Mr.Eisenberg. Now this isCommission——
Mr.Cunningham. In other words, the knurling is typical—the physical characteristics were similar to those of the bullets manufactured by the Western Cartridge Co.
Mr.Eisenberg. This is Commission Exhibit 573, which is the—as to which Mr. Frazier has testified, and which is believed to be the bullet found in the Walker residence.
Are you familiar with it?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. And you have examined it as well as Mr. Frazier?
Mr.Cunningham. I have.
Mr.Eisenberg. Would you say that this bullet was a 6.5-mm. Western copper-jacketed Mannlicher-Carcano bullet?
Mr.Cunningham. I would.
Mr.Eisenberg. As definitely as you say the bullets which we have just been looking at are respectively Remington-Peters and Western-Winchester .38 Special bullets?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes, sir.
Mr.Dulles. Could I see that just a moment?
What did that hit, the brick wall of the house?
Mr.Cunningham. I have no idea, sir.
Mr.Dulles. You don't know?
Mr.Cunningham. I don't know. I have no first-hand knowledge of it. It is in essentially the same condition as when we received it in the laboratory, and all I know would be what has already been furnished your Commission by report.
Mr.Dulles. Thank you.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now given the fact that that was a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge, could that have been fired in any other 6.5-millimeter rifle?
Mr.Cunningham. No, sir; it has to be a rifle that is chambered specifically for this particular cartridge. In other words, there are other 6.5-millimeter cartridges.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, as I understand it, your conclusion and Mr. Frazier's was only that this cartridge, that this bullet, could have been fired from Exhibit 139 or a rifle withsimilar——
Mr.Cunningham. On the basis of the rifling characteristics it could have been fired from 139. However, there are insufficient marks remaining to determine whether or not it had actually been so fired.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now the testimony yesterday as I recall it was that it was fired either from Exhibit 139 or from a rifle with similar, or from a weapon with similar rifling characteristics?
Mr.Cunningham. That is correct.
Mr.Eisenberg. But according to your testimony it would have to be similar to a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?
Mr.Cunningham. No; I did not so testify. You asked if you could fire another 6.5-mm. cartridge other than thecartridge——
Mr.Eisenberg. I asked if that cartridge, if a Western manufacture 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge could be fired in a gun other than the 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano. And you said, as I recall it, "It could only be fired from a gun chambered for that cartridge."
Mr.Cunningham. That is correct. That 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge could only be fired in a weapon that is chambered for that particular cartridge. Further we have never found another cartridge that this particular type bullet has been loaded into.
Mr.Eisenberg. Have you any reason to believe there is another 6.5-millimeter rifle manufactured that is chambered for that cartridge?
Mr.Cunningham. None that I know of. Maybe I misunderstood you. You mean, if the weapon is chambered for a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano, then that is commonly known as its caliber?
Mr.Eisenberg. Yes.
Mr.Cunningham. But you can rechamber weapons for another cartridge, as they do all the time with the military surplus Springfield rifles. You can have them rebarreled and rechambered.
Mr.Eisenberg. Apart from rechambering, talking just about original manufacture, do I understand that the only weapon which you have encountered, the only 6.5 millimeter weapon you have encountered which would fire the particular type of cartridge which is Exhibit 573 is the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes, sir; the various models of it.
Mr.Eisenberg. Okay.
Before the luncheon—are there any further questions along this line?
Before the luncheon recess we were talking about the paraffin test and we were discussing the significance of a positive result, and you had given testimony concerning two experiments which the FBI had run which indicated that positive results might be obtained even by a person who had not recently fired a weapon?
Mr.Cunningham. That is correct.
Mr.Eisenberg. A paraffin test was also run of Oswald's cheek and it produced a negative result.
Mr.Cunningham. Yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. Do your tests, or do the tests which you ran, or your experience with revolvers and rifles, cast any light on the significance of a negative result being obtained on the right cheek?
Mr.Cunningham. No, sir; I personally wouldn't expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter.
Mr.Eisenberg. Would you expect to find residues on a person who has fired a revolver such as Commission Exhibit 143?
Mr.Cunningham. There again, by its design, you would expect to find something, although there are cases where you won't find it.
Mr.Eisenberg. Why do you expect to find a residue in the case of the revolver as opposed to the rifle?
Mr.Cunningham. A revolver has a revolving cylinder. There is a space between the barrel and the front portion of the cylinder.
Mr.Eisenberg. I wonder whether you could show that by use of Exhibit 143?
Mr.Cunningham. You can see when you close the cylinder, and each chamber lines up, there is a few thousandths space between. When the bullet is fired, the bullet jumps across this space and enters the ramp and then into the rifling.
The gases always escape through this small space. The loss is negligible, but the gases are escaping on every shot. After you fire this revolver, you can see residues, smoke deposits and other residues around the entrance to the rearportion of the barrel which is next to the cylinder, as well as on the cylinder itself.
So you would expect to find gunpowder residues on a person's hands after he fired a revolver.
Mr.Eisenberg. Do I understand your testimony to be that there is no equivalent gap in the manufacture of a rifle?
Mr.Cunningham. That is correct.
Mr.Eisenberg. Did you run any kind of a test with this revolver which would indicate whether it did in fact leave residues?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes; I did, or we did, three of us, Mr. Frazier, Mr. Killion, and myself. The tests were run on me. I was the one who washed my hands thoroughly. I did not use a brush, I just washed them with green soap and rinsed them in distilled water.
Mr.Eisenberg. The purpose of this washing was what?
Mr.Cunningham. To remove possible dirt from my hands. I washed my hands. The gun was then wiped off with dilute HCl to get rid of any deposits already on the gun, and I fired it in our bullet-recovery room, four times—and then after firing I opened it up and ejected the cartridge cases into my hand, as I showed you earlier today. The amount of residue that you pick up on your hands from ejection of the cartridge cases was in my hand at the time.
I then, under ideal conditions naturally, went back and had paraffin casts made of my hands and these were treated with a solution of diphenylbenzidine.
The results of this examination were that we got a positive result on both casts, front and back. Many reactions in this area where I had ejected the cartridge cases in my hand were noted.
Mr.Eisenberg. By the way, you testified this morning that many common substances will produce a positive reaction to the nitrate test, so-called paraffin test.
Will the handling of an unclean weapon also produce a positive reaction?
Mr.Cunningham. Just as much as firing it will. That is what makes this test so unreliable. Handling a recently fired weapon, that is covered with residues—you would get just as many oxidizing agents in the form of nitrates and nitrites on your hands as you would from firing it and in some cases more—especially up here and around here you would.
Mr.Dulles. Does the time between the tests, between the firing and the test, make very much difference, within a few hours?
Mr.Cunningham. If the residues are on the skin they will react. In other words, if the material has been washed off completely, then you are all through, but if it remains on the skin or is imbedded in the pores of the skin it would still react, but so will so many other things.
Mr.Eisenberg. Just to review for a second your testimony this morning, in the experiments that the FBI ran, a revolver or automatic pistol were used as opposed to rifles, as I recall it?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. Were there any negative results following the shooting of the revolver or automatic pistol?
Mr.Cunningham. None of those were negative results, but they were not run under the same conditions. By the way, with an automatic pistol you shouldn't expect to find any residues, for the same reason as with a rifle—the cartridge is chamber, and the boltface comes in right behind.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you look at your notes for your first experiment, because as I recall there were some negative results on that.
Mr.Cunningham. The only negative results were on the 20 people who were run as a control and who had never fired a gun, and even for those people they all got positive reactions at least on one hand.
Mr.Eisenberg. I am talking about the first experiment now, not the second one.
Mr.Cunningham. The first experiment—yes; that was true. This test was a little bit different.
In other words, they were not just taking people from their work. These people had washed their hands.
Mr.Eisenberg. In other words, their hands were cleaned before they fired the weapon?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. But then some of them fired a revolver and still didn't get a residue, as I remember your testimony?
Mr.Cunningham. That is correct.
Mr.Eisenberg. Did you make a test with the exhibit, with the rifle, 139, to determine whether that left a powder residue on the right cheek?
Mr.Cunningham. We did.
Mr.Eisenberg. Will you describe that test?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes; this time we ran a control. We were interested in running a control to find out just what the possibility was of getting a positive reaction after a person has thoroughly washed their hands. Mr. Killion used green soap and washed his hands, and we ran a control, both of the right cheek and of both hands.
We got many reactions on both the right hand and the left hand, and he had not tired a gun that day.
Mr.Eisenberg. This was before firing the rifle?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes, sir. That was before firing the rifle. We got no reaction on the cheek.
Mr.Eisenberg. Also before firing the rifle?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes.
We fired the rifle. Mr. Killion fired it three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts.
Mr.Eisenberg. So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?
Mr.Cunningham. That is correct, and there were none on the hands. We cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him. He held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he would not have to get his hands near the chamber—in other words, so he wouldn't pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the receiver. When we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or on his cheek. On the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we got numerous reactions.
Mr.Eisenberg. Are there any further questions on the paraffin test?
RepresentativeFord. Based on your testimony this morning, and what you have told us in the last few minutes, why are paraffin tests conducted and how extensively are they?
Mr.Cunningham. Many local law-enforcement agencies do conduct these tests, and at their request the FBI will process them. They take the cast and we will process them.
However, in reporting, we give them qualified results, since we frequently will get some reaction. Numerous reactions or a few reactions will be found on the casts. However, in no way does this indicate that a person has recently fired a weapon. Then we list a few of the oxidizing agents, the common ones, such as in urine and tobacco and cosmetics and a few other things that one may come in contact with. Even Clorox would give you a positive reaction.
RepresentativeFord. Is this a test that has been conducted by law-enforcement agencies for some time. Is it a new test?
Mr.Cunningham. No, sir; the first test that I reported on here were conducted in 1935.
There may be some law-enforcement agencies which use the test for psychological reasons.
Mr.Dulles. Explain that.
Mr.Cunningham. Yes, sir; what they do is they ask, say, "We are going to run a paraffin test on you, you might as well confess now," and they will—itis—
Mr.Dulles. I get your point.
Mr.Eisenberg. Following up Congressman Ford's question, does the FBI run paraffin tests except on request from other law-enforcement agencies?
Mr.Cunningham. We don't, no. Basically, the paraffin test is the preparing of the cast. We don't do that. We will run the chemical processing of these casts at the request of the local law-enforcement agency.
Mr.Eisenberg. To rephrase it, if the FBI is having an investigation by itself in a matter it has primary jurisdiction over, will it use the paraffin test?
Mr.Cunningham. No; not the paraffin-chemical test.
RepresentativeFord. Is that because of the feeling that it is not as reliable as it should be?
Mr.Cunningham. It is the feeling that it is definitely not reliable as to determining whether or not a person has fired a weapon. It is positive, and diphenlybenzidine solution is very positive and very sensitive, as to whether or not an oxidizing agent is present and it is used in chemistry.
Mr.Dulles. You and I with our pipes would be in trouble here, wouldn't we?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes, sir; I mentioned that this morning.
RepresentativeFord. He brought it out this morning.
Mr.Cunningham. I would be willing to state right now if we processed both of your hands you would come up positive, because invariably pipe smokers stick their finger in the bowl and you would get a positive reaction.
I am a cigar smoker, I also would come up positive.
Mr.Eisenberg. I don't have any further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr.Dulles. Do you have any further questions?
RepresentativeFord. I have no questions.
Mr.Rhyne. I take it in sum and substance that these paraffin tests are practically worthless?
Mr.Cunningham. For the determination of whether or not a person has fired a weapon.
Mr.Rhyne. A gun?
Mr.Cunningham. Yes.
Now the test is not worthless in chemistry.
Mr.Dulles. What use are they then except possibly from this psychological angle that you have mentioned?
Mr.Cunningham. Wedon't——
Mr.Dulles. Are they useful in other ways than but for the psychological reasons you mentioned?
Mr.Cunningham. As far as whether or not a person has fired a gun?
Mr.Dulles. Yes.
Mr.Cunningham. No. Even with the mere handling of this weapon I could pick up residues. One could not testify that a person has fired a weapon because he had residues on his hands, which I showed you this morning, for example.
There is a spot right there on my hand, and all I have done is empty the weapon.
RepresentativeFord. Did the FBI conduct a paraffin test on Oswald?
Mr.Cunningham. No, sir; the Dallas Police Department did.
RepresentativeFord. The FBI did not?
Mr.Cunningham. We did not, sir.
RepresentativeFord. You didn't analyze it?
Mr.Cunningham. We did not. We obtained the paraffin casts and another agent in the spectographic unit took them to Oak Ridge and had them subjected to neutron activation, with which I am not familiar. But we did not do the original examination and the reporting. I don't know definitely as to what the Dallas Police Department did.
Mr.Eisenberg. It was under the supervision of the Dallas Police Department. I think a doctor performed the test, I am not sure whether it was a police doctor or not.
By the way, after the paraffin test is run, does the positive reaction stay evident on the paraffin cast?
Mr.Cunningham. No, it does not, due to the fact you have to wash it off. The solution of diphenylbenzidine is 70 percent sulphuric acid. The solution we were using in these tests was .25 grams of diphenylbenzidine to 100 ml. of 70 percent sulphuric acid, and sulphuric acid is corrosive. In other words, the majority of the solution is 70 percent sulphuric acid.
Mr.Eisenberg. So the casts as they are now don't show anything except white paraffin?
Mr.Cunningham. That is correct.
Mr.Dulles. You have no further questions?
Mr.Murray. No, thank you, sir.
Mr.Dulles. Thank you very much, Mr. Cunningham. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr.Dulles. Mr. Nicol, I am presiding at the request of the Chief Justice.
Will you kindly raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you will give before this Commission is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr.Nicol. I do.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Nicol, would you state your name and position?
Mr.Nicol. Joseph D. Nicol, Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation for the State of Illinois.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you briefly describe your qualifications in the field of firearms investigation?
Mr.Nicol. I began studying this field in 1941 in the Chicago Police Crime Laboratory under Charles Wilson, remained there as a firearms technician for approximately 9 years, and then moved to Pittsburgh, where I directed and set up the Pittsburgh and Allegheny County Crime Laboratory, also working in the field of ballistics.
Then I went to Miami, Fla., and set up the Dade County Crime Laboratory and worked there for 5 years. I went to Michigan State and taught for 4 and now I am back in Illinois, in Springfield, as Superintendent of the Bureau.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you tell us approximately how many bullets and cartridge cases you have examined to identify them or attempt to identify them to suspect weapons?
Mr.Nicol. This would number in the thousands, I do not have an exact figure, but our caseload in Chicago is approximately 4,000 guns annually, of which we would make approximately between 10 and a dozen comparisons, so the comparisons that would be conducted by myself or those under my direct supervision would be approximately 50,000 a year. Now this is just a rough figure.
Mr.Eisenberg. Do you have any publications or lectures?
Mr.Nicol. I have one minor publication in the field of firearms. Most of my publication work has been with the "Journal of Criminology" in the area, of the technical note and abstract section.
I do not have any major publications in the firearms field.
Mr.Eisenberg. What is your association with that Journal?
Mr.Nicol. I am associate editor of the "Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology."
Mr.Eisenberg. Do you lecture on any regular basis?
Mr.Nicol. At the present time I am lecturing with the University of Illinois in criminal investigation, at the Chicago campus, and prior to that I had been on the staff at Michigan State University for approximately 4 years.
Mr.Eisenberg. What was your education before you went into this field?
Mr.Nicol. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry from Northwestern, and during the period that I was with the Chicago Crime Laboratory I got a Master's in Physics also from Northwestern.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, I would like permission to take Mr. Nicol's testimony as an expert witness in the field of firearms identification.
Mr.Dulles. You may proceed.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Nicol, I will hand you 3 exhibits, 3 items, Commission Exhibits 399, 567, and 569, which I will describe for the record as being a bullet and 2 bullet fragments, and I ask you whether you are familiar with those 3 Commission Exhibits?
Mr.Nicol. May I examine them?
Mr.Eisenberg. Yes, you may.
Mr.Nicol. Yes, this was the exhibit that was given to me as Q-1 in the original transmission.
Mr.Eisenberg. This being which Commission exhibit?
Mr.Nicol. This being 399.
Exhibit 567, this was referred to as Q-2, and also accompanied the other exhibit.
Commission Exhibit 569, this is Q-3.
Mr.Eisenberg. Are your marks on those exhibits?
Mr.Nicol. Yes, I have marked my initials on an unrifled portion of each one of these exhibits. There were also other marks on it at the time I received the specimens.
Mr.Eisenberg. I don't know whether you gentlemen have seen these. These are rifle bullets and bullet fragments.
Mr.Dulles. Is this the one that was found on the stretcher?
Mr.Eisenberg. Exhibit 399 is the bullet that was found on the stretcher. Exhibits 567 and 569 were found in the front portion of the President's car.
Mr.Dulles. These are pretty badly mutilated, aren't they?
Mr.Nicol. Apparently they are separated so that one can't tell whether they come from a single bullet or from two separate projectiles. One is a nose portion and the other is a base.
Mr.Dulles. Is this the one that is the nose portion?
Mr.Eisenberg. You are handing, Mr. Dulles is handing Mr. Nicol Commission Exhibit 569.
Mr.Nicol. No, that would be the base portion.
Mr.Dulles. That is what I thought. Are those different parts of the same bullet possibly?
Mr.Nicol. That is possible, because there appears to be an interval of approximately an eighth of an inch that is not present, so that the area where one begins is not even with the other, so it is not possible to tell, at least I couldn't to express an opinion.
Mr.Eisenberg. That is, they might be two separate bullets or two parts of the same bullet?
Mr.Nicol. Two parts of the same or separate bullets that is right.
Mr.Eisenberg. I hand you Commission Exhibit 572, which for the record consists of two bullets, and ask you whether you are familiar with those bullets?
Mr.Nicol. These are the two projectiles which were given to me as K-1, and were used by me as standards or tests.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, when you say "standards or tests," could you amplify that?
Mr.Nicol. On the basis of information on the cartridge, or on the envelope, rather, it was my understanding that these had been fired from a weapon. I have not any personal knowledge of the weapon from which they were fired, but they were used as comparison standards to be compared against rifling impressions on the other three exhibits.
Mr.Eisenberg. Can you tell us how you obtained these four exhibits which you have just looked at?
Mr.Nicol. All these exhibits were obtained from Mr. Eisenberg on March 24, here in this office.
Mr.Eisenberg. And for the record, I obtained these items from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and transmitted them directly to Mr. Nicol for his examination.
Now, Mr. Nicol, you therefore did not fire the two test bullets which you used in your comparison?
Mr.Nicol. No, sir; I did not.
Mr.Eisenberg. And can you go into that at any length as to—do you have any reason for that?
Mr.Nicol. Well, probably two very basic reasons. One, the matter of time, and secondly the fact that I did not have facilities in the area where I was working for the collection of such tests from a high-powered weapon.
There is the other problem, as developed later, it was apparent that the weapon, even in the firing of this small sequence, was undergoing some changes, and it was my understanding that several shots had been fired since these tests were fired and there might be some likelihood of transitory changes which would make these the best specimens rather than those I might fire now after this series.
Mr.Eisenberg. Again for the record, I had been informed by the FBI that some 50 or more bullets had been fired from the rifle, and that the firing of this many bullets from a high-velocity weapon would seriously alter the characteristics of the barrel.
RepresentativeFord. Would that be your conclusion, too?
Mr.Nicol. Yes, it would be. It has been my experience that there is a rapid erosion with the high pressures and high temperatures that are involved in a weapon of that velocity.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Nicol, did you examine the three exhibits which were given to you as Q-1, Q-2, and Q-3, and which are now, I believe 567, 569, and399——
Mr.Nicol. Yes sir; I did.
Mr.Eisenberg. To determine whether or not they had come from the identical barrel as that in which the two—the bullets in Exhibit 572 had sheen fired?
Mr.Nicol. Yes, I did.
Mr.Eisenberg. Can you give us your conclusions?
Mr.Nicol. Yes. It is my opinion that the same weapon that fired Commission's Exhibit 572 also fired the projectiles in Commission's Exhibits 569, 567, and 399.
Mr.Eisenberg. That would be to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr.Nicol. Correct.
Mr.Eisenberg. Did you take photographs of the test and suspect items?
Mr.Nicol. Yes; I did.
Mr.Eisenberg. Under the comparison microscope?
Mr.Nicol. Yes, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. And have you brought those photographs with you?
Mr.Nicol. Yes, sir; I have.
I might say in passing that this was done in Philadelphia with equipment that I was not thoroughly conversant with, that is, a type that I have used, but each piece has some idiosyncrasy, and considering the time element I do not offer these as the best quality that could be produced under the circumstances.
RepresentativeFord. Does that make any difference in your judgment or opinion?
Mr.Nicol. No, sir; it doesn't, because my opinion is based upon a visual examination. That is, photography is not an integral part of arriving at the conclusion, except in one facet which I will discuss later.
Mr.Eisenberg. On that subject, have you testified in court on firearms identification?
Mr.Nicol. Yes, sir; many times.
Mr.Eisenberg. Do you usually use photographs when you testify?
Mr.Nicol. No. As a matter of fact, I can't recall an instance in which I have.
Mr.Eisenberg. And why were these prepared?
Mr.Nicol. These were prepared at your request so that there would be documentary evidence of what I was observing. However—and this one, for example, will serve to illustrate the type of photography that is involved.
Mr.Eisenberg. Excuse me a second.
You are holding up a photograph labeled Q-1, K-1. Did you take that photograph, Mr. Nicol?
Mr.Nicol. Yes, this was taken under a comparison microscope.
Mr.Eisenberg. And Q-1 is one of the bullets which I have called the suspect bullets, and K-1 is the test bullet?
Mr.Nicol. Yes, Q-1 would be 399, and K-1 would be one of the projectiles in 572.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Chairman, may I have this photograph admitted as Commission Exhibit No. 608?
Mr.Dulles. It may be admitted.
(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 608 and received in evidence.)
Mr.Eisenberg. Using this photograph, Mr. Nicol, could you explain some of the markings which led you to the conclusion that Q-1 or Exhibit 399 had been fired from the same barrel through which K-1 was fired?
Mr.Dulles. Before you do that, just for an amateur, would you explain what this is a photograph of, the inside of the barrel?
Mr.Nicol. No, this is a photograph of two projectiles.
Mr.Dulles. Projectiles?
Mr.Nicol. This is the dividing line of the comparison bridge actually. You see a portion of one, of K-1 on one side and Q-1 on the other.
Mr.Dulles. Yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. Is that groove on the right a cannelure?
Mr.Nicol. There is a cannelure, that would be the position at which the projectile is crimped and held in the cartridge case.
RepresentativeFord. Why wouldn't that show on Q-1?
Mr.Nicol. It would be over here on the other side. You see you only see this much of Q-1, and it may show on Q-1, but it will be over underneath, and you only see this much of it—in half the field.
RepresentativeFord. This is an overlay in effect?
Mr.Nicol. In a sense, yes, and you are actually masking off half of each one that is represented over here, and masking off half of the K-1 over here.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr.Eisenberg. What is the magnification of these photographs, by the way?
Mr.Nicol. These were taken on five by seven, I would estimate about 30 diameter.
Mr.Eisenberg. And is the magnification of Q-1 the same as the magnification of K-1?
Mr.Nicol. Yes, sir; the optics are carefully matched in order that they magnify identically.
Mr.Eisenberg. Will that statement be true of all the comparison photographs that will be shown?
Mr.Nicol. Yes, sir. They may not be at the same magnification because I took some of the subsequent ones on a different unit which had different optics.
Mr.Eisenberg. But the left and right side of the pictures would be at the same magnification as each other?
Mr.Nicol. They will be at matched magnification, correct.
Mr.Eisenberg. Why don't you continue.
Mr.Nicol. Starting up at the top you will notice a white patch which represents a land impression on the two projectiles. Immediately below that a large patch with a similarity of the contours of the edges.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Nicol, do you think you could circle that and mark it "1" so that people looking at the record in the future will know what you are referring to? Circle it or make an arrow?
Mr.Nicol. All right.
Below that in approximately this position you will see a line on Q-1 that is found over in the comparable position on K-1.
Below that at a point representing an imperfection on Q-1, slight damage to the projectile, you will notice a line which continues across.
Below that a pair of lines, and then a larger line, below that a pair of fairly deep impressions, and below that another pair of single broad grooves, and then another pair, one of the lines is not in the same size, and then as one gets further down the match is—the bullets are no longer in a match relationship, simply because Q-1 is somewhat distorted as a result of having struck some hard object at the base portion, so that it is oval.
In the case here we are comparing two surfaces of different radii so that they do not—looking at them as a projection they do not match up.
But in this particular region, from approximately this fill-in in the cannelure, there is a sufficient number of points of identification to lead me to the conclusion they were both fired in the same weapon.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you mark that, that you mention as "2"?
Mr.Dulles. This again, at least the "Q" part of this, is the bullet that was found in the stretcher?
Mr.Nicol. Yes, sir; this specimen here.
Mr.Dulles. That is on the left-hand side, is it?
Mr.Nicol. Yes, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. "Q," as Mr. Cunningham stated, is the FBI mark for "questioned," whereas "K" is the FBI mark for "known."
Mr.Nicol. I retained the same nomenclature so I would not add any unnecessary marks.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now do you have another photograph?
Mr.Nicol. Yes. I took three different positions of Q-1 and K-1. This would be now with the same projectiles under the comparison microscope but rotated to a new position. Each one of these positions shows a similar rotation.
Do you want to mark these?
Mr.Eisenberg. This photograph was also taken by you, Mr. Nicol?
Mr.Nicol. Yes, sir.
Mr.Eisenberg. May I have this admitted as 609?
Mr.Dulles. It shall be admitted.
(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 609, and was received in evidence.)
Mr.Eisenberg. This is also marked Q-1 and K-1.
That will be Commission Exhibit 609.
Would you discuss that photograph briefly, Mr. Nicol?
Mr.Nicol. This represents a new position of Q-1 and K-1 in a match relationship. Both have been rotated simultaneously through the same angle, and looking at the bottom this time, the large broad area represents a land impression.
Then coming up to a point approximately a half inch above the land edge there is a deep groove paired up with several other deep indentations. These are worth noting because these represented very prominent index marks on both Q-1, Q-2, and Q-3. This was used as, you might say, a point of departure in lining up the projectiles. And again this shows what I would consider evidence of similarity between the rifling impressions on both projectiles.
Mr.Dulles. You wouldn't go further than that—"evidence of similarity"?
Mr.Nicol. Well, I would go so far as to say that based upon the individual characteristics that I observed, these, plus those shown on the other photograph, would lead me to the opinion that they were fired in the same gun.
When I refer to similarities, these would be individual characteristics which would be in the same category as the individual points of identification on a fingerprint. This would be tantamount to the fingerprint of that particular weapon.
Mr.Eisenberg. This is the third photograph?
Mr.Nicol. This is a third photograph of another very prominent mark on both projectiles.
Mr.Eisenberg. Taken by you, Mr. Nicol?
Mr.Nicol. Right.
Mr.Eisenberg. May I have this admitted as Commission Exhibit 610?
Mr.Dulles. It will be admitted.
(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 610 and was received in evidence.)
Representative Ford (addressing Mr. Eisenberg). Now both Q-1 and K-1 were fired from the Commission Exhibit 139?
Mr.Eisenberg. 139, yes. The FBI fired K-1 from Exhibit 139.
Mr. Nicol has now identified Q-1 as having been fired from the same source as K-1, and, therefore, from Exhibit 139.
RepresentativeFord. Yes.
Mr.Nicol. This represents a third position of Q-1 and K-1, and in this third position, of course, the first two positions still are in match relationship, that is to say in a relative sense; because of mutilation of Q-1 they would not be precise, there would be some mild adjustments.
What I am illustrating here is a very prominent groove. In this particularcase, Q-1 has displaced slightly in the mechanics of photography so that the lower broad shoulder that you see here of this heavy line does not match up. This should come up just slightly above.
The photographer in printing chose this negative rather than another one which would have been superior, and I apologize for this particular photograph.
But this groove, along with the other pattern shown on 609, also appear prominently on Q-2 and Q-3 as prominent index marks.
Mr.Dulles. I don't quite understand 610. This is the last one we have just admitted.
Are these ridges the same? This wouldn't be very clear for the record—this is 609 that I have here.
Mr.Nicol. No, this is not the same view.
Mr.Dulles. That is not the same view at all. It is a different part of the bullet.
Mr.Nicol. This is rotated, both of them rotated simultaneously the same amount to bring those into position here.
Mr.Dulles. Now on 610, I don't see anything comparable on the Q-1 bullet, a ridge comparable on the Q-1 bullet to the one I find on the K-1 bullet.
Mr.Nicol. The dividing line is right through here.
Mr.Dulles. Yes.
Mr.Nicol. And it is this big groove gouged through there.
Mr.Dulles. It stops there at that point?
Mr.Nicol. It stops right here. This is the base of the bullet. The lead is protruding, that is what you see down here.
Mr.Dulles. I see.
Mr.Eisenberg. Could you circle the mark you are discussing now?
Mr.Nicol. That comprises the three positions of the comparison of Q-1 and K-1.
Mr.Eisenberg. Did you also take photographs of Q-2, which is our Commission number 567?
Mr.Nicol. Yes, sir; this particular position is a comparison of Q-2 and Q-1.
Mr.Eisenberg. You took this photograph, Mr. Nicol?
Mr.Nicol. Right.
Mr.Eisenberg. May I have this admitted as 611?
Mr.Dulles. Yes.
(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 611 for identification and received in evidence.)
Mr.Nicol. Due to the extent of mutilation of these two projectiles, I found it more advantageous to compare Q-1 and Q-2 rather than comparing Q-2 and K-1.
Mr.Eisenberg. In other words, you took Q-1, which you had already identified as having been fired through—from the same rifle as K-1, and compared it with Q-2 in the photograph?
Mr.Nicol. Right.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, in determining whether Q-2 had been fired from the same rifle as K-1, that is, in determining whether the suspect bullet had been fired from the same rifle as the test bullet, did you match up Q-2 against the test bullet or against Q-1?
Mr.Nicol. I did both. But photographically, I could get a better illustration between Q-1 and Q-2 rather than K-1, because what was apparent was that the heavy groove here, which would be a projection in the barrel, and, of course, being outstanding, would be subject to rapid wear, had changed somewhat between the Q specimens and the K specimens. And so in order to get closer to the actual time of the original firing, it was advantageous to make a comparison of Q-1 and Q-2.
Mr.Eisenberg. But you arrived at a conclusion independently also on the basis of K-1?
Mr.Nicol. Yes, also on the basis of other striations which are not as easily illustrated photographically, the reason being the mutilation of the projectile. And here we are comparing a curved surface with a flat surface, or a curved surface that is flattened out, and the geometry is no longer the same.
Mr.Eisenberg. But you did compare Q-2 to K-1 under the microscope?
Mr.Nicol. Yes.
Mr.Eisenberg. And did you arrive at a positive conclusion?
Mr.Nicol. Yes, I did. It is my conclusion that the same weapon that fired K-1 fired Q-2.
Mr.Eisenberg. So the photograph that compares Q-1 and Q-2 is only for illustrative purposes?
Mr.Nicol. Yes, sir.
Mr.Dulles. For clarification purposes, am I correct that Q-2 is the mutilated fractured bullet that was found in the car?
Mr.Nicol. Yes, sir.
Mr.Dulles. And was Q-3 in such a situation that it furnished any useful test or not?
Mr.Nicol. Yes; I could use it for comparison.
Mr.Dulles. That was the other part, or separate part found in the President's car?
Mr.Nicol. Q-2 is the nose.
Mr.Dulles. Yes, I remember that. I looked at that.
Mr.Nicol. You see, what I have to work with is this flat back portion there, as against the round part, and of course the geometry is just not the same.
Mr.Eisenberg. You were pointing just nowto——
Mr.Nicol. Q-2.
Mr.Dulles. Q-2 is the nose and Q-3 is the base?
Mr.Nicol. Base portion, correct.
Mr.Dulles. Of the fractured bullet.
Mr.Nicol. Or bullets.
Mr.Dulles. Or bullets.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, you had just begun to show us photograph 611.
Mr.Nicol. 611 represents, for purposes of illustration—it represents Q-1 on the right and Q-2 on the left, and the major mark that I referred to on the comparison of K-1 and Q-1 is represented by this deep gouge across the field here. There are also other smaller striations that are in the match, above it.
Mr.Eisenberg. You now show me a photograph of Q-l and Q-3?
Mr.Nicol. Right.
Mr.Eisenberg. Did you take this photograph?
Mr.Nicol. I did.
Mr.Dulles. It will be admitted as Commission Exhibit 612.
(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 612 and received in evidence.)
Mr.Eisenberg. Again I ask, Mr. Nicol, whether in arriving at your conclusion you made a comparison of Q-3 directly against K-1?
Mr.Nicol. Yes, sir; I did. And the purpose here, as expressed before, is that the illustration seemed to be better between Q-1 and Q-3, as far as the photographic presentation was concerned.
We have here Q-1 on the right and Q-3 on the left. Just down at the base portion of Q-1, just the small portion visible here, there is a group of very prominent marks that are in a match relationship there. These are the same group referred toin——
Mr.Dulles. That is Q-1 and Q-3 that Mr. Rhyne is looking at?
Mr.Rhyne. Yes.
Mr.Nicol. It would be the same area as referred to in 609.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, does that complete your photographs of the three bullets in Exhibits 399, 567, and 569?
Mr.Nicol. That's right—against Commission Exhibit 572.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Nicol, I hand you Commission Exhibit 573 and I ask you whether you are familiar with this item, which I state for the record is a bullet found inside the Walker residence after the attempted assassination of General Walker.
Mr.Nicol. Yes, sir; I have seen this.
Mr.Eisenberg. Is your mark on that?
Mr.Nicol. Correct.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Nicol, did you make an examination of Commission Exhibit 573 to determine whether it was fired from the same rifle as Commission Exhibit 572, which we have—one of which we have also been calling K-1?
Mr.Nicol. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr.Eisenberg. And what was your conclusion?
Mr.Nicol. I found that within the limits that Commission Exhibit 573 is badly mutilated as a result of having struck some hard object on the side—that the class characteristics generally correspond, that is to say it would be fired from a weapon of comparable rifling to Commission Exhibit 572. Then looking at an area which I can best describe on 609 as being a burr that develops along the edge of the rifling, I found both on the upper surface, which would be the groove impression, and along on the shoulder, quite a few points, individual characteristics, which matched up in each of the positions which were visible.
Because of the mutilation I was not able to put these in the kind of a match relationship that would suggest a positive identification. However, I did not find anything on Commission Exhibit 573 that was incompatible with Commission Exhibit 572, so without going to the degree of saying that there is a positive identification, I would express it this way—that there is a fair probability that Commission Exhibit 573 was fired from the same weapon that fired 672.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Nicol, we had testimony from a Mr. Frazier yesterday of the FBI Firearms Section, and he testified that the FBI does not make probable identifications, but merely positive or negative identifications.
Mr.Nicol. I am aware of their position. This is not, I am sure, arrived at without careful consideration. However, to say that because one does not find sufficient marks for identification that it is a negative, I think is going overboard in the other direction. And for purposes of probative value, for whatever it might be worth, in the absence of very definite negative evidence, I think it is permissible to say that in an exhibit such as 573 there is enough on it to say that it could have come, and even perhaps a little stronger, to say that it probably came from this, without going so far as to say to the exclusion of all other guns. This I could not do.
Mr.Dulles(addressing Mr. Eisenberg). Would you refresh my memory as to this other exhibit—I don't remember—is 573 the actual bullet that was fired and mutilated in the Walker attempt?
Mr.Eisenberg. Yes.
Mr.Dulles. And 572 is what?
Mr.Eisenberg. Those are the test bullets fired by the FBI.
Mr.Dulles. I was a little puzzled by the order.
Mr.Eisenberg. Yes. That is just the order in which they were introduced in evidence.
Mr.Dulles. And really 573 came before 572 in terms of time.
Mr.Eisenberg. Yes.
Mr.Dulles. That clears it up for me.
Mr.Nicol. This is the condition of the bullet.
Mr.Dulles. I have seen the bullet, yes.
Mr.Nicol. It is in sad shape, to say the least.
Mr.Eisenberg. As I understand your testimony, therefore, you feel that there are sufficient identical microscopic characteristics on 572 and 573 to say that they were probably fired from the same weapon, but not enough to say that they were definitely fired from the same weapon.
Mr.Nicol. Yes. My opinion would be based upon the finding of families of lines that would be of the order of two to four fine striations on the burr that I referred to. For a stronger identification, I would want a larger group, I would want perhaps five or six in a given area, all matching in terms of contour as well as position. But this I did not find. And so for that reason, I would not want to express this as a positive finding. However, I would not want to be misunderstood or suggest that this could not have come from that particular gun.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, you say burr. This is a burr in the barrel of the rifle whichproduced——
Mr.Nicol. No, I believe it is the result of a displacement of metal as the land impresses into the jacket material, and actually machines up a burr along here on the driving edge.
Mr.Eisenberg. So is there an extrusion on—on the rifle barrel which would produce that?
Mr.Nicol. It may have been true at one time. It appeared at some point in the passage through the barrel, this portion of the jacket curled up and subsequently before it left the barrel was touched by the rifling, so that it is now flat and even. When I refer to it as a burr, it is not raised up. It is even with the rest of this surface. But you can see the definite outline of that burr at the land edge.
(At this point the Chairman entered the hearing room.)
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, would this be caused by an extrusion in the barrel or a concavity in the barrel?
Mr.Nicol. It is probably the result of erosion back at the chamber, back at the rear of the barrel, along the land edge here, and then as the bullet gets to the end of the barrel, pressures decrease, so erosion also decreases, and therefore there is still rifling enough left to press this down and make some impression on the projectile itself.
Mr.Eisenberg. And does this lie within a land impression, or the edge of a land impression?
Mr.Nicol. It would be actually in the groove impression.
Mr.Eisenberg. In the groove impression of the bullet?
Mr.Nicol. Of the bullet.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, you found this same mark on the Walker bullet as you found on the bullets thatwere——
Mr.Nicol. All the Q specimens and the K specimens had this characteristic burr. Now, I could not honestly say that this would not be found, the burr would not be found on other weapons of similar construction, similar velocity. However, the fine lines that you can see visible in this photograph, by which an identification could be made, would be the same individual characteristics as any other fine lines on the rifling impression.
Mr.Eisenberg. Now, Mr. Nicol, was this burr in the same position in its relation to the edge of the groove on what we have been calling the Walker bullet as it was in the other bullets?
Mr.Nicol. Yes, sir. And, as a matter of fact, repeated in about the same extent in those land positions and groove positions which are still visible on that projectile.
Mr.Eisenberg. So that you not only have the existence of the burr, but you have it at a characteristic distance from the edge of a groove impression?
Mr.Nicol. Correct. And while the contour matched, this is not as significant, because any two guns manufactured with the same rifling cutter, as perhaps a production weapon like this would be, would have the same contour characteristics. So this would not necessarily be definitive. But the presence of those individual characteristics which are referred to, although not sufficient for a positive, certainly would indicate that there is a possibility that this is fired from that particular gun.
Mr.Eisenberg. Were you able to secure photographs of this Walker bullet under the microscope?
Mr.Nicol. No; I could not, because what I would be comparing would be a curved surface that is flattened out with the test bullets, which would be still in curved geometry. So that while I might get one point in match, the others, you see, would be spread out. So that—actually, an identification of that kind is made in a dynamic fashion. That is to say, one bullet is slid and the other bullet is rotated. So that it is in a sense unfolding the curved bullet so that it resembles in a progressive way the flattened out projectile.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Nicol, I now hand you Commission Exhibit—well, before I go into that, is there any further testimony you wish to give on the subject of the rifle bullets?
Mr.Nicol. No. The only other work I did on it was with respect to an examination of the nose of Q-1 to ascertain whether there was any evidence of ricochet or perhaps contact with fabric and so on.
However, although there were some fine striations on there, there was nothing of such a nature that it would suggest a pattern, like a weave pattern or anything of that nature. So that except for the nick, which I understand has been explained as a site where spectrographic tests were conduced, no further tests were run on either of those projectiles.
Mr.Eisenberg. Yes.
For the record, the nick which Mr. Nicol refers to was in the nose of what was given to you as Q-1—and which I have been informed was a bit of metal that was taken out by the FBI to make a spectrographic test on the chemical composition of the bullet, and therefore was not produced in the process of firing the bullet.
Now, Mr. Nicol, I hand you Commission Exhibits 545, 543, and 544, which for the record consist of three shells, three rifle cartridge cases, which were found on the sixth floor of the TSBD building at the easternmost corner of the south face. I ask you whether you are familiar with those shells?
Mr.Dulles. They bear your mark?
Mr.Nicol. Yes, sir; there is a little JDN inscribed very lightly under the Q position.
Mr.Eisenberg. You are familiar with these shells?
Mr.Nicol. Yes, sir. And these were given to me by you on the same day I received the projectiles.
Mr.Eisenberg. I hand you Commission Exhibit 557, which also consists of—which consists of two expended shells, and I ask you whether you are familiar with them.
Mr.Nicol. Yes, sir. These are the specimens, the two shells which I used as standards or tests to compare against the other three fired cartridge cases.
Mr.Eisenberg. And you obtained those from what source?
Mr.Nicol. I obtained these from Mr. Eisenberg on the 24th of March here in this office.
Mr.Eisenberg. Again for the record, I obtained these shells from the FBI and turned them over directly to Mr. Nicol, and they have been identified earlier as having been fired by the FBI from Exhibit 139, the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD building.
Now, Mr. Nicol, did you examine the shells in Exhibits 543, 544, and 545 to determine whether they had been fired from the same rifle as fired the shells in Exhibit 557?
Mr.Nicol. Yes; I did.
Mr.Eisenberg. And what was your conclusion?
Mr.Nicol. Based upon the similarity of the firing-pin impressions and the breech-block markings, as well as ejector and extractor marks, it is my opinion that all three of the exhibits, 545, 543, and 544, were fired in the same weapon as fired Exhibit 557.
Mr.Eisenberg. Mr. Nicol, did you take photographs of the various shells under the microscope?
Mr.Nicol. I took photographs of the specimen which I referred to, or was referred to, as Q-48, which would be this.
Mr.Eisenberg. Yes. That is Commission Exhibit 545.
Mr.Nicol. These were also taken under the comparison microscope in the same fashion as the other specimens.