Mr. Nicol.

They were given to me simultaneously in an envelope, at that time wrapped in cotton.

Mr. Eisenberg.

And the other Exhibits?

Mr. Nicol.

This was the projectile designated by the FBI, I believe, as Q-13.
This is a .38 Special projectile designated Q-502. That would correspond to Commission Exhibit 603.

Mr. Eisenberg.

And the item you just identified?

Mr. Nicol.

Q-13 would correspond with 602.
This is Q-501, corresponding to Exhibit 604.
This is Q-500, corresponding to Exhibit 605.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Are you familiar with all of those?

Mr. Nicol.

Yes; I have seen and examined all of these.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Did you examine Exhibits 602 through 605 to determine whether they have been fired from the same weapon as fired 606?

Mr. Nicol.

Yes; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg.

What was your conclusion?

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?