Mr. Cole.

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 ease of the selective service card, to attempt to bring out these stench 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