Mr. Eisenberg. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. Eisenberg. On the record. Do you have any further observations on the comparison of the two names on the two cards, Mr. Cole?
Mr. Cole. Yes; I would say that a possible interpretation of the name on the original card, Exhibit No. 801, would be that it begins with either a capital “E” or a capital “G.” There is a very small circular form following that which does not appear to form any intelligible name when linked with the first capital letter. However, the last name suggests to me that it might be the name Schiffen, S-c-h-i-f-f-e-n.
Now, I consider it quite possible that a person looking at this name, which does not have a good legibility, might interpret it to be the name which is finally written on the line for signature of member or clerk of local board as it shows on Commission Exhibit No. 795. Now, as to why a name might be removed by opaquing material and then written in in a similar form by pen and ink, it is my view that this might be done in order to have what would appear to be an original, personally written signature on the final card, Exhibit No. 795, instead of having a photographic reproduction of a signature.
Mr. Eisenberg. Why do you think a person might write back in the same name that he had taken out, rather than a different name?
Mr. Cole. As I say, in order to have on the final card an actual manually written signature with pen and ink which would, one might suppose, carry more validating effect than a photographic reproduction of a signature.
Mr. Eisenberg. So that he would not necessarily be interested in changing the name?
Mr. Cole. Not necessarily.
Mr. Eisenberg. Now, on the reverse side of the notice of classification, Exhibit No. 795, there is typed in semilegible form the name and address of the local board which issued the registration certificate, and this seems to correspond to the name and address which had been opaqued out of the Oswald registration certificate, Commission Exhibit No. 802. Is that your observation?