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

Nicolas Howsam, Andrew Bridgen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Approximating true fleshed foot length and forefoot width from unknown crime scene footprints is predominantly based on anecdotal observations and fails to consider effects of different dynamic activities on footprint morphology. Research has shown numerous variables influencing footprint formation including ethnicity, age, gender and whether the print was formed statically or dynamically. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate if length and width measurements of the fleshed foot differ compared to the same measurements collected from walking and jumping footprints. Inner dark (without ghosting) and outer lighter (ghosting) areas of dynamic footprints were also considered.
Measurements of standing right foot length and forefoot width were collected from thirteen participants using a Ward's Forensics Osteometric Board. Walking and jumping right footprints were obtained using an Inkless Shoeprint Kit and measured using 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 showed walking footprint length with ghosting (x ̅=268.61mm) was greater than standing fleshed foot length (x ̅=264.3mm) and jumping footprint length with ghosting (x ̅=261.57mm). However, standing fleshed foot length was found to be greater than walking (x ̅=254.85mm) or jumping (x ̅=255.63mm) footprint lengths without ghosting. Furthermore, jumping footprint length without ghosting (x ̅=255.63mm) was found to be greater than walking footprint length without ghosting (x ̅=254.85mm). Forefoot widths showed standing fleshed foot width (x ̅=105.66mm) was greater than walking (x ̅=95.63mm) or jumping (x ̅=98.03mm) footprint widths. This study identifies variation in measurements of the static fleshed foot and those of dynamic footprints, including variability between different dynamic states. Findings provide support for consideration of whether the inner dark or outer ghosting areas of the footprint are to be used in forensic analysis.
LanguageEnglish
JournalScience and Justice - Journal of the Forensic Science Society
Early online date19 Jun 2018
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 19 Jun 2018

Fingerprint

Walking
Foot
Crime
Research

Cite this

@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 unknown crime scene footprints is predominantly based on anecdotal observations and fails to consider effects of different dynamic activities on footprint morphology. Research has shown numerous variables influencing footprint formation including ethnicity, age, gender and whether the print was formed statically or dynamically. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate if length and width measurements of the fleshed foot differ compared to the same measurements collected from walking and jumping footprints. Inner dark (without ghosting) and outer lighter (ghosting) areas of dynamic footprints were also considered.Measurements of standing right foot length and forefoot width were collected from thirteen participants using a Ward's Forensics Osteometric Board. Walking and jumping right footprints were obtained using an Inkless Shoeprint Kit and measured using 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 showed walking footprint length with ghosting (x ̅=268.61mm) was greater than standing fleshed foot length (x ̅=264.3mm) and jumping footprint length with ghosting (x ̅=261.57mm). However, standing fleshed foot length was found to be greater than walking (x ̅=254.85mm) or jumping (x ̅=255.63mm) footprint lengths without ghosting. Furthermore, jumping footprint length without ghosting (x ̅=255.63mm) was found to be greater than walking footprint length without ghosting (x ̅=254.85mm). Forefoot widths showed standing fleshed foot width (x ̅=105.66mm) was greater than walking (x ̅=95.63mm) or jumping (x ̅=98.03mm) footprint widths. This study identifies variation in measurements of the static fleshed foot and those of dynamic footprints, including variability between different dynamic states. Findings provide support for consideration of whether the inner dark or outer ghosting areas of the footprint are to be used in forensic analysis.",
author = "Nicolas Howsam and Andrew Bridgen",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "19",
doi = "10.1016/j.scijus.2018.06.003",
language = "English",
journal = "Science and Justice - Journal of the Forensic Science Society",
issn = "1355-0306",
publisher = "Forensic Science Society",

}

TY - JOUR

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

AU - Howsam,Nicolas

AU - Bridgen,Andrew

PY - 2018/6/19

Y1 - 2018/6/19

N2 - Approximating true fleshed foot length and forefoot width from unknown crime scene footprints is predominantly based on anecdotal observations and fails to consider effects of different dynamic activities on footprint morphology. Research has shown numerous variables influencing footprint formation including ethnicity, age, gender and whether the print was formed statically or dynamically. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate if length and width measurements of the fleshed foot differ compared to the same measurements collected from walking and jumping footprints. Inner dark (without ghosting) and outer lighter (ghosting) areas of dynamic footprints were also considered.Measurements of standing right foot length and forefoot width were collected from thirteen participants using a Ward's Forensics Osteometric Board. Walking and jumping right footprints were obtained using an Inkless Shoeprint Kit and measured using 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 showed walking footprint length with ghosting (x ̅=268.61mm) was greater than standing fleshed foot length (x ̅=264.3mm) and jumping footprint length with ghosting (x ̅=261.57mm). However, standing fleshed foot length was found to be greater than walking (x ̅=254.85mm) or jumping (x ̅=255.63mm) footprint lengths without ghosting. Furthermore, jumping footprint length without ghosting (x ̅=255.63mm) was found to be greater than walking footprint length without ghosting (x ̅=254.85mm). Forefoot widths showed standing fleshed foot width (x ̅=105.66mm) was greater than walking (x ̅=95.63mm) or jumping (x ̅=98.03mm) footprint widths. This study identifies variation in measurements of the static fleshed foot and those of dynamic footprints, including variability between different dynamic states. Findings provide support for consideration of whether the inner dark or outer ghosting areas of the footprint are to be used in forensic analysis.

AB - Approximating true fleshed foot length and forefoot width from unknown crime scene footprints is predominantly based on anecdotal observations and fails to consider effects of different dynamic activities on footprint morphology. Research has shown numerous variables influencing footprint formation including ethnicity, age, gender and whether the print was formed statically or dynamically. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate if length and width measurements of the fleshed foot differ compared to the same measurements collected from walking and jumping footprints. Inner dark (without ghosting) and outer lighter (ghosting) areas of dynamic footprints were also considered.Measurements of standing right foot length and forefoot width were collected from thirteen participants using a Ward's Forensics Osteometric Board. Walking and jumping right footprints were obtained using an Inkless Shoeprint Kit and measured using 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 showed walking footprint length with ghosting (x ̅=268.61mm) was greater than standing fleshed foot length (x ̅=264.3mm) and jumping footprint length with ghosting (x ̅=261.57mm). However, standing fleshed foot length was found to be greater than walking (x ̅=254.85mm) or jumping (x ̅=255.63mm) footprint lengths without ghosting. Furthermore, jumping footprint length without ghosting (x ̅=255.63mm) was found to be greater than walking footprint length without ghosting (x ̅=254.85mm). Forefoot widths showed standing fleshed foot width (x ̅=105.66mm) was greater than walking (x ̅=95.63mm) or jumping (x ̅=98.03mm) footprint widths. This study identifies variation in measurements of the static fleshed foot and those of dynamic footprints, including variability between different dynamic states. Findings provide support for consideration of whether the inner dark or outer ghosting areas of the footprint are to be used in forensic analysis.

U2 - 10.1016/j.scijus.2018.06.003

DO - 10.1016/j.scijus.2018.06.003

M3 - Article

JO - Science and Justice - Journal of the Forensic Science Society

T2 - Science and Justice - Journal of the Forensic Science Society

JF - Science and Justice - Journal of the Forensic Science Society

SN - 1355-0306

ER -