Representative BOGGS. 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.
Representative BOGGS. 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.
Representative BOGGS. 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.
Representative BOGGS. How many do you have on file?
Mr. LATONA. We have the fingerprints of 77-1/2 million people?
Representative BOGGS. 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.)
Representative FORD. 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.
Representative BOGGS. 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.
Representative BOGGS. Six altogether?
Mr. LATONA. Six.
Representative BOGGS. That includes these?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Representative BOGGS. 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 did identify----
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.
Representative BOGGS. 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 one that----
Representative BOGGS. 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.
Representative BOGGS. Was this weapon picked up first by the police?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir.
Representative BOGGS (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.
Representative BOGGS. 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.
Representative BOGGS. 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.
Representative BOGGS. 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.
Representative BOGGS. 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 even against----
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.
Representative BOGGS. 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 written
on 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.
Representative BOGGS. 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, I believe----