One article addresses the use of barefoot morphology in criminal investigations. Case examples are provided in which the shapes of barefoot impressions of a suspect are compared with shoe impressions or shoes linked to a crime. The procedures described may be useful as a means of including or excluding a suspect. The case examples illustrate that barefoot impressions or footwear seized from a suspect can be compared to impressions or footwear identified at the crime scene to associate a suspect with the scene. A second article describes the development of latent fingerprints deposited on brass cartridge cases at three stages of use: before firing, after firing, and on unfired live rounds. Four commonly encountered deposition materials were considered (facial oil, gun oil, sweat, and water). Five fingerprint development techniques were compared. A statistical analysis of the results suggests that it is not the development technique that affects fingerprint recovery, but the deposition material and the stage of use of the cartridge. In another article, case law is presented for Ontario Superior Court R v. Arcuri (2002). The ruling in this case has set a precedent in barefoot impression evidence, as it was successful in all four criteria challenges set forth in Mohan. The witness can be qualified as an expert through knowledge, experience, training, skill, or education, and may therefore testify as to his/her opinion. The training section of the journal presents descriptions of various forensic training programs and courses.