The Bagget Memo

The purpose of this Report is to take a closer look into the Bagget Memo. This Memo is best described as a handwritten notepad copy in SUS files of independent criminalist Larry Bagget’s 1974 outline report of his examination of William Harper’s Balliscan Camera photographs of the Kennedy neck bullet (Peo. 47) and the victim Weisel bullet (Peo. 54).

In the latter part of 1973 Ted Charach borrowed Harper’s 20X enlarged Balliscan Camera photographs of Peo. 47 and Peo. 54 telling him there were interested/influential experts who wanted to examine them. Harper was at no time informed that Ted would also deliver these photographs to LAPD and SUS to conduct their own examinations.

We know this to be true from the warning appearing in the Bagget Memo to avoid Phil Robertson at Hycon (Robertson and Harper were very close friends who worked together on the development of the Balliscan Camera).

Should SUS’ inquiries about the Balliscan Camera at Hycon have come to Robertson’s attention, Robertson would most assuredly have notified Harper of what was going on at Hycon. In other words, the cat would be out of the bag. To prevent that, SUS investigators were warned to be careful and avoid Robertson.

Charach did not to inform Harper of his intention to deliver the enlarged Balliscan Camera photographs to SUS for examination purposes.

He (Charach) was unquestionably a very talented reporter/investigator – but he was plagued with constant money problems and unwisely got into serious trouble with his purchase and illegal use of price altered airline tickets in the early 1970’s airline ticket scam.

The get out of jail ticket

That was it. SUS now had their hooks in him. BIG TIME He had to do their bidding. Ted

was one of the great investigators in the Robert F. Kennedy Investigation – but he became seriously hobbled by his own unfortunate action.

Returning to Bagget Memo

We see Bagget’s conclusion is in total agreement with criminalist William W. Harper’s own conclusion that the Kennedy neck bullet and the Weisel bullet were fired from two different guns, different ammunition and further, the Kennedy neck bullet (Peo. 47) was not fired from Sirhan’s revolver.

Let us start at the beginning of Bagget’s Memo and this is what we see:

“Sirhan Hycon Balliscan Camera

(Hycon Camera on second line is crossed out)

Gosset Panascopic Camera

Larry Bagget Panascopic Report

Photos by Ted Charach & enlarged 20X Oct./Nov. 1973

1. Wm. Harper Pasa. Crimin

2. Prof. Herb. Leon McDonell of

Corning Comm. College & Elmira

College, N.Y. Dir. Forensic Sci.

Iver Johnson .22 Cadet #H53725

Omark – C.C.I.

Weisel bullet consistent w Omark

Kennedy bullet mfrg by Fed. Cart.

Co. or some other.

Hycon Balliscanic Camera

Diff. Of ½ degree in rifling angles.

Kennedy bullet fired from barrel

with sharper rifling than Weisel

Conclusion

1. Kennedy & Weisel bullets

not fired from same gun.

2. Kennedy bullet not fired

from Sirhan’s revolver

Sid Trapp Van Nuys D.A.

For Hycon info.

Dept 53 974-5679 V.N. 873-5674

AVOID Phil Robertson of Hycon…”

It was Harper’s lab practice to date stamp the back of his original photographs in order to record the date that particular photograph was made.

Now in the case of his Balliscan Camera 20X magnified photos, Harper date stamped Oct/Nov. 1973 on the back of those photo enlargements. It is important not to confuse the date Oct/Nov. 1973 with the date of Harper’s original, normal size Balliscan Camera photographs - which was December 16, 1970. (see exhibits)

Therefore the later date appearing in the text of the Bagget Memo (Oct/Nov. 1973) was the date that Harper magnified his normal size Balliscan Camera photographs for more exacting examination measurements.

Larry Bagget

Was an independent criminalist from Long Beach, Ca. who was employed outside the Los Angeles area by SUS to examine and report his findings of Harper’s Balliscan photographs of Peo. 47 and Peo. 54. This private, out of the area expert’s examination would assure the secrecy SUS/LAPD understandably sought.

No question, it was essential to keep the information of this secret Bagget examination from Harper – and it succeeded until the SUS Investigation Reports gave it up. But by then Harper passed away.

And if not for Harper confiding in me about SUS’ mishandling of the Robert F. Kennedy/Sirhan ballistics evidence – it is safe to say, the Bagget Memo would never have seen the light of day. As soon as I spotted it in the SUS Records, I immediately connected it with Harper’s conclusions.

The bullet substitution problem began with the following

We see from Dr. Noguchi’s Autopsy Report and Officer Orozco’s LAPD Property Report there is no intact chain of custody.

Next we see serious problems inWolfer’s Log

On June 6, 1968 at 3:15 p.m. the head of the LAPD Crime Lab, DeWayne Wolfer recorded the following in his Log:

“3:15 p.m. - Received Kennedy bullet from Rampart Detectives.”

Then almost three hours later Wolfer compared the Kennedy neck bullet (Peo. 47) with the Goldstein bullet (Peo. 52) under the comparison microscope and photographed the results (Special Exhibit 10).

Here is the problem – Wolfer does not record Dr. Noguchi’s engraving of “TN31” on the Kennedy bullet he received at 3:15 p.m. on 6-6-68 - nor does he record any ID engravings on the Kennedy neck bullet he used for comparison purposes at 9:00 p.m..

And we subsequently learned the 9:00 p.m. Kennedy bullet was proven to be a substituted, inauthentic bullet. (“D”W”T”N” engraving on the Peo. 47 bullet base instead of the correct “TN31” engraving)

We do know from the 1975 Patrick Garland Evidence Inventory that the Kennedy neck bullet (Peo. 47) Wolfer examined and photographed (9:p.m.) was proven to be a substitute bullet - but there is no way of knowing if the 3:15 p.m. Kennedy bullet was the same bullet as the 9:00 p.m. Kennedy bullet.

This leads us to the BIG question:

Was the 3:15 p.m. June 6, 1968 Kennedy bullet different from the 9:00 p.m. Kennedy bullet? Here is why I ask –

It was well known that it was Wolfer’s practice to mark his initials “DW” on either the nose or the ogive of an intact bullet that he took custody of.

We already know the 9:00 p.m. Kennedy bullet (Peo. 47) was a substitute bullet because it had the wrong ID engraving “D”W”T”N” on its base instead of the correct ID engraving “TN31” on its base.

The reason I raise these questions is this – What if Wolfer, according to his usual lab practice, engraved his initials “DW” on the ogive of the 3:15 p.m. Kennedy bullet?

Shouldn’t Wolfer have noticed the 9:00 p.m. “Kennedy” bullet in/under the comparison microscope did NOT have his initials “DW” on the ogive?

The Garland Evidence Inventory omits Wolfer’s initials (DW) on either the nose or the ogive of Peo. 47. Instead, the switched Kennedy bullet was engraved “D”W”T”N” on the bullet BASE! (this is as bad as it gets)

The Weisel bullet

The bullet attributed to victim William Weisel in the LAPD Property Report (Peo. 54) was also a switched bullet. This unquestionably fake LAPD Property Report was filed by the same Officer Leroy M. Orozco who also filed the fake Kennedy neck bullet LAPD Property Report.

Note Officer Orozco’s initials on the base of the alleged Weisel bullet was engraved LMO, however the letter O is missing in Patrick Garland’s 1975 Evidence Inventory.

Since the operating room surgeon was Dr. Neal, it logically appears Patrick Garland’s incomplete initials LM would reasonably suggest these initials were Dr. Neal’s – the M could easily be taken for Dr. Neal’s initial N. As for the missing letter O – well, it just disappeared, didn’t it?

Please examine my Plain Talk 14 – June 17, 2012 Report about the Weisel bullet and compare with the 1975 Patrick Garland Evidence Inventory.

The 1975 Patrick Garland Evidence Inventory

To better assist the Reader in the understanding of this bullet-switching fraud I include the Patrick Garland Evidence Inventory in its entirety.

A few more thoughts concerning the Bagget Memo

The date of the secret Bagget examination would be in the 1974 time frame since the Bagget Memo includes the information of the Coroner’s own Balliscan Camera. In addition, there is an attached investigation note that is included with the Bagget Memo in SUS files.

This attachment to the Bagget Memo names Bob Jackson as Baxter Ward’s investigator during and after the 1974 Ward Hearings. Baxter Ward receiving a copy of the Bagget Memo is without question - but it was withheld from the examiners during their 1975 examination of Sirhan bullets and gun. (it is nowhere to be found in the examiners’ 1975 records)

Not to forget, Harper was raising a major racket about his Balliscan Camera findings which lead to the Baxter Ward Hearings and that in turn lead to the Judge Wenke Hearings and the granting of a court order to perform limited examinations of Sirhan gun and bullets. (Paul Schrade was actively involved in these investigations)

And the single ally Harper had was the information in the Bagget Memo – but, unfortunately it was not made public. Years later – in the mid 1990’s I found it in the SUS files.

The withholding of the Bagget Memo from the seven examiners in 1975 was well calculated for one purpose – and that was to prevent the examiners from learning that an independent criminalist, hired by SUS/LAPD fully corroborated Harper’s findings – that the Kennedy neck bullet (Peo. 47) was not fired from Sirhan’s gun.

And further, that Peo. 47 and Peo. 54 were fired from two different guns and that Peo. 47 bullet was Fed. Cart or some other (not CCI).

Shouldn’t the examiners have been allowed to examine the Bagget Memo?

There is more

It will be remembered the examiners worked with a badly flawed Bullet Worksheet

I remind the Reader the examiners used an incomplete, a badly flawed Bullet Worksheet that clearly PREVENTED them from recording the ID markings on the bullet each examiner was examining!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Closely examine these very Bullet Worksheets on this web site. Without that rigged Bullet Worksheet SUS would have been able to pull off the bullet switching fraud.

It gets worse

On the last page of Garland’s Evidence Inventory he writes the following:

“The panel recognizes that the original issue was raised after Balliscan photographs of the Kennedy, Weisel, and test bullet had been studied. It is felt that final judgements should be based on an examination of original evidence, not photographs of the evidence.”

In plain English, the examiners actively sought to black ball the Balliscan Camera from acceptance in the scientific community.

Not so fast, I ask

Why didn’t Garland include the information in his Evidence Inventory that the examiners were given Harper’s December 16, 1970 Balliscan Camera photographs to examine/compare with the 1974 Baxter Ward Balliscan Camera photographs but they did not receive a copy of the Bagget Memo ? (the examiners found the 1970 Harper Balliscan bullets had no significant changes from the 1974 Ward Balliscan bullets)

This important information came to light in a Lowell Bradford interview – see exhibit

Shouldn’t that critical information have been included in Garland’s Evidence Inventory?

I make the charge that the examiners SHOULD have taken their OWN Balliscan Camera photographs of the Kennedy bullet and the Weisel bullet they received – because we know the Kennedy neck bullet was in fact a switched bullet and the Weisel bullet fared no better.

Then we could compare the Harper Balliscan Kennedy bullet with the Ward Balliscan Kennedy bullet - with the examiners’ Balliscan Kennedy bullet – if only they had taken a Balliscan photo of the fake Kennedy bullet in their hands. But they FAILED to do so.

Instead they wasted time in disparaging the Balliscan Camera photographs as a scientific tool and held their tongues when they saw that totally illegal Bullet Worksheet glaring up at them. What happened to their backbones when they were handed those Bullet Worksheets?

Even a simpleton knows it is of paramount importance that the ID engravings and the locations appearing on the bullet being examined must be recorded on the Bullet Worksheet.

If I were allowed but one question to ask the seven examiners it would have to be – Why did you go along with that fraudulent Bullet Worksheet?

Again,

Had the examiners taken their own Balliscan Camera photographs of the fake Kennedy and Weisel bullets they were given, then we could compare Harper and Ward Balliscan Camera photographs of Peo. 47 and Peo. 54 with the 1975 Kennedy and Weisel bullets.

Then, once and for all we would have positive evidence of whether or not the Harper and Ward Kennedy and Weisel bullets were the very same fake Kennedy and Weisel bullets that was given to the examiners in 1975. (I see the “unplanned” tour of the facility was a break in the chain of custody)

Just a few weeks ago Paul Schrade raised questions about the withholding of the Bagget Memo from the examiners. He wanted to know if the records showed the examiners received a copy of Bagget Memo along with Harper Balliscan and Ward Balliscan photographs?

The answer is no concerning the Bagget Memo. (the reason is obvious), also note, the attached Bagget Memo information shows us the Bagget Memo follow-up investigations carried on well into the year 1977 and beyond. Of course to keep a tight lid.

No question, there is no possible justification for the examiners to not take their own Balliscan Camera photographs of the FAKE Kennedy bullet (Peo. 47) and the fake Weisel bullet (Peo. 54) they received.

We see these monstrous frauds did in fact take place in a court ordered re-examination of trial evidence. The crooks had unstoppable powers and operated with total impunity behind the scenes. Truly, they were above the law.

Remember, Harper called the Wenke examination a “FIX” – it was.

Rose Lynn Mangan October 12, 2016