Science & Justice
Volume 46, Issue 2 , Pages 79-89 , April 2006

Survey of 1276 shoeprint impressions and development of an automatic shoeprint pattern matching facility

  • T.J. Hannigan

      Affiliations

    • Forensic Science Laboratory, Garda Headquarters, Phoenix Park, Dublin 8, Ireland
    • Corresponding Author InformationAuthor for correspondence.
    • ,
  • L.M. Fleury

      Affiliations

    • Forensic Science Laboratory, Garda Headquarters, Phoenix Park, Dublin 8, Ireland
    • ,
  • R.B. Reilly

      Affiliations

    • Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University College, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
    • ,
  • B.A. O’Mullane

      Affiliations

    • Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University College, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
    • ,
  • P. deChazal

      Affiliations

    • Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University College, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland

Received 29 March 2005 ,Accepted 19 January 2006.

References 

  1. Bodziac WJ. Footwear Impression Evidence; Detection, Recovery and Examination. 2nd Edition. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2000;
  2. Evett IW, Lambert JA, Buckleton JS. A Bayesian approach to interpreting footwear marks in forensic casework. Science and Justice. 1998;38:241–247
  3. Katterwe H. True or False?. Information Bulletin for Shoeprint/Toolmark Examiners. 2003;9(2):18–25
  4. Davis RJ. An Intelligence Approach to Footwear Marks and Toolmarks. Journal of the Forensic Science Society. 1981;21:183–193
  5. Birkett J. Scientific Scene Linking. Journal of the Forensic Science Society. 1989;29:271–284
  6. Napier TJ. Scene linking using footwear mark databases. Science and Justice. 2002;42:39–43
  7. Forensic Science International 1996; 82: No. 1 (Special Issue).
  8. Alexandre G. Computer classification of the shoeprint of burglars’ soles. Forensic Science International. 1996;82:59–65
  9. Sawyer N. “SHOE-FIT” A computerised shoe print database. European Convention on Security and Detection. 1995;86–8916–18 May
  10. Ashley W. What shoe was that? The use of computerised image database to assist in identification. Forensic Science International. 1996;82:7–20
  11. Geradts Z, Keijzer J. The image data REBEZO for shoeprints with developments on automatic classification of shoe outsole designs. Forensic Science International. 1996;82:21–31
  12. Bouridane A, Alexander A, Nibouche M, Crookes D. Application of fractals to the detection and classification of shoeprints. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Image Processing 1. 2000;p. 474–477
  13. Alexander A, Bouridane A, Crookes D. Automatic classification and recognition of shoeprints. In: Seventh International Conference on Image Processing and its Applications (Conference Publication No. 465) 2. 1999;p. 638–641
  14. Jain AK. Fundamentals of Digital Image Processing. Prentice Hall; 1989;
  15. Russ JC. The Image Processing Handbook. 2nd Edition. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1995;

PII: S1355-0306(06)71578-7

doi: 10.1016/S1355-0306(06)71578-7

Science & Justice
Volume 46, Issue 2 , Pages 79-89 , April 2006

Article Tools