S.S.

JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE

Establishment of the Identity of the physical objects by shape & size

2018-2019

FORENSIC SCIENCE AND LAW

SUBMITTED BY : SUBMITTED TO :

NAME : GAURAV KUMAR SHARMA MR. MANOJ JAIN

CLASS : B.A. L.L.B. IIIrd yr. VTH semester

SECTION : B

ROLL NO : 9
 Establishment

of
the Identity of

the physical objects

by shape & size

 DECLARATION

I, Gaurav kumar Sharma, do hereby declare that, this dissertation titled " Establishment of the Identity of the
physical objects by shape & size ” is an outcome of the research conducted by me under the guidance of Prof.
MR MANOJ JAIN (Asst. Prof. of law) at S.S. Jain Subodh Law College in fulfillment for the award of the
degree of B.A.L.L.B. at the University of Rajasthan.

I also declare that, this work is original, except where assistance from other sources has been taken and
necessary acknowledgements for the same have been made at appropriate places. I further declare that, this
work has not been submitted either in whole or in part, for any degree or equivalent in any other institution.

Date: 24-11-2018

Place: Jaipur

Name of Student: Gaurav kumar Sharma

(i)
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I acknowledge with profundity, my obligation to almighty god and my parents for giving me the grace to
accomplish my work, without which this project would not have been possible.

I express my heartfelt gratitude to my respected faculty, Prof.MR MANOJ JAIN (asst. prof. of law) for
providing me with valuable suggestions to complete this dissertation.

I am especially grateful to all my faculty members at SS Jain Subodh Law College who have helped me
imbibe the basic research and writing skills.

Lastly, I take upon myself, the drawbacks and limitations of this study, if any.

Date: 24-11-2018

Place: Jaipur

Name of Student: Gaurav kumar Sharma

(ii)
 CERTIFICATE

Certified that the project work on the topic “Establishment of the identity of the physical objects by
shape and size” submitted by GAURAV KUMAR SHARMA for the partial fulfillment of the degree B.A.
L.L.B VTH semester offered by the S.S. Jain Subodh Law College during the academic year 2018-2019 is
an original work carried out by the student under my supervision and this work has not formed the basis for
the award of any degree, diploma, or such other titles.

Prof. MR MANOJ JAIN

Asst. prof. of law

S.S. Jain Subodh Law College

(iii)
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SR. NO. TOPIC

1. INTRODUCTION
2. COMMON TYPES OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
3. BRIEF ABOUT IMPRESSION EVIDENCE
4. ESTABLISHMENT OF IDENTITY OF PHYSICAL OBJECTS

(iv)
 INTRODUCTION

Any material either in gross or trace quantities that can establish through scientific examination and analysis
that a crime has been committed.

Physical evidence utilization in other areas of forensic investigation:

•Provides investigative leads for a case

•Ties one crime to a similar crime or connects one suspect with another

•Corroborates statements from witnesses to or victims of a crime

COMMON TYPES OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

Common types of Physical evidence are :

•Blood, semen, saliva, hair, human or animal, biological samples

•Documents-handwriting, type, ink, indented, obliterations, burned

•Drugs-illegal substance-sale , manufacture, distribution, use

•Explosives-explosive charge material and residues

•Fibers, Hair, Paint

•Fingerprints, latent and visible

•Firearms and ammunition

•Glass-particles, fragments

•Impressions-tire marks, shoeprints, tracks, bite marks

•Organs and physiological fluids-existence of drugs or poisons, alcohol

•Petroleum products-e.g. gas residues, grease or oil

•Plastic bags-e.g. garbage bag in homicide or drug case

•Rubber, other polymers-remnants linked to objects recovered in suspects possession

•Powder residues-gun powder

•Serial numbers-ID numbers

•Soil and minerals-e.g. soil in shoes or safe insulation

•Tool marks-object containing impression of another object

•Vehicle lights-filament condition

•Wood and other vegetative matterwood, sawdust, plant material, linking person or object to the crime scene

Identification has as its purpose the determination of the physical or chemical identity of a substance with as
near absolute certainty as existing analytical techniques will permit. Comparison analysis subjects a suspect
specimen and a standard/reference specimen to the same tests and examinations for the ultimate purpose of
determining whether or not they have a common origin.

A BRIEF ABOUT IMPRESSION EVIDENCE

Impression evidence includes any markings produced when one object comes into contact with another,
leaving behind some kind of indentation or print. Such evidence encountered includes footwear impressions,
tyre marks, and markings created by tools and similar instruments.

Footwear Impressions
Whenever an individual takes a step, a footwear impression may potentially be left behind on the surface.
Such an impression may be two-dimensional, the print left behind on a flat surface in some deposited
material, or three-dimensional, formed in a soft surface such as soil. Numerous techniques are available for
the enhancement and recovery of footwear impressions, though non-destructive methods should always be
employed first if possible.

Two-dimensional impressions can often be treated in a similar way as fingerprints. The gentle application of
a fine powder may develop footprints on flat surfaces. Certain chemicals and dyes may enhance impression
on surfaces such as glass or tile. However paper and similar porous surfaces will simply absorb such
chemicals, rendering the impression useless. The application of alternative light sources can enhance two-
dimensional footwear impressions. The light source should be positioned to give a low angle of incident
light, creating shadows to provide a contrast.

One of the more common methods of recovering three-dimensional impressions is to create a cast of the
impression, usually using plaster of Paris, dental stone, or a similar casting material. The plaster is mixed
with an appropriate amount of water and gently poured into the impression. Once set, it can be removed and
taken for examination and comparison purposes.

Impressions in dust are obviously extremely delicate, though can be carefully recovered using electrostatic
treatment. An electrostatic lifter passes a voltage across a thin layer of conductive film, which is composed
of a lower layer of black insulating plastic with an upper layer of aluminium foil. The electrostatic charges
cause particles of the impressions to jump onto the black underside, recovering the dust impression. As
dental stone emits heat as it sets, it is evidently not suitable for casting impressions in snow. In this instance
aerosol products exist, such as Snow Impression Wax. This is applied to the impression numerous times at
intervals of one to two minutes and then left to dry. The impression can then be cast as normal. Alternatively
flour sulphur may be used to cast snow prints. This is boiled to produce a hot casting compound which, upon
contact with the cold snow, solidifies to produce a detailed cast.

Any footwear impressions collected from the crime scene may be useless unless there are suspect samples
available for comparison. By applying a film of light oil to the undersole of a shoe and pressing it into a
sheet of oil-impregnated foam rubber, a test impression can be produced. Alternatively the undersole is oiled
and pressed onto plain white paper, which is then dusted with fine black powder similar to that used to
develop latent prints. If a three-dimensional impression is to be obtained, it should, if possible, be produced
using the same methods and mediums as the original impression.

Even if no other samples are available for comparison, a recovered shoe impression may yield a vast amount
of information. Almost all items of footwear will bear an undersole with distinctive patterns, which
manufacturers are increasingly designing to be specific to them. In some locations such patterns have been
stored in databases for comparison purposes. Though these patterns are identical for the same brand and type
of shoe, a certain degree of individuality may be imparted from the manufacturing process or general wear.
As a shoe is worn certain details fade in different places, depending on the weight and walk of the wearer,
and specific damages may be caused. The size of the shoe, which may easily be obtained by examining the
recovered impression, may prove useful, though not as a positive identifier.

Tyre Impressions:

As vehicles may be present at crime scenes, before, during or after the crime, tyre impressions may be
discovered at the scene, usually left behind in soil. The enhancement and collection of these is similar to that
of footwear impressions. If a tyre impression is discovered at a scene the impression corresponding to the
opposite tyre should also be searched for, as the distance between these may provide further information
regarding the vehicle in question.

Instrument Marks:

Instruments and tools used during a crime will often leave marks behind at the scene, which may prove
beneficial in establishing links between a particular object and the scene. Common instruments encountered
fall into two categories; cutting instruments and levering instruments. Common cutting instruments include
knives, bolt croppers and drills, with screwdrivers and jemmies being common levering tools. Such
instruments will often suffer severe damage when used, giving them characteristic features which may leave
behind a distinctive impression at the scene. A cast can be made of the impression at the scene, usually using
a type of silicon rubber. This can then be used in comparison with other impressions or instruments to
establish a match and determine which tool was used. The cast itself will be a negative of the original mark,
and so should not be directly compared with the suspected tool. Instead the suspected instrument can be used
to make a number of test marks in a similar medium.

ESTABLISHMENT OF IDENTITY OF PHYSICAL OBJECTS

Footwear and tire tracks can be deposited on almost any surface, from paper to the human body. Prints are
divided into three types: visible, plastic and latent. A visible print is a transfer of material from the shoe or
tire to the surface. This type can be seen by the naked eye without additional aids. For example, bloody shoe
prints left on flooring or tracks left by muddy tires on a driveway.

A plastic print is a three-dimensional impression left on a soft surface. This includes shoe or tire tracks left
in sand, mud or snow.

A latent print is one that is not readily visible to the naked eye. This type is created through static charges
between the sole or tread and the surface. Examiners or investigators use powders, chemicals or alternate
light sources to find these prints. Examples include shoeprints detected on a tile or hardwood floor, window
sill, or metal counter, or tire tracks detected on road surfaces, driveways or sidewalks

How Samples are Collected

Examiners use several methods for collecting footwear and tire track evidence depending on the type of
impression found. For impressions in soil, snow or other soft surfaces, casting is the most commonly used
collection method. For imprints, examiners generally try to collect the entire object containing the imprint,
such as a whole sheet of paper or cardboard with a shoe print. When that is not possible, for instance, if the
print is on a bank counter, the examiner would use a lifting technique to transfer the imprint to a medium
that can be sent to the laboratory.

As with any evidence found at a crime scene, shoeprints and tire tracks must be properly documented,
collected and preserved in order to maintain the integrity of the evidence. Impression evidence is easily
damaged, so steps must be taken to avoid damage to the evidence. This includes securing and documenting
the scene prior to collecting any evidence.

In the case of impression evidence, general photographs of the evidence location in relation to the rest of the
scene are taken, along with high-resolution images of the individual imprints or impressions. Examiners may
use alternate light sources or chemical enhancers to capture as much detail as possible, especially with latent
imprints.

Properly photographing impressions is crucial. Since there is only a slight difference between different shoe
sizes, if the photographs are not taken at a 90° angle to the impression, then the true size cannot be produced
in order to compare to the actual shoe.

Whenever possible, impression evidence is collected as is and submitted to the laboratory for examination.
For shoeprints and tire tracks that cannot be picked up, various lifting techniques are used to recover the
evidence. These include:
• Adhesive lifter - a heavy coating of adhesive lifts the imprint from smooth, non-delicate surfaces such as
tile or hardwood floors, metal counters, etc. It is usually used in conjunction with fingerprint powders.

• Gelatin lifter - a sheet of rubber with a low-adhesive gelatin layer on one side that can lift prints from
almost any surface, including porous, rough, curved and textured surfaces. It is less tacky and more flexible
than an adhesive lifter, allowing it to pick up a dusty shoeprint on a cardboard box, for example, but not tear
the surface of the box.

• Electrostatic dust-print lifting device - a tool that electrostatically charges particles within dust or light
soil, which are then attracted and bonded to a lifting film. This method is best for collecting dry or dusty
residue impressions on almost any surface, even the skin of a cadaver.
Any plastic, or three-dimensional, footwear or tire impressions can be collected by casting. Casting uses a
powdered stone material, such as dental stone, that can be mixed with water and poured into the impression.
When it dries, this method creates a three-dimensional model of the impression.

Imprints and impressions may be further processed to enhance or bring out additional minute details. For
example, a digital enhancement program such as Adobe Photoshop® can be used to improve the quality of a
photographed tire track. Fingerprint powders and chemical stains or dyes can enhance image color or
increase the contrast against the background. This enables lifted or casted evidence to be photographed or
scanned.

Comparison samples are usually taken from suspects or suspect vehicles. Shoe samples should be packaged
to avoid cross-contamination and tire samples should remain on the vehicle.

Who Conducts the Analysis

Evaluation and comparison of impression evidence should be performed by a well-trained footwear and tire
track examiner. Typically these professionals have received extensive training on footwear and tire
manufacturing, evidence detection, recovery, handling and examination procedures, laboratory and
photography equipment and procedures, courtroom testimony and legal issues, and casework.
The Scientific Working Group on Shoeprint and Tire Tread Evidence (SWGTREAD) has a published
standard that discusses the minimum qualifications and training for footwear/tire track examiners.
Additionally, the International Association for Identification (IAI) offers a recommended course of study for
footwear and tire track examiners that takes participants through more than 550 hours of training. The IAI
also certifies footwear (but not tire track) examiners.

How and Where the Analysis is Performed

Detection, documentation, photography, and collection of imprints and impressions occur in relation to
crime scenes of many types. Analysis of impression evidence is typically performed at a public crime
laboratory or private laboratory by experienced examiners.

Evidence Submission and Examination

Ideally, the suspect’s shoes and/or tires are submitted to the lab along with the collected evidence.
Examiners will use the submitted shoes and/or tires to make test standards, impressions of a known source,
which can then be compared to the collected evidence. This is usually done using transparency overlays or
side-by-side comparisons.

For example, in a case from Florida, a bloody shoe print was found on the carpet in the home of a murder
victim. The print indicated that there was a hole in the shoe that left the print. Investigators collected and
made test prints of the shoes from individuals known to be at the scene near the time of the murder.
Footwear examiners were able to identify the perpetrator by overlaying the bloody shoeprint from the crime
scene with the test print made from the suspect’s shoe.

In some cases, an investigator may be asked to submit shoes or tires of other individuals for exclusion
purposes, such as from a cohabitant of a home or from a first responder to a crime scene.

Tools and Techniques

During the examination and comparison, examiners use tools such as dividers, calipers, special lighting and
low magnification. Examiners measure the various elements within the tread design as well as the length and
width of the impressions, and then compare those measurements to what is seen in the crime scene print or
impressions. Low magnification and special lighting are sometimes used to determine if various
characteristics are accidental or something that was created during the manufacturing process.
Examiners perform side-by-side comparisons by placing the known shoe or tire alongside the crime scene
print so that corresponding areas can be examined. Test prints are also compared to the crime scene print.
Digital images on double or triple computer monitors can also be used during the comparison.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology.

 Forensic Magazine – Forensicmag.com.
 Forensic Science Communications, an open access journal of the FBI.
 Forensic sciences international – An international journal dedicated to the applications of medicine
and science in the administration of justice – ISSN 0379-0738 – Elsevier
 International Journal of Digital Crime and Forensics
 "The Real CSI", PBS Frontline documentary, 17 April 2012.
 Baden, Michael; Roach, Marion. Dead Reckoning: The New Science of Catching Killers, Simon &
Schuster, 2001. ISBN 0-684-86758-3.
 Bartos, Leah, "No Forensic Background? No Problem", ProPublica, 17 April 2012.
 Guatelli-Steinberg, Debbie; Mitchell, John C. Structure Magazine no. 40, "RepliSet: High Resolution
Impressions of the Teeth of Human Ancestors".
 Haag, Michael G.; Haag, Lucien C. (2011). Shooting Incident Reconstruction: Second Edition. New
York: Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-382241-3.

(v)