◆ SpookStack

ra ‘oe _— that he though the weapon itself had been fired during the last several years, subsequent to DeWaynes Wolfer's test firing in 1968, and before the eventual test firing by the experts in 1975. However, another panel expert, Lowell Bradford stated in a ‘letter to Kranz on March 16, 1976, that there was a simple expla- nation for the “heavy leading." Bradford stated it was a typical case of a frequently fired bore that had remained uncleaned in storage for several years. Since the fouling in the barrel over a long time oxidizes, Bradford stated the crystals tended to grow with time and enhanced the visibility of the residue. And Bradford wrote that this is what was present at the time of examination by the panel in 1975. Bradford strongly states that such a leaded condition is not an anomaly and that there was nothing to suggest tampering of the bore’ while in the custody of the L.A.P.D. or the County Clerk. Bradford concludes that good practice on the part of the crime laboratory should have provided a careful cleaning with an anti-oxidation coating in the bore, and Bradford states this was not done. It must be remembered that Sirhan fired several hundred rounds of ammunition on the afternoon of June 4, 1968. At the Ambassador Hotel,. he fired eight copper coated hollow point minimag ammunition bullets from the weapon. DeWayne Wolfer then fired eight copper coated mini-mag hollow point ammunition bullets into the water tank. In 1975 the experts fired eight test bullets, the first two being ccpper coated, the next two being lead coated, and the final four being copper coated. All experts testified that the first twe bullets, fired by the experts, the first two copper bullets fired, were extremely difficult to match with the weapon due to the severely leaded conditicn-cf the barrel. Despite the several instances of unauthorized access of many people to the Sirhan weapon and exhibits during the last several years, Special Counsel Kranz finds it unbelieveable that the weapon itself could have been actually fired while in the custody of the County Clerk's Office. However, the observation by the County Clerk personnel of the various people examining the exhibits and bullets during the last several years was not always of high Standard, and presumably, there could have been unauthorized tampering with the weapon. It would certainly be possible for a lead bullet, or a lead rod, to have been quickly moved through the ‘Barrel of the revolver. Such a process would, as testified by the seven ballistics experts in their 1975 hearing, remove the charac- teristics, both gross and individual, from the barrel mark itself and make it extremely difficult, if not impossible to match up any subsequently fired test bullets with the weapon and barrel. It should be emphasized that, despite the fact that a comparison Microscopic test of the bullets (the original -victim evidence - 57 -