Mr. Eisenberg.

That is what I have marked "B." That is Commission Exhibit 659-B.

Mr. Mandella.

Then No. 2, 659--A is the palmprint.

Mr. Eisenberg.

That is marked "right palm"?

Mr. Mandella.

Right palm, and there is 18 points, 18 characteristics that are very outstanding and in this case possibly more too. Now in Commission's Exhibit 659-B----

Mr. Eisenberg.

That is marked "left index Oswald"?

Mr. Mandella.

It is the left index finger--Lee Harvey Oswald, there is 11 points of identity and possibly a few more. In Commission Exhibit 656 which is the No. 2 finger or the right index finger of Lee Harvey Oswald, there is 11 points, that is the whorl-type pattern.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Excuse me a second Mr. Mandella. That is No. 25 center impression, marked by you "center impression No. 2 finger--Oswald," is that correct?

Mr. Mandella.

Yes; that is correct. And there is 11 points of identity or characteristic.

Mr. Eisenberg.

On No. 34?

Mr. Mandella.

No. 34, the palmprint.

Mr. Eisenberg.

That is marked by you "Oswald left palm left side"?

Mr. Dulles.

Palmprint on the box is it?

Mr. Eisenberg.

Yes; box A.

Mr. Dulles.

Box A?

Mr. Mandella.

Yes; 18 points of identity I found on that particular exhibit.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Can you check your notes on that?

Mr. Mandella.

I can explain this. On the reverse side I have 13 to 16 points.

Mr. Eisenberg.

That is the reverse side of number----

Mr. Mandella.

It is the reverse side of Commission Exhibit 656. However, after going over this and looking at it again I found several more. Of course in this case it is still more than 18. But 18 that can be readily seen and recognized. And then Commission exhibit finally----

Mr. Eisenberg.

655?

Mr. Mandella.

655.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Box D.

Mr. Mandella.

Photo No. 13, the right palmprint of Oswald, and there is eight points of identity on that one.

Mr. Dulles.

Thank you.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Mr. Mandella, do you have any opinion concerning the ability to determine the freshness of a fingerprint?

Mr. Mandella.

It is very difficult to tell. However, you can determine if it was left within say a few days, but certainly you can't pinpoint it. You can't say it was there so many hours or so many days. How many days I don't know, but in the developing of fingerprints we will say on an ashtray on this Commission desk here, if we just touch it now, as opposed to a fingerprint being left there several days ago, the impression that we recently left, as we applied powder to it to bring it about would naturally come out sooner because of the freshness of the oils on our fingers.
The others would come out, if we kept processing or powdering it with a brush. They would later come out too. So this is the only indication to me then, that the first ones that appear then were recently left. And in this you can't even say this definitely either. It is very difficult because at certain times it could be a little more oil on someone's fingers and this could last longer and appear to be fresher. So it is very difficult to tell positively.

Mr. Eisenberg.

What you are describing is freshness, relative freshness, between one print and another, rather than absolute freshness of any given print?

Mr. Mandella.

Yes; that is true.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Now I give you Commission Exhibit No. 139, which is a rifle, and ask you whether you think if you developed a print on a steel portion of the rifle you could testify as to whether this was a fresh or a stale print?

Mr. Mandella.

No; I couldn't tell. I couldn't tell especially on steel or on wood here whether it is fresh or not. By itself of course too, with nothing around it, you couldn't tell. It is impossible, as a matter of fact.