Only the use of the shoes creates clarity.

In Germany there is a very clear distinction between shoeprints and footprints. Shoeprints are caused by the entering of a surface with a shoed foot. Finally, footprints are attributed to dactyloscopy and shoe prints are processed in the department of technical formtracks. The aim of a shoeprint investigation is to assign a trace from the crime scene to a shoe or to exclude it. The problem with the comparative investigation of shoes is that the shoe soles in a model range usually all leave the same shoeprint after the production process. It is only through the use of the shoes that individualizing features form within the outsole of the shoes, which make this shoe sole unique. If these special features are found in the shoeprint, it is possible to assign a shoe to a shoeprint directly. The perpetrator has to get to the scene of crime, so in most cases he will walk with shoes on his feet across the floors, tables, cupboards and leave latent shoeprints. This means that shoeprints must be available at every crime scene. The problem is often that they are either not found, cannot be evaluated or cannot be saved. Unfortunately, it often happens that shoe marks at the scene of the crime are overrun and destroyed by the police, the rescue workers or those affected by the crime.

Securing shoeprints.

When an item of footwear comes into contact with a surface a two or three dimensional print or impression may be left on that surface. The most common track securing methods for shoeprints used in Germany are: • photography (plane-parallel, format-filling, L-scale at the height of the track) • original take (post-processing in the Forensic Institute) • gelatin foil (subsequent photography) • transparent adhesive film • electrostatic dust print lifting (subsequent photography) • impression mass (dental plaster) • alginates (on traces in textiles) • latex milk • electrostatic detection apparatus examination (when impressed in paper) Attempts to secure shoe impression tracks with 3D stripe projections have been running for years. The German Fraunhofer Institute has already achieved very good results. The results are not yet sufficient for a forensic comparison work due to the lack of qualities. The system is called Kolibri . The black gelatin film is best suited for securing evidence on smooth surfaces. Some mistakes can be made in the photography of gelatin foils, so this process must be under special observation. This work should only be done by experienced professionals and should not be left to small forensic techniques. The German Musch SD1000 or the Czech TrasoScan are systems commonly used in Germany for photography of gelatin foils. There is a winter and summer mix for the dental plasters for molding impression marks. The winter mix hardens faster at low temperatures, whereas the summer mix does not solidify too quickly at high temperatures. Alginate has proven to be a good means of securing shoe marks in textiles. Alginate can also be bloody traces. These are contrasted with amido black after the alginate treatment. After kicking the human body, traces can also be saved on the skin. There are instructions here at which intervals the changing bleeding should be photographically secured.

Shoeprint investigations.

A crime series can be found out via a shoe database and for this reason such systems are also used in many German police forces. But there is no nationwide shoe database in Germany, in which all shoeprints and model images (reference samples) of the entire country are collected. There are also states that do not have a shoe database. The federal states have been trying to find an agreement for decades, but it has not yet been found. In the meantime, the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA), the highest German criminal authority, has intervened to find a common solution. The State Criminal Police Office of Lower Saxony has the largest shoe model database in the state. The forensic institutes from Schleswig-Holstein and Bremen are affiliated to it. If you are looking for a suitable shoe model for a shoeprint, Lower Saxony would be the perfect contact. A simple trace comparison between the trace from the crime scene, a comparison trace and the causing shoe sole in the comparison process from Brandenburg [ MAZ] . According to the current standard, the detailed shots of the single individualizing features are added to these overview shot s. These image recordings are part of a report for the court.

The history of shoeprints

In 1818 the so-called 'Sûretè' was founded in Paris under the chairmanship of Eugène Francois Vidocq. Vidocq provided one of the first known cases of information regarding shoeprints. The investigator was called to the scene of a theft. There he noticed shoe impressions in the garden of the house and he remembered a thief known to him called Hotot and his clothes soiled with mud. He got the thief's shoes and compared them to the traces in the garden. Faced with the match of the prints, the thief admitted the act. In 1853, a separate criminal police department was first introduced for Germany in Bremen and Hamburg. The aim was: • the collection and evaluation of crimes and means of inspection • Management of crime albums modeled on Vidocq • Investigation of traces and drawing conclusions from the evidence The first chemical police laboratory was founded in Dresden in 1911 and the world's first forensic institute in Graz / Austria in 1912. Shoeprint examinations have already been carried out there. A shoeprint comparison from 1949 from the forensic examination c enterin in Bremen / Germany. In 1987 the German experts for formtracks Günter Kurras, Winfried Marquardt, Rainer Schill published the book „Material Evidence“ in Berlin, which describes the methods for identifying shoeprints. The central training for German experts for shoe and tireprints takes place at the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) in Wiesbaden (except North Rhine-Westphalia, which carry out a very simplified training). In 2012, the central training was expanded to include gloveprints. The comparative investigations are still mainly carried out using the coverage method and / or the comparison method. A uniform assessment scale is used throughout Germany for the investigation of shoeprints. High-resolution scanners, digital cameras with at least 12 megapixel resolution (e.g. Nikon, Canon), digital microscopes (e.g. Keyence) and stereo light microscopes (e.g. Leica) with digital image acquisition serve as the means of examination. The Chinese Everspry Outsole Scanner (EverOS 2.0) is a shoeprint scanner that records two-dimensional images by stepping on it with the shoe. The device has a 300 dpi resolution. The generated images can be fed directly into a database and processed further. The scanner is already used in England and the USA. The scanner is not yet sufficient for a comparative investigation by German standards. Use is conceivable if the resolution is increased.