Identification by a sole print
HMA -v- JAMES WALKER ADAMS
On the 30th December 1952, there was a break-in at offices in an Aberdeen warehouse. Locked desks were forced open and £12 was stolen. The safe was also opened.
The intruder had gained entry by climbing a drainpipe to the roof, then breaking a pane of glass in the skylight to gain access to the elevator motor room.
The floor was covered with a fine layer of flour dust in which the imprints of stockinged feet could be seen trailing from the skylight to the stairway of the motor room.
The premises were examined for fingerprints but only glove marks were found. In the offices stocking sole marks were found which disclosed some broken areas, which appeared to be caused by holes in the socks. The criminal had taken off his shoes at the point of entry, as there were footwear impressions below the motor house window. It was obvious that the criminal had taken the precaution of not leaving footwear, fingerprint or palm print traces.
From the method used to gain entry to the warehouse, the Police suspected a man called James Walker Adams. The criminal had, during his previous criminal history, been identified by means of fingerprints, palm prints and shoe sole patterns in housebreakings.
When Adams was interviewed the next day he denied having committed the crime, stating that he had been at his grandmother's house at the time of the crime. Nonetheless, the Police charged Adams, detaining him in custody, much to his annoyance as this would mean that he would not be able to participate in the traditional Scottish celebrations associated with Hogmanay and the New Year.
Some of the stocking sole marks that had been found by the Police disclosed not only ribbing of the socks, but also the fact that there were some holes in the socks. Areas outlined by the holes in the socks showed that there were traces of friction ridges made by the soles of the criminal's left and right feet. Those impressions were photographed and compared with the sole prints of Adams, who by that time had new shoes and socks on his feet. Copies of the impressions and sole prints were sent to the Glasgow Bureau where identity of the prints were confirmed.
Adams pled not guilty to the charge and for court purposes; enlargements were prepared of 3 impressions, which respectively contained 72, 32 and 40 ridge characteristics in co-incident sequence with the sole prints of the accused.
The same defence counsel who had defended William Gourley (see the case of the toe print click here) was enlisted to defend James Walker Adams. The cross examination of the fingerprint experts by defence counsel followed similar lines to those in the Gourley case.
In this case, within 5 minutes of considering their verdict, the jury found Adams guilty and he was sentenced by the Judge to 12 months imprisonment. This was the first time in a Scottish Court, that a person was convicted on the evidence of a sole print identification.