The
official records irrefutably reveal Peo. Exhibit # 6 is in fact an unknown gun (and there is more)
This
Report includes information found in official documented records when an unidentified -an unknown gun
masqueraded in and out of the court as the authentic gun belonging to Sirhan B.
Sirhan. And when this alleged Sirhan gun made its final journey to the
California State Archives, where it is currently housed, once again NO GUN
NUMBER is recorded in the evidence inventory Appendix H: List and Description
of Trial Exhibits which accompanied the Sirhan evidence.
Additionally,
I present the serious charge that the California State Archives received two
EXTRA “spent .22 cartridges (2)” in Peo.
55 evidence envelope and that at some point in time these two EXTRA SPENT .22
CARTRIDGES were in fact removed
from Peo. 55 envelope and are nowhere
to be found.
I
therefore make the serious charge that official documents prove unquestionably,
that Sirhan evidence while in the custody of the California State Archives was
illegally tampered with by persons unknown.
The
specific document I refer to is the above referenced Appendix H: List and Description
of Trial Exhibits , (the evidence tampering charge is found on page 2,
“F3906:62 Trial Peo. 55 spent .22 cartridges (2); expended test bullets (3); shell
casings (2)”)
I
do not make the charge that CSA staff was involved in this criminal act.
Here
are the facts
Rafer
Johnson had possession of a pantry scene gun for almost two hours before
turning it over to Officer McGann at Ramparts Police Station. While the gun
number H 53725 was read into the record, unfortunately, the make and model of
the gun was an unacceptably vague and woefully inadequate description.
Therefore, we do not know with an absolute certainty what gun was actually
taken possession of.
(It
will be recalled after Robert Kennedy was shot, Rafer Johnson left the Ambassador Hotel with the pantry scene gun
in his jacket pocket. Fortunately, he wrote the gun number down in his diary –
but – unfortunately, he has refused to reveal this number)
The
L.A.P.D. Property Report dated 6-5-68 records the gun as Item # 11 with the
serial number as H 53725 and the shell casings as Item # 12.
Next
– note the wrong Item number and no serial number
L.A.P.D.
criminalist DeWayne Wolfer is given a gun purported to be the Sirhan gun on
6-5-68. Wolfer writes the wrong identification
number for the gun in his
Log (he wrote the incorrect Item # 22 instead of the correct Item
# 11). Additionally, Wolfer did NOT
record the serial number of the gun in his Log.
GJ5B
– switched bullets and no test shell casings
On
6-5-68 LAPD Officer Melendrez test fired Iver Johnson .22 ca. 8 shot rev serial # H53725. Four of these
test bullets were received in evidence with the Los County Grand Jury on 6-7-68
and marked GJ5B. It should be noted these four test bullets were subsequently
proven in official documents/records to be substituted bullets. Additionally,
it should be noted there are no test shell casings in GJ5B for test gun H
53725.
Peo
55 –The Police gun # H 18602 is written on Peo. 55 envelope; the two extra .22
cal spent cartridges disappeared at CSA and the two test shell casings in Peo.
55 were blocked from the Sirhan trial records !!!!!
On
the following day, 6-6-68, LAPD Officer DeWayne Wolfer operating head
of the LAPD Crime Lab test fired an Iver Johnson .22 ca 8 shot rev. serial number H 18602 for comparison test
bullets.. These three test bullets were stipulated into evidence at the Sirhan
trial and marked Peo. 55. But there are two serious problems here. The first
problem is that gun H 18602 is the property of LAPD Property Division – and not
the alleged Sirhan gun. The second problem is that although there were spent
two shell casings in Peo. 55 evidence envelope these two shell casings were
removed from the envelope at some point in time prior to Wolfer’s trial testimony.
The point being that no shell casings were read into the Sirhan Trial
Transcript for Peo. 55. This is an extremely important point since there are no
test shell casings in GJ5B coupled with the fact that there are no test shell
casings in Sirhan trial transcript
record for Peo. 55.
Simply
stated, what I am charging is that there are no test shell casings IN THE
OFFICIAL RECORD for either GJ5B or Peo. 55.
(But by some magic, the two test shell casings which were withheld from
the Sirhan trial are in fact included in Peo. 55 evidence envelope today !!!)
The
Grand Jury gun has no serial number
The
Los Angeles County Grand Jury met on 6-7-68 at which time the gun purported to
be the Sirhan gun was received in evidence – but – unbelievably – the serial
number for this gun WAS NOT RECORDED in the Grand Jury Transcript !
I
make the charge that
Gun
# H 53725 could not have been the Sirhan gun in the custody of the Grand Jury
(6-7-68) for the following reason
In spite
of the fact that Grand Jury presiding Judge Arthur Alarcon issued a court order
on 6-7-68 which required a court order to access the Grand Jury evidence – on
8-24-68 the eight shot Iver Johnson .22 caliber rev. serial number H 53725 and
the eight alleged crime scene shell casings (Item # 12) were transferred to SUS
and marked CONFIDENTIAL.
Of
course we know the Grand Jury gun could not have been transferred out of the
Grand Jury custody on 8-24-68 to SUS because of the Judge Alarcon Court Order.
Therefore we must conclude that gun # H 53725 is not the Grand Jury gun.
The
dirty stipulation deal
On
February 21, 1968 in a secret meeting in trial judge Walker’s chambers with all
three defense attorneys and all three prosecutors present, Fitts, one of the
prosecutors, conceded that they did not have adequate foundation for the
bullets and it was his understanding
there would be a stipulation (STT p. 3967)
Now
comes the Star of the Show
While
examining SUS files I came across a document which immediately jumped out at
me. It was special.
It
is an official LAPD card stamped
“Property Receipt” and what I noticed is that the typewritten
description for the gun reads:
“Item
No. 11, Quantity 1, Gun 22 cal., Iver Johnson Cadet” The serial
number for the gun is in fact NOT RECORDED.
(next to the word “ Cadet” the
number “6” is handwritten which was
the newly designated trial exhibit number for the Sirhan gun. The handwritten # 6 was written in by trial judge
Herbert C. Walker’s very competent court clerk Alice Nishikawa)
Again,
no gun number !
What
we do NOT SEE on this official Property Receipt which accompanied the gun to
the Sirhan trial is the gun’s serial number !!
This is a replay when the Grand Jury on 6-7-68 received a gun in evidence without recording the gun’s serial
number - and here we see the Property
Receipt which accompanied the gun to the trial also does not record the gun’s
serial number and when the
“Sirhan” gun made its way to the
California State Archives - lo and behold – AGAIN, no gun number is recorded
in Appendix H: List and Description of
Trial Exhibits, an official inventory
of the Sirhan evidence which accompanied the Sirhan evidence to CSA. (see
exhibits in my letter to Nancy Zimmelman )
Give me a break
But
there is more, in case I’m boring you
At
the top of this receipt there is a box which reads “Person issuing this receipt
(name, serial no., Div.) “ This box is left blank. (see this document in above
exhibits and also on my web site www.sirhansresearcher.com
under Plain Talk 3 exhibits) Who, I ask, is that invisible person? Just maybe there is no name in that box
because a numberless gun has no business being transferred to the Sirhan trial
court. No one is willing to stick their neck out for this slick business.
There
is this additional problem to consider
The
young man, George Erhard, who sold the gun to Sirhan and/or Munir testified at
the Sirhan trial and when shown the gun
for his identification, Erhard testified that the gun was “similar”.
There
is also the problem of the torn gun label being hidden from the trial court and
jury – one has to wonder why not allow the court and the jury to see this
little torn gun label (from a gun box)
with the curiously HANDWRITTEN number “H 53725” ? Why was a handwritten gun
numbered label glued to the side end of the gun box? The labels on Iver Johnson
gun box I examined were all factory printed serial numbers – not a handwritten
gun number.
There
is also a document in SUS from Captain Campbell which addresses Defense
Attorney Grant Cooper’s belief that a different gun was used in the trial. This is an example of Cooper’s total lack of
interest in any Sirhan ballistics evidence. And the Prosecution pounced on the
opportunity.
It
will be remembered the Memorandum from DDA Sidney D. Trapp, Jr. to Chief DDA
John E. Howard dated 6-7-71 includes the following for the Sirhan gun:
“Exhibit
6
Iver-Johnson
.22 caliber revolver, serial number H-53725.
This
was contained within one large manila envelope which bore the inscription on
the outside “Number 6 and 7.” It is
presumed that since the transcript indicates that the gun was numbered “6” that
this is its present number. No exhibit 7 appeared within the envelope”
Here
is what DDA Sidney D. Trapp is actually
telling Chief DDA John E. Howard:
At
the time the Sirhan gun was received into evidence with the Los Angeles County
Grand Jury on 6-7-68 - you , John
Howard , while holding the gun in your hands, you did NOT read the gun’s serial number into the Grand Jury record !
Additionally,
what DDA Trapp is telling John Howard when he writes “within one large envelope which bore the inscription on the
outside ‘Number 6 and 7’ “. is the fact
that GJ7 evidence tag is not in the large manila envelope.
This
corroborates my charge that Grand Jury
7 evidence tag is NOT included in CSA evidence items. I specifically asked
archivist Nancy Zimmelman for this tag so that I might photograph it next to the
gun and her response to me was that the
CSA did not receive it.
In
plain English this means that the Grand Jury received a gun in evidence without
recording the serial number for the gun and the Grand Jury evidentiary tag GJ7
was NOT delivered to CSA. Then later, sometime in 1988 the gun was transferred
to the California State Archives and, I repeat, CSA did NOT receive the GJ7 evidence tag, nor did CSA receive the gun’s serial number in the Appendix H:
List and Description of Trial Exhibits inventory !!!
This
is so stunning I have to repeat myself
In
short this means – no gun number was
recorded in the Grand Jury transcript and no Grand Jury evidence tag (GJ7) was delivered to CSA, and no gun number was
recorded in the Appendix H official inventory which accompanied Sirhan evidence
to CSA. All of this subterfuge
ultimately leads to the question of just what evidence was truly authentic
evidence which was transferred to the California State Archives? Somehow all of
this malarkey reminds me of someone trying to sell us the Brooklyn Bridge.
In
case I’m putting you to sleep
Appendix
H: List and Description of Trial Exhibits, is an evidence inventory which
accompanied the Sirhan evidence delivered to the California State Archives. We see,
once again, an official document -
Appendix H: List and Description of Trial Exhibits - DOES NOT RECORD THE SERIAL NUMBER FOR THE
GUN !! (see The Gun in the California State Archives report & exhibits on
my web site www.sirhansresearcher.com)
There
is still more skullduggery – this one belongs in the major leagues
On
page 2 of the above mentioned Appendix H: List and Description of Trial Exibits
we see the following:
“F3906:
62 Trial Peo. 55
spent .22 cartridges (2); expended test bullets
(3); shell casings (2)”
And
so I ask - where are those EXTRA
“spent .22 cartridges (2)” ?
Where
are they now ? Where did they come from ?
Who removed them ? and What were they doing in the Sirhan Trial
Peo. 55 evidence envelope? Which, it will be remembered recorded a
Police gun # H 18602 and not #
H 53725, the alleged Sirhan gun number.
You
bet the SUS rat finks who cooked up that caper are invisible
These
unbelievable two EXTRA spent .22 cartridges points to a mind boggling fraud of
monumental proportions and I publicly ask for an explanation. Of course this is
only a rhetorical request simply because there is no possible explanation on
this earth for two extra spent .22 cartridges to be in Peo. 55 evidence
envelope with a Police gun number and with the two disappearing test shell
casings !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The
fact is the SUS rat finks are up to their eyeballs with lies, deceits, switched
evidence, destroyed evidence, false documents and all manner of rotten frauds
their sick minds cooked up. A real bunch of lousy degenerates – and finally,
their fraud is exposed on my tiny little web site for all the world to see.
Thank God for the Internet. And thank God for the bravery of Pasadena, Ca.
criminalist William W. Harper who shared all of those insider LAPD leaks with
me.
There
is a very important point I want to make -
Although Harper repeatedly told me of the existence of the SUS Ten
Volume Investigative Report – he never laid eyes on it. I repeatedly asked
Sirhan attorneys for a copy for Harper to examine and all I ever got was a
brush off. It was as if Sirhan attorneys were telling me – get lost. That is a
true fact.
Then,
in the early 1990’s I learned the SUS Report was available to the public and
lost no time in ordering the entire work which was available on microfilm. But
it was too late for Harper who died in the early 1980’s. It is fair to say
Harper’s constant pressing me for SUS was contagious because once I got my
hands on it – there was no turning back.
Rose
Lynn Mangan June 20, 2015
On
February 24, indeed all of the ballistics evidence was stipulated into evidence
by the conflicted defense attorney Grant Cooper (he was currently under threat
of indictment for lying to Federal Judge Gray in a separate case) (six red flags)