California Condor Eben McMillan 31 July 1969 that he shot at a bird which he took to be a Buzzard. His attorney in questioning Mr. Binkley kept dwelling on this feature of the case. That there was a young fellow who was not trying to hide anything, did not hide nor try to run away when I approached him following the shootings, nor has he denied that he shot at a bird. Thus it stands as sound evidence that this man Binkley did not shoot at any Condor knowingly but rather shot at a Buzzard instead. Both attorneys tested their cases here. The Judge ruled for acquittal on the evidence presented. He said that the plaintiff did not prove beyond a reason of a doubt that the defendant had shot the Condor. That he had some experience and knows that large birds, when shot close to, will dip their wings and dive, and that without a corpus delicti, (the body of the bird) it was very difficult to attach the crime to the defendant. The judge also praised the defendant (Mr. Binkley) for his honesty in not leaving the Country when the judge waived his bail. He told the defendant "You said you would be here and you came!" "I must encourage you for your honesty". He made no mention of Mr. Binkley being ten minutes late for the trial. The trial was over and we left the Court at 12:15 P.M. On the sidewalk outside Judge Woods said to Warden Reed, Warden Tharp and I, that, this Case, (The Howard Binkley case) had been tried and finished several times in the press before the defendant was ever Arraigned. He -