NCJ Number
215147
Journal
Journal of Forensic Sciences Volume: 51 Issue: 4 Dated: July 2006 Pages: 819-825
Date Published
July 2006
Length
7 pages
Annotation
This comparison of the Electrostatic Dust Print Lifter (EDPL) and the Electrostatic Detection Apparatus (ESDA) determined the quality of footwear impressions each developed, the order in which the instruments should be used to develop the highest quality footwear impression, and the sensitivity of each technique.
Abstract
The study found that the footwear impressions developed with the EDPL were superior to those developed with the ESDA. On average, 72.4 percent of the individual characteristics of the known shoe were identified on images developed when the EDPL was used first, compared with an average of 38.9 percent when the ESDA was used first. If only one technique is used, the EDPL should be selected. The sensitivity test found that the ESDA developed high-quality footwear impressions on only the top sheet of 10 sheets of paper used in the test. With EDPL, the 10th sheet processed resulted in 84 percent of the individual characteristics being identified. The quality of the footwear impressions developed by each technique was determined by comparing 25 individual characteristics present on the known shoe to the footwear impressions developed with each technique. The footwear impressions were made by stepping on paper placed over several different surfaces, including linoleum, industrial Berber carpet, nylon carpet placed over a 3/8-inch pad, ceramic tile, cardboard, 1-inch foam, 4-inch foam, cement, asphalt, grass, and mulch. Each of the papers placed on these surfaces was developed by using the EDPL before the ESDA and vice versa. The sensitivity test for the ESDA was conducted by processing 10 sheets of stacked paper that were stepped on with the known shoe. The sensitivity test for the EDPL was conducted by processing 10 sheets of paper stepped on in succession with the known shoe. 3 tables, 7 figures, and 7 references