|
Department
of Podiatry
Forensic
Podiatry
{paste it all
in here }
 |
|
"
Wherever he steps, whatever he touches, whatever he leaves even
unconsciously, will serve as silent witness against him... Only
human failure to find it, study and understand it, can diminish
its value." (Bodziak, 1990, p.1)
|
Outline
History
Podiatric evidence
Podiatric examination
Class characteristics
Forensic methods
Collection of evidence
Analysis of results
Presentation of results
What
is forensic podiatry?
Forensic podiatry involves trying to determine whether a foot impression,
foot mark or wear pattern was made by a particular foot
Primary objective = relate one physical object (e.g footprint, foot
impression or wear impression) with another (e.g shoe, foot)
History
First case utilising a chiropodist was in 1935 (Vernon, 1995)
Past work focused on identification of marks made by external forces
More recently, included internal forces.
biomechanics
(inc. gait analysis)
anatomy
Sara Jones, University of S.A.
Chris Hyde & Meredith Wilkinson
Podiatric
Evidence
impression evidence
weightbearing contact of foot with 'recording surface'
2D footprint or shoe impression
3D foot impression
quality dependent on: contacting surfaces, age, type & condition
of footwear, activities of individual
f
ootprints (barefoot & socked)
shoe prints (outsole & in-shoe characteristics)
Podiatric
Examination
comparison between questioned impression or gait process and data
collected from individual(s) and their footwear and/or foot impressions
need appreciation of lower limb biomechanics and human movement
Factors to consider:
presence
of class characteristics & individual characteristics
presence
of structural differences
Class Characteristics
are
features distinguishable within the impressions which can help identify
structural and mechanical features of a foot
single class and combined class, individual characteristics
Single
class characteristics
common
to a broad range of individuals
e.g
shoe size, foot size (2D); structural characteristics include presence
of hallux rigidus or clawing of toes
Combined
class characteristics
2 or
more independent class characteristics
foot
that can be distinguished from the majority of other feet in the
same size range
more
combined class characteristics identified = reliability of ID
potential
for impression duplication!
Individual
characteristics
features
of footprint or foot impression specific to the individual
limited
in podiatry
e.g
soft tissue or bony injury which results in transfer to foot impressions
(e.g a scar) or unsual alterations in weightbearing characteristics
Forensic
Methods
Discovering & collecting evidence
Evaluating evidence
Making a positive identification
Collection of evidence
rules & regulations vary from state to state
In podiatric
examination:
examination of individual
examination of footwear
The
Crime Scene
Examination of suspect
physical examination of foot structure, biomechanics
detail is important
Impression casts - using foam or plaster bandage, dorsal and plantar
surfaces
Inked impressions - weightbearing; good for recording size, shape
and weightbearing characteristics; when comparing with questioned
footprints
Photography - all views taken
Examination
of footwear
all parts
wear of uppers, insoles & outsoles
detail important for correlation of physical features of wear with
structural features noted on suspects
careful detachment of uppers
Analysis
of results
comparison using similar materials or impression preferred
measurement; of anatomical features, from collected material, photos,
computer scans or cast superimposition.
comparison dependent on quality of evidence
Presentation
of results
Findings:
Probable
- detail in questioned impressions consistent with material provided
or collected for comparison
Inconclusive
- due to condition of questioned podiatry evidence or material provided
for comparison
Improbable
- detail in questioned material is not consistent with that in the
material providded or collected for comparison
Photography,
charts, diagrams, video footage
Summary
Forensic podiatry is a comparative discipline
Forensic podiatrist tries to demonstrate a relationship between an
individual and footwear, foot impression or gait evidence recovered
from a crime scene.
Need knowledge in podiatric biomechanics, foot pathology & footwear
Comparison dependent on nature, conditions & variety of evidence
collected
Results of finding can range from exclusion to identifying source
of presented evidence with a high percentage of probability.
 References
Jones,
S. (1998). Forensic Podiatry - fact or phooey?. In: Proceedings
of the 18th Australian Podiatry Conference, 2, 103-108.
Nguyen,
N. (1996). Forensic methods and its relevance in podiatry. PM391
Podiatry Elective 3.
Robbins,
L. M. 1985. Footprints: Collection, Analysis, and Interpretation.
Illinois: Charles C. Thomas.
Vernon,
D. W. (1995). The use of chiropody records in forensic and mass
disaster identification. Journal of British Podiatric Medicine,
50(12), 196-200.
Qamra,
S. R., Sharma, B. R., Kaila, P. (1980). Naked Foot Marks - A preliminary
study of identification factors. Forensic Science International,
16, 145-152.
Bodziak,
W. (1990). Footwear Impression Evidence. Elsevier, New York.
Wells,
W. A. N. (1994). Evidence and Advocacy. Butterworths, Sydney.
Bennett,
P., and Booth, C. (1995). Forensic podiatry: a case report. Australian
Podiatrist, December, 95-97.
|
