EVIDENCE FROM HELL
(click here for exhibits)
(click here for photograph)
This report contains two seperate Parts. Part 11 is by far the most demanding to follow, therefore I recommend reading Part 11 first. Of all of my reports I rate Part 11 equal to Special Exhibit 10 (the switching of bullets) and the Sportarm/Lock, Stock ‘N Barrel research (Grand Hoax Report). Part 11 is extremely complex, therefore difficult t follow and digest, which leads me to the usual admonition - skip if you haven’t got what it takes.
On Feb 24, 1968, LAPD ballistics expert DeWayne Wolfer testified in the Sirhan trial.
It will be remembered, three days before Officer Wolfer took the stand , All three prosecutors and all three defense attorneys held a secret meeting in Trial Judge Herbert V. Walker’s chambers. The purpose of this meeting was to seal an agreement whereby efense would agree to stipulate to ballistics evidence that did not have foundation. Sihan was not present and was unaware of this meeting. In fact it was a secret meeting.
The easy sell
In order for Fitts to tell these men present that it is his understanding the defense will stipulate to evidence without a foundation means that there had to have been discussions prior to this meeting and that a prior agreement had already been reached whereby the defense would stipulate to ALL of the ballistic evidence, We are talking about a blanket stipulation agreement which was already agreed to prior to this meeting taking place. In short everyone knew exactly what Fitts wanted and Cooper gave to him.
Just because prosecution and defense came to an agreement re unproven bullets does not make the bad bullets suddenly turn into good bullets. The bullets were bad on Feb. 21st during that meeting and remained bad on Feb. 24th when the prosecution delivered them to the court. So, how can you take bad bullets to court - stipulation aside?
And to this day, when Sirhan attorneys argue about bad ballistics evidence, the prosecution responds with Cooper’s stipulations. To that I say - what chutzpa!
Now, my good common sense tells me you cannot make an agreement to stipulate to evidence without a foundation by skirting around the law. I stand by my charge that Cooper’s stipulation is not and never has been legal. And the prosecution knew their ballistics evidence without a foundation. would never stand up in court without Cooper’s cooperation.
And there is no doubt in mind that Sirhan defense attorneys were well aware of the ballistics evidence being bad - how could they not know? Fitts flat out told them these bullets don’t have adequate foundation. It’s like telling someone they are a little bit pregnant. It doesn’t work that way - either you are pregnant or you’re not pregnant. The same goes for the bullets - either they are for real or they are fakes. And you can’t take fakes to court.
One has but to read the trial transcript and see the many instances where Cooper openly assisted the prosecution in presenting their case.
Read Cooper’s conduct for yourself. In fact he latest court filing by Sirhan attorneys Pepper/Dusek make this compelling argument by citing numerous instances where Cooper failed to properly defend his client
And bear in mind, it was Grant Cooper who was Sirhan’s lead attorney. And Cooper was ,at the time, in deep trouble for having lied to Federal Judge Gray two separate times in the Friars Card Cheating case. The fact is Cooper faced loss of his license and a likely prison sentence at that very time.
The prosecution had their hooks in this hobbled man.
The other attorneys
And as for defense attorney Emile Zola Berman - he arrived in Los Angeles either one or two nights before the trial began! And it was Berman who leaked the information about the secret plea talks to the Eastern Press - not once - but twice! And he got away with it.
Attorney Russell Parsons was a career mob lawyer who poisoned the Sirhan family with lies about defense investigator Robert Blair Kaiser. I personally got to the bottom of the great damage on the defense team caused by Parsons’ lies. Kaiser is still alive and well remembers this affair.
And so those three men defended their client. They remind me of the cattle drivers in the Chicago Stockyards. Sirhan didn’t stand a chance. And they gave Lady Justice a swell shiner.
The law schools need to look into my charges.
I would very much like to have leading law schools examine the stipulation questions I raise. Can a stipulation based on an agreement to not challenge evidence which would not be admissable in court - can such a stipulation be legal????
What did that do to Sirhan’s right to a fair trial?
This is an extraordinary report which, for years I continued to postpone writing as I did not feel I was ready to take it on. Then, a few weeks ago I suddenly grew a backbone.
Here it is
After you have carefully examined Sirhan Trial Transcript page 3967, next examine STT pages 4155 - 4158.
You will see something unusual is taking place. DDA David Fitts was unquestionably the smartest man on the prosecution and he tells the court that he can’t read the writing on an envelope (Peo. Ex. 55) and it’s about time he got glasses. He turns down Cooper’s offer to use his glasses, saying he’d rather use the eyes of Mr. Wolfer. (STT page 4155)
Is that smart successful man really not able to read a document? Of course not
So what was taking place? read on
Now we move on to the next page (4156, lines 7 - 18)
Fitts tells Wolfer “I direct your attention to this envelope which is People’s 55, and it bears certain writing perhaps from your hand, does it not?”
Wolfer responds with “It does”
Then Fitts follows with “What does it contain?”
Wolfer responds with: “It contains three of the test shots that I took from People’s 6, the weapon, and this was from the water recovery tank, and that would be three test shots I used for comparison purposes.”
It is at this time that defense attorney Grant Cooper jumps in with
“Mr. Cooper: 55 may be received in evidence if you desire.”
“The Court: People’s 55 in evidence.”
THAT’S IT !!!!!!!l Allow me to tell you what just happened in that sleepy courtroom and exactly what it all means
We see Cooper wasted no time in interjecting with “55 may be received in evidence if you desire”
The Court followed with “People’s 55 in evidence”
This is what it means
Wolfer did not read the writings on Peo. 55. If he did the court and the jury would learn that the gun owned by the LAPD (gun # H 18602) was written on Peo. 55 envelope. It was the wrong gun number and it was printed with red ink. (I believe the red ink was used to differentiate GJ5B evidence envelope from Po. 55 evidence envelope)
The shell casings was one of SUS’ biggest nightmares
We see that Wolfer’s description of the contents in Peo. 55 envelope were the three testbullets for comparison purposes. No mention was made of the two spent shell casings which most assuredly were removed from Peo. 55 envelope at some point prior to Wolfer’s testimony.
The physical existence of the two shell casings in Peo. 55 is found in CSA, however, they do not exist in the Sirhan trial records and they do not exist in the LACGJ transcript. And, of course, they are not in the LAPD Property Report.
So why did those bad boys go through all that trouble to hide those two shell casings?
So no one would ever compare Sirhan evidence shell casings (Peo. 21, Peo. 55 and the shell casings from gun H 53725). Ah, yes, the Wenke examiners did test fire gun # H 53725 in 1975 - but those 1975 shell casings have positively VANISHED. They are not in CSA records. That is a true fact (I wrote about this in earlier reports)
The Plot backfires
On page three of the Trapp/Howard Memorandum we clearly see thw two shell casings are indeed listed (bear in mind, this document is not part of Sirhan trial records). It is an in house communication
Contains three expended .22 caliber slugs and two expended casings. The envelope bears the inscription “I and J .33, serial number H-18602, Cadet model” The initials “DW” appear on each slug.”
In short, the two shell casings in Peo. 55 posed too great a risk that present or future examiners might compare Sirhan evidence shell casings (Peo 21 shell casings and Peo. 55 shell casings) with newly fired shell casings from gun # H53725. No one was taking any chances.
And, doesn’t this sound familiar? Removal of all Sirhan shell casings from Judge Wenke Court Order # 2 prevented the seven examiners from comparing their test shell casings from gun H 53725 with Peo. 21 shell casings and Peo. 55 shell casings
This is precisely what took place when Wolfer described the contents of Peo. 55 envelope. There were no shell casings in that envelope to come back and bite them.
We know the shell casings were removed because of the above cited Howard/Trapp Memorandum. Additionally, criminalist Allen Gilmore accompanied me to California State Archives in March, 1994 to take photographs of Sirhan bullets for me. His photos of Peo. 55 clearly depict three test fired bullets and two shell casings.(see exhibit)
On my numerous trips to CSA I also photographed Sirhan bullets, including Peo. 55 which also showed three test fired bullets and two shell casings.
Then there is the matter of the missing eight shell casings in the CSA from Wenke examiners’ test firing of gun H 53725 in 1975.
Here is what I found
All of the Sirhan test shell casings were either removed from their envelopes or have disappeared (Wenke examiners’ shell casings from testing of gun H 53725 disappeared from CSA records). Removal of the two shell casings in Peo. 55 when Wolfer testified at Sirhan trial and removal of all Sirhan shell casings from Court Order # 2 which prevented the Wenke examiners from comparing the shell casings from gun H 53725 with Peo. 21 shell casings and Peo. 55 shell casings,
What I am charging is that Fitts alerted Wolfer to pay attention to the wrong gun number.
Fitts was sending Wolfer a signal by saying he’d “rather use Wolfer’s eyes” because he wanted Wolfer to LOOK at the wrong gun number staring up at him - in red ink no less - (gun # H 18602 - the wrong gun number was written on Peo. 55 envelope) But the court and jury would never learn of the wrong gun number because Wolfer never read the writings on Peo. 55 into the record. No information exists in the Sirhan trial record about the writings appearing on test envelope Peo. 55. That “evidence” envelope could just as well have been a ham sandwich wrapper.
It was at that point that Cooper jumps in with his stipulation schtick. It seems he couldn’t do it fast enough.
With GJ5B safely locked away in the custody of the LACGJ there was no worry about the two different test envelopes each containing a different set of test bullets and with two different gun numbers being leaked to the Sirhan trial court. There would be no trap for Wolfer to accidentally stumble into.
Why so protective of Wolfer? After all Wolfer wasn’t stupid.. It is because this whole fraud was not Wolfer’s doing; he was dragged into a dirty case.
Men at work
For years I searched without success for any record of a comparison of the two shell casings in Peo. 55 with the eight crime scene shell casings in Peo. 21. Why wasn’t that done?
One of the chief reasons the two shell casings were removed from Peo. 55 evidence envelope when Cooper stipulated Peo. 55 into evidence was that there would be no record in the trial transcript of the existence of these two shell casings.
No one knew that at some future date a smart criminalist might compare Peo 21 (eight crime scene shell casings) with the two shell casings in Peo. 55. That was too big a risk to take, So, what to do?
Simple, remove those two little devils from Peo 55 envelope at the Sirhan trial, Walla ! no shell casings in the trial transcript. What could be better?
This can only mean that the persons responsible for the evidence removed those two shell casings from Peo. 55 envelope prior to Wolfer’s testimony because they did not want these shell casings appearing in the Sirhan trial records !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A select few people in SUS pulled the strings in controlling the Robert F. Kennedy assassination investigation. And they managed to do this by taking the RFK assassination investigation out of the hands of the Los Angeles Police Department. They were that powerful.
Unfortunately, SUS used official LAPD forms to write their reports. This, of course falsely gave the impression that the LAPD Crime Lab was responsible for the bad ballistics evidence.
After carefully examining the official records I reached the conclusion that neither criminalist DeWayne Wolfer nor the LAPD Crime Lab created the bogus ballistics evidence.
There is no doubt in my mind, Wolfer was given bogus ballistics evidence to examine.
How do I know this?
Remember it was Wolfer who alerted the prosecution that there was no foundation for the ballistics evdence. That was the reason the prosecution called for the meeting (Feb. 21) in Judge Walker’s chambers. I believe Wolfer just threw up his hands, besides, who was he going to complain to?
Wolfer didn’t create those fake bullets - he was only the messenger
Rose Lynn Mangan January, 2014