Mr. Nicol.

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 been 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-l, 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?