Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorTaylor, Kate M
dc.contributor.authorKrosch, Matt N
dc.contributor.authorChaseling, Janet
dc.contributor.authorWright, Kirsty
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-26T03:35:01Z
dc.date.available2020-10-26T03:35:01Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.issn0022-1198en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/1556-4029.14595en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/398681
dc.description.abstractFootwear 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.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherWileyen_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalJournal of Forensic Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchOther Chemical Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchOther Biological Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchClinical Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode0399en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode0699en_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode1103en_US
dc.titleA comparison of three shoe sole impression lifting methods at high substrate temperaturesen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articlesen_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationTaylor, KM; Krosch, MN; Chaseling, J; Wright, K, A comparison of three shoe sole impression lifting methods at high substrate temperatures, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2020en_US
dcterms.dateAccepted2020-09-21
dc.date.updated2020-10-26T01:41:42Z
gro.description.notepublicThis publication has been entered as an advanced online version in Griffith Research Online.en_US
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text
gro.griffith.authorChaseling, Janet


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record