|
THE MAGNOLIA PRINT
Volume 10, Number 2
Message
from the President
Feature
Article "Using Mold Characteristics in Footwear Examinations"
Ninhydrin
and Latent Prints AFIS
IN ACTION SAY
WHAT!?! Message
from the President
Carla
Pope
Thank you for electing me to serve as your 2001-2002
president. I assure you that each
action taken by the board of directors and officers during this term will be
guided by the best interest of the MDIAI. We
are excited about serving this year and look forward to receiving your
suggestions for making this an even better organization.
We certainly
have some big shoes to fill. The
2000-2001 officers did an outstanding job, which was evident in the success of
our two training conferences. Special
kudos goes to Ron Smith and Chuck Jenkins for coordinating our fall and spring
training conferences this past term.
The fall 2001 training conference has already been
scheduled for November 1 & 2 in Jackson with the return of Lt. Col. Dave
Grossman. He is a remarkable man and presenter. Please make plans to attend and send in your registration
information ASAP because space is limited.
Be sure to check out our new website at MDIAI.org for information
regarding upcoming training conferences. Also
included in the website is information about MDIAI, a membership application and
email links to the officers. If you
are not a member and you wish to join, simply email one of the officers for a
recommendation. If you are already
a member, I encourage you to spread the word about this great organization and
recruit new members. We welcomed 16
new members at our last conference; I'd like that trend to continue.
Again, your new officers look forward to serving you.
If you need something we are only a mouse-click away. J
Take care,
Karla M. Pope
Using
Mold Characteristics in Footwear Examinations,
Dwane S.
Hilderbrand, CFE,
Latent Print Examiner III, Scottsdale Police Crime Laboratory, 9065 E. Via
Linda, Scottsdale, Arizona, 85258
Abstract
The conclusions of many footwear examinations have resulted in the use of
wear characteristics and tread design, however, mold characteristics, which are
often overlooked, can become a vital part of the examination process. Although a
positive identification cannot be made using mold characteristics, they may
assist the examiner in further reducing the number of other shoes that could
have made the unknown impression.
Mold characteristics, as they relate to the outsole design of a shoe, are
caused during the manufacturing process of the outsole. The use of these mold
characteristics or "defects" can provide additional information about
the known and unknown shoes. In many cases, mold characteristics can be utilized
to eliminate known shoes as having made a particular unknown impression. By
contacting the manufacturing company and dealing directly with them, pertinent
information can be obtained as to the known and unknown shoes that could have
made or originated from the same mold. Particular attention is given to the use
of mold numbers and how they are related to the manufacturing process. How and
why a footwear examiner should utilize a manufacturing company and surrounding
shoe stores in retrieving pertinent information related to the mold of a
particular outsole. A case study will show that mold characteristics or
"defects" assisted in the examination of footwear impressions.
Introduction
In the book, Footwear Impression Evidence, Mr. William Bodziak
writes, "Shoe are a fascinating item of clothing". Mr. Art Buckwalter once wrote in Science Catches the
Criminal, "the impressions are unique only when the object that makes
them has unique characteristics".
On occasion, footwear examinations and conclusions have resulted in the
use of physical and wear characteristics and characteristics that are created
accidentally, either by the individual wearing the shoe or by the manufacturing
company; however, mold characteristics, which are often overlooked, should be a
vital part of the examination process. Although a positive identification cannot
be made using only these types of characteristics, they may assist in further
reducing the number of possible shoes that could have made the impression.
Throughout the world footwear examiners have expressed their findings and
results with statements as "corresponds in physical shape and size, tread
design and wear characteristics as the known shoes(s)...".
However, in some cases where there are sufficient mold defects or
characteristics a conclusion to an examination could
be, "…the shoe that made the crime scene impression(s)
came from the same mold as the suspect's known shoe(s).
Consequently, this along with a few accidental characteristics would not
only narrow down the number of known shoes that could have made the unknown
impression, but also enable a more positive identification. Knowing and understanding the logistics of the mold process
of the outsole of a particular shoe and being able to recognize mold defects or
characteristics plays a major part in enabling the footwear examiner to enhance
not only their ability to make comparisons, but also to further explain their
findings.
Mold characteristics, as they related to the outsole design, can be
caused during the manufacturing process of the outsole or the making of mold
itself. These characteristics can be major or minor defects, depending on the
company. Whether the Quality Controller of the company allows 1 or 1,000 shoes
containing these defects to be released for sale depends on the cost and the
severity of the characteristics. Molds themselves can be very costly and ranges
well over $5,000 each. The mold process, which comprises the manufacturing of
the outsole, can vary from different methods such as injection molds,
compression mold, an open-pouring mold or calendar mold.
Mold characteristics can be caused by many different events ranging from
air bubbles to a minute piece of foreign debris that has fallen into the mold
during the pouring process, to the defect that is in the original mold.
Mold characteristics should be considered and the manufacturing company
contacted any time a question arises as to an unexplainable characteristic.
When dealing with the difference between random characteristic and mold
characteristics, it can be the difference between a positive identification and
a false positive identification. Checking first with the local shoe stores to
review the same brand and size of the shoe may assist or direct the examiner in
the right path.
With a mold number from the known shoe the manufacturing company is
capable of tracking down the mold of the outsole and supplying the examiner with
pertinent information on any mold defects that are observed. This mold number is usually located on the topside of the
molded outsole and is easily obtained by removing the insole. Some companies
have placed coded numbers on labels located inside the shoe. With these coded
numbers the manufacturing company can locate pertinent information relating to
the design and sale of the shoe.
Case Study
During the course of an armed robbery investigation, faint footwear
impressions were noticed on a counter top used by the suspect to enter and exit
the scene. The impressions were dusted with black fingerprint powder by a crime
scene specialist, lifted and turned over to the crime laboratory for further
examination. A suspect was apprehended the same day and his known shoes were
removed and turned over to the laboratory. The unknown impressions were
determined to be those of a K-SWISS, Si-18 brand athletic shoe with an
approximate size between 9-11.
The
suspect's shoes were documented, photographed and test impressions taken prior
to the examination. The shoes were then closely examined for detail. The
suspect's shoes were described as; K-SWISS, Si-18 band athletic shoes, size
10.5.
K-SWISS Shoes
The K-SWISS, Si-18, athletic shoe's original mold is made through the
hand milling process, which is a mold type that uses a pantograph to transfer a
design from precut templates into a steel or aluminum ally mold blank.
The outsole is then produce through the compression mold process, which
basically is where a biscuit of a durable rubber compound is placed into the
mold cavity and closed. Heat and pressure is then applied to the compound to
form the outsole design. Any defects that may be present in the mold will be
reproducing in the outsole design.
Here lies a typical case where an examiner could determine and write
"the unknown impressions and the outsoles of the known shoes originated
from the same mold". By contacting the manufacturing company they can
assist in the narrowing down the number of possible shoes that could have made
the unknown impressions.
The Examination
During the examination of the known right shoe belonging to the suspect
it was noticed that the outsole contained eight points of what appeared at first
to be mold defects or imperfections, that were in question. Five of these points
were also observed in the unknown impressions. The manufacturing company was
contacted and given the label information found on the inside of the upper. The
company advised that the uppers were made specifically for and only sold by the
Footlocker Athletic Shoe Stores.
After visiting numerous Footlocker Athletic Shoe Stores and other
athletic shoe stores and finding no other shoes of the same tread design and
size bearing the same points in question, the manufacturing company's legal
department was contacted for further detailed assistance. The following
information was provided by the company and was used to assist in the
examination of the suspect's shoes.
Listed are the questions that were asked to the manufacturing company
reference the construction of the outsole and what appeared to be mold defects
that were visible on the K-SWISS shoe. Also listed are the responses from the
company and the examiner's opinion to that response. It should be noted that
these are the opinion of this examiner and not the views of every footwear
examiner.
Results
Point #1
Question: Missing the
lower part of the “p” in the word Hypalon, is this a defect in the original
mold?
Response: This is a mold
defect. It is reflected in as many as 1000 right shoes.
Examiner’s
Opinion: Mold
defect, not wearing. Upon closer microscopic examination of the letter “y”
and the letter “p” on the left outsole they appear to be of the same length
and depth and yet on the right outsole the lower portion of the letter “p”
is missing while the letter “y” in still present. If the lower portion of
the letter “p” is missing due to wear, would the lower portion of the letter
“y” not also have been eliminated?
Point #2
Question: Was this
indentation caused by defect or random wear?
Response: This is not a mold
defect. This was made during the wear of the shoe (random). Virtually impossible
for any two shoes to have this exact mark in the exact same located.
Examiner’s
Opinion: Made and
caused by the person wearing the shoe. Accidental (damaged) identifying
characteristics. Microscopic examination shows a slight puncture in the rubber
with jagged edges.
Point #3
Question: These two
indentations do not exhibit any jagged edges. Were they made from air bubbles?
Response: The company states
they are air bubbles in the rubber.
Examiner’s
Opinion: Because
they are indentations and smooth they are air bubbles.
Point #4
Question: The corner of
the rectangle appears to be worn off.
Response: The company was not
sure, but believes this was from wear. If not from wear, it was another air
bubble in the rubber. Possibly as many as 1,000 shoes.
Examiner’s
Opinion: Accidental
(damaged) characteristic. Microscopic examination exhibits the characteristics
of a rounding edge with jagged corners. Could not have been caused by an air
bubble.
Point #5 & #6
Question: The “A”
& “O” in the word AOSTA appear to be attached on the right outsole and
not on the left. The copyright symbol “R” between the word AOSTA and RUBBER
is not as conspicuous in the right outsole as it is in the left.
Response: Mold defects. In as
many as 1,000 shoes.
Examiners
Opinion: Mold
defects within the mold its self.
NOTE:
The Aosta Rubber is a durable rubber compound that was developed exclusively for
K-SWISS. It is found in most K-SWISS high performance athletic shoes.
Point #7
Question: The tail on the
“M” in the word MARKING does not appear on the left outsole. This appears to
be an over cut in the original mold.
Response: An air bubble in the
rubber and not in the mold caused the tail on the “M”. A lot of outsoles
will have air bubbles shown here, but they are completely random and for two
outsoles to shoe exactly the same shape is virtually impossible.
Examiner’s
Opinion: This
is a mold defect, possibly in the original mold. It could have also been caused
during the pouring process. If caused during the pouring debris would have had
to fall into the mold during the pouring process and was then removed when the
outsole mold was removed making this individual. However, depth measurements
taken and measured and compared to the rest of the outsoles wording indicate
this to be a mold defect in the original mold.
Point #8
Question: The
COPYRIGHT symbol does not appear on the right outsole and yet it does appear on
the left. The copyright symbol on the left outsole is approximately 1 mm in
depth.
Response: This was caused
by wearing.
Examiner’s
Opinion: Depth
measurements taken of the outsole design indicate that wearing is not present;
therefore the copyright symbol is a mold defect and does not have any
characteristics of wearing. Also, upon total examination of the outsole, there
is very little indication of wearing.
Point #9
Examiner’s
Opinion: Wearing
characteristics. Also within this area numerous accidental characteristics can
be observed.
The Final Report
The questioned
impressions depicted on the items and their prospective photographs have been
positively identified as having been made by the right shoe of the suspect’s
known shoes. These impressions also contain several mold characteristics evident
in the impressions and they agree with the respective characteristics in the
suspect’s known right shoe. The manufacturing company was contacted, and it
was determined that the suspect’s right shoe and the right shoe that made the
unknown impressions did originate from the same mold.
Conclusion
As footwear
examiners we are challenged every day with making a decision as to the identity
of a particular footwear impression(s) based on out training and experience and
yet we forget to use the manufacturing companies for pertinent information. In
most cases these companies can and will provide us with additional information
that may assist us further in our examinations and save us valuable time.
Although we must remember that even though the manufacturing companies are
contacted and specific information provided, we may not always agree.
Keep in mind that in most cases we provide the companies with
two-dimensional photographs and not with the original shoes in order for them to
make their decisions. It is also
important to understand that to a manufacturing company the word “unique” is
defined as “usually” and to us as examiners the word should be defined as
“only one”. As footwear examiners we must learn to be confident in our own
experience and training to make that final decision using the “best
evidence” rule.
Acknowledgment:
I would like to personally thank
Mr. Doug Williams of the Scottsdale Police Crime Laboratory Photography Section
for his valuable service and assistance in preparing the photographic
illustrations.
REFERNCES:
American Shoemaking Directory, Cambridge, MA, 1989
Bodziak, William J., Footwear Impression
Evidence, New York, New York, Elsevier, 1990.
Bodziak, William J., Footwear Manufacturing
Presentation. July 1993. Presented at the 78th Annual Educational
Conference, International Association for Identification, Orlando, FL.
Buckwalter, Art, Science Catches the Criminal, Stoneham,
MA., Butterworth Publishers, 1984.
Footwear Industries of America, 1420 K. Street NW,
Suite 600, Washington, DC 20005.
Footwear Industries of America, “The Art and
Science of Footwear Manufacturing”. Philadelphia, PA., 1983.
Shelton, Duane, K-SWISS Company, 20664 Bahama Stree,
Chatsworth, CA. 91311-6011, letter dated 11-12-93 and personal interview.
For Additional Information contact:
Dwane S. Hilderbrand, CFE
Scottsdale Police Crime Laboratory
9065 E. Via Linda
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
(480) 312-5278
(480) 312-5092
E-mail: Dhilderbrand@ci.scottsdale.az.us Ninhydrin
and Latent Prints: by
Jason Pressly, CLPE, MCL
In the
last couple of articles, we have discussed the uses of different powders, as
well as, superglue fuming to develop latent prints.
These techniques are typically used for processing non-porous items (i.e.
glass, metal, plastic, etc.). Now
we are getting ready to shift gears and discuss processing techniques for porous
surfaces, such as paper, wood, and cardboard.
Surprisingly,
it is not well known that latent prints can be developed on porous surfaces.
The procedures for developing latent prints on porous objects have been
around for quite some time, but in many cases, the person searching for latent
prints is not aware that these items can be very valuable.
Lets begin by looking at what is occurring when a latent print is
deposited on a surface.
On
a non-porous surface, glass, metals, plastics, etc., the latent print is
deposited on the outer surface. Latent
prints of this nature are very fragile and can be destroyed easily due to
surface and environmental factors. In
that most latent print residue is composed of 98 to 99% water, the liquid
content will eventually evaporate. The
latent print residue that is left behind after evaporation is composed of oils,
salts, amino acids, and contaminants that may have been present on the finger at
the time the latent print was deposited on the surface.
As we all know, powders attach to the moisture of the latent print.
After moisture is no longer present, the solids are easily disbursed and
development is now severely limited, or even impossible. The opposite condition exists with porous surfaces.
When
a latent print is deposited on a porous surface, such as paper, the water
content of the latent print is absorbed into the paper.
The water component, as it is absorbed into the surface, takes with it
salts and amino acids that may be present.
Even though the water component will evaporate off, amino acids can
remain attached to the surface for great lengths of time.
Because the latent print residue is not commonly “on” the surface,
but rather impregnated in the surface, traditional powdering is not recommended.
Instead
of using powders, chemical processes have been found to be most reliable in
developing the latent print residue left on/in porous surfaces. One of the most
successful means of latent print development on porous surfaces can be achieved
by addressing the amino acid component of the latent print residue.
This can be accomplished by using the chemical "Triketo-hydrindene
hydrate," commonly known as Ninhydrin.
When
purchased directly from a chemical supply company, Ninhydrin generally comes in
a crystalline form. Since it is not
possible to force the crystalline particles into the porous item, the crystals
must first be dissolved in some other designated liquid or "carrier
agent" for transportation of the chemical into the item being processed.
This is why most police supply companies offer Ninhydrin in a pre-mixed
solution.
Ninhydrin
solutions can be applied by dipping or submersion of the item, painting or
brushing the item, or by spraying the item.
I recommend using the "dipping" method. This provides a more
even saturation of the chemical into the surface. As the liquid carrier transports the dissolved Ninhydrin
crystals into the surface being processed, the Ninhydrin reacts with the amino
acids present in latent print residue. As
this reaction is taking place, the latent print will begin to develop in a
purplish color, commonly known as Ruhemann's Purple.
The
development time for latent prints using Ninhydrin is greatly effected by heat
and humidity. For this reason, a
drying oven can be utilized to accelerate the process. This can decrease the processing time from days down to
hours. Processing time can be even
more accelerated by using a steam iron. This technique is extremely useful in
that it only takes minutes instead of hours to develop latent prints.
The
steaming technique is quite simple. First,
process the item with the Ninhydrin solution.
Allow the processed item to air dry under good ventilation.
After the surface is completely dried, the steam iron can be employed. It should be held approximately 1/2 inch to 1 inch over the
surface being processed. Slowly
move the iron back and forth over the item allowing the heat and moisture to
develop latent prints. Latent
prints should develop within seconds, generally less than a minute.
Some
considerations when using Ninhydrin solutions:
·
Caution
must be advised when using this or any other chemical; good ventilation is a
must.
·
Ninhydrin
reacts with amino acids. If you don't want to turn your fingers purple, WEAR
LATEX GLOVES.
·
Most of
the carrier agents that are used to mix the Ninhydrin solution are flammable and
must be kept away from open flames and extreme heat.
·
Some
carrier agents such as methanol and acetone will cause ink on the surface being
processed to run or blur away.
·
If the
item to be processed is to be examined for handwriting also, do not process it
for latent prints until after the handwriting examinations have been completed.
·
Remember,
Ninhydrin is considered to be a “destructive” method for processing porous
items. If the item being processed
is a rare or valuable document, consideration should be given to utilizing a
non-destructive technique.
Ninhydrin
developed latent prints will fade away over time; therefore, photography or
electronic capture is a must. The reproduction of the developed latent print
should be conducted as soon after development as possible.
REMEMBER,
when examining a crime scene for evidence; make sure to search for porous items
that may have been touched. You
never know what may develop.
AFIS
IN ACTION: by Ron Smith
Associate Director,
Mississippi Crime Laboratory
In the last issue of the Magnolia Print I mentioned that in
this issue I would be addressing two particular topics: 1) the FBI’s
Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) and 2) the need
for elimination prints to be submitted on cases which are to be searched through
the Mississippi AFIS.
Regarding the IAFIS subject, many agencies and officers throughout the
country have been under the mistaken impression that the Federal Bureau of
Investigation Identification Division has had their entire fingerprint files on
a computer database for many, many years and that the database has been
available to state and local agencies for search purposes.. This simply is not
true. Due to the volume of files in their possession, it has not been possible
for them, until recently, to have their files computerized like what has been
done in so many states for several years. Although they have had some limited
automated search capability for quite some time, this connectivity to state
agencies which would allow for remote searching has become available just over
the last year or so. We in Mississippi are one of the first states to be able to
send new arrest fingerprint images and records to the FBI electronically. This
is done through a special AFIS workstation located at the Miss. Dept. of Public
Safety, Criminal Information Center in Pearl.
Along with that ability to send records to the FBI we are also able to
conduct remote latent fingerprint searches through the FBI files. This is being
done at this time and to date there have been two latent fingerprint
identifications made by conducting searches in this manner.
You will be hearing much more about IAFIS in the future and the successes
coming from this new technology. For those of you that are submitting your
latent print cases to any of the Mississippi Crime Laboratory offices, your
cases are already being evaluated for IAFIS search after the Mississippi AFIS
searches have been completed. If you would like to submit unidentified latent
fingerprints from old, unsolved violent crimes to be considered for IAFIS search
then you may do so by submitting them to your nearest Mississippi Crime
Laboratory Latent Print Section. As it is, in cases being submitted for
Mississippi AFIS searches, there is no analytical charges for cases in this
category. If the case was originally examined by the Mississippi Crime
Laboratory, then simply call one of the Latent Print Examiners and request that
the photographs of the previously examined case be evaluated for IAFIS search.
If they are of sufficient quality they will then be electronically submitted to
the FBI for the automated search to be conducted and you will be notified of the
results.
Well, I’ve run out of space this time so I’ll save the discussion about
elimination prints until the next issue of the Magnolia Print. Don’t
forget, if you have any questions about the Mississippi AFIS system please feel
free to call me at the Meridian Laboratory at 601-483-5273 or email me at rsmith@mcl.state.ms.us.
SAY
WHAT!?!:by Ron Smith
Associate Director,
Mississippi Crime Laboratory
In our last visit in the Magnolia Print we were discussing fear and how it
applies to the courtroom environment. As we agreed, fear is a natural feeling
but what is it about testifying in court that makes it a natural source of
concern for us? Why is giving testimony in court under oath considered a
difficult thing to do and something that most people in their right mind try to
avoid?
Well, I have asked that question hundreds of times to testimony students
around the country and regardless of what state I’m in, the answers seem to be
very similar. First, and the most common answer is not the fear of testimony but
the fear of public speaking in general. The fear of public speaking is ranked in
the top three fears each year when polls are taken to determine the greatest
fears of the population. It ranks right next, and sometimes ahead of, death by
fire. That’s right, I said Death By Fire! How can that be. It may not seem
possible but it is true. For many people, public speaking carries with it a fear
so great that they will do almost anything to avoid it. You know what I mean.
You see it in the criminal justice system everywhere. I’ve had the opportunity
to go along with narcotic investigators on raids on a few occasions and when
they are looking for volunteers to knock the door down and take down the
violators, you have a list of volunteers as long as your arm but when you look
for a volunteer to seize and log in the evidence collected during the raid, you
can’t find one with both arms, a metal detector and a physic. Why, because
that part is not exciting and that person is going to get called to court and
get badgered by some defense counsel for sure and hey, what fun is that? Who
wants to undergo that kind of treatment?
I know the fear of public speaking is real. I feel it too and I give lectures
and speeches probably 70 to 100 times a year. In future issues we will be giving
specific instructions and hints on how to deal with the fear of public speaking
but for now let’s move on.
When asked the question about why is giving testimony considered a difficult
thing to do, there are other common answers to the question as well. One of the
most common answers is "I feel fear of the unknown when I’m on the
witness stand". I can understand that. We don’t know what the defense
attorney, (and sometimes the prosecutor) is going to ask and really it is not
the fear of the question that bothers us, it is the fear of not knowing the
answer and the fear of being made to look stupid or nonprofessional in front of
the jury that really gets to us. That is a common understandable problem and one
that we will be addressing in upcoming issues.
Others respond to the original question by saying that they feel fear because
of the pressure of the case and the fact that they don’t want the case to go
sour while they are on the witness stand. I can relate to that and we can deal
with that natural fear as well once we learn to understand the courtroom
procedures better and the entire judicial process a little more completely.
As you can see from just these few points, there some very natural feelings
of fear associated with the courtroom testimony environment and I look forward
to continuing this discussion and getting to some topics on how to help you deal
with these natural fears. Stay tuned. I’m waiting on you for some more
specific courtroom questions that I can address in this column. Send them to me
a rsmith@mcl.state,ms.us.
| 
