It is my opinion that the signature or the writer of Robert Harris on the check receipt does not correspond with any of the writing on the weekly timesheet.

The CHAIRMAN. This Robert Harris written on the check doesn't seem to correspond with the Robert Harris written on the timesheet. Mr. DOULDER. I did not examine any of the faces of the checks, such as probably was done by the accountant, for signatures

The CHAIRMAN. What we are looking at is the signature under “I have received a check for the amount shown above. Robert Harris." Point to it on the chart.

Mr. DOULDER. It is right here [indicating].

The CHAIRMAN. That signature of Robert Harris is not the same as the signature on the timesheet where he signed in on arrival and signed out on departure?

Mr. DOULDER. That is correct. These are two different writers.
The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

This has been ordered printed in the record.

Mr. DOULDER. When a person cashes a check, he endorses it. I compared the actual endorsement on the original check with the writing of the person who signed for having received that check. When the check endorsement was made by a person different from the person who receipted for the check, in this instance Clarence Jones, this was marked as a separate fraud.

This is demonstrated with chart No. D.

The CHAIRMAN. Let chart D be printed in the record. (The chart follows on the next page.)

Mr. DOULDER. On the left, again, is the check receipt, the individual signing for the check, which is the lower right-hand signature of Clarence Jones.

On the upper right is the front of the check. Below is the endorsement Clarence Jones, who endorsed the check.

The CHAIRMAN. Here is the receipt with Clarence Jones which he signed to get the check, and then at the right is the endorsement? Mr. DOULDER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You say that the Clarence Jones signature to receive the check and the Clarence Jones signature to endorse the check are two different Clarence Jones writers?

Mr. DOULDER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That seems to be apparent, from what I can see. Mr. DOULDER. I also sought to determine whether the person who made the endorsement on the check could have been any of the persons whose writing appeared on the weekly timesheets.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you the timesheet?

Mr. DOULDER. The check endorsement of Levertis McDonald did not correspond with any signature on the weekly timesheet. This was marked as a separate fraud.

I have marked that.

The CHAIRMAN. Now we are on chart E. Let it be printed in the record.

(The chart follows on p. 2672.)

The CHAIRMAN. Describe it to us.

Mr. DOULDER. On the left is a weekly timesheet for the student or trainee to sign in and sign out, and on the right is the endorsement of the check.

The CHAIRMAN. This is the timesheet of L. M.

Mr. DOULDER. Of Levertis McDonald.

It is my opinion that the writer of the endorsement of the check is not one and the same person as the trainee that signed on the weekly timesheet. They are two different individuals.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, the party who endorsed this check and got the money is not the party who signed in on the timesheet? Mr. DOULDER. That is correct, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you the receipt that goes with it?

Mr. DOULDER. I didn't illustrate it on here; no, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have it?

Mr. DOULDER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you examined it? If you have it there, let's examine it. Let's see who signed the receipt, if the same person or either of these persons signed the receipt.

Mr. DOULDER. I can probably tell on my worksheet, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to have one chart where you have all three.

Mr. DOULDER. I have other charts.

The CHAIRMAN. But you say here that the man who endorsed the check and got the money is not the man who presumably did the work or signed in?

Mr. DOULDER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. DOULDER. I examined each of the series of checks issued to each individual trainee and where there appeared to be more than one person making the endorsement on that individual's series of checks, in this case James Pate, it was marked as a separate fraud.

The CHAIRMAN. Let that be printed in the record.

We will mark that as chart F and let it be printed in the record. (The chart follows on the next page.)

The CHAIRMAN. Describe it.

Mr. DOULDER. This chart represents the pay period for the last workweek of James Pate. The checks are dated February 2, March 1, April 5, May 3, and May 24.

The CHAIRMAN. These are the pay checks for those 5 weeks you investigated?

Mr. DOULDER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. They are separate checks for each of those 5 weeks? Mr. DOULDER. Yes, sir; for that one particular individual.

The CHAIRMAN. Just for this one individual who is one of the trainees, presumably, who was receiving pay for his attendance and training.

Mr. DOULDER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. So you have taken his checks, each of his checks, for the 5 weeks you have examined?

Mr. DOULDER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Tell us what you can about it.

Mr. DOULDER. It is my opinion that the first endorsement and the second endorsement, which is February and March, is the endorsement of one person, one individual.

The third endorsement, which is for April 5, is altogether a different individual or different writer.