In this case, the authors were asked to determine a connection between the suspect’s feet and the murderer’s shoe, in order to show that the shoe indeed belonged to the suspect. Shoes from the three relatives under investigation were seized and plaster casts of bare feet from each suspect were examined. A comparative examination of prints from the suspect’s bare feet with the images of the bare foot impression found on the insoles of the suspected shoes led to the conclusion that the left foot of the main suspect created the bare foot impression on the left shoe insole of the suspected shoes. The authors were also able to place the right insole into the right shoe. The critical questions that emerged in this case were whether the results could be considered conclusive based on the complexity of the random contours of the insole and shoe and whether the physical match could pass the “Daubert challenge.” The authors concluded that all four criterion demanded by the court were satisfied by the analysis: the physical match methodology was testable, there was demonstrated awareness of the error rate, the analysis met peer review standards, and general acceptance in the scientific community. References