Mr. COLE. It is common knowledge among document examiners. I don't
think it is common knowledge among others.
Mr. EISENBERG. Might a layman attempt to disguise his handwriting
simply by resorting to undisguised handprinting?
Mr. COLE. Yes; he might.
Mr. EISENBERG. What are the usual evidences of disguise, by the way,
Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. Well, in cursive handwriting the usual evidences of disguise
involve some unnaturalness, such as a reduction of writing speed, and
other distortions such as writing very large, with an exaggerated
freedom, where parts of letters of various words are run together; such
as an exaggerated length of lower extensions and upward extensions
which tends to intermingle forms and make it difficult to see the
details of them; or writing very small, in almost microscopic size
where, again, the width of a pen stroke itself tends to conceal
details of handwriting; alterations of slant, such as a person who
normally writes a forehand slant or slanting to the right, changing to
a vertical or a backhand slant. Most efforts at disguise are not well
planned. They usually involve a determination to alter the writing
along one particular line such as writing very large, very small, or a
change in the slant. Other features are the simplification of letter
forms. For example, a person attempting to conceal a writing habit may
feel that his writing habit is revealed mostly by capital letters so
you might have him using printed forms for capitals, but cursive forms
for most other letters.
Representative FORD. Can you tell the difference between a right-handed
and a left-handed person by either cursive or capital letters?
Mr. COLE. No, sir; not definitely. Left-handed writers tend to write
more vertically, and for that particular left-hand writer who holds
his hand above the writing line, this gives a reversal of the pressure
on what would ordinarily be regarded as upstrokes and downstrokes, and
when you see that reversal this is an indication of left-hand writing.
But it is only when you have that special circumstance that you get
that signal about it.
Representative FORD. Is there anything in any of the writings that
you have analyzed of Lee Harvey Oswald of an indication that he was
left-handed?
Mr. COLE. Well, I wouldn't say that I could make a determination of
whether he was left-handed or right-handed.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, in your expert work do you draw a distinction
between a spurious and a forged document?
Mr. COLE. Well, I think of the word "forgery" as having that legal
connotation of malice or intent. The production of a false writing with
an intention to deceive or defraud somebody else. Spurious writing
means a false writing.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is, a writing produced by one hand calculated to
look as if it had been produced by another?
Mr. COLE. Well, not necessarily, that situation that you just discussed
would involve simulation of the person's, another person's writing. But
the word "spurious" could refer to a false writing, the writing of the
name of one person by another who had no particular right to do it.
But, of course, if the element of an intent to defraud is not there, I
suppose in a legal sense it is not forgery.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, what are the elements which you look for to see
whether a person, A, has attempted to reproduce the handwriting of
another person, B, with intent to deceive or otherwise?
Mr. COLE. Two categories of differences. One, defects of line
quality, by which is meant tremor, waver, patching, retouching, and
noncontinuous lines, pen lifts in awkward and unusual places. And the
other class of differences is details of the forms of letters, by which
I mean that when the person attempting to simulate another writing
concentrates upon the reproduction of one detail, he is likely not to
see other details. He may, for example, be able to imitate the gross
form of a letter but he may get proportions wrong or letter connections
wrong.
Mr. EISENBERG. What is the probability that person A could imitate the
handwriting of person B without leaving a telltale trace in one of
these two categories?
Mr. COLE. I think it is only a very remote possibility. But I would add
to that the need for having a fairly extensive specimen of writing.
Of course the possibility of a successful simulation is better with
smaller specimens of writing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you find any evidence in either category that
a person had attempted to simulate the writing of the author of the
standards in this case in producing either 773 or any of the other
questioned documents which you examined?
Mr. COLE. No; I did not find such indications.
Mr. EISENBERG. And you feel, did you say, there would be only a remote
probability that in the absence of such indication such a simulation
could exist?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say remote, could you put this in terms of
figures?
Mr. COLE. I would say there is no reasonable possibility of it, and I
will put it this way: That from my study of these documents, there is
no particular element or elements of the handwriting that I can point
to and say this could be evidence of simulation.
Mr. EISENBERG. You mentioned before that you need to have a sufficient
amount of writing to make that type of determination. Do you feel that
the questioned documents provided a sufficient amount of writing for
that?
Mr. COLE. They do.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is that individually or collectively?
Mr. COLE. Individually.
Representative FORD. All of the illustrations on 784 A, B, and C are
taken from Commission exhibits----
Mr. EISENBERG. 774-783.
Representative FORD. Collectively?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Carrying that question forward, on what basis did you
select excerpts from 774 to 783 to reproduce 784 A, B, and C?
Mr. COLE. The chief effort was to collect together in a fairly small
space items that were appropriate for comparison through repetition of
the same material, and in doing that there was kept in mind the general
purpose of giving a good representative cross section of all of the
writing habit illustrated in the standard writings.
Mr. EISENBERG. Well, that anticipates my next question, which is,
whether this is a representative cross section or was selected in
order to reproduce those particular characteristics you find in the
questioned documents.
Mr. COLE. I think it is a representative cross section, and I say a
part of the effort was to bring here some letters and combinations for
convenience of comparison. It was in no way an effort to substitute
these charts for the originals.
Mr. EISENBERG. Your actual examination was made on the basis of the
originals or the charts, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. Yes; all of the--the chief examination was made upon the
basis of the originals and all parts of the originals, not limited to
the parts shown in the charts.
Mr. EISENBERG. These charts are only for demonstrative purposes, making
your testimony easier to follow, is that correct?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. You discussed briefly, Mr. Cole, or perhaps more than
briefly, the use of a photograph as a standard. Now, in the case
of 773, a photograph is used as a questioned document, or rather a
questioned document consists of a photograph. Are the comments you
made on the use of a photograph as a standard applicable to the use
of a photograph as a questioned document, that is, can you make a
determination on the handwriting in a photograph?
Mr. COLE. With these photographs I think a satisfactory determination
can be made. I would not necessarily include all photographs.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?
Mr. COLE. Because there is a widely varying quality in photographs.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say these photographs, do you include the other
photographs included among the questioned documents you have examined
at my request?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, I now hand you an item consisting of a U.S.
postal money order in the amount of $21.45, payable to Klein's Sporting
Goods, from "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas." For the record I
will state that this money order was included with the purchase order
in Exhibit 773 which has just been identified, and was intended and
used as payment for the weapon shipped in response to the purchase
order, 773. I ask you, Mr. Cole, whether you have examined this money
order for the purpose of determining whether it was prepared by the
author of the standards?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. It is my conclusion that the handwriting on this money order
is in the hand of the person who executed the standard writing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this money order admitted as
788?
Representative FORD. It may be admitted.
(The document was marked as Commission Exhibit No. 788, and was
received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you prepared a photograph of that Exhibit 788, the
money order?
Mr. COLE. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. And you have produced that photograph for me just now,
Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was this prepared by you or under your supervision?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it an accurate photograph of 788?
Mr. COLE. It is.
Mr. EISENBERG. May this be admitted as 789, Mr. Chairman?
Representative FORD. It may be admitted.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 789, and
received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, before you discuss your conclusion, the
handwriting on 788 seems to have a slight blur in some parts. Could you
explain that in any way?
Mr. COLE. Yes; it is my view that this document has been in contact
with moisture which affected the ink of the handwriting. Such contact
might have been through an effort to develop fingerprints.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was it or is it discolored at this point at all, do you
think?
Mr. COLE. There are only two small areas of discoloration on this
document, one of them being along the upper edge just above the figure
"9," and the other along the right edge just opposite the figure "5."
This indicates to me that at one time this document was more deeply
stained but has been cleared up by some chemical bleach.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was it in the same condition when you examined it as it
is now?
Mr. COLE. It was.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, would you explain by use of charts 784 A, B,
and C, and the photograph 789, why you conclude 788 was prepared by the
author of the standards in this case?
Mr. COLE. On the photograph, 789, I invite attention to the capital
"K" of "Klein's," which compares favorably in form to the "K's" of
exhibit--of chart A, items 13 and 14, with the exception of a larger
circle at the center of that "K" on the right side of 789, which is not
reproduced in the standards, but it is my belief that this writer might
well produce such a circular form when a letter is somewhat larger and
more freely made.
Mr. EISENBERG. On what do you base that belief, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. That that would be a normal result of greater freedom and a
larger writing, it would produce a circular form rather than an angle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is this based upon your experience with questioned
documents and making analyses?