(Testimony of Sebastian F. Latona)
Mr. Latona.
Well, if you could give me your indulgence, I could do it right here as fast as I did it on the board.
Representative Ford.
Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Representative Ford.
Back on the record.
Mr. Dulles.
These, I understand, are the particular distinguishing points, the points that you would look for to determine whether the latent print----
Mr. Latona.
Not so much the looking for the points, as to finding points having a relationship to each other. It is the relation that is the important thing, not the point itself. In other words, all of us would have to a certain extent these points.
Mr. Dulles.
They have to be in the same relation to each other.
Mr. Latona.
That is correct. For example, on the illustration I have here----
Mr. Eisenberg.
This is an illustration on the blackboard.
Mr. Latona.
The mere fact that this is an ending ridge and bifurcation and another ending ridge and a dot in themselves mean nothing. This is a type of pattern which is referred to as a loop, which is very common. These comprise approximately 65 percent of pattern types. It has four ridge counts, for example. You can find hundreds of thousands and millions of four-count loops. But you would not find but one loop having an arrangement of these characteristics in the relation that they have. For example, the enclosure is related to this ending ridge. This ending ridge is related by one ridge removed from the dot. This bifurcation is next to the so-called core which is formed by a red, the ending ridge.
The points themselves are common. The most common type of points are the ending ridge and the bifurcation. Those are the two points we have covered so far.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Mr. Latona, I see that you have marked nine characteristics on your chart. Are these all the characteristics which you were able to find----
Mr. Latona.
On this particular chart; yes. They were the only ones that bore actually, there is still one more characteristic--there could have been 10.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Now, is there any minimum number of points that has to be found in order to make an identification, in your opinion?
Mr. Latona.
No; in my opinion, there are no number of points which are a requirement. Now, there is a general belief among lots of fingerprint people that a certain number of points are required. It is my opinion that this is an erroneous assumption that they have taken, because of the fact that here in the United States a person that qualifies in court as an expert has the right merely to voice an opinion as to whether two prints were made by the same finger or not made. There are no requirements, there is no standard by which a person can say that a certain number of points are required--primarily because of the fact that there is such a wide variance in the experience of men who qualify as fingerprint experts.
Mr. Eisenberg.
Mr. Latona, you said that not all experts are in agreement on this subject. Is there any substantial body of expert opinion that holds to a minimum number of points, let's say, 12?
Mr. Latona.
In the United States, to my knowledge, I know of no group or body that subscribe to a particular number. Now, quite frequently some of these departments will maintain a standard for themselves, by virtue of the fact that they will say, "Before we will make an identification, we must find a minimum of 12 points of similarity."
I am quite certain that the reason for that is simply to avoid the possibility of making an erroneous identification. Now, why they have picked 12--I believe that that 12-point business originated because of a certain article which was written by a French fingerprint examiner by the name of Edmond Locard back in 1917, I think--there was a publication to the effect that in his opinion where there were 12 points of similarity, there was no chance of making an erroneous identification. If there were less than 12, he voiced the conclusion that the chances would increase as to finding duplicate prints.
Now, today we in the FBI do not subscribe to that theory at all. We simply say this: We have confidence in our experts to the extent that regardless of the number of points, if the expert who has been assigned to the case for purposes
|
