Mr. Nicol.

Correct.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Mr. Nicol, did you make an examination of Commission Exhibit 573 to determine whether it was fired from the same rifle as Commission Exhibit 572, which we have one of which we have also been calling K-l?

Mr. Nicol.

Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg.

And what was your conclusion?

Mr. Nicol.

I found that within the limits that Commission Exhibit 573 is badly mutilated as a result of having struck some hard object on the side that the class characteristics generally correspond, that is to say it would be fired from a weapon of comparable rifling to Commission Exhibit 572. Then looking at an area which I can best describe on 609 as being a burr that develops along the edge of the rifling, I found both on the upper surface, which would be the groove impression, and along on the shoulder, quite a few points, individual characteristics, which matched up in each of the positions which were visible.
Because of the mutilation I was not able to put these in the kind of a match relationship that would suggest a positive identification. However, I did not find anything on Commission Exhibit 573 that was incompatible with Commission Exhibit 572, so without going to the degree of saying that there is a positive identification, I would express it this way--that there is a fair prob ability that Commission Exhibit 573 was fired from the same weapon that fired 572.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Now, Mr. Nicol, we had testimony from a Mr. Frazier yesterday of the FBI Firearms Section, and he testified that the FBI does not make probable identifications, but merely positive or negative identifications.

Mr. Nicol.

I am aware of their position. This is not, I am sure, arrived at without careful consideration. However, to say that because one does not find sufficient marks for identification that it is a negative, I think is going over board in the other direction. And for purposes of probative value, for whatever it might be worth, in the absence of very definite negative evidence, I think it is permissible to say that in an exhibit such as 573 there is enough on it to say that it could have come, and even perhaps a little stronger, to say that it probably came from this, without going so far as to say to the exclusion of all other guns. This I could not do.

Mr. Dulles.

(Addressing Mr. Eisenberg). Would you refresh my memory as to this other exhibit--I don't remember---is 573 the actual bullet that was fired and mutilated in the Walker attempt?

Mr. Eisenberg.

Yes.

Mr. Dulles.

And 572 is what?

Mr. Eisenberg.

Those are the test bullets fired by the FBI.

Mr. Dulles.

I was a little puzzled by the order.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Yes. That is just the order in which they were introduced in evidence.

Mr. Dulles.

And really 573 came before 572 in terms of time.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Yes.

Mr. Dulles.

That clears it up for me.

Mr. Nicol.

This is the condition of the bullet.

Mr. Dulles.

I have seen the bullet, yes.

Mr. Nicol.

It is in sad shape, to say the least.

Mr. Eisenberg.

As I understand your testimony, therefore, you feel that there are sufficient identical microscopic characteristics on 572 and 573 to say that they were probably fired from the same weapon, but not enough to say that they were definitely fired from the same weapon.

Mr. Nicol.

Yes. My opinion would be based upon the finding of families of lines that would be of the order of two to four fine striations on the burr that I referred to. For a stronger identification, I would want a larger group, I would want perhaps five or six in a given area, all matching in terms of contour as well as position. But this I did not find. And so for that reason, I would not want to express this as a positive finding. However, I would not want to be misunderstood or suggest that this could not have come from that particular gun.