Mr. Eisenberg.

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 natural 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