Not sure if any of this means anything, but here we go...
I gave up on trying to use the evidence tag as a measuring guide. I found they come in many different sizes and could not find a photo of that specific one.
I used information from a research paper called "Stature Estimation By Using Per-cutaneous Tibial Length". From the paper: "Stature estimation is an important part of the identification in human remains. The estimation of stature from femur and tibia are more accurate as these have a direct correlation to the height of an individual ". I basically tried to reverse engineer the formula they use since we already have an idea of Sue's height. With that we are able to get an estimated measurement of her tibia length and use that to estimate her foot size. Please feel free to correct any mistakes I made or add to this in any way.
Info from research study:
The study included 250 women from the same region and noted there can be variations in tibia length based on factors such as age, race, climate, nutrition, etc. The height of these women ranged 147 - 176.5cm (57.874" - 69.488"), mean of 155.3cm (61.14"). The tibia length ranged 32-44cm (12.6" - 17.32"), mean of 34.06cm (13.41").
According to the research paper the tibia totals 22% of overall body length.
Info relating to Sue:
I used height of 5'1" for the calculation but can also check using 5'2" and will keep looking to see if her height is listed somewhere (I swear I saw it somewhere!).
• Height: 61" (154.94cm)
• 61" x 0.22 = 13.42" (34.09cm)
• Estimated tibia length (22% of height) = 13.42" (34.09cm)
Using the photo of Sue I placed a line the length of her tibia representing the estimated length of 13.42". I placed a line the length of Sue's foot and duplicated it to place next to the tibia line. Her foot took up roughly 2/3 of the tibia length. 13.42÷3 = 4.47". The remaining 2/3 = 8.95. So, the estimated length of her foot comes out to 8.95".
I decided to try this out on myself, using actual measurements and the estimated measurement based on my height. The results of each were very close to one another. I am 5'6" & wear size 7 shoes. I measured myself barefoot & got 9.5".
• Estimated results using above calculation based on my height: tibia 14.3". 2/3 of tibia length= 9.54"
• Actual results using a measuring tape: tibia = 14.17". 2/3 of tibia length = 9.45".
I know this is just an estimate and made more difficult since we are going off of a photograph. But based on the above little experiment I would guess Sue wore a size 6 shoe in womens. If kmik wears a size 8 which measured at 10" & I wear a size 7 which measured at 9.5", then there appears to be a 0.5" difference between whole shoe sizes.
Unfortunately, there isnt as big of a size difference between shoe sizes as I had expected. And with only 1" difference, that could be because of the moisture (as Snoho pointed out) or seepage from the time it was made to the time it was photographed.
More than anything I wish we had a photo of the bottom of her left foot, since it appears to be a left footprint in the photograph. Then we could see if there is blood on the arch of that foot. I have very high arches and know when I leave footprints (after swimming or whatever) the arch is always missing from my prints.
Again, not sure if any of that makes a difference. Just figured since I did it I might as well post how it turned out.