◆ SpookStack

3. The allegations that the firearm evidence alone estab- lished the possibility of two guns because differences in various builets irdicated they were not fired from the same gun. The 1974 hearing conducted by Baxter Ward highlighted the original three theories of two guns, and also added a fourth theory of a second gun. 4, An alleged conflict between eyewitnesses and the physical evidence as to muzzle distance. Heuavean $e ehnvita Re amnkhascivzad that Fhe salladgwadt aan fl mowever, ~2t SMmOGULG CS CMPpNasi cea tNat CS ass l Beau Conia between eyewitnesses and physical evidence are actually immaterial . to the number of guns if it is conclusively proved from the firearms -evidence thet one gun fired all of the recovered bullets. In this circumstance, the only material issue would be the identity of the _ gunman. Harper's Two-Gun Theory, Bullets Exhibit 47 and 54 Harper st-ted that Sirhan's gun fired People's 54 and in so Stating this fact, suggested that Sirhan's gun could not have fired Pecple's 47. At the same time, Harper suggested by virtue of the elerical error made by DeWayne Wolfer at trial, that the actual evidence introduced at trial showed that the Sirhan weapon did not fire any of the bullets, including People's 54 and 47. However, the concession made by Harper, that Sirhan did fire some of the bullets (People's 54 to-differentiate from People's 47), was an attempt by Harper to prove that People's 47 and 54 were fired from different guns. Therefore, his ultimate conclusion of two guns was far more ' important to Harper than the suggestion that a clerical error accounted for the second gun serial number H18602 being introduced as the evidence gun that fired all the bullets. If Harper had actually contended that Wolfer at trial correctly excluded Sirhan's gun from having fired any of the recovered bullets, in addition to his (Harper's) postulation of two guns firing People's 47 and 54, this would have led to a conclusion of three gunmen, Sirhan and two other gunmen. Harper never alleged three guns. Harper's alle- gation that Wolfer excluded Sirhan's gun at trial was Harper's way of alleging that Wolfer improperly concluded that Sirhan's gun fired all of the bullets recovered, but in so alleging, Harper actually stated a contradiction in that Harper stated conclusively that Sirhan's gun fired the Weisel bullet, People's 54. Harper never actually conducted a comparison microscopic exmamination of People's 47 and 54. Due to the size and weight of such apparatus, Harper was unable to bring a microscopic camera into the County Clerk's Office. He was only able to take Balliscan photographs of Pennlata a7 and Su bAAitanally eo foamdin sduacscata an arnitia had wee eS Baw avoir onarsy, NO VLWORUN aeGvorare OP Lravit oa ever come forth after conducting a microscopic examination of the bullet. Furthermore, Harper, MacDonell and Bradford all relied on photographs of only two bullets, rather than utilizing photographs of all of the various evidence and test bullets, to form their conclusions. - 16 - a er pe sacri ee OE ger ee A oS a en =