Forensic Gait Analysis and Recognition: Standards of Evidence Admissibility

Abstract

Gait is one biological characteristic which has attracted strong research interest due to its potential use in human identification. Although almost two decades have passed since a forensic gait expert has testified to the identity of a perpetrator in court, the methods remain insufficiently robust, considering the recent paradigm shift witnessed in the forensic science community regarding quality of evidence. In contrast, technological advancements have taken the lead, and research into automated gait recognition has greatly surpassed forensic gait analysis in terms of the size of acquired datasets and demographic variability of participants, tested variables, and statistical evaluation of results. Despite these advantages, gait recognition presents with different problems which are yet to be resolved. Therefore, courts should treat gait evidence with caution, as they should any other form of evidence originating from disciplines without fully established codes of practice, error rates, and demonstrable applications in forensic scenarios.

The kinectome: a comprehensive kinematic map of human motion in health and disease

“…Although this analysis is not addressed to forensic science, this outcome can offer new insight to this field and further investigations may enhance and refine this approach. In fact, while gait identification drew considerable attention, to date the results are not robust enough for forensic applications (40).…”

Guarding the Gait: Evaluating Forensic Gait Analysis Evidence

“…Macoveciuc et al [27] have emphasised the increasing role of digitisation of matching procedures within forensic podiatry and usefully argued that: 'A collaboration should be established between the gait analyst and the biometric specialist where the analyst inputs their own expertise to assess the match concluded by the biometric system and also advises (from a clinical and forensic perspective) on the data collection procedures and algorithm development. ' While forensic podiatry in particular and forensic gait analysis have enthusiasts [28] and have the potential to provide assistance to investigators and potentially to the courts, the harder question is as to the appropriateness of forensic gait analysis as expert opinion evidence until further development in the discipline takes place.…”

Computed Tomography in Medicolegal Death Investigation: A Critical Review

“…One example of this would be forensic science's adoption of gait analysis, or the study of walking patterns. In 2000 a gait analysis "expert" was called into a courtroom to testify, thus ushering in a new investigative technique that was quickly embraced and cited in numerous court cases (4).…”

“…These practitioners concluded that, while the perpetrator in the robbery footage had a limp that was similar to a particular suspect, footage did not capture adequate gait characteristics that they required for suspect identification. Regardless of this finding, the court used this statement to make a guilty verdict (4).…”

“…In 2011 gait analysis was found to be unreliable (4). The high variability in gait analysis results meant severely low precision, and thus data that should not be used in court.…”