A comparative study of standing fleshed foot and walking and jumping bare footprint measurements

Nicolas Howsam; Andrew Bridgen

doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2018.06.003

A comparative study of standing fleshed foot and walking and jumping bare footprint measurements

Nicolas Howsam, Andrew Bridgen

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Approximating true fleshed foot length and forefoot width from crime scene footprints is primarily based on anecdotal observations and fails to consider effects of different dynamic activities on footprint morphology. A literature search revealed numerous variables influencing footprint formation including whether the print was formed statically or dynamically. The aim of this study was to investigate if length and width measurements of the fleshed foot differ to the same measurements collected from walking and jumping footprints. Measurements of standing right foot length and forefoot width were collected from thirteen participants. Walking and jumping right footprints were then obtained using an Inkless Shoeprint Kit and digitally measured with GNU Image Manipulation Programme. Descriptive analysis compared standing fleshed foot length and forefoot width against the same measurements taken from walking and jumping footprints with and without ghosting. Results suggested walking footprint length with ghosting (x¯ = 268.61 mm) was greater than standing fleshed foot length (x¯ = 264.3 mm) and jumping footprint length with ghosting (x¯ = 261.57 mm). However, standing fleshed foot length was found to be greater than walking (x¯ = 254.85 mm) or jumping (x¯ = 255.63 mm) footprint lengths without ghosting. Forefoot widths showed standing fleshed foot width (x¯ = 105.66 mm) was greater than walking (x¯ = 95.63 mm) or jumping (x¯ = 98.03 mm) footprint widths. This study identifies variation in measurements of the standing fleshed foot and those of walking and jumping footprints, including variability between different dynamic states.

Language	English
Pages	346-354
Number of pages	9
Journal	Science and Justice - Journal of the Forensic Science Society
Volume	58
Issue number	5
Early online date	19 Jun 2018
DOIs	10.1016/j.scijus.2018.06.003
Publication status	Published - Sep 2018

Fingerprint

Walking

Foot

Crime

Cite this

Howsam, N., & Bridgen, A. (2018). A comparative study of standing fleshed foot and walking and jumping bare footprint measurements. Science and Justice - Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 58(5), 346-354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2018.06.003

Howsam, Nicolas ; Bridgen, Andrew. / A comparative study of standing fleshed foot and walking and jumping bare footprint measurements. In: Science and Justice - Journal of the Forensic Science Society. 2018 ; Vol. 58, No. 5. pp. 346-354.

@article{cd5c72516b4940a98b1d1c0ef3c5c46b,

title = "A comparative study of standing fleshed foot and walking and jumping bare footprint measurements",

abstract = "Approximating true fleshed foot length and forefoot width from crime scene footprints is primarily based on anecdotal observations and fails to consider effects of different dynamic activities on footprint morphology. A literature search revealed numerous variables influencing footprint formation including whether the print was formed statically or dynamically. The aim of this study was to investigate if length and width measurements of the fleshed foot differ to the same measurements collected from walking and jumping footprints. Measurements of standing right foot length and forefoot width were collected from thirteen participants. Walking and jumping right footprints were then obtained using an Inkless Shoeprint Kit and digitally measured with GNU Image Manipulation Programme. Descriptive analysis compared standing fleshed foot length and forefoot width against the same measurements taken from walking and jumping footprints with and without ghosting. Results suggested walking footprint length with ghosting (x¯ = 268.61 mm) was greater than standing fleshed foot length (x¯ = 264.3 mm) and jumping footprint length with ghosting (x¯ = 261.57 mm). However, standing fleshed foot length was found to be greater than walking (x¯ = 254.85 mm) or jumping (x¯ = 255.63 mm) footprint lengths without ghosting. Forefoot widths showed standing fleshed foot width (x¯ = 105.66 mm) was greater than walking (x¯ = 95.63 mm) or jumping (x¯ = 98.03 mm) footprint widths. This study identifies variation in measurements of the standing fleshed foot and those of walking and jumping footprints, including variability between different dynamic states.",

keywords = "Bare footprint, Measurement, Static, Dynamic, Forensic",

author = "Nicolas Howsam and Andrew Bridgen",

year = "2018",

month = "9",

doi = "10.1016/j.scijus.2018.06.003",

language = "English",

volume = "58",

pages = "346--354",

journal = "Science and Justice - Journal of the Forensic Science Society",

issn = "1355-0306",

publisher = "Forensic Science Society",

number = "5",

}

Howsam, N & Bridgen, A 2018, 'A comparative study of standing fleshed foot and walking and jumping bare footprint measurements', Science and Justice - Journal of the Forensic Science Society, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 346-354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2018.06.003

A comparative study of standing fleshed foot and walking and jumping bare footprint measurements. / Howsam, Nicolas; Bridgen, Andrew.

In: Science and Justice - Journal of the Forensic Science Society, Vol. 58, No. 5, 09.2018, p. 346-354.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparative study of standing fleshed foot and walking and jumping bare footprint measurements

AU - Howsam, Nicolas

AU - Bridgen, Andrew

PY - 2018/9

Y1 - 2018/9

N2 - Approximating true fleshed foot length and forefoot width from crime scene footprints is primarily based on anecdotal observations and fails to consider effects of different dynamic activities on footprint morphology. A literature search revealed numerous variables influencing footprint formation including whether the print was formed statically or dynamically. The aim of this study was to investigate if length and width measurements of the fleshed foot differ to the same measurements collected from walking and jumping footprints. Measurements of standing right foot length and forefoot width were collected from thirteen participants. Walking and jumping right footprints were then obtained using an Inkless Shoeprint Kit and digitally measured with GNU Image Manipulation Programme. Descriptive analysis compared standing fleshed foot length and forefoot width against the same measurements taken from walking and jumping footprints with and without ghosting. Results suggested walking footprint length with ghosting (x¯ = 268.61 mm) was greater than standing fleshed foot length (x¯ = 264.3 mm) and jumping footprint length with ghosting (x¯ = 261.57 mm). However, standing fleshed foot length was found to be greater than walking (x¯ = 254.85 mm) or jumping (x¯ = 255.63 mm) footprint lengths without ghosting. Forefoot widths showed standing fleshed foot width (x¯ = 105.66 mm) was greater than walking (x¯ = 95.63 mm) or jumping (x¯ = 98.03 mm) footprint widths. This study identifies variation in measurements of the standing fleshed foot and those of walking and jumping footprints, including variability between different dynamic states.

AB - Approximating true fleshed foot length and forefoot width from crime scene footprints is primarily based on anecdotal observations and fails to consider effects of different dynamic activities on footprint morphology. A literature search revealed numerous variables influencing footprint formation including whether the print was formed statically or dynamically. The aim of this study was to investigate if length and width measurements of the fleshed foot differ to the same measurements collected from walking and jumping footprints. Measurements of standing right foot length and forefoot width were collected from thirteen participants. Walking and jumping right footprints were then obtained using an Inkless Shoeprint Kit and digitally measured with GNU Image Manipulation Programme. Descriptive analysis compared standing fleshed foot length and forefoot width against the same measurements taken from walking and jumping footprints with and without ghosting. Results suggested walking footprint length with ghosting (x¯ = 268.61 mm) was greater than standing fleshed foot length (x¯ = 264.3 mm) and jumping footprint length with ghosting (x¯ = 261.57 mm). However, standing fleshed foot length was found to be greater than walking (x¯ = 254.85 mm) or jumping (x¯ = 255.63 mm) footprint lengths without ghosting. Forefoot widths showed standing fleshed foot width (x¯ = 105.66 mm) was greater than walking (x¯ = 95.63 mm) or jumping (x¯ = 98.03 mm) footprint widths. This study identifies variation in measurements of the standing fleshed foot and those of walking and jumping footprints, including variability between different dynamic states.

KW - Bare footprint

KW - Measurement

KW - Static

KW - Dynamic

KW - Forensic

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85048837377&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.scijus.2018.06.003

DO - 10.1016/j.scijus.2018.06.003

M3 - Article

VL - 58

SP - 346

EP - 354