</s>VOL. 17 Volume Number 6-156 Sev. 3216 -3231 FOPA FEDERAL PAPA FEDERATION FIBER FRI-CENTRAL RECORDS CENTER L. BUREAU FRI - CENTRAL RECORDES CENTER LA - LOS ANGELES Class / Case # Sub Vol. Serial # Class /Case # Sub Vol Serial # 0056 156 17 3216 3216 8/11/1199743 RRP003HAEK RRP03HAEKAX DO NOT DESTROY INVESTIGATION DO NOT RESEASE UNDER E.O. 14176 PENDING LITIGATION. PENDING LICHTION. Sale also No. DO NOT DISTROY PART 2.0 PART 3.0 PART 4.0.0 Part 5.0 part 6.0,0.2.0 PART 7.0 0.0 PART 8.0 .- 0.1.0-0.00.0 - 0.00-0-00-00.00

CBS sought a scientific examination of firearms and bullets from the Sirhan weapon, arguing that it would verify whether particular evidence was found in their possession. The FBI's investigation of the CBS press and the administration of justice was considered public scrutiny.

Lowell Bradford declared that the bullet which entered Senator Kennedy's body had come from the Sirhan weapon, but this conclusion was contested by others. Defense attorneys Grant Cooper and Emilio Berman stipulated to the introduction of the misarmed envelope in the jury for fear of prejudice.

Herbert MacDonnell and William Harper concluded that the Kennedy and Weisel bullets were not fired from the same gun based on differences in pitch of the rifle. Bradford cited Harper's previous statements that he failed to find individual characteristics in the Sirhan bullet when compared with the Kennedy bullet.

Bradford requested a scientific re-examination of all firearms identification evidence, including testing of the bullets and examination of the original objects. The conclusions concerning differences in cannellures from photographs appeared to have merit but should be tested because quantitative differences were close to the limit of precision.

Bradford hesitated in making absolute declarations about a second gun, equivocating similarly as he did in the Baxter Ward Hearing in May 1974. Bradford pointed out lack of written notes and documents relating to the prosecution's exhibits on firearms and ballistic.

The previous District Attorney Office's investigation concerning the opinions of the case was incomplete. Bradford called for a thorough examination and test procedure, including comparison through a stereoscope microscope, micro-measures of the bullets, and chemical tests on bullet lead.

Bradford requested a non-verification of the ability to modify science to solve problems of identification. The re-testing of the Sirhan Sironan weapon and the re-examination of all bullet evidence were ordered by Presiding Judge Wenke in September 1975.

Sirhan's notebooks contained writings about Robert F. Kennedy, which were seen as examples of his intention to kill Kennedy. However, Sirhan argued that they reflected his desire for courage and ability, rather than a genuine intent to harm.

The prosecution offered several uncontroverted facts supporting the proposition that Sirhan acted with predetermined intent and aforethought, including his stalking of Kennedy, his trip to the shooting range, and his visit to the Ambassador Hotel two days prior to the assassination.

Sirhan was convicted of first-degree murder, and his defense team argued that he had been acting under diminished capacity due to mental illness and emotional disturbance. However, the prosecution countered that Sirhan's actions were premeditated and deliberate.

The investigation into the assassination was led by Chief of Los Angeles Police detectives Robert A. Houghton, who established a special task force to investigate the crime. The F.B.I. conducted a parallel investigation, interviewing hundreds of individuals across the country.

District Attorney Evelle J. Younger issued a report at the conclusion of the trial and conviction of Sirhan, giving an account of the nature of the investigation immediately following the assassination. He reported that well over 5,000 witnesses were interviewed, and others pretended to have some knowledge of events bearing upon the crime.

The District Attorney's office conducted an investigation into allegations made by Barbara Warner Blehr concerning the procedures of DeWayne Wolfer in the Sirhan case. The investigation found that Wolfer had mislabeled an envelope, but this was not a critical error in the case.

DeWayne Wolfer, the L.A.P.D. criminalist, had mislabeled the envelope which received the bullets from the gun taken from Sirhan. This mistake was discovered during the investigation into the allegations made by Barbara Warner Blehr.

The prosecution argued that Sirhan's actions were premeditated and deliberate, while the defense claimed that he acted under diminished capacity due to mental illness and emotional disturbance.

The Busch report stated that Wolfer conducted two series of ballistic tests on June 6 and 11, 1968, using Sirhan's gun and a second weapon obtained from the L.A.P.D. Property Division. The first test used the actual seized gun, while the second test used a gun with six grooves, which was secured from the Parker Center.

The Busch report also stated that the investigation raised serious questions concerning the present integrity of the exhibit due to the handling in the evidence of the Los Angeles County Clerk. The Grand Jury's Board of Supervisors dated August 24, 1971, found that the County Clerk's Office mishandled exhibits and failed to keep an accurate record of visits.

The autopsy report of Dr. Noguchi indicated that gunshot wound #1 entered Kennedy in the right mastodon region with a path angle of 10-15 degrees upward, while gunshot wound #2 had an angle of 30 degrees upward. The paths of these three bullets are consistent with the Sirhan testimony of eyewitnesses.

The Grand Jury investigation found that the County Clerk's Office failed to comply with court orders regarding exhibit security and handling. The Chief Administrative Officer's task force found no evidence of tampering with exhibits, but investigators were concerned about the possibility of tampering.

Karl Uecker testified at trial that he stopped Sirhan after the fourth shot, while Frank Burns testified that he heard a noise like a gun being fired from behind Kennedy. Valerie Schulte testified that she was approximately two people behind Senator Kennedy and saw him shaking hands with busboys before the shooting.

Boris Yaro testified that he was three feet behind Kennedy and to the left of him when he heard what sounded like two crackers, followed by shots. Martin Petrusky testified that he was within five feet of Senator Kennedy when he was shot and saw Sirhan running towards him with a gun.

The autopsy report concluded that the overall pattern of the direction of the three gunshot wounds is consistent with shooting in rapid succession. The Grand Jury investigation found that the County Clerk's Office mishandled exhibits and failed to keep an accurate record of visits, but no evidence of tampering was developed during the investigation.

In 1974, Supervisor Baxter Ward conducted hearings on various eyewitnesses, apparent discrepancies in trial testimony of various eyewitnesses, giving sizable coverage to trial critics such as Theodore Charach and others critical of Criminalist DeWayne Wolfer.

Ward stated that he would be aware of hearings. revealed the growing feud between Ward Supervisors meet: and Busc. Ward started to appear between the belief that the District Law Attorneys should be the cloud attorney should be aware the cloud initiating a total review of the ballistics evidence, including refining of a gun used by Sirhan.

Additionally, Ward stated to Busch, then reminded him that I made this basic proposal back in their position in this matter in this three-month broadcast series in my persistentism. This matter was to deal with doubts 1971 that led to the total strangement between Mr. Busch and me ... " hand insisted the criminalist hearing was not dealt with evidence in raised by the sirhan murder trial did not match bullets.

Busch, who described the proposed hearing into the bullet hearing and cited government code sections in the Los Angeles County Charter challenging the authority of a Supervisor to conduct legislative hearings into essentially a criminal issue. case, the case, and the public authority to capture public notice during his campaign for the Democratic nomination for Governor that spring.

Mac Donell Affidavit In addition to the original affidavit of William Harper of December, 1970, Ward's hearings were to highlight the affidavit and personality of criminalist Herbert Mac Donell, director of the Laboratory of Forensic Science in Corning, New York. Mac Donell had examined the same 1970 photograph taken by Harper of the Donell had studied the same photograph taken to Mac Meisel.

The Charach had delivered these photographs to Mac Doneill in 1973. Essentially Mac Donelli made two conclusions. - First, Mac Donell stated the bullet removed from Senator Kennedy and the bullet Removed from Weisel could not have been fired from the same weapon. Mac Donelli claimed the two bullets were of different manufacture or were manufactured by the same firm unidentified individuals.

The man was also the same dummy cases removed from Sirrah's gun were manufactured right by Mark-C. and all had two cannellures. Mac Donell stated the location of the cannellures on the Weisel bullet showed it could have been a part of the Kennedy bullet but had one cannellure, and therefore could not have been Mark manufacture and, therefore, could not Have been a part of one of the cartridges taken from the Sirrah revolver.

examination of the Hygon Ballison camera photographs taken by Harper of the Kennedy and Weisel bullets showed a difference of early lack of a degree in rifle angles on. Also, Mac Donnell felt there was a lack of the rifle angles. The two bullets. Overall characteristics that appeared on the condition that the one from sharpness of the Kennedy bullet suggested that it was fired from which the Weasel bullet was fired.

Finally Man and Donnell stated that he felt two guns had been fired. It must pointed out that both Harper and Mac Donelled were working Balliscan. Even though this camera is a acknowledged diagnostic aid in ballistics, criminals agree that the most reliable evil- dence comes from actual microscopic examination of the bullets.

1971 that he had "strong reservations regarding the present utility of the physical evidence had microscopic re-examination because of the way that the evidence had been initially handled by the police the manner that he remained. In the same manner by the Clerk's Office.

Preparing to hold his hearings in May, 1974, Ward publicly many questions about the conviction of Sirrah, but had Ward stated, "In my opinion, there is no question of Sirraham's involvedment and the finding of his guilt, and he should be that he (Ward) had no knowledge or particular, as suggested by Sirhan did not act alone. But I still feel that a case of this importance should not leave unresolved as many specific charges as are being made in this case."

District Attorney Busch challenged the authority of Supervisor Ward to hold such a hearing, but Ward relied on the advice of County Council John Larson that as Department Charman of the Coroner's Department, it was appropriate for Ward to Hold such a hearing and inquiry.

Ward laid a preliminary foundation for his hearing by telling other Board of Supervisors members that he, Ward, hearing against Sharp and his office by the District Attorney and charges against Sharp's response and felt that the integrity of the exhibits the County Grand Jury in 1971. Ward stated that he was satisfied with Sharp's only response and, felt that he is the entity of the exhibit that can only be dispensed in a proper inquiry."

There is a cloud over law enforcement in the County of Los Angeles that can also be dispelled in 1974) Supervisors Meeting April 23, 1974) Additionally, so quoted Claim that it is scarcely possible to imagine a case so botched up in the physical evidence collection, preservation, analysis and Testimony Division in the Bobby Kennedy killing.

Ward Ballard this allegation at the Board of Supervisor Meeting on April 23. 1974, to justify his attempts to subpoena District Attorney Buscher and DeWayne Wolfer to appear for his May, 1974, hearing.

May 13, 1974 Hearing Ward prefaced his hearing with statements by Mr. Roy Ito and Mr. Ekakanos, both members of the 1971 Chief Administrative Office task Force. Both Eskanos and The To Testified that there was no substance that they disagreed with the Grand Jury findings that They stated that they disagree with the grand jury findings that there was an unfortunate lack of concern for the integrity that the exhibits.

Additionally, Ward inserted into the record statement Judge Loring stated that, "Despite considerable adverse publicity (in 1971) during during the course of these investigations, our committee found nothing to indicate that the handling and storing of the exhibitions."

Affidavit of William Harper Read Into the Record William Harper could not participate in the May 13, 1971, hearing. Portions of Harper's previously sworn affidavit prepared on December 28, 1970, were read the record.

In this affidavit Harper stated that "During the past several months (in 1970) I have made a careful review and study the physical circumstances have made the bullets and shell cases. I have examined physical evidence introduced at the trial, including Sirhan's weapon, the bulletsand shell cases."

I have also studied the autopsy report, the autopsy photographs and pertinent portions. of the "Based on my background and training, upon my experience as a consulting criminalist, and my studies, examinations, analysis of the data related to the Kennedy assassination, I have arrived at the following findings and opinions.

"No test bullets recovered from the Sirhan gun are in evi- This gun was never identified scientifically as having fired any bullets removed from any of the victims. "not directly removed from Sirhan at the scene. It is not been was forcibly removed from sirhan at that time. It was not been connected by microscopic examinations or other scientific testing to the actual shooting.

#17) has a rifle angle of approximately 23 minutes (approximately 14/7) greater than the rifle angle that Bullet Exhibit #47 and #54 could not have been fired from the same gun.

1974 Lowell Bradford Testimony cord, Ward called criminalist Lowell Bradford to testify. had served as the Head of Santa Clara County District Attorney's Crime Laboratory but the was was no longer in that capacity at the time of the hearing. Like other critics. Bullet in 1970. Ward asked for Bradford was looking at photographs of Harper in 1970, Ward asked to concussions regarding the number of cannellures in Exhibit 47, the Kennedy bullet, as compared to photographs of Westfield bullet.

Bradford replied: photographs in Westfield Bullet. Bradford replaced. cannelures, whereas photo 51 has an image which appears to portray two cannellures. bullet tampering when question Bradford about the possibility of photographs taken or damage. Specifically, Ward had requested photographs be taken at the two controversial bullets, 47 and 54, photographs Taken at his request in April, 1974.

Ward answered compared them for any changes that might have occurred in the quality of the specific markings on the bullets. (the bullet photos 1970 taken by Harper, and the bullet photos of 1974 taken at Ward taken by Harry, and that photographs of the changes in the types of marks which would be usable in identi- fication between the two sets of photographs.

Ward said that he had raised the question to Bradford for the age could have a serious effect on the quality of quarters that and their integrity for examination. Ward felt that two-and

RFK Declassified Files

56-la-156_sec_017_ser_3216-3231-part_1_of_7.pdf

Document Summary

Try AI Search