Chapter XXXVI: Part 36

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.