Chapter XXVII: Part 27

The CHAIRMAN. I am obliged to spend the morning with the Court. We are hearing arguments today and when I leave, in a short time, Congressman Ford will preside at the meeting and conduct it.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is your position, Mr. Cole?

Mr. COLE. I am employed as examiner of questioned documents with the U.S. Treasury Department.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you state your specific duties in this position?

Mr. COLE. I am required to examine any document in which the Treasury Department is interested when a question arises about the genuineness of the document or the identity of any of its parts. A good deal of this work includes the identification of handwriting.

Mr. EISENBERG. From what sources is work referred to your laboratory, Mr. Cole?

Mr. COLE. From the several divisions of the Office of the Treasury of the United States, and from the various Bureaus of the Treasury Department, including the enforcement agencies: Secret Service, narcotics, customs, internal revenue service.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, can you tell us how you prepared yourself to carry on this work of questioned documents examination?

Mr. COLE. I served an apprenticeship of 6 years under Mr. Burt Farrar from 1929 to 1935. Mr. Farrar at that time was the document examiner for the Treasury Department, and at the time of my association with him he had had over 40 years of experience in the work.

Under Mr. Farrar's tutelage I studied the leading textbooks on the subject of questioned documents, which includes handwriting identification, and I received from him cases for practice examination of progressively increasing difficulty, made these examinations, prepared reports for his review, and also during this period I had assignments to other Government laboratories, those of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the Government Printing Office, and I had close association with other technical workers in the government service.

I succeeded Mr. Farrar in 1935, and I have had daily practical contact with questioned problems from 1929 to the present date.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, are you a member of any associations of persons engaged in questioned documents examination?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you state those positions?

Mr. COLE. I am a member of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, of the International Association for Identification, and of the American Academy of Forensic Science.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you give instructions to others in this work, Mr. Cole?

Mr. COLE. I do. I am an instructor at the Treasury Department Law Enforcement Officer Training School.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you had occasion to testify in Federal or other courts?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I have, many times.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask that this witness be permitted to give expert testimony on the subject of questioned documents.

The CHAIRMAN. The witness is qualified.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, I now show you a photograph of an envelope and a purchase order. The envelope is addressed to Klein's, in Chicago, from one "A. Hidell," and the purchase order, which is included in the photograph, is an order also addressed to Klein's from "A. Hidell," and I ask you whether you have examined this photograph.

Mr. COLE. I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted into evidence as Commission Exhibit 773?

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 773 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, this photograph was produced from a roll of microfilm in the possession of Klein's, a Chicago firm which sells weapons of various types, and which sold the assassination weapon.

Now, Mr. Cole, I am going to hand you a group of documents which I will identify for the record.

The first is an application form to Cosmos Shipping Co., Inc., signed Lee H. Oswald, and containing handprinting and cursive writing. Have you examined that document, Mr. Cole?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as Commission Exhibit 774, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 774 was marked and received in evidence.)

The CHAIRMAN. I wonder if it might not be better to put the tab on the document itself because someone in handling it might take it out of the envelope.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. EISENBERG. The second document is a letter addressed to the American Embassy, entitled "Affidavit of Support," and signed Lee H. Oswald.

Mr. COLE. I have examined this document.

Mr. EISENBERG. I would like that admitted as 775, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 775 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. The third is a group of checks made payable to the order of Lee H. Oswald, and the company listed on the top of the check is Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, Inc. These checks are endorsed on the back "Lee H. Oswald," and I ask you whether you have examined these documents?

Mr. COLE. I have examined these documents.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may these be admitted as 776?

The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit 776 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Here I would like to mark the envelope.

The fourth item is a library card for the New Orleans Parish, or the Orleans Parish, and the signature is Lee H. Oswald.

Mr. COLE. I have examined this document.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 777?

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 777 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. The next item consists of photographs of two letters to the Department of State, both concerning payments on loans, repayments of loans, and both signed "Lee H. Oswald," and I ask whether you have examined these documents?

Mr. COLE. I have examined these photographs.

Mr. EISENBERG. May these be admitted as 778?

The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 778 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Next are two pages of writing on lined and holed paper entitled "The Communist Party of the United States Has Betrayed Itself!" and numbered "1" and "2," with some discoloration. Mr. Cole, have you examined those?

Mr. COLE. I have examined these. The discoloration mentioned was on the documents when I first saw them.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may these be admitted as 779?

The CHAIRMAN. Admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 779 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Next is a file entitled "Oswald, Lee Harvey, USMC"--which stands for Marine Corps--serial number or file number 1653230, and then another number appears, 8812, and this has various writing, certain of which are signed by Lee H. Oswald, together with letters to Lee H. Oswald, and I ask you if you have examined this file, Mr. Cole?

Mr. COLE. Yes; I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. May this be admitted as 780, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 780 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Next is a passport application signed "Lee H. Oswald," dated in the upper right "Passport Issued June 25, 1963," and there are other dates which appear--principally June 24, 1963--in other portions of the application. Mr. Cole, have you examined that?

Mr. COLE. I have examined this document.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 781, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 781 was marked, and received into evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Next is a letter entitled "Dear Sirs: This is in regard to my wife's file" and so forth, addressed apparently to the Immigration and Naturalization Offices in San Antonio, Tex., signed "Lee H. Oswald," together with another such letter addressed to the same--addressed to Dallas, Tex., the Office of Immigration and Naturalization, Dallas, Tex., signed "Lee H. Oswald," and a third letter to Room 1402, Rio Grande Building, 251 North Field Street.

These letters, all signed "Lee H. Oswald", and all having to do with aspects of immigration and naturalization, are entitled or numbered on the backs respectively 00645, dated July 5, 00146, dated--that is July 5, 1962, in the first--00146, dated July----

Mr. COLE. I believe it is 6.

Mr. EISENBERG. July 6, 1962, and 010156, dated July 10, 1962. Have you examined these three documents?

Mr. COLE. I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. May these be admitted as 782A, 782B, and 782C, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted under those numbers.

Mr. EISENBERG. And finally, an item consisting of two subitems, one a short note signed "Lee H. Oswald" and beginning, "Please enroll me as an associate member at $2.00," relating to the ACLU, and the second item being an application to the American Civil Liberties Union national office, "Please enroll me as a new member of the ACLU," name printed "Lee H. Oswald," and I ask you whether you have examined these two items.

Mr. COLE. I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. May these be admitted under the common caption 783?

The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibits Nos. 782A, 782B, 782C, and 783 were marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cole, have you compared the documents 774-783, all signed "Lee H. Oswald," with the document 773, the photograph of a purchase order to Klein's Sporting Goods, for purposes of determining whether the author of the documents 774-783 also authored the document 773?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is your conclusion?

Mr. COLE. It is my conclusion that the author of the standard writing bearing the exhibit numbers which you just related----

Mr. EISENBERG. 774-783?

Mr. COLE. 774-783, is the author of the handwriting on Commission Exhibit 773.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you referred to the term "standard writing," Mr. Cole. Can you explain that term?

Mr. COLE. I used these as the standard writing, as a basis for comparison.

Mr. EISENBERG. "These" referring to 774-783?

Mr. COLE. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Those standards would be what you would refer to, therefore, what might also be referred to as "known" items?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And the Document 773 is the "questioned" item?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now for the record, in the future I will refer collectively to 774-783 as the standards.

The CHAIRMAN. They were all written by the same person?

Mr. COLE. Yes, Your Honor.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, were these the only standards or potential standards from which you had to draw, or were a larger group of potential standards furnished to you?

Mr. COLE. I saw a larger group of papers of potential standards.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you state the circumstances under which this larger group was given to you?

Mr. COLE. I came to your office and reviewed a very large group of papers, and I pointed out what I would regard as a cross section or representative sample from that larger group of papers.

Mr. EISENBERG. And can you explain the basis on which you took the actual standards 774-783, that is, on which you selected those documents from the larger possible group of documents which might have served as standards?

Mr. COLE. Well, two bases: One, that the writing is fairly clear and legible; most of these documents are not stained or mutilated in any way; all the writing can be seen clearly. And, two, I think that this group of papers gives a complete, reasonably complete record of the writing habits of the author.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, continuing on these standards for a moment, have you examined other questioned documents besides Commission 773 at my request?

Mr. COLE. I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do the standards which you selected, that is, items 774 through 783, in your opinion provide a sufficient basis for comparison of the other questioned documents which you also examined?

Mr. COLE. They do provide a satisfactory basis for comparison.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are they sufficiently close in time, both to 773 and to the other questioned documents which you have examined?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does handwriting change over the course of time, Mr. Cole?

Mr. COLE. Handwriting does change over the course of time, but usually fairly large periods are involved, 5 or 10 years or such.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any variation in the writing instruments which were used to produce the various standards?

Mr. COLE. Yes; I think a variety of instruments were used.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does this affect your ability to use the standards as against the questioned documents or as against those questioned documents produced with other writing instruments?

Mr. COLE. It does not adversely affect my ability to make a comparison.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is, you are able to compare a document produced by a ballpoint pen with a document produced by a fountain pen and vice versa?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do the standards show both cursive writing and handprinting?

Mr. COLE. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain meaning of the term "cursive writing"?

Mr. COLE. Cursive means connected writing, as the term is used, with a running connected hand, whereas handprinting refers to the separate writing of letters without the connection of letters and usually involves a somewhat different style for the formation of letters, that is Roman capital letters or the lower case letters.

Mr. EISENBERG. Cursive writing then is the type of writing which we normally use, which connects--in which the letters are connected, the type which is taught in schools?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, some of the standards which are in the group 774 to 783 are photographs rather than originals.

Mr. COLE. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does a photograph in your opinion provide a sufficient standard on which to base a conclusion as to a questioned document?

Mr. COLE. Well, I believe these particular photographs are satisfactory for that purpose.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you draw a conclusion as to the origin of a questioned document if your only standard was a photograph?

Mr. COLE. If the photographs were comparable to the photographs we have in this case; yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, you examined the standards in their entirety, did you?

Mr. COLE. I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you have stated in answer to an earlier question they were all prepared by the same person, as I understood it?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.

Representative FORD. What is unique about these photographs that gives you this certainty or----

Mr. COLE. Well, I did not mean to indicate they are of a specially good quality, but I had in mind the possible existence of other photographs which would be much poorer and would not provide a satisfactory basis. I think that on these photographs I can see everything that is necessary to see to appreciate writing habit.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, when you say the standards were all written by one person, that is with the exception of initials put on by law enforcement officers and the like?

Mr. COLE. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cole, returning to 773, the questioned document, can you tell the Commission how you formed the conclusion that it was prepared by the author of the standards, that is, what steps you followed in your examination and comparison, what things you considered, what instruments or equipment you used, and so forth?

Mr. COLE. I made first a careful study of the writing on Commission Exhibit 773 without reference to the standard writing, in an effort to determine whether or not this writing contained what I would regard as a basis for identification, contained a record of writing habit, and as that--as a result of that part of my examination, I concluded that this is a natural handwriting. By that I mean that it was made at a fair speed, that it doesn't show any evidence of an unnatural movement, poor line quality, tremor, waver, retouching, or the like. I regard it as being made in a fluent and fairly rapid manner which would record the normal writing habits of the person who made it.

I then made a separate examination of the standards, of all of the standard writings, to determine whether that record gave a record of writing habit which could be used for identification purposes, and I concluded that it, too, was a natural handwriting and gave a good record of writing habit.

I then brought the standard writings together with the questioned writing for a detailed and orderly comparison, considering details of letter forms, proportion, pen pressure, letter connections, and other details of handwriting habit, and as a part of my examination I made photographs of the standard writings and brought certain parts of them together on a chart for greater convenience in comparing the standards with the questioned writing.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, I think it will be necessary for me to leave now, Congressman Ford, you will preside, will you, please? I appreciate it.

(Discussion off the record.)

(At this point, the Chief Justice left the hearing room.)

Representative FORD. Proceed.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, you mentioned that the writing in both the questioned document, 773, and the standard seem to be produced at a natural speed.

Mr. COLE. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. How do you determine that any document is produced at a natural speed?

Mr. COLE. Because that conforms to a large number of other specimens that I have examined over a period of years which I knew to be normal writing. Specifically, it agrees with respect to the quality of the line, which is reasonably good in this handwriting and which I would expect to be quite poor in an unnatural specimen, one that had been made at an abnormally reduced writing speed.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you expand further on what you mean by "quality of the line"?

Mr. COLE. Well, quality of line is--refers to the sharpness of the edges of lines, to the absence of tremor, waver, patching, retouching, and similar defects.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, could you explain the basis on which you were able to make an identification of a questioned writing as being authored by the person who wrote a standard writing?

Mr. COLE. This is based upon the principle that every handwriting is distinctive, that since the mental and physical equipment for producing handwriting is different in every individual, each person produces his own distinctive writing habits. Of course, everyone learns to write in the beginning by an endeavor to repeat ideal letter forms, but practically no one is able to reproduce these forms exactly. Even though a person might have some initial success during the active period of instruction, he soon departs from these and develops his own habits. It may be said that habit in handwriting is that which makes handwriting possible. Habit is that which makes handwriting efficient. If it were not for the development of habit, one would he obliged to draw or sketch.

Some habit would be included even in those efforts. But the production of handwriting rapidly and fluently always involves a recording of personal writing habit. This has been confirmed by observation of a very large number of specimens over a long period of time, and it has further been demonstrated by, on my part, having a formal responsibility for rendering decisions about the identification of handwriting based upon an agreement of handwriting habit in situations where there would be a rigorous testing of the correctness of these decisions by field investigators, for example, of the law-enforcement agencies, and a demonstration that these results were confirmed by other evidence.

This is the basis for identification of handwriting.

Mr. EISENBERG. As I understand it, you mean you would make a preliminary identification of a suspect on the basis of handwriting and it has been your experience that field investigation confirms that determination with additional evidence?

Mr. COLE. This is not what I would call "a preliminary identification." This would be a formal presentation and formal report to other persons who are interested in the problem, and the investigation would be continued from that point.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, is handprinting as well as cursive writing unique to every individual?

Mr. COLE. Well, I would say much of it is. Not all of it. Handprinting doesn't always give the same amount of information about writing habit as does cursive writing.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are you always able to identify the author of a writing if you have a questioned document and a standard document?

Mr. COLE. No, sir; not always.

Mr. EISENBERG. And can you expand on that?

Mr. COLE. Well, some handwriting doesn't include enough distinctive features, or in some cases there may not be enough of it to give a complete enough record of handwriting habits to be certain that you have a basis for identification.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you need a sufficient basis in both the questioned and the standard?

Mr. COLE. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do the standards that you have selected provide a sufficient basis for making identification?

Mr. COLE. They do.

Mr. EISENBERG. Without going into every questioned document separately, do the questioned documents which you have reviewed at my request each individually provide a sufficient basis for comparison?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.

Representative FORD. Is there a difference of opinion in your profession as to how much or how little you need for this purpose?

Mr. COLE. Yes; I think it would vary from one worker to another, depending upon his experience in the work.

It sometimes happens that a person with limited experience may go to either one extreme or to the other. He may sometimes be rather reckless. Other times he may be extremely cautious.

Representative FORD. But the decision you have made in this case would be what other experts, in your opinion, would agree to?

Mr. COLE. I would say others with whom I am familiar, with whom I have worked and talked to, corresponded with over the years.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, can you characterize the skill of the author of the standards and Exhibit 773?

Mr. COLE. I would say it is an average skill.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are some of the standards prepared more skillfully than others?

Mr. COLE. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you account for that at all?

Mr. COLE. I think there is a natural range of the use of skill in handwriting, possibly depending upon the purpose or the physical surroundings for producing handwriting or the writing instruments. When the conditions for producing handwriting are the best, and one's purpose is a perfectly free expression of his handwriting habit, then he may produce a better handwriting than when conditions are poor, such as an awkward writing position or poor writing tools.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, you mentioned earlier that you had prepared some photographs or charts----

Mr. COLE. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Showing the standards or portions thereof?

Mr. COLE. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you produce those charts?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cole, you have produced here three large charts, each entitled "Standard Writing" and bearing the designations "A," "B," and "C" in the upper left-hand corners. Can you tell us precisely what is reflected on these charts A, B, and C?

Mr. COLE. These charts show excerpts from the standard writings, sometimes showing a portion of a line, other times showing a single word or a block of writing from the standard exhibits.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were these charts, which are in the form of photographic reproductions, prepared by you or under your supervision, Mr. Cole?

Mr. COLE. They were.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are they true and accurate reproductions of the portions of the standard writings they purport to reproduce?

Mr. COLE. They are.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may these be admitted as 784A, B, and C?

Representative FORD. They may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibits Nos. 784A, B, and C were marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, have you prepared a photograph of Exhibit 773?

Mr. COLE. I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. Will you produce that photograph, please? Was that photograph 773 made by you or under your supervision?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. And is it a true and accurate reproduction of 773?

Mr. COLE. Yes, it is.

Mr. EISENBERG. May this be admitted as 785, Mr. Chairman?

Representative FORD. It may be.

(Commission Exhibit No. 785 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, the quality of 785, the reproduction, seems to be somewhat brighter or whiter than 773. Can you explain that? The contrast seems sharper.

Mr. COLE. Yes, that was purposely done in an effort to improve the legibility of the handwriting shown on 773. It simply involves the technique of developing the negative and making the print. It doesn't add to or take anything away from 773.

Representative FORD. It doesn't change the quality of the handwriting?

Mr. COLE. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, could you please explain by reference to 785 and 784A, and B, and C, why you concluded that the author of the standards reproduced in part on 784A, B, and C was also the author of 785?

Mr. COLE. There is an agreement in details of the formation of letters which I think are distinctive to this writer.

In other words, it involves unusual departures from the conventional or copybook method of forming letters. One example is the capital letter "A" on 785 in the name "A. Hidell." The stroke on the left side of that capital is first a down stroke, which is almost exactly retracted by an upstroke.

In other words, this is more than necessary to give the bare outline of the letter, and this extra stroke is a characteristic of the standard writing, and it may be observed in a number of places on the charts A, B, and C. One place where it may be observed is on chart "C," item 8 in the capital "A" in "Orleans." We have a downstroke on the left side of the letter which is almost exactly retracted by the upstroke.

Mr. EISENBERG. This downstroke starts just above the left side of the bar across the "A," is that the downstroke you are referring to?

Mr. COLE. Yes, that is correct.

Representative FORD. Would that also be true in chart C, item 4, in the "A" in "Harvey"?

Mr. COLE. Yes. As a matter of fact, virtually every "A," capital "A" produced in the standard writing has that feature. There are some few that lack it, but it occurs often enough to show that it is a habit of this writer, and it corresponds with the "A" shown on 785.

Now, not all features of this writing are regarded as being useful for identification. Some of the more simplified forms naturally have less individuality. That would be true of the capital letter "H" in "Hidell." While I don't see any significant difference, neither does the letter have any identifying feature.

When we pass over to the letter "i" though, in "Hidell," we see a feature which is distinctive, and that is the emphasis on the first stroke of the letter, the elongation of the approach stroke. Here again is something which the writer does as a matter of habit, it is not an essential feature for producing a legible "i." And we also have the circumstance that most small letter "i's" show an increase in forehand slant. Both of these features, the emphasis of an approach stroke and the increase in forehand slant, are found in the standard writing.

Representative FORD. Would you explain in lay terms what you mean by "an increase in forehand slant"?

Mr. COLE. A slant to the right.

One place where that may be observed in the letter "i" is on chart A, item 8, in the word "it." Another place where rather an exaggerated effect of the elongation of the approach stroke may be observed is on chart A, item 3, in the "t" of the "the." Of course, this requires a similar movement as that used in producing the letter "i," and this elongation of the approach stroke agrees with the effect found on 785.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, in chart A, item 8, the word "in" appears. Do you see the same elongated approach stroke in that word?

Mr. COLE. It is not elongated, but it is made somewhat with extra pressure. We also have an instance of extra pressure on "i"--there is a very small bulb of ink which indicates an extra pressure on the beginning stroke. I might point that out as being a feature of the approach stroke shown in the letter "t" on chart A, item 3.

Mr. EISENBERG. Proceed.

Mr. COLE. Now, I won't mention each and every letter in this writing. When I pass over a letter, the meaning is that at that particular point I don't find anything distinctive with respect to writing habit, although at the same time I do not find any significant difference.

I now move to the combination of "l," the double "l's" in "Hidell" in 785. Here we observe that the second "l" is somewhat larger than the first, and we find from time to time in the standard writing where there are a pair of "l's" that the second is larger than the first, one example is chart A, item 5, the word "filled."

In the capital letter "B" of the word "Box" on 785, still in the upper left corner, we observe that the upper lobe of the "B," that is, the closed circular form near the top of the letter, is somewhat smaller than the lower lobe. These proportions I observed in the standard writing, one item is found on chart A, item 9, "B" of "Board."

In the capital "D" of "Dallas" on 785, the relationship of the capital loop, I mean the looped form at the top of that capital letter, is similar to that relationship which we found in "D's" of the standard writing, one item being on chart B, item 2, in the abbreviation "Dept.," and in that same item 2 the capital "D" of "D.C." along the bottom line.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, on chart A-6 there is another initial "D." Would you say that bears the same conformation?

Mr. COLE. Yes; it is similar, although the loop is not complete. The aspect of the cap loop, I would say, would be the same if the loop had been completed. It is not as complete there as it is in other examples.

In the word "Dallas," the terminal "s," still referring to 785, is modified from the conventional or copybook method of making that letter by being flattened out, forced far over on its side. In other words, it has an extreme forehand slant rather than standing up in a more vertical position which we would find in a copybook. The same is true of the terminal "s" in the word "Texas" in that area. Now this, too, is a habit found in the standard writings, one good example being chart B at the end of item 3, the "s" of the word "this."

In the word "Texas" a very distinctive method of forming the letter "x" is observed. Now, this involves first the production, passing directly from the letter "e" first the production of a point or cusp, and then an underhand movement similar to that which would be required for the letter "u," then with the pencil on the paper another point or cusp is produced. The word is finished with the letters "as," and then the cross bar is made in such a manner that it runs along the side of the second cusp. In other words, the basic part of the "x" form, that is, the part which is connected to the other writings, is somewhat in the shape of a shallow "u." May I demonstrate that on a pad here?

Mr. EISENBERG. Please, Mr. Cole.

Mr. COLE. I have just drawn here an "x" diagraming the form observed on 785 which shows its production of a shallow "u" shape, with the cross bar striking across the second point of that "u" shaped form. This, I say, is highly distinctive, and it is found in the standard writing in several places.

Mr. EISENBERG. Pardon me. Mr. Chairman, may I introduce that diagram as 786?

Representative FORD. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 786 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. COLE. This distinctive formation of the "x" is observed on chart B, item 4, in the word "Texas," also in the same chart B, item 13, in the word "Texas," and also item 12 on the same chart.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, did you say there was no pen lift after finishing the second cusp, until the letters "as" are added?

Mr. COLE. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that the "x" is not crossed, so to speak, until the entire word is correct.

Mr. COLE. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. How distinctive would you regard this form as being?

Mr. COLE. Well, I regard it as highly unusual and carrying a good deal of weight for identification purposes, because it is a wide departure from the copybook method or conventional method of making the letter, and it involves the addition of a part rather than an omission which might come from carelessness.

Still considering Exhibit 785 and inspecting the word "Air" of "Air mail," just under the stamp, I find a correspondence in the letter forms with the standard writing. Chart B, item 5, where the same word is reproduced, "Air." One distinctive feature there is the simplified method of making the shoulder of the letter "r." Where the copybook or conventional form would show first a point at the top of the "r" and then the production of a rounded shoulder, this omits the point, form and develops immediately into a rapidly sloping or curving down slope.

Mr. EISENBERG. Will you illustrate the copybook form on your chart paper, Mr. Cole?

Mr. COLE. The conventional or copybook form of this "r" would be approximately in this manner: Cusp at the top, broad shoulder on the right side.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have that admitted as 787, Mr. Chairman, the copybook form of the "r"?

Representative FORD. It may be admitted.

(Commission Exhibit No. 787 was marked and received in evidence.)

Mr. COLE. The letter "m" in "mail" in 785, with respect to the unusually broad spread of the arches of that letter, corresponds with the letter "m" on chart B, item 6, top line, in the word "me," where we have a similar spreading of the width of the arches of the "m."

The capital "K" in the word "Klein's" on 785 compares favorably with "K's" in the standard writing, chart A, items 13 and 14.

Again, this word "Klein's" demonstrates a habit on 785 of a somewhat greater forehand slant for the letter "i," that is, as contrasted with the slant observed for the letter "e," and it also shows this tendency to flatten out or run the letter "s" along the writing lines, rather than giving it a more vertical position, and this has already been observed in the standard writing. The entire word "Dept." that is, the abbreviation "Dept," on 785, compares favorably with that word as shown on chart B, item 2, that is the same abbreviation, "Dept."

I will mention specifically two details of the letter "p." One is that it lacks an upper extension, which is a part shown in most copybook forms. In other words, there is no part of the staff--which, of course, is connected to the lower extension--which extends above the body of that letter, and that is true both as between the questioned "p" on 785 and that shown on chart B, item 2, in the abbreviation of "Dept." Another feature is the failure to bring the body in to a point where it touches the staff, and this is a frequent feature in the "p's" in the standard writing. Now, on chart B, not only in the abbreviation of the word "Dept." in item 2, but moving down to consideration of item 3 and the word "receipt," we observe a similar effect in the letter "p."

In the letter "t," a distinctive feature is the abruptness of ending that letter just before it reaches the writing line, which would differ from other letters, which touch the writing line, and many of which have a rising terminal stroke. In the questioned writing on 785 in "t" of "Dept," and also in the "t" in the abbreviation of "street" in the line below, we have just such a thing in the letter "t" which is shown from time to time in the standard writing--one example being chart A, item 13 in the abbreviation of "street." We have the same effect on chart A, item 8, in the word "it."

In the word "Washington" on 785, one distinctive feature is the curved staff of the letter "g." In other words, there is a continuous curve from the apex of the "g" down to the bottom of the lower extension, and this method of treating a "g" is repeated in the standard writing, one example being chart A, item 2, in the word "obligations."

Mr. EISENBERG. Would that also be true in chart B, item 10, in the word "Washington"?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; a very good example of it.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, that item B-10 is spelled differently from the standard, from the questioned document, rather. Does that--what is your opinion as to that variation in spelling?

Mr. COLE. There are a number of misspellings in the standard writings, and sometimes in the standard you will find words repeated in a correct spelling and at other times with an incorrect spelling. In other words, there is a variation in that respect. I think it comes partly from carelessness, not essentially from lack of knowledge of how to spell the word.

Representative FORD. These variations would be in the same letter or the same document?

Mr. COLE. Yes; sometimes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Actually there is an example of that in B-2, where Washington is spelled incorrectly?

Mr. COLE. That is correct. Now, in the combination of letters "cago" just below the word "Washington" on 785, we also have a repetition of this curved right side of the letter "g" found also in the standard writing, and another feature worth noticing there is the closing of the letter "o" rather far back on the upper left side of the letter. This is distinctive because many writers are reluctant to make leftward strokes, since the normal movement of handwriting is from left to right, and this I would say represents a writing habit in the questioned writing which is also repeated in the standard in a number of places. Chart B, in the abbreviation "no," of item 10, that is, the second segment of item 10, and also in the zero, item 11, you see a similar method of closing that circular form far back on the left side of the letter.

Representative FORD. That would appear also in B-13 in the word "to"?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.

Representative FORD. Is there a difference in B-15 "you"?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; there is, but we are dealing with a terminal form in the questioned writing. In other words, the opportunities for expressing this particular habit is present in terminal forms and not medial forms, the forms inside a word.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do you find generally or often that a writer's terminal forms or beginning forms will differ from the forms inside of the--the letters inside of the word?

Mr. COLE. Yes; in that it gives a different opportunity for expression of writing habit.

Mr. EISENBERG. So is this an unusual--is this unusual, then that the terminal form should be different?

Mr. COLE. No; not at all.

I invite attention to the exaggerated length of the comma following the figure "6" on 785. This is repeated in the standard writing on chart B, item 2, the comma following the word "chief." Also on chart B the commas in items 1 and 9, following the word "Dallas." The double "l's" of the abbreviation "Ill" on 785, again show the habit of making the second "l" somewhat larger than the first, which was previously pointed out as corresponding to the standard writing on chart A, item 5 in the word "filled."

The form of the capital letter "I" of "Ill" on 785 compares favorably with that form as on on chart B, items 3 and 4 where we have the personal pronoun "I." Now, moving now to the writing which is a part of the order form bearing the name "Klein's" on this same Exhibit 785, I will draw attention to the method of making the dollar sign before the amount "19.95." In the copybook or conventional method of making this particular sign the "=S=" shape is usually fairly prominent. In other words, the crossbars are usually subordinated to the "=S=" shape. Here we observe a very heavy pressure and exaggerated length and wide spacing of those crossbars, which almost obliterate the "=S=" shaped part of the dollar sign. This is shown in the standard writing chart B, item 6, second line, the dollar sign preceding "$2."

On this order form the figure "5" of the amount "$19.95" shows an exaggerated length of the final stroke of the "5," I mean the approximately horizontal stroke across the top of the letter. That same habit was previously observed in the "5" of the combination "2915" at the upper left of 785. Now, this method of--excuse me, let me mention one more example of that letter "5" on 785. On the order form, the figure "5" of the post office box number "2915" shows the same feature. Moving now to the standard writing, we find that treatment of the letter "5," of the figure "5," on chart B, item 7, in the combination of figures "6225." It is also shown on chart B, item 1, in the combination of figures "2915," and again in the same position, item 9 of chart B.

In the name "A. Hidell," I observe that we have a capital "H" and we have capital forms of the "l's" but the remainder of the name uses lower case letters, "ide" as lower case letters.

Mr. EISENBERG. This is in the order blank again?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir. This habit of using a combination of capital and small letters is a habit in the standard writing. One example would be chart C, item 6, where various words show a similar mixture. For example, in the name "Oswald" we have capital forms for "O," "S," "W," and "A," but a lower case letter for the "l" and "d." Dropping down to the word "Mercedes," we have capital forms for "M," "R," "C," and "S," but in that same word the letters "e" and "d" have lower case forms. And this mixture of capitals and small letters, as I say is found frequently in the standard writing.

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, is a mixture like that infrequent--apart from the particular letters which you use as small or large letters?

Mr. COLE. Well, I would say it is a part of this man's handwriting habit to make such mixtures. Another person who might mix capital and lower case forms might perhaps select different letters for that purpose. In other words, I think in this writing we find that very frequently as to the letter "i" and the letter "e."

Mr. EISENBERG. Is the fact of mixture itself significant?

Mr. COLE. Yes; it is a part of his writing habit.

Mr. EISENBERG. How highly individualistic is the fact of mixture to this person's writing?

Mr. COLE. I regard it as having a fair weight. I wouldn't classify it with the very considerable weight we give to that distorted form of the "x" but I think it is just one more point for consideration with all of the other similarities.

A similar mixture is found in the word "Texas." Again referring to the order form of 785, we have all capital letters except the letter "e," and then moving over to the standard writing, see the word "Texas" on chart C, item 1, the use of capital letters except as to the "e" form.

Representative FORD. The same would be true, I gather, on C-7 in the use of "e" in the word "Texas"?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir. This combination of agreement in the details of forms of letters, proportions, and other features between the writing on Commission Exhibit 785 and various parts of the standard writing constitute the basis for my opinion that the writings are in the hand of the same person.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, in many cases you have either pointed to, or it can be noted, that there are differences or variations within the writing of the standards or in the writing of the questioned documents. Is this unusual?

Mr. COLE. No; as a matter of fact, it is usual to find variations in handwriting, and, of course, that is demonstrated by the various standard writing that we have here, where you find the same combination of letters they are not identical with a photographic sameness, but they have a range of variation. I would say that no part of the questioned writing that we have considered on 785 would go outside of that normal range of variation which is true in the standards.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you find any differences between 785--or 773, of which 785 is a reproduction--and the standards?

Mr. COLE. I don't find anything that I would regard as a significant difference, but, of course, there are points where there is not a perfect identity. For example, in the combination of letters "Ill." an abbreviation for Illinois, while we don't have that same abbreviation in the standards, we have got the full name written out on chart B, item 5, and item 14. We have a smooth curved connection between the "I" and the following "l" in those particular parts of the standard, but there is an angular connection on 785 between the same letters. That is a difference or variation, but I don't regard it as necessarily being a significant one. It could be merely an accidental feature, a momentary hesitation on 785 before proceeding into the making of the "l."

Mr. EISENBERG. Why don't you conclude on the basis of that difference that the questioned document was written by a different author than the standard documents?

Mr. COLE. Because it is not nearly enough to raise such a question. There would be required for an opinion that this was made by some other person, a similar body of differences corresponding to the similarities that I have talked about. In other words, if in fact this was in the handwriting of some other person, I would expect to be able to make about the same demonstration with respect to differences as I have already made with regard to similarity.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you need to find as many differences as similarities in order to say there was a different author involved in the questioned and standard?

Mr. COLE. No; depending upon the character of the differences. A fairly small number would prevent a conclusion of identity or show the hand of some other person, if they were really distinctive differences.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, did you find any evidence in 773 that the author attempted to disguise his handwriting?

Mr. COLE. Were you referring to 785?

Mr. EISENBERG. 785 is a reproduction of 773. You can use 785 to answer the question, yes.

Mr. COLE. There is one faint suggestion of that possibility. It doesn't permit a conclusion that that was the purpose. But I refer to the use of a lower case "t" in the word "texas" in the return address in the upper left corner. Since this writer demonstrates a good knowledge about the formation of capital letters, it is possible that the choice to make a lower case "t" was a deliberate one, and it could have been at that particular point for the purpose of disguise. But I say if that was his purpose, it certainly was not maintained, and would be a very faint effort toward disguise.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, do you consider it unusual for a person to use an alias without attempting to disguise his handwriting?

Mr. COLE. No; I would not.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you had any experience along those lines?

Mr. COLE. Yes; I have observed a number of aliases where there is no particular effort to disguise.

Mr. EISENBERG. In your capacity as questioned document examiner of the Treasury Department, do you receive for examination checks, the endorsements on which have been forged?

Mr. COLE. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And on any occasion does the endorsement, the forged endorsement, does the forged endorsement indicate that no effort, no attempt has been made to disguise the endorsements?

Mr. COLE. That is a rather frequent condition, that the spurious endorsement is made without an attempt to conceal or disguise writing habit or to imitate the writing of any other person.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, do you know on the basis of your experience whether individuals ever resort to handprinting as an attempt at disguise?

Mr. COLE. Yes; it is a rather frequent method of disguise.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you testified earlier that handprinting can be identified as to author?

Mr. COLE. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is this common knowledge, that is to say----

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?