Document text
K! U
On December 8, 1975, the person who wrote the caption under-
neath the Associated Press photo, Mr. Richard Strobel, was
interviewed by Special Counsel Kranz. Strobel stated that he was
at that time, June, 1968!, the news photo editor of the Associated
Press, and that he had written the caption underneath the photo»
graph stating, "Policemen examine bullet still in the wood."
Strobel stated that he had not taken the photograph and was not
present when the photograph was taken, and that although the photo-
grapher was an employee of the Associated Press, he could not
identify the photographer and was unaware of any records that might
exist which could provide such information. Additionally, Strobel
stated to Kranz that he had no recollection with respect to any
communication that might have taken place between himself and the
photographer who took the photograph in question. Strobel felt
that he may have had some conversation with the photographer, and
thus he may have had some inclination to write the particular
caption that was distributed by the Associated Press. However,
Strobel did admit to Kranz that he had no knowledge that the police-
men were technicians or ballistics experts. Strobel stated that he
could not definitely state that a bullet had ever been found in the
wood on the night in question. And Strobel admitted to Kranz that
by stating a conclusive fact of "the bullet in the wood", Strobel
was violating Associated Press directives by making conclusionary
statements without evidence or facts to justify the same.
Special Counsel Kranz also interviewed the photographer who
took the picture, Mr. Wally Fong, currently an A.P. photographer
with the A.P. News Bureau in Los Angeles. Fong told Kranz that he
took the picture in question as an A.P. employee on June 5, 1968,
and that Fong did not remember any_statement by any of the officers
on the scene that the particular hole pointed at by Officers Rozzi
and Wright was a bullet or bullet hole. Fong remembers taking
several photographs inside the kitchen and pantry area, and that
the picture of the officers pointing to the hole was Just one of
several that he delivered back to his editor, Strobel, within the
hour.
A subsequent attempt to take an interview deposition with Mr.
Fong was blocked by Fong's superiors at Associated Press, and it
was stated to Kranz that the Associated Press was going to conduct
its own inquiry as part of its wire service news article concerning
the photograph. P
D1Pierro Interview *-
On December 10, 1975, Special Counsel Kranz interviewed
Angelo DiPierro concerning DiPierro's 1975 description of a "bullet
hole" that DiPierro had observed on the pantry side of the center
divider of the double doorway in the pantry area. DiPierro had
observed this hole the day following the assassination. This holewas approximately 5'-8" to 5'-9" above ground level. In this in-
terview with Kranz, DiPierro stated that it was "an apparent bullet
hole" to him, and he had seen the hole circled, and had thought
nothing of it. It was DiPierro's impression that this was part of
the crime scene investigation by L.A.P.D., and that he never
mentioned the hole to anyone in the subsequent days following the
shooting.
' - B1 -
I
___.__ _.. r. . . . .. ....i.._.... e._h.i._......-,e-_ _ _ _w'_ '
i---u
If-L_
92__
-F' au-
gq:.' ,
2
-__ _..!-v. "
Ijlt
I
"Q?
-1,4-__ . 4' -Z., _1_ 1
'_,..- .
lg;
i t
-
:. _-:'
' A-pt,
=,
_..
4-7.»-
" '=.
E?
1:5.
1
1
Kk ~ t.
Interviews with Carpenters
Re*W66d4Panels
Subsequent to the interview with DiPierro, the District
Attorney's Office made an effort to locate the person or persons
who extracted the wood seized by the L.A.P.D. from the crime scene
on June 5, 1968. These two carpenters, who were formerly employed
at the Ambassador Hotel, were subsequently interviewed by Deputy
District Attorney Bozanich, and L.A.P.D. Officers Sartuche and
McDevitt. Carpenter Dale Poore stated in his December 1975 inter-
view that he had been employed as a carpenter at the Ambassador
Hotel on June 5, 1968. On that date he had been requested by two
police officers to remove the wooden facing, which was less than
one inch in depth, from the center post of the double door area on
the pantry side of the door located at the west end of the pantry.
Before removing that material, he stated in his interview that he
had noticed two "apparent bullet holes" on the east portion pantry
side of the center post!. Poore felt that these two holes were
approximately four feet from ground level, with one about H inches
higher than the other. But that after removing the wooden
material, Poore did not recall looking to determine if the holes
went through the material nor did he look at the underlying wood of
the center post. The removed wood was immediately turned over to
the two police officers. Poore remembers that the removed wood was
pine and the underlying wood was fir, with the removed wood being
significantly softer in texture than the underlying wood.
Carpenter Wesley Harrington was also interviewed by the same
people and stated on December 16, 1975, that he was employed as a
carpenter at the Ambassador Hotel on June 5, 1968, and that he had
been responsible for building the center post of the double door
area on the west side of the pantry by using a H by H inch base and
a 3/H inch facing, pine wood had been used for the facing and fir
wood was used for the base!. On June 5, 1968, while inspecting the
pantry and surrounding area to satisfy his curiousity, Harrington
had noted "two apparent bullet holes" in the facing of the east
portion pantry side! of the center post. He had then looked at the
opposite end of the center post to see if there had been any corres-
ponding or "through and through" hole on that side, and Harrington
had observed none. He recalled that the next time he observed that
area, unfinished wood facing was attached to the center post. He
did remember Mr. Poore's removal of the facing upon the L.A.P.D.
request as a result of conversations with Mrs Poore.
Fxamination of Wood Samplings
Both carpenters stated that they did not see any bullets or
any indication of bullets lodged in the wood. However, based on the
statements of L.A.P.D. Officers Rozzi and Wright, and witnesses
DiPierro, Poore, and Harrington, the Los Angeles District
Attorney's Office conducted a thorough search of the Ambassador
Hotel kitchen-pantry area in December, 1975, and seized wood
facings and underlying wood of the doorways which were part of or
adjacent to the pantry area. These wood samplings were examined by
scientific analysis in the early months of 1976, and indicated no
evidence that any bullet or bullet fragment had been fired through
the wood panelings or wood facings.
.-.ll2-
_ _ A-v~*~ .__--,,_:,:. _, ,_ ,...~-=_7 _".... _ r it - *~* - -
* - ,__._...__.__..-....,.......___.,.» i. . __.. . . |!A . .. _ ._ .O
O
O.-
I
l¢~
<5._.r
@{_;'-...,
_
8|74,4
I4-
.
_ -.;_
.TI
-
:_,___;,§_
Liza, J- Q
i
- -.4-._,3:;-4-i-"
.-Jvll
n ,:,¬-
._:
Ivy
_.s§
_. -
-_'_-jg--.B.i';'§4__5
Eff}?
. ; ,5
._..3
9-
. .1;a.,...|
-:'-I.
.
192
1!
.5
' ..
;!l..l__l- - _,l_.l-_
Qastellano Argument:
Néfélia §iE§57B!l§2E§ -
It should be noted that one of the most frequent critics of
the Kennedy assassination evidence, Mrs. Lillian Castellano, has
based much of her thesis on the argument that more than eight
bullets were fired. In many periodicals and papers published by
Mrs. Castellano, she had frequently shown pictures of the two
L.A.P.D. officers in the A.P. wire photograph, and a photograph
taken by a Mr. John Clemente of the wooden Jamb on the center
divider betweer the two padded swinging doors through which Senator
Kennedy and his party had entered the pantry area after leaving the
Embassy Room. This same wooden jamb of the center divider was where
two holes had been surrounded by inked circles, containing numbers
sud letters. These are the same circled holes that had been photo-
graphed during the course of the investigation, two of the most
prominent photos being L.A. Coroner Noguchi, and Dewayne Wolfer, in
separate photographs, pointing to the circled holes. These are the
same circled holes described as "reported bullet holes" in FBI
photographer Greiner's one-page report released under the Freedom
of Information Act in 1976. It was this particular wood frame that
had been removed by the L.A.P.D. with the assistance of carpenters
Harrington and Poore. In the Castellano publications, both the
photographer John Clemente and the witness, John Shirley, had been
under the impression that these holes were caused by bullets, and
were evidence that another bullet had hit and penetrated the wood.
Castellano has suggested that the L.A.P.D removed bullets from the
w-oden frames and placed the bullets on Sirhan's car seat, thus
accounting for the wood tracings found on the bullets.
An intensive seven-hour examination of the Ambassador Hotel
kitchen area was conducted on December 18, 1975. The examination
was conducted by the District Attorney's Office, the L.A.P.D., and
criminalists from the Los Angeles Sheriff's Office, and the
California Department of Justice. In reference to statements con-
cerning possible bullet holes in wooden structural areas in the
pantry area, an intensive search was made for these bullets and for
any tangible evidence of their presence. One particular area
searched was the center post between the swinging doors separating
the pantry from the backstage area of the Embassy Room. The lower
section part of the same double swinging, door frame was also
searched. Additionally, the door frame between the Embassy Room
stage and the pantry walkway was searched. This also had been the
subject of accusations of more bullets by critics, particularly by
Mrs. Castellano. .
No spent bullets or fragments were found. No tangible
evidence of previous spent bullets or fragments were found. Some
portions of the wood and plaster were removed for laboratory exami-
nation, but this examination did not indicate the presence of any
bullet or bullet fragments. Finally, the object that had been
pointed to in the A.P. photograph of L.A.P.D. officers Rozzi and
-113-
U, ,_.,._ _ _._ eel _e.-.._.~~_A_4-H.-.l_..-. ...-..- eele ..-.~--~.-~-»----- ,~-.-»-- |-»--=- - ~-- --r-;
I
3"?..'~r
,.-
1%, ,...C ."~'
'1-.r:'1
2%".
, . .
*-as
1
2
-I ."
,1_- -I
' I--:
1
n -
,.-.
H.
'3%~ :
7 PI"Q
is-5 §
,-J , /
L U
wright in a door frame between the stage and the walkway to the
pantry the very object that had been identified in the caption as a
bullet, was by virtue of the December, 1975, search identified to
be a nail which was removed for preservation after the December
search.! However, Special Counsel Kranz was unable to determinewhether the lower section wooden frames on the double swingingdoors inspected in 1975 were the same wooden frames containing
circled holes, photographed and removed in 1968.
Holfer and the L.A.P.D. had no records to substantiatewhether these door jambs and wooden frames were still in existence,or had been destroyed along with the ceiling panels and x-ray
analysis in 1969 after Sirhan's trial. Furthermore, there were no
records to indicate if these wooden frames containing the circledholes had ever been returned to the Ambassador after the 1968
ins ection. Wolfer could not recall P - '
_ It should be emphasized that the ceiling panels with the
three bullet holes two entry, one exit!, and the wooden frames
with the circled holes, and Wolfer's trajectory analysis were never
introduced as evidence at trial.
Additionally, Special Counsel Kranz was never able to find tohis satisfaction an explanation as to why two bullets with traces
of wood were found on the front seat of Sirhan's car. But it must
be emphasized that these bullets, when tested and inspected by theballistics experts in their 1975 examination, were found to havethe same class and gross characteristics as the other bullets. No
expert ever suggested that these two bullets had been shot by a
second gun.
The 1975 investigation at the crime scene again apparently
confirmed the findings of the original firearms and ballistics ex-
perts who stated that only one gun had been fired in the pantry onthe night of the assassination. alt should also be noted thatSpecial Counsel Kranz made his own personal investigation of theAmbassador kitchen area in October, 1975, spending several hours
examining the kitchen area and door frame, and found no evidence ofany bullet fragments or bullet-indentations in the wood paneling or
in the door frame.
In the book Special Unit Senator, by Robert Houghton, who hadbeen Chief of Detectives for the L.A.F.D., Dewayne Wolfer stated on
page 97, "There's still a lot of work to be_done concerning thekitchen area crime scene. We've been over the kitchen area twice,and are going at least one more time. It is unbelievable how many
damn holes there are in that kitchen ceiling. Even the doors haveholes in them, which can be mistaken for bullet holes. We havethree bullets that definitely came from the gun taken from Sirhan,
one from Kennedy, one from Goldstein, and one from Weisel. At this
point I can't be too sure about the rest of the ballistics evidence.
He have bullet fragments from Kennedy's head but right now all I cansay for sure is that they're Mini Mag brand ammunition, the samekind that Sirhan is supposed to have bought, and the kind that's inthe other victims. As to the trajectory of the bullets, our pre-liminary examination shows one bullet fired from less than oneinch, into the head of the Senator." -
Qua-O
Q41
C
--J___-
1.
. Ir
92,
EI-3*
1.;-1
1: =
.§T_;~..-
- . .
r
D..-
L?
i. -_f'!'_. 14,?
wr-1
?
-7 -Q
. 1.}
.11
I
Iis
i
.,_C U
"We've booked two ceiling panels and two boards from the door
frame as evidence, but these have to be double checked to be sure
they contain holes through which bullets passed. We swept the
kitchen floor twice, once on arriving on the scene and once later
the same day of the crime. We've been over every inch of the floor,
walls, and ceiling, looking for marks and lodged bullets. We'll go
over the area at least once more."
Additionally, in 1971, Dewayne Wolfer filed a several million
dollar libel suit against Barbara Warner Blehr, and in the course
of the deposition which Blehr took of Wolfer, the question of
bullet holes in wood panelings arose. It was Wolfers repeated
statements in the deposition that the L.A.P.D. investigation and
his own personal investigation revealed that Sirhan had shot eight
bullets, seven of which had been found, and that they, himself, and
the L.A.P.D. investigators, had found no bullets in the wood
paneling, either the subject of the Associated Press photograph, or
the numerous holes that had been circled and photographed
throughout the kitchen and pantry area. Wolfer remained consistent
in his original evaluation of bullet holes, pathway and trajectory,
that had been submitted as a progress report July, 1968. In further
statements to Mrs. Blehr in the deposition, Wolfer stated there
were many holes in the woodwork, on the swinging door, caused by
other objects. All of these holes had been explored in 1968, and no
bullets had ever been found. Furthermore, as a matter of pre-
caution, wolfer stated all of these holes and indentations had been
circled by L.A.P.D. people arriving at the scene and during the
course of their investigation in the hours following the shooting
of Senator Kennedy and the various victims.
Additionally, wolfer stated that the door jamb on doors going
into the kitchen, where the swinging doors were, was the subject of
examination in which wolfer took a knife and cut into the hole to
determine whether there was anything inside the hole.
Specifically, wolfer stated to Blehr, "We didn't probe, because if
there was bullets I wouldn't want to scratch or damage the bullet to
see what was in the back or what was in the hole. We took a knife
and cut into the hole or whatever we had to do, and we went to the
holes and saw what was in there.' And if we had found something
naturally we would have immediately photographed it. But we did
not find anything." On another subject, Wolfer told Blehr that he
could not recall in 1971 whether they had taken portions of the door
frame and x-rayed them and returned them to the Ambassador Hotel
afterwards. But that he did recall removing the ceiling panels and
booking them into property in the L.A.P.D. in 1968, but at that
time, in 1971, he had no idea whether the ceiling panels were still
in the property division of L.A.P.D. On October 11, 1971, in the
interdepartmental correspondence from the L.A.P.D. Board of Inquiry
on the Hclfer matter to Chief of Police Ed Davis, it was stated that
an inspection of the ceiling tiles removed from the pantry and a
study of the schismatic diagram showing the trajectory of the
bullet fired by Sirhan, refuted the contention of both Mrs. Blehr
_li5-
___ . ....92 .. . .H
1
iJ .-. ' 1..:...; _...-a.s
_;
/'
-l.-J:
-1 1
3.
r__, -'-
.__;J.
+52
,3: e-'
s -,.;, .-.=.5. _' JA ._ ',*
'_..- .
1%
'2 ..
."v
|.
iii
=ae
_ _ " 92.
k~ L,
and William Harper. Harper had alleged that there had been two
different firing positions on the evening in question. TheL.A.P.D. report stated that the slug that penetrated the ceilingtile was fired from a position traced to the top of the steam tablewhere Sirhan was observed firing. It was argued that the steepupward trajectory of the shot that penetrated the ceiling tile wasthe result of the struggle during Sirhan's apprehension.
However, in testimony before the Los Angeles City Council inAugust 1975, Assistant Chief of Police Daryl Gates, stated thatthese ceiling panels had been destroyed in 1969 immediately fol-lowing the trial. The destruction of the ceiling panels and othernon-introduced court evidence was unexplained but an important dis-
crepancy arose. The 1971 inter-departmental correspondence toChief Davis apparently made reference to ceiling tiles. whetherrecords of the 1968 seizure and the 1969 destroyed ceiling tileswere used to verify the 1971 departmental correspondence is not
certain at this time.
One other area concerning bullets that became an issue, par-ticularly to William Harper, was the photograph of People's U8, theKennedy death bullet. The photograph itself, People's H9, was anenlarged magnification of People's 48. The purpose of the enlargedphotograph was to show the small gold areas on the fragmented deathbullet so the potential witness, particularly, Dewayne Wolfer attrial, could testify as to the mini mag ammunition content. It was
expected that these indications of mini mag fragments would showthat the fragments themselves had been fired from a weapon bearingthe same rifling specification as the Sirhan weapon. Additionally,this Sirhan weapon was also shown to have already fired the otherbullets in question and the more identifiable bullets, People's N7,52, and 5H. Therefore, the photograph, People's N9, was to beillustrative of wo1fer's testimony. Interestingly though, DefenseCounsel Grant Cooper objected to the presentation of People's H9 onthe ground that an illustration of the nature of the Kennedy deathbullet would prejudice the jury. Prosecutor Dave Fitts argued thatthe People were entitled to present this necessary part of the
prosecution's case. It was Cooper who stipulated at trial that thegun was "held as closely as the witness in this case Wolfer! wantedto testify it was held." Cooper's intent upon stipulation ofmuzzle distance was to keep any inflamatory testimony concerningthe actual firing of the weapon by Sirhan away from the jury.Additionally, Defense Counsel Grant Cooper stipulated thatPeople's 55 mismarked envelope! could be received into evidenceafter prosecutor Pitts had asked Wolfer that the envelope had
certain writing, "perhaps in your handwriting, does it not?"Before Uolfer could answer, the stipulation was made, and themismarked envelope was received into evidence.
, L
.
' -146-
__ ____ i , ..._-.-__~ _-.-- - -~_ ' VIP_'_J_.-
920'5
.
.9 ,____,_
2;?
ééé_. __
:-'_-Q
T _.
..|--
_-
ll*-3
.,_,. .-
_.__._:.: .:_,,7_
_¢~
1,i
-'1;
'-'_5-1.
- -.9
' {.1=11- ; at
0 i
K J L1!
The ijolka Dot'Dre_ss Girl ' '
Sandra Serrano, interviewed by Sandor Vanocur on televisionshortly after the assassination, reported that she heard gun shots
in the pantry of the Ambassador and shortly thereafter a girl in apolka dot dress and a man passed her on92an outside fire escapeyelling, "we shot him." It was for this reason that sound tests
were conducted by Dewayne Wolfer with the now controversial secondgun obtained from L.A.P.D. Property Division to determine whether
these shots could have been heard audibly by Miss Serrano at a time
of complete turmoil and chaos in the Ambassador Hotel, the timeimmediately following the shooting. The sound tests firing of the
second gun in the kitchen area! were made to determine if a weapon
fired in the kitchn area could be heard on the east fire escape of
the Embassy ballroom, where Serrano said she was standing when she
heard shots fired. Sound level meter reading of approximately 1/2decibal change indicated a person would not be able to hear a weapon
fired in the kitchen area from the fire escape. The sound testproved that Miss Serrano was unable to hear these particular shots.
Additionally, Miss Serrano later admitted in separate interviewswith several investigating officers in the summer of 1968 that the
report of the polka dot dress girl had been pure fabrication on her
part. Kranz.found nothing in his own investigation to confirm
Serrano's original version of a lady in a polka dot dress yelling
"We shot him." .
gerry 0wen,gThe Religious greacher
Jerry Owen stated that he had picked up a man whom he iden-
tified as Sirhan the day before the assassination, and Sirhan hadoffered to purchase a horse from Owen. This was approximately 6:00
p.m., June 3, 1968. Sirhan's mother, Mary, reported that her son
had been home that day watching television from H:30 p.m. andthroughout the remainder of the evening. Additionally, Mr. Owen
was unable to pass a lie detector test given by the San FranciscoPolice Department later that summer concerning his story that he
had been with Sirhan the day before the assassination
Sale of Ammunition
at Lock, Stock ; Earrelgbunshgp
Salesman Mr. Larry Arnot had told police that on June 1, 1968,
he, Arnot, had sold four boxes of ammunition to Sirhan and two other
dark foreign looking males who were present with Sirhan at the time
of the purchase. Subsequent interviews and investigations provedthat Arnot confused the two people with other men who had been in
the store on the day previous to June 1. Additionally, Arnot later
admitted he could not really in fact recall whether the two people
were in fact with Sirhan. Polygraph tests administered to Arnot
reflected that he was being untruthful.
' "7 " .'-
J.-
'_ .--;,
1
I=?§
*:1'
_;v'r--i"£-
I!
I
Wr-
-_
'92-I.1»
'5
1'
i-
.-'_'F'3.
-.92. .-~ 11
.;_:--
I
I
!. 3!-
-4
9* 0
Ambassador Employee anti-Kennedy
A. An_Ambassador Hotel employee, who had stated that he had been
a "militant anti-Kennedy person", was allegedly observed by two
witnesses, Fred Droz and Judy Groves, in the Ambassador Hotelvicinity of the Colonial Room between 11:00 p.m., and midnight on
June H. Subsequent investigation revealed that this employee, who
was allegedly a strong anti-Kennedy person, was moonlighting on ajob as a security officer at a building in Hollywood, from 6:00
p.m., June H until well after midnight June 5, 1968. He was not
present at the Ambassador at the time of the shooting.
Possible_Communist;lnfluence_offSirhan
Special Counsel Kranz has found absolutely no evidence to in-
dicate that there was any Communist influence, or Communist Partyactivity, that directed or influenced Sirhan in his murder of
Senator Kennedy. The only indication of any contact with the
Communist Party that can be found in the extensive investigations
occured on May 2, 1968, when Sirhan met with a former school friend
and member of the Communist Party. However, investigative agencies
from the L.A.P.D. and the F.B.I. interviewed the Communist Party
member concerning the fact that he and Sirhan had had dinner at
Br Fs Big Boy Restaurant at Pasadena, on May 2, 1968. It was deter-
mined that the Communist Party member, while attending Pasadena
City College, had been involved with certain organizations, and had
known Sirhan in classes. During the conversation on May 2, the
Communist Party member explained the various functions of the
Communist Party to Sirhan, and a brief discussion was held con-
cerning the political situation in the United States and in the
Middle East. The Communist Party member denied, and this has been
verified through informants, that any attempt was made to recruit
Sirhan into the Communist Party. The Communist Party member stated
that he did not feel that Sirhan would bepa fit subject for the
Communist Party. And the Communist Party member states empha-
tically that no mention was made concerning Senator Kennedy or any
possible assassination. All intelligence agencies reported no
member of the Sirhan family had ever been connected with any
individuals or organizations related to the Communist Party with
the exception of this one member at the one meeting at Bob's Big Boy
on May 2, 1968.
. M:
_ H8 _
_. . ..._.._..__..__..__ V _ . __. _ ._ ..... - .-,,H Q.-'-""
'-PR5
'--n. -'.|,,.
-9- _
-1-=_ &.
4'}-i
","'¥'.. __
-
J
I,
-1
'-I P- .3
37'
Q.-
~
.-;- "
.---
.i!g1~. -E2-1
" "l_-'1_I-
i
1- ..-.,. ,_,l,-ii: ri'-Tj. ..-a.%!.,¢{- 1-.
Q
1
I
K 1 Q
K
§ookealike_for Sirhan
A look-alike for Sirhan was observed running from the kitchenarea immediately following the shooting. This look-alike wasallegedly earring a rifle case. It was determined, after extensiveinvestigation and interviews, that the subject, an employee of a
book store in Los Angeles, a collector of political memorabilia,had rolled up a pmster of Senator Kennedy at the time he wasobserved leaving the kitchen area. The campaign poster had been
rolled up in a tubular shaped object. Senator Kennedy had auto-graphed the particular poster for this subject. The subject hadbeen handcuffed at the time of the shooting and interviewed by
investigators and subsequently released.
Allggation That,§irhan attended§_?ea¢e'1 Freedom PaFty;Eeeting .
It was alleged by one person that this person had observed
Sirhan at a May 21, 1968, meeting of the Peace and Freedom Party.That particular person who stated this allegation was given a poly-
graph examination, and the polygraph test indicated quite strongly
that this person was not being honest.
' Other Investigations
In addition to personal interviews, investigative officers
from the several police and intelligence agencies contacted placesof employment, places of amusement and recreation where Sirhan was
alleged to have attended, and all areas of his personal, business
and academic life were researched to determine whether there might
be any possible evidence to substantiate a conspiracy. None was
ever found.
A newsman, Peter Noyes, in a 1973 book entitled, "Legacy Q2
Doubt," has suggested a strong link exists between the strangecoincidences of personalities involved in both the assassination of
Robert Kennedy and President John Kennedy in Dallas. In an inter-
view with Special Counsel Kranz, Noyes admitted that his research
and investigation dealt 95% into the President Kennedy matter, of
which he is convinced there are still several unanswered questions,
but that both his editors and publishers had suggested that he
include one chapter of the 20 chapters in the book to discuss the
Robert Kennedy murder. Noyes felt there was still the possibility
that Sirhan was involved in strange, occult forces and
organizations active in the Southern California area. .
- HQ -.___.-
I
I
1
- .-
92- '--r;-.
-.*?-
__ .3,
..---4
.._
92-
.fJ
:7?
§ I
4. q.~ .-u..*II
.§- ~- 31%as
- Y ?
-.:'.12
411$
4 ._
Ii
_ _, Q .
Sirhan Memory Blackout '
Throughout the entire ballistics hearings and court exa-mination of both Dewayne Wolfer and the seven ballistics experts,and throughout the entire negotiations procedure of the severallawyers representing the various parties to the action, Sirhan'sattorney, Godfrey Isaac, maintained a. very dignified attitude,methodical in his cross examination, but restrained in his personalobservations concerning the original motions for testing and exa-
mination of the exhibits.Isaac's position, and presumably that of Sirhan, could best besummed up in a quote attributed to Sirhan during the December 31,1975, arguments before Judge Wenke. Isaac stated that his client,,Sirhan, had no knowledge of a second gunman. "Sirhan has no memoryof that night." The night of the assassination.! "All he wants todo is find out whether he shot and killed Senator Kennedy. If he
did, so be it. Sirhan had made several incriminating statements immediatelyfollowing the shooting of Senator Kennedy, statements to RaferJohnson, Jess Unruh, and several interrogating and investigationpolice officers and deputy district attorneys previously stated inthis report!. Additionally, Sirhan had screamed an emotionaloutburst at the trial, outside the presence of the jury, "I killedRobert Kennedy with 20 years malice aforethought," and Sirhanlater repeated this quote in front of the jury. However, during thepast few years, there has been considerable speculation that Sirhanhad "blacked out" on the night in question. Additionally, severalcritics of the assassination investigation, although not neces-sarily two-gun advocates, have suggested the possibility thatSirhan had been hypnotized, had been programmed into committing thekilling, had been an instrument of a foreign or sinister plot toassassinate Senator Kennedy, that Sirhan was in short, the ideal"Manchurian Candidate." The cruel irony that Senator Kennedy hadspent the day of his death at the Malibu beach house of moviedirector John Frankenheimer, the director of the superb film,"Manchurian Candidate," only seemed to what -the appetite of
conspiracy buffs. -Recently, however particularly in light of the notoriety givenevents surrounding the twogun controversy, new theories regardingthe Kennedy assassination have arisen. Robert Kaiser, author ofthe book "R.F.K. Must Die", felt that Sirhan had been psycho-logically programmed oy"persons unknown to fire on command, andthat Sirhan did not realize who he was killing. Additionally,psychologist and hypnosis expert Dr. Eduard Simson - Kallas, whoconducted tests on Sirhan in San Quentin prison in 1969, hasrecently stated that Sirhan was a kind of "Manchurian candidate
hypno-programmed to shoot Senator Kennedy."
' -50-a
;____.--
its
3%
_-oi
57%
0
.3
ii,;.. I...
T--Q
-.5 "-1'
= -..f'_"..-,__-==?--I-. F"
,_,..- .
|~.n_
a
.16.-_
--.
1
as
i
K L-
Simson explains that Sirhan's hypno-programmed mind is like avault and that once the combination is found to unlock it, Sirhanmight be able to name others responsible for the Robert Kennedymurder, including his programmer. Dr. Simson also subscribes tothe theory advocated by Dr. Diamond at trial that the hypnosis ofSirhan on the murder night was probably self induced, noting thatthere were many mirrors on the Ambassador Hotel walls useful forthat purpose. It should be emphasized that Sirhan had conductedmany experiments on himself, using a Rosicrucian concept of selfhypnosis and mind over matter. These experiments were conducted inhis own home in Pasadena, and intensified in the several weeksprior to the assassination. Dr. Simson has also stated that hefeels the notebook of Sirhan, including his diaries and severalincriminating statements, are forgeries. Dr. Simson is apparentlythe only person to have advocated this theory, as no one at trial inany way controverted the statements or the written reports, diaries
and notebooks of Sirhan.In the personal investigation conducted by Special CounselKranz, exhaustive efforts were made to trace any and all theoriesregarding the possible hypnosis, and mind control on Sirhan byseveral organizations or individuals. Much of this investigationdealt with conspiracy leads and the like, but no evidence of anynature was ever discovered that would indicate that Sirhan had inany way been hypnotized, programmed, computerized into a"Manchurian Candidate" to assassinate Senator Kennedy. Thoughthere is no indication at this time that Sirhan was operatingwithin a conspiracy, or had been programmed by outside forces orhypnotized, it is the recommendation of Special Counsel Kranz thatSirhan continue to serve every day of his natural life in aCalifornia prison. It is always conceivably possible that Sirhanhas taken a vow of silence and has refused to discuss whatevermotivations were present in his mind. It is most interesting thatin the past few years the Sirhan defense has changed from one ofopen admission of the shooting of Senator Kennedyto one of a"memory blackout," and an attempt to find out what occured on thenight in question. Special Counsel Kranz asked permission ofSirhan's attorney, Godfrey Isaac for a chance to interview thedefendant Sirhan. Mr. Isaac gave approval, but wished to receivepermission from his client, Sirhan, and at the date of this finalreport, Kranz has still been unable to interview Sirhan.
Ten yolume S.U.S. filesHithin the Custody ofzthe Los Angeles Police Department
These volumes reflect an intensive and exhaustive research in-vestigation conducted by the L.A.P.D. concerning the murder ofSenator Kennedy. They reflect extraordinary work and effort, and
' - 51 -a-"
1
i
1.
___'i.;-.
D ,. . '_;'I .¥
1 _
-5
9
-3 -,1».
-. 2-,,
"3,
:._
P
.,_,..- a
, _
M6-
._- .-.»'."-ixA _ jl :...' ' ;,
7, ,5». --_~-Egzl
1'5
-'3 x.
tag
,___*1._;. _
L,
with the exception of the ballistics documentation, these filesreflect an outstanding job of team effort and research. In recent
years, many people have advocated in court petitions and requests
that these ten volume summaries be released for public inspection.Special Counsel Kranz recommends that, upon editing of the
particular files of personal histories and private sensitive matter
that might be embarassing to witnesses, potential suspects, and
subjects whose cooperation was essential to the police and
investigative agencies! that the ten volume summary be released to
the general public.
The events in recent years, particularly the Congressional
investigations into government secrecy and deception, make it
imperative that public agencies and institutions retain the
confidence and trust of the public. The refusal of public
agencies, and in this instance the Los Angeles Police Department,
to open investigative files on a matter that has been officially
closed undermines faith in law enforcement.
Unlike the L.A.P.D., the Los Angeles District Attorney's
Office has consistently held its files and reports on the Sirhan
matter open to the public at all times. During the special inves-
tigation conducted by Special Counsel Kranz, numerous critics,
including Ted Charach, Tom Thomson, editor of the L.A. Vanguard,
and columnist Jim Horowitz, often looked at the District Kttorney's
files, reports, and interview sheets from the investigation
conducted over the past eight years. The policy of openness
reflected by the District Attorney's Office should be emmulated by
the L.A.P.D., and the ten volume summary should be released to the
general public. The argument that such records of a police inves-
tigation are exempted from forced disclosure under the state Public
Records Act is moot since there is no longer an on-going investi-
gation in the matter.
As the Los Angeles Times has editorialized, perhaps represen-
tatives of the County Ear Association could review and excise the
ten volume summary, and delete personal histories, and sensitive
matters that might be embarrassing to the several witnesses and
people interviewed. In light of the unexplained destruction of
ceiling panels and x-ray analysis, and in light of the lack of
thorough documentation in the ballistics report, and the de-
struction of the controversial second gun used to conduct muzzle
distance and sound tests by Dewayne Wolfer, and the continuing
doubts expressed by conspiracy buffs or the misinformed, the
failure to release the ten volume summary will only contribute to
doubt and suspicion. More importantly, public faith and confidence
in law enforcement and public institutions is an essential element
for the survival of any society. It is, of course, a legitimate
purpose for investigative agencies to retain secret tiles on
¢potentia1 suspects in areas regarding terrorism, sabotage, threats
to lives and property, and assault and potential violence against-w-'
+
E
.
1
.
.
Esa-
. ' 5"
~e... __-r-p___ ._..,. n_»-~_,-_
_._ __"1
eta;
. --T
V _.,
! 5|
;_f_.V;
. .45;
IE
i.-
.}.d
1??
.7 .,," F90.
'.m
..
-w
..;_*_
.4a
i
92~! U!:
-» a.-
public officials. However, the Robert Kennedy investigation, even
though always subject to being reopened in light of new evidence,
has been officially closed. Therefore, refusal to release these
ten volumes will only undermine the credibility of public agencies
and detract from their credibility. Special Counsel Kranz
emphasizes that there is no evidence within the ten volume summary
that suggests that defendant Sirhan did not commit the crime alone,
acting on his own, without any influence from other personalities,
or ideological organizations.
Qther Recommendations by Special Counsel KranzI ' Freservation of Evidence.
It should first be clearly stated that no actual evidence ever
introduced before the Grand Jury or at the trial of Sirhan has every
been destroyed. However, during the September, 1975 examination of
Dewayne Holfer it was discovered by representatives from the County
Clerk's Office that a fragment from one bullet exhibit was missing.
Nevertheless, all the items, ballistics evidence'and exhibits, and
transcripts and testimony have been subject to continuing court
orders first initiated on June 7, 1968, by Judge Arthur Alarcon,
further ordered by trial Judge Herbert Walker in May 1969, and
covered by continuing orders issued by Judge Charles Loring in
1972, and Judge Alfred McCourtney in 1974.
The Los Angeles Police Department admitted that ceiling tiles
and panels with bullet holes, entry and exit holes, and x-rays of
the same ceiling panels, and possible spectrographic analysis of
bullets which wolfer testified he may have prepared, all were des-
troyed. In essence, the Sirhan defense at trial was primarily one
of diminished capacity, with counsel and defendant Sirhan both
admitting that Sirhan has fired the weapon.
However, the destruction of these relevant materials, parti-
cularly when the initial stages of,Sirhan's appeal had not yet been
filed before the appelate court in 1969, reflects a serious lack of
judgment by the authorities who destroyed such material. In answer
to the argument that the continued preservation of all materials
and items, no matter how bulky and cumbersome, would prove a
physical impossibility for the County Clerk's Office and police
agencies, a reasonable time limit during the course of the appeals
procedure should be established as a necessary period to preserve
all materials and items relevant to the case. Included in such
policy would be a directive that no evidence, including the
materials that had not actually been introduced at the trial, but
could have legitimate relevance and materiality on appeal, could be
destroyed pending the completion of the appeal process.
In the Sirhan matter, although diminished capacity was a major
defense, in light of the fact that People's H8, the bullet that
actually killed Senator Kennedy, could never be positively
. _ 53 -
. l.ia.___.- ____.__ __.._ ._ _________________..__ ,_.____,__,l______, ,_ , ,a_,______ l __' .__;----
1
1
|
_.--i
-"f-2T_..-
L-a-w
92-
' Y
._. ""_
4,... .-
_.-=2J5
;?%
- ._'-.
a; .-__A.92
J .
--;v3l.'.'
.3-'_:. ""
e
M
7:;-.~,
,1 5.!
_
identified and linked to the Sirhan gun due to the fragmented con-
dition of the bullet, any materials that dealt with trajectories
and bullet paths, particularly items with actual bullet holes in
them, should have been preserved in the same manner as all trial
evidence, subject to the superior court judge's orders.
It should be the duty of appropriate agencies, particularly
the County Clerk's Office, under the jurisdiction of court orders
in all criminal matters, to preserve all evidence under the court's
jurisdiction, and evidence that could conceivably be material and
relevant to the case on appeal. It is crucial that exhibits and
essential evidence that could be tested, examined, and used for
later appeals, be preserved. The policy should be implemented,
with the cooperation of all law enforcement agencies and the County
Clerk's Office and the Superior Court, to preserve such items on a
non-destructive basis pending the appeal of a particular case.
The second .22 revolver used by Dewayne Wolfer on June 11,
1968, to conduct sound tests and muzzle distance tests was subject
to a state law requiring the destruction of all weapons used in the
commission of a crime one year after apprehension of the weapon.
There is certainly reasonable cause for the existence of such a
law, and although it is the opinion of Special Counsel Kranz that a
court order should have been obtained in 1968 to remove the Sirhan
weapon from the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury to use the actual
weapon itself for potential sound tests and muzzle tests, the fact
that a second weapon was used_made that particular weapon instu-
mental and necessary for the trial of Sirhan. Therefore, the
destruction of this weapon, although in accordance with state law,
again reflected a lack of judgment. The second .22 revolver, due to
its use in tests material and relevant to the conviction of Sirhan,
was a necessary item under the court's jurisdiction, and therefore
necessary for any appeal on behalf of Sirhan. A court order should
have been obtained by both defense and prosecution counsel to pre-
serve the weapon from destruction in 1969.
Independent Crime Laboratory
Dr. Robert Jolling, president of the American Academy of
Forensic Sciences, has stated that one of his principal concerns
during the ballistics examination of the Sirhan matter was the fact
that, in his opinion, standard procedures for testing of firearms
are not being followed in the police departments in the country. It
has been the recommendation of Dr. Jolling and several other crimi-
nalists within the Academy, particularly two-gun advocate William
Harper, that crime laboratories be divorced from the jurisdiction
of police departments. Essentially, several of the criminalists
and experts feel there is a tendency to place ballistics and fire-
arms experts under the pressure of police department Jurisdiction,
which can possibly lead to predetermined answers under such
pressure. .
- su .. :3~*-&'41m-@w-a¬.2kLmApo-g¢;L4¢¢&p&i-~L@u_mmpmFm-@-m@-@ --.-.. -.-
{Q3
{"1
92_.|?
-::::~n4Jf~ --h- - "92-L11"-*=Q at "%-- i|aa_J" --IA-~ -;uuIi'-~|-54.-.-rim .._ - _ ;_
. C! :»~!
._:' _.
It should be emphasized that Special Counsel Kranz has found
no indication to show that any criminalist operating within the
jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Police Department, in the Soien~
tific Investigation Division, or civil service employees operating
within the S.I.D. Division, have in any way served or are in any way
acting under pressure from the Los Angeles Police Department.
Also, despite the problems that arose in the Sirhan matter con-
cerning ballistics and firearms identification, and the lack of
thoroughness in regards to spectographs, photographs, and written
documents, there is nothing to indicate that Dewayne Wolfer or any
other criminalist involved in the cases conducted investigations
while under pressure from any police department authorities.
However, in light of the fact that there are several police
agencies within the political jurisdiction of Los Angeles County,
including the Los Angeles Sheriff's Office and the L.A.P.D., and in
light of the overlapping jurisdictional problems inherent in such
differing police agencies, it. is the recommendation ¢n' Special
Counsel Kranz that an independent crime laboratory be established
within Los Angeles County to serve the needs of all police agencies
and prosecution agencies in Los Angeles County. By removing crime
laboratories from under the direct jurisdiction of the police
department, criminalists working in these laboratories would
operate in a much more independent environment. The County
Coroner's Office operates with its own independence, and has not
been subject to any political or police pressure. Likewise, an
independent crime laboratory would be c greater assistance to
police and prosecution in the course of justice in all criminal
cases. Such a laboratory would undoubtedly be under the close
scrutiny and supervision of the County Board of Supervisors.
Moreover, as part of the budget analysis of County government,
serious thought should be given to the merger of all police crime
laboratories into one independent crime laboratory if a result of
such a merger would reduce expenses.
Despite the integrity and dedication of the several ballistics
experts involved in the Sirhan matter, from Dewayne Wolfer to the
seven experts in 1975, and the other criminalists who were involved
in past investigation and testimony, it is fair to say that the
science of ballistics and criminalistics does not have any set
guidelines operable in all the various crime laboratories
throughout the country. Essentially, criminalistics, the col-
lection, preservation and evaluation of trace evidence macroscopic
and microscopic!, which can be used to link an individual suspect
to a specific crime, is under an ever changing set of guidelines and
pressures. Traditionally, criminalistics include the following:
fingerprints; tool marks and firearms identification; the analysis
of blood, hair, soil, paints, fibers, fabrics, glass, tire and
-55..
. -. ,l-.. .--._-/.»_ex..1:.-_.1.. --
Q 1» K. ._92_I ' 92. J
other prints; photography; the matching of physical pieces; and
natural and man-made products of any type that can possibly linkthe perpetrator to the scene of the crime. Techniques employed
have been chemistry, optics, thin plate and gas chromatography,microscopy, spectrography, and more recently, neutron activationanalysis, x-radiation procedure, and other spin offs from NASA, and
the Department of Defense Technology.In light of the fact that criminalistics is becoming
increasingly more sophisticated with remarkable technological areasof endeavor, and the fact that no real guidelines of standardexperience have been established in which to classify a particular
criminalist as an "expert", law enforcement officials and leaders
of Los Angeles County Government should give serious consideration_to the creation of an independent crime laboratory. An independentlaboratory would add to the due process and justice necessary in
all criminal trials. It is certainly an area of consideration for
both police agencies, and the Criminal Courts Division of the LosAngeles County Bar Association to work with county goverment in the
discussion of a possible independent crime laboratory.
allistics Hearing:Experts Statementsiéncerning Leaded Barrel
For the past several years, especially in light of the 1971
Grand Jury report concerning the County Clerk's custody of the
Sirhan case exhibits and the Sirhan weapon, there had been specu-
lation in some quarters that perhaps the exhibits have been
tampered, substituted, or damaged by any of the several persons who
have examined the exhibits the past several years. The 1971 inves-tigation did reveal that certain parties had unauthorized access to
the exhibits due to the fact that the County Clerk's Office had been
somewhat negligent in following the Superior Court ordersrestricting access to the exhibits to counsel of record and such
counsel's representatives. However, it should be emphasized, that
the County Grand Jury Report,.and the subsequent reports by the
Chief Administrative Officer, found no evidence of any actual tam-
pering, or damage to the exhibits. Moreover, the 197 Baxter Wardhearings, and the 1975 ballistics hearings, revealed that the
bullets themselves were still in fairly recognizable condition,
although Dewayne Wolfer stated repeatedly in 1975 that the bullets
themselves were darkened, making it almost impossible to recognize
his initials which he placed on the bullets in 1968.
However, all seven ballistics experts made repeated reference,
both in their working papers and on cross examination, to the fact
that the Sirhan weapon, the .22 caliber revolver, had "leading" in
the barrel. One expert, Patrick Garland, even went so far as to say
f
I Q
' -'1--nl1-L::a_~ __-. .# _ ;
K! °92.../
- -
that he though the weapon itself had been fired during the last
several years, subsequent to Dewaynes Wolfer's test firing in 1968,
and before the eventual test firing by the experts in 1975.
However, another panel expert, Lowell Bradford stated in a
letter to Kranz on March 16, 1976, that there was a simple expla-
nation for the "heavy leading." Bradford stated it was a typical
case of a frequently fired bore that had remained uncleaned in
storage for several years. Since the fouling in the barrel over a
long time oxidizes, Bradford stated the crystals tended to grow
with time and enhanced the visibility of the residue. And Bradford
wrote that this is what was present at the time of examination by
the panel in 1975. Bradford strongly states that such a leaded
condition is not an anomaly and that there was nothing to suggest
tampering of the bore'while in the custody of the L.A.P.D. or the
County Clerk. Bradford concludes that good practice on the part of
the crime laboratory should have provided a careful cleaning with
an anti-oxidation coating in the bore, and Bradford states this was
not done.
It must be remembered that Sirhan fired several hundred rounds
of ammunition on the afternoon of June H, 1968. At the Ambassador
Hotel, he fired eight copper coated hollow point minimag ammunition
bullets from the weapon. Dewayne Holfer then fired eight copper
coated mini-mag hollow point ammunition bullets into the water
tank. In 1975 the experts fired eight test bullets, the first two
being copper coated, the next two being lead coated, and the final
four being copper coated. All experts testified that the first two
bullets, fired by the experts, the first two copper bullets fired,
were extremely difficult -to match with the weapon due to the
severely leaded condition of the barrel.
Despite the several instances of unauthorized access of many
people to the Sirhan weapon and exhibits during the last several
years, Special Counsel Kranz finds it unbelieveable that the weapon
itself could have been actually fired while in the custody of the
County Clerk's Office. However, the observation by the County
Clerk personnel of the various people examining the exhibits and
bullets during the last several years was not always of high
standard, and presumably, there could have been unauthorized
tampering with the weapon. It would certainly be possible for a
lead bullet, or a lead rod, to have been quickly moved through the
barrel of the revolver. Such a process would, as testified by the
seven ballistics experts in their 1975 hearing, remove the charac-
teristics, both gross and individual, from the barrel mark itself
and make it extremely difficult, if not impossible to match up any
subsequently fired test bullets with the weapon and barrel. It
should be emphasized that, despite the fact that a comparison
microscopic test of the bullets the original -victin evidence
-57-
J 7,!
bullets and the test fired bullets fired by Wolfer! conceivably
might have been sufficient to match up the bullets with the Sirhan
weapon, or at least one weapon alone, the several twogun advocates
always demanded that the gun itself be test fired.
It must be remembered that criminalists Harper and Macbonell
never actually analyzed the victim or test fired bullets with a
comparison "microscope. Their. process of investigation was
primarily by using a Balliscan camera and photographs, the photos
of which were then subsequently given to MacDonell in 1973. Even
during Supervisor Ward's hearings in 197 , no testimony was given
regarding a classical microscopic test the traditional ballistics
examination!. In other words, the orchestration of doubt con-
cerning the Sirhan case, and the demand that the gun itself be test
fired, increased in intensity despite the fact that no comparison
microscopic test of the victim and evidence bullets had ever been
conducted by anyone other than criminalist Dewayne Wolfer. More-
over, despite the fact that petitioners Paul Schrade and CBS
requested such microscopic examination in their August 1975
petition, public opinion and public demand was such that the test
firing of the weapon became the prime concern and prime objective
of the petition filed before the Court, and in the public state-
ments concerning the reopening of the Sirhan case.
It should also be emphasized that the five ballistics experts,
who were able to link bullets H7, 52, and 59 to having been fired
from one gun and one gun alone, and the seven ballistics experts who
identified the gross and individual characteristics present on all
bullets the evidence bullets, the 1968 and 1975 test fired
bullets!, were able to base their conclusions that there was no
evidence of a second gun almost entirely on evidence that existed
in 1968. Due to the severe leaded condition of the barrel, the test
firing of the weapon in 1975, and the eight test fired bullets
recovered in 1975, actually added very little to the actual identi-
fication of the three victim bullets as having been shot by one
weapon. Five of the seven making this conclusion!. The 1975 test
firing did establish similarities in gross and individual charac-
teristics, although not of a sufficient number to positively link
all the bullets with the Sirhan weapon itself.
Although Special Counsel Kranz has no evidence of any
tampering by any individual, it is entirely possible, and is the
opinion of Special Counsel Kranz, that the severe leaded barrel was
a condition that distorted the possibility of identification of the
testfired bullets as testified by the seven experts!. There is
the possibility that over the past several years, people with
either authorized or unauthorized access to the exhibits and the
weapon itself, may have attempted to create doubt about the Sirhan
case by attempts to lead the barrel in various ways. When the
original theory of two guns are analyzed for what they were
I
_ §B _
-1; _:92_i_-1' -g-._.n.-SI" -- '-5l -92P--#--l-'---'-1&-clinic-9-I-r ~- ---r ---in _ i___ _- _ Q-;¢A1|-I." ' ~ - 7- -- V . _:
I L1
' ; " W
' /
previously stated in earlier parts of this report!, and the factthat defendant Sirhan has had a lengthy series of attorneys andpersonalities involved in his defense, and the fact that this casehas generated national attention causing a substantial number ofpeople to make inquiries and inspect and examine the variousexhibits and weapon, it cannot be ruled out that there has beenunauthorized tampering with the exhibits. It is still an unre-
solved question, and one that should be pursued by the District
Attorney's Office.
CONCLUSION
Due to the unique nature of this case and the notoriety andpublicity given to the murder of Robert Kennedy, it is doubtfulthat the matter will ever be closed. In the minds of the public,
the very nature of a political assassination is such that our pop-
culture will undoubtedly produce new theories and scenarios.Questions of course still remain. Based on the originalphysical evidence, both in 1968 and in the present condition of thebullets, it is impossible to positively match the specific bulletwhich killed Robert Kennedy, fragmented People's H8, to the Sirhan
revolver. There is always the remote possibility that Sirhan actedwithin a conspiracy, either overt or covert. But the weight of
evidence is overwhelmingly against this possibility. Eyewitnesstestimony, ballistic and scientific evidence, and over six thousand
separate interviews conducted by numberous police and intelligenceagencies over the past eight years, all substantiate the fact that
Sirhan acted alone. Sirhan was convicted by a jury, the convictionbeing upheld by all appellate courts in the state, and by the U. S.Supreme Court. No evidence of any degree that could challenge the
conviction has ever been found by the appellate courts. SpecialCounsel Kranz has found no evidence, or possibility of evidence, of
any coverup by law enforcement agencies to protect their own repu-tation or preserve the original conviction. Kranz has found no
indication that there was more than one assassin, who may have
fired more than one gun, with more than eight bullets.Special
Counsel Kranz is convinced, from all the evidence, that there was
no second gunman, and that the original trial court verdict was
correct.Numerous people throughout the years have advocated various
theories concerning the Sirhan case. The twogun advocates, con-spiracy theories, the "Manchurian Candidate" possibilities, thepossibility of more than eight bullets being shot and found, all
add to the motivation of many people who are not convinced that
Sirhan was the lone assassin. Special Counsel Kranz has attemptedto interview all of the advocates of various theories, and has
found them to be, for the most part, sincerely motivated, usually
-59-
'92-u-- 0-i ,
vO" .-
»92~/ I J;
people who have conducted exhaustive-research on their own accord.Admittedly, several of these people will continue their own inde-pendent research investigation, convinced that there are still
unanswered questions.There will undoubtedly continue to be controversy. It is, ofcourse, impossible to prove a negative, that the Sirhan gun and noother gun killed Kennedy and shot the other victims. SpecialCounsel Kranz does not suggest that he has been able to single-handedly answer all of the so-called open questions surrounding theassassination of Senator Kennedy. Nevertheless, the overwhelmingevidence underscores the fact that Sirhan Sirhan. was the soleassassin. It is to be hoped that the self-proclaimed critics, intheir continuing independent analysis, will keep all the facts and
evidence in the case in total perspective.District Attorney-Van de Kamp stated in 1975, and again in1976, that it is the purpose of the District Attorney's Office, asthe prcsecutorial agency, to continue to search for the truth inthis case. However, the search for truth must always be conductedin a dignified and judicious manner. Giving credibility tofrivolous allegations will only lead to further confusion. TheDistrict Attorney's Office has stated that if reasonable evidenceis brought to the attention of the District Attorney's Office, theoffice will pursue any and all views in its pursuit of the truth.Finally, Special Counsel Kranz must state emphatically that inhis own personal investigation the past several months, all doorswere open to him, and that there was never one instance of a publicofficial, or law enforcement agency personnel, who refused to co-operate with Kranz, or in any way hindered Kranz's own personalinvestigation. Additionally, Kranz spoke and interviewed AttorneyGeneral Evelle Younger, and all other officials who were directlyand indirectly involved in the investigation and prosecution andconviction of Sirhan. There was never one instance that anyoneever attempted to pressure or direct the'investigation of Kranz.For this, the Special Counsel expresses his sincere appreciationand thankful acknowledgment for the several hundred people who wereof tremendous assistance to his investigation._ Their help wasvital and essential to the performance of his duties and respon-sibilities as independent counsel. For their tempered advice anddeserved criticism, Special Counsel Krana is most grateful.
a
H' 5
-69..