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 width of the line as shown on the two lines above. While I regard it as 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 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 particular writing he sees a thinner line, he may then make some modifications in his handling of the pen and get the kind of line he wants.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Is this similar to the retouching you mentioned being an evidence of forgery?

Mr. Cole.

I would say no, since it is done in such an apparently and confident manner. There is not the slightest evidence that any made to conceal the presence of this retracing. I think I should say generally the person producing a false or spurious writing does retouching to correct some imperfection of a letter, that is, he criticizes his work as: goes along and if he encounters a part which he thinks is incorrect with to form, he may then retouch it in order to correct it. It would be very 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 live service system notice of classification with the name "Alek James printed and the same signature, and a photograph which appears to be the graph of Lee Harvey Oswald--and I state for the record that this item obtained from the wallet of Lee Harvey Oswald following his apprehension the assassination and the murder of Officer Tippit--and I ask you whether 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?