Mr. NICOL. These two are fired lead projectiles that were designated by
the FBI as K-3, companions to the tests in 595.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say companions, you mean they were given to
you----
Mr. NICOL. They were given to me simultaneously in an envelope, at that
time wrapped in cotton.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the other Exhibits?
Mr. NICOL. This was the projectile designated by the FBI, I believe, as
Q-13.
This is a .38 Special projectile designated Q-502. That would
correspond to Commission Exhibit 603.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the item you just identified?
Mr. NICOL. Q-13 would correspond with 602.
This is Q-501, corresponding to Exhibit 604.
This is Q-500, corresponding to Exhibit 605.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are you familiar with all of those?
Mr. NICOL. Yes; I have seen and examined all of these.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine Exhibits 602 through 605 to determine
whether they have been fired from the same weapon as fired 606?
Mr. NICOL. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. NICOL. Due to mutilation, I was not able to determine whether 605,
604, and 602 were fired in the same weapon. There were similarity of
class characteristics--that is to say, there is nothing evident that
would exclude the weapon. However, due to mutilation and apparent
variance between the size of the barrel and the size of the projectile,
the reproduction of individual characteristics was not good, and
therefore I was unable to arrive at a conclusion beyond that of saying
that the few lines that were found would indicate a modest possibility.
But I would not by any means say that I could be positive.
However, on specimen 602--I'm sorry--603, which I have designated as
Q-502, I found sufficient individual characteristics to lead me to the
conclusion that that projectile was fired in the same weapon that fired
the projectiles in 606.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. By the way, on the cartridge cases, that was also to the
exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. NICOL. Correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you take a photograph of this identified missile?
Mr. NICOL. I took a photograph of one position, and that is shown here
as a comparison of K-3 and what I designated as Q-502.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted? That would be
625.
(The item described was marked Commission Exhibit No. 625 and received
in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. These arrows, Mr. Nicol, can you explain why they are
different?
Mr. NICOL. This was one I made up originally and then decided that the
illustration would be ample with one arrow in that one position.
Mr. DULLES. The one that is being admitted is the one-arrow photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. The arrows are placed on mechanically after the
photograph is developed?
Mr. NICOL. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. And therefore it can vary?
Mr. NICOL. Yes. This is not a part of the photographic process.
Mr. EISENBERG. What is the magnification here, Mr. Nicol?
Mr. NICOL. It would be pretty close to 25 to 30 diameters. I cannot
measure exactly the magnification.
Mr. NICOL. This illustrates some of the lines, not all of them,
that I saw on a comparison of 502 and K-3. At the position of the
arrow, you are looking at the top of the groove; adjacent to it in
the lower portion is a land impression. And on that shoulder there
are approximately five or six matching lines. They are very fine
striations. These would be indicative of the fact that the same portion
of the barrel had ridden on both projectiles.
Mr. EISENBERG. Well, now, there seems to be significantly less markings
here than on the bullets which were seen earlier, which had come from
the rifle. Does that same condition pertain when the bullet is viewed
under the microscope?
Mr. NICOL. Yes. Of course, we are dealing with two different types of
ammunition. One is a lead projectile, and the other is a metal-case
projectile. And the ability of the metal-case projectile to pick up and
retain fine striations, even in spite of distortion and mutilation, far
exceeds what the lead projectile will do.
Furthermore, the lead being a soft and low-melting-point material is
more subject to erosion of hot gases. So that there are many more
variables in the reproduction in terms of a lead projectile as over
against a metal-case projectile.
Mr. EISENBERG. You found enough similarities to satisfy yourself that
there is an identification here?
Mr. NICOL. I am satisfied that the two projectiles came from the same
weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, we have received testimony that the weapon which is
marked Commission Exhibit 143 was rechambered but not rebarreled, so
that a .38 Special bullet fired through the barrel would be slightly
undersized.
Mr. NICOL. Of course I have not had a chance to examine the weapon. But
on the information that you gave me, this was originally manufactured
for English ammunition, and has been rechambered for American domestic
ammunition, is that correct?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.
Mr. NICOL. The undersized bullet going through an oversized barrel of
course presents some serious identification problems, because it does
not go through with the same conformity as a projectile going through
the proper-sized barrel, so that it is apt to, you might say, skip and
bear more on one surface than on another in subsequent firings, so that
the identification is made more complex and it is expected that more
dissimilarities occur under those circumstances.
However, at the points where it did reproduce at the land edges, as
shown in this photograph, I found sufficient lines of identification
to lead me to the conclusion that they had both been fired in the same
weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is it consistent with the markings you found on this
bullet that it had been fired in a slightly oversized barrel?
Mr. NICOL. Slight. However, due to the malleability of lead, it does
accommodate itself more than a metal-case projectile, and therefore the
evidence of being fired in an oversized barrel is not as pronounced
as it would be if it were fired, let's say, a .32-20 fired in a .38
Special, which would be possible, and would give very distinct evidence
of the difference in the size of the bullet and the barrel. However,
in neither case is an identification completely precluded. What is
necessary is that tests are available which have borne on the same
surface. If this is true, and if the marks have not been mutilated,
then an identification is still possible.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say the bullet will accommodate itself, you
mean it will expand to fill out all or part of the lands and grooves?
Mr. NICOL. Yes. Actually, with the pressure on the base and the inertia
of the bullet, it is in a sense shorter and expanded in diameter to
accommodate for the larger-sized barrel.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I was not clear whether you drew any conclusion on
the other three bullets--that is, did you definitely--find yourself
definitely unable to identify those bullets, or did you reach a
"probable" conclusion?
Mr. NICOL. I would say there was nothing, no major marks to preclude
it. However, I was unable to find what would satisfy me to say that it
positively came from that particular weapon. So that I would place it
in the category of bullets which could have come from this particular
weapon, but not to the exclusion of all others.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is this short of the "probable" category in which you
placed the Walker bullets, or is it in the same category?
Mr. NICOL. This is in a gray area between black and white, and it is
somewhat nebulous to pin it down to a precise percentage dimension.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, were you able to identify the type of
bullet which is involved in each of these four exhibits--that is, the
manufacturer of 603, 602, 604, and 605?
Mr. NICOL. No; I did not attempt this, because I did not have an
adequate reference collection against which to make the comparison.
Mr. EISENBERG. I do not have any further questions, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. I have no questions.
Mr. RHYNE. No questions.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, do you have anything you would like to add
before we conclude?
Mr. NICOL. No; I think I have covered everything.
Mr. DULLES. We want to thank you very much.
Mr. EISENBERG. There is one further question I have.
When you made your examination, were you aware of the conclusions which
any other examining agent or body had come to?
Mr. NICOL. No. I of course was aware of the fact that tests were
conducted. However, I was not aware either through the press or any
other media as to the conclusions. This represents my own personal
conclusions without benefit of any other knowledge.
Mr. EISENBERG. And do you know at this point what any other body has
come to in the way of conclusions?
Mr. NICOL. No, sir.
Mr. DULLES. I wonder if you would be willing to give us your views as
to the effectiveness of paraffin tests?
Mr. NICOL. I have used the paraffin test both in case work and in
experiments, as an investigative aid. However, I have a very low level
of confidence in it--either as a positive or negative, as far as that's
concerned.
Experimentally, as the literature well demonstrates, it is possible to
fire a gun and get nothing on the hands. It is also possible to take
people at random off the street and test them with the reagent which
is not specific for powder and find all kinds of reactions. And while
there are some "experts" who--and I say that with quotes--who allege
that they can differentiate one product from another, actually the
end product of the oxidation of diphenylamine is a definite quinoid
structure, which has only one blue color, and I am not sure how they
make this differentiation. I cannot do it.
I have used it as an investigative aid with positive results if and
when I find in the cast a particle of powder that I can definitely
identify as powder--not just simply the reaction, but something I can
take out, put it under the microscope and I can say this is a particle
of powder. Then I will say that this hand has been in the presence of
the discharge of a weapon.
Mr. DULLES. You do not need a paraffin test for that, do you?
Mr. NICOL. I don't think so. I think if you actually examine the
subject's hands, you probably can find that. Although as a rule in the
laboratory we do not see the subject, and so this is the medium by
which we get a look at the surface of the hand.
Sometime ago in Los Angeles a series of experiments was conducted
whereby--and this was on shooting victims, including only those where
they could be certain by other investigative means as to the exact
status of the case. One of the technicians placed the paraffin on the
hand. This was presented to the other technician who had no knowledge
of the case whatsoever. And that I guess must have included both the
controls of non-shooting victims as well as shooting victims. And the
net result was if this fellow almost flipped a coin he could be in the
ball park as far as whether or not this person had actually fired a
weapon.
It just is not particularly accurate.
I might go further to say that there have been several cases in which I
would say a fair amount of injustice was done to the defendant or the
suspect in the case simply because people have gone overboard on the
application of the paraffin test.
It is one of these areas in which everyone would like a nice test. It
would certainly be beneficial. But it is not one in which a competent
technician places much confidence.
Mr. DULLES. I understand that pipe smokers are quite likely to get
caught on these, on these tests.
Mr. NICOL. Or someone who strikes a kitchen match, or in the spring, a
man fertilizing his lawn. A man working in the meatpacking industry,
where they preserve meats with nitrates, might also have difficulties.
Certain of the common things, such as urine, I think can be discounted,
because the diffused pattern can be easily determined. But as far as
pinpoints of striking a match, I could not differentiate one from the
other.
Mr. DULLES. Thank you very much.
Mr. NICOL. I realize this doesn't help.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nicol, thank you very much, sir, for helping us. You
have been very helpful.
Mr. NICOL. Thank you, sir.
Mr. DULLES. We will recess at this time until 9 o'clock tomorrow
morning.
(Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)
Transcriber's Notes:
Punctuation and spelling were made consistent when a predominant
preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed.
Misspellings in quoted evidence not changed; misspellings that could be
due to mispronunciations were not changed.
Some simple typographical errors were corrected.
Inconsistent hyphenation of compound words retained.
Ambiguous end-of-line hyphens retained.
Occasional uses of "Mr." for "Mrs." and of "Mrs." for "Mr." corrected.
Dubious repeated words, (e.g., "What took place by way of of
conversation?") retained.
Several unbalanced quotation marks not remedied.
Occasional periods that should be question marks not changed.
Occasional periods that should be commas, and commas that should be
periods, were changed only when they clearly had been misprinted (at
the end of a paragraph or following a speaker's name in small-caps at
the beginning of a line). Some commas and semi-colons were printed so
faintly that they appear to be periods or colons: some were found and
corrected, but some almost certainly remain.
The Index and illustrated Exhibits volumes of this series may not be
available at Project Gutenberg.
Page 4: "Where is their main office?" was misprinted as "there";
corrected here.
Page 4: "No. I also visited my brother, in Yellow Springs, Ohio." was
misprinted as "visited by"; corrected here.
Page 14: the name "James P. Hasty" should be "James P. Hosty"; not
changed here.
Page 15: Misspelling in "It was unfortun that" not changed.
Page 15: Misspellings in "the stuip Cuban consule was at fault" not
changed.
Page 16: Misspelling in "was a rather lengthly one?" not changed.
Page 25: "otherway" not changed.
Page 27: "Did she evidence any" was misprinted as "he"; corrected here.
Page 54: Possible missing word in "of the Randle home looking West
Fifth Street?"
Page 95: "(Commission Exhibits Nos. 451 and 453 through 456 were
received in evidence.)" "456" was misprinted as "465" but printed
correctly two lines earlier; corrected here.
Page 136: "and improved my ability to converse" misprinted as "by
ability"; corrected here.
Page 157: "Mr. Berlin. Well, sir, it is on one of your interviews
here." was misprinted as "Mr. Brennan."; corrected here.
Page 166: "were certain books--if you" probably should be "where"; not
changed.
Page 186: "In other words, there is a little difference in your memory
there on this." was printed as part of a statement by Mr. Brennan, but
may have been said by someone else.
Page 208: "Mr. Jarman. After the third shot was fired I would say it
was about a minute." was printed as "Mr. Ball"; corrected here.
Page 361: The measurement in "This was a 5- by 71-cm defect" probably
was misprinted; not changed here.
Page 373: "whether it was an entrance wound or an exit wound," should
end with a question mark instead of a comma.
Page 409: "so what when the shot was fired" probably should be "so that
when".
Page 414: "Would that trend to improve the shooter's marksmanship?"
probably should be "tend".
Page 428: "This the cartridge case from the building, Exhibit 545."
probably should be "This is the".
Page 477: "And then it was returned November 17, 1963." Incorrect date,
should be no earlier than November 23, 1963.
Page 481: "So in you opinion" should be "your".
Page 481: "Mr. Cunningham. Yes, sir; well--these would be very
difficult--in other" is an incomplete sentence.
Page 481: "A small sample was taken off the noise" probably should be
"nose".
Page 487: "the cast of both hand" was printed that way.