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-1, which you had already identified as having been fired through—from the same rifle as K-1, 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-1, 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-1?
Mr. Nicol. I did both. But photographically, I could get a better illustration between Q-1 and Q-2 rather than K-1, 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 between 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.
Mr. Eisenberg. But you did compare Q-2 to K-1 under the microscope?