CT authors constantly ignore simple explanations and pretend molehills are mountains. They speculate suspicious activity and ignore simpler explanations.
I suspect what happened was a common work-day workaround of the era: typing two versions of the same document in advance of the results coming back while you had time.
This was before WiteOut (created 1966 -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wite-Out )
and well before personal computers where you can modify an electronic document and reprint a copy in seconds, so so if you wanted a clean copy, without errors, you typed up the two versions in advance.
Drain then attached the wrong version to the document, and corrected it later, as requested. As Speer notes, Drain was not responsible for the testing. That was done by James Cadigan, who was the FBI’s Questioned Document expert, and testified thusly:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/cadigan1.htm
“In all of the observations and physical tests, that I made, I found that for Exhibit 142, the bag, and the paper sample, Commission Exhibit 677, the results were the same.”
That was for the sample of paper recovered on 11/22/63 as supplied by Drain.
On 12/1/63 more paper was obtained, this was from a different roll of Depository paper. Cadigan also examined that paper, and compared it to the paper sack found in the Depository on 11/22/63 (Exhibit 142), and concluded:
— quote —
Mr. DULLES. Do I understand correctly, though, you have testified that a sample taken 10 days later was different---or approximately 10 days later?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Approximately 10 days.
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; this was a sample taken December 1. I could tell that it was different from this sample, 677, taken on the day of the assassination, and different from the bag, Exhibit 142.
— unquote —
Given the testing of two different samples, it’s understandable that drain could make a simple errror and put the wrong memo into the document.
But Drain’s memos are not important, he’s not the expert, he didn’t do the testing. His claims are not admissible (they are hearsay), and again, critics are guilty of looking at the wrong things (hearsay from Drain) and looking at them wrongly (ignoring commonplace workarounds from that era) in their desperate search to get Oswald off the hook.
Cadigan did the testing, and his results are clear and unequivocal.
The paper from the Depository on 11/23/63 matched the bag found in the Depository and the paper from the Depository on 12/1/63 did not.
Ben then rolls right into ad hominem and red herring territory below: