قراءة كتاب Warren Commission (4 of 26): Hearings Vol. IV (of 15)
تنويه: تعرض هنا نبذة من اول ١٠ صفحات فقط من الكتاب الالكتروني، لقراءة الكتاب كاملا اضغط على الزر “اشتر الآن"
Warren Commission (4 of 26): Hearings Vol. IV (of 15)
Hearings Before the President's Commission
on the
Assassination of President Kennedy
Thursday, April 2, 1964
TESTIMONY OF SEBASTIAN F. LATONA AND ARTHUR MANDELLA
The President's Commission met at 9 a.m. on April 2, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.
Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Representative Hale Boggs, Representative Gerald R. Ford, and Mr. Allen W. Dulles, members.
Also present were Melvin Aron Eisenberg, assistant counsel; Norman Redlich, assistant counsel; Samuel A. Stern, assistant counsel; and Charles Murray and Charles Rhyne, observers.
TESTIMONY OF SEBASTIAN F. LATONA
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