Mr. MANDELLA. It is the reverse side of Commission Exhibit 656.
However, after going over this and looking at it again I found several
more. Of course in this case it is still more than 18. But 18 that can
be readily seen and recognized. And then Commission exhibit finally----
Mr. EISENBERG. 655?
Mr. MANDELLA. 655.
Mr. EISENBERG. Box D.
Mr. MANDELLA. Photo No. 13, the right palmprint of Oswald, and there is
eight points of identity on that one.
Mr. DULLES. Thank you.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Mandella, do you have any opinion concerning the
ability to determine the freshness of a fingerprint?
Mr. MANDELLA. It is very difficult to tell. However, you can determine
if it was left within say a few days, but certainly you can't pinpoint
it. You can't say it was there so many hours or so many days. How many
days I don't know, but in the developing of fingerprints we will say
on an ashtray on this Commission desk here, if we just touch it now,
as opposed to a fingerprint being left there several days ago, the
impression that we recently left, as we applied powder to it to bring
it about would naturally come out sooner because of the freshness of
the oils on our fingers.
The others would come out, if we kept processing or powdering it with a
brush. They would later come out too. So this is the only indication to
me then, that the first ones that appear then were recently left. And
in this you can't even say this definitely either. It is very difficult
because at certain times it could be a little more oil on someone's
fingers and this could last longer and appear to be fresher. So it is
very difficult to tell positively.
Mr. EISENBERG. What you are describing is freshness, relative
freshness, between one print and another, rather than absolute
freshness of any given print?
Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; that is true.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now I give you Commission Exhibit No. 139, which is a
rifle, and ask you whether you think if you developed a print on a
steel portion of the rifle you could testify as to whether this was a
fresh or a stale print?
Mr. MANDELLA. No; I couldn't tell. I couldn't tell especially on steel
or on wood here whether it is fresh or not. By itself of course too,
with nothing around it, you couldn't tell. It is impossible, as a
matter of fact.
Mr. EISENBERG. I hand you Commission Exhibit No. 649, which consists
of a piece torn off of a cardboard type of box, and appearing on that
is a powder impression under a tape, of which you have seen actually a
photograph, Mr. Mandella.
Mr. MANDELLA. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. If you had developed that impression, do you think you
would testify as to relative freshness?
Mr. MANDELLA. In this case, with this cardboard, in my own
experience--I assume the medium used here is powder----
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; I believe so.
Mr. MANDELLA. To develop it. If it comes out this fresh, I would have
to assume that it was left there recently. But how recently I can't
pinpoint that.
Mr. EISENBERG. Within 3 days?
Mr. MANDELLA. Oh, definitely I would say within 3 days.
Mr. EISENBERG. Within 2 days?
Mr. MANDELLA. Yes; I would say within about a day, a day and a half,
because the cardboard is very porous and it would normally draw the
oils, the perspiration, and it would disappear.
However, we do have an impression here with powder. That means that it
was quite fresh, in my own opinion anyway.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Mandella, I can see that you have taken notes,
numerous notes on the fingerprints, including those you didn't
identify. I wonder whether we could introduce those as a Commission
exhibit, rather than going through those one by one. Would you part
with those? We could supply you with a copy later.
Lieutenant MOONEY. I have the rough. It will only take us a couple
minutes to----
Mr. DULLES. We would be very glad to give you a photograph copy of it.
Mr. MANDELLA. That is all I need. That is fine. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. You are handing me two pages, and these contain your
original notes concerning the fingerprints?
Mr. MANDELLA. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. These contain your notes not only as to the fingerprints
you identified, but those which you did not identify against a known
print which you were given?
Mr. MANDELLA. That is right. There were quite a few fingerprints that
didn't belong to Oswald. However, they belonged to one another.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is to say, you found two prints which were
identical to each other?
Mr. MANDELLA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Two latents which were identical to each other?
Mr. MANDELLA. That is right, but to whom they belong I have no idea.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have these notes admitted as
Commission Exhibit No. 662?
Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted as Exhibit 662.
(Commission Exhibit No. 662 was marked for identification, and received
in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Mandella, is there anything you would like to add to
your testimony here?
Mr. MANDELLA. Nothing other than what I already mentioned.
Mr. EISENBERG. I have no further questions.
Mr. DULLES. We thank you then Mr. Mandella, very much. I didn't catch
your name.
Lieutenant MOONEY. Lieutenant Mooney. Glad to have been of service.
Mr. DULLES. Would you please express to the Commissioner on behalf
of the Chief Justice and the Commission our grateful thanks to you
for the work that you have done, and it is greatly appreciated, and
also express on my own personal behalf--I know the Commissioner--my
appreciation for the cooperation he has given to the Commission.
Lieutenant MOONEY. Thank you, sir. We are glad to have been of service.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I say that these two gentlemen both
interrupted their vacation to come here, and they have been working
practically night and day in order to meet with our time demands for
testimony.
Mr. DULLES. We deeply appreciate that.
Mr. MANDELLA. Glad to have helped in any way.
Mr. DULLES. The Commission will stand adjourned until tomorrow morning
at 9 o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the President's Commission adjourned.)
_Friday, April 3, 1964_