</s>In addition, the copy of a copy of the notebook is said to be missing in its Shari, contact-based before in this case, he said he had cooper- without prejudice to or to the notebook was said to not mentioned in his letter, said he has cooper- any way prejudging the jury, were not observed in the missing copies or tampered in the following papers or to-have- jury, and that he had the instruction was for the jury, were were not obvious and others were observed in the district copies or to have- would take any necessary. vigorous post- the incident was not the of the incident. The original would take any decipressance. board at the earliest post- now being questioned. office said. the incident occurred. the incident happened. the incident is the original. his said, however, that the being provided services to the the people of the country is the sharp is reported in notifications of pages from that none of the evidence that the incident will be the and that the jury was not notebooks or pages from that one of his own. the people in the county of the the time of June on this order. them is missing. that none the evidence the people are the country of the the court of the court of the grand jury of this is. expect to take no grand jury- mishandled in his office. the people's court of being sledged. Committing on this is this. in action in the case, and the the case, no crime- on the grand jury's action. After the grand Jury of the maintain effective communi- ing notebook and page- on the Grand Jury's page- on behalf of his father. to the clerk of the jury of C. the grand Jury's court. in a unique case of his. ing according to the Heath. He said, however, that to the jury. He said, that Supervisors, the jury's court- to the court-of the jury- of the court. <loc_766><loc_557>to the Clerk of the Court of C- in a state of his high- Jurors revealed the same case of the off-

Summary  
The documents detail controversies surrounding evidence handling, legal proceedings, and media coverage related to Robert F. Kennedy’s assassination. Key issues include allegations of mishandled exhibits by Los Angeles County Clerk William Sharp, disputes over forensic findings (e.g., ballistic examinations suggesting multiple firearms), and legal challenges to the official narrative. Sirhan Sirhan’s trial and conviction for Kennedy’s murder are central, though some documents reference conflicting dates for his sentencing (1968 vs. June 5, 1985). Legal debates centered on procedural violations, including claims of illegal searches, admissibility of testimony, and forensic evidence discrepancies. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and District Attorney’s Office were repeatedly implicated in investigations, while media coverage and public speculation, including conspiracy theories involving other assassinations, are noted.  

Key People  
- **Robert F. Kennedy**: Assassinated in 1968; central figure in the investigation.  
- **Sirhan Sirhan**: Convicted for Kennedy’s assassination; referenced in legal proceedings, appeals, and media discussions.  
- **William Sharp**: Los Angeles County Clerk criticized for evidence mishandling.  
- **Richard Hecht**: District Attorney overseeing evidence investigations.  
- **Jack K. Busch**: District Attorney of Los Angeles involved in legal challenges.  
- **Thomas Noguchi**: Pathologist mentioned in autopsy-related disputes.  
- **Robert Blair Kaiser**: Author referenced in media and conspiracy theories.  
- **Mary Sirhan**: Mother of Sirhan Sirhan, investigated for her son’s actions.  
- **Judge Walker**: Presided over Sirhan’s trial and penalty deliberations.  

Key Locations  
- **Los Angeles, Calif.**: Central to all investigations, including the County Clerk’s office, LAPD involvement, and the Ambassador Hotel (site of assassination).  
- **San Quentin Prison**: Mentioned as a site for Sirhan Sirhan’s death sentence (1968) in some documents.  
- **Sacramento, Calif.**: Site of parole hearings and administrative records.  
- **Washington, D.C.**: Referenced in Supreme Court appeals related to Sirhan’s sentencing.  

Key Events  
- **Grand Jury Proceedings**: Scrutinized for alleged tampering with exhibits, including notebooks and pages from Sirhan’s trial.  
- **Evidence Handling Controversies**: Claims of missing copies, improper storage, or unauthorized access to evidence by county clerks.  
- **Forensic Disputes**: Debates over ballistic findings (e.g., multiple firearms), bullet types, and gun serial numbers (e.g., H18602).  
- **Sirhan’s Trial and Conviction**: Convicted in 1968 for Kennedy’s murder; some documents reference a conflicting sentencing date (June 5, 1985).  
- **Legal Appeals**: Sirhan’s attempt to reduce his sentence from death to life imprisonment after California abolished the death penalty.  
- **Parole Hearings (1972)**: Scheduled discussions on reducing Sirhan’s sentence and parole eligibility after seven years.  
- **Media Coverage**: References to public speculation, KPFK broadcasts, and conspiracy theories involving RFK, JFK, and Martin Luther King.  

Key Organizations  
- **Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)**: Involved in forensic analysis and evidence collection.  
- **Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office**: Oversaw investigations into evidence mishandling and legal challenges.  
- **FBI/Police Departments**: Implied involvement in ballistics investigations or evidence collection.  
- **California Supreme Court**: Handled Sirhan’s appeal and rulings on sentencing.  
- **U.S. Supreme Court**: Reviewed Sirhan’s death penalty case and legal challenges.  
- **County Clerk’s Office (San Bernardino County)**: Mentioned in administrative records and evidence handling disputes.  
- **New American Library**: Referenced as a publisher involved in assassination theory works.  

Notes  
- References to "SSN" appear in the text but are not fully resolved; actual numbers are redacted.  
- Dates such as "8/20/71" or "9/23/71" are presented as-is, though their accuracy is unclear due to potential OCR errors.  
- Some documents reference Sirhan’s conviction and sentencing in 1968, while others cite conflicting dates (e.g., June 5, 1985), which may reflect errors or misinterpretations.

RFK Declassified Files

56-la-156-h_sec_005_ser_801-947-part_5_of_6.pdf

Document Summary

Try AI Search