Document text
__ _,_ _ __A___ - ,- -,_ .__,__'--._._._.+.~__
92
FEDERAL: BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
ROBERT F. KENNEDY
ASSASSINATION
SUMMARY!
ID
IR ll Q--
IUB]'EC1':
-In
Q__.___§-__i.. _ - -. g!__._-___-
K!on-noun. roam no. no "-an non nornoncan nun on an |o|.u.0
UNITED STATES Go
Memorandum
= e SAC, LOS ANGELES 6- 156! C!0! n*T= 5/4/77
I'D, J l92 0-mu I-H3 .
KENSALT
On 8/l2/75, the Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors appointed Special Counsel THOMAS KRANZ to
investigate independently the assassination of Senator
ROBERT KENNEDY.
In March 1977, THOMAS F. KRANZ, the Special
Counsel to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's
Office, published a report concerning his findings
regarding a review of this investigation.
Attached hereto are two copies of this
report.
Two copies of this report have also been
forwarded to the Bureau by separate communication.
I
S E 5'4,-!5 .'3:_!']
! £i7:' tarii ~
a -I. ~_.m [P§ 19 :*92=;*r...§.2..*.._¢~i?.._?,»'-"
1::
'3-It-I:"5$" 1 P
'.?
->1
=2
ll Q8
n4-O.
.";:-i?
F.-iEF4
' 92. . _
F-
I.-,4;__...i:
__:*
;_,as
-04- _ Q
IV >1
FOREWARD ' -
This report presents my observations and conclusions as
Special Counsel appointed by the Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors on August 12, 1975, to investigate independently
the assassination of Senator Robert Kennedy.
There has been some unwarranted speculation that delay in
issuance of this report has resulted from changes being made
in the report. Such speculation is false. This report is my
product and no changes in either content or substance have
been made by any other persons.
Research for the report was conducted from January to March
1976. The report was written from March to May 1976 and
dictation tapes were delivered to the District Attorney's
Office for typing.
The first draft which is available for inspection! was
reorganized and checked for factual error, typographical
errors and grammatical errors from May to August 1976. A
second draft was then prepared and proof read. From this
second draft a final copy was prepared for reproduction. Due
to cut backs in the District Attorney's Office, this final
process took about seven months. Secretaries were simply not
avaliable to work full time on the project.
I want to thank the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
for appointing me to undertake this effort and I thank all
those in public agencies and the private citizens who have
helped me in my investigation. I emphasize that this report
is my sole responsibility. I hope that it will help to shed
light on one of the most tragic occurences in Los Angeles'
history.
% I /¢-//
/Zzazlzz--;/'-=7*;:»:.=~..wq¢
Thomas F. Kranz :1 ¢§Fr"
Special Counsel to the Los Angeles
County District Attorney's Dffice
L; u
F_I RST__ZSECTION
CHRONOLOGY, HISTORY, NARRATIVE
OF _
FACTS
TRIAL
PUBLIC AGENCY
INVESTIGATIONS
BALLISTICS usnnxncs
Q I
ROBEBT F. KENNEDY ASSASSINATION INVESTIGATION &.
THE CQURT HEARINGS RE BALLISTICS EXAMINATION & TESTING
Appointment of Thomas FL Kranz as Special Counsel to the" If i* §os"Angeles;Qistric§ AttgrneyT§_O?Tice S
On August 1A, 1975, Acting District Attorney John E. Howard
appointed private attorney Thomas F. Kranz as Special Counsel to
the District Attorney's Office in the matter of the Robert Kennedy
assassination. The appointment of a special independent outside
counsel, who was deputized as a deputy district attorney on August
1A, 1975, was to insure a fresh independent look at the entire
matter and controversy surrounding the death of Senator Kennedy.
Thomas Kranz, private attorney, member of the Los Angeles
County Bar Association and the State Bar of California, and
admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, met
Acting District Attorney John Howard for the first time in midJuly
1975. The purpose of the meeting, at Kranz's request, was to inform
Mr. Howard that Kranz was interested in seeking the then vacant
position of District Attorney for the County of Los Angeles. Kranz
emphasized to Howard that he, Kranz, saw himself as a long shot
compromise choice in the event the Board of Supervisors were to
deadlock in their selection of a successor to Joseph Busch. During
this discussion in the office of Acting District Attorney Howard,
Kranz admitted to Howard that "I have always had some degree of
reservation concerning the Robert Kennedy case. With all respect
to Joe Busch, I feel there are a lot of unanswered questions."
Howard did not reply to this comment, but several weeks later,
after the filing of both the CBS and Paul Schrade lawsuits, Howard
requested that Kranz come to_the District Attorney's Office for a
meeting. '
At that time, in the presence of John Howard, Acting Chief
Deputy District Attorney Gordon Jacobson, Chief of Investigators
George Stoner, and other District Attorney personnel including
Deputy District Attorney Dinko Bozanich, the possibility of the
appointment of Kranz as a Special Counsel in the Sirhan Sirhan
matter was discussed. The problem confronting Howard, as with Joe
Busch, was not the validity of the verdict in the Sirhan case, but
the erosion of public confidence in the system of justice in Los
Angeles County due to the many questions that were continually
being raised in the Sirhan matter. Additional discussion concerned
the fact that such an independent special counsel would work with
the District Attorney's office in the preparation and presentation
of all evidence in the pending court hearing. Additionally, Kranz
was to independently review all the previous evidence, transcripts.
interviews, and documents relating to the Sirhan case, and make his
own independent investigation into the assassination of Robert
Kennedy. -
- 1 _
" 92
QLHI U,
Ironically, during this discussion in Acting District
Attorney Howard's office, the Board of Supervisors was holding its
weekly meeting. Supervisor Baxter Ward was expressing his dis-
pleasure with Acting District Attorney Howard's refusal to reopen
the Sirhan matter. The previous weekend, the weekend of August 9,
Howard had discussed the possibility of the appointment of a
special counsel with Supervisor Kenneth Hahn, and Howard suggested
his intention to discuss the appointment of special counsel with
attorney Tom Kranz. During the Board meeting on that day,
August 12, Supervisor Ward requested that Acting District Attorney
Howard appear before the Board and give explanations concerning the
Sirhan matter. Howard responded to the request to appear, and at
the Board meeting, Howard announced that the District Attorney's
Office had been exploring various ways to re-examine key evidence
in the Kennedy assassination in a proper legal forum. The possi-
bility of the appointment of a special master and special counsel
was discussed. Howard then introduced Kranz before the Board of
Supervisors, seeking permission for the appointment of Kranz as
special counsel to the District Attorney's Office on a 60day basis,
salary at $2,000 a month. The motion was approved 5-0. This
appointment was later extended for another 60-day period beginning
October 13. Kranz appointment as special counsel expired December
12, 1975. .
Two days after this Board of Supervisors meeting, Special
Counsel Krann and Deputy District Attorney Dinko Bozanich
represented the District Attorney's office at a hearing before Los
Angeles Superior Court Presiding Judge Robert Wenke concerning the
application by CBS and Paul Schrade for examination and testing of
the Sirhan trial exhibits. Kranz and Bozanich stated that the
District Attorney's Office had no opposition to the principle of
test firing of the gun as long as the matter would be conducted
within a Judicial forum, with the right of cross examination and
evidentary rules applying. The re-testing of the Sirhan weapon and
re-examination of all bullet evidence from the T969 trial were
ordered by Judge wenke. Contrary to the immediate notoriety given
the judge's order, this was not'a re-opening nor a re-investigation
of the Sirhan case. The Judge's order involved only the reexamina-
tion of the ballistics, gun and bullet evidence that could possibly
shed light on factual differences. Judge Wenke had instructed all
parties and counsel to draft a suitable'procedure for the testing
and examination of the exhibits.
In order to understand the nature of the appointment of
Kranz as Special Counsel, it is necessary to review the events
preceeding the appointment of Kranz as Special Counsel, and to look
at the orchestration of controversy during the past several years
since the murder of Robert Kennedy in the early morning hours of
June 5, 1968, in the kitchen pantry of the Ambassador Hotel.
- 3 -
cl L;
Statement ofnthe facts;of People v. Sirhan &T§gbsgquent questions
In an indictment returned by the Grand Jury of Los
Angeles County, defendant Sirhan was charged in Count I with the
_.--cl-Inna AP Dnhan ='||nI92v92l'!& Vanna:-III in nIln1a92'~|r92v92 AP DQHQ1 PAAQ LICK 92JL HUNG! U I l §.l192-I]-é RZIIIIZKJJ LII V -l92J,lnZ|bJ.92Jll 92J-l» L ¢ll¢-L 92{J92J¢
Section 187. In Counts II - VI defendant Sirhan was charged with
assault with a deadly weapon with intent to commit murder of Paul
Schrade, Owen Stroll, William Weisel, Elizabeth Evans, and Ira
Goldstein, in violation of Penal Code Section 217.
Defendant Sirhan pleaded not guilty. The trial court denied
defendant's motion to surpress certain physical evidence obtained
from his residence by means of search and seizure. Defendant's
motion for separate juries on the issue of guilt and the possible
issue of penalty was denied. Defendant's motion to quash and set
aside the petit jury list was denied, as was his motion to quash the
indictment.
After a jury trial, defendant was found guilty as charged on
all counts, the jury fixing the degree of-the offense charged in
Count I at murder in the first degree. After further proceedings on
the issue of penalty, the jury fixed the punishment on Count I at
death. The defendant filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of
conviction, and the California Supreme Court modified the judgment
to provide a punishment of life imprisonment instead of death for
the murder of Senator Kennedy.
Thereafter, every appeal and writ filed by the defendant
Sirhan was denied by both California appellate courts and the
United States Supreme Court. Most recently, in January 1975,
Sirhan's attorney, Mr. Godfrey Isaac, filed a writ of Habeas
Corpus, and a writ of Error Coram Nobis before the Supreme Court of
California alleging that ballistics evidence indicated that two
guns had been fired at the murder scene, and that there had been a
knowing supression of evidence by the prosecution at trial. This
application for writ was denied by the California Supreme Court in
February, l9?5. .
But despite the affirmation of the trial court and jury's
Judgment by all appellate courts, the past several years have seen
tremendous pressure and demands in many quarters to re-open the
investigation of the Senator Kennedy assassination. Specifically,
besides the demands of the assassination and conspiracy buffs,
there were legitimate requests in the press and by the American
Academy of Forensic Sciences that called for a re-examination of
the physical evidence in the case. It must be kept in mind that the
assassination of a public leader, especially one who commands the
extraordinary following as did Senator Kennedy, is an event which
produces a profound public reaction. Media coverage of such an
event evokes a feeling of shock and indignation similar to the
reaction people have to the murder of a friend. The widespread
sense of tragedy which followed such an assassination made it a
topic for much public discussion and a subject that guaranteed a
mass audience for anyone who chose to publicly discuss it.
- 3 -
' 92
Ks
Moreover, the previous reports issued by the District
Attorney's Office and the Los Angeles Police Department confirming
their own conclusions that Sirhan Sirhan had been the lone gunman
seemed only to generate accusations by the critics of a "cover up."
Eventually, during 1975, new accusations appeared in the press, and
on media talk and entertainment shows. At the time of the appoint-
ment of Kranz as Special Counsel, the facts and circumstances
surrounding political assassinations had become new entertainment
in both tabloid reading and on television and radio talk shows. The
United States Congress was investigating possible conspiracy
concerning the assassination of President John Kennedy, and other
Congressional Committees were investigating the link between CIA
operations in foreign countries and political assassinations. The
Columbia Broadcasting System was in the process of producing a news
documentary on the subject of political assassinations for nation-
wide broadcast in early 1976. CBS, through its local Los Angeles
attorneys, had filed a request in Los Angeles Superior Court for
examination and testing of the exhibits and evidence in the Sirhan
UGDC o
In short, major questions had been raised about the
scientific evidence generated in the investigation of Sirhan and in
the trial which followed the assassination of Senator Kennedy. The
major questions were whether all of the bullets recovered from
Senator Kennedy and the other five victims came from the gun of
Sirhan. Beginning in mid-1970, and for the next several years,
several forensic scientists, working in the field of firearms iden-
tification, and on the basis of examination of photographs and the
physical evidence, had concluded that there were inconsistencies in
the cannelure design and the rifling angles of the Kennedy neck
wound bullet Sirhan trial exhibit H7! when compared to the Weisel
wound bullet trial exhibit SH!. It was argued by the critics that
these "apparent inconsistencies" should not have been present if
both bullets had been fired from the Sirhan gun.
Evidence PresentedjatgTrial
_ ._ _ _ _ _ __-A _ _ _ __ . _ _DOn the evening of June 2, 19b8, Senator Robert K-nnedy had
given a speech at the Palm Terrace Room of the Ambassador Hotel in
Los Angeles. Prior to the Senator's speech on the evening of June
2, William Blume, who had worked as a stock boy in a liquor store
located next door to an organic health-food store where defendant
Sirhan had worked the few months previous to that date, observed
Sirhan in the lobby area adjacent to the Palm Terrace Room. Mrs.
Miriam Davis, a hostess for the Kennedy event that night, was
walking around the hotel twenty minutes after the speech when she
observed Sirhan seated in the kitchen area. After the Senatoris
speech on June 2, Kennedy had passed through the kitchen area.
On the morning or June 4, 1968, election day, Sirhan signed
in at the San Gabriel Valley Gun Club located on Fish Canyon Road in
Duarte. He wrote "Sirhan Sirhan" and the address 696 East Howard
Street,_Pasadena, on the roster. After Sirhan had fired awhile on
the shooting range, he told the range master, Edward Buckner, "I
want the best box of shells you have, and I want some that will not
misfire. I got to have some that will not misfire." Buckner then
sold defendant Sirhan a bon_of shells, and Sirhan resumed shooting,
engaging in rapid fire shooting, using a .22 revolver and remaining
on the range til 5:00 p.m.
_ H _O
92
Of 92
J
3
3
3ry -Five other witnesses at the trial 92fistified that they
observed Sirhan engage in rapid fire at the range. One witness,
Henry Carreon, noticed 300-U00 empty casings where Sirhan was
shooting. Sirhan told another witness, Mrs. Ronald Williams, that
his mini-mag bullets were superior to the bullets that she was
using, and when asked by witness Michael Saccoman if it was against
the law to use a pistol for hunting, Sirhan answered "Hell, I don't
know about that. It could kill a dog."
Earlier in the year, Sirhan had had a conversation with
Alvin Clark, a trash collector employed by the City of Pasadena, in
which Sirhan had expressed his concern about how the assassination
of Martin Luther King would effect "Negro people and how the
Negroes would vote in the coming election." Clark testified at
trial that he told Sirhan he was going to vote for Senator Kennedy
and Sirhan responded by saying, "What do you want to vote for that
son-of-a-b for? Because I'm planning on shooting him" Clark then
told Sirhan that Senator Kennedy had paid the expenses of bringing
Martin Luther King's body back from Tennessee and that "you will be
killing one of the best men in the country." Clark remembered that
Sirhan stated that Senator Kennedy had done this merely for the
publicity involved, and that this conversation had occured in mid-
April, 1968.
On the evening of the election, June U, an hour or two prior
to Senator Kennedy's speech in the Embassy ballroom, a member of
the Senator's staff, Judy Royer, observed Sirhan in the area to the
rear of the Embassy ballroom stage. Because Sirhan was not wearing
a press badge or staff badge he was asked to leave, and he turned
and walked toward the doors leading out to the Embassy ballroom.
Shortly before midnight, as Senator Kennedy took the service
elevator down to the pantry area din the rear of the Embassy
ballroom, Jesus Perez, a kitchen helper at the Ambassador, and
Martin Petrusky, a waiter, observed Senator Kennedy as he passed
through the pantry on the way to the Embassy ballroom where about
500 people awaited his speech. Both kitchen personnel observed
defendant Sirhan in the pantry at this time. Sirhan inquired
whether Senator Kennedy would be "coming back through this way."
Both hotel employees replied that they did not know, but testified
that Sirhan remained in the area of the pantry close to Perez at the
corner of a serving table. -
Upon concluding his address at approximately 12:15 a.m.
June 5! Senator Kennedy was escorted off the platform toward the
Colonial Room where he was to meet the press. Karl Uecker,
assistant Maitre d at the Ambassador Hotel, led the Senator
through the pantry area behind the Embassy ballroom.
In the pantry area, Senator Kennedy stopped and shook hands
with some of the kitchen help, including Perez and Petrusky. At
that time Sirhan appeared, "smirking", as testified by Perez and
Petrusky, and began to fire his .22 caliber revolver at Senator
Kennedy. Several shots were fired in rapid succession. Uecker
attempted to grab the weapon from Sirhan, and Senator Kennedy fell
to the floor of the Pantry.
A struggle ensued as those present attempted to immobolize
and disarm Sirhan. Roosevelt Grier, Rafer Johnson, George
Plimpton, Jess Unruh, and other members of Kennedy's entourage
arrived seconds later. Later that night kafer Johnson turned the
weapon over to the L.A.P.D-, and it was booked into the prOPBPtY
division.
- 5 _
', , 1
L L
While Sirhan .was being held in the pantry awaiting the
arrival of the L.A.P.D., Rafer Johnson asked Sirhan repeatedly,
"Why did you do it?" Sirhan replied, "Let me explain" or "I can
explain." At this time Sirhan also remarked in answer to Jess
Unruh's question "Why him?", "I did it for my country," and a few
seconds later, "It is too late".
' Two L.A.P.0. officers on patrol duty, Arthur Placentia and
Travis white, answered the 12;20 a.m. all units call, "Ambassador
shooting, 300 Wilshire", and when the officers arrived they took
Sirhan off the serving table where he had been restrained and
placed him in custody and handcuffed him. Sirhan was transported
through a hostile crowd, which was chanting "Kill him, kill him" to
the officers police car. Jess Unruh also entered the vehicle and
the officers drove toward Rampart station. Officer Placentia
several times asked Sirhan his name, but Sirhan did not reply.
Sirhan was advised of his constitutional rights, and Sirhan replied
that he understood his rights. Although the officers did not
address any further questions to Sirhan during the trip to the
station, Unruh asked Sirhan, "why did you shoot him?", and Sirhan
replied, "Do you think I'm crazy, so you can use it in evidence
against me."
Both upon arrest, and later at the Rampart station, L.A.P.D.
officers attempted to examine Sirhan's eyes, but did not form
an opinion whether Sirhan was under the influence of alcohol or
drugs. He did not smell of any odor of alcohol nor did Sirhan
appear to Mr. Unruh to be under the influence of intoxicating
liquor.
At the Rampart station, Sirhan's eyes were subjected to a
light test, and on the basis of that test, as well as Sirhan's
appearance and movements, Officer white formed the opinion that
Sirhan was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Sirhan's pockets were emptied and the following items were
taken from his possession: an automobile key, two live .22 caliber
bullets and an expended bullet, two newspaper clippings one from
the Pasadena Independent Star News dated May 26, 1968, a story by
columnist David Lawrence which in part noted that in a recent
speech Senator Kennedy had "favored aid to Isreal with arms if
necessary."; the other newspaper clipping, an advertisement from an
unidentified newspaper inviting the public "to come and see and
hear Senator Robert Kennedy on Sunday, June 2, 1968, at 8:00 p.m.,
Coconut Grove, Ambassador Hotel, Los Angeles"!. Also removed from
Sirhan's pockets was $410.66 in cash, including four one hundred
dollar bills. No wallet, identification, or information indicating
Sirhan's identity was obtained from the examination of Sirhan's
person. $ergeant William Jordon, who was watch commander at
Rampart detectives that night, assumed custody over petitioner
around 12:55 a.m., and asked Sirhan his name. Receiving no
response, the officer informed Sirhan of his constitutional rights.
Sirhan asked some questions about his rights and requested the
admonition be repeated which was done. Sirhan indicated that he
wished to remain silent. -
- 6 -
___ .__.._.___...____'__.._ ,_ ,__,_____-.._.:. .,,_,, _..._._,,,__ _ _ _..__ _ _ 1w:
_ _ __ __ . .. .. 4 V7 W . . K ., . .__. _.._,_.i ._,........ .. W-.- .. A -»---O
C-.3
6 o
L
At this time'Sirhan was able to idenéify an absent officer
to Sergeant Jordon by the officer's badge number, 39H9. Sergeant
Jordon formed the opinion at this time that Sirhan was not under the
influence_of either alcohol or'drugs. Sirhan was not.given an
intoxication test because Jordon concluded there were no objective
symptoms of intoxication and no reason to administer such a test.
When Sergeant Jordon offered Sirhan a cup of coffee, Sirhan asked
the officer to drink from the cup first, and the officer did so.
For security reasons, Sirhan was transported to police
headquarters at Parker Center, arriving at the homicide squad room
around 1:50 a.m. Sirhan requested some water and again, at his
request, Sergeant Jordon tasted it before passing the cup to him.
Shortly before 2:00 a.m., a Doctor Lanz examined Sirhan in those
areas where Sirhan complained of pain. Sirhan refused to tell the
physician his name, and the physician told the officers present
that Sirhan was not in need of any immediate medical treatment but
that Sirhan should keep as much weight as possible off his left
ankle as it was probably sprained.At this time Chief Deputy District Attorney Lynn Compton and
h n +1: ier in+ A"1-nrvnav Tnhn Howard 31"l"I92|"&d 85 members Of theQ 'II Y . - guy-C; IIJ-hI92ILd|92I921 .1:....v...92._, ....,.... ....-._- _ _--._.__, _-_
District Attorney's investigative staff. In an interrogation room,
Howard asked Sirhan his name and Sirhan did not answer and at that
time Sirhan was advised by Howard of his constitutional rights.
Sirhan nodded in the direction of Sergeant Jordon and stated "I
will stand by my original decision to remain silent."
During Sergeant Jordon's various contacts with Sirhan, in-
cluding the four to five hours he spent with Sirhan at the
arraignment and immediately prior and subsequent thereto, Sirhan
never appeared irrational. While refusing to identify himself
by name or place of origin, Sirhan engaged in banter with Sergeant
Jordon. Jordon formed the opinion that Sirhan had a "very quick
mind", and that Sirhan was "one of the most alert and intelligent
persons" the officer had ever interrogated or attempted to interro-
gate during his 15 years experience on the police force.
About the same time that Sirhan was being taken to the
police station, Senator Kennedy was taken to Good Samaritan
Hospital in Lcs Angeles. Surgery was performed, but Senator
Kennedy died at l:HH a.m., on June 6, 1968. Dr. Thomas Noguchi,
Coroner and Chief Medical Examiner of Los Angeles County and two
deputy medical examiners, performed an autopsy on Senator Kennedy's
body between 3:00 a.m. and 9:15 a.m., on June 6. It was disclosed
that the gunshot wound to the head, in the right mastoid, had pene-
trated the brain and was the cause of death. The bullet had
fractured the skull and had itself been shattered. According to
Dr. Noguchi, powder burns on the right ear indicated that the
muzzle distance between the weapon and the ear at the time of the
firing was l to 1-l/2 inches. The only other two gunshot wounds
were in the area of the right armpit and the right side. These
shots were fired at very close range. The location, alignment, and
direction of the three wounds, in conjunction with the clothing
worn, indicated to Dr. Noguchi that the three shots in question
were fired in "rapid succession".
-L.A.P.D. criminalist Dewayne Wolfer testified at trial and
previously before the Grand Jury in 1968! that a bullet taken from
the base of' Senator Kennedy's neck People's exhibit 47! and
bullets taken from victims Goldstein and Weisel {People's exhibit
52 and 553 were fired from Sirhanis gun and "no other gun in the
world".
- 7 -
92
Additionally,{co1fer testified that he hub test fired eight
bullets from the Si
test bullets. Wolfrhan weapon into a water tank, obtaining seven
er had taken one of the seven test bullets and
compared it to an evidence bullet and determined that the bullets
in question had come from the Sirhan weapon. '
Wolfer stated that the Sirhan weapon was unique due to the
striations. This was the process that causes a bullet to become
scratched as it pas ses along the barrel of a gun. The bullet was
scratched by the imperfections of the barrel and the bullet picked
up these lands and grooves markings from the barrel when projected.
and since different manufacturers of guns and bullets have dif=
ferent rifling specifications, by looking at the scratches on
particular bulletthe
under a comparison microscope, and also by
looking at the lands and grooves of the particular bullet, Wolfer
was able to conclude that the bullets - one test fired bullet and
one evidence bullet - had been fired from the same gun. Wolfer
emphasized that since no two barrels were going to impart the same
impressions or scratches on the projectiles that pass through them
when expelled, therefore, these bullets that matched under a com-
narison test micros cone could be said to have been fired from one
weapon, the Sirhan weapon.
Wolfer was unable to positively identify the bullet that
actually killed Senator Kennedy, People's U8, as having been fired
from the Sirhan gun due to the fragmentation of the bullet. ButII1 .I92_.__WOLIEF testified that it had been mini-mag ammunition, add had the
same rifling specifications as other bullets fired from the Sirhan
weaponkolfer then described the trajectory of the bullets.
a. The first bullet entered Senator Kennedy's head behind
the right ear and was later recovered from the victim's head and
booked as evidence.
b. The second bullet passed through the right shoulder pad
of Senator Kennedy's suit coat never entering his body! and
Fllbiéfl |1_r,|.|-anrl :sln¬|z¬nn-Ila-V";-I-=5 ll:-7":-l92J IUUIJ-|92l-I15
forehead. The bull
evidence.ctim Schrade in the center of his
et was re overed from his head and booked into
c. The third bullet entered Senator Kennedy's right rear
shoulder approximat ely 7"_below the top of the shoulder. This
bullet was recovered by the Coroner from the sixth cervical
vertebra and booked
d. The fourth
back approximately
traveled upward and
right front chest.
striking the second
ceiling interspace.
e. The fifth
buttock. This bull
evidence.
f. The sixthas evidence. ' -
bullet entered Senator Kennedy's right rear
1" to the right of bullet #3. This bullet
forward and exited the victim's body in the
The bullet passed.through the ceiling tile,
plastered ceiling and was lost somewhere in the
bullet struck victim Goldstein in the left rear
et was recovered from the victim and booked as
bullet passed through victim Go1dstein's left
pants leg never entering his body! and struck the cement floor and
entered victim Stroll's left leg. The bullet was later recovered
and booked as evidence.
g. The seventh bullet struck victim Weisel in the left
abdomen and was recovered and booked as evidence.
e eighth bullet struck the plaster ceiling and then h. Th
¢9|'r9292|uIg|1 use :1} I I'I|n-up-nu§Ul9292-B 'L92--LL Lvilibin 4-I-.3 In.-s.-92.-I "I'92I-in I-.-1114-5 --an -_.-1-g-tn.--4-in;-I Pug.-92|n 1-InaLll ULLU HQGUQ llll UULLCU G5 [CK-UVEI CU All-Illl I-HIV
victim's head and booked as evidence.
- 8 _O
.,,,.I
T o
3
3
! Ki Q
Finally, an envelope containing three of the test bullets
fired by Wolfer and having a serial number of another gun -not the
Sirhan weapon - on the coin envelope! was stipulated into evidenge
by defense counsel. This introduction of the mismarked bullet
envelope passed without comment by defense, prosecution, or the
trial court.
At approximately 9:30 a.m. on June 5, after the shooting of
Senator Kennedy, out before his death! Sergeant William Brandt of
the L.A.P.D. met with Adel Sirhan, one of defendant's brothers, at
the Pasadena Police Station. Adel stated that he lived with his two
younger brothers, Munir and Sirhan, and their mother at 696 Howard
Street, Pasadena. Adel, Sergeant Brandt, Sergeant James Evans of
the Homicide Division L.A.P.D., and agent Sullivan of the F.B.I.
were admitted to the Sirhan home by Adel at 10:30 a.m. Adel, whom
the officers knew to be the oldest male resident of the household,
gave the officers permission to search defendant's
bedroom. The officers did not have a search warrant and had not
made an attempt to secure the consent of Sirhan to enter and search,
but their purpose in going to the Sirhan residence was "to
determine whether or not there was anyone else involved in the
shooting and to determine whether or not there were any things that
would be relative to the crime." Sergeant Brandt knew "that there
was a continuing investigation to determine if there were other
suspects." .
Three notebooks were recovered from Sirhan's bedroom. One
was observed on a corner of the dressing table in plain view from
the entrance to the room. A second notebook was observed by
Sergeant Evans in plain view on the floor at the foot of the bed
next to a cardboard box filled with clothes. Both of these
notebooks were put in evidence the third notebook was never put in
evidence by either party!. The prosecution put in evidence trial
reporter's transcript, page B368!, eight pages H sheets! of the
diary - notebook found on the top of Sirhan's dresser, which Mr.
Laurence Sloan, employed in the District Attorney's Office as spe-
t92.i:'Ii.¢:i'. in h::nriur92i1.'in:r and nnntai"-i nod rinr-:1 n1'.¢:. irinn1'.if'iQr1 HQ l'92 Iw-92.-.1.-aw 4.0: causal!-Aria Jlvbllb mum quvuvavnnuu wvvwuawllvqaj pun-nuovu--1-~v -
having been written by Sirhan. These pages read in part as follows:
"May 18, 9:"5 a.m./68 7 My determination-to eliminate R.F.K.
is becoming more and more of an unshakable obsession... B.F.K.
must die..R.F.K. must be killed...Robert F. Kennedy must be
assassinated before 5 June 68..."
Other quotes taken from these pages were the following:
"Ambassador Goldberg must die"..."Ambassador Goldberg must
be eliminated...Sirhan is an Arab" "Kennedy must fall, Kennedy
must fall...Senator H. Kennedy must be dlspsed of.: we believe
that Robert F. Kennedy must be sacrificed for the cause of the poor
exploited people..."
f921,1
_..__.._ 4- ___ i - - _ - -"7~ »_ -_ %é__i.__,,
KJ '92../
On the evening of June 5, Lieutenant Alvin Hegge_of the
L.A.P.D. used the automobile key, which had been taken from
Sirhans pocket at the Rampart station, in a successful attempt to
operate the lock on a door of a 1956 DeSoto parked in the vicinity
of the Ambassador Hotel. On the basis of this successful entry,
Hegge applied for and obtained the issuance of a warrant to search
the vehicle at approximately 12:30 a.m., June 6!, and the
following items were recovered:
l. From inside the glove compartment, a wallet containing
among other items, current membership card in Sirhan's name in the
Ancient Mystical Order of Rosacrucian, as well as other cards iden-
tifying Sirhan by name and address;
2. From inside the glove compartment, a business card from
the Lock, Stock and Barrel Gun Shop in San Gabriel and a receipt
dated June 1, 1968, from that gun shop for the purchase of mini-mag
hollow point .22 caliber ammunition, and two boxes of Super X .22
caliber ammunition a total of-200 bullets!;
3. From inside the glove compartment one live round of .22
caliber ammunition and an empty carton labeled .22 caliber "mini-
ll-mag , Q. A nt seat two spent bullets.
Documents obtained from the California Department of Motor
Vehicles established that Sirhan was the registered owner of the
DeSoto searched in the vicinity of the Ambassador Hotel.
Evidence introduced at trial established that at 8:00 a.m.
on the morning of June 6, Officer Thomas Young of the Pasadena
Police Department arrived at the Sirhan residence, having been as-
signed to security at the rear of the residence to guard the
premises from unauthorized persons. At approximately ll:OO a,m.,
upon discarding a paper cup of coffee into the trash which lay
inside several boxes and cans of trash on the Sirhan property, he
observed an envelope which bore on its face the return address of
the Argonaut Insurance Company. Mr. Laurence Sloan, handwriting
specialist of the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office, testified
that the writing on the back of the envelope was that of Sirhan.
The following words, repeated several times, were written on the
reverse side of the envelope, which had been put in evidence by the
prosecution: _
"R.F.K. must be...disposed of properly. Robert Fitzgerald
Kennedy must soon die." _
Other trial evidence introduced was testimony of Mr. and
' r ,_. . . .._.._.-...~._____..____,i______._. A
m A
&__, u
Witnesses Enrique Rabago and Humphrey Cordero testified that
they went to the Ambassador Hotel on primary election night, June
H, and observed Sirhan at approximately 9:30 or 9=Q5 p.m= at the
election night headquarters of Max Rafferty, candidate for the U.S.
Senate. The two men stated that Sirhan, who had a mixed drink in
his hand, remarked, "Don't worry if Senator Kennedy doesn't win.
That son-of-a-bitch is a millionaire. Even if he wins he is not
going to win it for you or for me or for the poor people." When
Sirhan paid for a drink, he gave the waitress a $20 dollar bill and
told her to keep the change to "show them." Sirhan also stated
"It's the money you've got that counts, not the way you look."
Hans Bidstrut, an electrician employed by the Ambassador
Hotel, observed Sirhan at approximately 10:00 p.m. that night at
the Venetian Room of the Ambassador Hotel, which was the Rafferty
headquarters. Sirhan had a glass in his hand and Bidstrut assumed
that Sirhan had been drinking. Sirhan asked Bidstrut whether he
Bidstrut! had seen Senator Kennedy and how long Senator Kennedy
had stayed at the Ambassador and Bidstrut stated that Sirhan also
mentioned "the security of the hotel and asked about the Senator's
security."
Gonzales Cepina, a waiter at the Ambassador Hotel, observed
Sirhan in the Venetian Room around 10:00 p.m. on election night,
holding a drink with a rolled newspaper under his arm. Sirhan asked
for Cepina's assistance in moving a chair. Later, at approximately
ll:H5 p.m., Cepina observed Sirhan in the pantry area next to the
serving table where Senator Kennedy was thereafter shot. Senator
Kennedy was giving his speech inside the Embassy ballroom at the
time.
Other trial evidence revealed that on September 2H, 1966,
Sirhan was injured in a fall from a horse at a ranch where he was
working as an exercise boy. Sirhan's eyes bothered him for several
months after the accident, and he had received $2,000 of workmen's
Compensation as the result of his injuries. During the following
twelve months, Sirhan was unemployed and read a great deal at
libraries and at home. 'Sirhan stated at trial that he "read every-
thing about the Arab-Israeli situation that he could lay his hands
on," including publications from the Arab information center in the
United States and a book on Zionist influence on U.S. policy in the
Middle East.
During this period of unemployment Sirhan also became in-
creasingly interested in "the occult and metaphysical," although
his interest in these subjects preceded the fall from the horse.
Because of Sirhan's desire to learn more about himself, he joined
the Rosicrucian Society, attending_a meeting the week preceding the
assassination. One book read by Sirhan, entitled Cyclomancy,
was described by Sirhan as follows: "The basis of w at he says is
you can do anything with your mind if you know how"..."how you can
install a thought in your mind and how you can have it work and
become a reality if you want it to." {Reporter's transcript page
H905!.- Sirhan read a large number of other books in this area, some
involving "thought transference." One Rosicrucian article read by
Sirhan taught him that if he wrote something down, he would ac-
complish his goal. Sirhan testified that he had recorded various
things in his notebook "with the objective in mind of accomplishing
his goals...and in reference to that, the assassination of Robert
Kennedy."
' _ 11 -
_...._.._ _... ___, _. a .7 ___ ___ _ _____ __ _ _ _ _ . _ ;;'_-_~ ea - ' tyne?
I : K
At trial, Sirhan admitted writing on May l8, 1968, that his
"determination to eliminate R.F.K. is becoming more the more of an
unshakable obsession... and that he! must be assassinated before 5
June 68." Sirhan stated at trial that he did not remember when he
wrote this, but admitted that he could have written this at the time
Senator Kennedy had said he would send 50 planes to Israel.
Sirhan testified that he purchased the .22 caliber revolver
in early 1968 with his money and for his own use, firing it at
shooting ranges approximately six times between March and May 1968.
On June l, 1968, Sirhan brought some mini-mag ammunition at the
Lock, Stock and Barrel Gun Shop and engaged in target practice at
the Oorona Police Pistol Range. When he purchased the ammunition,
he had not requested this particular type; he had merely said,
"Well, give me your best," and was then given the mini-mag.He had
never before used mini-mag.
After seeing an ad in the Los Angeles Times inviting
attendance at a speech by Senator Kennedy at the Ambassador Hotel,
Sirhan attended the June 2 speech. He did not bring a gun at that
time and testified that he did not contemplate assassination at
that time.
During the two weeks prior to the assassination, Sirhan had
been going to the horse races and betting almost daily. On June 3,
Sirhan asked his mother for the remaining $500 of his Workman's
Compensation award, which he had turned over to her, as he planned
to attend the races on election day at Hollywood Park. Originally,
he planned to attend a Rosicrucian meeting that same evening June
H. However, when Sirhan saw the race entries in the newspaper for
June H, he concluded that he did not like the horses that were
running, and changed his mind and decided to go target shooting at
the San Gabriel Valley Gun Club. After finishing his several hours
of shooting on the gun range, Sirhan had dinner at a Pasadena rest-
aurant and observed a newspaper ad which read, "Join in the miracle
mile march, for Isreal." Sirhan testified that "this advertisement
brought him back to the six days in June of the previous year, and
that the fire started burning inside of him as a result of the ad."
Reporter's transcript page 5175.! -
Sirhan mistakenly thought the parade was scheduled for that
evening, June H, and set out to observe it. He testified that he
was driving like a maniac, got lost, and eventually arrived at
Hilshire Boulevard where he looked forwthe parade. The gun was
still in the back seat. His wallet, he testified, was in the glove
compartment as he always carried his loose money in his pocket and
he never kept a wallet on his person.
When Sirhan saw a sign for United States Senator Kuche1's
Headquarters, he dropped by and was told that a large party for
Senator Kuchel was going on at the Ambassador Hotel. When Sirhan
walked toward the hotel, with his gun still in the automobile, he
observed a large sign concerning some Jewish organization and
Sirhan testified that this "boiled him up again."
-12-; 1.rK!O
i a 1' Wife, *_ 4A~--- ---»- -4» -¢_-_,|-1.....|;---.4---1-y-_,,p ---- .1 I _ __ __
L, t
Upon entering the lobby of the hotel, Sirhan observed a sign
at the entrance to the Rafferty Headquarters which was located in
the Venetian Room. Sirhan joined the Rafferty celebration where he
testified that he stayed an hour. Sirhan's main purpose was to see
Rafferty's daughter. whom he knew from high school, but he never
saw her that evening. While at the Rafferty party, he testified he
ordered two Tom Collins drinks. Sirhan testified that he returned
to his automobile and Couldn't picture myself driving my car at
the time in the condition that I was in." He feared receiving a
traffic citation or having an accident without being covered by
insurance, and decided to return to the party to sober up with some
coffee. He testified that he did not remember picking up the gun
from the car seat before returning to the hotel for coffee, but that
he "must have." He states the next thing he remembers was being
choked and being brought to a police car with a flashlight shone in
his eyes. -
0n cross examination, Sirhan testified that he could not
recall ever having "blackedout" except when he had the fall from
the horse and at the time the present offenses occured.
During the course of trial, Sirhan's attorneys Grant Cooper
and Emile Zola Berman, were in the process of possibly callingcertain girlfriends of Sirhan's namely, Gwendolyn Gum and PeggyOsterkamp whose names appeared repeatedly in Sirhan's notebooks
as possible witnesses for the defense. Sirhan had placed an "X"
mark beside the listed names of witnesses whom he did not wish his
attorneys to call, and both girls were in this category. Oct of the
presence of the jury, Sirhan screamed to the trial court "I killed
Robert Kennedy willfully, premeditateiy, with 20 years of malice
aforethought." Additionally, Sirhan stated, "I'm willing to fight
for the Arab cause!...I'm willing to die for it."
In front of the jury, on re-direct examination, Sirhan ex-
plained the circumstances under which he had declared that he had
killed Senator Kennedy with malice aforethotght. He had stated
that at that time. outside the presence of the jury, he had informed
rho on 1-.- "T at this: I-nima- Sir withdraw mv oricin:-1'1 plea OF QQL 11'!" _ __ i ,....-.- -,.,.-..., _ ._- -..-.. ..-......, _._-, ..-...-_-..-. ..-_, _-_G-..__ ,_- _H -.guilty and submit the plea of guilty as charged on all counts. I
also request that my counsel disassociate themselves from this case
completely." Sirhan stated in front of the Jury that he was
"boiling" at this time. And when the trial court asked him
"alright, and what do you want to do about the penalty," Sirhan had
responded, again outside the presence of the jury, "I will offer no
defense whatsoever...I will ask to be executed, Sir." The trial
court had refused to accept the plea and had ordered the trial to
proceed, finding Sirhan incapable of representing himself.
Thereafter, Sirhan's mother and. Mr. Nakhleh, a Palestiniannrab
attorney serving as a defense advisor, had spoken with Sirhan and
had given him advice. Sirhan had agreed to proceed with the trial
represented by his counsel, once they agreed not to call the two
girls as witnesses. And at the time that Sirhan concluded his
testimony on these circumstances in front of the jury, Sirhan
stated that he was no longer angry with his attorneys but that he
was "very satisfied" with them. _
_ 13 -
J p ._ .- M.-----.-.. ,-- ---..--...-H.._.-.-- .. - __ _
. -_ _ __ 11- ,-_;-~--:--_-*-lull-l~_I " sir ---4|~n-- A-_--_~v|_ is _
Q
Defense of Diminished Qapagity
Sirhan's defense lawyers tried to convince the jury that the
evidence in the case would disclose that Sirhan was an immature,
emotionally disturbed, and mentally ill youth. In light of the
numerous stipulations by Sirhan's counsel throughout the trial to
avoid presentation of inflammatory photographs and ballistics
evidence regarding the shooting of Senator Kennedy, and the out of
court admissions by Sirhan's attorneys that Sirhan actually shot
and killed Senator Kennedy and shot the other victims, it was
obvious that the Sirhan defense team was attempting from the very
beginning to portray their client as having severe mental problems,
thus laying a foundation that Sirhan could not be convicted of
premeditated first degree murder.
Defense witnesses and psychiatric testimony were offered
that Sirhan had been, in the early years of his life, while a child
in war-ravished Jerusalem at the time of the original Arab-Israeli
war in 19H?-H8!, exposed to severe, repeated acts of war. It was
argued that this early childhood experience produced effects on
Sirhan that marked his personality for the rest of his life.
At the age of 12, Sirhan's family moved to America, in
1957! only to have Sirhan's father leave their home, abandon his
family, and return to Jordan, and supposedly do nothing for the
Sirhan family financially.
Sirhan obtained a job as an exercise boy at a thoroughbred
ranch near Corona, with the intent of becoming a jockey. One day
Sirhan was thrown by a horse into a rail, knocked unconscious, and
taken to an emergency hospital. From that date onward, Sirhan
complained about headaches, became more and more irritable,
brooded, was quick to anger, and became preoccupied with fanatical
obsessions of hatred, suspicion and distrust. His attorneys and
later psychiatric doctors argued that Sirhan spent long hours
reading works on the power of the mind.
One such instance was offered into evidence that on June 2,
1967, Sirhan had written, "Declaration of war ,against American
humanity." An attempt to introduce this writing and other such
acts by Sirhan was to show clear evidence of diminished capacity
and mental deficiency. ~
It was argued in court that Sirhan, after his fall and
accident, became more concerned with mystical thoughts and searched
for supernatural powers of the mind over matter. In January, 1968,
Sirhan and his brother bought a .22 caliber Ivor-Johnson revolver
to use for sport and Sirhan spent time shooting at various ranges.
It was argued as part of his defense that this shooting gave Sirhan
a strange release, but that his mystical experiments gave him no
peace of mind, and only produced further bewilderment and emotional
r92!92I'|P|1u¥ nun
-11],-
'~ 1_a 1,": n-Q»--1-. -1- ll -In-r__:InI1q¢s:,..4-.-1, ,-5 I _ gs-unn|nn-r __ _ __ --4....
KS ta
It was also argued on behalf of Sirhan, that in late May
and early June 1968, when Senator Kennedy, during the course
of his political campaign, stated that he, as President, would send
50 phantom jets ts Israel, that this pledge provoked a heavy shock
in Sirhan and sent him back to mysticism. Sirhan testified that he
never thought he would ever kill Kennedy, but felt that through his
mystic mind power he could fantasize about it killing Kennedy! and
relieve that feeling of emptiness inside him. Defense counsel
argued that there was no doubt that Sirhan did in fact fire the shot
that killed Senator Kennedy, but that the killing was unplanned and
undeliberate, impulsive and without premeditation or malice,
totally a product of a sick, obsessed mind and personality, and
that at the actual moment of shooting, Sirhan was out of contact
with reality, and in a trance in which he had no voluntary control
over his will, or his Judgment, or his feelings or his action. It
was argued that because of this mental illness and emotional dis-
order, Sirhan did not have the mental capacity to have the mental
state that was the necessary element of murder: namely, maturely
and meaningfully premeditate, deliberate or reflect upon the
gravity of his act.
At trial, defense psychiatrists included Dr. Eric Marcus and
Dr. Bernard Diamond, both of whom stated that Sirhan had been a
"paranoid schizophrenic: at the time of the shooting." They con-
tended that Sirhan was in a disassociated state of "restrictive
consciousness" as a result of his particular psychotic condi-
tioning. Essentially, they argued that Sirhan lacked the capacity
to maturely and meaningfully reflect on the gravity of the act of
murder. .
In rebuttal, prosecution psychiatrist, Dr. Seymour Pollock,
stated that he had interviewed Sirhan eight times and the
defendant's family several times, and found that Sirhan was "not
clinically psychotic." Pollock did admit, however, that Sirhan was
emotionally disturbed and mentally ill. Pollock stated that the
repetitive writing "R.F.K. must die" and other writings and
actions stated previously in this report!, were examples of
Sirhan's attempt to strengthen his courage and ability to carry out
his intention to kill Kennedy. However, Pollock strongly argued
that Sirhan's writing, the manner in which Sirhan wrote, reflected
a healthy, mature mind. Pollock also argued that an accused is
found not guilty by reason of insanity where there is proved a
specifically impared mental function and capacity. Pollock felt
whether a particular defendant has a psychosis, paranoid condition,
or schizophrenia is not relevant to his guilt or innocence.
Pollock concluded that an accused is never found "not guilty by
reason of schizophrenia."
In Pollock's clinical judgment, Sirhan was suffering from a
substantial degree of paranoid disorder. But he did not believe
that Sirhan had killed Kennedy as a "compulsive act", and Pollock
felt there was no evidence of any mature paranoid illusions.
Follock stated that Sirhan's desires to kill Kennedy showed intent,
but they did not fall into the category of a paranoid obsession.
' - 15
, '
Pollock stated92ais conclusion in this manner. Pollock felt
that if Sirhan had really had a paranoid obsession, Sirhan would
have been much more personally invelved with Senator Kennedy in
that Kennedy would have been perceived by Sirhan as an individual
who had wronged him personally. Pollock felt that Sirhan at no time
showed such ideas of reference, ideas of influence, mis-
interpretation of reality, or illogical or bizarre thinking which
would have been present had he been obsessively developing his
paranoid thinking with regard to Kennedy.
, Additionally, Pollock stated that although Sirhan believed
that the United States was unfair to the poor and minority groups
and that he felt that laws in this country were unjust, and that the
country favored the rich over the poor, Sirhan did not feel that he
was personally surrounded by hostile Americans.
Defense psychiatrists had attempted to show, through state-
ments by Sirhan, that Sirhan actually loved Bobby Kennedy, both
before and after he had killed him, and this reflected a mentally
deficient state of mind. However, Pollock, in rebuttal, stated
that this particular swing in emotional attachment reflected a wide
arc of strong love and strong hatred that was possibly present in
Sirhan. Furthermore, Pollock felt Sirhan would not be aware of his
logical inconsistency in his statement "I love the guy. But I hate
him enough to kill him." Sirhan also stated in interviews with
Pollock, "I killed Kennedy so I am responsible, but I shouldn't be
held legally responsible because Kennedy himself is a murderer to
be."
Pollock concluded that Sirhan's identification with the
Palestinean-Arab cause was logical and rational. Pollock felt that
Sirhan's interest in reading the B'nai Brith Messenger Newspaper
and his interest in attending Jewish meetings and parades a news-
paper clipping in Sirhan's pocket the night of his arrest announced
a march to support Israel! demonstrated, to Pollock, a somewhat
peculiar extension of his concern about the Arab-Jewish problem,
and could be interpreted as a tendency toward seeking out current
events that would support his attitude and justify his point of
view.
The prosecution offered several uncontroverted facts sup-
porting the proposition that Sirhan acted with premeditation and
malice aforethcught, and thus was guilty of first degree murder.
Several of these statements and actions by Sirhan in the days pre-
ceding the assassination reflected a premeditated state of mind.
Included in these actions were the fact that Sirhan had spent June
ist at a rifle range practicing target practice. On June 2nd,
Sunday, he had been seen at the Robert Kennedy rally at the Ambas-
sador Hotel, and in the kitchen area following Kennedy's speech.
Sirhan spent several hours on the rifle range, with alternating
slow and rapid fire practice, on the day of the assassination,
June 4th. Sirhan parked his car several blocks away from the hotel
and left his identification in the glove compartment on the evening
of the shooting. Sirhan had articles concerning Kennedy's promise
to give phantom jets to Israel in his pocket. Sirhan carried his
gun to the Ambassador and into the kitchen area with the gun hidden
in his belt. Several times Sirhan asked witnesses of the where-
abouts of Kennedy, which route Kennedy would be taking, and
inquired about*hotel security. Sirhan's statements immediately
following the shooting such as "I can explain," "I did it for my
country," and his refusal to identify himself or make any state-
ments after telling police officers "you think I'm-cnazy to tell
you anything!"
-a .._ H pp '
92,___,, '--/ _
Additionally, on cross examination of one of the defense
psychiatrists by Deputy District Attorney John Howard, Dr. Schorr
was asked if he Schorr! had heard Sirhan testify that Sirhan had
first left the Ambassador and went to his car and got in his car and
then determined he Sirhan! was too drunk to drive, and that Sirhan
had worried about car insurance and the possibility of an
automobile accident and thereafter decided to go back to the
Ambassador Hotel to get coffee and sober up. Howard asked Dr.
Schorr if that indicated to Dr. Schorr- a diminished capacity.
Schorr answered that it did not indicate a diminished capacity
.personality. ?i'* %~
Additionally, the prosecution argued that activities and
statements of Sirhan reflected his intent to kill Kennedy,
statements to the Pasadena trash collector, and his statements
concerning his gun "it could kill a dog", and that these pointed to
a definite premeditated state of mind. Additionally, while at the
police station duringtaazrviews by police officers and deputy
district attorneys1F ggifjsifered first water and then coffee,
Sirhan asked the officers'Eo first sip the liquid before Sirhan
would taste the offered coffee and water. Several police officers,
including the original arresting officers and interviewing
officers, testified there was no odor of alcohol, or indication of
drug use by Sirhan, and that-Sirhan at all times reflected and
showed an alert state of mind.
Summary of:§ria1 Evidence
It is clear from the record that there was abundant evidence
of premeditation and deliberation of first degree murder. Sirhan
had purchased the murde- ~eapon almost six months prior to the
assassination. Statements to the trash collector two months prior
to the assassination that Sirhan was "planning on shooting that
son-of-a-bitch Senator Kennedy", and Sirhan's stalking of Kennedy,
all reflected by Sirhan's own testimony added substance to this
conclusion. Additionally, Sirhan's trip to the shooting range, his
visit to the Ambassador Hotel two days prior to the assassination,
and his conduct immediately prior to the assassination, including
his asking of questions relative to Senator Kennedy's intended
route and security protection, including his statements after the
assassination that he could "explain" and committed his act "for my
county," and his possession on his person of clippings relative to
Senator Kennedy and the Senator's favorable position towards
Israel, all added to evidence of premeditated murder. Finally, in
front of the jury, Sirhan admitted that during a courtroom outburst
while the jury was absent, he had stated, "I killed Robert Kennedy
willfully, premeditatedly, and with 20 years of malice afore-
thought."
-17-
._ ......--__-.--- .---.- -1,-~-----we--~ pa»-'~ --.-we-' - ' - "'1
<. is
Previous Public Agency Reports in the Sirhan Case
On May 28, 1969, then 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 im-
mediately following the assassination of Senator Kennedy. Younger
stated that public interest and national security had required an
exhaustive inquiry into the circumstances of the offense and the
background and associates of the defendant Sirhan Sirhan. 0f
particular concern to law enforcement agencies was the possibility
that the accused, Sirhan, was a member of a conspiracy whose ob-
jectives were not satisfied by the elimination of one political
leader. Under the direction of Chief of Los Angeles Police
Detectives Robert A. Houghton, the L.A.P.D. established a special
task force Special Unit Senator! to conduct the investigation.
Younger reported that well over 5,000 witnesses, and others pre-
tending to have some knowledge of events bearing upon the crime,
were interviewed. Younger further stated that agents of the
F.B.l., acting independently of California law enforcement
agencies, conducted a parallel investigation, including interviews
with hundreds of individuals across the country, who were not
easily accessible to local authorities.
Included among these files were recorded interviews of more
than 70 people who alleged to have observed the defendant Sirhan at
some time during the evening of June H, and early moring of June 5,
1968, at the Ambassador Hotel. Sixty-five witnesses were called by
the prosecution to testify during the course of the trial. Younger
stressed that the total number of witnesses called by both
prosecution and defense, whose testimony proved pertinent to the
issues of the indictment, probably did not exceed 2% of the
combined work product of the Los Angeles Police Department and the
F.B .I.
Three years after the murder of Senator Kennedy, and two
years after the conviction of Sirhan for that murder, Los Angeles
Attorney Barbara Warner Blehr sent a letter to Muriel M. Morse,
general manager of the personnel department of the Los Angeles City
Civil Service Commission, the letter dated May 23, 1971. This
letter alleged that L.A.P.D. criminalist Dewayne Wolfer had acted
improperly in conducting ballistics tests and testifying concerning
evidence in the Sirhan case. On June U, 1971, District Attorney
Joseph P. Busch announced the initiation of an independent investi-
gation into these charges. Busch stated, "As this office was
responsible for the prosecution of Sirhan Sirhan for the assas-
sination of Senator Kennedy, it is incumbent upon us to conduct the
investigation so that there will be no loss of confidence on the
part of the public as to whether the facts presented in the court-
room were correct."
On October 18, 1971, District Attorney Busch issued a report
stating that the allegations of Barbara Warner Blehr concerning the
procedures of Dewayne Wolfer in the Sirhan case were untrue. Busch
stated that these allegations appeared to be the -result of
inadequate examination of the trial records and of incomplete in-
vestigation of the actions of Mr. Wolfer in the case.
' -18-, C3
C1
O
92___,, 92./
The Busch Investigation
During those several months of 1971, the District Attorney's
office interviewed Dewayne Wolfer, Mrs. Blehr, William Harper whom
Blehr had identified as her chief criminalist source!, three
criminalists cited in Blehr's letter to the civil Service
Commission, several eye witnesses to the shooting in the pantry of
the Ambassador Hotel, all of whom had been previously interviewed
subsequent to the 1968 sheeting and pricr to the 1969 trial, and
other persons who claimed special knowledge of the incident. The
entire grand jury and trial transcript had been reviewed, and at-
tention was directed to the exhibits, namely, the bullets, that had
been called into question by Mrs. Blehr's charges.
Dehayne*wol§er_Mistakes
The basic errors in the Blehr allegations according to the
Busch report stemmed from two related incidents:
1. L.A.P.D. criminalist Dewayne Wolfer had mislabeled the
envelope which was received in Court as People's Exhibit #55. This
envelope contained three bullets test fired by Wolfer from the gun
taken from Sirhan Serial #H53725!. Wolfer had mistakenly labeled
the envelope with the serial #H18602. This latter number was the
serial number of an Ivor-Johnson .22 caliber cadet model gun the
same make and model as the weapon seized from Sirhan!, which Wolfer
had used for muzzle distance and sound tests on June 11, 1968, five
days after he test fired the Sirhan weapon.
On June 6, 1968, Wolfer recovered seven bullets which had
been test fired into a water tank from the Sirhan gun H53?25!. The
Busch report issued in October, 1971, stated that all seven test
fired bullets were compared with the bullet removed from the sixth
cervical vertebra of Senator Kennedy, People's H7, the neck
wound!. And after making these comparisons, Wolfer positively
identified the Sirhan gun as having fired the bullet removed from
Senator Kennedy. In the special court discovery proceedings
called by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Wenke in
September 1975, Wolfer testified that he actually compared just one
of the test fired bullets to the various victim bullets from
Senator Kennedy and from Weisel and Goldstein, and that he was,unable!in 1975, to recall the specific test fired bullet he com-pared. '
Four of these seven 1968 test fired bullets were introduced
before the Grand Jury as Grand Jury Exhibit #5-B on June 7, 1968.
Three cf the remaining bullets remained in the custody cf
Holfer, who intended to compare them with bullets from the other
victims not yet recovered by or received at L.A.P.D. These three
bullets were later introduced at trial as People's #55 in a mis-
labeled envelope. i
" - 19 -
__ __ __.___ -_t s;-__;aa-r-.:-A--y._.__ WiT-_-'_-Hahn-L --- ~I-|-b$umn- ---11-_-,;¢qq|--&n¢l-.~.'..___4 __ __,;. _______ ___ _
ca ~..!
2. The Busch report stated that Wolfer conducted two series
of ballistics tests. The first test was conducted on June 6, 1968,
with the gun actually seized from Sirhan, and the bullets from this
test were used to identify bullets removed a
from the victims of the crime. The second ballistics test was
conducted on June 11, 1968, when Wolfer used a weapon obtained from
the'Property Division of L.A.P.D. Serial #H18602!. The Busch re-
port, which Holfer corroborated in testimony in September 1975
before Judge Robert henke, states that the use of the second weapon
was necessitated by the fact that Sirhan's weapon had been entered
into evidence before the Grand Jury hearing on June 8, and that a
court order restricted the availability of the original Sirhan
weapon. These second ballistics tests were conducted to determine
sound characteristics and to verify muzzle distance by examining
gun powder pattern. This second weapon was destroyed in July 1969
in accordance with state law. Since this weapon had been
originally confiscated by the L.A.P.D. from a suspect in the com-
mission of an unrelated crime, state law required that such
confiscated weapons, if not introduced as evidence at trial, be
destroyed one year from the date of apprehension by law enforcement
agencies. However, this weapon had been originally scheduled to be
destroyed in July 1968. Subsequent records modified by C.I.I. and
the L.A.F.D. showed the gun was actually destroyed in July 1969.
The Busch investigation revealed there had been a mislabeled
envelope introduced at trial in February, 1969, containing the
bullets identified as People's #55. This mismarked envelope had
been introduced without objection by the trial court, the prose-
cution or defense attorneys, or the bailiff and other court offi-
cials.
It should be added, that Grand Jury Exhibit 5-B, containing
the original four of the seven test bullets fired by Wolfer on June
6, 1968, were correctly identified with the Sirhan gun serial
number, and that at the subsequent ballistics examination hearing
in the fall of 1975, there was no evidence that any of these seven
test fired bullets came from other than one gun.
C°"9lEi°" Bf PE§;§XhiP}§§_
92 .
A new but related problem arose during the course of District
Attorney Busch's investigation: the condition of the exhibits.
The District Attorneyis Office discovered that various questions
surrounded the handling of Sirhan trial exhibits by the Los Angeles
County Clerk's Office. Additionally, the District Attorney felt
that these questions were sufficient to suspend further investi-
gative activity into the Barbara Blehr charges pending a grand jury
inquiry into the clerk's handling of the exhibits. Among the most
serious of these questions were the violations of continuing
Superior Court orders setting forth the manner in which the evi-
dence was to be handled. *
In a letter to _ e Board of Supervisors dated August 29,
1971, the Grand Jury expressed serious concern about the operations
of the County §lerk's Office and stated: '
_ 20 _
3
!
!__ _ t - s___._ _ :__: | | ,_ _ _;,i:|--- L - - __ :____4s_ _ _~ H. -
I
92s; 92a/
"Because the exhibits, under the custody of the County
Clerk's Office, were handled, examined and photographed by
unauthorized persons and mishandled by the County Clerk exhibit
personnel, there exists a reservation on the part of the-1971 L05
Angeles County Grand Jury relating to the present integrity of the
ballistics exhibits which were introduced into evidence both during
the Grand Jury presentation on June 7, 1968, and during the sub-
sequent trial of the defendant Sirhan B. Sirhan. Since this
evidence is presently out of the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles
County, the evidence at that time being within the jurisdiction of
the California Supreme Court in San Francisco!, we are unable to
substantiate these reservations."
The District Attorney's Office made an extensive investi-
gation into the handling of the exhibits and the Busch report
stated that the investigation raised serious questions concerning
the present integrity of the exhibits due to the handling of the
evidence by unauthorized person while the evidence had been in the
custody of the Los Angeles County Clerk.
C§§£§¢h ' H4E£9? InV35EiEE§§°Q
n In July 1970, Investigator Ted Charach had given his theory
of a potential second gun and the firing of such by security guard
Thane Ceasar to Grant Cooper, chief defense counsel in Sirhan's
trial. Cooper referred Charach to ballistics expert William
Harper, whom Cooper had known professionally for many years, and
whom Cooper had recently learned had begun his own research into
the ballistics findings in the Kennedy case.
Harper had begun his work after reading "Special Unit
Senator" by former L.A.P.D. Chief of Dectectives Robert houghten.
Harper had been puzzled due to an apparent inconsistency over a
slug too large to have come from Sirhan's small revolver.
In the first of what was to become many 1970 visits to the
criminal exhibits section of the County Clerk's Office, Harper
found that the large slug was a nearly flattened .22 bullet. And
after many months of testing, weighing, photo-micrographing with a
Ballisoan oamera, as well. as studing Coroner Noguchi's massive
autopsy report on Senator Kennedy, Harper developed these essential
criticisms of Holfer's work.
a. At least two of the bullets removed from the pantry, one
from Kennedy's body Exhibit H7!, and the other from wounded ABC
newsman William Weisel Exhibit SH!, did not match each other and
thus could not have been fired from the same gun.
b. Holfer stated at trial that bullets fired from the same
gun will have matching individual characteristics, while bullets
from two guns of the same make will match only in class charac-
teristics. The absence on the two bullets of any "phase marks -
usually the investigators initials - to serve as guideposts in
lining up the points where bullets matched, indicated to Harper
that Wolfer matched the bullets down to class characteristics but
not as far as individual characteristics.
.c. There was a difference of 1&1 in the rifling angles of
the two bullets - again pointing to a conclusion that they came from
different guns.
-2]...
92
,- __/
d. While Exhibit U7 and Exhibit SR bullets did not match
each other, neither did any one bullet match any of the three
bullets contained in an envelope labeled Exhibit 55. It reported
to contain three test bullets fired from Sirhan's gun after his
arrest. But the serial number of the gun firing the three bullets
was given as H18602 while the serial number of Sirhan's gun was
H53725.
e. At the Sirhan trial, it was concluded that Paul Schrade,
standing behind Kennedy, was hit in the forehead by a bullet
went through the shoulder pad of Kennedy's coat. That would
had to have been a shot fired from in front of the two men, as
men were in one line of fire. But lab analysis of Kennedy'sthat
have
both
coat
shotrevealed the hole through the shoulder pad was a back to front
as Wolfer himself testified, and that a bullet lodged in the
ceiling, after striking Schrade, was never recovered. Harper felt
this unrecovered bullet that went through Kennedy's shoulder pad
could possibly have been a ninth bullet.
' Preliminary to a complaint and affidavit filed by Godfrey
Isaac and Charach, Harper had written to Charach in a letter that
"multiple gun shootings are not a rarity in police work. The
capture of Sirhan with his gun at the scene resulted in a total
mesmerization of the investigative effort. The well established
teachings of criminalistics in forensic pathology were cast aside
and bypassed in favor of a more expedient solution and unfor-
tunately, an erroneous simplification." I
Harper admitted during the 1971 investigation that he had
compared these bullets to each other People's H7 and People's 53!,
but that he had not compared them to the test bullets in Exhibit 55.
Moreover, his comparison was by means of photographic blowups, and
not by means of the traditional and more authentic comparison exa-
mination use of microscopic camera equipment. Harper stated in his
1971 interview with District Attorney investigators that he wanted
the opportunity to do further studies, to use a comparison micro-
scope and compare evidence victim! bullets to the test bullets in
Exhibit 55, and perhaps examine a new set of test bullets taken from
a new test firing of Sirhan's gun. Then, and only then, did Harper
feel that he could make a final judgment.
Complaint Filed by .
nttorney_§odfrey Isaac and Theodore Charach
On June 25, 1971, a complaint fordisclosure of information
C-6027! was filed by Godfrey Isaac and Theodore Charach with the
County Clerk's Office. The complaint alleged that criminalist
Dewayne Wolfer had committed errors, and that the L.A.P.D. and
Chief Davis had surpressed information regarding the murder of
Senator Kennedy. Additionally, it was argued in the complaint that
the surpression of evidence had been an attempt by officials
involved in the Kennedy investigation to cover-up their own inade-
quacy. However, the L.A.P.D. Board of Inquiry on the Holfer matter
in its October 11, 1971 report to Chief Davis, found that the above
mentioned complaint was without substance or foundation.
I 1 1 .O
O
0
__ *;*iIlllI"'92*_-gqal.---Inu*92-1 ::-;_ g4--n¢mQni ~__-,. ,-_ , ____
92w M.
The police department memorandum stated that a1levidence
had been submitted for review to the District Attorney at the time
of the original investigation and trial. Not one item of evidence
had been withheld from the proper authorities, and that the case
had been completely reviewed by the District Attorney's staff, the
L.A.P.D. and the F.B.l. Several agencies had complete exposure to
all phases of the investigation. The defense attorneys, and their
investigative staff, had availed themselves of all the evidence and
witnesses statements. Moreover, the memorandum stated:
a. The only gun fired in the pantry at the time the Senator
was shot was that belonging to Sirhan Sirhan; a .22 caliber re-
volver, Serial number H-53725. Two other guns, both .38 caliber,
were displayed not fired! by uniformed guards Thane Cesar and Jack
Merritt. r
b. The finding by Officer Wolfer that a bullet removed from
the Senator's sixth c§rvical vertebra had compared with a test
bullet fired from Sirran's gun, and this was attested by Wolfer
before the Grand Jury and at the time of trial.
c. The Sirhan gun, Serial #H-53725, was entered into evi-
dence on June 7, 1968, before the Grand Jury along with four test
bullets.
d. The second weapon, serial #H-13602, was secured from the
Property Division, Parker Center, on June 10, 1968.
e. The bullets from Sirhan's gun had six grooves. At the
time of the autopsy, Dr. Noguchi, after removing a bullet from
Senator Kennedy's sixth cervical vertebra, noted that the bullet
had five grooves. As Dr. Noguchi stated, this was done immediately
after his removing the bullet, while wearing surgical gloves and
away from the operating table where the lighting was poor. Dr.
Noguchi admits not being a ballistics expert and that his exami-
nation was only cursory. Taped interview with District Attorney
Investigator, July 28, 1971.! It should be added that in hearings
conducted by Supervisor Baxter Ward in May, 19TH, concerning the
assassination of Robert Kennedy, Dr. Noguchi admitted that he had
made a mistake in his earlier 1968 statement that the particular
bullet, People's Exhibit #U7, had only five grooves. Dr. Noguchi
publicly corrected his mistake at this May 197M hearing by stating
that the bullet had six grooves. '
Eyewitness Testimony:
¢hers.9h 'sT3]P?;I3Té=*1§=i=$§@?_ 5m ,T?5'°.iE°"Z
' The Isaac-Charach complaint alleged that prosecutors David
Pitts and Lynn Compton had falsely informed the Sirhan jury that
Karl Uecker, the first key witness for the prosecution, had stopped
Sirhan after the fourth shot. Charach stated that Uecker had told
the press the morning of the assassination and in subsequent
L.A.P.D. and F.B.I. interviews, that he, Uecker, did prevent Sirhan
from getting past him, and that he, Uecker, was moving with '
-23-
* i _ __ _ fr. __ i__ i____: __ I,__j _-3;--.----~-~ =|: _ __;' '7 - *7 7 _T_1_:+_ __ 7" 7 r YT r 7 7-
,_ ti
Bobby Kennedy after the presidential candidate finished shaking
hands with busboy, Juan Romero, and that Kennedy was facing Uecker,
in the direction of the Colonial Room. Charach argued that Kennedy
was walking face to face with Sirhan, and that Uecker absolutely
halted Sirhan during the significant pause, after the second shot.
Charach furthur states that this testimony of Uecker was supported
100$ before the Grand Jury by banquet captain, Edward Minasian, who
stated that Sirhan could not have been firing at Kennedy after the
second shot, and that the muzzle of Sirhan's gun was three feet in
front of Kennedy. Charach felt that the admission by chief defense
counsel, Grant Cooper, that Sirhan had killed Kennedy the only
significant defense presentation at trial being that of diminished
capacity!, and the stipulation by defense counsel on many vital
points, prevented, according to Charach, the public from getting
the full proof. Charach further felt that the People did not prove
their case beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt. Additionally,
Charach felt that Mayor Sam Yorty contributed to the mesmerization
of the investigative efforts by reading at a press conference
Sirhan's diaries, and saying "we know, of course, he killed
Kennedy", and then releasing prematurely the Sirhan diaries to the
media.
Trial Testimony
9f__Ey_e_';:1 tnesses eietiye _t_oi" Qhara5Fs Staténents i
Charach's statements, and those stated in the Isaac-Charach
¢0mPlaiHt Of 1971, appear to be in conflict with trial testimony.
Several witnesses testified at trial as to Sirhan's physical posi-
tion while shooting.
Frey -_§2Pr#e_ T?$'=i£ °'l£
Los Angeles Attorney Frank Burns, who was right behind
Kennedy at the time of the shooting, testified at the trial that, as
Senator Kennedy was shaking hands with the busboys, that he, Burns,
stopped and turned in the same direction Kennedy was turning so
that Burns was standing right off Kennedy's right shoulder as
Kennedy was shaking their handsi Burns stated at trial that he
"heard the noise, the ripple of what was a gun, and it sounded like
firecrackers." In answer to the question of what direction Burns
faced, Burns replied, "I was facing the same way that the Senator
was, directly west of north looking about that way." Trial
transcript page 3398!.
-214-
T_.-i___-..-,---4-up-.
xs. 92./
. Valerie Schulte_Iestimony
Kennedy aide, Valerie Schulte, was less than six feet from
Kennedy at the time of the shooting. Her trial testimony stated
that she was approximately two people behind Senator Kennedy
following him down through the door into the kitchen area the
"door" referred to are two double doors!. Schulte repeated that
Kennedy was about two yards in front of her. She followed him past
the ice machine. Schulte then testified that she noticed Kennedy
stop, turn to his left and back, and that "he shaked the hands of
the kitchen help which were lined up, assembled to his left, and at
that time, the crowd behind him kept moving and I was somewhat
pushed to the right and forward." Additionally, Scgulte testified
that "the Senator turned something more than 90 angle facing
roughly something west of north where there were people standing."
Schulte continued that "I noticed he extended his hand. And at this
time I noticed an arm extending with a gun and heard shots and
observed the shots."
Boris larq_Testimony
On June T, 1968, Boris Yaro, a photographer for the Los
Angeles Times, who was three feet behind and to the right of Senator
Kennedy, made the following statement to the E.B.I. "I was about
three feet behind Kennedy and to the right of him trying to find his
head in my camera viewfinder when I heard what I though were two
explosions. My first thought was some jerk has thrown some fire-
crackers in here. All of the sudden the two or three people that
had been blocking my view of the Senator disappeared leaving me
with a full view of what was happening. The Senator and the
assailant were a .little more than silouettes, the Senator was
backing up and putting both of his hands and arms in front of him in
what would be best described as a protective effort. The suspect
appeared to be lunging at the Senator, I don't know which hand the
gun was in I didn't realize it was a gun until he started firing
again - this time I could see the flashes from the short barreled
muzzle - I heard no sound from either man - I felt powder from the
weapon strike my face - I knew it was gun then. I thought I heard
three shots, but in retrospect, I know it is more, however. All of
the sudden the firing stopped and some men jumped the suspect and
there were cries of get him, get the gun - much shouting." It
should be added that several of Yaro's photographs appeared on the
front page of the Los Angeles Times on June S and June 6, 1963-
None of these photographs, however, showed Sirhan actually firing
at Senator Kennedy.
-25-
.;..__ T; __ .+_._=m<-w .. M, ...-._-..--.___._._. -_ _
I J
Karl Ueckeg Testimony
Karla Uecker, the assistant .maitre. d' of the Ambassador
Hotel, was leading Senator Kennedy to the pantry and was within two
feet of him at the time of the shooting. His trial testimony in-
cluded the following: "He broke away from me. He shook hands." In
response to a question at trial of how far would Uecker be from the
Senator at that time, Uecker responded, "well, Just as far as my
hands can reach from here, a matter of a foot, more or less, two
feet." "At that time, he shook hands with the last man and I looked
over there and I was kinda watching and this guy was coming close...
He Kennedy! was shaking hands and I talked to him and then I turned
to my left and my right and I felt something moving in between the
steam table and my stomach.
I was very close to the steam table. The next thing I heard
was something like a firecracker and I turned my head to the left
and I slid over again and I heard something like a shot, and Mr.
Kennedy was falling out of my hand, and his upright arm, and he was
turning and then I realized there was somebody following me with a
gun." Reporter's transcript pages 3095-3096!.
E¢PaE§.Mi"¬§i§P I2§Fim22l
Mr. Edward Minasian, a hotel employee, was within five feet
of Robert Kennedy. His trial testimony was as follows: We were
walking. I could tell the Senator's right shoulder was very close
to my left shoulder and when he reached a certain point I observed
the Senator shaking hands with the hotel personnel in the same area
in which he was standing. This was immediately in front of the
first steam table. At this time, I moved several steps closer to
him. There was several people with whom he was shaking hands with.
I don't recall their names. As I walked toward him, in my peri-
pheral vision, I observed someone running in the direction in which
we were walking. This person was running from east to west. He was
running toward the Senator and me and the next thing, as I looked
up, I saw a revolver extended but I couldn't get a very close look
at the person, but I saw the arm extended with the revolver and he
had reached around Mr. Uecker. Mr. Uecker was standing almost
immediately against the service table. The party who was running
reached between the steam table or service table one and the same
table! and Uecker, with his arm extended,-and I saw the explosion of
the shells and I saw the Senator raise his arm pratically in front
of his face and then the second shot went off and after the second
shot, why, I jumped across this area between myself and Uecker and
attempted to grab, and grabbed a hold of him, the party, around the
waist and at the top of the leg. We had him pinned up against the
service table." Reporter's transcript pages 315M, 3155, & 3156!-
. - 35 -
m
u 92/
hartin Petrusky Testimony
Martin Petrusky, a waiter at the Ambassador Hotel, was
within five feet of Senator Kennedy when he was shot. He testified
at trial that "at that point we had stopped and the Senator was
shaking hands with the people that were standing along the way. He
started to move a little and when he got towards Mr. Perez over
there he started to turn, and all of the sudden there was like a
firecracker going off, then there was another one, then there was a
pause. Then all of the sudden there was rapid fire. I saw Karl
Uecker7. l ducked down and I saw Karl swinging around and grabbing
him around the neck." In response to a question of grabbing "who",
Minasian replied, "Sirhan."
Question from Deputy District Attorney:
"Is that the same person you had talked to earlier in the
evening?"
"Yes sir."
Petrusky further stated that he grabbed him around the neck
and with hand extended, he held his arm, which at that time you
could see the gun in his hand. Reporter's transcript page 3387!.
Eyewitnesses, all within eight feet of Senator Kennedy, des-
cribed his position as "west of north, walking in an easterly
direction, stopped, turned to the left and back to shake hands with
the kitchen help." Face-to-face position would have put Kennedy
looking easterly direction since all the trial testimony indicates
that Sirhan was running into and firing into a westerly direction.
Witnesses indicated that Senator Kennedy's position was facing west
of north or northwest. This would logically out Sirhan's firing
position to the right and somewhat to the rear of Senator Kennedy.
Autopsy Report
The autopsy report of Dr. Noguchi indicated on page two that
gunshot wound #1 entered Kennedy in the right mastoid region in a
"right to left, slightly to front, upward direction. People's
Exhibit M8!. Gunshot wound #2, through and through, entered the
right axillary armpit! region and traveled through the right infra
clavicular region in a right to left, back to front, upward
direction. Gunshot would #3 entered the right axilary armpit!
region just below gunshot wound #2 entry!, traveling through the
soft tissue of the axilla soft tissue of right upper back to the
level of the sixth cervical vertebra just beneath the skin in aEight to left, back to front, upward position. People's Exhibit
-QT-. 7 7 7 _:a .1 _-_._ 1 if
ml
.1
I1 " H,
s e!
The paths of these three bullets, which entered Senator
Kennedy's body are consistent with_the Sirhan testimony of eye-
witnesses. Dr. Noguchi's trial testimony revealed gunshot wound #1
to have a path angle of 1O to 15 degrees upward, gunshot wound #2 to
have a path angle of 35 degrees upward, and gunshot wound #3 to have
a path angle of 30 degrees upward. Dr. Noguohi Conoluded in his
examination that Senator Kennedy's arm was raised 90° when gunshot
wound #2 was inflicted, and that the Senator's arm was moving be=
tween shots #2 and #3. On page H531 and 4532 of the trial trans-
cript, Dr. Noguchi testified as follows: "My opinion, although
there were different directions of the gunshot wounds, but the
overall pattern of the-direction of the three gunshot wounds, gun-
shot wound #1, #2 and #3 were in a position right to left, an upward
direction, and this pattern is consistent with the wounds inflicted
by-nnooting in the rapid succession... and also these wounds alone
were not the factor in determining it. 'I think an examination of
the clothing ought to be also taken into consideration."
@- .»: -Tum_ 1 '-'*'!- j_-a_:-ri_.
13]] Crand Jury investigation
In August 1971 the Los Angeles County Grand Jury commenced a
formal hearing relative to internal procedures and security control
in connection with the Grand Jury and trial exhibits received in
evidence in the Sirhan case. in this five day hearing, thirty
witnesses were examined under oath, and all witnesses detailed
the security breakdown occasioned when a Superior Court judicial
order establishing pre and post trial exhibit security was ignored
or not implemented by the staff of the County Clerk's Office. The
apparent violations of previously issued court orders by Superior
Court Judges Arthur Alarcon 968!, and Herbert Walker 969! re-
stricting access to court exhibits to either counsel of record or
by court order, prompted a Los Angeles County Inquiry based on
findings of the Grand Jury investigation. .
Chief Administrative Officer, County of Lo§_Angeles
Report Fegarathg Ehe45eparEment5f ¬he tountyttierw;CC "mz A§aly§is;of;§?§Hd Jury Fihdings C
Relative tg;fhefSTFh§n_Case '
In the fall of 19?1, the Chief Administrative Officer of the
County of Los Angeles initiated a comprehensive investigation of
the operation of the office of the County Clerk. This particular
action was in response to a report to the Board of Supervisors by
the Grand Jury which contained various charges of mismanagement by
the County Clerk in the handling of the exhibits in the Sirhan
trial. _
Arthur O. Hill, Chief Administrative Officer of the County,
directed the investigation into three major areas:
_ 28 _C}
0__.-H
O
- -i-----__.._----n-.-__,.,_,__,
92_ 92/
1. Analysis of the specific charges contained in the Grand
Jury Report.
2. Evaluation of County Clerk management and effectiveness
of the department in providing essential services.
3. In depth review of criminal division procedures and
operations. _
Arthur Will, Chief Administrative Officer, concluded that on
the basis of his office review, it was his conclusion that the
office of the County Clerk was being effectively administered by
the present departmental management. However, Will felt that in
the case of the Sirhan trial specifically, inadequate attention was
given to the magnitude and importance of the trial by top manage-
ment in the County Clerk's Office, and that the department needed
to establish an effective mechanism for identifying cases of major
significance. Also, Will felt there was a need to create appro-
priate procedures to ensure foolproof handling of all aspects of
the clerk's responsibilities.
The summary of the findings highlighted the following:
1. The Grand Jury had felt that the Superior Court orders
intended that the fragile ballistics evidence be specifically pack-
aged but the County Clerk did not comply with this wish, resulting
in doubts as to the integrity of the bullets entered as evidence in
the Sirhan trial. t
The C.A.0. task force found that no special instructions
were given by the Court in this regard. Storage of the bullets in
the custody of the County Clerk remained in the same package that
they had originally been placed in by the L.A.P.D. This was con-
sistent with the standard operating procedure of the storage of
ballistics exhibits.
' 2. The Grand Jury had been very critical of the manner of
enforcement of court-imposed restrictions on viewing and handling
of Sirhan exhibits, particularly ballistics evidence, charging that
the County Clerk had allowed unauthorized persons access to the
exhibits, and had failed to keep an accurate record of visits to the
exhibit viewing room and failed to provide adequate security and
supervision over the Sirhan exhibits. The Grand Jury'also noted
that several pages of copies of notebooks of Sirhans notes were
missing. ,
In rebuttal, the C.A.0. task force found that the person who
was permitted access to the ballistics evidence was admitted by the
criminal division staff on the basis of telephonic and written ver-
ification that the person was a representative of defense.
Allowing representatives of counsel to view exhibits had been
standard operating procedure for the division. However, it was
evident that furthur inquiry and consultation with the court would
have been in order in this particular case. Furthermore, in recon-
structing the events discussed in the Grand Jury charges, the
C.A.0. task force found that the systems, records, and security
measures in effect, at that time, were deficient. Improvements
were implemented by the department.
I - 29 ~
.. ._ -.-_.. 4...-:_-_-. ------.----------M - - - i_ __ i_____ %___ __ _ __
I
_92__ ml
3. The Grand Jury made a general statement criticizing the
performance of upper and middle management of the County Clerk's
Office and expressed concern regarding the operations of the
divisions of the office. This was based on the charges relating to
the care and handling of the Sirhan exhibits.
The C.A.O. task force found that the management and overall
operation of the department was generally satisfactory.
The Court_0rder e Exhibits _
On June 7, 1968, a court order was promulgated by Judge
Arthur Alarcon. His order continued into effect until May 20,
1969, at which time Judge Herbert Walker issued a court order which
stated in substance that the original exhibits in the Sirhan case
were not to be viewed except upon order of the court. This
instruction did not apply to attorneys of record. Judge Walker's
court order was preceded by a conference in his chambers on May 16,
1969, which was recorded by a court reporter. Three
representatives of the County Clerk's Office, including Mr. Peter
J. Talmachoff, Chief of the Criminal Division, were present during
this conference in order that the views of the two superior court
judges would be clearly communicated and understood. During the
conference, and.based upon the testimony relating thereto, it was
demonstrably clear that both presiding Judge Charles Loring and
Judge Herbert Walker also expected that the critical ballistics
evidence in the Sirhan case was to be specifically packaged to
preserve its integrity. This conference occured well after all of
the exhibits had been introduced into evidence and had thus come
into the care, custody and control of the Les Angeles County
Clerk's Office.
But the C.A.0. task force found that the idea of special
packaging for ballistics evidence was not clearly communicated to
or expected of the County Clerk. An although the conference with
the judges was recorded, the transcription was not prepared for
circulation until July 26, 1971. The C.A.O. task force did state
that it was unfortunate that Mr. Talmachoff did not question the
lack of reference to special packaging in the court order since it
was discussed in conference. -
Conclusion Re
rv.,-...-..| 1..-... 'l'..-....-..-.4-:7-_..>".',..'_'*'... _3"7?'......a-.. ..... _ :.-...u1_::.uu___uu.:_y ltivcaolgquluxi UL bQU£lb¥ _O
i__ ._.-.-___ ...,, 1,,
w "*
197 Hearings Conducted by Supervisor_Baxter Ward
One of the most persistent critics of the manner in which
ballistics evidence was presented at the trial of Sirhan was Los
Angeles newsman Baxter Hard. In 1971, Ward often devoted a
sizeable portion of his program on KHJ television to highlighting
apparent discrepancies in trial testimony of various eyewitnesses,
giving sizeable coverage to trial critics such as Theodore Charach
and others critical of criminalist Dewayne Wolfer. In 1972, Ward
was elected to the County Board of Supervisors and in 197M
commenced his own hearings to investigate ballistics evidence by
virtue of his chairmanship of the Coroner's Department of Los
Angeles County.
Prior to the May 197 hearing, Ward asked his fellow
supervisors for subpoena power to compel District Attorney Joseph
Busch and L.A.P.D. criminalist Wolfer to appear before his hearing.
Prior to the hearing date in May, a series of Board of
Supervisors meetirqs ?Q{%$; revealed a growing feud between Ward
and Busch. Ward sta ed fe quarrel with Busch was based on the
belief.'that the District Attorney should "remove the cloud
presently hanging over law enforcement in the Kennedy case by
initiating a total review of the ballistics evidence, including
refiring of the gun used by Sirhan." Additionally, Ward stated to
Busch, "I remind him that I made this same basic proposal back in
1971 when the-bullet controversy first developed. In fact, it was
my persistence in this matter in a three month broadcast series in
1971 that led to the total estrangement between Mr. Busch and me."
Ward insisted that his hearing was to deal with doubts
raised by certain criminoligists that bullets used as evidence in
the Sirhan murder trial did not match up.
Busch, who descr5bei.the proposed hearing into the bullet
dispute as "ridiculous", stated that he would not appear at the
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 case.
Additionally, he felt that Supervisor Ward was using the issue of
the Sirhan case as publicity to capture public notoriety 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
personal testimony 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
bullets removed from Senator Kennedy's neck and victim Weisel. Ted
Charach had delivered these photographs to Mac Donell in 1973-
Essentially Mac Donell made two conclusions.
-31-
; . 92
I
-92
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 Donell claimed the two bullets were
of different manufacture or were manufactured by the same firm
under different conditions of manufacture. All eight cartridge
cases removed from Sirhans gun were manufactured by Omark-C.C.,
and all had two cannelures. Mac Donell stated the location of the
cannelures on the Weisel bullet showed it could have been a part of
a cartridge in the Sirhan revolver. However, Mac Donell concluded
the Kennedy bullet had but one cannelure, and therefore could not
have been Omark manufacture and, therefore, could not have been a
part of one of the cartridges taken from the Sirhan revolver. ~
Additionally, Mac Donell stated that his detailed
examination of the Hycon Balliscan camera photomicrographs taken by
Harper of the Kennedy and weisel bullets showed "a difference of
nearly 1/2 a degree in rifling angles." Also, Mac Donell felt there
was a lack of agreement between any of the identifiable individual
characteristics that appeared on the two bullets. Overall
sharpness of the Kennedy bullet suggested that it was fired from a
barrel whose rifling was in far better condition than the one from
which the Weisel bullet was fired. Finally, Mac Donell stated that
he felt two guns had been fired.
It must pointed out that both Harper and Mac Donell were
working only from pictures taken by a special camera called a
Balliscan. Even though this camera is an acknowledged diagnostic
aid in ballistics, criminalists agree that the most reliable evi-
dence comes from actual microscopic examination of the bullets.
Additionally, Harper had stated under oath to the Grand Jury in
1971 that he had "stong reservations regarding the present utility
of the physical evidence for microscopic re-examination because of
the way the evidence had been initially handled by the police
agency and thereafter maintained, in the same manner, by the
Clerk's Qffice_" .
Preparing to hold his hearings in May,_197H, Ward publicly
stated that he did not challenge the conviction of Sirhan, but had
many questions about evidence, particularly ballistics evidence.
Ward stated, "In my opinion, there is no question as to Sirhan's
involvement and the finding of his guilt, and he should be
maintained in prison for the balance of his life." Ward added,
"that he ward! had no knowledge or particular suspicion that
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."
. _ 32 _
.. _.__;_... , ,, _ __ ____ ___ .--- -
, .__-__-..--ii~ 7 ' _ __::_ *-~--;-_- ,_ _
District Attorney Busch challenged the authority of Super-
visor ward to hold such a hearing, but Ward relied on the advice of
County Counsel 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 Supervisor members that he, Ward,
had met with County Clerk William Sharp and discussed the previous
charges against Sharp and his office by the District Attorney and
the County Grand Jury in 1971. Ward stated that he was satisfied
with Sharp's response and, felt that the integrity of the exhibits
he would examine at his hearing were satisfactory. He then stated,
"There is a cloud over law enforcement in the County of Los Angeles
that can only be dispelled by a proper inquiry." Board of
Supervisors Meeting April 23, 19TH!. Additionally, Ward quoted
from a book entitled "Insid§_the Crime Lab", which stated "critics
claim that it is s¢araeIy"po§sr6le t¢"in5§Tne a case so botched up
in the physical evidence collection, preservation, analysis and
testimony as was the crime lab work by the L.A.P.D. Ballistics
Forensic Division in'the Bobby Kennedy killing." Ward used this
allegation at the Board of Supervisors Meeting on April 23, 1973,
to justify his attempts to subpoena District Attorney Busch and
Dewayne Wolfer to appear for his May, 197R, hearing.
May 13, 197§:Bearing -
Ward prefaced his hearing with statements by Mr. Roy Ito and
Mr. Eskanos, both members of the 1971 Chief Administrative Office
task force. Both Eskanos and Ito testified that there was no
substantial evidence of unauthorized handling of original exhibits.
They stated that they disagreed with the Grand Jury findings that
there was an unfortunate lack of conern for the integrity of the
exhibits. Additionally, Ward inserted into the record a statement
by the 1971 Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, Charles Loring.
Judge Loring stated that, "Despite considerably adverse publicity
in 1971! during the course of these investigations, our committee
found nothing to indicate that the handling and storing of the
exhibits in the Sirhan case impaired the integrity of theexhibits." '
, _
Affidayit of William Harper Read Into the Record
William Harper could not participate in the May 13, 197",
hearing. Portions of Harper's previously sworn affidavit prepared
on December 28, 19?0, were read into the record. in this affidavit
Harper stated that, "During the past several months in 1970! I
have made a careful review and study of physical circumstances of
the assassination of Senator Kennedy. In this connection, I have
examined physical evidence introduced at the trial, including
Sirhan{s weapon, the bullets and shell cases. I have also studied
the autopsy report, the autopsy photographs and pertinent portions
of the trial testimony."
"Based on my background and training, upon my experiene as
a consulting criminalist, and my studies, examinations, analysis Q?
the data related to the Kennedy assassination, I have arrived at
the following findings and opinions: - -
- 33 _
I
92_i _ k1
" "No test bullets recovered from the Sirhan gun are in evi-
dence. This gun was never identified scientifically as having
fired any of the bullets removed from any of the victims. -
"Other than the apparent self evident fact that gun #53725
was forcibly removed from Sirhan at the scene, it has not been
connected by microscopic examinations or other scientific testing
to the actual shooting.
_ "In fact, my examinations disclosed that the bullet, Exhibit
#H7, has a rifling angle of approximately 23 minutes approximately
1N1! greater than the rifling angle of Bullet Exhibit #5H.
"It is therefore my opinion that Bullets #97 and #5H could
not have been fired from the same gun." »
197B Lowell Bradford Testimony
' Immediately after reading the Harper affidavit into the re-
cord, ward called criminalist Lowell Bradford to testify. Bradford
had served as the Head of the Santa Clara County District
Attorney's Crime Laboratory but he was no longer in that capacity
at the time of the hearing.
Like other critics, Bradford was looking at photographs of
Bullet Exhibit #U7 and Bullet Exhibit #50 originally taken by
Harper in 1970. Ward asked for conclusions regarding the number of
cannelures in Exhibit H7, the Kennedy bullet, as compared to
Exhibit 5H, the Weisel bullet. Bradford replied: "Notice that the
photograph of #H7 portrays an image which appears to be one knurled
cannelures, whereas photo 5H has an image which appears to portray
two cannelures."
Ward then questioned Bradford about the possibility of
bullet tampering or damage. ' Specifically, Ward had requested
photographs be taken of the two controversial bullets, H7 and 5H,
photographs taken at his request in April, 1974. Ward asked
Bradford if he had examined the new 1974 Balliscan photographs and
compared them for any changes that might have occured in the
quality of the specific markings on the bullets, the bullet photos
of 1970 taken by Harper, and the bullet photos of 1974 taken at
Ward's request!. Bradford replied, "I could find no significant
changes in the types of marks which would be useable in identi-
fication between the two sets of photographs."
Ward implied that he had raised that question to Bradford
for the reason that it had been suggested in some quarters that
that age could have a serious effect on the quality of the bullets
and their integrity for examination. Ward felt that two-and-a-half
years time had passed since the assassination and the time the
bullets were first photographed by Harper in 1970. Additionally,
there was an even longer period, roughly three-and-a-half years
that elapsed between the Harper photographs and the Ward photo-
graphs. And when asked if he had found no consequential
deterioration, Bradford answered, "That is correct."
. _ 3 -
1 s ~
Asked if he had compared the rifling angles of photographs
#87 and #55, Bradford stated that he could not discern any
differences between the rifling angles of the two photographs.
Ward asked Bradford that based on the individual characteristics of
the spent bullets, did he attempt to make a positive identification
of the photographs of People's Exhibit #55 and 5B the seven Wolfer
fired test bullets! and the Kennedy bullet, H7, and the Weisel
bullet, SH. Bradford replied that he determined that the class
characteristics, the number of marks from the rifling and the
general dimensions, were consistent on all the bullets, but that he
could find no evidence of any specific identification mark which
would be necessary to identify one bullet as having been fired from
the same weapon.
Ward then stated, "So in the crucial analysis to determine
if the bullets were fired from the same weapon, you did not find
sufficient characteristics on which to base that conclusion?"
Bradford, "That is correct."
ward than asked, "So it was impossible, you would state,
therefore, that the characteristics were not present to identify
the same gun as having been used for all of the bullets?"
Bradford answered, "That is correct."
-Finally, Ward asked Bradford what Bradford thought should be
done to resolve the questions being raised and Bradford replied
that the only manner of resolving all of the questions was to
conduct a thorough examination of all of the evidence. when asked
by Ward if the Sirhan gun should be refired, Bradford answered,
"Yes." - -
197d Testimony of Criminalist Herbert Machonell
In the fall of 1973, and prior to the hearing of May, 19TH,
Herbert MacDonell had examined Balliscan photographs of spent
bullets that had been taken by William Harper in 1970.
Specifically, MacDonell was looking at bullets #B7, the Kennedy
bullet, and #SH, the Weisel bullet. Thereafter, MacDonell also had
access to the other photographs taken under Ward's direction in
April, 19? . At the hearing, when asked by Ward if he had arrived
at any conclusion as a result of his examinations of the several
photographs MacDonell replied, "An examination of the photograph of
Trial Exhibit #H7, as Lowell Bradford has just testified,
demonstrates the appearance of one cannelure which is toward the
top center of the exhibit labeled Harper-Kennedy. The harper=
Heisel photograph gives evidence of two cannelures."
And when asked if he could find any difference in the
physical characteristics of the bullets in the Harper photographs
of 1970 and the Ward photographs of 19TH, MacDonel1 replied, "No."
when asked if he had arrived at any conclusions as a result
of comparison of the rifling angles in the photographs of Exhibits
N7 and 5H, MacDonell stated, "That Exhibit H7, the original Harper
photograph, has approximately up to half a degree or 30 minutes
difference in the angle of rifling between the Heisel bullet."
Ward asked if this was a serious difference. And MacDonell
replied, "No.9 MacDonell then stated that since he did not have the
negative of the photos taken by the Balliscan camera, it was really
impossible to make any estimate. However, he did conclude that the
difference in rifling angle was less than one-half degree or less
than 30 minutes. He did suggest that additional measurements be
made on the test fired bullets.
7 - 35 7,,_,q__ __m___UM__
K
92 an
Ward then asked if he was suggesting that the bullets were
not fired from the same gun, and Macbonell answered, "1 am sug-
gesting that they were not fired from the same gun based upon the
photographic evidence. nd when asked whether he was able to make
any positive identification of the bullets as compared to each
other, MacDonell replied, "I could not positively identify them as
being fired from the same weapon."
Finally Ward, in summary to MacDonell stated, "You leave me
with the impression that the cannelures are different, manufacturer
of the weapon is different, and that you are incapable of finding
the specific characteristics that would directly relate one spent
bullet, H7, Kennedy, with another, 5H, weisel." MacDonell replied,
"That is correct.
' - Testimony of Dr. Noguchi
;- - ._.'-',
Supervisor ward ;¬aEh called Dr. Noguchi to give his con-
clusions regarding the fisimity of the murder weapon to the three
gunshot wounds in Senator Kennedy. Noguchi stated, "As to muzzle
distance, in my opinion, in the headwound, right mastoid, it was
three inches from the right ear, slightly one inch to the edge of
the right ear. The gunshot wound #2, that's a very close wound, I
would not be able to tell because we did not have an opportunity to
study the Senator's jacket, but I would say that's very close,
nearly a contact wound, that means, the muzzle was very, very
close. Gunshot wound #3 was about the same, very close."
Previous to this testimony of Dr. Noguchi, Ward read into
the transcript the trial testimony of Valerie Schulte, Vicent
DePierro, and Edward Minasian, all of whose testimony stated that
th Sirhan unannn uas: :3 'f!.':-_'-."f:-1:-1. f"r92nrn .Q|:na1-.n'r- Yunnan-Iv 21'. {ha itima nf'-"- _-."_ "-_,-n "_- 1n~ ~5wvv ..-m -- -.-. ...... .--, -- -"- -.-- -.
shooting the Senator.
With this foundation laid in the transcript, Ward then asked
Noguchi regarding the proximity of closeness between the muzzle and
the Senator's body. Ward questioned that Noguchi's testimony indi-
cated one inch, one-and-a-half inches, to three inches, virtually
point blank range, whereas the trial testimohy indicated two or
three feet being the muzzle distance. _Ward asked Noguchi, "When
did you become aware that this was a point blank range? was it
before the trial?" Noguchi replied that-it was on Friday, June 7,
1968, that he testified at the Grand Jury as to muzzle distance.
Ward then stated in the record that the "District Attorney's
Office has witnesses who placed Sirhan five or six feet in his body
distance from the Senator, and muzzle distance two or three feet
away. Has the District Attorney's Office aware of the discrepancy
between the testimony of their witnesses of the muzzle distance as
opposed to your findings?"
' Noguchi mentioned the concern of one Deputy District
Attorney about the apparent discrepancy and then replied, "I dono¬know.whether they the District Attorney's Office! knew or
no . .
-36-
| ' l B
"~__/ 92/
' Response of District Attorney Busch, June 1912
, -
In a letter to Supervisor Peter Schabarum, District Attorney
Busch stated that he thoroughly deplored Supervisor Ward's entire
course of conduct in his May, 1970, hearing. He stated that Ward
had acted outside the scope of his Jurisdiction under the guise of
conducting Board business to initiate an allegedly impartial
inquiry into the Sirhan matter. Additionally, Busch felt that
Ward's hearing was a skillfully drafted scenario designed to estab-
lish predetermined findings and conclusions that the Lcs Angeles
Police Department and/or the District Attorney's Office failed to
thoroughly investigate the possibility of a second gunman, if not
actually engaged in techniques to cover-up such a possibility. In
short, Busch felt that Ward had unjustifiably shaken public confie
dence in both of the law enforcement agencies.
Busch further stated that the Ward hearing lacked all the
characteristics of the adversary process, and was specifically
designed to provide no.r;portunity for anyone to cross examine any
of the witnesses, whose= appearance and testimony was carefully
orchestrated. Moreover, Busch felt that the inherent weakness in
the ward procedure was the selectivity in presentation of issues
and the projection of an image or impression which had no basis in
fact.
Busch was extremely critical of Hard for creating the
"illusion of the possibility of a second gun." Busch felt an
obvious starting point was to create a conflict between eyewitness
accounts and physical evidence regarding muzzle distance. Busch
felt that whenever a number of persons see an event, it is axiomatic
that there will be different accounts in regard to different
detail. Furthermore, when placed in the context of a victory cele-
bration at the conclusion cof a long day, the probability of
discrepancy is enhanced. Thus, in such a situation, Busch felt it
was relatively easy to select a few witnesses whose recollection
was inconsistent with irrefutable evidence.
Busch continued, in his letter to Schabarum, that, "In order
to implement this cornerstone of his strategy, Mr. Ward created the
image of conflict by placing into the record very brief portions of
statements by three persons. When these statements were compared
with the statements of the Coroner, which is precisely the same
testimony given by the Coroner during the Sirhan trial, Busch felt
a conflict was readily produced. .But the existence of such
conflict required one to assume that these three isolated accounts
fairly represented the statements of the many other persons who
witnessed the tragedy. Nevertheless, Busch concluded that Ward, by
this technique, laid the ground for further inquiry regarding the
physical evidence. Busch also expressed his displeasure in that
the Ward hearing raised questions as to what the prosecution failed
to do uaith respect to its investigation of physical evidence,
Busch felt that such a technique might have the purpose of
disclosing ineptitude, but that it also raised a question when no
question in fact existed. To Busch, this represented a smoke
screen of irrelevent issues.
i-31-
> A 7 777' ____ __,__,,___ ___ _.__ , _-_..._ ._ - -
I I
92s~ cu
Finally, Busch felt the witnesses introduced by Ward to es-
tablish that the County Clerk had effectively preserved the
physical evidence were totally inconsistent with the findings
of the Los Angeles County Grand Jury in i971. Busch felt the Grand
Jury had conducted and arrived at its findings only after an inten-
sive hearing conducted under oath, and this hearing included the
testimony of members of the Clerk's Office actually involved in the
matter.
Busch concluded that it was regrettable to him that the Board
of Supervisors had provided Ward with the springboard of govern-
mental authority to_articulate his previously formed conclusions
dating back to his days as a newscaster in 1971.
I975 Report of the Select Committee
7 ofithe American ieaéeny of Forensic Sciences
This committee, c nposed of three members of the American
Academy of Forensic Sciences; Thomas Johnson, James Osterburg and
Ralph F. Turner, stated in a July 2, 1975, report that "legitimate
forensic questions in the Robert F. Kennedy case have been raised."
The committee felt that there was more than a reasonable possi-
bility that these questions could be answered if there was a new re-
examination of the physical evidence in the case.
In reviewing the steps leading to the committee's report, the
President of the Academy of Forensic Sciences, Robert J. Jolling,
issued a statement that was later incorporated as an affidavit in
the petition filed by Paul Schrade for the inspection, examination
and testing of the ballistics exhibits filed in the Los Angeles
Superior Court in August, 1975!.
In his affidavit, Jolling stated that he was currently the
President of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. Addi-
tionally, Jolling is an attorney admitted to the practice of law
before the United States Supreme Court as well as in his state of
residence, Arizona. Jolling acknowledged that he had informally
contacted Ralph Turner and asked Turner to serve as the chairman of
the Ad Hoc committee which would review the Robert F. Kennedy case.
This was early 1975. Jolling was acting in" his capacity as
President of the American Academy, and was appointing a select Ad
Hoc committee! with Ralph Turner as Chairman. This committee had
been formed after a showing of the Ted Charach film, "The Second
Gun", at the full session of the American Academy of Forensic
Sciences in Chicago. Attending that session, and viewing the film,
were panel participants Lowell Bradford, Vincent Guinn, Godfrey
Isaac, Herbert Macnonell, and Thomas Noguchi.
The Ag Hoc committee reviewed numerous materials that had been
under discussibn in previous hearings concerning the Sirhan case.
The committee recommended that a panel of recagnized and qualified
persons having expertise in firearms examinatien and identification
be assembled to review the ballistics evidence as well as the trial
and Grand Jury transcripts of the Sirhan case. Although not making
any formal accusation against the District Attorney's Office or the
findings of the court and jury, the Executive Committee of the
American Academy of Forensic Sciences stated in its July 13. 1975,
report that such a re-examination of the evidence would be "of
value in clarifying the circumstances of the death of Robert
Kennedy."
..- _ ., t t
: ' 92
Emergence of such a respected organization as the American
Academy of Forensic Sciences as a potential critic of the Sirhan
investigation added further substance to the growing demand to re-
open the case. On Sunday, July 13, 1975, the influential and
respected Los Angeles Times_ran"a major feature article written by
William Farr and UEhn Kendall headlined: "Robert Kennedy Case
Still Stirs Question: Pressure to Reopen Assassination Inquiry
Includes Gun, Bullet HC1¬5;
' Death of_Joseph Busch -
To compound the problem, District Attorney Joseph Busch had
tragically died June 2$,¢1975, from a sudden heart attack. Chief
Deputy District Attc§§Q*$Uohn Howard became Acting District
Attorney, and immediatJ?y assumed the role of protaganist in the
growing demand to reopen the investigation. Ironically, in one of
his last conversations before his death, Joe Busch had told Times
reporter William Farr he was seriously considering petitionin§TT5F
the appointment of a Special Master by the California Supreme Court
to review the ballistics and firearms evidence in the Sirhan case.
Busch was, of course, concerned about the integrity of the
exhibits, as one of his first jobs upon being appointed District
Attorney in late 1970 was to oversee the 1971 re-investigation of
the Sirhan matter, and thetrand Jury investigation of the County
Clerk's Office concerning unauthorized access to the exhibits.
Additionally, ard-more important, the District Attorney's
Office was most concerned that if the Sirhan case was to be
reviewed, it should be done in a court of law, where the rules of
evidence would apply, where sworn testimony would be taken on the
integrity of the exhibits, and where the right of cross examination
and presentation of evidence was guaranteed. The District
Attorney's Office was most concerned that a proposed California
Legislative Ad Hoc Committee investigation into_the Sirhan matter
might balloon into a circus-like atmosphere complete with
television, ongoing interviews and commentary, with an "any theory
you can do, I can do better" atmosphere} Both Busch and Howard had
discussed the possible appointment -of a Special Master in a
Judicial forum. In the early weeks of July, Acting District
Attorney Howard had assigned Deputy District Attorney Dinko
Bosanich to review the statutes. and procedure permitting an
application to the State Supreme Court for the appointment of a
Special Master.
I
-3Q-
r 1 *
Schrade Petition
Later that same month, one of the wounded victims on the night
of the assassination, Paul Schrade, filed a civil law suit for
personal injuries suffered the night of the shooting naming Sirhan
and ten John Does as defendants. The nature of this civil suit was
that Schrade was presently seeking to establish the identity of the
person or persons who caused his injury. As parallel action to the
civil matter filed in Superior Court in early August, 1975,
Schrade filed an application for an order authorizing the
inspection, examination, and testing of several ballistics and
firearms exhibits in the Sirhan case. Application for inspection
and testing was filed in Department 1, before Judge Robert Wenke,
Presiding Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court. It was
Schrade's contention that certain exhibits in the criminal
proceedings against Sirhan could furnish evidence and information
necessary for his pending personal injury action in another
superior court. Schrade contended that he had recently learned
certain "facts" which supported the conclusion that persons other
than Sirhan might have been involved in the assassination of
Senator Kennedy and in causing his own injury. He felt that such an
examination and testing of the exhibits would give factual infor-
mation essential to achieving proper discovery information in his
personal injury action.
As a corollary to both civil law suits, Schrade, through a
third attorney, filed an action seeking injunctive relief com-
pelling the Los Angeles Police Department to reveal the ten-volume
summary of the Robert Kennedy investigation, the so-called Special
Unit $ena§9rnEiie-
In support of his application to inspect, examine, and test
the various ballistics, firearms, and clothing exhibits, Schrade
filed:
a. supporting affidavits of Robert Jolling, who as
President of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, added cre-
dibility to the advocacy of re=examination and testing;
b. the declaration of William Harper stating that based
upon his 1970 examination and his more recent examination of the
bullets, shell cases, and the Sirhan weapon, Harper felt that the
only reasonable oonolusion from the evidence developed by the
police was that two guns were fired in the kitchen pantry;
c. a partial transcript of Supervisor Ward's May, 1972,
Hearings highlighting the testimony of criminalist Herbert
MacDonel1; wherein MacDonell relied on Harper's and Hard's
balliscan photos, which suggested to MacDonell a difference in
cannelures and the possibility of two guns;
d. a partial transcript of the 197% Baxter Hard Hearing in
which Los Angeles County Coroner Thomas Noguchi stated that the
muzzle of the Sirhan weapon was "very, very close" to SenatorKennedy; '
I
- it
U
e. the report of the Ad Hoe Committee of the American
Academy of Forensic Sciences which outlined potential testing
procedure;
f. a 1969 statement by then District Attorney Evelle
Younger outlining the investigation into the conspiracy theory and
his conclusion that the jury had found Sirhan guilty as charged;
g. and the lengthy and definitive Los Angeles Times article
by Farr and Kendall reviewing the Sirhan controversyi
Schrade also argued that the right to inspect the exhibits
was meaningful only if the exhibits were tested. He underscored
this argument by stating that mere visual inspection of the
exhibits would not give him the information he legitimately needed
and sought in his personal injury action. Therefore, the court
having the power to authorize the tests, should grant Schrade such
a motion. Schrade emphasized the unique order of Presiding Judge
Loring in 1972, that all exhibits in the Sirhan case were to be
retained "forever because of the historical nature and importance
of the case." Schrade stated that the court anticipated that
important future use might be made of the exhibits, therefore, the
right to inspect and test such exhibits was inherent in this 1972
order.
Schradels memorandum characterized the District Attorney's
Office as "repeatedly refusing all requests to reopen the
investigation." The statement avoided mention of the several on-
going investigations in 1971 and 197", and the fact that the
District Attorney's Office had publicly stated its willingness to
conduct an investigation protected in a Judicial forum where rules
of evidence and cross examination would apply.
CBS_Application to Inspect and Test Exhibits
Almost simultaneous with the filing of the Paul Sohrade
application, was an application filed by CBS before Presiding Judge
Robert Wenke seeking an order for the inspection and examination of
the various ballistics and firearms exhibits in the Sirhan case.
The exhibits sought to be inspected and examined were
identical to those petitioned by Sohrade. The major difference
between the two petitioners before the court was that CBS relied
upon the declaration and affidavit of criminalist Lowell Bradford
to specify the procedure and substance for scientific examination
of the exhibits. Additionally, CBS phrased its application for
inspection and testing on the rather unique argument of "the
public's right to know." '
-141-
L u
CBS broadly sought a scientific examination of all of the
firearms exhibits, including the expended bullets, the cartridge
cases, the live cartridges and the Sirhan weapon. CBS argued that
evidentary value in these exhibits would be forthcoming by scien-
tific comparison, and would verify whether or not particular
expended bullets had come from one gun or from more than one gun.
Like Schrade, and criminalists Harper and MacDonell in their
supporting affidavits for Schrade's petition, CBS did admit in its
memorandum of points and authority that one possible result from
the examination and testing might be an inconclusive determination
whether the bullets had come from a certain gun.
CBS argued that under the First and Sixth Amendments, which
guarantee free press and a right to a fair trial, petitioner, as a
representative of the news media, had a right of public scrutiny of
the administration of justice. Additionally, CBS argued that exhi-
bits introduced in a criminal trial were part of the public record,
and restrictions of access to such records prevented publication
about them. Therefore, First Amendment guarantees would be denied
by restricting access to the information. CBS admitted that the
scientific examination requested in their petition was for the pur-
pose of gathering information to be used in a news documentary for
nation-wide broadcast on the subject of the assassination of
Senator Robert Kennedy, and that the testing and examination of the
exhibits were needed to supply necessary information to be used in
the documentary
Declaration of bowelliBradford:, CBS Petition
Bradford briefly listed a series of questions and public con-
troversies eonoerning the Sirhan matter, stating the problems con-
cerning bullets and the weapon. He reviewed the pretrial and trial
proceedings, and stated that the issue that the bullet which
entered Senator Kennedy's body had come from the Sirhan weapon and
in the hands of Sirhan!, had never actually been argued at trial.
Furthermore, alleged Bradford, there had been no pretrial discovery
contesting this conclusion Sirhan weapon firing the bullets!, and
at trial, Bradford continued, there was no cross examination of the
scientific testimony offered concerning firearms identification
evidence. It should be remembered that, at trial, the major de-
fense, and perhaps the only defense, was that of diminished
capacity. Defense attorneys Grant Cooper and Emile Zola Berman
actually stipulated to the introduction of the mismarked envelope
in the hands of wolfer. It was the defense attorneys intent to
keep as much ballistics evidence and photographs away from the eyes
of the Jury for fear of prejudicing the minds of the Jurors with
photographs of the slain Senator .
-112-
., _____ ,-_,_ ____._.
LL, pi
As part of his declaration in the affidavit, Bradford next
stated the conclusions of forensic scientists Herbert MacDonell and
Hilliam Harper. Essentially, Bradford restated the MacDonell
position concerning gross differences between oannelures on Kennedy
bullet, H7, and weisel bullet, SB, and the Harper position con-
'cerning differences in pitch of the rifling angle of the grooves
left by barrel rifling! which indicated that both the Kennedy and
Heisel bullets had been fired from different barrels.
Additionally, Bradford, in his declaration, cited Harper's
previous statements that Harper had failed to find individual
identification characteristics on all the test bullets fired from
the Sirhan gun when compared with the Kennedy bullet, Exhibit H7.
In so doing, Bradford based his statements on previous statements
of Harper and MacDonell, both of whom had based their statements on
photographs taken by Harper in 1970 and at the request of Baxter
Ward in 19TH. Bradford -concluded that "on the basis of this
examination of the photographs and conclusions of MacDonell and
Harper! as well as a review of available information concerning the
firearms identification evidence introduced in the Sirhan trial and
related proceedings, it is my opinion that there is reasonable
cause for a scientific re-examination of all of the firearms iden-
tification evidence." But, unlike Harper and MacDonell, Bradford
was not specifically stating that he had observed any definite
differences in bullets, oannelures, or evidence of a second gun.
Bradford merely stated a summary of the previous allegations
of a second gun and evidentary discrepancies in his declaration and
affidavit. These were: '
1. A conclusion concerning oannelures and rifling pitch
contradicts the proposition that all of the bullets fired at the
scene were from one gun.
2. The conclusion about these critical differences in
oannelures are verifiable from photographs and appear to have
merit, but such an examination of photographs is not.as deter-
minative as an examination of the original object.
3- The conclusions concerning differences of rifling pitch
are based on a set of measurements that statistically appear to
have merit, but the result should be tested because the quantative
differences which have been found are close to the limit of
precision of the method used in determining these differences.
[Here it is obvious that Bradford is hesitating, in making
absolute declaration of a second gun. He equivocates in the
similar manner as he did in the Baxter Ward Hearing in May. 1974.]
- u3 -1_ A-~ 1;--|**7 **' --~--* _ "7 s soil ' r r777"- -_-7-_ __".._ -
at _ L
Bradford's declaration continues by pointing out lack of
written notes and documents relating to the prosecution's exhibits
on firearms and ballistics. Bradford states that "on the public
record there is no examiner's notes, no pretrial discovery
information, no demonstrative exhibits, no explanation of the exact
examination methodology used in the case, no statement of the basis
for the opinions rendered that give an indication of identi-
fication." The previous District Attorney Office's investigation
concerning the ballistics evidence in 1971 and 19TH had failed to
discover any such writdei documents or notations. Bradford felt
that a complete independent re-examination of the bullet identi-
fication evidence would do much to restore public faith and
confidence in the ability of modern science to resolve problems of
scientific fact in law enforcement."
' Additionally, Bradford called for a very thorough examination
and test procedure. ~£radFord readily admitted that a non-
verification of the butrtywomparison through the lack of indi-
vidual identifying chafctcristics would in-and-of itself not
exclude the possibility that Sirhan's gun had fired the Kennedy
bullet, nor would it actually determine that it did. In other
words, Bradford was honest to admit that his elaborate test
procedure might produce more doubts rather than settle the question
resolving ballistics and firearms identification.
As a prerequisite to any test procedure, Bradford as did the
other criminalists, including Jolling!, called for a classical
bullet identification comparison using the comparison microscope
with a stereoscope microscope; Such an examination would verify
bullet comparison of the Kennedy bullet with the test bullet.
Bradford asked for a -ear; thorough examination of individual
characteristics, and a verythorough comparison of all test bullets
with the evidence bullets.
Additionally, Bradford stated after examining both the Harper
and the ward hearing photographs, that the bullets did not appear
to have suffered deterioration from oxidation, or handling, and
that there was a good opportunity to verify bullet identification.
Bradford also called for additional tests if the bullet
comparison of the Kennedy bullet to a test bullet fired from the
Sirhan gun could not be established. - These additional tests
included micromeasurements of the bullets, This procedure would be
an analysis of the pitch of the rifling, and the bullet diameter.
Bradford reasoned that there were minute differences in the
dimension among manufacturers of .22 caliber bullets and, if
bullets were fired from two different barrels, each from a
different manufacturer, it would be possible to discover class
differences between the two bullets.
Bradford also asked for the possibility of chemical tests on
bullets. These tests would help determine the presence and amount
of trace metal in the bullets themselves. Commonly used trace
metal tests concerned energy x-ray analysis and neutron activation
analysis. Bradford asked that samples be removed from bullet lead
about the size of a pinhead. This lead would be removed from the
nose of the bullet, and such samples would be sent to the Physics
Department of the University of California at Irvine, where Dr.
Vincent Guinn would conduct such examinations.
-'1:-H-~ s.-I;-~ -» - _:¢- if __
K,» D
A further test advocated by Bradford dealt with powder residue
composition analysis by gas chromatography. This ballistics
examination would utilize a new methodology recently developed by
the Aerospace Corporation of El Segundo. Bradford felt this method
would demonstrate the differences in composition of a single burned
particle of ammunition powder. Specifically, if particles of
powder could be removed from the Robert Kennedy coat, from the
autopsy specimens and from fired cartridge cases from the Sirhan
gun, the method of analysis could then determine whether all three
powder residue sources were consistent with each other and whether
or not there was any significant differences which would indicate
the presence of a second gun. _
In his final request for the test firing of the Sirhan weapon,
at the conclusion of his declaration, Bradford admitted, "That it
is a wellknown fact among firearms examiners, and a fact of my own
experience, that a S1811 percentage of .22 caliber guns have the
capability of producing successively fired test bullets that
identify with each other on a basis of microscopic characteristics
of individuality. Failure of test bullets to identify with
evidence bullets is so prevalent with .22 caliber guns that
microscopic identification are expected in less than 20% of the
cases examined." Bradford was merely stating obvious facts that
would be readily revealed when the seven ballistics experts
conducted their own independent examination and testing in
September and October of 1975.
Hearings before Judge Wenke, August 1975
The re-testing of the Sirhan weapon, and the re-examination of
all bullet evidence, were ordered by Presiding Judge Wenke in
September. 1975. Although the court order was related to the
petitions of Paul Schrade, and CBS, several parties and counsel
were before the court in this unique proceeding.
Additionally, Judge Wenke instructed all counsel to formulate
an examination and test procedure, and submit such test for the
court's approval. Judge Wenke was, in effect, requesting counsel
to negotiate the ground rules and parameters for the forthcoming
ballistics examination. ,
-1.15...
K-L, 92..J
Parties and counsel represented were: -
CBS, Ine., through their attorneys McCutchen, Black, Verleger,
and Shea Howard J. Privett and Rober
Paul Schrade rhroigh attorneys M
s Los Angles County Counsel's Offit Damus!;
el Levine and Leonard Unger;
ce at the request of the
Board in Supervisors through their attorney County Counsel
John Larson and Deputy County Counsel Robert Lynch;
Defendant Sirhan Sirhan represented by attorney Godfrey Isaac;
Attorney General's Office, Eveile J. Younger represented
by Deputy Attorney General Russell Iunergich;
District Attorney's Office represented by Deputy District
Attorney Dinko Eozanich and Special Counsel Thomas Kranz.
For the next several weeks, the various parties, through their
attorneys of record, negotiated the t
In order to retain his indepen
abstained from actual negotiationsest procedures.
dence, Special Counsel Kranz
although was an observer
throughout, and Deputy District Attorney Bozanich advocated the
District Attorney's position for the
the discussion LhPO1ghDJC these few
utility of the existing exhibits and
Bozanich argument was that there were
or not the Sirhan exhibits had been
data regarding zhe assassination oforthcoming test. Crucial to
weeks were the integrity and
the weapon. The heart of the
substantial questions whether
preserved so that meaningful
f Senator Kennedy could be
derives frrm an; testing at all. Specifically, Bozanich asked the
other attorneys to first ask the court to determine the impact of
the failure of the Ccsuty Clerk to administer the extraordinary
orders of the Superior Court original Judge Alarcon, Judge walker
and Judge Luring orders! on the integrity and utility of the Sirhan
exhibits. Additionally, Bozanich felt that other factors, such as
the mere passage of time, and potential oxidation of the exhibits,
might have an impact on the present usefulness and testing of the
Sirhan exhibits.
lntegritg of fxhibits . _ Y 7 7
Bozanich was stating a. concern of the District Attorney's
Office that one possiole result of the test procedure to be adopted
was that the Sirhan exhibits, inandof themselves, were inconclusive
as to the number of guns at the scene of the Senator's assas-
sination. Bozanich asked the other attorneys to request that the
court first determine what significan ce, if any, could be attached
to the conclusions reached in the testing of the Sirhan exhibits.
In other words, the
public had a right to know all of the
rounding the assassination of SenatorDistrict Attorney's position was that the
facts and circumstances sur-
Kennedy, and that this right
would be frustrated, unless guidelines were first established, both
as to the significance of the test procedures, and to the con-
clusions that could be derived from the examination and testing of
the exhibits. Additionally, Sozsnich argued in several preliminary
meetings with the various attornevs that failure of the court to
state specific finiicgs of facts and
ballistics examination. might further
..l46_conclusions of law after the
confuse the public.Q
O
val
Q__ "_/ " nu
[In his February, 1976, ruling, Judge wenke declined to make
such findings and conclusions and stated that the unusual
ballistics examination had always been considered to be only a
limited discovery action.] _ _
Bozanich argued to the other attorneys that the judicial
process had already twice established that Sirhan was the lone
gunman. Therefore, an appropriate procedure to determine the
present integrity and utility of the Sirhan exhibits was necessary
before any test procedure could be outlined. Bozanich felt that
any eventual testing would be of little or no value, and would only
perpetuate rather than eliminate two gun speculation, unless the
integrity and utility of the exhibits was first determined.
Additionally, in these informal negotiations between all
attorneys, it was the District Attorney's Office that was
advocating the most thorough and exhaustive test procedures.
Bozanich repeatedly asked that as many ballistics experts as
possible be brought in for independent examination of all bullets
and exhibits, including the weapon. In what was often referred to
as "Bo2aniehs obstacle course," the Deputy District Attorney
advocated a cross check procedure whereby each bullet would be
cross-checked and compared with all individual bullets.
Additionally, Bozanich proposed that such a thorough and
vigorous cross-check examination would establish a criteria for
objective analysis by the experts. Bozanich was concerned that
each panel member might have a different level or threshhold by
which they might make a positive or inconclusive identification of
each bullet. -
When the argument was raised by several attorneys that such a
procedure would be lengthy, Bozanich replied that the lack of
thoroughness, and the so-called "clerical errors" in the past, had
perpetuated the controversy, and it was the District Attorney's
position that as thorough, and exhaustive test procedures as
possible be developed. Bozanich cited for his evidentiary sources
the Grand Jury transcript of 1971, and asked Judge Wenke to read all
the three volumes concerning the integrity and utility of the exhi-
bits. Inherent in this argument was the possibility that th
exhibits themselves, and the weapon, had been tampered with to sue
an extent that any test firing could lead to inconclusive results.
The problem centered around the possibility that the weapon
itself, particularly the bore of the revolver-rifle, might have
been tampered with to such an extent that a test fired bullet would
fail to have the necessary indentations and individual and class
characteristics present to be matched up to this specific revolver.
In informal meetings with criminalist Wolfer and other inves-
tigators, both Kranz and Bozanich were concerned that any object
rammed through the barrel of the Sirhan gun, such as a pencil, a
lead bullet, or indefinable object, could conceivably remove or
camouflage the specific bore markings. This would result in little
or no identification of testfired bullets. And in light of the
admonition of Lowell Bradford that there is a less than 20$ identi-
fication factor for testfired bullets from a .22 caliber gun, and
the fact that the Sirhan weapon was a second hand revolver that had
been repeatedly fired on rifle ranges previous to the assas-
sination, the'District Attorney's concern was well founded.E
h
_l|'[....
" cs 9 e
- 0
Bozanich, in his affidavit filled with the court in September,
gave several reasons to support his argument. Citing the history
of the court orders Bozanich stated that on May 29, 1968, Judge
Herbert Walker had issued an order restricting access to the
original Sirhan exhibits by providing that persons, other than
counsel of record, could obtain access to the exhibits only by
order of the court. Thereafter, during an investigation in 1971 by
the District Attorney into claims that a second gunman besides
Sirhan had been involved in the assassination of Senator Kennedy,
it had come to the attention of the District Attorney that various
persons, who were not counsel of record, including William Harper,
had obtained access to the original Sirhan exhibits.
. Bczanich further stated that during a four-day period from
August 16 to August 19, 1971, the Los Angeles County Grand Jury
heard evidence presented by the District Attorney, including the
testimony of Harper, that there had been unauthorized access and
handling of the original Sirhan exhibits. Harper was not an
attorney, and had not been retained and was not affiliated with
attorneys representing Sirhan. Harper had only been given a
"letter of accommodation" directed to the County Clerk by George
Shibley, one of the several attorneys representing Sirhan cn
:r92nn=1 .urn]-an.-q..l.o '
Bozanich argued that Harper had access to, and handled the
original Sirhan exhibits pertinent to firearms identification,
including all the controversial bullets, People's 47, 52, 54, and
55, and the weapon, People's Exhibit 6.
Additionally, Bozanich stated in his petition before Judge
Nenke, that Harper's testimony indicated questionable security
measures on the part of the County Clerk in regards to the original
Sirhan exhibits. Finally, Bozanich showed that Harper himself had
admitted his Harper's!' concern in a 19?! interview with the
District Attorney's Office that the method of storage employed as
to the Sirhan exhibits could operate to impair or eliminate their
utility for meaningful firearms identification.
Bozanich referred to the 1971 Grand Jury reservations relating
to the integrity of the ballistics evidence. Finally, Bozanich in
his petition argued that there had never been a Judicial deter-
mination, such as a full and complete evidentiary hearing, on the
issue of utility and integrity of the Sirhan exhibits.
Bczanich then discussed the .19?H hearings conducted by
Supervisor Ward. Until the written application of the Los Angeles
Times in 1975, and the subsequent application by Paul Schrade and
CBS, the only known orders providing access to the original Sirhan
exhibits after the order by Judge Loring in 1972! were two orders.
dated April 19, 197", and April 2 , 1979, by Judge Alfred
McCourtney authorizing access to Supervisor Ward, Coroner Thomas
Noguchi, and members of their staffs. '
_ NB _
92J
Bozanich stated in his affidavit to Judge Henke that despite
the 1971 controversy regarding irregularities by the County Clerk,
and the steps purportedly taken to insure that no further mishaps
would occur, the clerk in 197 apparently failed to comply with
these express mandates. Therefore, requested Bozanich, Judge Wenke
should conduct an evidentiary hearing designed to determine the
present integrity and utility of the Sirhan exhibits, and whether
or not meaningful data regarding the assassination of Senator
Kennedy could be obtained by testing of these Sirhan exhibits.
Nevertheless, all petitioners were solidly opposed to any
hearing on the utility of the exhibits, and Judge Wenke denied the
petition by the District Attorney's Office for such an evidentiary
hearing.
Finally, after weeks of negotiation, Judge Wenke signed a
court order on September 18, 1975, granting the examination and re~
testing of the Sirhan exhibits. It should be emphasized that this
final court order was the result of several weeks of negotiation
and compromise by all parties and attorneys involved, and that the
final order, although signed by Judge Wenke, reflected the working
compromise of the several attorneys.
Inherent in the order for retesting was a detailed procedure
for comparison microscopic examination of the various bullets and
exhibits. Seven firearms experts chosen by the attorneys would
work independently of each other and submit individual and joint
reports. The Attorney General's Office selected Cortland
Cunningham of the FBI from Washington D.C. The County Counsel's
Office selected private criminalist Stanton O. Berg of Minneapolis,
Minn. The District Attorney's Office selected Alfred Biasotti, of
the California Department of Justice, from Sacramento, California.
CBS selected Lowell Bradford, from San Jose, California. Paul
Schrade selected Ralph Turner, from Michigan State University in
East Lansing, Michigan. Godfrey Isaac, attorney for Sirhan,
selected Charles Mortin, independent forensic scientist from
Oakland, California; and all attorneys acting in unison selected
Patrick Garland from the Tide Water Regional Laboratory in Norfolk,
Virginia, as a seventh and independent choice. Preliminary to the
actual test procedure was a court hearing in which L.A.P.D.
criminalist Dewayne Wolfer was subpoeaned to determine whether the
various bullets originally introduced into evidence in 1968 and
1969 were still, in fact, the same bullets. Additionally, as part
of the court's subpoena power, Wolfer'was to bring all materials
relating to tests performed by or under his direction. Wolfer was
to be examined by all parties and counsel as to the identity and
procedures of the tests he performed with respect to the bullets,
the revolver, and any of the other exhibits.
. Q9-
A5
k ' P !
L.» 92_/
Admissiogiby,t.A.P.D. of Ceiling Panel Destruction
Prior to the appearance of Dewayne Wolfer in Judge Wenke's
court for cross examination by the several parties in mid-
September, 1975, was a shocking disclosure before the Los Angeles
City Council in late August, 1975. At this hearing, Assistant
Chief of Los Angeles Police, Darryl Gates admitted that the
L.A.P.D. had destroyed ceiling panels containing three bullet holes
that had been taken from the Ambassador hotel kitchen pantry the
day after the assassination. Moreover, Gates stated that these
ceiling panels, along.nith x-rays of the panels, and records of the
x-rays, had all been destroyed in 1969 because they "proved
absolutely nothing."
Gates had been summoned before the Los Angeles City Council as
part of its own independent investigation into police procedures
relative to the Kennedy assassination. 'Reports had surfaced for
several months that items of evidence in the case were missing.
Gates argued that the tetaroyed items, including the ceiling panels
with the three bullet holes in them; were technically not evidence
since none of the destroyed items had been introduced at the trial
of Sirhan in 1969. Legally, he was correct, although at the time of
their destruction, immediately following the 1969 trial, the first
appeal of Sirhan was not yet in progress. Gates justified the
destruction of these panels and x-rays as "having absolutely no
value since all of the testing, the real important testing,
trajectory and the line of fire and the number of bullet holes, had
been done prior to their removal from the ceiling. The L.A.P.D. had
made those tests and they had showed absolutely nothing. They
proved absolutely nothing. They did nothing so far as supporting
the investigation and._in _supporting the guilt or innocence of
anyone." Gates also made reference to the fact that the records of
the x-rays and the x-rays themselves proved nothing and were no
longer in existence.
Additionally, this disclosure by Chief Gates occured at a time
in which other law suits were being filed by other interested
parties additional advocates of teo gun theories! for a release
and disclosure of the ten volume L.A.P.D. summary of the Special
Unit Senator files. A refusal by the Los Angeles Police Department
and the Los Angeles Police Commission to release these volumes
added to the previous charges of "cover-up", "stonewalling", and
the like. Police Commission President Samuel Williams stated,
"that a procedure would be created whereby all questions in written
form to the Police Commission concerning evidence in the ten volume
summary would be released by a written answer to the questions."
Ihe Police Commission was concerned that if it opened the files to
the public, much of the information released would be harmful to
innocent parties and would have no relevance whatever to the assas~
sination. This was primarily because the tenvolume summary
contained hearsay evidence and police reports on the private lives
of some individuals who had later been found to have had no part in
the assassination.
Finally, the admission of destroyed ceiling panels contributed
to the growing cynicism and doubt concerning the assassination.
Many critics of the official version of the case claimed the
ceiling panels were of crucial importance. They argued that the
number of bullet holes in the now destroyed panels might determine
whether more than eight shots had been fired in the pantry.
. . .._ l___,__ W, _ ___ __ 1-l92 _____ ____ _ __ _ ____ _____,_i__ ___IO
O-._.
l O
Hol92@; Examination: Septembena/975
At the actual cross examination of criminalist Dewayne Wolfer,
attorneys for Schrade, CBS, and Sirhan questioned Wolfer at length
as to what_he did and did not do in conducting his tests.
During the examination of Nolfer, Judge Henke narrowed the
scope of examination by ruling that the purpose of the questioning
of Wolfer was mainly to aid the panel of experts in their
forthcoming tests. "The purpose here is not to impeach or
vindicate the witness" said Judge Wenke in answer to several
repeated attempts by petitioners attorneys to impeach the
credibility of Wolfer. Wenke replied that he had no intention of
"retrying the Sirhan case" during the re-examination of evidence by
the ballistics experts.
On examination by all counsel concerning photographs and tests
conducted by wolfer in 1968, Wolfer repeatedly stated that he could
not recall if he had made phase marks on the bullets during his
examination of the three evidence bullets People's H7, 52 and SH!
that he had identified as having come from Sirhan's gun. Wolfer
stated that he usually placed such a designation of phase marks on
bullets, and recalled that he had been able to make a quick identi-
fication in the Sirhan case. when Attorney Levine asked if he could
re-create his examination in court, Wolfer replied that, after
seven years, he could not say either yes or no.
Wolfer was most careful in his statements on the witness
stand, stating on many occasions that since the bullet evidence had
been handled by several persons in the interval between his 1968
tests and his current 1975 testimony, there could be oxidation of
the bullets. However, Judge Wenke ruled that although "it does
appear that the County Clerk's procedures left something to be de-
sired, and while there's always the possibility of damage, there is
no actual evidence of damage to these bullets and exhibits." A
major surprise produced by Wolfer was a photographic photo-
micrograph of two bullets that he had apparently taken in 1968.
photos of bullets N7 and 52. This admission by Wolfer, and pro-
duction of the photographs at. the Wolfer examination hearing in
September surprised even Deputy District Attorney Bozanich who re-
plied the District Attorney's Office had never known that these
photographs were in existence.
Wolfer did testify that the bullets shell casing that he was
examining with a magnifying glass during the three-day 1975 cross
examination hearing were "tremendously dark." Additionally, Wolfer
felt the striations striations are marks made on bullets as they
pass through a gun barrel! on two bullets People's HT and 5H! were
not in the same condition as when he first examined them in 1968.
.Wolfer felt that his original initials imparted on the bullets in
1968 had become by 1975 "tremendously darkened."
Holfer prefaced many of his answers throughout the hearing
with reminders that he was trying to recall what he had done several
years ago. Wolfer even suggested that the handwriting on People's
Exhibit 55 at the Sirhan trial appeared to be his, but he did not
recall who had given him the wrong serial number, thus causing the
so-called clerical error.
- 51 - .
" * ' ' i ~~ _ _-- - 1-_T_';_i is-_ Isa ___ _ _ __.._-92,_ ___--2. ___. .7 __ __ 7 :1: 192,92,__q-p:_: ___ . _ . _ _,__,7. _-
.92e
Wolfer also stated that he
any other tests on the Sirhan gun
could not remember examining the
that he used one of the seven
caliber revolver to compare with i J
-»./
could-not recall whether he made
other than test firing it. Wolfer
gun's cylinder. Holfer did state
test fired bullets from the .22
an evidence bullet but he did not
know if he had marked the one used for comparison, and could not
remember in 1975 which test fired bullet had been compared to an
evidence bullet. _
The apparent lack of reports, both written and photographic,
either made by Wolfer and destroyed, or never in existence, raised
serious doubts as to the substance and credibility of the
ballistics evidence presented in the original Sirhan trial.
Special Counsel Kranz commented during the Holfer examination
that the forthcoming ballistics examination by the experts would be
crucial because it. might be the first thorough examination of
bullet evidence in the case. Kranz emphasized that the only area in
the entire Kennedy assassination where the reports were not
complete was in the ballistics area. Several of the attorneys
involved were critical of the lack of documents and working papers
to supplement Wolfer's testimony.
Subpoena Ducus Tecum - Items Produced
1 Hgllerls Daily, L05
In answer to the subpoena ducus 'tecum asking Wolfer and
L.A.P.D. officials to produce analyzed evidence reports prepared by
Holfer and other L.A.P.D. Scientific Investigation Division
officers concerning tests or examinations relative to bullets and
firearms exhibits, Wolfer, and L.A.P.D. officers Sartuche and
Mcbevitt stated that they were only able to find one progress
report dated July 8, 1968. This progress report was essentially a
summary of laboratory work done in the S-l.D. Division under
Dewayne Wolfer's supervision, and a trajectory analysis by Wolfer
of bullet pathways.
Additionally, Dewayne wolfer produced his own log
covering his activities from June 5, 1968, through June 1968.
This log highlighted his work ix: the criminalistic section of
S.I.D., and was a record of the following:
Reconstruction of the crime scene; . -
Search for physical evidence; p
Examination of the Ivor-Johnson .22 caliber to determine the
number of shots fired;
Analysis of the bullets;
his examination of the destroyed ceiling panels and x-rays
thereof;
His microscopic examination of the Goldstein and Stroll
bullets June 6, 1968, at 8:30 a.m.!;
His receiving of the Kennedy bullet, Exhibit H7, at 3:15 p.m.,
June 6, from Rampart detectives;
His comparison of the Kennedy bullet Exhibit B7! and the
Goldstein bullet 2! at 9:00 p.m., on June 6, 1968;
-52-Q
O
O
_ ll_ _ _ i...__.__ .._ . _.l.,T_, _ .-, 1 We--_
_ __ ___ __.-.,,..,,._ .,,.... -. _,, _,.._. ._,._ . - ---- ..,._... . . ,_..._-
92' J
His testimonfkefore the Grand Jury at 92_!O a.m., June 7;
His microscop. and chemical tests on Kennedy's coat on June
7, 10:00 a.m.; - _
His Grand Jury testimony, June T at 3:00 p.m.;
His reproduction of maps, photography and studies of evidence
at 9:00 a.m., on June 10;
H-is I'92l!l"92 92h2§II!l nf aririii-.inn:1 ammusnitinn from Ran H:-irriak at fhng...-v '1-Q ---92--,1; w. q,-Q-w; v-w---Q y-n------sq v-wa- -- w- --- -a-- - --- ' ..|.
Lock, Stock and Barrel Ounshop in San Gabriel on June 10, 1968;
His meeting at the Coroner's Office with Dr. Noguchi on June
10;
His construction of devices to conduct muzzle tests with the
Coroner on June 10;
His meeting with Coroner Noguchi and his study of x-ray photos
of Kennedy's wounds on June 11;
His visit to the Police Academy with Dr. Noguohi on June 11 to
conduct muzzle distance tests with the second gun obtained from
the L.A.P.D. Property Division and subsequently destroyed in 1969!;
His visit to the Ambassador Hotel for reconstruction of the
crime scene and ballistics studies in the afternoon of June 11;
His x-rays of evidence on June 12;
His photographs of evidence bullets on June 12;
His reconstruction of the Kennedy coat and ballistics studies
on the afternoon of June 12;
His additional ballistics tests and ammunition and nitrate
pattern studies on June 1H;Te H-acid test on the Kennedy coat for a nitrate pattern on
June 1 ;
His x-rays of the controversial door jamb the center divider
which had two holes circled and the object of several photographs
in the ensuing years! on June 17, 1968;
His search and further ballistics study of the Ambassador
Hotel on June 18;
And a discussion of sound tests to be conducted at the Ambas-
sador Hotel on June 18
This daily log supplied by Wolfer from his S.I.D. Division was
sketchy at most, and did not provide very thorough information
concerning the types of tests conducted, or the analyzed evidence
reports or written documents that might supplement the tests
described in the daily log. .
Wolferis Laboratory Progress Report
Additionally, L.A.P.D. Officers Saratuche and McDevitt, in
answer to the subpoena, produced a progress report submitted by
L.A.P.D. Officers Collins, Patchett, and MacArthur, dated July
18,1968, which essentially highlighted the laboratory work
conducted by Dewayne Holfer. This progress report was submitted by
the three officers to Lieutenant Pena, the Supervisor of the
Special Unit Senator Unit, a one-and-a-half page document within
the tenvolume S.U.S. files.
_ -53-
" ,! K K
This short progk.,s report stated that ir 1e reconstructionof the crime in preparation for the trial, a92photographic album
containing 8x10 photographs of pertinent evidence had been
prepared. The photos included photographs of autopsy wounds and
photos, photos of bullets and fragments, and photos of money and
boxes of ammunition obtained from Sirhan's person at the time of
alumna!-
Additionally, the July 18, 1968 progress report stated that
the Ivor-Johnson, cadet model .22 caliber revolver serial H53725,
having been taken from Sirhan, had been identified presumably by
Holfer! as having fired the following bullets:
1. The bullet from Senator Kennedyis -sixth cervical
vertebrae;
2. The bullet removed from victim Goldstein;
3. The bullet removed from victim Weisel.
_- - I . . I u so I 1| 1 0 _ L__~|'|_.LA __a_ii .|___
The lao report stated that tne remaining ouiiets were too
badly damaged for comparison purposes. However, the following
could be determined from the remaining four damaged bullets.
The bullet fragments removed from Senator Kennedy's head were
fired from a weapon with the same rifling specification as the
Sirhan weapon and were mini-mag brand ammunition. The actual
bullet which killed the Senator People's Exhibit #R8! was so badly
damaged upon its entry and fragmentation in the brain of the
Senator that this particular bullet could never be positively
identified, either by Holfer in his 1968 analysis, or during the
1975 ballistics re-examination. It should be emphasized that the
actual murder bullet has never been scientifically linked with the
Sirhan weapon, and the conviction of Sirhan for the murder of
Robert Kennedy by the firing of the particular People's H5 was by
inferential and circumstantial evidence, including eye witness
testimony, and the matching characteristics of the several other
bullets to that of the fragments of People's H8. .
The wolfer lab progress report continued that the bullet
fragments from victim Stroll, victim Evans, and victim Schrade all
were mini-mag brand ammunition. All eight shots had been fired at
the Ambassador Hotel and had been accounted for, and all but one
bullet had been recovered. The explanation given for the failure
to recover the eighth bullet fired from Sirhan's weapon on the
night in question was that Wolfer and other L.A.P.D. officers had
conducted a thorough search of the hotel kitchen pantry area and
that the bullet was presumably "lost somewhere in the ceiling
structure."
The lab report continued that a Walkers H-acid Test conducted
on Senator Kennedy's coat indicated that the shot entering Senator
Kennedy's coat was fired at a muzzle distance of between one and six
inches. Furthermore, powder tests conducted by Wolfer with with a
second .22 caliber gun indicated that the bullet which entered
behind Senator Kennedys right ear was fired at a muzzle distance
of approximately one inch.
The progress report concluded that four hundred eighty-nine
H89! .22 caliber shells were examined and none of the shells were
found to have been fired from Sirhan's weapon. These shells had
been picked up by Michael Soccoman at the San Gabriel Valley Gun
Club. Soccoman had thought these shells may have been fired by
Sirhan as Soccoman had been firing on the rifle range on June U, and
had seen Sirhan firing for several hours the same day - the day of
the assassination.
-51}-
sbt 92../
Trajectory Analysis _
Finally, also produced during examination of Dewayne Wolfer
was the trajectory and bullet pathway analysis which had never been
introduced as evidence at trial, and which had been the object of
much dispute and criticism for several years. This report, pre-
pared by Dewayne Wolfer on July 8, 1968, _and submitted to
Lieutenant Mann of the criminalistic section of S.I.D., was an
analysis and trajectory study. In it, Wolfer stated that the
weapon used in the case was an Ivor-Johnson, cadet model, .22
caliber 8-shot revolver i" barrel!. The weapon had eight
expended shell casings in the cylinder at the time of recovery from
the suspect. And a trajectory study had been made of the pantry
area which indicated that eight shots were fired as follows:
1. Bullet entered Senator Kennedy's head behind the right
ear and was later recovered from the victim's head and booked as
evidence.
2. Bullet passed through the right shoulder pad of Senator
Kennedy's suit coat never entered his body! and traveled upward
striking victim Schrade in the center of his forehead. The bullet
was recovered from his head and booked as evidence.
3. Bullet entered Sentor Kennedy's right rear shoulder
approximately 7" below the top of the shoulder. This bullet was
recovered by the Coroner from the sixth cervical vertebrae and
booked as evidence.
H. Bullet entered Senator Kennedy's right rear back
approximately 1" to the right of bullet #3. This bullet traveled
upward and forward and exited the victim's body in the right front
chest. The bullet passed through the ceiling tile, striking the
second plastered ceiling and was lost somewhere in the ceiling
interspace. .
5. Bullet struck victim Goldstein in the left rear buttock.
This bullet was recovered from the victim and booked as evidence.
b. Bullet passed through victim Goldstein s left pants leg
never entering his body! and struck the cement floor and entered
victim Stroll's left leg. . The bullet was later recovered and
booked as evidence.
7. Bullet stuck victim Weisel in the left abdomen and was
recovered and booked as evidence. .%
8. Bullet struck the plaster ceiling and then struck victim
Evans in the head. This bullet was recovered from the victim's head
and booked as evidence.
This trajectory and bullet pathway analysis was submitted to
the hearing for identification purposes only, as an aid to the
ballistics experts during their examination. ,
~55-
7; V 7 7* -i-- - ' - --rw92--- 1-11*-_.'. ;92_...¢-u92.__II-IIn||Ie._ _|,-Ts __ .. 4_w;._; l¢ qr ,_ _ ,-7
.-i