Bericon provides expert forensic footwear analysis, assessing marks left at crime scenes to determine potential matches with suspects’ footwear. Our services include independent evaluations of evidence such as marks on various surfaces, including skin and blood, and determining unique identifying features of shoe patterns. These analyses can establish critical associations in criminal investigations, offering conclusive insights often overlooked.
Case Study – Key Information:
The Defendant was jointly charged with Murder resulting from an assault.
– A brawl occurred between the defendant, the co-defendant and the victim, which resulted in the victim colliding with a lamppost or similar item and falling to the ground.
– The post-mortem established the cause of death as Disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) complicating mild head injury.
– A pathologist reported the presence of marks on the victim’s right arm and forehead. It was suspected that an item or items of footwear could have made these. The marks were photographed for later review and comparison.
– The defendant was arrested in connection with the incident and a pair of shoes were recovered from a motor vehicle which was associated with them.
– The footwear and photographs from the post-mortem were submitted for forensic examination. A scientist instructed by the prosecution reported that a mark on the right forehead of the deceased could have been made by footwear as a result of a forceful kick/stamp.
– The prosecution scientist also commented that if the mark had been made by footwear, they have not identified any apparent correspondence between it and the under-surface patterns or upper surfaces of the defendant’s footwear.
– The defendant denied the footwear attributed to them came into contact with the victim’s head.
Expert Instructions:
Bericon’s expert was requested to prepare a report that reviewed the prosecution findings and conclusions of the prosecution scientist in relation to the possible causation of the marks on the victim’s arm and head and whether they could have originated as a consequence of contact with the defendant’s footwear.
Expert Findings:
It was concluded by the prosecution scientist that it was not possible to determine if the markings on the victim’s arm were from contact with an item of footwear.
Bericon’s expert agreed with that assessment.
The prosecution scientist concluded that it was possible but not certain that the mark had been made by footwear as a result of a forceful kick/stamp but that if the marks had been made by footwear, they had not identified any apparent correspondence between it and the undersides of the defendant’s footwear.
Bericon’s expert agreed with that assessment but would add that the key feature of the marks to the victim’s head was constituted of an oblong component and the expert did not locate any such pattern formation on the uppers or undersides of the defendant’s footwear and on that basis, it is highly unlikely that the defendant’s footwear was responsible for these marks.
Are you a criminal defence solicitor looking for an expert witness in this type of case? Contact us today.
Curious to Learn More?
Stay informed about the fascinating intersection of science and justice. Keep reading our blog for more insights into forensic science case studies, expert witnesses, and their impact on the UK legal system.
