and d). Source: University of Abertay Dunde.

 

Last week, we saw that forensic scientists at the University of Abertay Dunde (Scotland) invented a way to recover latent fingerprints from foods. Late last year, the university’s scientists announced a new method for visualizing latent shoeprints.

Dr. Kevin Farrugia modified traditional fingerprint visualization techniques to develop the first detailed images of latent footwear marks left on fabric. Farrugia explained that a footwear mark can be created with a contaminant on the sole of the footwear and left on carpet, clothes, or a body.

“However, as the marks fade and become less visible,” Farrugia said, “the pattern on the sole of the shoe, by contrast, becomes much clearer and better defined. And it’s these prints – the ones that we can’t actually see – that are the most useful at a crime scene, especially when it isn’t possible to recover other types of evidence such as fingerprints and DNA, because they can tell you things like what size, and even what brand, of shoe the perpetrator was wearing when they committed the crime.”

These general features are class characteristics of the footwear. A print can reveal even more than this.

“[B]ecause everyone walks differently,” Farrugia explained, “the sole of their shoes will have acquired what we call random and individual characteristics that are specific to that shoe and person, which means, when the police have got a suspect, they can get their shoes, and if the shoes match, it can lead to a conviction.”

For the first time, a method can be used to produce a clear, detailed image of a latent footwear print without damaging it. Farrugia’s technique is effective with both new and old prints, and may be used to reinvestigate cold cases.

You can learn more details about this method at the Abertay University website.

 

Hair Evidence Speaks

Photomicrograph of lice egg case on hair.

Photomicrograph of lice egg case on hair. Source: Douglas W. Deedrick and Sandra L. Koch, “Microscopy of Hair Part 1: A Practical Guide and Manual for Human Hairs,” Forensic Science Communications 6(1) (January 2004).

 

NOVA posted an article all about hair – hair evidence, that is. “Strands of Evidence” describes how scientists can determine where a strand of hair came from based on analysis of hydrogen and oxygen in a local water supply. The idea is that consumed water creates isotope traces in hairs.

Researchers in the US and Europe have been applying and refining techniques of this type of hair analysis. By studying variations along a single strand, for example, a researcher may be able to glean a timeline of a person’s travels. Isotopes in hair also reveal information about the person’s diet, and if the hair’s owner had starved for a while. These types of details can help to identify a murder victim.

If you’re interested in more details about isotope analysis, then take a look at the IsoForensics website, and the recent NOVA posting, “Stable Isotopes in Forensics.”

Postmortem Hair Banding Evidence

Postmortem root banding

Photomicrograph of postmortem root band. Source: Douglas W. Deedrick and Sandra L. Koch, “Microscopy of Hair Part 1: A Practical Guide and Manual for Human Hairs,” Forensic Science Communications 6(1) (January 2004).

 

 

During the 2011 Casey Anthony trial, an FBI hair analyst testified that a hair recovered from Anthony’s car trunk probably came from a dead body. The expert based her conclusion on the presence of a darkened band at the root portion of the hair. This postmortem hair banding is a sign of decomposition.

Evidence of hair with postmortem banding also plays a role in a case described in an August 2012 posting on the OpposingViews website. In 1985, Nassau County (New York) police found two hairs in a van. The hairs matched the hair of a 16-year old, who had been recently raped and murdered. The recovered hairs linked three men to the crime. During a 1986 trial, prosecutors argued that the presence of the hairs in the van proved that the three male defendants had used the van to abduct their victim, rape her, killer her, and dump her body in the woods within a span of a few hours. They were convicted.

About 20 years later, DNA tests cleared the three men, and they filed wrongful conviction cases. The judge allowed the plaintiffs to call expert witnesses to testify that traces of postmortem root banding found on the hairs strongly indicate that the hairs originated from the autopsy room. In other words, the evidence had been planted in the van.

Despite the considerable qualifications of the experts, the judge decided that the science surrounding postmortem root banding (PMRB) is inconclusive.

“The idea that PMRB takes several days to develop (and thus that it could not have developed in the short time [that the victim had been in the] van) has not yet been established by scientific standards of proof,” the judge wrote.

Opinions about the admissibility of postmortem root banding vary among judges. During the 2005 retrial of one of the three men, a Nassau County judge held a hearing on the scientific basis of postmortem root banding, and decided to allow the defendant to present the evidence to the jury. If you’re thinking about including the controversial postmortem root banding evidence into your story, then you should review the judge’s consideration about the value of the evidence in People v. Kogut, which can be found on the Justia.com website.