A comparison of three shoe sole impression lifting methods at high substrate temperatures.

Abstract

Footwear impressions are a common form of evidence found at crime scenes, and the accurate recovery and recording of such impressions is critical for shoe sole comparison and identification. The lifting of shoe sole impressions from hot surfaces (>30°C/86°F) and in hot environments has received little attention in the literature, particularly in relation to the recovery of class and randomly acquired characteristics (RACs) required for accurate comparisons. This study addressed this knowledge gap by comparing the performance of three common impression lifters (gelatin, adhesive, and vinyl static cling film) at recovering shoe sole impressions in dust from hot flooring substrates. Dry origin dust shoe sole impressions were made on ceramic tile, galvanized metal, and laminated wood flooring using a shoe that possessed two RACs and five class characteristics present on the sole. Substrates were left in direct full sun for five hours during a summer day prior to lifting. Performance was measured by the proportion of RACs and class characteristics visible in each lifted impression. Results demonstrated that the vinyl static cling film tested performed poorly across all substrates, particularly for metal (23.8% marks recovered), including notable shrinkage of the lifted impression. In contrast, adhesive (~96% marks recovered over all substrates), and to a lesser extent gelatin (~85%), lifts were highly successful on hot substrates. These data suggest that adhesive lifts can consistently and accurately recover shoe sole impressions from hot substrates. This study contributes critical information for crime scene examiners to improve and expand evidence recovery in hot environments.