Literature DB >> 29428777

Inherent variation in multiple shoe-sole test impressions.

Yaron Shor1, Sarena Wiesner2, Tsadok Tsach3, Ron Gurel4, Yoram Yekutieli5.   

Abstract

Shoeprints left at crime scenes are seldom perfect. Many prints are distorted or contaminated by various materials. Noisy background often contributes to vagueness on the shoeprints as well. Test impressions made from the suspect's shoes in the laboratory are considered a genuine replication of the shoe-sole. This naïve attitude is far from being correct. Consecutive test impressions made in the laboratory under strict similar conditions revealed differences among the exemplars of the same sole. Some of them are minor, but some are major, and can mislead the less experienced practitioners during the comparison process. This article focuses on the inherent within source variability between controlled shoeprints made from the same shoe, as it appears on the RACs. To describe and analyze this variability, repeated test impressions were prepared, and datasets were created. Several RACs were marked on each test impression, using an expert assisting software tool (developed in the authors' lab). The variance in repeated test impressions is demonstrated and possible sources are discussed. This variance should be considered when trying to establish the degree of matching between individual characteristics.
Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Keywords:  Footwear impression; Intra class variability; RAC; Shoeprints; Test impression; Within source variability

Year:  2017        PMID: 29428777     DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.10.030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Forensic Sci Int        ISSN: 0379-0738            Impact factor:   2.395


  2 in total

1.  Quantifying the similarity of 2D images using edge pixels: an application to the forensic comparison of footwear impressions.

Authors:  Soyoung Park; Alicia Carriquiry
Journal:  J Appl Stat       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 1.416

Review 2.  Interpol review of shoe and tool marks 2016-2019.

Authors:  Martin Baiker-Sørensen; Koen Herlaar; Isaac Keereweer; Petra Pauw-Vugts; Richard Visser
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2020-04-02       Impact factor: 2.395

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.