◆ SpookStack

7 « « One of the initial witnesses called by Ward, and presumably heard by MacDonell during the oneday hearing, described the Bal- liscan process, including the inherent "tilt factor" of the camera photography process, which is adjusted only visually rather than scientifically. Thus, by the time MacDonell testified, he may have realized that his affidavit, although filled with many articulated assumptions, had made no provisions for this "tilt factor." Most firearms experts reject reliance upon rifling angles, and the alleged differences in rifling angle between People's 47 and 54, even if assumed to be true as to the original Sirhan firearms evi- dence, is not an accepted criteria for identification purposes. (Modern Firearms by Calvin Goddard.) @e only other factor which had been suggested as establishing two guns was based upon the claimed difference in the number of eannelures depicted by photographs of Peoplets 47 and 54. Only. Herbert MacDonell had expressed that position. Throughout his investigation in 1970, his interviews in 1971, and his affidavit filed at the Ward hearing in 1974, Harper had never mentioned canneliures. And although Bradford was asked general questions by Ward regarding cannelures, Ward failed to ask Bradford any questions regarding the significance, if any, to be attached to cannelures as a criteria to consider in firearms identification. Additionally, cannelures apparently have absolutely no signi- ficance in the identification of fired bullets. Firearm identi-~ fication research shows that cannelures may or may not be utilized in coming to conclusions regarding identification of fired bullets. Wolfer has unequivocally stated in an interview with Kranz that cannelures are totally irrelevant because two consecutive shots fired from the same gun of the same identical type of bullet, including cannelures, may lead to significant differences as to cannelures -y the time the bullet leaves the barrel, aside fron further significant changes which may acrve upon impact. Photographs Another additional difference among the three critics of Wolfer concerned photographs. .Any expert opinion must be dependent upon the materials considered. There is significance in the fact that only Bradford indicated consideration of any photographs beside photographs of People's 47 and 54. This occured at Ward's hearing when Bradford stated that he’ had looked at Balliscan photographs, taken at Ward's request, of some of the test bullets fired by Wolfer. , It is difficult to understand why Harper and MacDonell concen-~ trated their findings solely on photographs of People's 47 and 54. Photographs of other bullets would undoubtedly have contributed to their examination, but neither man ever requested photographs of other bullets. Significantly, of the three experts, only Bradford Was never actually critical of Wolfer'ts conclusion, and it was Bradford who did not expressly restrict himself to merely photo-~ graphs of People's 47 and 54. - 18 .