Mr. NICOL. This would be possible--perhaps the violence with which the
weapon was activated in this particular incident--or it might be the
result of something not associated with the internal mechanism of the
weapon, but might be the result of the charger or the cartridge carrier
that is introduced into--the way the cartridges are introduced into the
magazine.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, what led you to the conclusion that this was an
extractor mark?
Mr. NICOL. Only that it appears at the location of the cartridge case
where an extractor mark would normally be found. That is to say, this
would be the mark where the extractor strikes the edge of the case, and
then springs around as the cartridge is driven into the chamber.
Mr. EISENBERG. But you could not definitely say whether it is an
extractor mark produced by the rifle through which the test bullets
you were given were fired?
Mr. NICOL. No, sir; I could not.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I am not quite clear as to why another set of marks
should have appeared on the other cases, which you also think are
extractor marks.
Mr. NICOL. I cannot say that this could not have been produced by
another gun.
Mr. EISENBERG. That might have been produced by another gun?
Mr. NICOL. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. But it was produced by the same source, whether it was
this gun or another gun, three different times?
Mr. NICOL. Correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Somebody had done one operation, in your opinion, with
this cartridge at three different times?
Mr. NICOL. Right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, just to set this in context, I have taken the bolt
from Commission Exhibit 139, the rifle found on the sixth floor, and
could you show the Commission what the extractor is on this bolt?
Mr. NICOL. The extractor is this semicircular piece extending back in
the bolt, and its purpose is to withdraw the cartridge from the chamber
at the time that the bolt is drawn back. It rides in the extractor
groove, which is machined in the head of the cartridge case. At the
time that the weapon is loaded, oftentimes this springs around, it
first contacts the rim of the cartridge case, and then springs around
the rim of the cartridge and produces marks such as these, or marks
such as I have illustrated on the three sets.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, is it possible that the reason the marks were
present on this cartridge but not on the other cartridge case--on this
cartridge case but not on the other cartridge cases you examined--is
because these marks were produced by dry firing as opposed to actual
firing?
Mr. NICOL. This is possible. The weight of the empty shell would be
different of course from one which had a projectile in it, so that
its dynamics might be different, and it might produce a different
mark--although in the absence of accessibility of the weapon, or the
absence of these marks on the tests, I really am unable to say what
is the precise origin of those marks, except to speculate that they
are probably from the extractor, and that the second mark that appears
here, which I have indicated with a similar number, is probably an
ejector mark.
Now, this, I might add, is a different type of ejector mark than the
mark found on the rim from the normal firing of these tests and the
evidence cartridges.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you stated that another mark appeared in all
three--associated in juxtaposition with the three marks you have been
describing?
Mr. NICOL. Yes; and in the same angular relationship to a radii through
the center of the head.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, again, if it is an ejector mark, might the
difference have been caused by the fact that it may have been
associated with a dry firing rather than an actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. That might be possible.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you think a person would apply a different bolt
pressure in a dry firing as opposed to an actual firing?
Mr. NICOL. Well, since this is a manually operated weapon, it is quite
possible that no two operations are done with exactly the same force.
However, with reasonable reproduceability, all these marks appear to
the same depth and to the same extent, so that it would appear that
whatever produced them operated in identically the same fashion.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have anything you would like to add to your
testimony on the rifle bullets or the rifle cartridge cases, Mr. Nicol?
Mr. NICOL. No, sir; I don't think so.
Mr. EISENBERG. If there are no further questions on that particular
subject, I will proceed to the Tippit bullets and cartridge cases.
Mr. DULLES. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. DULLES. Back on the record.
Mr. EISENBERG. I hand you, Mr. Nicol, a group of four cartridge cases
marked Commission Exhibit 594, which, for the record, are cartridge
cases found in the area of the Tippit crime scene, and ask you whether
you are familiar with those cartridge cases?
Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir; these are cartridge cases which were given to me
on March 26th by Mr. Eisenberg.
Mr. EISENBERG. They have your mark on them?
Mr. NICOL. No; I made notes of the FBI designations, and these are the
same--they have the JH and the CK and RF and the Q designations that
were placed on there by the FBI.
Mr. EISENBERG. Those initials are initials apparently of examining
agents?
Mr. NICOL. I presume so.
Mr. EISENBERG. I hand you Commission Exhibit 595 and ask you whether
you are familiar with the cartridge cases contained in that exhibit?
Mr. NICOL. Yes; these are two fired cartridge cases designated K-3 by
the FBI and marked with their identification marks--CK, JH, and RF.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, for the record, these cartridge cases were earlier
identified as having been fired by the FBI in Commission Exhibit No.
143, the revolver believed to have been used to kill Officer Tippit.
Also for the record, I obtained these cartridge cases, both Exhibit
595, which are test cases, and Exhibit 594, which are cases from the
murder scene, from the FBI, and transmitted them directly to Mr. Nicol
for his examination.
Mr. Nicol, did you examine the cartridge cases in Exhibit 594 to
determine whether they had been fired from the weapon in which the
cartridge cases in Exhibit 595 had been fired?
Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. And can you give us your conclusions?
Mr. NICOL. It is my opinion, based upon the similarity of class and
individual characteristics, that the four cartridge cases in 594 were
fired in the same weapon as produced the cartridge cases in 595.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, did you take photographs of the comparisons?
Mr. NICOL. No, sir; I did not.
Mr. EISENBERG. However, you are certain in your own mind of the
identification?
Mr. NICOL. Yes; the marks on the firing pin particularly were very
definitive. Apparently this firing pin had been subjected to some
rather severe abuse, and there were numerous small and large striations
which could be matched up very easily.
Mr. DULLES. What do you mean by severe abuse?
Mr. NICOL. It appeared as though it had either been touched up with a
file, or in the initial manufacture the finishing operation was rather
crude. It was not what I would consider a well-finished firing pin.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, just to review your earlier testimony, as
I recall you stated that you do not use photographs to make your
identification, and usually do not testify with photographs?
Mr. NICOL. That's correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. But that the other photographs were made as an
accommodation to us, at my request, so that the Commission could see
them?
Mr. NICOL. The material I am just talking about could well have been
illustrated. However, I ran out of time.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, finally I hand you a group of four bullets
marked Commission Exhibits 602, 603, 604, and 605, which I state for
the record were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit, and a group
of two bullets marked Commission Exhibit 606, which I state for the
record were fired by the FBI through the revolver, Commission Exhibit
143.