Mr. DULLES. Thank you.
Mr. LATONA. Now, looking further we find this point that has been
indicated as No. 3. And No. 3 is located----
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?