◆ SpookStack

Ld {In his February, 1976, ruling, Judge Wenke declined to make such findings and conclusions and stated that the unusual ballistics examination had always been considered to be only a limited discovery action.] Bozanich argued to the other attorneys that the judicial process had already twice established that Sirhan was the lone gunman. Therefore, an appropriate procedure to determine the present integrity and utility of the Sirhan exhibits was necessary before any test procedure could be outlined. Bozanich felt that ee ee a aa en | “any eventual testing would be of little or no value, and would only perpetuate rather than eliminate two gun speculation, unless the integrity and utility of the exhibits was first determined. Additionally, in these informal negotiations between all attorneys, it was the District Attorney's Office that was advocating the most thorough and exhaustive test procedures. Bozanich repeatedly asked that as many ballistics experts as possible be brought in for independent examination of all bullets and exhibits, including the weapon. In what was often referred to as "Bozanich's obstacie course,"* the Deputy District Attorney advocated a cross check procedure whereby each bullet would be cross-checked and compared with all individual bullets. Additionally, Bozanich proposed that such a thorough and vigorous cross-check examination would establish a criteria for objective analysis by the experts. Bozanich was concerned that each panel member might have a different level or threshhold by which they might make a positive or inconclusive identification of each bullet. When the argument was raised by several attorneys that such a procedure would be lengthy, Bozanich replied that the lack of thoroughness, and the so-called "clerical errors" in the past, had perpetuated the controversy, and it was the District Attorney's pesition that as thorough and exhaustive test proceaures as possible be developed. Bezanich cited for his evidentiary sources the Grand Jury transcript of 1971, and asked Judge Wenke to read all the three volumes concerning the integrity and utility of the exhi- bits. Inherent in this argument was the possibility that the exhibits themselves, and the weapon, had been tampered with to such an extent that any test firing could lead to inconclusive results. The problem centered around the possibility that the weapon itself, particularly the bore of the revolver rifle, might have been tampered with to such an extent that a test fired bullet would fail to have the necessary indentations and individual and class characteristics present to be matched up to thi3 specifie revolver. In informal meetings with criminalist Wolfer and other inves- tigators, both Kranz and Bozanich were concerned that any object rammed through the barrel of the Sirhan gun, such as a pencil, a4 lead bullet, or indefinable object, could conceivably remove or camouflage the specific bore markings. This would result in little or no identification of testfired bullets. And in light of the admonition of Lowell Bradford that there is a less than 20% identi- fication factor for testfired bullets from a .22 caliber gun, and the fact that the Sirhan weapon was a second hand revolver that had been repeatedly fired on rifle ranges previous to the asSaS-_ sination, the’District Attorney’s concern was well founded. - 47 -