◆ SpookStack

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 Sirhan's 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 Tarwnan Af £fthan VYannaAre ana tlheaiesal KRitlleates abnnaAd ta Ai FFananna anf ai pus Wa Vhlw Kennedy clbiNMs WeLoelk Wut OLIVA he a Git LG1 ViIVS 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, Mae Donell stated that he felt two guns had been fired. It must pointed out that both Harper and Mac Donell were working only From pietures taken by a special camera called a he ed whi 7 aes wile Ce i ed Tae Ee ee cal I = —_ or ee oe ae Se Reh a al ee 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 Office." ; Preparing to hold his hearings in May, 1974, 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 -