Plain Talk Nine
Plain Talk Nine Consists of
Two Separate Reports - and with an
added comment.
(Click here for document 1-18)
(Click here for documents 19-26)
(Click here for documents 27-34)
The
first report covers newly discovered
evidence which has all of the hallmarks of a fraud with respect to Peo. Ex. 55
“evidence” envelope and with the Jake Williams gun (ser. # H18602). The fraud charge I make is based on a recent
discovery which reveals that no
foundation exists in the Sirhan trial records
for either Peo. 55 or for gun
H18602 (documents enclosed)
The
second report contains a careful
re-examination of the Wenke panel members’ two separate reports - written
one day apart , Oct. 3rd and
Oct. 4th , yet separated
in the Garland Report by some
56 and 85 pages respectively,
from a closing statement which plainly
refutes the Oct. 3 report !! There is exists
a serious contradiction on the
final page of Patrick Garland ‘s Report
which
specifically addresses the panel members’ examination and conclusions of Balliscan camera photographs ( Oct. 3). (documents enclosed).
First
Report
This first report covers a re-examination of what
is purported to be Peo. Ex. 55 evidence envelope containing three test bullets and two shell casings
bearing the Jake Williams gun ser #
H18602 (instead of Sirhan gun ser. #
H53725.)
In
one of my earlier reports I focused on
the Jake Williams gun and its link to
Peo. 55 evidence envelope. At the time
I wrote that brief outline report there was no reason to question
the authenticity of the Williams gun. And not anticipating its use in court I did
not include official source material.
Then, just a week or so ago
while re-examining some Jake Williams
documents for a newsman from a
major television network I decided to
take a closer look to see if I could find an iron-clad chain -of -custody in
the records for Peo. 55 and also for
the Jake Williams gun (H18602). I
wanted to learn exactly how these two items of evidence first arrived in the Sirhan case.
I therefore
went back to LAPD Criminilist De Wayne Wolfer’s trial testimony in the Sirhan trial
transcript (pages 4155-4157) This time my attention was focused on the
minutest detail which might help to
shed some light on Peo. 55 provenance and how it became trial evidence.
Truly, I was not prepared for the surprise that
awaited me.
During the trial when Peo. 55
envelope was stipulated into
evidence I discovered something most unusual took place. There was no
mention of the writings on Peo. 55 envelope!!
Literally, nothing was read into the record about any of the
writings on Peo. Ex 55 envelope !!
Not a word . And so Peo. 55 evidence
envelope appears in the Sirhan trial transcript as a phantom - a blank - literally with no foundational
information in the record.(documents enclosed)
Following
the trial numerous records list three test bullets and two shell casings
in Peo. 55 envelope. One of the
official records which attest to there
also being two shell casings in
Peo. 55 envelope is found in the June 7, 1971 MEMORANDUM To: John Howard,
Chief Deputy District Attorney From:
Sidney D. Trapp, Jr. Deputy District Attorney, p.3. But that sharply
contradicts Wolfer’s trial testimony.
Prosecutor Fitts asked Wolfer
the following question: “what does it contain?” (referencing Peo 55) to which
Wolfer responds as follows:
(documents enclosed)
“It
contains three of the test shots that I took from People’s No. 6, the weapon,
and this was from the water recovery tank, and that would be three test shots I
used for comparison purposes.”
However, that is not what I found when I examined -
and photographed -
Peo. 55 and its contents at CSA. I saw three test bullets
and two shell casings. How does one explain that serious discrepancy?
Here we see what is written on Peo. Ex. 55
evidence envelope currently stored at the
CSA:
“LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPT.
Name: Sirhan, S.B. Date 6-6-68
Address
Make: I7J
Cal.: 22 Type:
Rev.
No. : H18602 DR: 68-521466
Crime: 187 P.C. Officer:
“(this is left blank)
Written
at the bottom on the left of Peo. 55
envelope the following is written “ H-18602 - Cadet Model”
It
should be noted the handwritten number
“ 55 “ is written at the top. (document enclosed)
Handwriting
expert LAPD Officer Woodward examined Peo. Ex 55 and found the handwriting to be Wolfer’s. Woodward also reported
the letter “B” appeared at the bottom
right of Peo. 55 envelope. Today that
letter is no longer visible.
How
would anyone distinguish Peo. 55 evidence envelope (in the trial records) from a blank envelope? It is an
impossibility and for that reason I must
reject its authenticity. We see from the trial transcript Peo. 55
is an unproven evidence
envelope. Therefore, the Jake Williams gun number H18602 , which
is written on Peo. 55 envelope , also
has a questionable legitimacy. We see this in the fact that gun number H18602 was never at any time read
into the trial record. I repeat, there
is nothing containing any identifying information which appears in Sirhan trial transcript for
Peo. 55 or for gun #H18602. How can
this be?
In
the end, Wolfer’s stunningly brief
testimony calls for renewed
examination. Why is there no identifying /foundational information in
the Sirhan trial transcript for either Peo. 55 or H18602? How is such a thing
possible? (for something this important to have absolutely no foundational
aspects what-so-ever begs credulity)
Second
Report
Recently,
the subject of the seven Wenke panel
members’ Oct 3rd report was
brought to my attention.(same newsman)
Patrick
V. Garland was one of the seven panel
members in the 1975 re-examination of Sirhan ballistics
evidence. It is Garland’s official
report “The Re-Examination of Firearms
Evidence in the Robert F. Kennedy Assassination” in the AFTE JOURNAL Special Edition which I now took a closer look at. I was interested in the panel members’ examination and report
of the Harper/Ward Hearing
Balliscan photographs and before long
I found the following:
“Special
Hearing Exhibit 10, 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 defects in the photomicrograph and those appearing
microscopically on PN 2 (Ex. 47) and PN 6 (Ex. 52). On the basis of such comparisons,
it does not appear that PN 2 (Ex. 47) and PN 6 (Ex. 52) have changed
appreciably between June 6, 1968 (when the photomicrograph was taken) and the
present date.
“A
microscopic examination of PN 2 (Ex. 47), PN 8 (Ex. 54), A, B, and C (Ex. 55) revealed the presence of
microscopic indentations, which measure approximately .003” in diameter. These
indentions, do not appear in the original “Harper Balliscan photographs,” taken
in 1970. However, these indentations appear in the Balliscan
photographs taken in April 1974 for the “Kennedy Hearing.” The source of these
indentations has not been determined from a microscopic examination of these
impressions.
“Based
on the above examinations, there is no evidence to indicate that more than one
gun was used to fire the items examined”
The
above appeared in the panel members’
Oct 3rd Report and on the following day (Oct. 4) we see a
second report written by the panel
members - “Comprehensive Joint Report
of the Firearms Examiners”. ( both
reports were signed by all seven panel
members)
(as
previously noted the above two reports
- Oct. 3 and Oct. 4 - are separated by numerous pages which I found to be unnecessarily confusing.)
Then,
something most unusual takes place. On the final page of Garland’s Report in
AFTE we see 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
judgments should be based on an examination
of original evidence, not photographs of the evidence. To this end, two panel
members (Berg and Turner) conducted independent and joint measurements on known
test shots fired from Sirhan’s gun, the Kennedy bullet, and the Weisel bullet.
These measurements indicated generl or apparent agreement insofar as rifling
pitch is concerned. It is pointed out, however, that the panel does not have at
its disposal, tested empirical data to support or reject conclusions based on
these observations. Furthermore, these measurements, while probably more
accurate than measurements made from photographs, were made with a Wild reticule eyepiece which only permits
estimates of angles to be an accuracy of 10-20 minutes. The panel attempted to
obtain a more precise instrument, Gaertner protractor eyepiece, but could not
locate one in the Los Angeles area during the period of its work. Therefore the
panel recommends the following additional work:” (documents enclosed)
When
I re-read the two reports (Oct 3 and Oct 4)
and compared both reports with the final page of the Garland Report I
thought - the left hand giveth and the
right hand taketh. The finding in the
final page clearly contradicts the Oct. 3 report. So why, I ask, was it allowed
to remain in Garland’s report in the first place????
I say that for the following reasons: Harper told me along with a number of other people on numerous
occasions that the 1975 Wenke Examination was a “FIX”. Additionally, he angrily
disagreed with the panel members’ examination
and their conclusions of Balliscan photographs. I would say
Harper fumed and in fact he wrote about
his sharp disagreement with the panel members’ findings.
The
problems with Peo. 55 are these:
After
all of these years of not doubting the
authenticity of Peo. 55 I admit
to belatedly searching
for a chain -of - custody for
both Peo. 55 and for the Jake Williams gun - H18602. What I found was a silent
record.
The
catalyst of course were the questions posed
to me by the above mentioned newsman:
what I knew about the Jake Williams gun and what I had to say about the Oct. 3rd
report?
I
therefore turned to what I had written
about this gun a few years ago in my “Part Two, (section L) Report:
“Additionally,
it was not the Sirhan gun which was used for comparison test bullets (with victim bullets), it was
the Jake Williams gun H18602 - and this is seen on evidence envelope People’s
55 during Sirhan trial but bearing the Williams gun number on the 6-6-68 water
recovery test.”
Well,
that made me think - I SHOULD have
researched Sirhan records back
then for Peo. 55 and Jake Williams gun
chain -of- custody. The simple fact is I did not do so because I did not
question the authenticity of Peo. 55 or
the Williams gun. I relied on these items to be what they were purported to be.
In short I erred.
But
it was not too late to do it now:
Since
there is no chain of custody for Peo. 55 “evidence” envelope - I have to question if the Jake Williams
gun was actually involved in this case.
Why? That is because gun number H18602 is written on the Peo. 55 evidence
envelope now housed at the California
State Archives, in Sacramento, Ca. And
also, the Jake Williams Property Report was tampered with. This
type of thing happened before in this case - when the evidence
envelope - for the fatal Kennedy bullet- was
proven to have been tampered with and I testified to
this discovery in the Scott Enyart trial.
But,
remember, the identifying writings
on Peo. 55 were never read into the
trial court record during
Wolfer’s testimony. Therefore, since
Peo. 55 can not be proven to have a true chain- of -custody and H18602 allegedly was written on it -how
can anyone state with an absolute certainty
that gun #H18602 is IN FACT connected to Sirhan case???
Then
too, there is this to consider - the
official Jake Williams Property Report , dated 3-18-67 was
IN FACT TAMPERED WITH. Here is
my reason : The original Jake Williams Property Report (Spec Exh #14) is a clear copy which does not have the white
outs and the stamp “Destroyed Jul 1968” on it. The altered copy clearly shows
proof of evidence tampering. (documents enclosed)
In
conclusion, I want to state that after I carefully examined the above reports
and records I arrived at the only logical
conclusion - that there is nothing in
the Sirhan trial transcript which even remotely connects Peo. 55 to the Jake Williams gun or to the
Sirhan case. And then there is the
matter of the wrong information concerning
Peo. 55 contents ( the omission of the two shell casings). How to
explain these things?
Additionally, it will be remembered, there is the problem
of the Garland Evidence Inventory which revealed numerous evidence bullets were switched , e.g.,
“DW””TN” in the place of TN31.
The
above misadventures are more that disturbing, they are a serious blow to
justice. And we should care about it. If it can happen to one person, even
though he is hated, it can happen to anyone
- everyone.
Rose
Lynn Mangan, 2-2-2012