Dataset of Digitized RACs and Their Rarity Score Analysis for Strengthening Shoeprint Evidence†
Corresponding Author
Sarena Wiesner M.Sc.
Questioned Documents Lab, DIFS, Israel Police, 1 Bar Lev Rd., Jerusalem, 91906 Israel
Corresponding author: Sarena Wiesner, M.Sc. E-mail: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorYaron Shor M.Sc.
Toolmarks and Materials Lab, DIFS, Israel Police, 1 Bar Lev Rd., Jerusalem, 91906 Israel
Search for more papers by this authorTsadok Tsach M.Sc.
R&D Unit, DIFS, Israel Police, 1 Bar Lev Rd., Jerusalem, 91906 Israel
Search for more papers by this authorNaomi Kaplan-Damary Ph.D.
Department of Statistics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 91905 Israel
Search for more papers by this authorYoram Yekutieli Ph.D.
Department of Computer Science, Hadassah Academic College, 37 Hanevi'im St., Jerusalem, 9101001 Israel
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Sarena Wiesner M.Sc.
Questioned Documents Lab, DIFS, Israel Police, 1 Bar Lev Rd., Jerusalem, 91906 Israel
Corresponding author: Sarena Wiesner, M.Sc. E-mail: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorYaron Shor M.Sc.
Toolmarks and Materials Lab, DIFS, Israel Police, 1 Bar Lev Rd., Jerusalem, 91906 Israel
Search for more papers by this authorTsadok Tsach M.Sc.
R&D Unit, DIFS, Israel Police, 1 Bar Lev Rd., Jerusalem, 91906 Israel
Search for more papers by this authorNaomi Kaplan-Damary Ph.D.
Department of Statistics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 91905 Israel
Search for more papers by this authorYoram Yekutieli Ph.D.
Department of Computer Science, Hadassah Academic College, 37 Hanevi'im St., Jerusalem, 9101001 Israel
Search for more papers by this authorPresented in whole and in part at the 10th ENFSI SPTM Meeting, June 5–7, 2013, Bled, Slovenia; the 11th ENFSI SPTM Meeting, October 21–23, 2014, Prague, Check Republic; at IPTES, August 25–27, 2015; San Antonio, TX; and at IPTES, January 22–25, 2018, Arlington, VA.
This research was conducted through a grant sponsored by the NIJ (Grant No.: IAA-2009-DN-R-090).
Abstract
In recent years, there is a growing demand to fortify the scientific basis of forensic methodology. During 2016, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) published a report that states there are no appropriate empirical studies that support the foundational validity of footwear analysis to associate shoeprints with particular shoes based on specific identifying marks, which is a basic scientific demand from the field. Furthermore, meaningful databases that can support such studies do not exist. Without such databases, statistical presentation of the comparison results cannot be fulfilled either. In this study, a database of over 13,000 randomly acquired characteristics (RACs) such as scratches, nicks, tears, and holes, as they appear on shoe sole test impressions, from nearly 400 shoe soles was collected semi-automatically. The location, orientation, and the contour of each RAC were determined for all the RACs on each test impression. The statistical algorithm Statistic Evaluation of Shoeprint Accidentals (SESA) was developed to calculate a score for finding another feature similar to a particular scanned and digitized RAC in the same shape, location, and orientation as the examined one. A correlation was found between the results of SESA and the results of real casework, strengthening our belief in the ability of SESA to assist the expert in reaching a conclusion while performing casework. The score received at the end of the process serves the expert as a guiding number, allowing more objective and accurate results and conclusions.
Supporting Information
| Filename | Description |
|---|---|
| jfo14239-sup-0001-Appendix.docxWord document, 16.6 KB | Appendix S1. Supplementary material. |
| jfo14239-sup-0002-FigA1.tifTIFF image, 2.2 MB | Figure S1. Histogram of orientation differences [deg] for 82,595 pairs of repetitions of the same RAC. |
| jfo14239-sup-0003-FigA2.tifTIFF image, 2.7 MB | Figure S2. Orientation differences as a function of the orientation score. |
| jfo14239-sup-0004-FigA3.tifTIFF image, 1.5 MB | Figure S3. Histogram (90 bins, each of 2 degrees) of orientations of the ~8900 RACs of the CONTOURS data set. |
| jfo14239-sup-0005-FigA4.tifTIFF image, 2.2 MB | Figure S4. Histogram of orientations of the 300 longest RACs. |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
References
- 1 Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 9th Cir. 43 F.3d 1311 (1995).
- 2Saks MJ, Koehler JJ. The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science 2005; 309(5736): 892–5.
- 3 National Research Council, Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2009.
- 4 President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Report to the President – Forensic science in criminal courts: ensuring scientific validity of feature-comparison methods. Washington, DC: President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2016.
- 5Petraco DKN, Gambino C, Kubic AT, Olivio D, Petraco N. Statistical discrimination of footwear: a method for the comparison of accidentals on shoe outsoles inspired by facial recognition techniques. J Forensic Sci 2010; 55(1): 34–41.
- 6Shor Y, Wiesner S, Tsach T, Gurel R, Yekutieli Y. Inherent variation in multiple shoe-sole test impressions. Forensic Sci Int 2018; 285: 189–203.
- 7Skerrett J, Neumann C, Mateos-Garcia I. A Bayesian approach for interpreting shoemark evidence in forensic casework: accounting for wear features. Forensic Sci Int 2011; 210(1–3): 26–30.
- 8 Regina v T. Court of Appeal — Criminal Division, EWCA Crim 2439, 2010.
- 9Keereweer I. Guideline for drawing conclusions regarding shoeprint examinations. Inf Bull Shoeprint/Toolmark Exam 2000; 6: 47–62.
- 10Keereweer I, Van Beest M, Van de Velde JM. Guideline for evaluating and drawing conclusions in comparative examination of shoeprints. The Hague, The Netherlands: Netherlands Forensic Institute, 2005.
- 11Keereweer I. Footwear and foot impressions: comparison and identification. encyclopedia of forensic science. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2009.
- 12 ENFSI expert working group. Marks conclusion scale committee. Conclusion scale for shoeprint and toolmarks examination. J Forensic Identif 2006; 56(2): 255–80.
- 13Majamaa H, Ytti A. Survey of the conclusions drawn of similar footwear cases in various crime laboratories. Forensic Sci Int 1996; 82(1): 109–20.
- 14Ytti A, Majamaa H, Virtanen J. Survey of the conclusions drawn of similar shoeprint cases, Part II. Inf Bull Shoeprint/Toolmark Exam 1998; 4(10): 157–69.
- 15Shor Y, Weisner S. A survey on the conclusions drawn on the same footwear marks obtained in actual cases by several experts throughout the world. J Forensic Sci 1999; 44(2): 380–4.
- 16Alexander A, Bouridane A, Crookes D. Automatic classification and recognition of shoeprints. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Image Processing and Its Applications; 1999 July 13–15; Manchester, U.K. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 1999; 638–41.
- 17Bouridane A, Alexander A, Nibouche M, Crookes D. Application of fractals to the detection and classification of shoeprints. Proceedings of the 2000 International Conference on Image Processing; 2000 Sept 10–13; Vancouver, Canada. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 2000; 474–7.
- 18Huynh C, de Chazal P, McErlean D, Reilly RB, Hannigan TJ, Fleury LM. Automatic classification of shoeprints for use in forensic science based on the Fourier transform. Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Image Processing; 2003 Sept 14–17; Barcelona, Spain. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 2003; 569–72.
- 19de Chazal P, Flynn J, Reilly RB. Automated processing of shoeprint images based on the Fourier transform for use in forensic science. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 2005; 27(3): 341–50.
- 20Pavlou M, Allinson NM. Automatic extraction and classification of footwear patterns. In: E Corchado, H Yin, V Botti, C Fyfe, editors. Intelligent data engineering and automated learning – IDEAL 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol 4224. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 2006; 721–8.
10.1007/11875581_87 Google Scholar
- 21Gueham M, Bouridane A, Crookes D. Automatic recognition of partial shoeprints based on phase-only correlation. Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing; 2007 Sept 16–19; San Antonio, TX. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 2007; 441–4.
- 22Su H, Crookes D, Bouridane A. Thresholding of noisy shoeprint images based on pixel context. Pattern Recognit Lett 2007; 28(2): 301–7.
- 23Su H, Crookes D, Bouridane A, Gueham M. Shoeprint image retrieval based on local image features. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Information Assurance and Security; 2007 Aug 29–31; Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 2007; 387–92.
- 24Su HJ, Crookes D, Bouridane A, Gueham M. Local image features for shoeprint image retrieval. In: NM Rajpoot, AH Bhaleraoeditors. Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference; 2007 Sept 10–13; Warwick, U.K. Durham, U.K.: BMVA Press, 2007; 38.1–10.
- 25Kong B, Supancic JS, Ramanan D,Fowlke CC. Cross-domain image matching with deep feature maps. Int J Comput Vis 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11263-018-01143-3. Epub 2019 Jan 4.
- 26Richetelli N, Lee MC, Lasky CA, Gump ME, Speir J. Classification of footwear outsole patterns using Fourier transform and local interest points. Forensic Sci Int 2017; 275: 102–9.
- 27Tang Y, Srihari SN, Kasiviswanathan H. Similarity and clustering of footwear prints. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Granular Computing; 2010 Aug 14-16; San Jose, CA. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 2010; 459–64.
- 28Tang Y, Srihari S, Kasiviswanathan H, Corso J. Footwear print retrieval system for real crime scene marks. In: H Sako, KY Franke, S Saitoh, editors. Computational Forensics. IWCF 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 6540. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 2010; 88–100.
- 29Tang Y, Kasiviswanathan H, Srihari SN. An efficient clustering-based retrieval framework for real crime scene footwear marks. Int J Granular Comput Rough Sets Intell Syst 2012; 2(4): 327–60.
10.1504/IJGCRSIS.2012.049981 Google Scholar
- 30Srihari SN. Analysis of footwear impression evidence. Final Technical Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2011; Award Number: 2007-DN-BX-K135.
- 31Speir JA, Richetelli N, Fagert M, Hite M, Bodziak WJ. Quantifying randomly acquired characteristics on outsoles in terms of shape and position. Forensic Sci Int 2016; 266: 399–411.
- 32Richetelli N, Nobel M, Bodziak W, Speir J. Quantitative assessment of similarity between randomly acquired characteristics on high quality exemplars and crime scene impressions via analysis of feature size and shape. Forensic Sci Int 2017; 270: 211–22.
- 33Stone RS. Footwear examination: mathematical probabilities of theoretical individual characteristics. J Forensic Identif 2006; 56(4): 577–99.
- 34Sheets HD, Gross S, Langenburg G, Bush PJ, Bush MA. Shape measurement tools in footwear analysis: a statistical investigation of accidental characteristics over time. Forensic Sci Int 2013; 232(1–3): 84–91.
- 35Hilderbrand DS. Footwear, the missed evidence. 2nd edn. Wildomar, CA: Staggs Publishing, 2007; 159–60.
- 36Bodziak WJ. Footwear impression evidence, detection recovery and examination. 2nd edn. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2000.
- 37Kaplan Damary N, Mandel M, Wiesner S, Yekutieli Y, Shor Y, Spiegelman C. Dependence among randomly acquired characteristics on shoeprints and their features. Forensic Sci Int 2018; 283: 173–9.
- 38Neuman C, Armstrong DE, Wu T. Determination of AFIS ‘‘sufficiency’’ in friction ridge examination. Forensic Sci Int 2016; 263: 114–25.
- 39 SWGTREAD. Guide for the preparation of test impressions from footwear and tires (03/2005). http://treadforensics.com/images/swgtread/standards/current/swgtread_05_test_impressions_200503.pdf (accessed October 21, 2019).
- 40Yekutieli Y, Shor Y, Wiesner S, Tsach T. Expert assisting computerized system for evaluating the degree of certainty in 2D shoeprints. Final Report, NIJ Task Plan 3211, 2016. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250336.pdf (accessed October 21, 2019).
- 41Dubuisson MP, Jain AK. A modified Hausdorff distance for object matching. Proceedings of the 12th IAPR International Conference on Pattern Recognition; 1994 Oct 9-13; Jerusalem, Israel. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, 1994; 566–8.
10.1109/ICPR.1994.576361 Google Scholar
- 42 Botev’s kde2d MATLAB function. https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/17204-kernel-density-estimation?s_txml:id=prof_contriblnk (accessed October 21, 2019).
- 43Kaplan-Damary N. Statistical methods for evaluating forensic evidence. [dissertation]. Jerusalem, Israel: Hebrew University, 2019.
- 44Katterwe H, Baldwin D, Van Beest M, Belser C, Birkett J, Girod A, et al. Conclusion scale for shoeprint and toolmarks examinations. J Forensic Identif 2006; 56(2): 255–80.
- 45 SWGTREAD. Range of conclusions standard for footwear and tire impression Examinations (03/2013). http://treadforensics.com/images/swgtread/standards/current/swgtread_10_conclusions_range_201303.pdf (accessed October 21, 2019).
- 46Reymond J. Study of acquired characteristics on two general patterns of soles [dissertation]. Lausanne, Switzerland: Université de Lausanne, 2010.
