Part 5

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I am familiar with this particular exhibit.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe to us what that exhibit consists of, that item rather?

Mr. LATONA. This exhibit or this item is a lift of a latent palmprint which was evidently developed with black powder.

Mr. EISENBERG. And when did you receive this item?

Mr. LATONA. I received this item November 29, 1963.

Mr. EISENBERG. Before we go any further may I have this admitted into evidence?

Representative FORD. It will be. What is the number?

Mr. EISENBERG. That will be No. 637.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 637, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, could you describe to us what a lift is?

Mr. LATONA. A lift is merely a piece of adhesive material which is used for purposes of removing a print that has been previously developed on an object, onto the adhesive material. Then the adhesive material is placed on a backing, in this case which happens to be the card. The adhesive material utilized here is similar to scotch tape. There are different types of lifting material. Some of them are known as opaque lifters, which are made of rubber, like a black rubber and white rubber, which has an adhesive material affixed to it, and this material is simply laid on a print which has been previously developed on an object and the full print is merely removed from the object.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "the print" is removed, actually the powder----

Mr. LATONA. The powder that adhered to the original latent print is picked off of the object.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that the impression actually is removed?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Representative FORD. Is that a recognized technique?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; it is.

Representative FORD. In the fingerprinting business?

Mr. LATONA. It is very common, one of the most common methods of recording latent prints.

Mr. EISENBERG. Who did you get this exhibit, this lift from?

Mr. LATONA. This lift was referred to us by the FBI Dallas office.

Mr. EISENBERG. And were you told anything about its origin?

Mr. LATONA. We were advised that this print had been developed by the Dallas Police Department, and, as the lift itself indicates, from the underside of the gun barrel near the end of the foregrip.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, may I say for the record that at a subsequent point we will have the testimony of the police officer of the Dallas police who developed this print, and made the lift; and I believe that the print was taken from underneath the portion of the barrel which is covered by the stock. Now, did you attempt to identify this print which shows on the lift Exhibit 637?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you succeed in making identification?

Mr. LATONA. On the basis of my comparison, I did effect an identification.

Mr. EISENBERG. And whose print was that, Mr. Latona?

Mr. LATONA. The palmprint which appears on the lift was identified by me as the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, as I understand it, on November 23, therefore, the FBI had not succeeded in making an identification of a fingerprint or palmprint on the rifle, but several days later by virtue of the receipt of this lift, which did not come with the weapon originally, the FBI did succeed in identifying a print on Exhibit 139?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which may explain any inconsistent or apparently inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to an identification?

Mr. LATONA. We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle. The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such--even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.

Mr. DULLES. Do I understand then that if there is a lifting of this kind, that it may obliterate----

Mr. LATONA. Completely.

Mr. DULLES. The original print?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that you personally, Mr. Latona, did not know anything about a print being on the rifle which was identifiable until you received, actually received the lift, Exhibit 637?

Mr. LATONA. On the 29th of November.

Mr. EISENBERG. Seven days after the assassination.

And in the intervening period, correspondingly, the FBI had no such knowledge?

Mr. LATONA. As far as I know.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, could you tell us what portion of the palm of Lee Harvey Oswald you identified that print as being?

Mr. LATONA. Yes. Here again I have a photograph that will show the approximate area involved, which is on the ulnar side of the lower portion of the palm.

Mr. EISENBERG. The ulnar----

Mr. LATONA. Down near the base of the palm toward the wrist.

Mr. EISENBERG. This is the right palm?

Mr. LATONA. The right palm.

Mr. EISENBERG. As it was in the case of the paper bag, Exhibit 142?

Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you display that photograph, please? This is a photograph which you took of the inked print which was furnished to you by the Dallas office?

Mr. LATONA. I didn't personally prepare the photographs. They were prepared at my personal direction.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was it prepared under your supervision?

Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is it an accurate reproduction?

Mr. LATONA. It is.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 638?

Representative FORD. It shall be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked as Commission Exhibit No. 638, and received in evidence.)

Mr. LATONA. I might point out that you have the original of this which has been previously admitted.

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; but this photograph shows a red circle around the portion which you identified----

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. As being the latent found on the lift, is that right?

(Discussion off the record.)

(The reporter read the last question.)

Mr. LATONA. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, now you are showing me another photograph which appears to be a photograph of the lift itself, Exhibit 637, but an enlargement thereof?

Mr. LATONA. Slightly enlarged; yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was this prepared by you or under your supervision?

Mr. LATONA. It was.

Mr. EISENBERG. And there is a red circle around this, on this photograph, that is around the print, the latent print?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this photograph admitted as 639?

Representative FORD. It shall be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 639, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, did you also prepare a chart showing an enlarged portion of the inked and latent palmprint?

Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Illustrating some of the points which you used in making your identification?

Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Was this chart prepared by you or under your supervision?

Mr. LATONA. This was prepared under my direct supervision.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 640?

Representative FORD. It shall be admitted.

(The chart referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 640, and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. What is the enlargement of this chart?

Mr. LATONA. Approximately an eight-time enlargement of the latent print which appears on the lift, Commission Exhibit----

Mr. EISENBERG. 637?

Mr. LATONA. 637. And the inked right palmprint enlargement is approximately eight times an enlargement of the Exhibit 638.

Mr. EISENBERG. The inked print?

Mr. LATONA. Which is encircled in red, a portion of that area.

Mr. EISENBERG. I wonder whether you could put that up on this easel here so that we can all see it, and explain to us some of the points which led you to your conclusion.

Mr. LATONA. Here again the approach insofar as making a comparison is concerned is exactly the same. That never changes. In making a comparison of fingerprints or palmprints, the mechanics are exactly the same.

First to look for what might be considered as points which are easy to see to the fingerprint man.

Representative FORD. May I ask first was the lift a good print for technical purposes?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; to the extent that the identification was made. There is no question as to the identity.

Now, insofar as quality is concerned, I believe that is what you have in mind, we don't, in fingerprint circles, don't say that this is a good latent as compared to a bad latent. If it is valuable for purposes of identification, so far as we are concerned it is good.

Now, that may not appear to the inexperienced eye possibly as being as clear as some of those others which you have already seen, but for the purpose of identification the points are here. That is the main thing.

Now, in making the comparison here it is easy to see the inked print. There is very little question here. This print was made on purpose for purposes of recording the ridges. This was made more or less incidental or possibly accidental.

Mr. DULLES. How does the left one differ? I thought you told us before it was 10 times.

Mr. LATONA. No; those were the others.

Mr. DULLES. That was the fingerprint that was 10 times?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Mr. DULLES. And the palm has always been eight times?

Mr. LATONA. That is right, because of the fact to make it 10 times it would have been enlarged to the extent that maybe you wouldn't be able to see the significance as to what it purports to be.

If you enlarge a fingerprint too much, it loses its identity. I have seen them where they were enlarged so big that you couldn't tell what they were, and if somebody would tell you it is a fingerprint you would say, if you say so it is, but it doesn't look like it to me.

Now, in some other sciences, for example, like handwriting and things of that kind, you can enlarge them pretty good size, typewriting and things of that type, but a fingerprint because of the poorness in contrast plus the fact that in themselves these black marks have no particular significance, they might lose their identity, you won't reconcile a palmprint with a palmprint.

So, actually for purposes of making comparisons we never make a comparison from an enlargement. The best way to make a comparison, the more complete, is to make it from the actual size, utilizing a regular fingerprint glass which enlarges approximately four diameters.

We would never think of enlarging the prints for purposes of making our initial comparison. We make them on the basis of the actual size, just like you see it here, utilizing a fingerprint, which gives you a better picture.

Mr. EISENBERG. Fingerprint glass, you mean?

Mr. LATONA. Fingerprint glass, because you get a much better view of the impression than you do where it is enlarged because in enlarging you have a tendency to distort the dissimilarities, to exaggerate what may be considered as dissimilarities.

Now, looking at these marks here again, which are very apparent here in the ink print, this No. 1 which is a black line which flows over to the right, then one ridge directly below it and off to the left is this point No. 2. Then by counting down 1, 2, 3, 4 we come to this portion, a short-ending ridge, which is similar to this short-ending ridge in the illustration drawn on the board, is No. 3.

Now, here again the fingerprintman simply mentally says to himself, "If these palmprints were made by the same palm I should be able to find three such points in approximately the same area of this palmprint as was found here."

The manner of isolating the area is by virtue of the fact that you see this looping formation, the looping formation is right in here, rather vague but it is there.

Looking in that approximate area, you notice faintly this black line that comes over to this area and stops at the point there. Now, is this point No. 1 the same as this point No. 1? If it is, then there should be a point No. 2 in the latent print which is in the same relative position as point No. 2 occurs in the ink print. By looking in such a position by this one ridge removed and to the left, there is this point No. 2.

Then looking down to point No. 3, we notice one, two, three, four, there is this so-called short-ending ridge which to me shows up very clearly here in the enlargement of the latent print.

Point No. 4 is this black line which is coming toward point No. 3, and right within the same area or line, there is point No. 4.

Point No. 5 is picked up in this position over here, which is another one of these short-ending ridges. It is removed by one ridge or rather to the left of point No. 6 as is seen here.

Then we pick up point No. 7, which is this point showing a cluster of ridge formation here.

Point No. 8 is tied in. You can tie in point No. 8 to point No. 4, point No. 5 to point No. 7, and that coincides with point No. 8 here. In that way we pick up point No. 9, showing the relationship of one, two, three and over here one, two, three, always the same formation, the same general area, the same relationship to each other. In that way we pick up point No. 10, point No. 11, and point No. 12, which have exactly the same formation.

Here is point No. 10 coming this way, point No. 11 going that way, these two ridges are in between. It checks perfectly. The same way with point No. 12 which is just below point No. 11, and having the same relationship to point No. 10, the same general areas, identically the same type of characteristics, and exactly the same relationship to each other.

On the basis of those points, the obvious conclusion to an experienced fingerprintman is simply that the same palm made both of these prints. Only one palm could have made it, and that palm is the one which is alleged to be of Lee Harvey Oswald, his right palm.

Representative BOGGS. Is it true that every fingerprint of each individual on earth is different?

Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir; that is my sincere belief. I say that not only on earth but all those that have died before and all those to come. There will never be duplication.

Mr. DULLES. The same is true of palmprints, isn't it?

Mr. LATONA. Absolutely; yes, sir; fingerprints and palmprints and footprints.

Representative BOGGS. Can they be distorted, destroyed?

Mr. LATONA. They can be destroyed in the sense that----

Representative BOGGS. Cut your finger off, that is right?

Mr. LATONA. Sure, you can cut your finger off. You can resort to what is known as--they can be transferred. You can slice off a pattern from one finger and place it on another but you will see the scar. They can have what is known as surgical planing.

Representative BOGGS. That is what I was thinking about.

Mr. LATONA. That can be done, too.

Representative BOGGS. What happens then?

Mr. LATONA. What happens is that you lose the ridge area and you will simply have a scar. There will be no more pattern. Now, the pattern is formed by what are known as dermal papilla, which is below the epidermis or outer layer of skin. As long as you only injure the outer surface the ridge formation will grow back exactly the same as it was before. If you get down to the dermal papilla, which lay like this----

Mr. EISENBERG. You are drawing an illustration on the board which shows short, broad, downward strokes.

Mr. LATONA. If you destroy or injure these to the extent that there is actual bleeding, you will get a permanent scar.

Fingerprints can be destroyed or scarred in such a fashion that we would not be able to successfully classify them.

Mr. DULLES. Do criminals do that?

Mr. LATONA. Yes; they do. We have had one case, probably the most successful was known as the so-called Roscoe Pitts case. This was a fugitive who in order to avoid identification went to an unscrupulous doctor who performed an operation and he did so by virtue of first cutting five slits on one side of his chest. Then he removed the pattern areas, what we call the pattern areas, which would consist of removal of the whole core area down to the delta area, sliced that off.

Representative BOGGS. How much would that be?

Mr. LATONA. He would literally have to draw blood. He would have to get down and just slice that off completely. He did that with five fingers. Then he taped the five fingers to the side of his chest and he kept them there for about 2 weeks. The same procedure was gone through with the other hand, and at the end of that time they were taken down and bound up individually. When they finally healed, all he has now is scar tissue for his pattern areas; but all we did in order to identify him was to drop down to the second joint. We made the identification from the second joint.

Now, at that particular time----

Representative BOGGS. After all that business.

Mr. LATONA. It didn't do him any good. Literally, the easiest person in our files to identify is Roscoe Pitts. He is the only one that has scar patterns like that. As soon as they see anything like that, everybody that knows anything about our files knows--Roscoe Pitts.

Representative BOGGS. Develop, if you will, please, that point that no two human beings ever have similar prints. Why is that, in your opinion?

Mr. LATONA. Well, earlier we went through a case which we have in the FBI, in which we literally have compared millions, millions of single prints with a fragmentary latent print which we developed on a demand note in a kidnapping case, one of our major kidnapping cases which occurred back in 1937, and we have compared this fragmentary print.

Now, ordinarily in fingerprints there are four basic pattern types. You have an arch, tented arch, a loop, and a whorl.

Now in making a comparison, naturally if you can tell the type of pattern you are going to restrict your comparison to the particular type.

In this instance we cannot tell what type of pattern this fragment that we developed is. We know that it is from a finger. And in attempting to identify the subject of this kidnapping case, we have compared it literally with millions of cards.

Now, existing in this fragmentary print there are only about seven to eight points that can be found, it is so fragmentary. We cannot determine the pattern. Accordingly then, when you compare it, you have to compare it with a person's 10 fingers regardless as to the pattern types. Bearing in mind that the average fingerprint has from 85 to 125 points--identifying characteristics--we have literally made millions of comparisons with only a portion of a finger, and we have failed to identify these 8 points in all types of patterns.

Isn't it sufficient to say then that people simply will not have the same fingerprints? Yet you have authorities, so-called authorities, who say that it is possible to find all 10 prints duplicated in 1 chance out of 1 followed by 60 zeros, if you can figure out what that figure is.

Representative BOGGS. Who are these authorities?

Mr. LATONA. They are really in my opinion mathematicians who on the basis of the so-called characteristic points have said 5 points times 125 times 125 times 125 to about the 10th power and wind up something like 1 followed by 60 zeros. They are mathematicians but they are not fingerprint people.

Mr. DULLES. What is your card system like? If this is too confidential I don't want to get anything in the record here that is too secret.

We can take it off the record.

Mr. LATONA. Nothing is secret about our files.

Mr. DULLES. How many characteristics do you file on a card so that when you find these characteristics you can go to the right cabinet and the right filing drawer and then pull out the right card in time?

Mr. LATONA. Literally they can break down into hundreds of thousands of groups.

Representative BOGGS. How many do you have on file?

Mr. LATONA. We have the fingerprints of 77-1/2 million people?

Representative BOGGS. That includes all of those who were in the Army, Navy----

Mr. LATONA. 15 million criminals and about 62.5 million what we call civil. I explained earlier that our files consist of two main files, it is criminal files and the civil files. In the civil files are the fingerprints of individuals, those prints that we have retained, who have been fingerprinted in connection with some civil affair like the services, for example, security, sensitive jobs, all types of applicants, alien registrations. Then we also will accept the fingerprints of just a private citizen who would like to have his prints on record for simply identification purposes.

They are in the category of 62.5 million. Criminal prints, 15 million.

(Discussion off the record.)

Representative FORD. I have to leave, Mr. Dulles, will you take over as Chairman for the rest of the time that you can be here?

Mr. DULLES. I will do so.

Representative BOGGS. May I ask a question which is not particularly pertinent to this particular witness, but how many prints on various things like these boxes and other paraphernalia that the Commission may now have in its possession have been identified as those of Oswald?

Mr. LATONA. Six all told.

Representative BOGGS. Six altogether?

Mr. LATONA. Six.

Representative BOGGS. That includes these?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

Representative BOGGS. How many, three?

Mr. LATONA. Three so far.

Mr. DULLES (addressing Mr. Eisenberg). You have dealt with three so far?

Mr. EISENBERG. Three so far. We should modify this. We are only introducing this morning evidence associated with the crime, directly with the crime. Now, there were many papers submitted to the identification division. I believe you did identify----

Mr. LATONA. Personal effects, wallet, pictures, papers, and things of that kind which in themselves bear Oswald's prints, which they should because they belong to him.

Representative BOGGS. May I ask another question in this connection. A weapon of this type, in your examination do you find a lot of other prints on it as well? You do not?

Mr. LATONA. No. First of all the weapon itself is a cheap one as you can see. It is one that----

Representative BOGGS. Is what?

Mr. LATONA. A cheap old weapon. The wood is to the point where it won't take a good print to begin with hardly. The metal isn't of the best, and not readily susceptible to a latent print.

Representative BOGGS. Was this weapon picked up first by the police?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir.

Representative BOGGS (addressing Mr. Eisenberg). Did anyone touch it as far as you know?

Mr. EISENBERG. No, no. It was picked up by a police officer attached to the Dallas police force first.

Mr. DULLES. It came to you directly then from the Dallas police and not through the Secret Service?

Mr. LATONA. No; the FBI turned it over to me, the Dallas office of the FBI flew it up here.

Representative BOGGS. What I am trying to determine is, the average police officer when he would pick up a weapon of that kind would take steps to secure whatever prints might be on that and also prevent the addition of prints, is that right?

Mr. LATONA. I would assume so.

Representative BOGGS. I mean this is part of his training, isn't it?

Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir; especially if he is--yes; I would say so. That is almost elementary today. There are so many schools today going that an officer that doesn't give some thought to latent fingerprints, he hasn't been to school.

Representative BOGGS. Of course not. But do you have that problem in your normal examination?