The influence of a possible contamination of the victim's clothing on the estimation of shooting distance in mutual shooting incidents.

One of the tools for estimating shooting distance is examination of smokeless powder particle distribution on the target area. Components of the powder that are utilized for this purpose are nitrite anions. The traditional method for detecting nitrite anions mainly involves applying the Griess Test. A known-distance test firing is performed with shootings done at several distances from different targets. The color pattern corresponding to nitrite anions from the crime scene is then compared to the patterns obtained from known distances of the test firing. When a mutual shooting takes place at the crime scene, and a shooter also becomes a shootout victim, it is possible that when examining the shooter as a victim (i.e. target), additional nitrite-containing particles, resulting from his/her shooting, will be present on the shooter-victim clothing. This kind of addition may affect the estimation and practically give a shorter-distance estimation comparing to the actual distance. In this paper, an experimental setup was designed in order to understand if nitrite-containing particles were added to a victim as a consequence of him/her being also a shooter. All of the experiments were predominantly designed to try and minimize the effects of other influencing factors and variables in order to examine if the additions resulting from the firing action affect distance estimation. The experiments involved various types of pistols and distances. The results show that in such a scenario, there are marginal additions of nitrite signals on the victim's shirt. Although the forensic expert's final assessment was within the tolerance interval at all distances, caution should be exercised when attempting to estimate shooting distances in scenarios where the victim also shoots.

How may analysis of an inner layer of clothing affect the scene reconstruction in a shooting incident?

Shooting distances are utilized, among other forensic input, to position shooters and victims at the crime scene. Shooting distance estimation is done, mainly under the knowledge or assumption, that no intervening object has been present between the target and the muzzle. In the analysis of clothing items of victims that have been involved in a shootout, it is assumed that most of the marks and materials are left on the outer layers of clothing. The outer layers, not the inner layers, are the first objects the bullet meets. Consequently, undergarments are often disregarded for shooting distance estimation as they are not assumed to contain sufficient information in the form of marks or materials. In light of the above, it is the standard operating procedure in some forensic laboratories not to examine underwear. In this case report, the forensic examiners started by the implementation of standard operating procedures, thus examining only the outer layers of clothing of the victims. A thorough visual examination of the various clothing items led a forensic examiner to decide to extend the standard operating procedures, and try and examine an undergarment of one of the victims as well. The interpretation of examination products led to different scene reconstruction, one that may have led to a different interpretation of evidence. In this case, simply sticking to standard operating procedures might have led to less accurate crime scene reconstruction. This case report comes to stress the importance of thorough inspection of forensic exhibits, and scientific and critical thinking about different scenarios. Moreover, it demonstrates how the case-by-case approach in shooting distance estimation may add meaningful information, and eventually-bring us even closer to the truth.

Technical note: The Next Step - a semi-automatic coding and comparison system for forensic footwear impressions.

Footwear impression evidence is a key tool in criminal investigations, connecting suspects to the crime scene; in addition, it may provide valuable forensic intelligence linking different crime scenes in the absence of a suspect. This paper presents the development of a computer database and semi-automatic system for shoeprint comparison. The database is based on structured manual coding of elements by CSI (Crime Scene Investigators). The computer algorithm then compares the pattern information of the query footwear impression to the entire database, returning a list of possible matches ranked by pattern similarity and crime scene geographic proximity. Initial results using a database of 284 footwear impressions from real crime scenes revealed that a "match" (i.e., the same shoe model) was found for 30% of the impressions; in most cases, the "match" ranked within the top five places of the "hit" list generated by the algorithm. Our results confirm that this semi-automatic footwear comparison system is simple, cost-effective and efficient, providing great potential for linking crime scenes.

Digitally processing an image of a shoe impression in blood.

Shoeprints are valuable crime scene exhibits because, given a reasonable-quality impression and a suspect shoe, the forensic investigator can correlate the impression with the shoe and pin down a suspect. In similarity to bloody fingerprints, a common practice with bloody shoeprints is that the crime scene investigator photographs the impressions at a 90° angle with a scale, develops them with amido Black, and then photographs again. In most cases, the post-development prints will feature better and more details that are usually sufficient to perform a comparison between the impression found at the crime scene and suspect's shoes. This study examined shoeprints in blood that had been collected in an apartment in northern Israel where two bodies were found. The floor tiles in the apartment had featured a colored design which in the post-development photographs of the shoeprints blended in with the blood on the floor. As a result, the shoeprint impression was partial and small details were masked. In the laboratory, we processed the pre-amido Black photograph in several steps designed to increase contrast. The result of this digital processing was a full shoeprint sufficiently clear to display randomly acquired characteristics of the sole and subsequently establish identification between the impression found at the crime scene and suspect's shoes. When chemical amplification is not sufficient, it is worth exploring other methods before proceeding with the comparison, as it is sometimes still possible to extract information from the same data using alternative methods in order to achieve a conclusive result.

Photographic comparison of surface topography as a viable solution when physical match is challenging.

Physical matching methods are a family of well-known methods that are utilized in order to determine whether two pieces of a tearable/breakable material used to be one object. When performing physical match of polymers, it is sometimes difficult to reach an unambiguous conclusion. This is due to various reasons. One is when the tear/fracture resides in an inaccessible or hidden-from-view region of the piece. Another is when the shape of the tear/fracture at the object's tear/fracture line is insufficient for deducing a complete match. Third is deficiency of material along this line. These are examples of processes where the line is affected so drastically, so that a match renders impossible. Specifically, when addressing elastic materials, the tear/fracture line may even be squashed. This may also be a reason for difficulty in performing a physical match. In this paper, a method is proposed where a match is alternatively achieved by means of photographic comparison of marks on the surface topography of the pieces-in-question. Comparisons of pairs of torn pieces of silicon rubber were made. The procedure involved photography of the surface topography the pieces. Then, the photographs were horizontally mirror-flipped. Lastly, a comparison was made between two photographs: a photograph of one piece and a mirror-flipped photograph of the opposite piece. The results show that after comparing the pieces to one another, only one unique pair turned out to be positively matched. Using the proposed method, not only the comparison is done by a more informative method (comparing to physical match), it is also more convenient, faster, less expensive, and technically simpler.