Part 72

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 which produced----

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 that were----

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.

Mr. EISENBERG. And these were taken by you?

Mr. NICOL. These were taken by me.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask permission to introduce this as Exhibit 613.

Mr. DULLES. It may be received.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 613 and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you have extra copies of this photograph?

Mr. NICOL. Yes; I do.

Mr. EISENBERG. By use of this photograph, could you explain some of the markings on Q-48, which is illustrated on the left-hand side and which is Commission Exhibit 545, and K-1, which is on the right-hand side, which is the test cartridge, which led you to the conclusion that both shells were fired from the same rifle?

Mr. DULLES. 545 is one of the shells found on the sixth floor?

Mr. EISENBERG. That's correct.

Mr. NICOL. This was the lone one that was found, I understand.

Mr. EISENBERG. L-o-n-e?

Mr. NICOL. Right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Again, for the record, what Mr. Nicol is referring to is that for some reason the shells were grouped into a group of two and a group of one shells by the Dallas police, apparently on the basis that two shells were very close together, and the third shell was a little further away. But they were actually all within a quite small area. And this is just an arbitrary grouping.

Mr. NICOL. Now, although this compares--is a comparison of Q-48 and K-1, Commission Exhibits 545 and 572--I'm sorry, 557--the same would apply to comparable regions on Exhibits 543 and 544.

I have placed arrows just for fiduciary marks so we can be looking at the same area.

Taking the top arrow, the area running across there is rather broad, an eroded or corroded band, a valley. Below it is a fairly distinct mark. The two small marks appear below it. And then on the projectile, at the middle arrow, there is a broad flat plane. This plane has an irregular contour, and what I have attempted to do is match a projection at the lower portion of this--you also see that the contour at the top is equivalent, insofar as the spatial area.

Below, there are at the lower arrow some additional marks. These begin to come to the edge of the primer. What we are looking at here is actually the primer of the cartridge case, and the marks are the breech-block markings as the result of the pressure of the set-back of the shell.

I have a sequence of these where the division moves across. Do you want to introduce all of them?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; I think we should mark them in evidence.

Mr. NICOL. All right.

This would be the dividing line of the comparison bridge moved over a small portion. You see the entire flat area here, but the match has now shifted over slightly.

Mr. EISENBERG. I am holding two photographs, both marked Q-48 and K-1. You took both photographs?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. I wonder if, for clarification, we could take one of those shells and see from what angle the photograph is taken and what is covered in the photograph. I am a little confused. It doesn't make any difference which one.

Mr. NICOL. All right, sir.

The area shown between this dark ring would represent the area between these two grooves right here. Actually, it is the entire primer. This is the firing-pin impression you are looking at right here.

Mr. DULLES. Thank you.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have these admitted, these last photographs, as 614 and 615?

Mr. DULLES. 614 and 615, exhibits as described, will be admitted.

(The photographs referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 614 and 615 and received in evidence.)

Mr. NICOL. Now, this again illustrates Q-48 and K-1 with the position now such that the division of the field is moved over approximately a sixteenth of an inch from the position we looked at previously. And again at the points indicated by the arrow, there are individual characteristics running across the dividing line of the comparison in both the top and bottom region.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, from the position of the firing-pin hole on Q-48, on this last exhibit, it appears that it is not perfectly aligned with the position of the firing-pin hole on K-1, Mr. Nicol. I am looking at the mark on the right-hand side of Q-48.

Mr. NICOL. Yes. And the purpose for the mis-alignment was in order to show these smaller marks that appear right at the edge of the firing-pin impression.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that at the top the markings on Q48 and K-1 will not run into each other, as well as on the bottom?

Mr. NICOL. If they are divergent, of course, they will not. If they are parallel, it makes no difference where the position is.

Now, this is another setting, going to the opposite side of the firing-pin impression, just translating the two cartridge cases the same distance, so that we are now looking at a division at the other side, and a comparison of the breech-block markings on the other side of the two shells.

Mr. EISENBERG. Again marked Q-48 and K-1. You took this photograph?

Mr. NICOL. I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have permission to mark this 615?

Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 615 and received in evidence.)

Mr. NICOL. Looking at the position of the upper arrow, there is a pair of diagonal marks, a small mark immediately below it going down to the lower part of the breech-block markings. There are a series of parallel lines at approximately a 45-degree angle to the division of the bridge. These were duplicated on both--all of the cartridge cases submitted.

Mr. DULLES. I am not entirely clear in my mind what this demonstrates.

Mr. NICOL. This is the basis upon which I arrived at the conclusion that the two cartridge cases, K-1 and Q-48, were fired in the same weapon. Actually, we could take a good match, such as shown here, or even this one, and this would be sufficient. All I have done here is repeat this by moving the two bullets, or the two cartridge cases together the same translated distance, and then taking a series of photographs at each particular position. So they represent actually the same thing in each one.

Mr. DULLES. As the hammer comes down on the cartridge, it makes a distinctive mark, is that the idea?

Mr. NICOL. No. I have not compared the firing-pin impression. What this is is the setback of the shell against the breech face, against the rear of the chamber.

Mr. DULLES. The breech face makes an impression on the shell, and that is a distinctive impression?

Mr. NICOL. Very definitely, just as individual as a fingerprint.

Mr. EISENBERG. These are two further photographs that you took, Mr. Nicol?

Mr. NICOL. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. And they both illustrate the same cartridge case, the same two cartridge cases, the one questioned and the one known?

Mr. NICOL. Right.

Mr. EISENBERG. And you have moved the hairline somewhat over to the right?

Mr. NICOL. Right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I introduce these as 616 and 617?

Mr. DULLES. They shall be admitted.

(The photographs described were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 616 and 617 and were received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that in the interest of time, since these two photographs are merely continuations of the first series, we go on to the next.

Mr. Nicol, you have further photographs now. These are marked Q-48 and K-1, and these are separate photographs?

Mr. NICOL. Same photographs.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is submitted as 618, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted.

(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 618 and received in evidence.)

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, was this photograph taken to show the same point as the previous photographs?

Mr. NICOL. Not exactly. This shows the rim of the two cartridge cases. K-1 is just barely visible. Q-48 represents the other half of the picture. And what we are looking at here in the match relationship, at the point of the arrow, is a patch which represents the extractor riding around the rim of the shell at the time that the cartridge was introduced into the chamber. I might qualify that by saying this: in order to be certain of the exact factor which produced this, I would have had to examine the weapon and conducted some tests to ascertain whether this was the extractor or the bolt pushing the cartridge into the chamber when the mechanism was operated.

In any case, the same tool, whether it be the extractor or the bolt, produced this pattern of lines on both the known and the unknown cartridge cases.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you find that mark repeated on the cartridge case in other places?

Mr. NICOL. This was repeated on Q-6 and 7. However, what you may be referring to is another series which was only found on Q-6.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, could you get to that photograph you just mentioned, Q-6?

Mr. NICOL. I photographed the Q-6 in three different positions, which I designated as 1, 2, and 3.

Mr. DULLES. Have we identified Q-6 before on the record?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. Q-6, I think it is stated on the record, is the equivalent of our Commission Exhibit 543.

Mr. DULLES. What is 543?

Mr. EISENBERG. 543 is a shell found in the TSBD building.

Mr. NICOL. This is a photograph I took of the head--a portion of the head of Q-6, or Commission Exhibit 543.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have this admitted as 619, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. DULLES. It shall be admitted as 619.

(The photograph described was marked Commission Exhibit No. 619 and received in evidence.)

Mr. NICOL. It might be well to introduce these, too. These are the same as the ones which are mounted, except that I have cut them for the purpose of matching them.

Mr. EISENBERG. I would like to introduce these two photographs--also taken by you, Mr. Nicol?

Mr. NICOL. Right.

Mr. EISENBERG. Which are similar, or taken from this photograph. That will be 620 and 621, Mr. Reporter.

Mr. DULLES. Exhibits 620 and 621 as described will be admitted.

(The photographs described were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 620 and 621 and were received in evidence.)

Mr. NICOL. Perhaps in order to illustrate this we ought to get all the three in, or at least another set, so I can show the match relationship photographically--so that this represents another position of Q-6, or 543.

Mr. EISENBERG. And this is a photograph which has not been admitted yet?

Mr. NICOL. No.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as 622, please?

Mr. DULLES. 622 and 623.

(The items referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 622 and 623, and received in evidence.)

Mr. DULLES. Would you just briefly describe these?

Mr. NICOL. This represents another position of the cartridge case, the head of the case--you are looking at the rim, and this is the portion of the head stamp representing millimeter. This was a 6.5 millimeter. You see just a portion of the "5." And what I will be talking about is the marks down against the rim in all of these exhibits.

Now, this is the same cartridge as represented by these other two photographs, with a slight rotation.

Now, we have only one which we might have to pass around. But if the photograph 621 is placed in a position corresponding to the arrows, a match of the fine striations, the pairs of broad lines as well as the fine lines, can be seen.

The reason that this could not be taken under the comparison microscope is that because of course we cannot divide the cartridge case, so that this had to be done photographically rather than being done on a comparison basis.

Now, this illustrates the fact that the same operation occurred twice on this particular cartridge case.

Do you want to introduce the third at this time?

Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.

This is a photograph taken by you?

Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. Of the same cartridge case?

Mr. NICOL. Same cartridge case in a different position, rotated in a different position.

Mr. EISENBERG. May I have permission to introduce this as 624, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. DULLES. It may be admitted.

(The photograph described was marked Commission Exhibit No. 624 and was received in evidence.)

Mr. NICOL. If we compare 624 and 621 in the same general fashion, again we we have a match of the individual characteristics. So that again the same mechanical operation occurred on this cartridge case, 543, three different times, and in a rather random fashion. They are not the angular relationship between each of these sets of patterns--it is not divisible by any particular number. It is just a random occurrence.