The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will be in order.
Mr. Latona, the purpose of today's hearing is to take your testimony
and that of Arthur Mandella. Mr. Mandella is a fingerprint expert from
the New York City Police Department. We are asking both of you to give
technical information to the Commission.
Will you raise your right hand and be sworn?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. LATONA. I do.
The CHAIRMAN. You may be seated. Mr. Eisenberg will conduct the
examination.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, could you state your full name and give us
your position?
Mr. LATONA. My full name is Sebastian Francis Latona. I am the
supervisor of the latent fingerprint section of the identification
division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Mr. EISENBERG. What is your education, Mr. Latona?
Mr. LATONA. I attended Columbia University School of Law, where I
received degrees of LL.B., LL.M., M.P.L.
Mr. EISENBERG. And could you briefly outline your qualifications as a
fingerprint expert?
Mr. LATONA. Well, I have been with the Federal Bureau of Investigation
for a little more than 32 years. I started in the identification
division as a student fingerprint classifier, and since that time I
have worked myself up into where I am now supervisor of the latent
fingerprint section.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you approximate the number of fingerprint
examinations you have made?
Mr. LATONA. Frankly, no. There have been so many in that time that I
would not be able to give even a good guess.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would the figure run in the thousands or hundreds?
Mr. LATONA. So far as comparisons are concerned, in the millions.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you testified in court?
Mr. LATONA. I have testified in Federal courts, State courts,
commissioners' hearings, military courts, and at deportation
proceedings.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chief Justice, I ask that this witness be accepted
as an expert.
The CHAIRMAN. The witness is qualified.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, could you briefly outline for us the theory
of fingerprint identification?
Mr. LATONA. The principle of fingerprint identification is based on
the fact primarily that the ridge formations that appear on the hands
and on the soles of the feet actually are created approximately 2 to 3
months before birth, on the unborn child, and they remain constant in
the same position in which they are formed until the person is dead and
the body is consumed by decomposition.
Secondly, the fact that no two people, or no two fingers of the same
person, have the same arrangement of these ridge formations, either on
the fingers, the palms, or the soles and toes of the feet. Plus the
fact that during the lifetime of a person this ridge formation does not
change, it remains constant--from the time it is formed until actual
destruction, either caused by voluntary or involuntary means, or upon
the death of the body and decomposition.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, do you have any personal experience
indicating the uniqueness of fingerprints?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I do. My experience is based primarily upon the work
which I have actually done in connection with my work with the FBI. I
have had the experience of working on one case in particular in which
millions of comparisons were actually and literally made with a small
portion of a fingerprint which was left on a piece of evidence in
connection with this particular case, which was a kidnapping case.
This fragmentary latent print which we developed consisted of
approximately seven to eight points. Most fingerprints will have in
them an average roughly of from 85 to about 125.
This fragmentary latent print was compared with literally millions
of single impressions for the purpose of trying to effect an
identification. And we were unable, over a lengthy period while we were
making these millions of comparisons, not able to identify these few
fragmentary points.
The important thing is simply this; that on the basis of that
fragmentary print, it was not possible to determine even the type of
pattern that the impression was. Accordingly, we had to compare it with
all types of fingerprint patterns, of which there are really four basic
types--the arch, tented arch, loop, and whorl. And we are still making
comparisons in that case, and we have not been able to identify these
few points.
Now, that means simply this--that the theory that we are going on an
assumption that people do not have the same fingerprints--and we find
it not necessary to compare, say for example, a loop pattern with a
whorl pattern, and as there is a possibility that, it is contended by
some of these so-called authorities, that maybe the points that you
find in a loop may be found in the same arrangement in a whorl--is not
true. I think that that case, a practical case we have actually worked
on, disproves that theory so strongly in my mind that I am convinced
that no two people can possibly have the same fingerprints.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is, you had a print with seven points, and these
same seven points appeared in none of the millions----
Mr. LATONA. Of the millions that we actually compared over a
period--well, since 1937. You may recall the case. It was the Matson
kidnapping case out in Tacoma, Wash. That is one of only three major
kidnapping cases the FBI has not yet solved.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are palmprints as unique as fingerprints?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; palmprints are. They are not as useful for purposes of
setting up a file in order to conduct searches, for the simple reason
that there are not as many variations of patterns occurring with any
frequency in the palms as occur on the tips of the fingers. That is
primarily why the fingertips are used--because you have 10 digits, and
there is a possibility of finding variations of the four basic pattern
types which can be additionally subdivided by utilizing certain focal
points which occur in those particular patterns, which enable us to
actually subdivide our files into millions of groups. Accordingly, when
you make a search in the fingerprint file, it can be reduced actually
to a matter of minutes, whereas to attempt to set up a palmprint file
to the extent of the size of the fingerprint file we have in the FBI
would be a practical impossibility, much less a waste of time.
The CHAIRMAN. Approximately how many fingerprints do you have these
days?
Mr. LATONA. At the present time, we have the fingerprints of more than
77 million people, and they are subdivided in this fashion: we have two
main files; we have the criminal files and we have what are referred to
as civil files.
As the names imply, in the criminal files are the fingerprints of
criminals, people who have had a prior criminal record or whose
fingerprints have been received in connection with an investigation
or interrogation for the commission of a crime. In that file we have
approximately 15 million sets of fingerprint cards, representing
approximately 15 million people.
In our civil files, in which are filed the fingerprints of the
various types of applicants, service personnel and the like, we have
fingerprints of approximately 62-1/2 million people.
Mr. EISENBERG. Returning to palmprints, then, as I understand
your testimony, they are not as good as fingerprints for purposes
of classification, but they are equally good for purposes of
identification?
Mr. LATONA. For purposes of identification, I feel that the
identifications effected are just as absolute as are those of
fingerprints.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are experts unanimous in this opinion, Mr. Latona?
Mr. LATONA. As far as I know, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, I hand to you an object which I will
describe for the record as being apparently a brown, homemade-type of
paper bag, and which I will also describe for the record as having been
found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building
near the window, the easternmost window, on the south face of that
floor.