Mr.Eisenberg. Did you received a second submission of known prints?
Mr.Latona. Yes; we did.
Mr.Eisenberg. When did you receive those?
Mr.Latona. Those were received in the identification division on November 29, 1963.
Mr.Eisenberg. Did this include two palms, or was thissimply——
Mr.Latona. No; it did not. It was simply a fingerprint card.
Mr.Eisenberg. Do you know why the second submission was made?
Mr.Latona. The second submission was made, I believe, in order to advise us formally that the subject, Lee Harvey Oswald, had been killed, and it has the notation on the back that he was shot and killed 11-24-63 while being transferred in custody.
Mr.Eisenberg. And did you examine that second submission?
Mr.Latona. Yes, I did.
Mr.Eisenberg. And is it in all respects identical to the first?
Mr.Latona. The fingerprints appearing on this card are exactly the same as those that appear on the card which you have previously referred to as Commission Exhibit 627.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, do you have a copy of the second submission?
Mr.Latona. No; I do not.
Mr.Eisenberg. I wonder whether you could supply one to us at a later date.
Mr.Latona. Yes; I could. If you feel it necessary, you can take this one.
Mr.Eisenberg. Well, it is up to you. We will accept a copy.
TheChairman. If you wish, you may substitute a copy for it later.
Mr.Latona. All right.
TheChairman. And then you may withdraw it.
Mr.Eisenberg. May I mark that as 630, with the understanding that it can be substituted for by a copy?
TheChairman. Yes.
(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 630 and received in evidence.)
(At this point, Representative Ford entered the hearing room.)
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, could you tell us what portion of the palm of Lee Harvey Oswald was reproduced on the paper bag, Exhibit 626?
Mr.Latona. The portion of the palm which was identified was of the right palm, and it is a portion which is sometimes referred to as the heel. It would be the area which is near the wrist on the little-finger side. I have a photograph here which has a rough drawing on it showing the approximate area which was identified.
TheChairman. Which hand did you say?
Mr.Latona. The right hand.
Mr.Eisenberg. That little finger, is that sometimes called the ulnar side?
Mr.Latona. The ulnar side; yes, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. Is this a true photograph made by you?
Mr.Latona. This is a true photograph of one of the exhibits you have received.
Mr.Eisenberg. That is to say, the exhibit showing the right palmprint, which is marked 629?
Mr.Latona. That's correct.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have this photograph admitted into evidence as 631?
TheChairman. It may be admitted.
(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 631 and received in evidence.)
Mr.Eisenberg. Do you have another photograph there?
Mr.Latona. I have here a photograph which is a slight enlargement of the latent palmprint developed on the bag. It has a red circle drawn around it showing the palmprint which was developed.
Mr.Eisenberg. Is that a true photograph made by you?
Mr.Latona. This is. It is approximately a time-and-a-half enlargement of the palmprint which I developed on the paper bag.
Mr.Eisenberg. May I have that admitted, Mr. Chairman, as 632?
TheChairman. It may be admitted by that number.
(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 632 and received in evidence.)
Mr.Eisenberg. Having reference to the paper bag, Exhibit 626, Mr. Latona, could you show us where on that bag this portion of the palm, the ulnar portion of the palm, of Lee Harvey Oswald was found?
Mr.Latona. This little red arrow which I have placed on the paper bag shows the palmprint as it was developed on the wrapper.
TheChairman. Is it visible to the naked eye?
Mr.Latona. Yes; it is. I think you can see it with the use of this hand magnifier.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, could you mark that arrow "A"—the arrow you have just referred to on Exhibit 626, pointing to the portion of the palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald?
TheChairman. What is the number of the exhibit that it is on?
Mr.Eisenberg. That is 626.
Mr.Latona. May I—I tell you, I am going to furnish you a copy of this, but I cannot make a copy unless I have it.
Mr.Eisenberg. We can lend it to you for that purpose.
TheChairman. You may have it to make the copy.
Mr.Latona. And I will send you the copy. Thank you.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, I believe you said you also found a fingerprint of Lee Harvey Oswald on this paper bag, 626.
Mr.Latona. Yes; I did.
Mr.Eisenberg. Can you tell us what finger and what portion of the finger of Lee Harvey Oswald you identified that print as being?
Mr.Latona. The fingerprint which was developed on the paper bag was identified as the right—as the left index fingerprint of Lee Harvey Oswald. I also have a slight enlargement of it, if you care to see it.
Mr.Eisenberg. You are showing us a true photograph of the actual fingerprint?
Mr.Latona. As it appeared on the bag, slightly enlarged.
Mr.Eisenberg. May I have that admitted as 633, Mr. Chairman?
TheChairman. It may be admitted.
(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 633 and received in evidence.)
Mr.Eisenberg. You are holding another photograph, Mr. Latona?
Mr.Latona. I have here a photograph of the fingerprint card, of the one which I just took back, and it is actually a true reproduction of the front of the card. That was Exhibit 630. This one here is a true reproduction of the front of Exhibit 630.
Mr.Eisenberg. And have you circled on that, the photograph which you are holding, the left index finger?
Mr.Latona. That's right.
Mr.Eisenberg. And would you show that to the Chief Justice? That is a true reproduction, Mr. Latona?
Mr.Latona. Yes; it is.
Mr.Eisenberg. I would like that admitted as 633A.
TheChairman. It may be admitted.
(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 633A and received in evidence.)
Mr.Latona. Could that take the place of this?
Mr.Eisenberg. I think our exhibits would be confused.
Mr.Latona. Very well.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, what portion of the left index finger was that, Mr. Latona?
Mr.Latona. That is the area which is to the left, or rather to the right of the index finger.
Mr.Eisenberg. On which joint?
Mr.Latona. On the first joint, which is under the nail.
Mr.Eisenberg. Is that known as the distal phalanx?
Mr.Latona. That's right.
Mr.Eisenberg. So it is the right side of the distal phalanx of the left index finger?
Mr.Latona. That is correct. Now, that would be looking at an impression made by the finger. If you were to look at the finger, you would raise the finger up and it would be on the opposite side, which would be on the left side of the distal phalanx.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, when we were talking before about the palmprint, and you said that it was on the right side—you said it was on the ulnar portion of the palm?
Mr.Latona. That is correct.
Mr.Eisenberg. And that is looking at the palm itself?
Mr.Latona. Looking at the palm itself.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, I wouldrather——
Mr.Latona. That would still be the ulnar side when you look at the print.
Mr.Eisenberg. Why don't we use ulnar and radial then when we refer to portions of fingerprints, ulnar referring to the little-finger side, and radial to the thumb side? So referring to the left index fingerprint now, that would correspond to the ulnar side of the left index finger of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr.Latona. That is correct.
TheChairman. Congressman Ford, I'm going to leave now to attend a session of the Court. If you will preside in my absence, Mr. Dulles will be here in a few moments, and if you are obliged to leave for your work in the Congress, he will preside until I return.
(At this point, Mr. Dulles entered the hearing room and the Chairman left the hearing room.)
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, could you show us where on the paper bag, Exhibit 626, this left index finger was developed by you?
Mr.Latona. The left index fingerprint was developed in the area which is indicated by this small red arrow.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you put a "B" on that arrow to which you are pointing? Mr. Latona, did you make comparison charts of the known and latent or the inked and latent palmprints of Lee Harvey Oswald which you have been referring to as found on this paper bag, 626?
Mr.Latona. Yes; I did.
Mr.Eisenberg. Couldyou——
Mr.Dulles. Shouldn't you change that question a little bit? I don't think you should say Lee Harvey Oswald at this point.
Mr.Eisenberg. He has identified the print as being that of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr.Dulles. Excuse me.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, could you show us that chart and discuss with us some of the similar characteristics which you found in the inked and latent print which led you to the conclusion that they were identical?
Mr.Latona. Yes. I have here what are referred to as two charted enlargements. One of the enlargements, which is marked "Inked Left Index Fingerprint. Lee Harvey Oswald" is approximately a 10-time enlargement of the fingerprint which appears on Exhibit 633A. The other enlargement, which is marked "Latent Fingerprint on Brown Homemade Paper Container," is approximately a 10-time enlargement of the latent fingerprint which was developed on the brown wrapping paper indicated by the red arrow, "B."
Mr.Eisenberg. And that also corresponds to the photograph you gave us, which is now Exhibit 633?
Mr.Latona. That's correct.
RepresentativeFord. And the arrow, "B," is on Exhibit 626?
Mr.Latona. That's correct. Now, in making a comparison of prints to determine whether or not they were made by the same finger, an examination is made first of all of the latent print.
An examination is made to see if there are in the latent print any points or characteristics which are unique to the person making the determination. In other words, in looking at the latent print, for example, this point, which is marked "1," is a ridge. The black lines are what we term ridges. They were made by the ridge formations on the fingers. That is, when the finger came in contact with the brown paper bag, it left an outline in these black lines on the brown paper bag.
Now, in looking at the latent print in the enlargement you notice there is one black line that appears to go upward and stop at the point which has been indicated as point No. 1.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, may I interrupt you there for a second.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce this chart, this comparison chart, as an exhibit.
RepresentativeFord. It may be admitted.
Mr.Eisenberg. That will be 634.
(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 634 and was received in evidence.)
Mr.Latona. Looking further wenotice——
Mr.Dulles. Could I just ask a question about this? This is referring to Exhibit 634. I want to make sure what line we are talking about. You are talking about a black line that goes up as though two rivers came together there, and here is the point where this line stops.
Mr.Latona. That's correct.
Mr.Dulles. No. 1. This is the latent?
Mr.Latona. This is the imprint. This is the print on the bag.
Mr.Dulles. Yes.
Mr.Latona. The contrast here is not as good as it is here.
Mr.Dulles. This goes up here, and these two lines come in there, so there is the point where your black line stops?
Mr.Latona. Right at the end of the red line which is marked "1."
Mr.Dulles. Thank you.
Mr.Latona. Now, looking further we find this point that has been indicated as No. 3. And No. 3 islocated——
Mr.Dulles. Why do you skip 2?
Mr.Latona. I am going to come to that.
Mr.Dulles. I see.
Mr.Latona. I am going to tie these three in. Point No. 3 is above and to the left one ridge removed from—one black line—there is No. 3. Now looking further, we can look over to the right, or rather to the left, and we notice that one ridge removed from No. 3 are two ridges that come together and give you a point which has been indicated as No. 2.
Mr.Eisenberg. Is that what you might call a bifurcation?
Mr.Latona. That is referred to, generally speaking, as a bifurcation.
Mr.Eisenberg. That is No. 2?
Mr.Latona. And No. 1 is what is referred to as a ridge end.
Now, keeping those three points in mind, and the relationship they have to each other, if this print here, the inked print, were made by the same finger which left the print on the brown paper bag, we should be able to find those three points in the same approximate area, having the same relationship to each other.
Now, at this point we have not made a determination of any kind as to whether they are or are not identical. Examining the inked fingerprint, bearing in mind the general formation of this print that we see here, the latent print, we would examine the inked print and that would direct us to this approximate area here. And looking, we find sure enough there is point No. 1—or rather there is a point which appears to be the same as point No. 1 here. Bearing in mind how we located points Nos. 2 and 3, we would then check the inked print further and say to ourselves, "If this print were the same, there should be a point No. 2 in exactly the same relationship to No. 1 as there was in this latent print." We look over here—one, two, three, four—there is point No. 2.
Mr.Eisenberg. That point, or that count that you are making, is of ridges between the first and second point?
Mr.Latona. Between the points, that's right. Then we have over here one, two, three, four. And bearing in mind again how point No. 3 bears a relationship to point No. 2, we should find point No. 3 in the same relative position in the inked print that it occurs in the latent print. Counting over again—one—we find a point which could be considered No. 3.
Now, at this time we have coordinated three points. We have tied three points together. On that basis, by themselves, we would not give a definite determination. Accordingly, we would pursue a further examination to determine whether there are other characteristics which occur.
Mr.Dulles. How many times is that magnified?
Mr.Latona. This is magnified approximately 10 times.
Then we would pick up point No. 5. We notice point No. 5 is again one of those bifurcations which occurs above and slightly to the left of point No. 3. We also notice that it envelops point No. 1—as we go down further, slightly to the right of point No. 5, we notice that bifurcation envelops point No. 1. So we would look around for such a characteristic in the latent print.
If the same finger made those two prints, we have to find point 5. And looking over here we find such a formation, we look at it, and sure enough it envelops point No. 1—exactly the same relationship to each other appears in the latent print, and in the inked print. It has the same relationship to point No. 3 that occurs in the latent print as occurs in the inked print. Then we would pick up point No. 4—one, two, three, four.
Mr.Eisenberg. Again you are counting ridges?
Mr.Latona. Counting ridges again, from point No. 5—one, two, three, four. There is a so-called ridge end, which occurs above, above and almost slightly to the left of point No. 5, point No. 5 enveloping No. 1. Point No. 5.
Mr.Dulles. Is 5 a ridge-end?
Mr.Latona. Five is what we term a joining, forking, or bifurcation. These two come together at point 5. Over here, together at point 5.
Mr.Dulles. Is that where the two ridges come together there and encase it?
Mr.Latona. Yes, sir. From point No. 5 we pick up point No. 7, which is another one of those so-called bifurcations. One, two, three, four.
Mr.Eisenberg. Again a ridge count?
Mr.Latona. Ridge counting from 5 to 6. That is in the latent print. We must find the same situation in the inked print. Counting from point No. 5 the ridges which intervene, one, two, three, and then we count four, the point itself. There is the bifurcation right here.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, in making these ridge counts, do you also pay attention to the so-called, let's say, geographical relation, the spatial relation of the two points?
Mr.Latona. Very definitely. Now, it does not always follow that the so-called geographical position will coincide exactly the same. That would be caused because of variations in the pressure used when the print was made. For example, when you make a print on a fingerprint card: when the inked print was made, the print was made for the specific purpose of recording all of the ridge details. When the print was left on the paper bag, it was an incidental impression. The person was not trying to leave a print. In fact, he probably did not even know he left one. So the pressure which is left, or the position of the finger when it made the print, will be a little different. Accordingly the geographical area of the points themselves will not always coincide. But they will be in the general position the same.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, without going into detail, there are some apparent dissimilarities on the two sides of that chart. Can you explain why there should be apparent dissimilarities?
Mr.Latona. The dissimilarities as such are caused by the type of material on which the print was left, because of the pressure, because of the amount of material which is on the finger when it left the print. They would not always be exactly the same. Here again there appears a material difference in the sense there is a difference in coloration. This is because of the fact that the contrast in the latent print is not as sharp as it is in the inked impression, which is a definite black on white, whereas here we have more or less a brown on a lighter brown.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Latona, when you find an apparent dissimilarity between an inked and a latent print, how do you know that it is caused by absorption of the surface upon which the latent print is placed, or by failure of the finger to exude material, rather than by the fact that you have a different fingerprint?
Mr.Latona. That is simply by sheer experience.
Mr.Eisenberg. Would you say, therefore, that the identification of a fingerprint is a task which calls for an expert interpretation, as opposed to a simple point-by-point laying-out which a layman could do?
Mr.Latona. Very definitely so; yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. How much training does it take before you can make an identification?
Mr.Latona. Well, I cannot tell you exactly how much in terms of time, insofar as what constitutes an expert. I can simply tell you what we require of our people before they would be considered experts.
Mr.Eisenberg. Yes, could you do that?
Mr.Latona. We require our people before they wouldbe——
Mr.Dulles. This is the FBI?
Mr.Latona. Yes; this is the FBI. It would be 10 years of practical work in connection with the classifying and searching and verifying of regular fingerprint cards which bear all 10 prints. Those prints would be searched through our main fingerprint files. That means that that person would have to serve at least 10 years doing that. Of course, he would have to progress from the mere searching operation to the operation of being what we call unit supervisor, which would check—which would be actually the checking of the work of subordinates who do that work. He would be responsible for seeing that the fingerprints are properly searched, properly classified.
Mr.Eisenberg. And how long will he work in the latent fingerprint section?
Mr.Latona. He would have to take an adaptability test, which would take 3 or 4 days, to determine, first of all, do we feel he has the qualifications for the job. Then if he passed the adaptability test, he would receive a minimum of 1 year's personal training in the latent fingerprint section—which means that he would have to serve at least 11 years in fingerprint work constantly, day in and day out, 8 hours a day in fingerprint work, before we would consider him as a fingerprint expert for purposes of testifying in a court of law.
Mr.Eisenberg. So that when you show us this chart, this is actually, or I should say, is this actually a demonstration, rather than a chart from which we could make an identification?
Mr.Latona. That's right. The purpose is simply a hope on my part that by my explanation you may have some idea as to how a comparison is made, rather than for me to prove it to you through these charts, because unquestionably there are certain points that you will not see which to me are apparent.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, Mr.Latona——
Mr.Dulles. May I ask a question? Is this ridge formation, sort of two ridges coming together, is that one of the most distinctive things you look for? I note on these charts, Exhibit 634, the various examples you have given us have been of one type so far.
Mr.Latona. Two.
Mr.Dulles. I did not get the two. I get the two ridges coming together with sort of the ending of a valley. You were saying there were two distinctive things. I have only caught so far one distinctive thing—that is the two ridges coming together in a kind of valley with no exit.
Mr.Latona. Two that come together, like a fork. And the other one was the one that just ends by itself—does not join.
Mr.Eisenberg. Which is an interrupted ridge?
Mr.Dulles. I do not get the distinction.
Mr.Eisenberg. Is that an interrupted ridge you just described?
Mr.Latona. What we call an ending ridge.
Mr.Eisenberg. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr.Eisenberg. Back on the record. Mr. Latona, could you prepare a diagram which would show some of the characteristics, in broad outline, which we have been discussing, and have those labeled, and could you submit that diagram to us at a future date?
Mr.Latona. Yes; I could.
Mr.Eisenberg. We will append it to your testimony, so that your testimony may be more easily followed in the record—with the permission of the Chairman.
RepresentativeFord. It will be prepared and submitted and included in the record.
(The item referred to was later supplied and was marked Commission Exhibit No. 634A.)
Mr.Latona. Well, if you could give me your indulgence, I could do it right here as fast as I did it on the board.
RepresentativeFord. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
RepresentativeFord. Back on the record.
Mr.Dulles. These, I understand, are the particular distinguishing points, the points that you would look for to determine whether the latentprint——
Mr.Latona. Not so much the looking for the points, as to finding points having a relationship to each other. It is the relation that is the important thing, not the point itself. In other words, all of us would have to a certain extent these points.
Mr.Dulles. They have to be in the same relation to each other.
Mr.Latona. That is correct. For example, on the illustration I havehere——
Mr.Eisenberg. This is an illustration on the blackboard.
Mr.Latona. The mere fact that this is an ending ridge and bifurcation and another ending ridge and a dot in themselves mean nothing. This is a type of pattern which is referred to as a loop, which is very common. These comprise approximately 65 percent of pattern types. It has four ridge counts, for example. You can find hundreds of thousands and millions of four-count loops. But you would not find but one loop having an arrangement of these characteristics in the relation that they have. For example, the enclosure is related to this ending ridge. This ending ridge is related by one ridge removed from the dot. This bifurcation is next to the so-called core which is formed by a rod, the ending ridge.
The points themselves are common. The most common type of points are the ending ridge and the bifurcation. Those are the two points we have covered so far.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, I see that you have marked nine characteristics on your chart. Are these all the characteristics which you were able tofind——
Mr.Latona. On this particular chart; yes. They were the only ones that bore—actually, there is still one more characteristic—there could have been 10.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, is there any minimum number of points that has to be found in order to make an identification, in your opinion?
Mr.Latona. No; in my opinion, there are no number of points which are a requirement. Now, there is a general belief among lots of fingerprint people that a certain number of points are required. It is my opinion that this is an erroneous assumption that they have taken, because of the fact that here in the United States a person that qualifies in court as an expert has the right merely to voice an opinion as to whether two prints were made by the same finger or not made. There are no requirements, there is no standard by which a person can say that a certain number of points are required—primarily because of the fact that there is such a wide variance in the experience of men who qualify as fingerprint experts.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, you said that not all experts are in agreement on this subject. Is there any substantial body of expert opinion that holds to a minimum number of points, let's say, 12?
Mr.Latona. In the United States, to my knowledge, I know of no group or body that subscribe to a particular number. Now, quite frequently some of these departments will maintain a standard for themselves, by virtue of the fact that they will say, "Before we will make an identification, we must find a minimum of 12 points of similarity."
I am quite certain that the reason for that is simply to avoid the possibility of making an erroneous identification. Now, why they have picked 12—I believe that that 12-point business originated because of a certain article which was written by a French fingerprint examiner by the name of Edmond Locard back in 1917, I think—there was a publication to the effect that in his opinion where there were 12 points of similarity, there was no chance of making an erroneous identification. If there were less than 12, he voiced the conclusion that the chances would increase as to finding duplicate prints.
Now, today we in the FBI do not subscribe to that theory at all. We simply say this: We have confidence in our experts to the extent that regardless of the number of points, if the expert who has been assigned to the case for purposesof making the examination gives an opinion, we will not question the number of points. We have testified—I personally have testified in court to as few as seven points of similarity.
Mr.Dulles. But you would not on two, would you?
Mr.Latona. No, sir; because I know that two points, even though they would not be duplicate points, could be arranged in such a fashion that it might possibly give me the impression that here are two points which appear to be the same even though they are are not.
Mr.Dulles. But it is somewhere between two and seven—somewhere in that range?
Mr.Latona. That is right. Where that is, I do not know. And I would not say whether I would testify to six, would I testify to five, would I refuse to testify to four.
Mr.Dulles. You say you would—or would you?
Mr.Latona. I don't know. That's a question I could not answer. I would have to see each case individually before I could render a conclusion.
Now, going outside of the United States, we have been approached—I mean the FBI—have been approached by other foreign experts in an attempt to set a worldwide standard of 16 characteristics, a minimum of 16, as opposed to 12, which is generally referred to by people in this country here. Now of course we would not subscribe to that at all. And Ithink——
Mr.Dulles. That would be 16 on the fingerprint of the same finger?
Mr.Latona. That's right.
Mr.Dulles. Obviously, if you have two fingers that would alter the number—if you had three on one and two on the other, would you consider that five?
Mr.Latona. We would.
Now, whether the foreign experts would not, I don't know. In other words, if we were to go along with this European theory of 16 points, we would not testify to this being an identification. That is really what it would amount to. Yet to me, in my mind, there is no question that these printshere——
Mr.Eisenberg. Which is what exhibit?
Mr.Latona. The enlargements in Exhibit 634—are simply reproductions of the left index fingerprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.
RepresentativeFord. There is no doubt in your mind about that?
Mr.Latona. Absolutely none at all. The fact that there are only the nine points charted—and I feel this way, it is purely a matter of experience. They simply do not have the experience that we have in the FBI. The FBI has the world's largest practical fingerprint file. We receive on an average of 23,000 to 25,000 cards a day which are processed within a 3-day period.
Mr.Dulles. In a 3-day period?
Mr.Latona. In a 3-day period.
Mr.Dulles. And by processed do you mean they are filed according to certain characteristics?
Mr.Latona. They are. At first they are recorded as having been received from a particular agency, as to the number that we have received, as to the type of the card. Then they are checked to see if the impressions which are on the fingerprint card are complete and legible, that they are placed in their proper sequence, that is they are properly classified.
Then they are checked through our files to see if the person has or has not a prior criminal record. Then a reply is prepared and forwarded to the contributor. That is done in a 3-day period.
Mr.Dulles. How old is the art, roughly?
Mr.Latona. Insofar as this country is concerned, I would say back to 1903, when the first fingerprint file for purposes of classification and filing was set up in this country in New York.
Mr.Dulles. Did it start in France?
Mr.Latona. No. Really, I daresay the English were probably as early as any, or even down to South America—you have in Argentina the setting up of fingerprint files as early as 1891. For a long time we never recognized the fact that Argentina had a fingerprint file. I think it is primarily because all of the works on fingerprinting were written in Spanish, and it was just a question of finding somebody to take the time and effort to translate it into English.
The French are credited with the so-called Bertillon system, which is a measurement of the bone structure of the body. Alphone Bertillon was aFrench——
Mr.Dulles. Didn't Bertillon go into fingerprints later?
Mr.Latona. Very reluctantly. He was very reluctant to accept it. He was a sort of diehard. He felt that his method, the measurement of certain bones of the body, would not change after a person reached the adult stage. But we know that that is not true. There is a change—because of age, disease, dissipation. A person that was once 6'2" may, because of the fact he is getting older, hump down a little more and instead of being 6'2" he might be 5'11". Certain bone structures over the years make certain changes—plus the fact that his system was not a good system in that certain allowances had to be made because of the way that people were measured.
Sometimes one operator might measure the bones of the arm, for example, too tight, and another too loose. And they used the metric system of measurement, which in terms of their measuring might sometimes mean that the same person would not measure the same bone the same way twice.
We have the celebrated case here which we refer to as the Will West case, here in the United States, in which a man was sentenced to the penitentiary in Leavenworth. He was a colored man by the name of Will West. The operator there, going through the mechanics of taking the various measurements and his photograph, said, "I see you are back here again." The man said, "No, this is the first time I have been to Leavenworth." The operator was certain he had measured and photographed this man before. He went to check his records and he came up with a prior record which disclosed a Will West who had practically the same Bertillon measurements as the man currently being examined.
He said, "Isn't this you?" And he showed him a picture. He looked at the picture and recognized the picture as being one of himself. He said, "Yes, that is me, but I have never been here before."
They checked the records and found still there in the penitentiary was another Will West who looked almost exactly like a twin. But they were not even related. Their features were the same, their measurements were the same, but then their fingerprints were completely different.
If they made that error that one time, how many other times could the same error have been made? And accordingly, we here in the United States, around 1903—the Bertillon method was slowly put out of use. It became obsolete.
Bertillon, before he died, conceded that fingerprints was a good means of identification, and he very reluctantly conceded that the two systems, his method and fingerprints together, would be an absolute means of identification.
We completely did away with the Bertillon system. In fact, the FBI never used it. We started our fingerprint work years after all that had been resolved, back in 1924.
On July 1, 1924, that is actually when the FBI went into the fingerprint business.
Mr.Dulles. Thank you very much. I found that very interesting.
RepresentativeFord. Go ahead, Mr. Eisenberg.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, did you also prepare a chart showing a comparison of the latent and known left-index fingerprint of Lee Harvey Oswald found on the paper bag, Exhibit 626?
Mr.Latona. The left index finger. That is the one we just discussed.
Mr.Eisenberg. I'm sorry—the right palmprint.
Mr.Latona. Right.
Mr.Eisenberg. And before we go any further, I should state for the record that the exhibit we have been referring to as 626 was earlier introduced as 142, and it is 142.
Mr.Dulles. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr.Dulles. Back on the record.
Mr.Eisenberg. Also, before we get to thepalmprint——
Mr.Dulles. Just a moment. It seems to me it would be well to have for the files of the Commission copies of the earlier fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald that were taken, and the time that they were taken.
Mr.Eisenberg. I agree, sir. Mr.Latona——
Mr.Latona. Do I understand you areasking——
Mr.Eisenberg. I will develop this on the record.
Mr. Latona, you had earlier submitted to us, and we had marked as an exhibit, copies of fingerprint cards and two palmprint cards which were made up by the Dallas police and forwarded to you, received by you from your Dallas office; is that correct?
Mr.Latona. Yes, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, in addition, did the Federal Bureau of Investigation have in its files prints of Lee Harvey Oswald which it had received at some earlier date, prior to November 22?
Mr.Latona. Yes, sir; I believe there is a Marine Corps print.
Mr.Eisenberg. Would these prints have been taken by the FBI?
Mr.Latona. No; they would not.
Mr.Eisenberg. They were takenby——
Mr.Latona. The regular service.
Mr.Eisenberg. And forwarded to the FBI?
Mr.Latona. That's right.
Mr.Eisenberg. Did you compare the 10-finger card which you received from the Dallas office of the FBI and compare it with the Marine fingerprint card?
Mr.Latona. Yes, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. Were they identical?
Mr.Latona. They were the same.
Mr.Eisenberg. Were the palmprints taken by the Marines?
Mr.Latona. No; not to my knowledge.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you submit to us a copy of the 10-print card which you received from the Marine Corps?
Mr.Latona. Yes; I could.
Mr.Eisenberg. With the Chairman's permission, that will be appended as an exhibit to Mr. Latona's testimony.
RepresentativeFord. Do you wish to identify it by a number at this time?
Mr.Eisenberg. Yes. If we could give it a number in advance of receiving it, I would like to give it Commission Exhibit No. 635.
(The item referred to was later supplied and was marked Commission Exhibit No. 635.)
RepresentativeFord. It will be admitted.
Mr.Dulles. Do you know whether any fingerprints were taken after Lee Harvey Oswald returned from the Soviet Union?
Mr.Latona. Those after he was arrested in connection with this particular offense.
Mr.Dulles. Apart from the fingerprints obtained in connection with the assassination.
Mr.Latona. I do not.
Mr.Dulles. Do you have a right to go to anybody and demand their fingerprints?
Mr.Latona. No.
Mr.Dulles. Under law?
Mr.Latona. No, sir; only persons taken into custody for Federal violations as such. Now, the FBI has actually no authority at all, except in cases of making an arrest.
Mr.Dulles. There is nothing done in connection with the census or anything of that kind?
Mr.Latona. No, sir. Some persons are ordered, by virtue of being aliens, to be fingerprinted—those that are domiciled here in the United States must register under the Alien Registration Act.
Mr.Dulles. And fingerprints then are taken of aliens in connection with their registration?
Mr.Latona. That's right.
Mr.Dulles. Otherwise there is no general procedure for the taking of anybody that you may happen to want to take?
Mr.Latona. The Services, of course, require it. Applicants for certain positions are required by law. For example, all civil service, Federal civil serviceapplicants must be fingerprinted. Locally, there are certain local cases. For example a man may in some localities, if he even applies for a chauffeur's license, has to be fingerprinted. If he desires a gun permit, he has to be fingerprinted. In some places, if he applies for certain jobs he must be fingerprinted.
Mr.Dulles. As I recall, I gave a fingerprint when I got my automobile license. Is that general throughout the United States?
Mr.Latona. What State was that?
Mr.Dulles. Here in the District. Didn't I give that?
Mr.Latona. No, sir. To my knowledge, there are none that require it—fingerprinting—for an automobile license. In California I believe it is voluntary—to place the finger, if you desire to, on your card.
Mr.Dulles. Thank you very much.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, Exhibit 630, which is one of the known 10-print cards submitted by the Dallas office, is marked "Refused to sign" in the box with the printed caption "Signature of person fingerprinted." Do you recall whether Lee Harvey Oswald signed the Marine Corps card?
Mr.Latona. Offhand, I do not.
Mr.Eisenberg. I think it would be interesting, for the record, to see if that is signed, and, of course, as we read the record and get the card, we will be able to note that information.
We were discussing whether you had made a chart of the known and latent right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald found on Exhibit 142, as I will refer to it from now on.
Mr.Latona. I believe I have already furnished you smaller photographs.
Mr.Eisenberg. Yes; you have. Those have been marked into evidence.
Mr.Latona. This is the inked—the right inked palmprint, a photograph of the right inked palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr.Eisenberg. You say "this." Can you identify that exhibit? It is 631.
I am handing you Exhibit 632.
Mr.Latona. Exhibit 632 is approximately a time and a half enlargement of the latent palmprint which was developed on the brown wrapper.
Mr.Eisenberg. That is Exhibit 142.
Mr.Latona. Exhibit 142—which is indicated by the red arrow A.
Mr.Eisenberg. Did you prepare this chart, Mr. Latona?
Mr.Latona. Not personally, no. This was made under my personal direction and supervision.
Mr.Eisenberg. And is it an accurate reproduction of the known and latent prints which were earlier introduced into evidence?
Mr.Latona. It is. It is a true and faithful reproduction of these areas, enlarged to approximately eight times the originals.
Mr.Eisenberg. May I have this introduced into evidence as 636, Mr. Chairman?
RepresentativeFord. It will be introduced.
(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 636 and received in evidence.)
Mr.Dulles. May I ask whether this was discovered immediately after the assassination—at what time did you discover this particular palmprint?
Mr.Latona. It was on the 23d of November, the day after.
Mr.Eisenberg. Using this chart, 636, Mr. Latona, could you demonstrate to us some of the points which led you to the conclusion that the latent palmprint on 142 was the palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr.Latona. The procedure in making this comparison was exactly the same as the procedure followed in connection with making the prior examination of the fingerprint. Now, the area which shows in approximately an eight-time enlargement, and is marked "Latent Palmprint Developed on Brown Homemade Paper Container," which is Exhibit 636, is roughly outlined on Commission Exhibit 631 in red, which is a photograph of the inked right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.
This area below the little finger, or what we referred to as the ulnar portion of the palm—now, in making the examination or comparison, here again—first of all I would like to point out that there is a black line that goes right through—in an upward fashion—through the enlargement of the latent fingerprint. That line is caused by virtue of the fact that the palmprint which is developed ispartially on a piece of tape as well as the wrapper itself. In other words, a part of the print is on a piece of tape and the other part is on the paper itself.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, could you show how the palm lay on the paper to produce that impression?
Mr.Latona. The palm lay in this fashion here.
Mr.Eisenberg. You are putting your right hand on the paper so that the fingers are pointing in the same direction as the arrow A?
Mr.Latona. That's right.
Mr.Eisenberg. And it is at approximately right angles to the paper bag?
Mr.Latona. That's right.
Here again, in making the comparison, a check is made for the location of certain points.
Now, we notice here that the points appear to be much closer than they were in the fingerprint, and that is probably because of the pressure which was exercised, possibly in holding the object which was in this paper container.
Now, you notice this point No. 1 here, which we term the ending ridge. Point No. 2 is also an ending ridge. And you notice in between these points there is a ridge. Point No. 2 is to the left of point No. 1.
Then we find there is a point No. 3 which is a point which is similar in character to point No. 2 and is almost directly below, but there are two intervening ridges. Then there is a point No. 4 which is below point No. 3, and going in a direction opposite from point No. 3.
If we bear those four points in mind—and if the latent palmprint was made by the same palm that made the inked palmprint—then we should find these four points in that position over there.
Now, in order to first of all find the particular area where we would look to see if those points exist, we would bear in mind the general formation of the print itself. We notice the so-called looping formation in the inked print. We see that there is a looping formation here. Definitely it is not as pronounced in the latent print as it is in the inked print. But to the experienced eye, it is right here.
Accordingly, bearing in mind where these points would occur, we would generalize in the area to the extreme right of the enlargement, and find that there is a point which is somewhat similar to the point which appears in the inked impression, which momentarily we would say appears to be the same point as No. 1.
Now, bearing in mind how No. 2 is related to point No. 1, does such a point appear in the latent print? And making the check, exactly in the same fashion and relationship that occurred in the inked print, we find that there is such a point.
Does a third point appear in the same relationship to point No. 2 as it appears in the inked print?
Counting down one, two, and then the three point being the point itself. And in the same general flowing direction we count here, one, two, three—there it is.
Bearing in mind again that we found point No. 4 is what we refer to as a bifurcation going in the opposite direction from No. 3, which was directly below and to the left, do we find such a point here? Sure enough, there it is.
Now, an additional test would be this: At this point here we notice there is an abrupt ending of a ridge at this point here. It was not even charted. The fact is, it also occurs here. You see this point here, through which there is no line drawn, here it is righthere——
Mr.Eisenberg. You are pointing above 4?
Mr.Latona. Directly above 4 to a ridge going—what we term flowing to the right. Now, at this point here, to a fingerprint examiner of any experience at all, he would start saying these prints were probably made by the same fellow. To satisfy himself, he would continue to point No. 5—one, two, three, four—there is point No. 5. Then there is No. 6, and there is No. 6 here, having exactly the same relationship to each other.
On the basis of those six points alone, I would venture the opinion that these palmprints were made by the same person. But for purposes of carrying it out further, here is point No. 7. Point No. 7 is obliterated to a certain degreeto the inexperienced eye by virtue of the fact that it almost coincides with that line there. You probably do not see that.
And here is point No. 8, which is related to point No. 7 by the separation of those ridges in the same way. One, two, three, four—one, two, three, four. In its relationship to No. 9 here—just above and to the left, flowing in the same general direction. Here it is here.
Then your point No. 10, which is tied into point No. 11 in this fashion here, and 12 and 13. All of them have the same relationship insofar as the intervention of ridges is concerned, the same general area, plus the fact that they all flow in the same general direction.
Picking up No. 14, which is going upward, to point No. 15, which stands out rather easily—15 here. To throw in just one point extra—see this little point here, that ends here?
Mr.Eisenberg. That is to the upper right of 15?
Mr.Latona. To the right and upward of 15.
Mr.Dulles. So you really have 16 points there?
Mr.Latona. Actually, there are more than that in here, which I have not even bothered to chart. The opinion here, without any question at all, this latent print, which was developed on the brown bag marked "A"—142—was made by the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald. And in my opinion, this identification is absolute. There is no question at all that only the right palm of Lee Harvey Oswald made this print, or could have made it.
Mr.Eisenberg. Are there any further questions on the prints appearing on this bag?
RepresentativeFord. Mr. Murray?
Mr.Murray. May I suggest this, Mr. Chairman? Since the print on the bag may become obliterated, and since members of the Commission have already seen it, it might be advisable to put on the record that they have seen it, because in time to come it may not be visible to anybody.
RepresentativeFord. Well, I for one would be willing to state that I have personally seen that fingerprint through a glass on the bag—both the finger and the palm.
Mr.Dulles. I would be glad to concur that I also have seen the fingerprint and the palmprint to which Congressman Ford refers.
Mr.Eisenberg. In that general connection, Mr. Latona, do you commonly make your fingerprint identifications on the basis of the object on which the latent print appears, or on the basis of a photograph of that object?
Mr.Latona. Normally it is made on the basis of photographs. We work more or less like an assembly-line basis, and we do not have the time or the opportunity to work from the originals, as was done in this case—this being quite an exceptional case. So the usual identification would be made—this was made on the basis of the bag itself, rather than to wait and get finished photographs from our photographic laboratory.
If I recall correctly, this was on a Saturday—the 23d?
Mr.Eisenberg. Yes; it was.
Mr.Latona. We did not have our full staff there. We were called in to handle this case specially. There were no photographers available at that time for that particular purpose. Frankly, under the circumstances it would not have made any difference whether they were available or not. This had a priority over everything we were working on and naturally we had to proceed as fast as we could, in a sense, to render conclusions and opinions at that time.
Accordingly, the original comparisons were made directly from the wrapper, rather than a photograph, which was prepared subsequently to this.
RepresentativeFord. The suggestion has been made, Mr. Murray, that perhaps you would like to look at that palmprint and the fingerprint on the wrapping, and you might make a statement the same as Mr. Dulles and I have made.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you point out to Mr. Murray, Mr. Latona, the two prints?
Mr.Latona. Yes, sir. "A" is the fingerprint.
Mr.Dulles. And the witness certifies that these are true photographs of the fingerprint and the palmprint that you have exhibited?
Mr.Latona. Yes, sir.
Mr.Murray. May I say for the record, Mr. Chairman, that I definitely and clearly saw what appeared to me to be a palmprint in the part of Exhibit 142 which was designated with a "B," and less clearly, but nevertheless I did see, the fingerprint on the other portion of the bag.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr.Latona——
Mr.Latona. "B" is the finger, and "A" is the palm.
Mr.Murray. Yes; that's correct. And the palm "A"—there I definitely saw what appeared to be a palmprint, and more faintly I saw a fingerprint in the portion marked "B."
Mr.Dulles. And these areexhibits——
Mr.Eisenberg. This is Exhibit 142.
(At this point Representative Boggs entered the hearing room.)
Mr.Dulles. Both the palmprint and the fingerprint are on Exhibit 142.
Mr.Eisenberg. Yes—marked "A" and "B" respectively.
Mr. Latona, one further question on this subject. When you testify in court, do you frequently testify on the basis of the photographs rather than the original object?
Mr.Latona. If the originals are available, I would prefer that they be brought into court. If they are not, then photographs are used—plus the original negative of the latent prints which were photographed.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Latona, I hand you Commission Exhibit 139 which, for the record, consists of the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD building, and which was identified yesterday as the rifle—and the day before yesterday—as the rifle which fired the fatal bullets, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this weapon?
Mr.Latona. Yes; I am.
Mr.Eisenberg. And did you examine this weapon to test—did you examine this weapon to determine whether there were any identifiable latent fingerprints on it?
Mr.Latona. I examined the weapon to determine whether there were any identifiable latent prints on the weapon.
Mr.Eisenberg. When did you receive the weapon?
Mr.Latona. On the morning of November 23, 1963.
Mr.Eisenberg. And when did you proceed to make your examination?
Mr.Latona. I proceeded to make my examination that same day that I received it.
Mr.Eisenberg. Can you tell us what techniques you used?
Mr.Latona. Well, the technique that I used first was simply to examine it visually under a magnifying glass, a hand magnifying glass, primarily for the purpose of seeing, first of all, whether there were any visible prints. I might point out that my attention had been directed to the area which we refer to as the trigger guard on the left side of the weapon, Commission Exhibit 139.
Mr.Eisenberg. The trigger-guard area?
Mr.Latona. The trigger-guard area.
Mr.Eisenberg. Which actually, in the case of this particular weapon, is the area in which the magazine is inserted at the top; is that correct? You are looking at the weapon now, and the magazine comes out the bottom of what is called the trigger-guard area, which would be a trigger guard on another weapon.
Mr.Latona. That's correct. There had been placed over that area a piece of cellophane material. My attention had been directed to it, to the effect that a prior examination had been made of that area, and that there were apparently certain latent prints available—visible under that area.
I first examine most prints tosee——
Mr.Dulles. Who placed the cellophane material there, in your opinion?
Mr.Latona. Well, I was told—my information was simply that the Dallas Police Department had done so. I have no personal knowledge as to who did it, other than information that the Dallas Police had examined the weapon and they had found these visible marks on there, that they had developed the prints.
Now, by what means they did it, I do not know, but I would assume they used a gray powder.
Mr.Dulles. What was the purpose of putting the cellophane there?
Mr.Latona. To protect the prints while the rifle was intransit to the FBI.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, when you received it with the cellophane cover, what portion did it cover?
Mr.Latona. Closest to the trigger area.
Mr.Eisenberg. On the trigger guard, closest to the trigger area?
Mr.Latona. That's right.