</s>Parties and counsel represented were: CBS, Inc ., through their attorneys McCutchen, Black, Verleger, and Shea J. Privett and Robert Damus); Paul Schrade through attorneys Mel Levine and Leonard Unger; Los Angeles County Counsel's Office at the request of the John Larson and Deputy County Counsel Robert Lynch. Defendant Sirhan Sirhan represented by attorney Godfrey Isaac; Attorney General's Office, Evella J. Younger represented by Deputy Attorney's Office. Represented by Deputy District District Attorney's office. Representated by Deputy District Attorney Dinko Bozanich and Special Counsel Thomas Kranz. For the next several weeks, the various parties, through THEIR attorneys. For the next seven weeks, there were several parties, In order to retain his independence, Special Counsel Kranz abstrained from actual negotiations although was an observer distribution and Deputy District Attorney Bozanichi advocated the distribution of the existing exhibits and the weapon. The heart of the the discussion throughout these few weeks were the integrations whether utility of theexisting exhibits and were substantial questions whether or not from the Sirhan withstand the need of the Constitution. data regarding the assassination of Senator Kennedy could be derived from any testing at all. Specifically, Bozanica asked the the failure of the County Clerk to administer the impact of orders of the Superior Court (original Judge Alarcon, Judge Walker and Judge Loring orders) on the integrity and utility of the Sirkan the mere passage of time, and the potential oxidation of other factors, such as might have an impact on the present usefulness and testing of the Sirhan exhibits. Integrity of Exhibits Bozanich was stating a concern of the District Attorney's Office that one possible result of the test procedure to be adopted was that the Siran exhibits, inandof themselves, were inclusive as to the Srinan as the scene of the Senator's assas- sination. court first determine what significance, if any, could be attached to the conclusions reached in the testing of Siranich exhibits. In the conclusion of the testing, the position was that the public had a right to know all of the facts was that rounding the assassination in Senator Kennedy, and that this right would be frustrated, unless guidelines were first established, both closures that could be derived from the examination of testing or the exhibits. Additionally, Boanzanich argued in several preliminary meetingings with the various attorneys that failure of a court to state specific findings of facts and conclusions of law after the ballistics examination, might further confuse the public.

The parties involved in the case were CBS, Inc., Paul Schrade, Los Angeles County Counsel's Office, Defendant Sirhan Sirhan, Attorney General's Office, and Deputy District Attorney's office. A series of negotiations took place between the parties' attorneys to determine the procedure for testing the Sirhan exhibits.

A court order was eventually signed on September 18, 1975, granting the examination of the Sirhan exhibit. The final court order reflected a compromise between the parties' attorneys and Judge Wenke, detailing a procedure for retesting the bullets and exhibits.

The examination panel consisted of experts from various agencies, including the FBI, Department of Justice, and Los Angeles Police Department. The panel was tasked with conducting a comparison microscope examination of the various bullets and exhibits.

Deputy District Attorney Branch and other officials were present during the examination, but their roles were limited to observing and providing information as needed.

The Wolfer Examination took place in September 1975, where DeWayne Wolfer, a criminalist, was questioned by attorneys for Schrade, CBS, and Sirhan. Wolfer's testimony raised serious doubts about the substance and credibility of the ballistics evidence presented in the original Sirhan trial.

Wolfer produced his daily log covering his activities from June 5, 1968, through June 19, 1968, which highlighted his work in the criminalistic section of S.I.D. The log included details of his examination of the Ivor-Johnson .22 caliber revolver, analysis of bullets, and microscopy examination of evidence.

A progress report submitted by L.A.P.D. officers Collins, Hatchet, and MacArthur on July 18, 1968, highlighted the laboratory work conducted in preparation for the trial. The report included details of the photographic album containing 8x10 photographs of periennials, autopsy wounds, bullets, and fragments.

The trajectory and bullet pathway analysis prepared by DeWayne Wolfer on July 8, 1968, was submitted to Lieutenant Mann and the criminalisation of Walter. The report detailed the weapon used in the case as an Ivor-Johnson cadet model .22 caliber 8-shot revolver.

The report also included details of the bullet fragments removed from Senator Kennedy's head, which were later recovered and booked as evidence.

Wolfer testified that one factor making the actual identification of the Kennedy death bullet impossible was its fragmentation in the brain, causing it to explode and enlarge.

The seven experts examined the exhibits, including the autopsy reports, Senator Kennedy's clothing, and the bullets recovered after the assassination. They found no substantive evidence to indicate more than one gun was used to fire any of the bullets examined.

The experts specifically answered two troublesome questions: Herbert MacDonnell's allegation concerning cannelures and William Harper's allegation concerning firing angles. They found that People's Exhibit 47, the Kennedy rifle, had the same number of cannellures as People's 51, and all other bullets examined. The rifling angles between exhibits 47 and 51 were not significantly different.

The experts' findings were revealed in early October, prior to cross-examination by several experts in November. Assistant Chief Deputy County Council Robert Lynch asked Mr. Harper to submit any questions he might have concerning the experts' examinations and findings.

Wolfer stated that he had applied to use Sirhan's weapon for additional tests but was told by representatives of the District Attorney's Office that they would be unable to obtain it without a court order approved by Sirhan's new counsel.

The court order provided for the retesting and examination of the ballistics and firearms exhibits, including the bullets recovered after the assassination. The principal questions asked were: 1) whether the exhibits are in a condition which permits a reliable firearm identification; 2) if not, what accounts for that conclusion; and 3) if an identification can be made, does it support a conclusion that a second weapon was fired at the time of the assassination.

The seven experts examined all the bullets recovered after the assassination, including those obtained from Senator Kennedy's body and Sirhan's car. They also examined the seven Wolfer test-fired bullets and the eight test-fired bullets obtained on September 26, 1975.

The experts found that there was no substantive evidence to indicate more than one gun was used to fire any of the bullets examined.

The comprehensive joint report of the seven ballistic experts filed on October 6 stated that it could not be concluded that the three identifiable evidence bullets were fired from the Sirhan revolver due to poor reproduction of factors such as barrel fouling, copper alloy coating of the bullets, and cylinder alignment. The experts concluded their joint report by stating that they made no recommendations for additional types of testing of the physical evidence in the case.

Following the release of the joint report, critics expressed doubts about the findings, with Dr. Robert Jollying, president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, holding a press conference to express his concerns. Jollying felt that the ballistics panel had not concluded that no one gun was involved and questioned the firing angles of the gun barrel.

Petitioner Paul Schrade's attorneys argued in favor of neutron activation tests to determine the metallic conductencies of bullets since each batch contained a certain alloy. However, the expert felt that even if the metallic constituencies of the several bullets did not match up, it would not be relevant due to the fact that they were also different metallic consistency in their alloy.

The experts stated that there was a limit to their ability to test and that it never really would only be when the Sirhan gun had fired the bullets. They felt that additional tests would not add anything further and that any pursuit of hearings and ex-amination would be affirming to the examination of the exhibits.

Judge Wenke ruled on the new petition filed by Paul Schrade, denying the request for testimony of percipitian witnesses, examining public records, and conducting further scientific tests. The judge reasoned that it was never contemplated that the court would make a decision in the conventional sense, such as a finding of damages, wherein the petitioning had sought to elicit certain information.

Special Counsel Kranz opined that there is no conspiracy theory linking Sirhan's assassination of Robert Kennedy to other evidence or intelligence agencies. He stated that all leads were followed by every enforcement agency working on the case and none suggested involvement in a conspiracy.

The document discusses the investigation into the assassination of Robert Kennedy and the claims made by Don Schulman, a security guard who was present at the Ambassador Hotel on the night of the shooting.

Schulman claimed that he saw a security guard fire a gun in the pantry where Kennedy was shot, but later recanted his statement. He also stated that he had seen Senator Kennedy hit three times and an association of gunsmen, but could not positively link the flashes with Sirhan's arm due to the blinding lights.

The document also discusses Thane Cesar, a security guard who was present at the Ambassador Hotel on the night of the shooting. Cesar claimed that he had drawn his gun after being knocked down by Sirhan, but later stated that he had not fired his gun. He also claimed that he had seen a second gunman, but this claim was not supported by evidence.

Theodore Charach, an investigative reporter, was present at the Ambassador Hotel on the night of the shooting and interviewed Schulman and Cesar. Charach believed that there was a second gunman involved in the assassination, but his claims were not supported by evidence.

William Harper, a criminologist, examined the bullets and photographs from the scene of the crime and concluded that two guns had been fired. However, his conclusions were based on a flawed comparison of the firing angles of the bullets, and other experts disputed his findings.

The document also discusses the investigation into the assassination by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and the Grand Jury trial. The LAPD concluded that Sirhan acted alone in the assassination, but some witnesses and investigators believed that there was a second gunman involved.

Overall, the document presents conflicting claims and evidence regarding the circumstances of Robert Kennedy's assassination, highlighting the complexities and controversies surrounding this event.

Schrade testified that he was walking behind Senator Kennedy when shots were fired. Schrade stated that he saw flashes and heard a cracking sound, and that he was shaking violently as if being electrically shocked. He estimated that he was about four feet behind Kennedy at the time of the shooting.

Witnesses who observed Sirhan shooting described different sequences of events, but all agreed that Kennedy was turning to face them when shot. Some witnesses reported seeing an arm extended with a revolver and others saw Sirhan lunging at Kennedy.

The autopsy report by Dr. Noguchi showed that Kennedy's arm was moving between the second and third shots fired by Sirhan. The wounds inflicted on Kennedy were consistent with rapid succession firing of Sirhan's gun.

William Harper, a consulting criminalist, conducted a limited examination of the ballistic evidence and concluded that two guns were involved in the shooting. However, his conclusion was based on a comparison microscope study of only two bullets, People's 47 and 54, which showed differences in rifling angles and cannellures.

Harper's critics, Bradford and MacDonnell, also expressed opinions critical of Wolfer's findings, but their conclusions were not unanimous. They concluded that two guns fired the bullets, but their reasons differed from Harper's.

The District Attorney's Office memorandum analysis cautioned that any refining of Sirhan's gun would probably result in inconclusive findings as to whether the gun was used to fire the bullets. The preservation of the integrity of the physical evidence was considered important, as certain features of softfield bullets can be erased by rubbing them with fingers or dropping them on a hard surface.

The 1974 hearing conducted by Baxter Ward highlighted the original three theories of two guns and added a fourth theory. The alleged conflicts between eyewitnesses and physical evidence were actually immaterial to the number of guns that were simultaneously proved from the firearms evidence.

Final summary content:

RFK Declassified Files

56-la-156_sec_017_ser_3216-3231-part_2_of_7.pdf

Document Summary

Try AI Search