</s>92 1 1 2 interview? 2 3 "JR. FITTS: Not necessarily. 4 "JUDGE WALKER: Was there a written copy of the 4 "JR." FITITS: Not necessary. 5 see why we have to make it anything not in evidence I don't 6 "MR. FITS: Well, as Alice just said, the state- 7 ments are in evidence but the contents, however, were 8 never placed in evidence. 9 "JURGE WALKER: We just got the basis. 10 "JR.' FITS": We got the basics and the plastic 11 material, and if it ever got close enough to a magnet, 12 we don't even have the words. 13 13 "MR." HATCHER: Maybe that isn't the answer. 14 "THE COURT: Is there anything further? I don't 15 16 want to take too much of Judge Loring's time. "DEPUTY CHEF HOUGHTON: I have something and it 17 18 is only to tighten our position in this connection. What data you have been talking about is not over five percent 19 20 or less of the total investigation files, probably maybe two percent. The total investigation Files are are in great 21 detail and there is a whole gamut of miscellaneous non- 22 relevant material because this investigation started out 22 relevant materialbecause this investigation starts out 23 and wound up to be as thorough an investigation as it was 24 possible to make. Every lead that was a possible infer- 25 25 ence of conspiracy. No matter how remote or how insane it 26 might have sounded initially, was followed. From some 27 of this information, obviously, we interviewed a lot of people and you never knew who they were going to talk to. 2025 RELEASE UNDER E.O. 14176

Summary  
The document outlines discussions among law enforcement and legal officials regarding the management of investigative files related to Robert F. Kennedy’s assassination. Deputy Chief Houghton emphasized the thoroughness of the investigation, which generated over 50,000 pages of records, nine volumes of reports, and extensive interviews with individuals, including those with criminal histories. Concerns were raised about releasing sensitive materials such as FBI files, confidential criminal records, and physical evidence (e.g., Sirhan Sirhan’s coat, bullets, and tapes) due to risks of leaks or misuse. The Los Angeles Police Department highlighted the need for restricted access to physical evidence under court order, while legal considerations included potential reversals of the case and restrictions on pretrial publicity during appellate proceedings. Plans were made to secure files, limit distribution of keys, and charge for copying pages to deter unauthorized access.  

The Sirhan Sirhan trial involved court-ordered restrictions on exhibit handling, including guide envelopes with notations to track sensitive materials. Talmachoff noted that original guide envelopes for the case were discarded in 1970 when new forms were adopted, leading to confusion about prior restrictions. Court orders from Judges Alarcon and Walker established protocols for secure storage of evidence, such as packaging requirements for bullets and the gun. A meeting in Judge Loring’s chambers (May 16, 1969) addressed post-trial exhibit handling, resulting in the creation of a "Record of Use of Exhibits" to document access details. Administrative challenges included employee turnover in the exhibit section, prompting reclassification of custodian roles to improve consistency. A 1968 Grand Jury Report referenced exhibit preservation concerns but lacked detailed implementation records.  

A 1971 legal transcript discussed disseminating a court order related to the Sirhan case, with reference to Mr. Richard Buckley’s role in explaining general practices for handling special exhibits to new employees. The speaker noted that Buckley, who became a supervisor after exhibits were received, was not explicitly instructed on the unique aspects of the Sirhan case.  

Key People  
- Deputy Chief Houghton (LAPD)  
- Judge Walker  
- Judge Loring  
- Mr. Fitts (District Attorney’s Office)  
- Mr. Talmachoff (Los Angeles County Clerk’s Office)  
- Judge Alarcon  
- Sirhan Sirhan  
- Mr. Richard Buckley (supervising clerk)  

Key Locations  
- Los Angeles, California (County Clerk’s Office, LAPD, Department 100)  
- Washington, D.C. (National Archives, FBI)  
- Judge Loring’s chambers  
- Exhibit area (Los Angeles County Clerk’s Office)  

Key Events  
- Discussions on balancing transparency and security in releasing investigative files.  
- Court orders restricting public access to exhibits and physical evidence.  
- Implementation of guide envelopes with notations for restricted materials.  
- Creation of the "Record of Use of Exhibits" to track access details.  
- Meeting in Judge Loring’s chambers (May 16, 1969) to address exhibit handling protocols.  
- Reference to a 1968 Grand Jury Report on exhibit preservation concerns.  
- Dissemination of court orders related to the Sirhan case and Buckley’s role in training new employees.  

Key Organizations  
- Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)  
- Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)  
- Los Angeles County Clerk’s Office  
- District Attorney’s Office  
- Superior Court  
- U.S. Department of Justice (via Ramsey Clarke, Bill Lynch)

RFK Declassified Files

56-la-156-z_sec_001_ser_1_only-part_3_of_5.pdf

Document Summary

Try AI Search