Part 71

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.

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH D. NICOL

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.

Representative FORD. 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, and 399----

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.

Representative FORD. 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.

Representative FORD. 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.

Representative FORD. 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.

Representative FORD. 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 particular case, 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 now to----

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 to in----