Mr. EISENBERG. I don't think you need to point to them in detail, since
you have already pointed to those items.
Mr. COLE. Yes.
I also find a substantial agreement in details of the signature, "Lee
H. Oswald," as shown by the photograph 794, and signatures shown in the
standard writing, with particular regard to the signature of chart C,
item 6, next to the last line.
This constitutes my reasons for believing that the writing on
Commission Exhibit 793 is in the hand of the person who made the
standard writing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, there seems to be a double line in several of
these letters on the reverse side of this change-of-address card, such
as the "D" in "DALLAS," the "e" in "Texas" and so forth. Can you give
any explanation for that?
Mr. COLE. Well, I think the double line is more evident in the address
"4907 Magazine Street, New Orleans, La."
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?
Mr. COLE. And a possible reason is that the writer was dissatisfied
with the width of the line as shown on the two lines above. While I
regard it as having a fair legibility, the only explanation I can
see is that for this particular document the writer wanted a heavier
writing and, of course, one way to get it is to go over it again.
A thing of this kind can also be related to a writer's knowledge of the
functioning of a certain pen.
If he knows that the pen he is using usually gives a heavier line, and
for a particular writing he sees a thinner line, he may then make some
modification in his handling of the pen and get the kind of line he
wants.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is this similar to the retouching you mentioned earlier
as being an evidence of forgery?
Mr. COLE. I would say no, since it is done in such an apparently
spontaneous and confident manner. There is not the slightest evidence
that any effort was made to conceal the presence of this retracing.
I think I should say that generally the person producing a false or
spurious writing does retouching in order to correct some imperfection
of a letter, that is, he criticizes his work as he goes along and if he
encounters a part which he thinks is incorrect with respect to form, he
may then retouch it in order to correct it. It would be very unusual in
any false or spurious writing to see any extensive retracing.
Mr. EISENBERG. Any further questions on this card?
Representative FORD. No further questions.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, I now hand you an item which appears to be a
selective service system notice of classification with the name "Alek
James Hidell" printed and the same signature, and a photograph which
appears to be the photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald--and I state for the
record that this item was obtained from the wallet of Lee Harvey Oswald
following his apprehension after the assassination and the murder of
Officer Tippit--and I ask you whether you have examined that item?
Mr. COLE. I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. May that be admitted as 795, Mr. Chairman?
Representative FORD. It may be admitted.
(Commission Exhibit No. 795 was marked and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you first examine that item, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. May I refer to a note?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, certainly.
Mr. COLE. I first saw that item on December 6, 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make an examination at that time?
Mr. COLE. I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. At whose request was that?
Mr. COLE. At the request of the Chief, U.S. Secret Service.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion at that time?
Mr. COLE. It was my conclusion that that is not an original document
but that it is in fact a photographic reproduction of some original
document.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you draw any conclusions as to how the reproduction
might have been prepared?
Mr. COLE. Yes; it was my conclusion that a photograph was made of some
original document, and that the resulting film negative was retouched
for the purpose of blocking out certain parts, and by that I mean that
the person processing a negative in this way would take an opaque
compound and where you had clear areas of the negative, the negative,
of course, showing clear areas where there was black on the original,
that he would cover up this clear area of the negative so that in a
resulting print nothing would come through. This would be a way of
eliminating information which was actually on the original document.
Mr. EISENBERG. Such as the name of the person to whom the document had
been issued?
Mr. COLE. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Draft board and so forth?
Mr. COLE. Yes; then a print would be made of that retouched negative,
and this, I believe, is such a print.
Mr. EISENBERG. There is information on this item consisting of the name
"Alek James Hidell," a selective service number, and so forth. Could
you draw any conclusion as to how this information had been put into
the item if the card was prepared in this way?
Senator COOPER. What information, do you mean the name?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; the name "Alek James Hidell," the selective service
number, the date of mailing, the signature of the member or clerk
of local board, color of eyes, and so forth, all of the information
appearing in print or color on the card.
Mr. COLE. That information was typed directly onto the photographic
print which is Exhibit----
Mr. EISENBERG. That is 795?
Mr. COLE. 795.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does this item consist of one or two photographic
prints, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. There are two photographic prints, one for the front and one
for the back, and they are pasted together.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it on ordinary photographic paper?
Mr. COLE. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is there evidence that more than one typewriter had been
used in inserting the signature----
Mr. COLE. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Excuse me, the name, and some of the other information
which I have referred to?
Mr. COLE. Yes, at least two typewriters were used. This may be seen
clearly by the record of the selective service number, which includes a
fairly light typewriting and then a heavier typewriting.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you produced a photograph of Exhibit 795 or have
you taken a photograph rather?
Mr. COLE. Yes, I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you produce that?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Thank you. Was this photograph prepared by you or under
your supervision?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it a true and accurate reproduction of 795?
Mr. COLE. It is.
Mr. EISENBERG. May this be admitted as 796?
Representative FORD. It may be admitted.
(Commission Exhibit No. 796 was marked and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. This is the front of 795, is it, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you also taken a photograph of the rear, the
reverse side?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. This was prepared by you or under your supervision?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it a true and accurate photograph?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. May this be admitted as Exhibit 797?
Representative FORD. It may be admitted.
(Commission Exhibit No. 797 was marked and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have extra copies of that?
Mr. COLE. I am sorry; I do not.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you hold these photographs so that the Commission
can see them, and illustrate your point concerning the use of more than
one typewriter?
Mr. COLE. The selective service number shows typewriting which has a
fairly light deposit of ink from the ribbon. It also shows typewriting
with a somewhat heavier deposit. Now, there is a clear difference in
the design of the figure "4" which shows that two different typewriters
were used.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you think of any reason why that might have been
done, why two different typewriters were used?
Mr. COLE. Well, here again the typewriter shown by the typewriter
impression has a rather poor legibility and it is my theory that a
person producing typing of such limited legibility might well move the
job over to another typewriter having a more heavily inked ribbon.
I might say also that it is quite difficult to type on this glossy
photographic paper. The ink won't come down from the ribbon nearly as
well on such a surface as it does on ordinary bond paper.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you have also reproduced the back, the reverse
side, of 795 in your photograph 797. Is the typewriting on the back,
illustrated in 797, that contained in the light-impression typewriter
shown on the front, or the heavy-impression typewriter?
Mr. COLE. The lighter impression.
Mr. EISENBERG. You can tell that how, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. Well, it is illustrated, first of all, by the extremely small
deposit of ink, and second by the circumstance that we can see the same
design of figure "4" in a part of the address between this frame, which
is the design of the figure "4" of the lighter typewriting on the face
of the document.
Senator COOPER. Could I ask you, is it correct that the typewriter
which you say was used, which gave a light impression, the "4" is
closed at the apex?
Mr. COLE. That is correct.
Senator COOPER. And the heavier typewriter which was used which
produced the "4," the "4" is open at the apex?
Mr. COLE. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Carrying that question forward, the reverse side shows
the "4" closed at the apex, does it not?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. There seems to be some erasure under the name "Alek
James Hidell" which is typewritten in the front side, as well as a
faint letter or two. Did you draw any conclusions as to that material?
Mr. COLE. Well, in this area there is also in addition to typewriting
already mentioned, there is evidence of a rather sharp indentation of
typewritten material, which could result from the blow of a typewriter
key against this paper without the interposition of any ribbon at all.
Most typewriters have an adjustment called "stencil" whereby you can
prevent the ribbon from coming up in front of the type bar, and there
is a complete line of indentations along there which reads "Alek James
Hidell," and one very interesting feature is that just to the left of
the indented name "Alek" there is a capital letter "O."
I don't say at that particular point there was any completion of a name
following the letter "O" but we do have this clear indentation of the
letter "O."
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you prepared a photograph which brings out those
details a little more clearly than in the original, 795?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I have. This photograph was made by a very low
angle of illumination, a raking light across the document which shows
up the indentations.
Mr. EISENBERG. This was prepared by you and under your supervision?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. It is a true and accurate reproduction of 795?
Mr. COLE. It is.
Mr. EISENBERG. May this be admitted as 798?
Representative FORD. It may be admitted.
(Commission Exhibit 798 was marked and received in evidence.)
Senator COOPER. Could I ask a question? You referred to an indentation
representing the letter "O." Could you point that out and indicate the
exhibit upon which you identified the letter "O"?
Mr. COLE. Here. I point to an area approximately two typewriter spaces
on the left of the visible letter "A" of "Alek."
Senator COOPER. On Commission Exhibit 795?
Mr. COLE. Yes; correct.
Senator COOPER. Were you able to determine whether that indentation
representing "O" was made by a typewriter or does it represent a letter
which was still visible from the original card of selective service
classification?
Mr. COLE. That is a typewritten letter "O," sir. I think that nothing
is visible on that line from the original.
Mr. EISENBERG. Referring to your photograph, 798, there seems to
be--the word "James" seems to be printed more than once, as does the
name "Hidell," in stencil. Is that your observation, Mr. Cole, also?
Mr. COLE. Yes; that is true.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any other material that was printed in stencil,
on the stencil setting, of the typewriter?
Mr. COLE. Yes; there is a writing of the serial number which is also in
stencil form.
Mr. EISENBERG. Anything else? We are referring now just to the front of
the card.
Mr. COLE. Yes. The date of mailing also shows an indentation.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you think of any reason why the use of the
typewriter on stencil may have been done?
Mr. COLE. I can mention reasons that I have observed on other documents
which might apply to this one, and that would be an effort on the part
of the operator of the machine to find a correct place for beginning
typewriting, but I am obliged to say that on those other examples I
have never seen such extensive stenciled writing. I would say that a
single letter should give a person a pretty good idea of the position
for beginning writing, and it should not be necessary to write out this
material in full.
Now another theory for applying indentations to this type of material
might be, say, previous experience with trying to write on a glossy
surface, and knowing that you don't get enough ink from a ribbon on
such a surface and possibly an intention to apply a rather sharp
indentation and later fill that in with pigment. I am a little doubtful
if it would be successful but one might attempt to try it, because
various kinds of printing are made in that way, first by producing an
indent, and then working a pigment down into the indentation. I would
say on this particular document, I don't see there was any evidence
that the preparer of the document went through with any such plan.
Representative FORD. For the record, I do have to leave to attend the
House session, and Senator Cooper, will you preside as chairman?
Senator COOPER. Yes; I will be glad to do so.
(At this point Representative Ford departed the hearing room.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Referring to your photograph 798 again, the word "James"
in "Alek James Hidell" seems to have been printed twice, as you
stated before, and the second time it seems to have started--at least
twice--and the second time it seems to start after the first "James"
has stopped. Is that your observation?
Mr. COLE. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Referring back to your theories or the possible theories
you mentioned as explanations of the printing by stencil, would the
placement of the two "James" on the upper line indicate whether or not
either of those theories might be applicable?
Mr. COLE. Well, of course, the repetition of these names is somewhat
opposed to the theory that a person might prefer to ink it in later.
But, of course, it is possible that he could not see it very well, and
that he might think he could make a selection of either one or the
other for inking in.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does the word "James" appear to have been stenciled more
than twice?
Mr. GORE. Well, there is some overlapping or superimposition of
indentations in the first record of the indented name "James." It could
have been as many as three times in the stencil operation.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cole, have you produced a photograph of the
reverse side of the selective-service card----
Mr. COLE. I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is, 795?
Mr. COLE. I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. And was this taken by you or under your supervision?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And is it a true and accurate photograph of 795?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may this be admitted as 799?
Senator COOPER. It will be admitted.
(The document referred to, previously marked as Commission Exhibit 799,
was received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. This is an additional photograph of the reverse side of
795?
Mr. COLE. That is correct. The one last mentioned was also made with a
very low angle of illumination raking the light across the document.
Mr. EISENBERG. The "one last mentioned" being 797 or 798?
Mr. COLE. 799 was made with the low-angle illumination to bring out the
indentation.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is as opposed to 797, which is the reverse side of
the photograph introduced as 795?
Mr. COLE. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And that had a normal illumination?
Ir COLE. Yes., correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. By use of this 799 photograph, could you read to us what
was stenciled, insofar as possible?
Mr. COLE. Opposite "Color of Eyes" there is discernible the indented
typewritten letters "CT." This is just to the left of the visible
letters "GR." Then opposite the "Color of Hair" there is an indentation
of the word in capital letters "BROWN." Just above the visible "9" for
the inch figures of height, there is a second indented "9." Opposite
the word 'weight" there is a small letter "i" as an indentation.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is "i" the lower case of the figure in the typewriter
which produces "1" in upper case?
Mr. COLE. No; it is the lower case "l" which is used for the "1" on
most typewriters. In the frame above the wording "Local Board Stamp"
there is visible typewriting and indentations but I think this is
probably all one typewriting act, the ink coming down from the ribbon
only in a rather irregular fashion. Just outside the frame on the right
side there is an indentation of the abbreviation "ST."
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, did you have occasion to examine these cards
at a subsequent time--this card, I am sorry, the Selective Service
notice of classification, or spurious Selective Service classification,
795?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. At that time did you examine the negatives which I now
hand to you?
Mr. COLE. I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, these are a set of negatives which
were found at one of the premises inhabited by Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr.
Chairman, may I have them admitted as 800? I would like these negatives
which Mr. Cole examined and which were found in one of the residences
of Lee Harvey Oswald to be received as 800.
Senator COOPER. It is so ordered.
(The negatives referred to were marked as Commission Exhibit 800 and
received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you also examine this card which I now hand
you, which for the record is a Selective Service System notice of
classification in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald, found in the wallet of
Lee Harvey Oswald following his apprehension after the assassination
and the murder of Officer Tippit?
Mr. COLE. I did examine this card.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may this card, which is Oswald's actual
Selective Service System notice of classification, be admitted as 801?
Senator COOPER. So ordered.
(The document referred to was marked as Commission Exhibit 801, and was
received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Now what did your examination of the negatives and the
card show, in relation to your earlier examination, conducted simply of
the Exhibit 795?
Mr. COLE. May I say something off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator COOPER. Back on the record.
Would you please state on the record your reasons for making your prior
answer to the question of counsel?
Mr. COLE. I have some question whether this is actually the card which
I had previously examined, although I am sure I did examine a Selective
Service card, and it will take just a moment of close examination of
this one to determine that, and I would suggest that if there are any
other Selective Service cards available belonging to this group or
grouped with this card that I should see them at the same time.
Senator COOPER. Your statement is then that you just desired to
examine----
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER. This card and any other Selective Service card that may
be available?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER. I suggest that the Commission recess for a sufficient
time to permit the witness to examine the Selective Service card.
Mr. EISENBERG. Before that recess, let me introduce another card
relating to the Selective Service System, which is the registration
certificate of Lee Harvey Oswald. Did you examine--did you examine
this registration certificate, Mr. Cole? And perhaps you can now,
Mr. Reporter, note a recess while he examines both the registration
certificate and the Selective Service System notice of classification.
Senator COOPER. So ordered.
(Short recess.)
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I did examine this registration certificate.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the Selective Service System notice of
classification?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I did. I did examine the notice of classification.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is 801. May I have the registration certificate
admitted as 802?
Senator COOPER. Let it be admitted.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit 802, and was
received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. This was also found in the wallet of Oswald following
his apprehension. Now, on the basis of your examination of these cards
and the negatives, did you find yourself reinforced in your earlier
conclusion, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. I did. This confirmed my earlier conclusion which was formed
at a time I had only the photographic prints. Exhibit----
Mr. EISENBERG. No. 795, together with photographs thereof, is that what
you are referring to now?
Mr. COLE. That is correct; yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you discuss the negatives, Exhibit 800, that you
referred to in your examination?
Mr. COLE. Yes; there are two negatives which are of Selective Service
System notice of classification. Both of these negatives show extensive
retouching, sometimes called opaquing, for the purpose of preventing
certain material which appeared on an original from printing on a
photographic print. The two negatives are apparently related to
a single original. One of them has a somewhat greater amount of
retouching than the other. It is my view that the second negative,
that is, the one showing the smallest amount of retouching, was
probably made from a photographic print of the first one. In other
words, the retouching operation has involved two steps which resulted
in the production of two separate negatives. A possible reason for
the second step was that on the negative showing the most extensive
retouching there is still some material remaining from the original
document, namely the lower extensions of two letters "f" which pass
through certain wording at the right side of the document, reading
"local board," and another word reading "violation." Now on the second
negative of the pair a successful operation in touching out those
particular parts was accomplished.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you believe that the second negative was prepared
from the first, or they were prepared separately from the Selective
Service card itself?
Mr. COLE. I believe that the second negative was prepared from a
photographic print of the first one.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, for ease of discussion, I would like to
take out the "first negative" from Exhibit 800 and give it a separate
number, 803, if I may. Is that all right, Mr. Chairman?
Senator COOPER. Yes.
(The negative referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 803, and
was received in evidence.)
Mr. COLE. The negative I hand you now is the one I referred to as the
first negative, and the one having the most extensive retouching or
opaquing.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is the one with the portion of the signature
appearing over the word "violation"?
Mr. COLE. That is right. A portion which has not been retouched out of
the negative.
Mr. EISENBERG. And does that same portion appear in the original of
Oswald's card, 801?
Mr. COLE. It does.
Senator COOPER. Is that a part of the record?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir. Now, there is a good deal of red material
on the reverse side of this "first negative." That is the opaquing
material, is it?
Mr. COLE. Correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. I would like to make the "second negative" referred to
804, Mr. Chairman.
Senator COOPER. Very well. You want that made a part of the record?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER. Let it be made a part of the record.
(The negative referred to, marked Commission Exhibit 804, was received
in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. We are extracting that from 800 for ease of discussion.
Now, Mr. Cole, I call your attention to the fact that the words
appearing on the face of the original 801, the printed material
beginning "The law requires you, subject to heavy penalty for
violation, to carry this notice in addition to your Registration
Certificate," and going on for two full paragraphs of small or ordinary
Roman lower and upper case, and ending in solid caps "FOR ADVICE, SEE
YOUR GOVERNMENT APPEAL AGENT," this language in the original spreads
across the bottom of the card from left to right, starting slightly to
the right of the dotted line running up and down the card and marked
"registrant must sign here," and extending quite close to the right
margin.
Does it appear in the same fashion, approximately, on the "first
negative," which is Exhibit 803?
Mr. COLE. Yes; but, of course, this negative includes a section along
the left side which is not shown on the original.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which is actually a blank section, is that correct?
Mr. COLE. Correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is the negative slightly enlarged, apart from that blank
section?
Mr. COLE. I think it is the same size.
Mr. EISENBERG. I call your attention to the "second negative," which
is Exhibit 804, and this same language, "The law requires you," and so
forth, until "FOR ADVICE, SEE YOUR GOVERNMENT APPEAL AGENT" appears in
a much smaller compass, that is to say it starts substantially to the
right of the margin or the signature line and is separated from the
signature line by another dotted line.
Mr. COLE. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. And does that correspond to the forged card, 795?
Mr. COLE. It does.
Mr. EISENBERG. Has that created a space on the forged card which does
not exist on the original?
Mr. COLE. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. And is that the space into which the photograph has been
inserted on the forged card?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. I call your attention to a small strip of negative which
appears to bear this language, and I ask you whether you believe that
this negative might have been used in the preparation of the forged
card?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I believe this negative was used for producing the
forged card which is a photographic print.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may that be made 805?
Senator COOPER. Let 805 be made a part of the record.
(The negative referred to was marked and received in evidence as
Commission Exhibit No. 805.)
Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion, can you account for the reduction in
size of that printing, "The law requires you" and so forth?
Mr. COLE. Well, it would seem that it had to be reduced in size to
accomplish the obvious purpose on the card, Exhibit 795, of providing
extra space for a photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. How would that be done?
Mr. COLE. This can be done photographically. When a photographic camera
is set up to take a picture of a document you have a considerable range
for making either enlargements or reductions on the negative.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is this whole process one which requires a great deal
of skill, and when I say "whole process" I refer to the re-creation of
a new card by use of opaquing material and the reduction in size of a
portion of the text on the original card?
Mr. COLE. No; I wouldn't say that it requires a great skill. I would
say an elementary knowledge of photography, especially the photographic
techniques used in a printing plant, would be enough for such a purpose.
Senator COOPER. On that point, would it require study to learn to make,
to exercise these techniques, either from a textbook or information
from someone else or by observation of the practice?
Mr. COLE. I think observation and association with other people, or
being in a place where such techniques were going along in the normal
operation of a photographic laboratory or printing plant, would be
enough. A person wouldn't have to consult a text. As a matter of fact,
similar things are done for normal printing operations.
Senator COOPER. That is the question I wanted to ask. Would this type
of technique in an average shop or plant be normal?
Mr. COLE. Oh, yes.
Senator COOPER. Would it require much practice on the part of an
individual before such technique could be successfully accomplished?
Mr. COLE. No; I would say a moderate amount of practice.
Senator COOPER. How much, would you say? How many times would a person
have to, if it is possible to say, practice this kind of a technique
before he could do it reasonably well?
Mr. COLE. On a trial-and-error basis. I would say that a half dozen
attempts on a trial and error basis of going through such an operation,
perhaps making an error, finding how to correct it, doing it again,
achieving more success, would certainly be enough.
Senator COOPER. You would say then, assuming that Lee Oswald made these
changes, that he would have had to practice them several times before
he could have successfully made the changes which were indicated by the
exhibits that have been introduced?
Mr. COLE. Well, sir; I would say he would not necessarily have to
practice on this particular document, but if he had some practice, he
or any other person, had had some practice in normal operation, similar
operations in a printing plant, then he could accomplish this result.
Senator COOPER. Would these changes have required the assistance at the
time of another person----
Mr. COLE. I think not.
Senator COOPER. Or could they be accomplished by one person?
Mr. COLE. One person could easily do it.
Senator COOPER. Thank you.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now on these questions which Senator Cooper has been
asking, I ask you to refer back to Exhibit 800, consisting of a group
of other negatives not related to the selective-service card, and ask
you whether those negatives bear any evidence of opaquing and similar
techniques as were used in the creation of Exhibit 795?
Mr. COLE. They do. All of them show evidence of opaquing, that is,
touching out certain information, letting other information come
through.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you think this might have constituted sufficient
practice to produce the 795 result?
Mr. COLE. Yes; I think so.
Senator COOPER. Would it have been necessary for a person making these
changes to have had for his use any kind of special equipment, or what
kind of equipment would be required to make these changes?
Mr. COLE. Well, sir; in a printing plant there are usually what
they call light tables, a table with a transparent surface with a
light under it, which are used for making up, for assembling various
materials to be included in a single plate. But that wouldn't be
essential. A person could take a negative ready for retouching right to
the window there, place it against the window and touch out material in
that manner.
Senator COOPER. My question really goes to this point: Would it have
been necessary for a person who made these changes to have done the
work in a shop or printing plant or could it be done outside of a
printing shop?
Mr. COLE. It would not have to be done in a printing shop. It could be
done easily in this room or any ordinary living accommodations.
Senator COOPER. That is all.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you need, Mr. Cole, in your belief, the type of
equipment you are likely to find in a printing plant, or could this be
done with home equipment?
Mr. COLE. I would say it could be done with home equipment, but I think
it is unlikely with respect to the actual preparation of the negative
that one would get a successful result from home equipment. I believe
that for the preparation of the negative, that is, apart from the
retouching operation, that one would need a very accurate camera such
as are found in photographic laboratories and printing plants.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could the opaquing have been done off the printing
premises?
Mr. COLE. Yes; the opaquing could be done almost anywhere, in any
ordinary living accommodation, needing only a source of light to pass
through the negative, the liquid opaquing material, and a small brush.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, if you were going to prepare a forged
Selective Service System notice of classification, and if you did not
have access to blanks of the Selective Service System itself, how would
you go about preparing such a forgery?
Mr. COLE. I would use a method similar to that already described here
with one modification; namely, that in preparing the original negative,
I would make an enlargement directly on the negative, then go through
the opaquing operation, and in making the final print I would reduce it
back to original size. That would produce a somewhat better quality of
print, and it gives somewhat more freedom in the opaquing operation,
that is, in working with a larger negative there is not as much danger
of running the opaque into some material that you want to save, and we
see on these negatives there are a few places where the person doing
the opaquing has actually permitted this material to run into a part
that should be saved on the original.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you use the same type of photographic paper?
Mr. COLE. I would not. I would use a dull-surfaced paper which would
look more like an original document.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you said that the person who produced the
negatives let his opaque run into areas which he wanted to save, what
areas are you referring to, what type of areas?
Mr. COLE. Well, areas where there is needed a sharp outline of a box
which is to receive some printed information, and this, of course, is
a very thin line, and it is very difficult to control this liquid on
the negative. There are some places where it has run into the line and
apparently it was necessary to make some strengthening or correction of
that line later.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you see evidence of correction of the line?
Mr. COLE. Yes; on Commission Exhibit 795 the boxes for selective
service number apparently have been strengthened somewhat.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now referring to Commission Exhibit 801, which is the
actual card, do the numbers overlap or extend to the borders of the
margin at all?
Mr. COLE. There is one figure in particular which runs right along the
line of the box. This is the first box on the left, and the figures are
"41" and the "1" lies directly over the line on the right side of the
box.
Mr. EISENBERG. And does the "4" in "41" and the "3" in "39" overlap the
boxes?
Mr. COLE. They do.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would that practically necessitate a correction of the
boxes?
Mr. COLE. Yes; it would, in order to repair the line.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, I hand you an item entitled "Certificate of
Service Armed Forces of the United States," reading "This is to certify
that Alek James Hidell" and so forth, and "Period of Active Duty"--on
the reverse side now--"October 1, 1958" to a date which is blurred, and
I ask you whether you have examined this item?
Mr. COLE. I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may this be admitted as 806?
Senator COOPER. Let the exhibit be admitted.
(The document referred to was marked as Commission Exhibit No. 806, and
received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you first examine this item, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. That was also examined in December of 1963, December 6, 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG. Together with the selective service system notice of
classification?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And did you have any negatives at that time, or the
original?
Mr. COLE. I did not.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion at that time, based solely upon
the examination of 806?
Mr. COLE. It was my conclusion that 806 is actually a photographic
print from a photographic negative. It is not an original document.
Mr. EISENBERG. And on what did you base this conclusion?
Mr. COLE. My familiarity with the appearance of photographic paper
primarily.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you prepare photographs at that time, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you produce those? These photographs are of the
front and reverse, respectively, of Commission Exhibit 806?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And these were prepared by you or under your supervision?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. And they are accurate photographs of 806?
Mr. COLE. They are.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have these admitted as 807 and 808,
respectively.
Senator COOPER. The exhibits will be admitted to the record.
(The photographs referred to were marked as Commission Exhibits Nos.
807 and 808, respectively, and were received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. 807 will be the front and 808 will be the reverse. Mr.
Cole, could you attempt to decipher the typewriting on the reverse side
as shown in the photograph 808?
Mr. COLE. The typewriting reads "October 13 1958," and on the second
line there is some confusion of the typewriting, in other words,
there is more than one typing operation on the line reading "To." One
of these typing operations reads "October 12, 1961." One of the other
typing operations on the line for "To," as determined by a previous
examination under the microscope, shows an indent of "23 October 1959."
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you believe that was--yes, go ahead.
Mr. COLE. Also on the line reading "From" there is an indentation of
another typewriter operation which reads "24 October 1957."
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you believe those indentations were caused by a
typewriter set at stencil?
Mr. COLE. Yes; without the interposition of a ribbon between the type
bar and the paper.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take photographs with side light, as you had in
the case of the selective service card, to attempt to bring out these
stencil marks?
Mr. COLE. I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you produce those photographs? You are handing me
a photograph of the front side of the certificate of service, and is
this a photograph which you took?
Mr. COLE. It is.
Mr. EISENBERG. An accurate reproduction of the Exhibit 806?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 809, Mr. Chairman?
Senator COOPER. Let this exhibit be made a part of the record.
(The photograph referred to previously marked as Commission Exhibit No.
809, was received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. You have also given me a photograph of the reverse side
of 806?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. This was taken by you or under your supervision?
Mr. COLE. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And is it an accurate photograph of the reverse of 806?
Mr. COLE. It is.
Mr. EISENBERG. May the photograph of the reverse be admitted as Exhibit
810?
Senator COOPER. Exhibit 810 will be admitted as part of the record.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show us what you found in the way of
indentations caused by stencils, by referring to these Exhibits 809 and
810?
Mr. COLE. 809 shows the face of the exhibit and in addition to the
clearly visible typewriting of the name "Alek James Hidell," there is a
repetition of this name somewhat below the visible typewriting in the
form of typewritten indentations.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is this similar to the typewritten indentations found in
the selective service card, 795?
Mr. COLE. Yes; they are.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you believe that the name "Alek James Hidell" was
stenciled once or more than once?
Mr. COLE. More than once, at least twice, I would say.
Mr. EISENBERG. What is the relative position of the two stenciling
operations?
Mr. COLE. They were somewhat below, about one-half to three-quarters of
the height of a typewritten character below, the visible typewriting.
Mr. EISENBERG. What is the relationship to each other?
Mr. COLE. They are offset about one-quarter to one-half the height of a
typewritten character.
Mr. EISENBERG. From each other?
Mr. COLE. That is right, vertically.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it accurate to say then that there is a progression
upward as comparing the typewritten name and the two stenciled
operations, or at least that the three are set in step, so that each
one is below the next impression?
Mr. COLE. That is correct, with the visible typewriting having the
better position relative to the reproduction of the printed matter.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you think of the reason why this might have been,
why this operation might have been performed in this manner, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. Yes. It could easily result from some difficulty of finding
the correct place for typewriting the name on the card. The lowermost
indentation would have been an incorrect position since it was run
into a part of the reproduction of the printed matter.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I refer back to 798, which is a highlight
photograph of the selective service card, and ask you whether the
stenciled material in 798 appears above the line on which the
typewritten material--first name, middle name, and last name--should
appear?
Mr. COLE. Yes; somewhat above.
Mr. EISENBERG. In light of that, do you think it is possible that the
individual who prepared this card used the stencil to determine at what
point the typewriting would be placed so that it was in the correct
position in relationship to the line above which it belonged?
Mr. COLE. That is a definite possibility and, of course, he might also
have been concerned about the position for the reproduced printed
matter--"First name," "Middle name," "Last name."
Mr. EISENBERG. Bringing your attention back once more to 795, the
Selective Service System card, was the reverse side of that card
prepared in your opinion from Commission 802, which is the reverse side
of the registration certificate? I also call your attention to 801 for
comparision, that is, the original of the selective service card.
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir. The reverse of the photographic identification
card, Commission Exhibit 795, could be a photographic reproduction of
the reverse of Commission Exhibit 802, with the performance of certain
opaquing operations.
Mr. EISENBERG. Looking at the reverse side of the two cards, 802 and
801, does the reverse side of the card 801 have any information for
identifying characteristics of the individual bearing the card?
Mr. COLE. It does not.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what about the reverse side of 802?
Mr. COLE. The reverse side of 802 provides space for a personal
description, color of eyes, color of hair, complexion, height, and
weight.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find among the negatives in 800 a negative which
might have been used or was used to prepare the reverse side of the
selective service card, 795, the spurious card?
Mr. COLE. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this negative classified
separately as 811 for purpose of ready identification?
Senator COOPER. Let it be so classified, and admitted as part of the
record.
(The document referred to, was marked as Commission Exhibit No. 811 and
received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find a negative which might have been used for
the preparation of the certificate of service, that is 806?
Mr. COLE. Yes; I did, for both face and back.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were these negatives in your opinion used as the
negatives for that purpose?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir. In my opinion, these are the very negatives
that were used for producing the photographic print representing a
certificate of service.
Mr. EISENBERG. May these be subclassified as or separately classified
as 812, Mr. Chairman, and introduced as 812?
Senator COOPER. Let the document be designated as 812 and admitted as
part of the record.
(The item referred to, was marked as Commission Exhibit No. 812 and
received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you reach the same conclusion, by the way, as to
the negative 811, that is, that it was definitely the negative used to
produce the reverse side of 795?
Mr. COLE. I did. This is the very negative to produce the reverse side
of 795.
Mr. EISENBERG. Returning to 795, there are two signatures which appear
in 795 in ink, is that correct?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is, the signature over the caption "Member or clerk
of local board," and the signature over the caption "Registrant must
sign here"?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. The second signature reads "Alek J. Hidell"?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you read the first signature?
Mr. COLE. The first signature appears to be the name "Goodhoffer," but
that is partly an estimate. In other words, it is not possible to read
this in a clear manner. That is a possible spelling of the name but not
necessarily the only spelling.
(At this point, there was a short recess, and Mr. McCloy entered the
hearing room.)
Senator COOPER. I am now called to the Senate. Mr. John McCloy will act
as Chairman.
(At this point Senator Cooper departed the hearing room and there was a
further recess.)
Mr. EISENBERG. How does that compare with the signature on the original
card, Exhibit 801?
Mr. COLE. It is not the same name and, of course, not in the same
handwriting.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you compare the two signatures on Exhibit 795
with the standards in this case to determine whether the signatures
have been written by the person who produced the standards?
Mr. COLE. I did compare the signatures on 795 with the standard writing.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. With respect to the signature above "Member or clerk of local
board," I have not formed any conclusion about authorship. With regard
to the writing "Alek J. Hidell," it is my opinion that the author of
the standard writing is the author of that name.
Mr. EISENBERG. And referring to the charts of the standards which you
prepared, and referring to the photograph of 795, could you explain the
reasons for this conclusion?
Mr. COLE. Would you want any copy of this?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; if you have a copy.
Mr. COLE. The capital letter "A" of the name "Alek" on 795 is
reproduced in the standard writing on chart B, item 6, in the general
conformation of the several lower case "a's" in that area. I refer
to it as a capital "A" because it begins the name, but actually with
respect to size and formation it is closely similar to the lower case
"a's" of item 6. Now the similarity is largely in the method that the
staff is made, the way it pulls away from the oral body of the letter
with only a moderate rate of retracing along the right side. That
detail, as I say, is found both in the "A" on 795, and in the several
"a's" of item 6. There are three in a row there, each beginning a line
of writing.
The letter "k" of the name "Alek" compares favorably with the "k's"
of the standard writing, chart A, items 13 and 14. With regard to the
middle initial "J" there is not a cursive "J" that is, as distinguished
from a printed "J"--shown on the charts of standard writing. But the
movement required for producing a "J" is similar to that required for
producing the capital letter "I," and we observe a similarity as to
movement with respect to the "J" of 795 as compared with the "I" of
chart B, item 3.
One characteristic of the capital letter "H" of "Hidell" on 795 is the
method of making that formation which stands for the crossbar. Now
this is the closed part along the lower half of the right side of the
letter, which would represent the crossbar of the letter. This is the
general movement used in a number of the signatures of Lee H. Oswald.
One good example is that on chart B, item 15, the middle initial "H".
Another feature of that "H" is the connection to the following letter
by an approximately horizontal stroke passing from the finish of the
crossbar of the "H" across to the "i," and we observe a similar method
of connection, although not with the same letter, on chart A, items
10 and 11, where the "o" is connected by a straight line, almost
horizontal projection of the crossbar, from the "H" to the "o".
The letter "i" again shows a feature, which has previously been
mentioned in the standard writing, of an increase of forehand slant,
that is a slant to the right with respect to that letter as compared
to other letters. This feature is shown in a number of places in
the standard writing, one good example being on chart B, item 10,
the second "i"--which is there because of a misspelling of the word
"Washington" that is spelled, the last few letters, "tion"--and there
we observe that rather extreme increase of the forehand slant of the
letter "i".
The letter "d" of "Hidell" compares favorably with the "d's" of the
standard writing on chart A, item 5, in the word "discharge," and on
the same chart, item 6 in the word "regards."
The final "l's" show a perceptible increase of pressure on the
downstrokes, which is also found in the standard writing, chart B, item
6, top line, the word "enroll." This shows a somewhat more extreme
increase in pressure on downstroke, but I regard it basically as the
same habit. This particular part also shows a very abrupt terminal
stroke for the letter "l" as between 795 and compared with the final
or last stroke of the "l" on chart B in the last stroke in the word
"enrolled."
These constitute my reasons for believing that the author of the
standard writing is the author of the signature "Alek J. Hidell" on
Exhibit 795.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now concerning the other signature, Mr. Cole, are
you unable to or--can you state why you are unable to arrive at a
conclusion?
Mr. COLE. Well, partly because of the limited writing we have for
comparison. The last part of the name is practically illegible, and the
letters are so confused that I believe they do not accurately record
writing habit. I would regard it as being a rather unnatural writing.
Now there is fair legibility in the letters of the first name, and
they do have a moderate rate or amount of similarity to the standard
writing, but since it is only a few letters, I think there is not a
basis for a conclusion.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is the signature inconsistent with the writing of the
standards?
Mr. COLE. No; I wouldn't say there was any--there is certainly no basis
for eliminating the author of the standards as being the author of that
signature.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does there appear to be any attempt at disguise in this
signature?
Mr. COLE. Well, I wouldn't regard it. If there is such an attempt, it
is not, it seems to me, not a matter of deliberation or trying hard at
it, but only a matter of being extremely careless in the last part of
that signature.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is illegibility sometimes used as a method of disguise?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; it is.
Mr. McCLOY. May I ask some questions about this?
Mr. COLE. Yes.
Mr. McCLOY. If that word is "Good," that first word on the Exhibit 796,
is it----
Mr. EISENBERG. 795, and the photograph is 796.
Mr. McCLOY. 795. If that letter "G" is compared with the capital letter
"G" on the standard chart B-5, "Glenview," would you say there is any
similarity between the two?
Mr. COLE. Yes; there is, with respect to the size of the upper loop
which is on the left side of the letter, and the approximate horizontal
motion in passing from that loop over to the right side of the letter.
Mr. McCLOY. We have it again in 14 of that same chart?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. The "J" which seems to follow the word "Good," however,
does not seem to comport with the "J" on the signature "Alek J. Hidell"
does it?
Mr. COLE. No; but, of course, you are getting there to the area where
the rather serious corruption or illegibility of forms begins. I think
one could say that from the fair legibility of the first name, and
the very poor legibility of the last name, that this is a deliberate
effort. In other words, you have got a demonstration of the ability of
the writer to produce a legible writing and, therefore, to devolve into
this very illegible effort could be intentional.
Mr. McCLOY. I noticed when you compared the "J" in "Alek J. Hidell"
with the standard "I," such as the one on chart B-3, there was a
definite similarity, but I notice on chart A, No. 7, there is an "I,"
a capital "I" presumably, which apparently doesn't have the same
conformation as the "J" in the Commission Exhibit 795. Would you agree
with that?
Mr. COLE. Yes; that is true, but I think in studying these forms we
ought to consider all available "I's," and there would be some others,
such as the one on B-4 and one in B-6. It shows a fair range of
variation, especially with regard to finishing the lower part of that
letter. Now, I would judge the one on B-3 to be definitely a part of
his writing habit, because it gives the impression of having been made
with a considerable amount of freedom. Generally, a larger form is made
more freely, more naturally, than a smaller form.
Mr. McCLOY. I see.
Mr. COLE. And you see you have got sort of a cramped effect across the
base of the "I" in A-7.
Mr. McCLOY. What I am getting at is, you don't suggest that all these
"I's" and all these "J's" exactly conform, but you are talking in terms
of similarities that turn up in certain of them that you believe are
significant?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, I now hand you an item consisting of a
yellowish card entitled "International Certificates of Vaccination as
approved by The World Health Organization," and so forth, PHS Form
731, and reading in part, "This is to certify that Lee Oswald, whose
signature follows" and with the signature, "Lee H. Oswald," date of
birth and so forth, "has on the date indicated been vaccinated or
revaccinated against smallpox," with a date appearing in a rubber-stamp
printing, what appears to be rubber-stamp printing, "June 8, 1963,"
and a rubber-stamp signature of "Dr. A. J. Hideel, P.O. Box 30016,
New Orleans, La.," with some type of stamp on the right side next to
the name, and a signature "A. J. Hidell" over the name; and I ask you
whether you have examined this item?
Mr. COLE. I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may this be admitted as Commission Exhibit
813?
Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.
(The document referred to was marked as Commission Exhibit No. 813, and
received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I also will show you Commission Exhibit 115, which
consists of a Warrior rubber stamping kit which has already been
introduced in evidence in connection with testimony of Marina Oswald,
and which was found at one of Oswald's residences, and ask you whether
you have examined this Commission Exhibit 115?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attempt to determine whether the signatures "Lee
H. Oswald" and "A. J. Hideel" on Commission Exhibit 813 were prepared
by the author of the standards?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. COLE. It is my conclusion that the author of the standard writing
is the author of the writing you just described.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attempt to determine whether the apparent
rubber-stamp printing had been produced by use of the Warrior kit,
Exhibit 115?
Mr. COLE. I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. COLE. It is my conclusion that the kit could have been used for
producing the rubber-stamp printing on--Exhibit 813 is it?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.
Did you prepare a photograph of 813, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Will you produce that photograph? You have produced two
photographs, one of which shows the outside or exterior portion of 813,
and the other one shows the interior portion?
Mr. COLE. Correct; yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take each of these photographs?
Mr. COLE. I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. And are they accurate reproductions of the Exhibit 813?
Mr. COLE. They are.
Mr. EISENBERG. Approximately what enlargements are these, by the way?
Mr. COLE. About 1-1/2 diameters.
Mr. EISENBERG. These are what size photographs?
Mr. COLE. Eight by ten.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may these two photographs be admitted as
814 and 815?
Mr. McCLOY. They may be.
(The photographs referred to were marked as Commission Exhibits Nos.
814 and 815, and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. 814 will be exterior part of 813, and 815 will be the
interior.
Now, the exterior portion of 813 also shows some handprinting "Lee H.
Oswald" which came out in this photograph--in 814--a little clearer.
Did you identify that handwriting, Mr. Cole----
Mr. COLE. I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. As being--what was your conclusion?
Mr. COLE. It is my conclusion that that handprinting is in the hand of
the person who made the standard specimens.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now by reference to those photographs, 814 and 815, and
by reference to your charts of the standards, could you explain the
reasons for your conclusion on the handwriting and handprinting?
Mr. COLE. With respect to the signature, "Lee H. Oswald," as shown
by the photograph 815, this compares favorably with other sample
signatures that I have examined, some of which are shown on the charts,
namely chart A, item 15; chart B, item 15; and chart C, item 6, second
line from the bottom. There is, I think, a closer comparison with
certain other standard signatures of "Lee H. Oswald" which I have
examined, as appearing on the reverse of certain checks.
Mr. EISENBERG. And those are in evidence, are they, as one of the
standards, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. That was described in the record when you introduced it?
Mr. COLE. Yes; the signatures as endorsements on these several checks
show what might be described as an exaggerated freedom and carelessness
in the execution of this signature.
Mr. EISENBERG. Excuse me, was that 776, that exhibit consisting of the
checks?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; the signatures and endorsements of the checks in
Exhibit 776 show some variation with respect to the care and formation
of letters. There are a few endorsements in that group which show a
greatly exaggerated freedom or a carelessness in execution. These
signatures appear on, especially on, check numbers 2408 and 2506 of
this exhibit, and they compare quite favorably in detail with the
signature shown by the photograph, Commission Exhibit 815.
Now with regard to the writing of the name "A. J. Hideel" we observed
in the combination of letters "Hi" that that letter is joined by means
of a projection of a crossbar into the letter "i"; that in the letter
"e," which is separated from the preceding "d," there is a very high
placement of the loop, that is, instead of beginning at the writing
line, the loop of the letter begins about halfway up on the staff,
and this is a form that is very familiar in the standard writing,
particularly in the handprinted forms. For example, on chart C, item 3,
the final "e" in the word "discharge" shows a similar effect. Also on
chart C, item 6, the second line, in the name "Mercedes" we have got
two "e's" that show a similar effect.
The final "l" shows this perceptible increase of pressure on the
downstroke, and a very abrupt terminal stroke also, which had been
previously mentioned as being a characteristic of chart B, item 6, in
the word "enroll."
Now with regard to the handprinting as shown by Commission photograph
Exhibit 814, and considering particularly the name "Oswald," we have a
detailed agreement in every feature of letter forms there, and I will
direct attention especially to the use of the lowercase "l" and "d"
as associated with the capital or uppercase forms of the other four
letters of the name, and I will also mention the method of forming the
"d," considering first one of the standards where it can be seen more
clearly. On chart C, item 6, the first line, final "d" of "Oswald"
shows first a fairly long downstroke, then a stroke rising from the
end of that downstroke moving upwards and to the left to form the body
of the letter, and this method of formation is also used in the "d" of
"Oswald" as shown by the photograph Exhibit 814.
On the next line below there is faintly visible the name "Orleans" and
I will direct attention to the base of the "l," which shows a rather
deep compound curve. That is, here again, instead of having a simple
horizontal line to represent the base of that printed letter, there is
a fairly deep curve which is found in the standard writing in several
places, one example being chart C, item 4.
This word also illustrates the tendency to mix lowercase forms with
capitals in the case of the use of the lowercase "e" in "Orleans," and
that, of course, is repeated many places in the standard writing, a
good place being chart C, item 6, the word "Mercedes." These are the
reasons for my belief that the author of the standard writing is the
author of the handwriting on----
Mr. EISENBERG. 813?
Mr. COLE. 813.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, the handwriting and handprinting on 813 is all
extremely dim. Do you have any explanation for that?
Mr. COLE. There is evidence that this document has been treated with
chemicals, probably for the purpose of developing for fingerprints.
Such chemicals are ordinarily included in solvents which dissolve
ink, and some bleach out ink. I think that is the reason for the poor
legibility of this ink writing. At one time, I think, it probably had a
pretty good legibility.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was this the condition of the item when you examined it?
Mr. COLE. Yes; it was.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you stated that the apparent rubber-stamp printing
could have been produced by the Warrior rubber kit, 115. First let me
ask you, is this actually rubber-stamp printing?
Mr. COLE. Yes; I believe it is.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is, the printing on the vaccination certificate.
When you say it could have been produced by the print in Exhibit 115,
could you elaborate as to your findings on that point?
Mr. COLE. Yes; in considering that question, I made an impression
from the stamp, from the type setup in a stamp which is a part of
this kit at the present time. Now the typing as set up reads "L. H.
Oswald, 4907 Magazine St., New Orleans, La.," and, of course, that text
repeats some of the letters, a good many of the letters, which are
in the rubber-stamp impression "Doctor A. J. Hideel, P.O. Box 30016,
New Orleans, La.," and I made a careful comparison of these letters
as taken from the stamped impression with what is shown on 813, and I
found that they agree perfectly as to measurements of the type faces,
and they agree as to the design of letters. Therefore, I would say that
the rubber-stamp type faces from this particular kit could have been
used to produce that rubber-stamp impression on 813.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you produce the two cards which you used to record
the impression of the 115 rubber-stamp kit?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; the second card is an impression from the date
stamp which is a part of this kit, and that too agrees along the same
lines with respect to measurements of the letters and the designs of
the letters.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may these two cards be admitted as
Commission Exhibit 816?
Mr. McCLOY. They may be admitted.
(The cards referred to were marked as Commission Exhibit No. 816 and
received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Are there microscopic characteristics on rubber-stamp
printing sufficient to make positive identifications?
Mr. COLE. I don't regard any to be present in this particular stamp.
But while the type faces could not be regarded as perfect, I don't know
of any way to determine whether the imperfections belong only to this
kit or whether they would be true of all Warrior rubber-stamp kits.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you notice any imperfections?
Mr. COLE. Well, I did not actually catalog any imperfections, but in
looking at the type I had the general impression that it is not a
perfect impression, certainly not as perfect as you would get from
metal type in a regular printing operation.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you stamped an impression other than the one
contained on the card 813. Could you explain the reasons for that?
Mr. COLE. I stamped the material which was already set up in type.
Since it repeated a good deal of the material, enough for examination,
I did not want on my own volition to tear down the stamps that were in
this in order to set up other type.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the stamp impression appearing on the
right-hand side of the interior of the Document 813?
Mr. COLE. I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you come to any conclusion as to that stamp?
Mr. COLE. Yes; this stamp includes wording which reads in reverse,
and there is a double stamping of the wording, and the text is "BRUSH
IN CAN" the three words, "BRUSH IN CAN." The word "BRUSH" extends in
approximately a semicircle across the upper part of the stamp and the
words "IN CAN" in a semicircle across the lower part.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you think of any explanation of why those words
should appear?
Mr. COLE. Yes; a possible explanation is that the object used to make
the stamped impression was the top of some container of a solvent or
cleaning fluid with raised lettering, and that the top of this can was
pressed against a stamped pad, and then pressed against this document.
Mr. EISENBERG. What would the object be?
Mr. COLE. Well, I think it is very common to see rubber-stamped
impressions on documents of this particular character. They are so
commonplace, I think that it is probably a habit or custom among most
people not to read them. They may be regarded as giving a document an
official appearance. That may be the purpose of getting some sort of
stamp onto the document.
Mr. EISENBERG. Why do the letters appear in reverse, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. Well, they would naturally appear in reverse. If they read
correctly in raised letters as the top of some container, if it was
intended that they be read correctly there, then they would naturally
be in reverse from the stamped impression. Of course, you will observe
that in this Warrior stamping kit the material set up in the rubber
stamp there is in reverse, which produces correct reading and writing
from an impression. There is one more feature of this particular stamp
I think ought to be mentioned.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, please.
Mr. COLE. There is toward the center of that stamp a rectangle of a
deposit of ink in a certain pattern, sort of a spotty mottled pattern
of ink, and this corresponds to the pattern of the blank parts of the
date stamp.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which date stamp is that?
Mr. COLE. The Warrior stamping kit includes a dating stamp, and on the
adjustable bands are certain blank areas. Now, the pattern on those
blank areas is similar to the pattern which we have in this rectangle
of the stamp just discussed.