On 27th July 2008, at approximately 5am, newlyweds Ben and Catherine Mullany were shot and robbed in their hotel bedroom on the last day of their Antiguan honeymoon. Catherine died instantly; Ben went into a coma and survived long enough to be flown home to Wales, but doctors could do nothing for him. A week later, his life support machine was turned off.
Two weeks after the Mullany killings, local shopkeeper Woneta Anderson was shot and killed during a robbery at her store. All three victims had been shot once in the head.
The Government of Antigua and Barbuda had called in London's Metropolitan Police to assist with the investigations into the Mullany killings. Antigua's tourism-based economy was likely to be severely damaged by the killings, unless the case was solved quickly. Moreover, Antigua had only one trained forensics officer, who would be under immense pressure without additional expert assistance.
The Mullany killings were found to be linked to the Anderson killing - all three victims were shot with the same gun. From the wealth of forensic evidence found at the Anderson crime scene, two local men, Kaniel Martin and Avie Howell, were arrested and subsequently charged with murder.
After a trial lasting two months, Martin and Howell were convicted of the three killings. Each man received three consecutive life sentences for their crimes. At the time of their sentencing, they had yet to be tried for two other charges of causing death by shooting.
One important piece of forensic evidence concerned the partial shoeprints made in blood, which were found at the scene of the Anderson killing. The forensic examination of shoeprints is a huge subject and impossible to cover in detail in a blog post. However, here is a report of the shoeprint evidence given at the Mullany/Anderson murder trial, which, I think will give you a good general overview of the topic.
Shoeprint evidence at Mullany/Anderson murder trial
As is clear from Anthony Larkin's evidence, in order to be able to link a suspect's shoe with a crime scene sole impression, individual features have to be present in both.
Individualisation of a shoe's sole is based upon the knowledge that accidental marks formed during wear are unique. It is essential that the forensic examiner is well-versed in the shoe manufacturing process, otherwise manufacturing defects could be mistakenly identified as unique wear damage, particularly by an inexperienced examiner. Cheap footwear is more likely to contain manufacturing defects than expensive brands.
The surface bearing the shoeprints can affect the quality of the impression. The wooden floor of Woneta Anderson's store was rough and uneven. As Mr Larkin pointed out, the damage feature on the sole impression was not as clear as it could have been, because of problems with the surface of the floorboards.
Since footwear impressions are one of the most common types of evidence found at a crime scene, a great deal of research has been carried out to find the best methods for enhancing visible shoeprint impressions and developing latent (invisible) impressions, particularly on difficult surfaces, such as clothing.
Researchers at the University of Abertay in Scotland have recently produced 'the world's first detailed images of latent footwear left on fabrics'. By adapting and modifying existing visualisation techniques, the researchers hope that their methods will be particularly valuable in cases where no DNA or fingerprint evidence is found.
Read about their work here:
Shoeprints recovered from crime scene clothing
Finally, a word about automation. Clearly, the linking of a crime scene shoeprint with an item of footwear is always a task for a forensic expert. However, reference databases of footwear sole patterns are available for the police and other law enforcement agencies to allow them to identify makes and styles of footwear. This obviously saves a lot of time and allows a case to move forward more rapidly.
Here are some examples of commercially available shoeprint identification products.
Foster and Freeman's shoeprint identification products
Cape Coral PD in Florida found its shoeprint matching software invaluable in tracking down a serial burglar. Watch the video here:
Two weeks after the Mullany killings, local shopkeeper Woneta Anderson was shot and killed during a robbery at her store. All three victims had been shot once in the head.
The Government of Antigua and Barbuda had called in London's Metropolitan Police to assist with the investigations into the Mullany killings. Antigua's tourism-based economy was likely to be severely damaged by the killings, unless the case was solved quickly. Moreover, Antigua had only one trained forensics officer, who would be under immense pressure without additional expert assistance.
The Mullany killings were found to be linked to the Anderson killing - all three victims were shot with the same gun. From the wealth of forensic evidence found at the Anderson crime scene, two local men, Kaniel Martin and Avie Howell, were arrested and subsequently charged with murder.
After a trial lasting two months, Martin and Howell were convicted of the three killings. Each man received three consecutive life sentences for their crimes. At the time of their sentencing, they had yet to be tried for two other charges of causing death by shooting.
One important piece of forensic evidence concerned the partial shoeprints made in blood, which were found at the scene of the Anderson killing. The forensic examination of shoeprints is a huge subject and impossible to cover in detail in a blog post. However, here is a report of the shoeprint evidence given at the Mullany/Anderson murder trial, which, I think will give you a good general overview of the topic.
Shoeprint evidence at Mullany/Anderson murder trial
As is clear from Anthony Larkin's evidence, in order to be able to link a suspect's shoe with a crime scene sole impression, individual features have to be present in both.
Individualisation of a shoe's sole is based upon the knowledge that accidental marks formed during wear are unique. It is essential that the forensic examiner is well-versed in the shoe manufacturing process, otherwise manufacturing defects could be mistakenly identified as unique wear damage, particularly by an inexperienced examiner. Cheap footwear is more likely to contain manufacturing defects than expensive brands.
The surface bearing the shoeprints can affect the quality of the impression. The wooden floor of Woneta Anderson's store was rough and uneven. As Mr Larkin pointed out, the damage feature on the sole impression was not as clear as it could have been, because of problems with the surface of the floorboards.
Since footwear impressions are one of the most common types of evidence found at a crime scene, a great deal of research has been carried out to find the best methods for enhancing visible shoeprint impressions and developing latent (invisible) impressions, particularly on difficult surfaces, such as clothing.
Researchers at the University of Abertay in Scotland have recently produced 'the world's first detailed images of latent footwear left on fabrics'. By adapting and modifying existing visualisation techniques, the researchers hope that their methods will be particularly valuable in cases where no DNA or fingerprint evidence is found.
Read about their work here:
Shoeprints recovered from crime scene clothing
Finally, a word about automation. Clearly, the linking of a crime scene shoeprint with an item of footwear is always a task for a forensic expert. However, reference databases of footwear sole patterns are available for the police and other law enforcement agencies to allow them to identify makes and styles of footwear. This obviously saves a lot of time and allows a case to move forward more rapidly.
Here are some examples of commercially available shoeprint identification products.
Foster and Freeman's shoeprint identification products
Cape Coral PD in Florida found its shoeprint matching software invaluable in tracking down a serial burglar. Watch the video here:
I
If you have enjoyed this blog, please feel free to share it. Forensics for Writers is on Facebook and NetworkedBlogs. You can also follow me on Twitter @forensicswrite.
No comments:
Post a Comment