Mr. Nicol.

case, Q-1 has displaced slightly in the mechanics of photography so that the lower broad shoulder that you see here of this heavy line does not match up. This should come up just slightly above.
The photographer in printing chose this negative rather than another one which would have been superior, and I apologize for this particular photograph.
But this groove, along with the other pattern shown on 609, also appear prominently on Q-2 and Q-3 as prominent index marks.

Mr. Dulles.

I don't quite understand 610. This is the last one we have just admitted.
Are these ridges the same? This wouldn't be very clear for the record--this is 609 that I have here.

Mr. Nicol.

No, this is not the same view.

Mr. Dulles.

That is not the same view at all. It is a different part of the bullet.

Mr. Nicol.

This is rotated, both of them rotated simultaneously the same amount to bring those into position here.

Mr. Dulles.

Now on 610, I don't see anything comparable on the Q-1 bullet, a ridge comparable on the Q-1 bullet to the one I find on the K-1 bullet.

Mr. Nicol.

The dividing-line is right through here.

Mr. Dulles.

Yes,

Mr. Nicol.

And it is this big groove gouged through there.

Mr. Dulles.

It stops there at that point?

Mr. Nicol.

It stops right here. This is the base of the bullet. The lead is protruding, that is what you see down here.

Mr. Dulles.

I see.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Could you circle the mark you are discussing now?

Mr. Nicol.

That comprises the three positions of the comparison of Q-1 and K-1.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Did you also take photographs of Q-2, which is our Commission number 567?

Mr. Nicol.

Yes, sir; this particular position is a comparison of Q-2 and Q-1.

Mr. Eisenberg.

You took this photograph, Mr. Nicol?

Mr. Nicol.

Right.

Mr. Eisenberg.

May I have this admitted as 611?

Mr. Dulles.

Yes.
(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 611 for identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. Nicol.

Due to the extent of mutilation of these two projectiles, I found it more advantageous to compare Q-1 and Q-2 rather than comparing Q-2 and K-1.

Mr. Eisenberg.

In other words, you took Q-l, which you had already identified as having been fired through--from the same rifle as K-l, and compared it with Q-2 in the photograph?

Mr. Nicol.

Right.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Now, in determining whether Q-2 had been fired from the same rifle as K-l, that is, in determining whether the suspect bullet had been fired from the same rifle as the test bullet, did you match up Q-2, against the test bullet or against Q-l?

Mr. Nicol.

I did both. But photographically, I could get a better illustration between Q-1 and Q-2 rather than K-l, because what was apparent was that the heavy groove here, which would be a projection in the barrel, and, of course, being outstanding, would be subject to rapid wear, had changed somewhat be tween the Q specimens and the K specimens. And so in order to get closer to the actual time of the original firing, it was advantageous to make a comparison of Q-1 and Q-2.

Mr. Eisenberg.

But you arrived at a conclusion independently also on the basis of K-1?

Mr. Nicol.

Yes, also on the basis of other striations which are not as easily illustrated photographically, the reason being the mutilation of the projectile. And here we are comparing a curved surface with a flat surface, or a curved surface that is flattened out, and the geometry is no longer the same.