Mr. Dulles. You do not need a paraffin test for that, do you?
Mr. Nicol. I don't think so. I think if you actually examine the subject's hands, you probably can find that. Although as a rule in the laboratory we do not see the subject, and so this is the medium by which we get a look at the surface of the hand.
Sometime ago in Los Angeles a series of experiments was conducted whereby—and this was on shooting victims, including only those where they could be certain by other investigative means as to the exact status of the case. One of the technicians placed the paraffin on the hand. This was presented to the other technician who had no knowledge of the case whatsoever. And that I guess must have included both the controls of non-shooting victims as well as shooting victims. And the net result was if this fellow almost flipped a coin he could be in the ball park as far as whether or not this person had actually fired a weapon.
It just is not particularly accurate.
I might go further to say that there have been several cases in which I would say a fair amount of injustice was done to the defendant or the suspect in the case simply because people have gone overboard on the application of the paraffin test.
It is one of these areas in which everyone would like a nice test. It would certainly be beneficial. But it is not one in which a competent technician places much confidence.
Mr. Dulles. I understand that pipe smokers are quite likely to get caught on these, on these tests.
Mr. Nicol. Or someone who strikes a kitchen match, or in the spring, a man fertilizing his lawn. A man working in the meatpacking industry, where they preserve meats with nitrates, might also have difficulties. Certain of the common things, such as urine, I think can be discounted, because the diffused pattern can be easily determined. But as far as pinpoints of striking a match, I could not differentiate one from the other.
Mr. Dulles. Thank you very much.
Mr. Nicol. I realize this doesn't help.