Why is there so much discussion over a shoe? I don't see how it matters one way or another if/when a shoe was identified..
I’m behind in the discussion but a “shoe” can be very important for infinite reasons. First of all if it is confirmed as belonging to the victim you not only have a potential initial ID as with Kelsi/Libby in this case, but you may also have physical evidence.
Hypothetically for example, if the victims happened to be found barefoot, but there was no dirt on their feet, that would indicate they didn’t walk to the disposal location and were potentially killed elsewhere.
A shoe can hold all kinds of evidentiary value, for instance matching a print to help determine the wearer’s movements and route at/near the crime scene, etc.
A shoe is ultimately part of the victim’s clothing which could have biological evidence on it (either from the victim(s) and/or perp), and could also have botanical evidence on it.
We have seen so many episodes of Forensics Files, etc where a shoe turned out to be important...
In Hania Aguilar’s case her shoes were missing upon recovery. LE put a photo out of the type of shoes she had.
Shoes have “accidental” markings/wear patterns which are unique to each wearer and shoe making them a unique piece of evidence.
Again I haven’t caught up on the discussion as related to shoes specifically, but I could certainly imagine why discussion of them would be potentially significant as related to forensics, etc. The shoe discussion is especially important imo because really that’s one of the very few things that have been mentioned.
