◆ SpookStack

ae On June 10, 1971, William Harper was questioned by Deputy District Attorney Richard Hecht. Harper admitted at this time that he had conducted a "limited examination" (in 1970), and that he had only compared the photographs of Exhibit 55, Bullet 47, and Bullet 54. He did not conduct a formal examination in which he would have used a comparison microscope. Harper stated that he wanted to further continue and use the comparison microscope because the Balliscan pictures taken by Harper were interesting but "were not conclusive yet." Additionally, Harper stated to Hecht that he was unable to bring the comparison microscope to the clerk's office because it was too bulky and he was not able to carry it. The affidavit, in which Harper drew the conclusion that two guns were being fired concurrently in the pantry, had been executed on December 28, 1970. But five months later, Harper, months after swearing to his conclusion in the affidavit, described his photo- graphs as not conclusive. And he expressed the desire to conduct further examination with the comparison microscope. During further 1970 inquiries into Harper's charges, criminalists Ray Pinker and Walter Jack Cadman both urged caution in forming a judgement or opinion on someone's photograph of an exhibit. Both stressed that they would prefer to see the original rather than photographic evidence. Pinker specifically stated, "I would have to examine the original physical evidence, the bullets themselves, under a comparison microscope, or a wide view stereo binocular microscope, before making any firm conclusion." 1974 Hearings Analyzed The rather harsh words of District Attorney Joe Busch con- cerning hearings conducted by Supervisor Ward might seem at first Zlace to be the result of an old fashioned political feud between Joe Busch and Baxter Ward. But when the testimony of various Ward hearing witnesses, particularly Dr. Noguchi, is analyzed, it is possible to see a different perspective. Specifically, Dr. Noguchi'ts testimony before Baxter Ward's hearing as to his autopsy findings and opinions represented a twice previously expressed noeitinn and aAdrtand nn natr infnrmatian Of the eivtrsan nag PRSLELEN alG eaGued 1O flow iniorme iO. Va eS SLAC D Ca pages of transcript representing Dr. Noguchi'ts testimony in May 1974, a little less than half was devoted to such previously given testimony before the Grand Jury in 1968, and the trial jury in 1969. The balance of Noguchi'ts testimony before Ward was devoted to three areas not covered during the People v. Sirhan trial. These three areas dealt with; (a) Noguchi's present identification of the bullet extracted from Senator Kennedy's neck and submitted as People's 47 at trial, ‘ ” (b) Noguchi's present and past position regarding the utilization of neutron activation analysis to compare the various bullets introduced into evidence during the Sirhan trial, and {ec} Whether or not Noguchi had any knowledge that the District Attorney was aware of any evidentary conflict regarding muzzle distance between eyewitnesses and the physical evidence ~ 14 . oN LV