◆ SpookStack

< &#39;92 &#39;92_1 Ko! Admitting that there was no substantive evidence to date to suggest that a second gun was involved, Jolling still felt such conclusion neither excluded nor included the possibility" of a second gun. Jolling admitted that there had been similar class characteristics found in the Kennedy, Weisel, and Goldstein bullets, and that these bullets were identified and matched to each other. Jolling ignored the fact that five of the seven experts were able to link these three particular bullets as being fired from the same gun. Jolling also ignored the fact that the other two experts did not express any opinion contrary to that expressed by the other five experts. These two experts stated they could not make a 100$ positive determination matching these three bullets with having come from the same gun. Special Counsel Kranz made an appointment that very week with Allard Lowenstein, one of the most severe critics and advocates of the two-gun theory. Lowenstein expressed his interest in pursuing the rifling angle theory, and a fear that there may have been sub- stitution of bullets during the preceding years prior to the 1975 ballistics tests. Lowenstein also felt that there existed the possibility that identifiable gouge marks had been put on the bullets as part of a conspiracy to perpetuate the "coverup." Lowenstein had no evidence to substantiate this charge. Lowenstein also suggested that the recommendation inthe joint report that the experts make "no recommendation for additional tests" actually meant that the experts were waiting for additional instructions from the court to conduct additional tests. Lowenstein seemed to ignore the very specific directive in the September 18th court order instructing the experts to request any and all exhibits that they felt necessary to conduct their experiments, and the fact that other more sophisticated tests, such as micromeasurement of the bullets, trace metal analysis, and powder residue composition analysis had been provided for in the court order. Finally, a directive of the court stated in paragraph 2 of page 2 was that the procedure outlined and given to the ballistics experts had been adopted to "arrive at as definitive a scientific determination as possible and to foreclose the necessity of similar scientific examinations in the future." In later cross examination of the experts, all experts stated positively and clearly that they felt they had reached a point of diminishing returns to conduct any future tests. This was due to the nature of the exhibits, and the lack of thorough identifying marks which foreclosed the usefulness of any additional tests. Additionally, all the experts stated that they felt there was no need to recommend any additional tests and this had been the intent of the final paragraph in their joint report filed with the court October 7, 1975. -at . -69-