FURTHER TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH McNALLY
Chairman STOKES - The Chair recognizes Mr. Ken Klein, counsel for the committee.
Mr. KLEIN - Thank you, Mr. Chairman- Mr. McNally, you testified before the committee on Thursday, September 14; is that correct?
Mr. MCNALLY - I did.
Mr. KLEIN - What is your occupation?
Mr. MCNALLY - I am an examiner of questioned documents, that more commonly referred to as a handwriting expert.
Mr. KLEIN - Are you testifying today as a representative of the handwriting panel?
Mr. MCNALLY - I am.
Mr. KLEIN - What would you estimate to be the total number of documents examined by the members of the panel during the course of your careers as questioned document examiners?
Mr. MCNALLY - I would judge somewhere in the tens of thousands.
Mr. KLEIN - Could you approximate for us the total combined years of experience that the three members of the panel have as questioned documents examiners?
Mr. MCNALLY - Considering the other two are contempories of mine I would assume we have more than 100 years' experience.
Mr. KLEIN - Is each person's handwriting unique to that person?
Mr. MCNALLY - It is.
Mr. KLEIN - Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the document JFK F-399 be received as a committee exhibit and shown to the witness.
Chairman STOKES - Without objection, it may be received and made a part of the record at this point. [Whereupon, JFK exhibit F-399 was received.]
Mr. KLEIN - Mr. McNally, do you recognize that document?
Mr. MCNALLY - I do.
Mr. KLEIN - Does that document contain a listing of all the documents examined by the panel that were allegedly written or signed by Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. MCNALLY - It does.
Mr. KLEIN - Mr. Chairman, at this time I would ask that the documents marked JFK F-478 through JFK F-510 be received as committee exhibits and shown to the witness. I should state for the record these documents are either the originals or the best existing copy of the documents listed on JFK F-399 and were obtained from the Navy Department, the Archives, the committee offices, and the FBI.
Chairman STOKES - Without objection, they may be entered and made part of the record at this point. [Whereupon, JFK exhibits F-478 through F-510 were received.]
JFK EXHIBIT F-478
JFK EXHIBIT F-479
JFK EXHIBIT F-480
JFK EXHIBIT F-481
JFK EXHIBIT F-482
JFK EXHIBIT F-483
JFK EXHIBIT F-484
JFK EXHIBIT F-485
JFK EXHIBIT F-486
JFK EXHIBIT F-487
JFK EXHIBIT F-488
JFK EXHIBIT F-489
JFK EXHIBIT F-490A
JFK EXHIBIT F-490B
JFK EXHIBIT F-491
JFK EXHIBIT F-492
JFK EXHIBIT F-493
JFK EXHIBIT F-494
JFK EXHIBIT F-495
JFK EXHIBIT F-496
JFK EXHIBIT F-497
JFK EXHIBIT F-498
JFK EXHIBIT F-500
JFK EXHIBIT F-501
JFK EXHIBIT F-502
JFK EXHIBIT F-503
JFK EXHIBIT F-504
JFK EXHIBIT F-505
JFK EXHIBIT F-506
JFK EXHIBIT F-507
JFK EXHIBIT F-508
JFK EXHIBIT F-509
JFK EXHIBIT F-510
Mr. KLEIN - For the record, there are certain documents in that group of documents which have already been introduced as committee exhibits, and they are JFK committee exhibits F-183, F-184, F-400A, F-401, F-402, F-407, and F-408. Mr. McNally, do you recognize those documents?
Mr. MCNALLY - Yes; I do.
Mr. KLEIN - Did the entire panel have an opportunity to view those documents?
Mr. MCNALLY - They did.
Mr. KLEIN - Did the panel members after examining those documents come to any conclusions with respect to those documents?
Mr. MCNALLY - Yes; they did.
Mr. KLEIN - Would you please tell the committee what they concluded.
Mr. MCNALLY - The conclusion of the panel was that the writing on all of these original documents was all done by the, same individual. That also included a number of photographs and photo reproductions. We also concluded these were done by the same individual. However, a word of caution must be introduced here because there are four or five of these documents which were only photo reproductions or photographs examined and compared with the other writings. These photographs of course cannot be examined with the same detail that the original document can be, and there is always some possibility that there are some alterations or something on these particular photographs which cannot be determined because they are not the original document. There is only one document on which we jointly could not arrive at any specific conclusion, and that is the so-called note, JFK exhibit F--506. That particular document is a very fuzzy reproduction and that particular reproduction we could not make any definite determination as to whether or not it was the same writing as all the other writings examined and compared and determined to be from the same individual.
Mr. KLEIN - Mr. Chairman, I should state for the record that in every case the staff' attempted to get an original document for the panel, and only in those cases where no original existed or an original could not be located were photocopies used. Mr. McNally, is it the conclusion of the panel that in all cases where original documents were provided they were written by the same person?
Mr. MCNALLY - it is.
Mr. KLEIN - At this time, Mr. McNally, I would like to draw your attention to the following documents In each case I would ask that you take the document cut of the group of documents before you First the examination of the applicant by the recruiting officer, which is marked JFK F-480 and dated October 24, 1956.
Mr. MCNALLY - Right.
Mr. KLEIN - Second, the declaration requesting U.S. citizenship be revoked, JFK F-488, dated November 3, 1959.
Mr. MCNALLY - Right.
Mr. KLEIN - Third, the New Orleans Police Department fingerprint card, JFK F-400, dated August 9, 1963.
Mr. MCNALLY - Right.
Mr. KLEIN - Four, the application for Cuban visa, JFK dated September 27, 1963.
Mr. MCNALLY - Right.
Mr. KLEIN - Last, the application for employment, JFK F-503, dated October 15, 1963.
Mr. MCNALLY - Right.
Mr. KLEIN - Mr. McNally, the first document was signed when Lee Harvey Oswald joined the Marines in 1956. The second document was written and signed when he was in the Soviet Union in 1959. The third document was signed when he was arrested in New Orleans in August of 1963. the fourth document was signed when be was in Mexico City in September of 1963, and the fifth document was signed when he returned to Dallas in October of 1963. All of the documents are signed either Lee Harvey Oswald or Lee H. Oswald. In the opinion of the panel, were all of these documents signed by the same person?
Mr. MCNALLY - It is.
Mr. KLEIN - Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the following blowups marked JFK F-480A, F-488A, F-400A, F-408A, F-503A be received as committee exhibits and shown to the witness.
Chairman STOKES - Without objection, they may be received. [JFK exhibits F-480A, F-488A, F-400A, F-408A, and F-503A are enlargements of JFK exhibits F-480, F-488, F-400, F-408, and F-503 which were previously entered.]
Mr. KLEIN - Mr. McNally; perhaps if you walked over to the easel it would be easier for you to see these blowups. Do you recognize these blowups, Mr. McNally?
Mr. MCNALLY - I do.
Mr. KLEIN - Are they fair and accurate representations of the original documents examined by the panel?
Mr. MCNALLY - They are.
Mr. KLEIN - Would you please explain to the committee, using the blowups, why the panel concluded that these five documents were written by the same person.
Mr. MCNALLY - We examined and compared the signatures on all five of these particular documents. In the examination comparison of these particular signatures the first part of the examination was a determination as to whether or not all of these signatures agreed in their general characteristics. That would be insofar as the skill of the writing is concerned, the slant of the writing, the proportions of the letters one to each other, particularly the small letters. in height as to the capital letters, the lateral placement of the letters within the names which make up the particular signatures, the alinement of the various names of the signatures in relationship to each other. What is more, specifically, we examined and compared the individual letters which make up the signatures, Lee Harvey Oswald and Lee H. Oswald as to whether or not they agree essentially in design, form, and their configuration. Throughout all of the signatures we found that, first of all, insofar as the general writing pattern of the signatures was concerned, those characteristics that were mentioned, all of these signatures agreed. In the second part of the signature comparison, a much more specific examination as to individual letter design, we found also that the signatures agreed. There are some variations which occur among all of these signatures, and this is to be expected in normal handwriting, particularly handwriting written over a period of time that stretched from 1956 all the way over here on this particular document from 1959 and 1963. There is a slight variation which occurs, of course, as I mentioned, indicating normalcy, but the writings are consistent one with the other. The writing of the first name Lee on the 1956 document and here the writing of "Lee" in 1959, one is the same as the other. The fluent writing pattern that we have in 1956 is repeated in 1959, repeated in 1963, and again over here in 1963. There is some slight variation between the capital "H" of Harvey here and the capital "H" of Harvey in the 1959 document. However, the basic construction of the 'ill" in the interior formation here, particularly at the lower right in 1956 and 1959 agreed. The same construction of "H" in 1963 in the New Orleans fingerprint form, and this is similar to the writing of the "H" on the 1959 document. We have that same construction of "H" over here on the Cuban visa in 1963, and the same construction back over here in 1963 on the employment application. On two of these documents we have the name Harvey written
out, that is in 1956, and in 1959 and the interior construction of "a-r-v-e-y" of the 1956 document and the 1959 document agrees. There is some slight variation here in the 1956 document. We have a comeback on the lower loop of the "y" and here in the 1959 document the "y" just goes straight down, but this is a normal variation, nothing inconsistent about it. In the writing of Oswald on the 1956 document the construction here in the writing of that particular word agrees with those in 1959. Again, a slight variation in the fact that the "o" continues on to the "s" in the 1956 document, and there is a slight hiatus between the "o" and "s" in the 1959 document. When we come to the fingerprint form, here we have the same construction on this fingerprint form. The "0" joins the "s", flows right into the "s", as found on this form in 1956. We have that followed through, the same as the 1956 form, the "o" joins the "s" on the Cuban visa, and the same thing occurs on the employment application. The slight hiatus between the "o" and "s" on the 1959 form is a normal variation of the individual's handwriting. In all of these you will note the ending "l-d" combination. On all five of these combinations the 'T' is always smaller than the "d". The "d" is an odd form in 1956. Here the "d" comes back a little farther down to the line of writing, again a normal variation. Here we have the "d" in 1963 in a fingerprint form akin to the "d" over here in the 1956 form. The writing of the "d" again here agrees with the "d" as written on the fingerprint form in 1956, and here we have an affectation on the employment application where there is a little flourish on the "d" but again the basic construction of this "d" is taller than the preceding "l" and largely agrees with the other four signatures. Since all of these signatures conformed in both general and specific characteristics--there are no significant differences among them--we came to the conclusion that all five of these signatures were written by one and the same individual. Again with that slight caveat here, that this is a photograph of an original signature. We did not have the opportunity to examine and compare the original. However, from this photograph and the examinations that can be conducted of it, the writing pattern is free, fluent, easy, no indications of abnormalities, no hesitation, no tremor, is in basic agreement with the other four signatures, and therefore we conclude that all five signatures emanate from the same individual.
Mr. KLEIN - For the record, the caveat you are speaking of was applicable to the Cuban visa application?
Mr. MCNALLY - That is right, because it is not an original document and cannot be examined microscopically.
Mr. KLEIN - Is there any evidence to indicate any of these documents were forged or altered?
Mr. MCNALLY - There is none.
Mr. KLEIN - At this time would you please be seated, Mr McNally. I would now direct your attention to exhibit JFK F-504, which is a microfilm reproduction of an order form to Klein's Sporting Goods Co. for a rifle, plus the envelope in which the order form was sent; and JFK F-509, which is a money order made out to Klein's Sporting Goods Co., both of which documents have the name Hidell on them.
Mr. MCNALLY - I have both of them.
Mr. KLEIN - JFK F-504 and F-509; do you recognize those documents?
Mr. MCNALLY - I do.
Mr. KLEIN - Did the entire panel have an opportunity to examine those documents?
Mr. MCNALLY - They did.
Mr. KLEIN - Did the panel reach a conclusion with respect to those documents?
Mr. MCNALLY - They did.
Mr. KLEIN - What was that conclusion?
Mr. MCNALLY - That JFK exhibit F-504 and F-509 were written by the same person, again with the caveat. JFK exhibit F-504 is a photo reproduction of a microfilm.
Mr. KLEIN - The document, which is marked F-509, the money order, is an original document; is it not?
Mr. MCNALLY - It was; yes.
Mr. KLEIN - And your conclusion is they were written by the same person who wrote the other documents?
Mr. MCNALLY - That is right.
Mr. KLEIN - I would ask at this time, Mr. Chairman, that blowups marked JFK F-504A and F-509A be received as exhibits and shown to the witness.
Chairman STOKES - Without objection, they may be received in the record at this point. [JFK exhibits F-504A and F-509A are enlargements of JFK ex- hibits F-504 and F-509 which were previously entered.]
Mr. KLEIN - Once again, Mr. McNally, would you go to the easel, please. Do you recognize these blowups, sir?
Mr. MCNALLY - I do.
Mr. KLEIN - What are they blowups off.
Mr. MCNALLY - These are blowups of the original photo reproduction. In the case of this particular blowup here, this is an enlargement of JFK exhibit F-504, and this enlargement of the postal money order in an enlargement---
Mr. KLEIN - Is that the money order?
Mr. MCNALLY - Yes, F-504, and the money order is F-509.
Mr. KLEIN - Are these blowups fair and accurate representations of the documents examined by the panel?
Mr. MCNALLY - They are.
Mr. KLEIN - Using the blowups, would you explain why the panel reached its conclusion?
Mr. MCNALLY - We examined and compared the writings on the microfilm reproduction with the original postal money order issued as payable to Klein's Sporting Goods. The same process, of course, was involved, an examination and comparison of the general writing characteristics which appear on this microfilmed reproduction, versus the writing which appears on the U.S. postal money order. The writing pattern on both of these documents is the same, the same degree of skill, the same slant pattern. The writing has a continuity and a cohesion, a continuous flow in the formation of "Hidell", "Dallas, Texas," "Klein's," "Chicago, Illinois." It flows right along in the same manner, as we have in the writing flow on the postal money order. The individual letter designs that occur in the writing of the name and the address and the names and addresses on the microfilm reproduction and the writing of the various letters on the postal money order correspond. In both instances on the microfilmed reproduction here we have a parallel, the writing of "Hidell" here in the top of the microfilm and the "A. Hidell," which occurs over here on the postal money order. The writing construction in both instances is the same, just a slight variation in the "H" in "Hidell" in the microfilm reproduction, but the rest of the writing conforms to the writing "A. Hidell" on the U.S. postal money order. In the writing of "Dallas, Texas," this particular writing pattern here in the upper left-hand corner agreed with the writing of "Dallas, Texas," over here on the U.S. postal money order. The variation occurring here is that in the return address on the postal money order a small "t" has been used versus a capital "T" utilized down here. In this "Texas" here in the writing of the "x-a-s" right in this portion here just following the "x" there is a slight hitch almost like a small undotted "i". That same information occurs over here just before the "a" here a little hitch in the writing pattern. The overall writing on both the microfilm and on the postal money order correspond to the extent that we came to the conclusion both were written by the same individual, again with that caveat that this is a reproduction. As a matter of fact, this if from a microfilm, and it has been blown up from the microfilm itself so that it lacks clarity and detail. But the impression gotten from examining this particular document and comparing it with the writing of the original document, the postal money order, is that the writing flows. The line quality of that on this document and that on the postal money order corresponds; the letter designs correspond. There is no significant difference between the writing on the microfilm and the writing we have in the money order or the writing we have here, for instance, on the employment application. Further, the hand printing on this particular form here, which was laid over the envelope when it was recorded, this hand printing, "A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Texas," corresponds to that which we have in this employment application and also a letter which backed up this employment application, specifically some writing in the lower left-hand corner of that letter. We did conclude again (with that slight caveat) that the writing of the microfilm in both the script writing here and the hand print here were written by the same individual who wrote out the postal money order and the employment application.
Mr. KLEIN - Was there any evidence to indicate that either of these documents were forged or altered?
Mr. MCNALLY - From the examinations that could be made, absolutely no evidence.
Mr. KLEIN - At this time I would again ask that you be seated. I would direct your attention to the document marked JFK F-506, dated November 8, 1963.
Mr. MCNALLY - I have it.
Mr. KLEIN - Do you recognize that document?
Mr. McNALLY - I do.
Mr. KLEIN - For the record could you read that document, please?
Mr. MCNALLY - In the upper right-hand corner is the date November---N-o-v 8, 1963: "Dear Mr. Hunt: I would like information concerning"--c-o-n-c-e-r-d-i-n-g--"concerning my position. I am asking only for information. I am suggesting that we discuss the matter fully before any steps are taken by me or anyone else. Thank you. Lee Harvey Oswald".
Mr. KLEIN - Mr. Chairman, I should state for the record that a copy--not the original but a copy--of the document was sent in 1975 to an author of a book on the Kennedy assassination. It was sent anonymously and he allowed the panel to see the copy that he had of that document. I would ask that the blowup marked JFK F-506A be received as a committee exhibit and shown to the witness.
Chairman STOKES - Without objection, it has been received as a committee exhibit and entered into the record at this point. [JFK exhibit F-506A is an enlargement of JFK exhibit F-506 which was previously entered.]
Mr. KLEIN - Is that a fair and accurate representation of the document you have before you?
Mr. MCNALLY - It is.
Mr. KLEIN - Once again I would ask that you walk over to the easel, please. Using the blowup, will you explain why the panel could not reach a conclusion with respect to that document?
Mr. MCNALLY - The reason we could not reach any conclusion regarding this particular document is, number 1, this of course is a photo reproduction. It is a peculiar type of photo reproduction in the fact that we have a photo reproduction, yet at the same time it some the characteristics of being photo reproduced from a microfilm enlargement which was originally out of focus. So that on this particular document here---and I made the original slide this enlargement was made --the photo reproduction was quite fuzzy. This is an extremely good reproduction of that particular fuzzy original photo reproduction. In this particular case it is so fuzzy that an accurate examination could not be made of it. The feature about this document--as it relates to the other documents as written containing the name Lee Harvey Oswald and all the other writing that we have here--is that this document itself, although the writing pattern or the overall letter designs are consistent with those as written on the other documents, this is much moreprecisely and much more carefully written. There is no great deviation from the writing of Oswald insofar as to individual letter design forms are concerned. However, it is the method of writing that is so precise and so careful, it is a little bit out of the ordinary from most of the writing that I have seen. Strangely enough, getting down to the signature of this particular document, a part of the signature agrees with the signature of Oswald or the other writings we have signed "Lee Harvey Oswald," and part of it does not agree with his. Insofar as the original or the beginning writing "Lee", that corresponds to "Lee" as written by Lee Harvey Oswald throughout the buld of the signatures we have seen. In the writing of the middle name Harvey, to begin with, the "H" comes way over here to the left-hand side and is sort pointed. It comes to a type of triangle which is flattened at the and that particular type of "H" we do not find in any of the signatures of Lee Harvey Oswald. Another peculiar feature here also is the fact that though not all of the signatures oF Mr, Oswald are signed "Lee Harvey Oswald," there are seven or eight where we do have the name "Lee Harvey Oswald" signed in full and in none of them do we have a mispelling, In this particular signature "H-a" and we have a little slurring off here and a "v" and a "y". So that part of this signature is missing, and that does not occur in any of the other Oswald signatures. Again in the writing of the latter part of "Oswald," very unusual in all of the Oswald signatures that we have seen. In this particular instance the "d" is smaller and much more precise than the preceding "1." This is another characteristic which does not occur consistently in the other Oswald signatures. So a suspicion is aroused by the fact that this is an extremely precise type of writing even though it does agree basically with the overall writing characteristics of the previous Oswald writings. And a suspicious circumstance in the fact that that middle name "Lee Harvey" differs significantly in the "H," in the misspelling of the word, and a slight aberration in the lower part of the "y" and in the latter part of the signature "Oswald." And for these reasons we were unable to come to any firm conclusion regarding this particular document. It is suspicion, although we are not able to accurately determine that it is specifically a forgery and at the same time not able to accurately determine whether or not it corresponds to all of the other writings that we have identified.
Mr. KLEIN - Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.
Chairman STOKES - Thank you, counsel. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Sawyer, for such time as he may consume.
Mr. SAWYER - Well, I assume with the exception of the document that is now being displayed, the Hunt letter, the committee, or the panel, was unanimous on all of these other decisions.
Mr. MCNALLY - They were.
Mr. SAWYER - Were there some of the panel who felt that that Hunt letter was written by the same person as the others were?
Mr. KLEIN - No; we were pretty much in agreement on that; not sure of it, suspicious of that particular document. It stood out, quite frankly, like a sore thumb.
Mr. SAWYER - There was unanimity in the suspicion, I assume?
Mr. MCNALLY - There was.
Mr. SAWYER - I think that is all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman STOKES - The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Preyer. Mr. PREYER. No questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman STOKES - The gentleman from the District of Columbia, Mr. Fauntroy.
Mr. FAUNTROY - Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McNally, I simply have two questions. The first is: In the handwriting analysis which you have done on the first three documents you have pointed up, to what extent might handwriting machines reproduce signatures that would defy detection?
Mr. MCNALLY - I do not think they defy detection. What you get with a handwriting machine is actually an imitation
Mr. FAUNTROY - Certainly. Mr. MCNALLY [continuing]. Where you get--it has to have a model to follow, so that actually what would occur is that you get a slavish imitation of, say, an original signature. But with all of these writings we have a normal variation, there is no slavish imitation. As a matter of fact, you don't even get a situation among these particular signatures, where if you wrote like 5 or 10 signatures in a row you get a very, very close similarity. In these particular cases here we have a very good sample of an inconsistent pattern of handwriting which is actually very consistent. It all tends to follow a certain theme of writing. There is no--none of these signatures, which are actually very much like the other signature in the fact that they fit together--there is no deviation whatsoever. There is always that slight variation there, which is strongly indicative of normality and authenticity.
Mr. FAUNTROY - So that you conclusion is that it could not have been done using machines, otherwise you would have detected the precise copying of the signatures as on all three documents?
Mr. MCNALLY - Right. It has in there a carelessness about it which you do not see in any machine-made signature.
Mr. FAUNTROY - All right, thank you. The second question has to do with the Hunt letter there. Assuming that that is a forgery, how would you put together such a forgery? Is it possible for a person to so analyze the writing of another person as to reproduce it in reasonable facsimile?
Mr. MCNALLY - Oh, yes. As a matter of fact, we had a famous case some years ago where there was pages and pages of writing reproduced in the so-called Irving-Hughes situation back in the seventies. It was very difficult at that time to determine whether it was good or bad.
Mr. FAUNTROY - What is the peculiar capability required to do that? Are there persons who are particularly skilled at forgery in that kind of detail, that kind of length?
Mr. MCNALLY - Yes, there are. As a matter of fact, they exist all over. You have them in the criminal field where, let's say with a quick study you could turn out something like this, particularly since Oswald's general writing pattern is simple and tends to be rather legible, and to turn out something like that would be not particularly difficult. The strange feature is that if you turn out something like that, then to get down into one of the more imporrant aspects of the signature and turn up with a misspelling.
Mr. FAUNTROY - Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman STOKES - The time of the gentlemen has expired. The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. McKinney.
Mr. McKINNEY - Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. I just wanted to emphasize the points you made on the signature. Looking at the various different exhibits that we have that show the signature Lee Harvey Oswald, most of them from the Marine Corps, loyalty oaths, so on and so forth. Harvey is always spelled correctly. Right?
Mr. MCNALLY - It is.
Mr. McKINNEY - And in full. And in fact in looking at them as a novice in this, there isn't even really a runoff from one letter to the other. Each letter is quite distinct.
Mr. MCNALLY - Generally there is, yes, sir.
Mr. McKINNEY - Isn't it also true that in almost every signature that we have, when Oswald is written the "d" is at least, say, a fourth higher than the 'T' at the very end, at the crown of the "d," or whatever you call it?
Mr. MCNALLY - Yes; it tends to rise disproportionately above the "l".
Mr. McKINNEY - Whereas it does not appear----
Mr. MCNALLY - It is quite smaller.
Mr. McKINNEY - That is all I have.
Chairman STOKES - The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Fithian.
Mr. FITHIAN - Thank you. I have but one question. On balance, this Hunt letter, do you find more similarities or dissimilarities overall in comparison to the other writings or letters, words that all seem to agree in the other documents?
Mr. MCNALLY - The peculiar feature about this is in the situation-which arouses suspicion--is that it is better than most of the others. It really is, like almost a classic example, particularly the body of the letter, the writing on the other Oswald letters, except written much better and much more precisely. In effect, what I am trying to say is that what you have here is a great deal of care was taken in the writing of this particular document, whereas most of the writings that I find in all of the other previous writings, they are quite carelessly and sloppily written. There are no significant dissimilarities in the body of this particular letter, the context, until you come down to the signature.
Mr. FITHIAN - And are you saying, then, you are unable to render a decision on this?
Mr. MCNALLY - That is right. In this particular case the original would necessarily have to be checked. It could very well be a situation where this thing has been patched together from original writing of Oswald. It can be done using a photo reproduction process.
Mr. FITHIAN - Is it your opinion that it is a fake?
Mr. MCNALLY - No; I am not certain on this particular document.
Mr. FITHIAN - Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman STOKES - The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. McNally, now as you are concluding your testimony before this committee, you are entitled under our rules to a period of 5 minutes, if you so desire, to explain or expand upon your testimony in any way. I extend to you such time, if you desire it at this time.
Mr. MCNALLY - I will take only a minute.
Chairman STOKES - Sure.
Mr. MCNALLY - What we have here and what we have examined and compared was writing which covered a period from 1956 until 1963. And over that period of time in all of these particular documents and just to restate what I have said before, it was our considered opinion, all three members of the panel, that all of the original documents were written by one and the same individual. The photo reproductions with the exception of the so-called Hunt letter, in our opinion again, with the caveat that they are photo reproductions and cannot be microscopically examined, that we feel that these letters were written by the same individual; in other words, Lee Harvey Oswald. The Hunt letter, because of the circumstances surrounding it, it is extremely poor reproduction, and also because of the circumstances surrounding--the suspicion surrounding the signature we were unable to make any definite decision regarding that particular letter.
Chairman STOKES - Thank you very much, Mr. McNally. On behalf of the committee, I want to express our appreciation both to you and to the other members of this destinguished panel on which you served for the services that you have rendered to the House and to this committee. We thank you very much for your service.
Mr. MCNALLY - Thank you, sir.
Chairman STOKES - Thank you.
