CSI Podiatry: Case 1 The Burglary A series of burglaries had taken place and the same shoeprints were present at every crime scene. The police arrested a suspect and found the shoes that had made the prints at the suspects house. The suspect denied that the shoes were his so a second pair of shoes known to have been worn by the suspect were taken for comparison with the questioned shoes.

Case Scenario Serial Burglaries Common shoe prints at crime scenes Trainers seized from suspects home matched the shoe prints Suspect denied owning these shoes, stating that they must have been left there by persons unknown

Task Compare questioned footwear items with footwear known to belong to the suspect and conclude whether or not he was the usual wearer of these shoes

Compatible Features Between Right Known and Questioned Trainers Known size 7, Unknown size 8 Upper worn through at an area corresponding with the end of a wearers first toe Heavy wear medial ball of foot area. Heavy wear lateral ball of foot area. Posterior/lateral heel wear No incompatible features found

Insoles From Known and Unknown Shoes

Conclusion A “There is moderately strong support for the proposition that the known and unknown trainers had the same usual wearer” When faced with this conclusion, the suspect admitted to being the owner of the questioned trainers

Right Insole from Questioned Trainer

Conclusion B “There is strong support for the proposition that there had been two wearers of the questioned trainer”

Verdict Suspect was found not guilty Given that there were two possible wearers of the unknown trainers, it could not be proved that the suspect was the one wearing the shoes at the time the offences were committed