Mr. LATONA. Down near the base of the palm toward the wrist.
Mr. EISENBERG. This is the right palm?
Mr. LATONA. The right palm.
Mr. EISENBERG. As it was in the case of the paper bag, Exhibit 142?
Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you display that photograph, please? This is a
photograph which you took of the inked print which was furnished to you
by the Dallas office?
Mr. LATONA. I didn't personally prepare the photographs. They were
prepared at my personal direction.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was it prepared under your supervision?
Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it an accurate reproduction?
Mr. LATONA. It is.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 638?
Representative FORD. It shall be admitted.
(The photograph referred to was marked as Commission Exhibit No. 638,
and received in evidence.)
Mr. LATONA. I might point out that you have the original of this which
has been previously admitted.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; but this photograph shows a red circle around the
portion which you identified----
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. As being the latent found on the lift, is that right?
(Discussion off the record.)
(The reporter read the last question.)
Mr. LATONA. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, now you are showing me another photograph
which appears to be a photograph of the lift itself, Exhibit 637, but
an enlargement thereof?
Mr. LATONA. Slightly enlarged; yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was this prepared by you or under your supervision?
Mr. LATONA. It was.
Mr. EISENBERG. And there is a red circle around this, on this
photograph, that is around the print, the latent print?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this photograph admitted as 639?
Representative FORD. It shall be admitted.
(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 639, and
received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, did you also prepare a chart showing an
enlarged portion of the inked and latent palmprint?
Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Illustrating some of the points which you used in making
your identification?
Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was this chart prepared by you or under your supervision?
Mr. LATONA. This was prepared under my direct supervision.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 640?
Representative FORD. It shall be admitted.
(The chart referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 640, and
received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. What is the enlargement of this chart?
Mr. LATONA. Approximately an eight-time enlargement of the latent print
which appears on the lift, Commission Exhibit----
Mr. EISENBERG. 637?
Mr. LATONA. 637. And the inked right palmprint enlargement is
approximately eight times an enlargement of the Exhibit 638.
Mr. EISENBERG. The inked print?
Mr. LATONA. Which is encircled in red, a portion of that area.
Mr. EISENBERG. I wonder whether you could put that up on this easel
here so that we can all see it, and explain to us some of the points
which led you to your conclusion.
Mr. LATONA. Here again the approach insofar as making a comparison
is concerned is exactly the same. That never changes. In making a
comparison of fingerprints or palmprints, the mechanics are exactly the
same.
First to look for what might be considered as points which are easy to
see to the fingerprint man.
Representative FORD. May I ask first was the lift a good print for
technical purposes?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; to the extent that the identification was made. There
is no question as to the identity.
Now, insofar as quality is concerned, I believe that is what you have
in mind, we don't, in fingerprint circles, don't say that this is a
good latent as compared to a bad latent. If it is valuable for purposes
of identification, so far as we are concerned it is good.
Now, that may not appear to the inexperienced eye possibly as being as
clear as some of those others which you have already seen, but for the
purpose of identification the points are here. That is the main thing.
Now, in making the comparison here it is easy to see the inked print.
There is very little question here. This print was made on purpose for
purposes of recording the ridges. This was made more or less incidental
or possibly accidental.
Mr. DULLES. How does the left one differ? I thought you told us before
it was 10 times.
Mr. LATONA. No; those were the others.
Mr. DULLES. That was the fingerprint that was 10 times?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. DULLES. And the palm has always been eight times?
Mr. LATONA. That is right, because of the fact to make it 10 times it
would have been enlarged to the extent that maybe you wouldn't be able
to see the significance as to what it purports to be.
If you enlarge a fingerprint too much, it loses its identity. I have
seen them where they were enlarged so big that you couldn't tell what
they were, and if somebody would tell you it is a fingerprint you would
say, if you say so it is, but it doesn't look like it to me.
Now, in some other sciences, for example, like handwriting and things
of that kind, you can enlarge them pretty good size, typewriting and
things of that type, but a fingerprint because of the poorness in
contrast plus the fact that in themselves these black marks have no
particular significance, they might lose their identity, you won't
reconcile a palmprint with a palmprint.
So, actually for purposes of making comparisons we never make a
comparison from an enlargement. The best way to make a comparison, the
more complete, is to make it from the actual size, utilizing a regular
fingerprint glass which enlarges approximately four diameters.
We would never think of enlarging the prints for purposes of making our
initial comparison. We make them on the basis of the actual size, just
like you see it here, utilizing a fingerprint, which gives you a better
picture.
Mr. EISENBERG. Fingerprint glass, you mean?
Mr. LATONA. Fingerprint glass, because you get a much better view of
the impression than you do where it is enlarged because in enlarging
you have a tendency to distort the dissimilarities, to exaggerate what
may be considered as dissimilarities.
Now, looking at these marks here again, which are very apparent here in
the ink print, this No. 1 which is a black line which flows over to
the right, then one ridge directly below it and off to the left is this
point No. 2. Then by counting down 1, 2, 3, 4 we come to this portion,
a short-ending ridge, which is similar to this short-ending ridge in
the illustration drawn on the board, is No. 3.
Now, here again the fingerprintman simply mentally says to himself, "If
these palmprints were made by the same palm I should be able to find
three such points in approximately the same area of this palmprint as
was found here."
The manner of isolating the area is by virtue of the fact that you see
this looping formation, the looping formation is right in here, rather
vague but it is there.
Looking in that approximate area, you notice faintly this black line
that comes over to this area and stops at the point there. Now, is this
point No. 1 the same as this point No. 1? If it is, then there should
be a point No. 2 in the latent print which is in the same relative
position as point No. 2 occurs in the ink print. By looking in such a
position by this one ridge removed and to the left, there is this point
No. 2.
Then looking down to point No. 3, we notice one, two, three, four,
there is this so-called short-ending ridge which to me shows up very
clearly here in the enlargement of the latent print.
Point No. 4 is this black line which is coming toward point No. 3, and
right within the same area or line, there is point No. 4.
Point No. 5 is picked up in this position over here, which is another
one of these short-ending ridges. It is removed by one ridge or rather
to the left of point No. 6 as is seen here.
Then we pick up point No. 7, which is this point showing a cluster of
ridge formation here.
Point No. 8 is tied in. You can tie in point No. 8 to point No. 4,
point No. 5 to point No. 7, and that coincides with point No. 8 here.
In that way we pick up point No. 9, showing the relationship of one,
two, three and over here one, two, three, always the same formation,
the same general area, the same relationship to each other. In that way
we pick up point No. 10, point No. 11, and point No. 12, which have
exactly the same formation.
Here is point No. 10 coming this way, point No. 11 going that way,
these two ridges are in between. It checks perfectly. The same way with
point No. 12 which is just below point No. 11, and having the same
relationship to point No. 10, the same general areas, identically the
same type of characteristics, and exactly the same relationship to each
other.
On the basis of those points, the obvious conclusion to an experienced
fingerprintman is simply that the same palm made both of these prints.
Only one palm could have made it, and that palm is the one which is
alleged to be of Lee Harvey Oswald, his right palm.
Representative BOGGS. Is it true that every fingerprint of each
individual on earth is different?
Mr. LATONA. Yes, sir; that is my sincere belief. I say that not only on
earth but all those that have died before and all those to come. There
will never be duplication.
Mr. DULLES. The same is true of palmprints, isn't it?
Mr. LATONA. Absolutely; yes, sir; fingerprints and palmprints and
footprints.
Representative BOGGS. Can they be distorted, destroyed?