dirty tricks - see it played out in Peo. 21
along with more rotten evidence
(click here for dirty tricks photos)
(click herefor dirty tricks exhibits part1)
(click herefor dirty tricks exhibits part2)
I recently read the latest court filing by Judge Andrew Wistrich (August 13, 2013) and noted that his first action was to respond to a letter I had written to Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell and his second action was to revise his 12 - 28 - 12 report/recommendation. Unfortunately, he still recommended Sirhan filing be dismissed. I respectfully disagree.
In spite of Judge Wistrich’s recommendation, I find his interest and concern with the Sirhan evidence to be most refreshing. Hopefully, one day a door will open.
Take a look at what was going on with Sirhan evidence
In my previous report Justice Interrupted I wrote about the shocking problems with respect to the spent shell casings in Sirhan records.
Here are more disturbing problems with shell casings
It will be remembered GJ5B (the Los Angeles County Grand Jury evidence envelope) contains four test d bullets from gun # H53725 for comparison purposes. Oddly, Wolfer’s initials were NOT present on these four test bullets which is a direct contradiction of his declaration under oath that he placed his initials (DW) on all of the GJ5B test bullets .
And further, there were no shell casings in Po. 55 envelope. (sources - Wolfer v. Blehr #C8080 and Patrick Garland 1975 Evidence Inventory).
(see Plain Talk Ten exhibits)
One must ask why include only the test bullets and omit the test shell casings in light of the fact that the crime scene shell casings are booked in evidence, therefore readily available for comparison purposes? And if that wasn’t enough, why is it OK to not place an identifying mark on the test bullets? How would anyone know if the test bullets are not subtitutes ?
Here are the twisted facts
There exists TWO different evidence envelopes each of which records a different (gun) serial number.on the evidence envelope. And each evidence envelope contains a different set of test fired bullets (for comparison purposes) And each set of test fired bullets were received in evidence in two different courtrooms ! (Los Angeles County Grand Jury and Sirhan trial.) (exhibits provided)
The four test bullets in GJ5B were test fired on 6-5-68 with gun # H 53725, whereas the three test bullets in Peo. Ex. 55 evidence envelope were test fired on 6-5/6-68 with gun # H 18602! Clearly different serial numbers. (the date 6 was written over the number 5).
District Attorney Joseph P. Busch tried his best
D.A. Joseph P. Busch tried his best to examine and report his investigative findings concerning Wolfer’s writing the Jake Williams/LAPD owned gun (H 18602) on Sirhan evidence envelope Peo. 55. However good this honest man’s intentions, he was ignorant of the fact that a test firing of the alleged crime scene gun (H 53725) occurred on 6-5-68 !
On page 5 of his investigation Summary Busch writes:
“Mr. Wolfer conducted two series of ballistics tests. The first was conducted on June 6, 1968, with the gun seized from Sirhan B. Sirhan and the bullets from this test were used to identify the bullets removed from the victims of the crime. The second tests were conducted on June 11, 1968, and Mr. Wolfer used a weapon obtained from the Property Division of L.A.P.D. The use of this weapon (Serial No. H18602) was necessitated by the fact that Sirhan’s weapon had been entered inevidence before the Grand Jury and a court order restricted its availability....”(exhibit provided)
In fact, we see he writes not once, but twice of the 6-6-68 test firing - and never once does he mention that the Sirhan gun was first test fired on the previous day (6-5-68)!!!
Something is fishy
Sirhan trial Exhibit Peo. 55 evidence envelope records the Jake Williams/LAPD Property Division gun # H-18602 on its envelope. Here’s what happened
In March, 1967 Jake Williams along with three other men were arrested in Los Angeles while riding in a Buick. After Jake Williams was released he failed to reclaim his gun # H 18602 (you just know his knees were knocking). Therefore, the Jake Williams gun became the property of the LAPD Property Division in March, 1967.
Don’t confuse GJ5B with Peo. 55
And so I ask what was the LAPD - owned gun number (H18602) doing on an evidence envelope (Peo. 55) containing comparison bullets and shell casings in the Sirhan trial? - also Peo 55 was written in red ink - isn’t that interesting?Red ink pops up in connection to fraudulent evidence. Why write in red, why not use the acceptable standard color blue/black ?
About Wolfer asking someone for the gun number - and that’s how H 18602 got on Peo. 55 envelope. Maybe yes, maybe no, it was never substantiated - mere hearsay.
GJ5B didn’t make the cut to play in the Sirhan trial
It will be remembered, GJ5B test bullets were Grand Jury exhibits and were never introduced in the Sirhan trial.
Let us assume - though I admit it is highly unlikely - the good judge grants an Evidentiary Hearing. Tell me, WITHOUT any spent shell casings in GJ5B evidence envelope - how is it possible for an examiner to match new test bullets from gun # H53725 in light of the fact that the examiners found H53725 barrel was badly leaded.?
And why are these GJ5B test bullets so important ? H53725 while appearing on GJ5B evidence envelope was NOT recorded in the LACGJ transcript! That is a true fact.
What possible explanation can there be for the gun in evidence with the Los Angeles County Grand Jury to not have its serial number recorded in the LACGJ transcript?
Time for the magnifying glass
These puzzling discrepencies prompted me to take a closer look at the Los Angeles Police Department Property Report dated 6-5-68 in search of Sirhan gun Booking identification . What I found opened up another can of worms.
On 6-5-68 the LAPD Property Report records the following:
“ (quantity) 1 - Gun , Revolver Iver Johnson “Cadet” B/S 2 1/2 “ BBL 8 shot cal .22” recorded as Item 11 “
“(quantity) 8 - Brass Expended Cal .22 “CCI” on base Nor Marked for I.D.” recorded as Item 12 (exhibit provided)
Here’s the can of worms
This is extremely important so pay close attention. I discovered the existance of three separate documents marked “Confidential” in SUS official records one of which contains the following information:
“Doe, John #1 6-5-68 68-521466 Receipt (X) PKG: Ser H 53725, .22 cal Iver Johnson Item 11 8-Expended cases Item 12
“Confidential Refer to SUS PKG: .22 cal slug Item 113
MT slip Item 114
Receipt Item 115 ...”
Date of transfer is 8-24-68
(note: the Goldstein bullet is Item 113) (exhibits provided)
The three documents in SUS reveal Item 11 and Item 12 were transferred to SUS on 8-24-68
Why are these SUS documents so important? Well, since the LAPD Property Report records Item #11 for the Sirhan gun and the eight crime scene shell casings as Item #12 - and given the fact that LACGJ presiding Judge Arthur Alarcon issued a Court Order on 6-7-68 which sealed all of the LACGJ evidence, then, how was it possible to have transferred Item 11 and Item 12 from Grand Jury custody to SUS on 8-24-68 ? And, as I noted earlier, the Sirhan gun serial number was NOT recorded in the LACGJ transcript !
Technically, this means the Sirhan gun (Item 11 in LAPD Property Report and having no id number in LACGJ transcript) was transferred out of LACGJ custody to SUS on 8-24-68 and marked CONFIDENTIAL. This was in clear violation of the Judge Alarcon Court Order. The person listed as transporting Item 11 and Item 12 to SUS is Officer T.J. Miller # 11152.
Unless, of course, gun # H53725 was NOT the gun in the Grand Jury custody. Frankly, I suspect the numberless gun which was received in evidence with the Grand Jury on 6-7-68 was the Jake Williams/ LAPD - owned gun (# H 18602) and not gun # H53725 .
Peo. 21 is more than interesting, I make the charge it is a dirty trick, and I shall prove it up
On careful examination of the photo of Peo. 21 (the alleged eight crime scene shell casings) you will clearly see something is very wrong going on. The evidence envelope containing these shell casings DOES NOT RECORD THE SERIAL NUMBER, does not record the make nor model of the gun these shell casings were removed from in the early morning hours of 6-5-68.
We see only
Sirhan’s DR number 68 521466, 8 22 cal - brass spent shell cartridges. there is a date 6-5-68 with initials MRM - J.W and the Grand Jury number “7A” appears on the left - that is all !!! and written in red ink. This is NOT an official booking evidence envelope. If it was, then tell me where is the serisl number for the gun written??????????(exhibit provided)
This is what I see on this imposter “evidence envelope”
I see the correct date 6-5-68 and beneath the date I see the initials M ? M it looks like it might be an R and beneath MRM we see J.W.
Iclearly remember seeing the document filled out by Ofc. Moser who performed fingerprint tests on H 53725, Iver Johnson , .22 cal 8 shot revolver and came up empty - no prints on the gun. So, here’s my question - why doesn’t Ofc Moser’s name and police badge number appear on this envelope?
We know the initials JW belong to the LAPD Crime Lab photographer Jimmy Watson - and in fact I photographed them on one of my visits at CSA.
So why does this “evidence envelope” containing UNMARKED shell casings also NOT record the gun’s serial number.? Why no gun manufacture? Why no model ? In fact NOTHING what-so-ever about the gun belonging to the unmarked shell casings is written on this envelope.
The eight shell casings in Peo. 21 were first recorded in LAPD Property Report as Item 12
These eight shell casings were removed from gun H 53725 in the early morning hours of 6-5-68 , however, they were NOT inscribed with id markings. The reason given for not id marking the eight shell casings in Peo. 21 when LAPD took possession of them was that they did not want to damage them ! My response is this - how would placing an identifying mark on the inside of each shell casing damage it? How would anyone know these are in fact authentic crime scene shell casings ? And how does one explain that fake Peo. 21 evidence envelope with no gun number, no gun make, no model number --
I tell you Peo 21 evidence envelope is one sick puppy.
And what about the id markings on the two shell casings in Peo 55 Evidence Envelope? The record is strangely silent.
So I thought - no problem - I therefore turned to Patrick Garland Evidence Inventory to see what if any id markings were recorded on the two shell casings in Peo. 55 evidence envelope. What do you think I found ? No shell casings ! Garland’s evidence inventory does not list any shell casings in Peo. 55 evidence envelope.
Withholding all Sirhan trial shell casings from the Wenke examiners simply defies logic. And, as we shall see, there was a compelling reason for that.
What I am saying is that the Wenke examiners were blocked from conducting any shell casing comparisons.
Wouldn’t the examiners want to know if their test shell casings(from gun H 53725) matched Peo 55 shell casings with the LAPD - owned gun (H 18602)? No word speak can possibly white-wash that ludicrous debacle.
Here is the reason:
Because, criminalist William Harper was creating a storm over Jake Williams/LAPD owned gun H 18602 on Sirhan evidence envelope Peo. 55. That’s it
And so, someone came up with that stunt (withhold all Sirhan shell casings from the Wenke examiners) And who was there to stop those finks?
(test casings v. booked casings)
In plain English this means it was virtually impossible for the Wenke examiners to compare the shell casings from their test firing of gun # H 53725 with any of the shell casings in evidence at the Sirhan trial (the eight shell casings in Peo. 21 and the two shell casings in Peo. 55 evidence envelope).
Look at this!
While examining the LAPD inventory of evidence which was delivered to the Judge Wenke Hearing in 1975 I made the discovery that the two shell casings in Peo. 55 were removed from Peo. 55 evidence envelope BEFORE the evidence was delivered to the Judge Wenke Court. That is a true fact.
More fishy bad acts
LAPD Officer L.M. Orozco # 11072 screwed up the evidence
Here’s the problem with Officer Orozco
It will be remembered it wasn’t Orozco who took custody of the Kennedy neck bullet from Dr. Thomas Noguchi at the autopsy - it was LAPD Sgt. Jordan # 7167 and, for whatever reason, Jordan turned the Kennedy neck bullet over to Officer Orozco # 11072 and so it was Orozco who booked/ recorded the Kennedy neck bullet into evidence.
It gets worse. I suggest you read the following at least twice.
Ofc. Orozco DID NOT RECORD the id engraving appearing on the Kennedy neck bullet in his LAPD Property Report !!!!!
Instead, Orozco recorded the Coroner case # 68 5731 in its place ! Can you believe that ?
My point is - how can we know with an absolute certainty what id marking was on the base of the Kennedy neck bullet in Officer Orozco’s LAPD Property Report dated 6-6-68 ?
I almost forgot - Orozco wrote the following : “Crime Lab notified for comparison of Item # 53 with gun of arrestee.” (exhibit provided)
Is he kidding?
I would like to know how Ofc. Orozco hoped to compare Item # 53 (with no record of its id engraving in his LAPD Property Report) with “gun of arrestee” which, as it happens, was received in evidence by the Los Angeles County Grand Jury on the very next day - with NO gun id number recorded in the LACGJ transcript ! Even a cheap crime novel wouldn’t use such a moronic stunt as that.
Why should I be surprised? Look at what those pranksters did with the Sportarm /Lock, Stock ‘N Barrel mini mag receipt ? I reported this in great detail in my Grand Hoax report and included SUS documents which proved beyond a doubt that both above referenced receipts were in fact fraudulenty created.
Then there is the matter of the Goldstein bullet id engraving (X) on its base which was also not recorded in the LAPD Property Report. This of course relates to the Special Exhibit 10 negative which Dr.Noguchi gave to Robert Joling in the Drake Hotel, Chicago, Ill. in February, 1969. Dr. Noguchi told Joling to “hold onto this for safekeeping, we may need it someday” Unfortunately Dr. Noguchi didn’t identify the bullets depicted in Special Exhibit 10, nor did he explain the resaon for his warning.
Robert Joling came to my home in Dayton, Nv. on 12-1-92 to examine William Harper’s investigation files, given to me by Harper when he closed down his lab .. It was on that visit that Joling told me of Dr. Noguchi’s warning quote.
It will be remembered Special Exhibit 10 is the comparison of the “Kennedy” neck bullet compared with the “Goldstein” bullet - the only problem with that is that both of those bullets were proven to be substitute bullets. (sources, Patrick Garland Evidence Inventory dated 1975, Dr. Noguchi Autopsy Report and Dr. Finkel’s engraving (SUS files)on the base of the Goldstein bullet).
It took me a couple of years to figure out Special Exhibit 10. (see my Special Exhibit 10 Report.) Modesty aside, that discovery greatly added to the growing interest in Sirhan evidence.
Then there is the problem of Wolfer reporting (in his Log) the wrong Item number for the gun he received.
Before I forget, my son Brad asked me “How can Special Hearing Exhibit 10 stand since photographic comparisons - alone - of bullets are unacceptable?”
The answer is found in the seven examiners’ Judge Wenke/Court Order # 2 Report. pages 2 & 3:
“Special Hearing Exhibit 10, is a photomicrograph depicting a bullet comparison, was found to be a comparison between PN 2 (Ex. 47) and PN 6 (Ex. 52). THIS WAS DETERMINED BY A MATCHING OF THE SURFACE DEFECT IN THE PHOTOMICROGRAPH AND THOSE APPEARING MICROSCOPICALLY ON PN 2 (Ex. 47) and PN 6 (Ex. 52).” (emphasis my own)
Note - Special Exhibit 10 is the nameWolfer applied to the photomicrograph of his comparison of Kennedy/Goldstein bullets in 1968 while Special Hearing Exhibit 10 is the name the examiners’ applied to their photomicrograph in 1975 of the same comparison bullets. In short, the examiners successfully recreated Wolfer’s Special Exhibit 10 photomicrograph.
The operative word in the examiners’ Report is “microscopically” - therefore all doubt must be removed concerning Kennedy/Goldstein bullet substitutions in Special Exhibit 10.
A few honest mistakes is not unusual in an investigation of this magnitude but the mountain of documented proof of false evidence which I discovered over the years cannot be explained away as mistakes. Let’s have independent crime labs examine with fresh new eyes the Sirhan evidence. And I invite the best crime labs to examine my research findings for its truthfullness.
If that is not permitted to happen - then, living with this dark cloud that has fallen on the American judicial system must be our embarrassing legacy.
Rose Lynn Mangan November, 2013, on the 50th anniversary of our President John F. Kennedy’s assassination.