Mr.Eisenberg. Was that on the right or left side of the weapon?
Mr.Latona. Left side.
Mr.Eisenberg. And was there a print visible to you underneath the cellophane?
Mr.Latona. I could see faintly ridge formations there. However, examination disclosed to me that the formations, the ridge formations and characteristics, were insufficient for purposes of either effecting identification or a determination that the print was not identical with the prints of people. Accordingly, my opinion simply was that the latent prints which were there were of no value.
Now, I did not stop there.
Mr.Eisenberg. Before we leave those prints, Mr. Latona, had those been developed by the powder method?
Mr.Latona. Yes; they had.
Mr.Eisenberg. Was that a gray powder?
Mr.Latona. I assumed that they used gray powder in order to give them what little contrast could be seen. And it took some highlighting and sidelighting with the use of a spotlight to actually make those things discernible at all.
RepresentativeFord. As far as you are concerned.
Mr.Latona. That's right.
Mr.Dulles. Is is likely or possible that those fingerprints could have been damaged or eroded in the passage from Texas to your hands?
Mr.Latona. No, sir; I don't think so. In fact, I think we got the prints just like they were. There had, in addition to this rifle and that paper bag, which I received on the 23d—there had also been submitted to me some photographs which had been taken by the Dallas Police Department, at least alleged to have been taken by them, of these prints on this trigger guard which they developed. I examined the photographs very closely and I still could not determine any latent value in the photograph.
So then I took the rifle personally over to our photo laboratory. In the meantime, I had made arrangements to bring a photographer in especially for the purpose of photographing these latent prints for me, an experienced photographer—I called him in. I received this material in the Justice Building. My office of operations is in the Identification Division Building, which is at 2d and D Streets SW. So I made arrangements to immediately have a photographer come in and see if he could improve on the photographs that were taken by the Dallas Police Department.
Well, we spent, between the two of us, setting up the camera, looking at prints, highlighting, sidelighting, every type of lighting that we could conceivably think of, checking back and forth in the darkroom—we could not improve the condition of these latent prints.
So, accordingly, the final conclusion was simply that the latent print on this gun was of no value, the fragments that were there.
After that had been determined, I then proceeded to completely process the entire rifle, to see if there were any other prints of any significance or value—any prints of value—I would not know what the significance would be, but to see if there were any other prints. I completely covered the rifle. I also had a firearmsman——
RepresentativeBoggs. What do you cover it with?
Mr.Latona. Gray fingerprint powder.
RepresentativeBoggs. What is that powder?
Mr.Latona. It is usually a combination of chalk and mercury, or possibly white lead and a little bit of resin material to give it some weight.
Mr.Eisenberg. And you testified earlier that thatadheres——
Mr.Latona. To the moisture that was left by the finger, the fingers or the hands, when it came in contact with the surface.
RepresentativeBoggs. How long will that condition remain?
Mr.Latona. Going from one extreme to the other, it may remain for years; under other circumstances, it may not even last for 15 or 20 minutes.
RepresentativeBoggs. Why the difference?
Mr.Latona. Because of the amount of material which was left and the condition of the material which was left. Basically, the material may be made up of protein material and salt and water—primarily water. If it is totally water, with very little salt or oily material, when the evaporation is effected, then it is complete—there will be nothing left.
RepresentativeBoggs. You mean that it is gone?
Mr.Latona. Right. On the other hand, if there is an oily matter there, we know that latent prints will last literally for years on certain objects.
RepresentativeBoggs. Well, just for purposes of information, if I make fingerprints there on the table, how long would they normally last?
Mr.Latona. I don't know.
RepresentativeBoggs. Well, would there be any way to know?
Mr.Latona. No, sir.
Mr.Dulles. It depends on temperature, on the amount of moisture involved?
What does it depend on?
Mr.Latona. First of all, I saw him touch it, but I am not even sure he left a print there.
RepresentativeBoggs. Well, I can see it.
Mr.Latona. As to the quality of the print, there again it is simply a matter of what material you have in your hands that made that print, as to how long it will last, how long it will take for it to evaporate.
Actually, when it dries out, it may, in itself, leave a print with such clarity that it would not—even though it would not accept the powder, still by highlighting it, the way you did to see that the print was there, we could photograph it so it would come out just as clear as though it were black on white.
RepresentativeBoggs. Does the material that one touches have any effect?
Mr.Latona. Very definitely. It depends on how hard or smooth the material is.
RepresentativeBoggs. Now, does a weapon lend itself to retaining fingerprints?
Mr.Latona. This particular weapon here, first of all, in my opinion, the metal is very poorly finished. It is absorbent. Believe it or not, there is a certain amount of absorption into this metal itself. It is not finished in the sense that it is highly polished.
RepresentativeBoggs. So this would be conducive to getting a good print, or would it?
Mr.Latona. It would not.
RepresentativeBoggs. I see—because it would absorb the moisture.
Mr.Latona. That's right. Now, there are other guns—for example, Smith and Wesson, which have exceptionally nice finishes, the blue metal finishes are better surfaces for latent prints. Where you have a nickel-plated or silver-plated revolvers, where it is smooth—they are much more conducive to latent prints than some of these other things, say like the army type, the weapons used in wartime that are dull, to avoid reflection—things of that type—they are not as good.
Mr.Dulles. I wonder if you would like to look at the fingerprints we have gone over. They are quite apparent there with the glass.
RepresentativeBoggs. I would like to look at them. That is all I want to ask right at the moment.
Mr.Dulles. I would like to ask a general question.
Mr.Latona(addressing Representative Boggs). This is one of the fingerprints developed on the brown wrapper. It is this print here.
Mr.Dulles. You can see these prints quite clearly, and the palmprint.
RepresentativeBoggs. This is a photograph of that?
Mr.Latona. This is approximately a time and a half enlargement. This is the left index finger. Here is the palmprint that was developed.
RepresentativeFord. Mr. Boggs—each of us here, Mr. Dulles, Mr. Murray, and myself, have said on the record that we have seen the prints on the wrapping.We did this because, as Mr. Latona has indicated, such prints may disappear over a period of time. We thought it might be well for the record to indicate that we saw them. If you wish to do thesame——
RepresentativeBoggs. I would like to do the same, having just seen it.
Mr.Dulles. The witness has certified to the fact that these are true photographs of the prints that we have seen.
RepresentativeBoggs. And the witness has also certified that those are Oswald's prints?
Mr.Latona. No; I cannot certify to that.
Mr.Eisenberg. Do you want to explain that?
Mr.Latona. As I am not the one that fingerprinted Oswald, I cannot tell from my own personal knowledge that those are actually the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr.Eisenberg. But you can certify that those prints are identical with the prints on the card which bears the name of Lee Harvey Oswald which was furnished to you?
Mr.Latona. That is right.
Mr.Eisenberg. We will get other evidence in the record at a subsequent time to show those were the prints of Oswald. Mr. Latona, you were saying that you had worked over that rifle by applying a gray powder to it. Did you develop any fingerprints?
Mr.Latona. I was not successful in developing any prints at all on the weapon. I also had one of the firearms examiners dismantle the weapon and I processed the complete weapon, all parts, everything else. And no latent prints of value were developed.
Mr.Eisenberg. Does that include the clip?
Mr.Latona. That included the clip, that included the bolt, it included the underside of the barrel which is covered by the stock.
Mr.Eisenberg. Were cartridge cases furnished to you at that time?
Mr.Latona. They were, which I processed, and from which I got no prints.
Mr.Eisenberg. Therefore, the net result of your work on Exhibit 139 was that you could not produce an identifiable print?
Mr.Latona. That's correct.
Mr.Dulles. May I ask one question? Does the Secret Service do fingerprinting work, or do they turn it over to you—turn to you for all of that?
Mr.Latona. I think they do some of their own, and on occasion we will do some for them, too. Primarily I think they do their own. I am not too familiar with the Secret Service as to how elaborate their laboratory is.
Mr.Eisenberg. So as of November 23, you had not found an identifiable print on Exhibit 139?
Mr.Latona. That is right.
Mr.Eisenberg. I now hand you a small white card marked with certain initials and with a date, "11-22-63." There is a cellophane wrapping, cellophane tape across this card with what appears to be a fingerprint underneath it, and the handwriting underneath that tape is "off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip C 2766," which I might remark parenthetically is the serial number of Exhibit 139. I ask you whether you are familiar with this item which I hand you, this card?
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?
RepresentativeFord. 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 thepowder——
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.
RepresentativeFord. Is that a recognized technique?
Mr.Latona. Yes; it is.
RepresentativeFord. 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 mayobliterate——
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. Theulnar——
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?
RepresentativeFord. 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 youidentified——
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?
RepresentativeFord. 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?
RepresentativeFord. 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, CommissionExhibit——
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.
RepresentativeFord. 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 theink 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.
RepresentativeBoggs. 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.
RepresentativeBoggs. Can they be distorted, destroyed?
Mr.Latona. They can be destroyed in the sensethat——
RepresentativeBoggs. 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.
RepresentativeBoggs. That is what I was thinking about.
Mr.Latona. That can be done, too.
RepresentativeBoggs. 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 backexactly the same as it was before. If you get down to the dermal papilla, which lay likethis——
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.
RepresentativeBoggs. 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 particulartime——
RepresentativeBoggs. 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.
RepresentativeBoggs. 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.
RepresentativeBoggs. 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.
RepresentativeBoggs. How many do you have on file?
Mr.Latona. We have the fingerprints of 77½ million people?
RepresentativeBoggs. 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.)
RepresentativeFord. 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.
RepresentativeBoggs. 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.
RepresentativeBoggs. Six altogether?
Mr.Latona. Six.
RepresentativeBoggs. That includes these?
Mr.Latona. That is right.
RepresentativeBoggs. 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 dididentify——
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.
RepresentativeBoggs. 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 onethat——
RepresentativeBoggs. 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.
RepresentativeBoggs. Was this weapon picked up first by the police?
Mr.Eisenberg. Yes, sir.
RepresentativeBoggs(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.
RepresentativeBoggs. 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.
RepresentativeBoggs. 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.
RepresentativeBoggs. Of course not. But do you have that problem in your normal examination?
Mr.Latona. Well, a lot of times that all depends. Sometimes they don't realize the significance of a latent examination, and it is unavoidable that an object has been contaminated. And then a lot of times it is simply because of the circumstances. Sometimes possibly in an instance of this kind because of the crime itself which was involved, I dare say there must have been a lot of panic there at that time. That is just pure conjecture on my part. I don't know whether they were thinking in details as to the examination. I don't think they sat down and just figured very calmly what they were going to do.
RepresentativeBoggs. Of course not.
Mr.Latona. I imagine everybody just poured into that room where they found the thing, somebody would say, "Was this the gun?" and he handed it to someone else and then he would look at it. Lord knows what went on down there.
By the time the gun got there—on the other hand, if the right officer was there he would have protected it from the beginning and that is unquestionably what happened here.
Mr.Dulles. I have to make a telephone call. I will be right back.
Mr.Eisenberg. I believe that the print showing in the lift was taken from an area which had been covered by the wooden stock so that it was protected evenagainst——
Mr.Latona. Promiscuous handling, yes. If that were on the underside, if that was covered by the wood then very obviously those people there never did touch that.
Mr.Eisenberg. At any rate, we are going to find out exactly what they did.
RepresentativeBoggs. Yes. Go ahead.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, just to elaborate on some questions which Mr. Boggs was asking earlier, Mr. Latona, referring specifically to this weapon, do you believe that a determination could have been made as to the age of the print found on the weapon which you have identified as being Oswald's print, and a lift of which is Exhibit No. 637?
Mr.Latona. No; I don't.
Mr.Eisenberg. You don't?
Mr.Latona. No; I don't.
Mr.Eisenberg. Are experts unanimous in this opinion?
Mr.Latona. No; they are not. There are some experts who contend that they can determine from the way the print develops, and they will use the term "fresh."
Now, on the other hand, so far as the definition of "fresh," then it resolves itself into an hour, a day, a week, a month. What is "fresh" as aside from an "old" one? And my opinion simply is this. That on the basis of the print itself, on the basis of the print itself I cannot determine how old it is.
Mr.Eisenberg. At least specifically on this type, or in particular focusing on this type of weapon?
Mr.Latona. Particularly on that weapon.
Mr.Eisenberg. That is 139?
Mr.Latona. That is right.
Mr.Eisenberg. If there are no further questions on Exhibit 139, Commissioner Boggs, I will move on to another exhibit.
Mr. Latona, I hand you now a small cardboard carton which has writtenon it "Box A" in red pencil and has various other marks which I won't go into, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this box, this carton?
Mr.Latona. Yes; I am.
Mr.Eisenberg. And did you examine this carton, Mr. Latona, to determine whether there were any identifiable latent fingerprints present?
Mr.Latona. I did not personally process this box, but I was present at the time that the box was, and I had occasion to examine that during the course of its being processed while it was being done.
Mr.Eisenberg. It was processed in your presence?
Mr.Latona. In my presence and under my direction.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, I would like this admitted as a Commission exhibit with your permission.
RepresentativeBoggs. It will be admitted.
Mr.Eisenberg. That will be 641.
(The box referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 641, and received in evidence.)
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, when you received this box which is now 641, did it bear any evidence that it had been dusted or otherwise tested for fingerprints?
Mr.Latona. No; it had not, just a plain cardboard box.
Mr.Eisenberg. So far as you could tell then it had not been?
Mr.Latona. That is right; it had not been processed.
Mr.Eisenberg. How was it processed in the FBI laboratory?
Mr.Latona. First by the iodine fume and subsequently by chemical means.
Mr.Eisenberg. Did the iodine fume develop any identifiable prints?
Mr.Latona. It did not.
Mr.Eisenberg. Did the chemical means?
Mr.Latona. The silver nitrate did develop a latent fingerprint.
Mr.Eisenberg. Just one?
Mr.Latona. A latent fingerprint; yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. Just one identifiable print?
Mr.Latona. One identifiable print; yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. Do you want to check your notes on that, Mr. Latona?
Mr.Latona. There was another print identified on that. There were two prints, one palmprint. There was developed on Box A, Exhibit No. 641, one palmprint and one fingerprint.
Mr.Eisenberg. Were those the only identifiable prints, Mr. Latona?
Mr.Latona. No; there were other fingerprints developed on this box.
Mr.Eisenberg. Do you recall how many there were?
Mr.Latona. On Box A, in addition to these two prints there were developed eight fingerprints and three palmprints.
Mr.Eisenberg. That is, a total of 13?
Mr.Latona. Nine fingerprints and four palmprints.
Mr.Eisenberg. Thirteen identifiable prints?
Mr.Latona. That is right.
Mr.Dulles. Could I just get caught up. What is this box we have here?
Mr.Eisenberg. This is a box which was found near the window in the TSBD from which the assassin apparently fired, that is, the easternmost window or the south face of the TSBD. Yesterday, cartridge cases—and the day before—cartridge cases were discussed which were also found near that window. This box is labeled on there, Ibelieve——
Mr.Latona. "A."
Mr.Eisenberg. Yes; and I think it also says "top box": yes; it says "top box."
Mr.Dulles. This is the "Rolling Reader?"
Mr.Eisenberg. That is right.
Mr.Dulles. The Rolling Reader has played quite a role in our testimony.
Mr.Eisenberg. Yes; now, this particular box is labeled "top box," and I believe this particular box was on the top of the three boxes, two of which were Rolling Reader boxes, which were found near the window and which may have been used as a rest by the assassin for his rifle.
Mr.Dulles. As I recall, previous testimony indicates that the Rolling Reader box had been moved from its normalplace——
Mr.Eisenberg. Apparently so.
Mr.Dulles. With the other Rolling Reader boxes, and put in a position near the window from which it was alleged the shot was fired.
Mr.Eisenberg. Apparently so, and, apart from the two boxes—the two Rolling Reader boxes which were found near the sixth floor window—the regular storage area for the Rolling Reader boxes was a distance away from the sixth floor window.
Mr.Dulles. Yes; I recall that testimony.
Mr.Eisenberg. So you found 13 identifiable prints, Mr. Latona. Were you able to identify any of these prints as belonging to a specific individual?
Mr.Latona. We were able to identify one fingerprint and one palmprint.
Mr.Eisenberg. And whose prints were they?
Mr.Latona. The fingerprint was identified as Harvey Lee Oswald.
Mr.Eisenberg. That is Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr.Latona. That is right.
Mr.Eisenberg. And the palm?
Mr.Latona. The palmprint was identified also as Harvey Lee Oswald.
Mr.Eisenberg. Again Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr.Latona. That is right.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, again you used, did you, the known print which was marked into evidence earlier?
Mr.Latona. Yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. And you used those in all your identifications, I believe?
Mr.Latona. That is right.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, can you tell us what portion of the palm of Lee Harvey Oswald is reproduced on this box, this carton 641, as a latent print?
Mr.Latona. I have here a photograph of the palmprint which has an area indicated by a rough red circle showing the approximate area, which is the ulnar area of the left palm.
Mr.Eisenberg. That is the area closest to the little finger?
Mr.Latona. On that side; yes, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. This is a true photograph which was prepared by you or under your supervision?
Mr.Latona. A true reproduction of the original, which you already have.
Mr.Eisenberg. May I have this admitted as 642, Mr. Chairman?
Mr.Dulles. May I ask a question. Apparently the red mark on this exhibit on the palm is in a different place, isn't it, a slightly different place?
Mr.Latona. It is a different palm. This is the left palm.
Mr.Eisenberg(addressing Mr. Dulles). This is the left palm. The other two are right palms.
Mr.Dulles. Good, that straightens me out.
Mr.Eisenberg. Actually they were both on the ulnar side of the palm?
Mr.Latona. That is correct.
Mr.Eisenberg. And they were both taken on what is commonly called the heel of the palm?
Mr.Dulles. This is a different hand. This is the left hand, and what we have had so far is the right hand on the palmprints.
Mr.Eisenberg. Yes, sir.
Mr.Latona. Previously we had two palmprints on the right hand. This third one is from the left.
Mr.Eisenberg. May this photograph be admitted as 642, Mr. Chairman?
Mr.Dulles. This will be admitted.
(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 642, and received in evidence.)
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, do you have another photograph in your hand there?
Mr.Latona. Here I have another photograph, a slight enlargement time and a half, which is a latent palmprint found on the cardboard box marked "A," which is the Commission's Exhibit 641. This is indicated by a red arrow.
Mr.Eisenberg. Let's hold that just a second and get the photograph admitted.
RepresentativeBoggs(addressing Mr. Eisenberg). Where did these boxes come from?
Mr.Eisenberg. These boxes were located in front of the window from which the assassin apparently fired. There were three boxes stacked immediately in front of the window, of which this Exhibit No. 641 was the topmost box, and these were apparently used as a rest by the assassin for positioning his rifle.
As you can see, there are several other boxes in the room which will be introduced shortly.
Mr.Dulles. I may say that there was testimony, I don't recall whether you were here at the time, about some boxes called Rolling Reader, Hale. Do you recall the testimony on the Rolling Reader?
RepresentativeBoggs. No.
Mr.Dulles. These boxes were moved from a place on the sixth floor room where a great many Rolling Reader boxes were placed, and they were put near the window, and a Rolling Reader—apparently these are cubes, and they are for small children and they roll them out on the floor and they learn how to read the letters of the alphabet and other things from these Rolling Readers.
These boxes, because of their nature—do you know what the blocks are made of?
Mr.Eisenberg. No; I don't.
Mr.Dulles. They weren't solid wood but they were light cubes and therefore presumably these boxes were moved because they were a good deal lighter and easier to handle than other boxes. Is that consistent with the testimony as you recall it?
Mr.Eisenberg. Yes.
RepresentativeBoggs. Were they full when you got them?
Mr.Eisenberg. You will have to ask Mr. Latona.
Mr.Latona. They were empty. They had been opened and the books removed or the contents, whatever it was.
Mr.Dulles. The contents were apparently these cubes, as we were told, and small children use them and roll them on the floor and then they got the A's and the B's and the C's.
RepresentativeBoggs. In the opening process, this would not have any effect on the fingerprints or the palmprints?
Mr.Latona. It could. I mean in the sense that somebody else's prints, the people opening them if they didn't take the time and effort to protect themselves, they could have left their prints there. I don't know how that was done.
Mr.Dulles. Do you recall whether the testimony shows whether the boxes were presumably filled when they were originally moved from their normal place in the Book Depository to the window?
Mr.Eisenberg. I think they were, although I haven't read the testimony.
Mr.Dulles. I am not sure there is testimony on that point but I think that is the general assumption.
Mr.Eisenberg. Based on reproduction photographs we haveseen——
Mr.Latona. That is the understanding that we have, that this was the depository for new material. I think there was new material in these boxes. They were simply stored there.
RepresentativeBoggs. They wouldn't have acted as a very good rest had they been empty.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr.Eisenberg. Back on the record.
Mr. Chairman, may I have this photograph of the latent palmprint admitted as 643?
Mr.Dulles. It shall be admitted.
(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 643, and received in evidence.)
Mr.Eisenberg. Can you show us where on the box, the box 641, this latent palmprint appears?
Mr.Latona. The latent palmprint appears on box A, Commission's Exhibit 641. It has been indicated by a red arrow.
Mr.Eisenberg. Can you mark that arrow with an "A"?
Mr.Latona. The red arrow is being marked "A."
Mr.Eisenberg. That points to the palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald—identified by you as being Lee Harvey Oswald's, is that right?
Mr.Latona. That is right.
Mr.Eisenberg. Let the record show that Mr. Dulles and Mr. Boggs and Mr. Murray are looking at the actual print marked "A," or marked with an arrow next to which is written the letter "A."
Mr.Murray. I see what appears to be a print; yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Dulles and Mr. Boggs?
Mr.Dulles. I also see what appears to be a print.
RepresentativeBoggs. I see the same thing.
Mr.Dulles. And it is too big in my opinion to be a fingerprint.
Mr.Eisenberg(addressing Mr. Latona). Did you prepare a photograph also of the fingerprint which appears on thisbox——
Mr.Latona. Yes; I did.
Mr.Eisenberg. 641, Mr. Latona?
Mr.Latona. Yes; I did.
Mr.Eisenberg. And is this a true photograph of that fingerprint?
Mr.Latona. It is.
Mr.Eisenberg. May I have this admitted, Mr. Chairman, as 644?
Mr.Dulles. This is a fingerprint now?
Mr.Eisenberg. Yes; which also appears on the box that Mr. Latona just testified as to, 641.
Mr.Dulles. Has he identified what fingerprint?
Mr.Eisenberg. Did you testify that this was thefingerprint——
Mr.Latona. No.
Mr.Eisenberg. Did you identify this fingerprint as belonging to a given individual?
Mr.Latona. Yes; I did.
Mr.Eisenberg. And that individual was?
Mr.Latona. Lee Harvey Oswald, and it is the right index fingerprint.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr.Chairman——
Mr.Dulles. The right index finger.
Mr.Eisenberg. That will be 644.
Mr.Dulles. Admitted.
(The fingerprint referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 644, and received in evidence.)
Mr.Eisenberg. You also have a photograph of a 10-finger card showing that print encircled?
Mr.Latona. I do.
Mr.Eisenberg. It is a red circle, and you are handing that to me now?
Mr.Latona. Yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. May I have that admitted, Mr. Chairman, as 645?
Mr.Dulles. It may be admitted.
(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 645, and received in evidence.)
Mr.Eisenberg. What portion of the finger of Lee Harvey Oswald does that print represent?
Mr.Latona. It represents what is referred to as the distal phalanx of the right index finger.
Mr.Eisenberg. That is the phalanx or the tip furthest away from the wrist?
Mr.Latona. The palm.
Mr.Eisenberg. Or from the palm?
Mr.Latona. That is right.
Mr.Eisenberg. Is that a full or partial print of the distal phalanx?
Mr.Latona. That is a partial print.
Mr.Eisenberg. And does it take on the center, or the ulnar or the radial portion of the phalanx?
Mr.Latona. No, that takes actually the central portion of the print.
Mr.Eisenberg. The central portion?
Mr.Latona. The so-called pattern area is disclosed by the latent print.
Mr.Dulles. Off the record.