Forensic Science Experts for Court
Call head office 01782 394929
London Office 0207 118 9001
Freephone 0800 999 7 666

Enquiry to Court within 2 weeks

Written by: Alan Baker 15th November, 2022


Bericon Forensics were pleased to be able to offer rapid assistance to one of our best customers.

We were requested to compare marks found on the victim’s head and body with footwear associated with Mr Haines.


Timeline of Bericon’s involvement with this case…

21/10 – Enquiry received

21/10 – Quote sent out to solicitors

24/10 – Instruction received

25/10 – Footwear received

26/10 – Examination undertaken

28/10 – Report written and checked

02/11 – Attend court and expert gave evidence


Impressions found on skin can be as a result of forcible contact with an item or surface. In a situation involving a subject being kicking or stamping, the deformation of the skin will be a very temporary one.

However, footwear impressions can still be found on skin in the form of contusions that have resulted from the impact of the footwear and that may reflect the characteristics of the footwear that made them.

It has been observed that the combined factors of the shoe design, the degree of impact, the angle of the shoe relative to the skin and the presence of either soft tissue or bony structure beneath the skin can affect the resulting mark.

The resulting contusion patterns vary primarily because of two factors: the amount of pressure applied to the skin by the impact of the shoe and the shoe design.


Expert’s conclusion:

Our expert concluded that the key feature of the marks to Mr D’Aguilar’s head was constituted of an oblong component, and he did not locate any such pattern formation on the uppers or undersides of Mr Haines’ footwear and on that basis, it was highly unlikely that his footwear was responsible for these marks.

Underside pattern of Mr Haines’ training shoes.

[sharethis]Share this page