Mr. Eisenberg.

last exhibit, it appears that it is not perfectly aligned with the position of the firing-pin hole on K-l, Mr. Nicol. I am looking at the mark on the right-hand side of Q-48.

Mr. Nicol.

Yes. And the purpose for the misalignment was in order to show these smaller marks that appear right at the edge of the firing-pin impression.

Mr. Eisenberg.

So that at the top the markings on Q-48 and K-1 will not run into each other, as well as on the bottom?

Mr. Nicol.

If they are divergent, of course, they will not. If they are parallel, it makes no difference where the position is.
Now, this is another setting, going to the opposite side of the firing-pin impression, just translating the two cartridge cases the same distance, so that we are now looking at a division at the other side, and a comparison of the breech-block markings on the other side of the two shells.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Again marked Q-48 and K-1. You took this photograph?

Mr. Nicol.

I did.

Mr. Eisenberg.

May I have permission to mark this 615?

Mr. Dulles.

It shall be admitted.
(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 615 and received in evidence.)

Mr. Nicol.

Looking at the position of the upper arrow, there is a pair of diagonal marks, a small mark immediately below it going down to the lower part of the breech-block markings. There are a series of parallel lines at approximately a 45-degree angle to the division of the bridge. These were duplicated on both- all of the cartridge cases submitted.

Mr. Dulles.

I am not entirely clear in my mind what this demonstrates.

Mr. Nicol.

This is the basis upon which I arrived at the conclusion that the two cartridge cases, K-1 and Q-48, were fired in the same weapon. Actually, we could take a good match, such as shown here, or even this one, and this would be sufficient. All I have done here is repeat this by moving the two bullets, or the two cartridge cases together the same translated distance, and then taking a series of photographs at each particular position. So they represent actually the same thing in each one.

Mr. Dulles.

As the hammer comes down on the cartridge, it makes a distinctive mark, is that the idea?

Mr. Nicol.

No. I have not compared the firing-pin impression. What this is is the setback of the shell against the breech face, against the rear of the chamber.

Mr. Dulles.

The breech face makes an impression on the shell, and that is a distinctive impression?

Mr. Nicol.

Very definitely, just as individual as a fingerprint.

Mr. Eisenberg.

These are two further photographs that you took, Mr. Nicol?

Mr. Nicol.

Yes.

Mr. Eisenberg.

And they both illustrate the same cartridge case, the same two cartridge cases, the one questioned and the one known?

Mr. Nicol.

Right.

Mr. Eisenberg.

And you have moved the hairline somewhat over to the right?

Mr. Nicol.

Right.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Mr. Chairman, may I introduce these as 616 and 617?

Mr. Dulles.

They shall be admitted.
(The photographs described were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 616 and 617 and were received in evidence.)

Mr. Eisenberg.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that in the interest of time, since these two photographs are merely continuations of the first series, we go on to the next.
Mr. Nicol, you have further photographs now. These are marked Q-48 and K-1, and these are separate photographs?

Mr. Nicol.

Same photographs.

Mr. Eisenberg.

That is submitted as 618, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dulles.

It shall be admitted.
(The photograph referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 618 and received in evidence.)