I wonder whether you could put that up on this easel here so that we can all see it, and explain to us some of the points which led you to your conclusion.

Mr. Latona.

Here again the approach insofar as making a comparison is concerned is exactly the same. That never changes. In making a comparison of fingerprints or palmprints, the mechanics are exactly the same.
First to look for what might be considered as points which are easy to see to the fingerprint man.

Representative Ford.

May I ask first was the lift a good print for technical purposes?

Mr. Latona.

Yes; to the extent that the identification was made. There is no question as to the identity.
Now, insofar as quality is concerned, I believe that is what you have in mind, we don't, in fingerprint circles, don't say that this is a good latent as compared to a bad latent. If it is valuable for purposes of identification, so far as we are concerned it is good.
Now, that may not appear to the inexperienced eye possibly as being as clear as some of those others which you have already seen, but for the purpose of identification the points are here. That is the main thing.
Now, in making the comparison here it is easy to see the inked print. There is very little question here. This print was made on purpose for purposes of recording the ridges. This was made more or less incidental or possibly accidental.

Mr. Dulles.

How does the left one differ? I thought you told us before it was 10 times.

Mr. Latona.

No; those were the others.

Mr. Dulles.

That was the fingerprint that was 10 times?

Mr. Latona.

That is right.

Mr. Dulles.

And the palm has always been eight times?

Mr. Latona.

That is right, because of the fact to make it 10 times it would have been enlarged to the extent that maybe you wouldn't be able to see the significance as to what it purports to be.
If you enlarge a fingerprint too much, it loses its identity. I have seen them where they were enlarged so big that you couldn't tell what they were, and if somebody would tell you it is a fingerprint you would say, if you say so it is, but it doesn't look like it to me.
Now, in some other sciences, for example, like handwriting and things of that kind, you can enlarge them pretty good size, typewriting and things of that type, but a fingerprint because of the poorness in contrast plus the fact that in themselves these black marks have no particular significance, they might lose their identity, you won't reconcile a palmprint with a palmprint.
So, actually for purposes of making comparisons we never make a comparison from an enlargement. The best way to make a comparison, the more complete, is to make it from the actual size, utilizing a regular fingerprint glass which enlarges approximately four diameters.
We would never think of enlarging the prints for purposes of making our initial comparison. We make them on the basis of the actual size, just like you see it here, utilizing a fingerprint, which gives you a better picture.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Fingerprint glass, you mean?

Mr. Latona.

Fingerprint glass, because you get a much better view of the impression than you do where it is enlarged because in enlarging you have a tendency to distort the dissimilarities, to exaggerate what may be considered as dissimilarities.
Now, looking at these marks here again, which are very apparent here in the

« Previous | Next »

Found a Typo?

Click here

Last Update: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 21:56:36 CET