Shoe print evidence has a high chance to lead to false convictions: >> The National Institute of Justice, part of the U.S. Department of Justice, has just publ

Shoe print evidence has a high chance to lead to false convictions: >> The National Institute of Justice, part of the U.S. Department of Justice, has just published a report which found certain techniques, including footprint analysis and fire debris, in forensic science were disproportionately associated with wrongful conviction https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bad-science-and-bad-statistics-in-the-courtroom-convict-innocent-people/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bad-science-and-b... (https://archive.ph/4ezJo https://archive.ph/4ezJo) Also see wikipedia: >> It must also be considered that footprints discovered at a crime scene remain fixed, while the wearer of the footwear continues on likely changing the wear of the shoe. Thus, unless the print is immediately matched its potential value may be lost. Also of concern is the lack of science and standards demonstrating that footwear marks are unique. There are a lack of scientific studies demonstrating how many characteristics are needed to determine a match with such evidence. This is similar to other forensic evidence such as bite mark analysis, tire tread analysis, etc. where there is little scientific evidence of its efficacy. In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences made the conclusion that, aside from DNA, there was little if not any, scientific evidence for many forensic disciplines, including footprint evidence.[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_footwear_evidence#Limitations_of_footwear_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_footwear_evidence#Lim...