Bare Footprint Identification

Abstract

This chapter commences with a brief history of the use of bare footprints in identification – in areas in which several disciplines can have involvement – a competent technician can perform some of these tasks as well as undertake an initial assessment to determine whether the evidence is of adequate quality to proceed further. There are times, however, when it may be desirable for this entire process to be lead specifically by the forensic podiatrist. Methods of collecting exemplar prints are presented along with variations of these methods and comparison of these approaches. The assessment of bare footprints is also considered with note being made of various features of these prints that may be of interest to the forensic podiatrist. Some situations that could compromise the quality of bare footprints are also presented.

Terminology in relation to this feature has varied considerably throughout the literature. The terms “barefoot print,” “barefoot impression,” “barefoot impressions,” “naked foot marks,” “barefoot footprints,” “bare footprints,” and “footprints” have all been used to describe this type of print. A footprint could not exist without being “bare,” however, the term “footprint” is often used synonymously to describe a “shoeprint,” which acts to further confuse. While the term “barefoot print” is the most accurate description, describing as it does the state of the foot as opposed to that of the print, this term does not mirror the frequently used term “shoeprint” used to described the print of a shoe, hence the term footprint would, in this sense be more appropriate. To avoid confusion, it would however also be helpful to include the word “bare” before footprint. Despite being a less accurate descriptive term than “barefoot print,” the authors have therefore decided to use the term “bare footprint” to describe this feature throughout the text.