Plain Talk 3
What
I will try to accomplish in this section is to address some of the
nagging problems which I feel were not sufficiently explored in my earlier reports. Here they are:
#1 - It will be remembered that the Los Angeles
County Grand Jury met on June 7, 1968 in the Sirhan case. One of the items
which the LACGJ received in evidence on
that date was the Sirhan gun, however, nowhere in that entire LACGJ Transcript
was the serial number of that gun recorded. A gun in evidence without a serial
number!! Now let us take a look at what transpired at the Sirhan trial with
respect to that gun’s unrecorded id
number.
There
is an official Property Receipt in SUS
files with Sirhan’s DR No. (68-521
466) at the upper right. The box on the
upper left lists the officer who authorized release of evidence Item
numbers (1-14) to the trial court
custody as Sgt. F.J. Patchett #7872 Homi.
The box listing “person issuing this receipt (name, serial no.
Div.)” is left blank - so, where was
this gun (also without a serial number)
transferred from? It will be remembered
that on Aug. 24, 1968 gun id # H 53725 was illegally transferred from LACGJ
custody to SUS under documents marked
CONFIDENTIAL. That secret SUS transfer
was a patent violation of Judge Arthur Alarcon’s Los Angeles County Grand Jury
Court Order dated 6-7-68 which sealed all of the Grand Jury’s Evidence.
The
list of evidence items #
1-14 was transferred to the Sirhan court for use in his trial and signed
by Court Clerk A. Nishikawa. I noted
Item #11 (the gun) is typewritten and
bears the following description: “Gun, 22 cal., Iver Johnson Cadet”. That is
all - no serial number for this gun
appears on this official Property
Receipt. However please examine the handwritten number “6” which was written in
at a later date. How do I know this? Because number “6” is the Siirhan Trial
People’s Exhibit # 6 assigned to the
Sirhan gun at Sirhan’s trial when
Defense Attorney Cooper stipulated the gun in evidence and therefore could not possibly have been known
at the time Court Clerk Nishikawa received evidence items # 1-14. So what does this tell me? That literally
there is no way anyone can definitively
know the true id number of the Sirhan gun simply because these critical documents lack the gun’s serial number! And further, there isn’t even a Grand Jury Evidence Tag (#7) for the gun LACGJ received
in evidence on 6-7-68. But that is not all. There isn’t even an LAPD Evidence
Envelope in existence for the alleged
Sirhan gun! That is a true fact. I asked California State Archivist Nancy
Zimmelman to produce the evidence envelope for the gun in CSA possession so that I might photograph it. She informed
me that CSA never received an evidence envelope with the gun. And that is
positively borne out by an official
SUS document - see the Memorandum To: John E. Howard, Chief Deputy
District Attorney From: Sidney D. Trapp, Jr., Deputy District Attorney. As to a
chain of custody for the gun- forget it.
Even
in 1975 in accordance with the Judge Robert Wenke Court Order calling for the refiring of the Sirhan gun and
examination of certain items of evidence - the
transfer documents in SUS still
do not record the gun’s serial number.
(see attached document)
The above
events were not oversights. What does one do when it is impossible to
commit to a gun’s serial number in
writing? Simple, omit it from the records! click here
#2 -Shortly after Sirhan’s arrest Sirhan raised
his right clenched fist. I immediately told Mary Sirhan to tell
Sirhan it was a terrible thing to do
and to stop it. He listened to
her and never repeated it. Also, very shortly after Sirhan’s arrest he told
ACLU Attorney A.L. Wirin that he killed Robert F. Kennedy. Wirin told this to
both Robert Blair Kaiser and at a later
date Wirin told the same thing to me
and added :“Don’t waste your time” And
why I wondered was Wirin - in my opinion- “poisoning the well”. I ask, who else did Wirin tell that to? Why?
This
of course made me ask myself what could possibly be going on and so I asked
Deputy Public Defender Wilbur Littlefield
(Sirhan’s earliest attorney) if Sirhan
also confessed RFK killing to him. His response was “no”. Why not? Could it be that Sirhan was carrying out
post-hypnotic suggestions/commands ? I
posed that question to Dr. Herbert Spiegel and he told me “yes”
that behavior was very consistent with post-hypnotic commands in a
hypno-programmed subject. I am not trying to make a case one way or
another - I am just stating the true
facts. Also, it will be
remembered on Mary’s first visit with Sirhan after the assassination she asked
him :”Son, why did you do this?” To
which he responded : “I was told I did it”.
In all of my visits with Sirhan
his loss of memory of the pantry scene
events has never wavered. I positively believe he was being truthful and truly suffers from a memory block of what
happened in the pantry. I want to state
that I am not Sirhan’s apologist. I firmly
believe Sirhan was hypnotized that awful night in the Ambassador Hotel
Pantry. Also, if Sirhan was the killer
- then why was there a
need for false evidence?
Recently
Dr. Daniel Brown questioned Sirhan under hypnoses in deprogramming sessions
to bring back Sirhan’s memory of the pantry events. Had I talked with Dr. Brown prior to his sessions with Sirhan I would have
suggested Dr. Brown ask Sirhan
what he remembers about the raised fist salute (were they instructions ?) and ask him does he remember
telling Wirin that he killed Robert F. Kennedy? But, that unfortunately
is a lost opportunity.
# 3-I discovered a very clear photograph of
Sirhan’s gun box with Mary Sirhan’s handwriting “this is Sirhan’s gun box” and
was fortunate to have a Lebanese young man translate the Arabic writing into English. One of the
things that continues to puzzle me about that gun box is that Sirhan always
kept the gun in its box. So why wasn’t
it among the items of evidence removed
from Sirhan’s car when it was searched? Where exactly was it on 6-5-68 ? It
wasn’t in the Sirhan home on 6-5-68.
So, when, how and why was that
gun box hidden away in the back of the
bottom shelf of the Sirhan living room
bookcase? (It will be remembered that
is where Adel Sirhan discovered it in 1994)
click here
# 4- Here you will see clearer copies of documents in SUS files about
Sirhan firing blanks at the gun
range . These documents fully corroborate Sirhan’s telling me that he met a
young man at the Fish Canyon Firing
Range and that the young man had received a gun for his eighteenth birthday. He
was firing blanks and shared those blanks with Sirhan. That is not to say that
Sirhan had blanks in his gun when he left the firing range. Still, that is a record in SUS files
about Sirhan firing blanks at the gun range and it corroborates what Sirhan told me (that he
fired blanks in his gun at the gun range on June fourth).click here
# 5- Sirhan’s handwritten account of attorney
Cooper’s refusal to even listen to Sirhan about his not having a memory of the pantry shooting is virtually unchanged from his 1993 note which he asked Adel
to give to me and his letter to
Pepper/Dusek dated 10-7-2010..click here
# 6- Take a close look at the two different
test firing dates: On 6-5-68 the .22cal
Iver Johnson revolver with serial #
H53725 was fired for (four) comparison test bullets (GJ5B). Now examine
the test firing of an Iver Johnson .22 cal revolver with serial # H18602
for comparison (three) test bullets (Peo. Ex. 55). Take a close look at the date and you will see the number “ 6 “
appears to have been superimposed over
what looks like the number “ 5”.
However, even if one were to dismiss the conflicting dates on Peo. Ex. 55 there remains a far greater problem . It will be remembered LAPD Officer Wolfer stated under oath that
LAPD Officer Lee removed the Jake Williams gun (H18602) from
LAPD Property Division on 6-11-68
for the purpose of conducting
distance and sound level tests. So,
how exactly did it happen that Officer
Lee removed the Jake Williams gun (H18602) on either June 5 or 6
from LAPD Property Division when Wolfer stated under oath that Officer Lee
removed H18602 on 6-11-68? Why is Peo. Ex. 55 PREDATED ? IMPOSSIBLE!
Then, GJ5B containing the four
badly damaged test bullets from test
gun # H53725 was not transferred to the
Sirhan trial - it was in fact
suppressed and well -hidden supposedly still in the custody of the LACGJ - however, the records marked CONFIDENTIAL clearly show the illegal transfer to SUS
custody on Aug. 24, 1968 (gun id #H53725).
Just how could these violations
have taken place?
Had
the Los Angeles Police Department had been
allowed to conduct their own
investigation without having
been taken over by SUS we would not be
facing these problems today. But, they
were not. Instead, the ultra- secret
SUS was quickly formed and they
hand-picked their own team.
This top-secret SUS outfit took over the entire RFK investigation - out of LAPD hands - and
then went about the business of
cooking up a batch of their own rotten
“evidence”. I found ample proof of
this again and again.
# 7-For the serious RFK/Sirhan researcher
this is an extremely important discovery: here is a brief review of
SUS documents of the two fake mini mag bullet sales receipts. Additionally, I have included Sirhan’s trial
testimony about his purchase of the mini mag bullets. If the reader takes the
time to carefully examine each document it will be seen that without the
slightest doubt in the world that the Sportarm receipt #2372 is a fraudulently manufactured document which has
Sirhan’s DR number 68 521466 on the right and at the bottom is the FBI
identification # 7607G67 !! Compare with the Lock Stock”n Barrel receipt also
#2372. Take note of Sirhan’s trial testimony wherein he testifies that he
bought one box of mini mag bullets and not two boxes as seen in Lock, Stock’n
Barrel receipt # 2372. My source
of this critically important photograph of Lock, Stock ‘n Barrel receipt # 2372
shows its condition prior to its
chemical burning which I received from the California State Archives RFK
Collection in Sacramento, Ca. I am greatly indepted to CSA staff for their
assistance in my acquiring this rare copy of this extremely important
photograph.
There
is also the matter of the same FFL number on both Sportarm and Lock, Stock ‘n
Barrel receipts. However, when I wrote to ATF to confirm L,S ‘n B’s FFL # I was informed that number was not in their
files. And as to my inquiry about Sportarm, there was no record in ATF records
for that company.click here
# 8- When one reads Sirhan Trial Transcript page 3967 it will clearly be seen how this
sinister Machiavellian cover-up was set in motion. Note the
objective was secrecy, e.g. the taking
over of LAPD investigation of RFK
assassination by the ultra- secret SUS
Investigation Team. Following that SUS
moved into the Sirhan Trial courtroom itself on
February 21, 1969 to seal the agreement
between prosecution and defense attorneys to stipulate to literally
all of the ballistics evidence. And to
make certain there was no last minute glitch,
Sirhan Trial Judge Herbert V. Walker presided over that unbelievable cabal.
This
is nothing less than a “dirty back room deal”. Not one of those participants
present was in a coma, they knew exactly what was taking place And what if that happened to you, to me to
everyone? Then what?
Truly,
that was one of the darkest days in an American courtroom. And if anyone began probing into that ugliness they were smeared with a broad
“Conspiracy Nut” brush.
Well,
I am not a “Conspiracy Nut” and I tell you the Emperor is stark naked.
Shame on such appalling theft.
See
next
# 9-
I’d like to clarify the most recent problem I have encountered in this
case. It involves errors in both the October 2010 court filing and the April 2011
Supplement filed in the United
States District Court by Sirhan attorneys William F. Pepper and Laurie D.
Dusek . On taking a closer look at the source
of a serious error what I discovered simply puzzled me. That is not to imply either Pepper or Dusek
did some bad lawyering here but , to
speak plainly something is clearly wrong.
It sufficiently bothered me
enough to look deeper. This is what I found:
On
pages 37 and 38 of the October 2010 court filing and repeated in the April 2010
Supplement Pepper/Dusek present to the
court incorrect information that
Harper’s pre -trial examination (of the
bullets) resulted in his (Harper’s) conclusion that there was no match of the
Senator Kennedy, victims Weisel and Goldstein bullets and that this pre
-trial information was brought to the
attention of Trial Attorney Grant Cooper who failed to act on Harper’s warning.
That of course was clearly untrue.
The only source I found by P/D of this stunning misinformation
was the attribution of Robert J. Joling and Philip Van Praag,’s
book, An Open & Shut Case: How a
“rush to judgment” led to failed justice in the Robert F. Kennedy Assassination
viii (2008).
When I carefully examined page viii of the above cited Joling/Van Praag book I immediately found the source of that
misinformation. There was no mention of
the fact that it was in actuality Sirhan Trial Attorney Grant Cooper who
advised Ted to seek out Harper for his
evaluation of the ballistics evidence (after the trial had ended) . This is extremely
important since it addresses the
correct time-line of Harper’s earliest introduction to the Sirhan ballistics
evidence.
The
truth of exactly how and when
criminalist Wm. Harper entered
this case is this: One day
a few months after the Sirhan
Trial concluded Ted Charach came to the Sirhan home and while having tea with Mary and me Ted made the comment that
attorney Grant Cooper did an excellent job defending Sirhan and that he charged no fee. Since I had read the Sirhan Trial Transcripts I
knew differently and I told Charach in very sharp words why I disagreed with him - which of
course included my finding of faulty ballistics
evidence. When Charach heard my strong
criticism of Cooper’s defense he immediately got up from his chair and
said that he was going to tell Cooper about my charges.
The
way Charach reacted to what I had just said I really thought he was out looking for trouble, eg, a
sensationalist story to write about,
so I warned Charach to be sure to tell Cooper that it was me and not
Mary Sirhan who is attacking his
“defense “ of Sirhan. Charach
immediately went to see Cooper
to tell him about my stinging
criticism. Cooper’s response was to give Charach Harper’s
phone number and address and to tell him to go to Harper and let him see
what my charges were based on. Following his
meeting with Cooper Charach returned
to the Sirhan home and related to me
Cooper’s advising him to pay Harper a visit. Charach then asked to borrow the Sirhan Trial Transcript I relied on - vol.15 - as that is where I found most of the ballistics problems. Those were the precise circumstances under which I loaned vol. 15 to Ted to take to Harper for him to examine
for the first time. Indeed when Harper read the pages I cited he
(Harper) fully agreed with my findings - he too found something was definitely
wrong with the Sirhan ballistics evidence. And that is precisely
when and how Wm. Harper actively
became involved in Sirhan
case research. The trial was over when Harper examined the
Sirhan bullets and the gun for the first time and therefore did not perform the pre-trial ballistics
examination Pepper/Dusek write about in their Oct. 2010 and April 2011 court
filings. Aside from my own personal experience about when it was that Harper actually
became involved in the Sirhan
ballistics there are several documents from SUS files which I am
here including which fully
attests to when and how Harper was
given access to Sirhan case bullets
and gun.
It
appears to me P/D’s account stems from the pages viii and ix of Joling/Van
Praag’s book Open & Shut Case (I
include page ix as it is a
continuation on the subject of Harper))
It was not until September/October 1970 time- line that
Sirhan Appellate Attorney George Shibley wrote a letter to the
Los Angeles County Clerk’s Office
authorizing Wm. Harper be given
access to the Sirhan Trial ballistics
evidence for examination purposes.
Thus
it was that Cooper played a pivotal
role in bringing William Harper into
Sirhan case appellate phase for it was positively he who advised
Charach to bring my criticisms
of the evidence to Harper’s attention.
If not for Ted’s tenacious tracking down of a promising story Harper’s curiosity and ultimate entry into
the case would not have occurred.
There were many times when Charach nearly drove me out of my mind with
his relentless hounding to learn what I was working on and then wouldn’t stop
until I provided him with a copy. That
whirlwind of a man gave no quarter; when he wanted something you had - God help you - he was going to get
it. But, that was his style - he just wore you down until he got what he was
after.
In
spite of my frequent trying experiences
with Ted, I feel he truly deserves his
place in history for his outstanding
investigative work in the RFK/Sirhan case. With respect to attorney
Cooper, though I strongly disagreed
with his defense of Sirhan I feel he showed real character when he advised
Charach to contact Harper about
the evidence. As to both Harper and Dr. Noguchi’s role - there are no words that I can possibly use to adequately
express my great admiration for them. Sadly, even
Harper’s smarts were no match for SUS’ enormous power. We see from the above (which represents only
a portion of the serious problems I
discovered with the evidence)
that SUS answered to absolutely
no one - not even the law. Since when
is that acceptable?