INVESTIGATION OF
THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
HEARINGS
Before the President's Commission
on the Assassination
of President Kennedy
Pursuant To Executive Order 11130, an Executive order creating a Commission to ascertain, evaluate, and report upon the facts relating to the assassination of the late President John F. Kennedy and the subsequent violent death of the man charged with the assassination and S.J. Res. 137, 88th Congress, a concurrent resolution conferring upon the Commission the power to administer oaths and affirmations, examine witnesses, receive evidence, and issue subpenas
Volume
IV
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1964
For sale in complete sets by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C., 20402
PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
ON THE
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY
Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman
- Senator Richard B. Russell
- Senator John Sherman Cooper
- Representative Hale Boggs
- Representative Gerald R. Ford
- Mr. Allen W. Dulles
- Mr. John J. McCloy
- J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel
- Assistant Counsel
- Francis W. H. Adams
- Joseph A. Ball
- David W. Belin
- William T. Coleman, Jr.
- Melvin Aron Eisenberg
- Burt W. Griffin
- Leon D. Hubert, Jr.
- Albert E. Jenner, Jr.
- Wesley J. Liebeler
- Norman Redlich
- W. David Slawson
- Arlen Specter
- Samuel A. Stern
- Howard P. WillensA
- Staff Members
- Phillip Barson
- Edward A. Conroy
- John Hart Ely
- Alfred Goldberg
- Murray J. Laulicht
- Arthur Marmor
- Richard M. Mosk
- John J. O'Brien
- Stuart Pollak
- Alfredda Scobey
- Charles N. Shaffer, Jr.
Biographical information on the Commissioners and the staff can be found in the Commission's Report.
A Mr. Willens also acted as liaison between the Commission and the Department of Justice.
Preface
The testimony of the following witnesses is contained in volume IV: Sebastian F. Latona, a fingerprint expert with the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Arthur Mandella, a fingerprint expert with the New York City Police Department; Paul Morgan Stombaugh, a hair and fiber expert with the Federal Bureau of Investigation; James C. Cadigan, a questioned document examiner with the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Drs. Robert Roeder Shaw and Charles Francis Gregory, who attended Governor Connally at Parkland Hospital; Governor and Mrs. John Bowden Connally, Jr.; Jesse Edward Curry, chief, Dallas Police Department; Capt. J. W. Fritz and Lts. T. L. Baker and J. C. Day of the Dallas Police Department, who participated in the investigation of the assassination; Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, a photography expert with the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Robert Inman Bouck, special agent in charge of the Protective Research Section of the Secret Service; Robert Carswell, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury; Winston G. Lawson, a Secret Service agent who worked on advance preparations for the President's trip to Dallas; Alwyn Cole, a questioned document examiner with the Treasury Department; and John W. Fain, John Lester Quigley, and James Patrick Hosty, Jr., agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who interviewed Oswald, or people connected with him, at various times during the period between Oswald's return from Russia in 1962 and the assassination.
Contents
Page Preface v Testimony of-- Sebastian F. Latona 1 Arthur Mandella, accompanied by Joseph A. Mooney 48 Paul Morgan Stombaugh 56 James C. Cadigan 89 Robert Roeder Shaw 101 Charles Francis Gregory 117 Gov. John Bowden Connally, Jr 129 Mrs. John Bowden Connally, Jr 146 Jesse Edward CurryCOMMISSION EXHIBITS INTRODUCED
Exhibit No.: Page 142 15 364 93 626 3 627 6 628 6 629 6 630 7 631 7 632 7 633 8 633-A 8 634 10 634-A 12 635 16 636 17 637 23 638 25 639 25 640 25 641 31 642 32 643 33 644 34 645Hearings 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
The Chairman. Approximately how many fingerprints do you have these days?
Mr. Latona. At the present time, we have the fingerprints of more than 77 million people, and they are subdivided in this fashion: we have two main files; we have the criminal files and we have what are referred to as civil files.
As the names imply, in the criminal files are the fingerprints of criminals, people who have had a prior criminal record or whose fingerprints have been received in connection with an investigation or interrogation for the commission of a crime. In that file we have approximately 15 million sets of fingerprint cards, representing approximately 15 million people.
In our civil files, in which are filed the fingerprints of the various types of applicants, service personnel and the like, we have fingerprints of approximately 62½ million people.
Mr. Eisenberg. Returning to palmprints, then, as I understand your testimony, they are not as good as fingerprints for purposes of classification, but they are equally good for purposes of identification?
Mr. Latona. For purposes of identification, I feel that the identifications effected are just as absolute as are those of fingerprints.
Mr. Eisenberg. Are experts unanimous in this opinion, Mr. Latona?
Mr. Latona. As far as I know, yes.
Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Latona, I hand to you an object which I will describe for the record as being apparently a brown, homemade-type of paper bag, and which I will also describe for the record as having been found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building near the window, the easternmost window, on the south face of that floor.
I ask you whether you are familiar with this paper bag?
Mr. Latona. Yes, I am. This is a piece of brown wrapping paper that we have referred to as a brown paper bag, which was referred to me for purposes of processing for latent prints.
Mr. Eisenberg. And you examined that for latent prints?
Mr. Latona. Yes; I did.
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted into evidence as Commission Exhibit 626?
The Chairman. It may be admitted.
(The item referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 626 and received in evidence.)
Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, do your notes show when you received this paper bag?
Mr. Latona. I received this paper bag on the morning of November 23, 1963.
Mr. Eisenberg. And when did you conduct your examination?
Mr. Latona. I conducted my examination on that same day.
Mr. Eisenberg. When you had received it, could you tell whether any previous examination had been conducted on it?
Mr. Latona. When I received this exhibit, 626, the brown wrapper, it had been treated with black dusting powder, black fingerprint powder. There was nothing visible in the way of any latent prints on there at that particular time.
Mr. Eisenberg. Were you informed whether any fingerprints had been developed by means of the fingerprint powder?
Mr. Latona. No; I determined that by simply examining the wrapper at that particular time.
Mr. Eisenberg. Could you briefly describe the powder process?
Mr. Latona. The powdering process is merely the utilizing of a fingerprint powder which is applied to any particular surface for purposes of developing any latent prints which may be on such a surface.
Now, we use powder in the FBI only on objects which have a hard, smooth, nonabsorbent finish, such as glass, tile, various types of highly polished metals, and the like.
In the FBI we do not use powder on paper, cardboard, unfinished wood, or various types of cloth. The reason is that the materials are absorbent. Accordingly, when any finger which has on it perspiration or sweat comes in contact with an absorbent material, the print starts to become absorbed into the surface. Accordingly, when an effort is made to develop latent prints by the use of a powder, if the surface is dry, the powder will not adhere.
On the other hand, where the surface is a hard and smooth object, with a nonabsorbent material, the perspiration or sweat which may have some oil in it at that time may remain there as moisture. Accordingly, when the dry powder is brushed across it, the moisture in the print will retain the powder giving an outline of the impression itself.
These powders come in various colors. We utilize a black and a gray. The black powder is used on objects which are white or light to give a resulting contrast of a black print on a white background. We use the gray powder on objects which are black or dark in order to give you a resulting contrast of a white print on a dark or black background.
Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Latona, how did you proceed to conduct your examination for fingerprints on this object?
Mr. Latona. Well, an effort was made to remove as much of the powder as possible. And then this was subjected to what is known as the iodine-fuming method, which simply means flowing iodine fumes, which are developed by what is known as an iodine-fuming gun—it is a very simple affair, in which there are a couple of tubes attached to each other, having in one of them iodine crystals. And by simply blowing through one end, you get iodine fumes.
The iodine fumes are brought in as close contact to the surface as possible. And if there are any prints which contain certain fatty material or protein material, the iodine fumes simply discolor it to a sort of brownish color. And of course such prints as are developed are photographed for record purposes.
That was done in this case here, but no latent prints were developed.
The next step then was to try an additional method, by chemicals. This was subsequently processed by a 3-percent solution of silver nitrate. The processing with silver nitrate resulted in developing two latent prints. One is what we call a latent palmprint, and the other is what we call a latent fingerprint.
Mr. Eisenberg. Can you briefly explain the action of the silver nitrate?
Mr. Latona. Silver nitrate solution in itself is colorless, and it reacts with the sodium chloride, which is ordinary salt which is found in the perspiration or sweat which is exuded by the sweat pores.
This material covers the fingers. When it touches a surface such as an absorbent material, like paper, it leaves an outline on the paper.
When this salt material, which is left by the fingers on the paper, is immersed in the silver nitrate solution, there is a combining, an immediate combining of—the elements themselves will break down, and they
That is all it is.
Mr. Eisenberg. Do you frequently find that the silver nitrate develops a print in a paper object which the iodine fuming cannot develop?
Mr. Latona. Yes; I would say that is true, considerably so. We have more success with silver nitrate than we do with the iodine fumes.
The reason we use both is because of the fact that this material which is exuded by the fingers may fall into one of two main types—protein material and salt material. The iodine fumes will develop protein material. Silver nitrate will develop the salt material.
The reason we use both is because we do not know what was in the subject's fingers or hands or feet. Accordingly, to insure complete coverage, we use both methods. And we use them in that sequence. The iodine first, then the silver nitrate. The iodine is used first because the iodine simply causes a temporary physical change. It will discolor, and then the fumes, upon being left in the open air, will disappear, and then the color will dissolve. Silver nitrate, on the other hand, causes a chemical change and it will permanently affect the change. So if we were to use the silver nitrate process first, then we could not use the iodine fumes. On occasion we have developed fingerprints and palmprints with iodine fumes which failed to develop with the silver nitrate and vice versa.
Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Latona, looking at that bag I see that almost all of it is an extremely dark brown color, except that there are patches of a lighter brown, a manila-paper brown. Could you explain why there are these two colors on the bag?