◆ SpookStack

rd en Nai A SRD OO I PEA OT OS, rah (C no As part of his declaration in the affidavit, Bradford next stated the conclusions of forensic scientists Herbert MacDonell and William Harper. Essentially, Bradford restated the MacDonell position concerning gross differences between cannelures on Kennedy bullet, 47, and Weisel bullet, 54, 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 Weisel 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 47. In so doing, Bradford based his statements on previous statements of Harper and MacDonnell, both of whom had based their statements on photographs taken by Harper in 1970 and at the request of Baxter Ward in 1974. Bradford econcluded 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, cannelures, or evidence of a secend 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 cannelures 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 cannelures 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.) ~ 43 - he, mi