Pattern Evidence Analysis

Pattern evidence can be defined as evidence which can be studied from a specific pattern. It can also be classified as the additional identifiable information from markings produced when two objects come into contact with each other. (The National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2013) Examples of pattern evidence include fingerprints, shoeprints, tire threads, firearms and bloodstains. Pattern analysis such as analysing of handwriting are also part of pattern evidence. The analysis of pattern evidence is a useful tool and has always been used in the field of forensic science. However, the objectivity of pattern evidence has always been widely contested due to the highly subjective nature of the analysis of pattern evidence. Pattern

Campbell made use of shoe-print evidence as the key evidence to convict the accused, Charles A. Campbell, of burglary. (Gardner & Anderson, 2010) In the case, a home in Illinois was discovered to have been robbed after one of its occupants, Jeffrey Miller, returned home from work to find the place in a mess with the television and VCR missing. Wet, muddy footprints were also discovered throughout the living room and kitchen. Investigations carried out at the crime scene also found a shoeprint on an envelope. Examinations carried out by an evidence technician, Rex Provensale, on the envelope showed that the shoeprint did not match that of Miller or any of the investigation officers who were at the crime scene. A few days later, another evidence technician encountered Campbell, who was at the police station for an unrelated matter, and noticed that he was wearing shoes which seemed similar in design to the shoeprint previously discovered on the envelope. The shoes were then obtained from Campbell to be sent for further examinations. Forensic scientist, Walter Sherk, who specialised in the area of firearms, tool marks and shoe prints was then employed to analyse the shoe print. From analysis carried out on the print on the shoe and that on the envelope, Sherk found the class characteristics on both prints to be consistent. Furthermore, he also identified an additional six matching individual characteristics between both prints. (People v. Campbell, 1992) Although the defendant argued on the reliability of the individual characteristics, such as dissimilarities between the two prints which the forensic scientist ‘ignored’, strength of the forensic scientist’s analysis of the shoeprints, and validity of the individual characteristics listed by the forensic scientist, the court stated the forensic scientist’s opinions were reliable. It stated shoeprints may display sufficient individual characteristics and that the evidence in question do not