Mr. Latona. The dissimilarities as such are caused by the type of material on which the print was left, because of the pressure, because of the amount of material which is on the finger when it left the print. They would not always be exactly the same. Here again there appears a material difference in the sense there is a difference in coloration. This is because of the fact that the contrast in the latent print is not as sharp as it is in the inked impression, which is a definite black on white, whereas here we have more or less a brown on a lighter brown.
Mr. Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Latona, when you find an apparent dissimilarity between an inked and a latent print, how do you know that it is caused by absorption of the surface upon which the latent print is placed, or by failure of the finger to exude material, rather than by the fact that you have a different fingerprint?
Mr. Latona. That is simply by sheer experience.
Mr. Eisenberg. Would you say, therefore, that the identification of a fingerprint is a task which calls for an expert interpretation, as opposed to a simple point-by-point laying-out which a layman could do?
Mr. Latona. Very definitely so; yes.
Mr. Eisenberg. How much training does it take before you can make an identification?
Mr. Latona. Well, I cannot tell you exactly how much in terms of time, insofar as what constitutes an expert. I can simply tell you what we require of our people before they would be considered experts.
Mr. Eisenberg. Yes, could you do that?
Mr. Latona. We require our people before they would be——
Mr. Dulles. This is the FBI?