RFK Must Die by O'Sullivan the film

[Albert Doyle]

I don't see why you would need to go that far. While I commend your effort I think you're playing their game a little too much and therefore playing into their legal tar pit. After viewing the video the fact they entered the wrong gun is evidence enough for a mistrial on its own. Also the bullets in the ceiling tiles are prima facie evidence of a second gun. There's no way Sirhan ever made it behind RFK to fire bullets at that angle. I suppose those ceiling tile bullets were lost from evidence?


If you look at the press conference video of Younger and Busch they are acting exactly like public officials who have been given covert orders, most likely from CIA. The media people questioning Busch were trying not to be too direct lest they trigger a defensive reaction that Busch was playing to the hilt. But if Busch was following covert directives that's exactly how he would play it isn't it? The answer is obviously yes, so someone needs to go to the next level and accuse Special Unit Senator and the LA DA's of complicity in covert corruption of the evidence. The direct charge needs to be made. What obviously happened in the video is the offenders in the LA government were allowed to review the charges being against them themselves. They were allowed to judge themselves. That's a conflict of interest and violation of separation of powers.


The purchase of the film 'The Second Gun' and it's subsequent burial are also evidence of covert tactics and what you would see if the evidence was being attacked by the covert forces that corrupted it.


They should have been more forceful and openly accused the LA officials of refusing to test fire Sirhan's gun because it would show a second gun and therefore evidence of their corruption. Time to drop the phony pretense of authority here. Also, Caesar was caught lying about the sale date of his gun and was never questioned on it.

[Tom Bowden]

First thing, the Second Gun was never removed from the market. It won several awards by industry peers. A firm did purchase it later on and attempted to sell an updated version, which failed financially. The museum sold over 200 copies beginning in 1995 and it was the original version. Ted Charach also attempted to produce a newer version but did not have enough interest to complete that project. I have copies of his efforts. Our exhibit was based on Ted's archives plus we added our own research.

I would respectfully disagree that we are playing their game. You and I and this entire forum could agree on the final solution but it would only be mental masturbation. It would not have any affect on Sirhan and would not get him a new trial. This will only come through legal efforts.

I have been involved with the John Wilkes Booth mummy story for over fifty years. I believe I know the truth about it. However until we locate the mummy and compare its DNA with the ones we have at the Smithsonian, we will not have a definitive answer.

[Albert Doyle]

I think it's time to seek a venue and accuse the LA Police Department of working with CIA to openly cover-up their assassination of RFK.


Did they lose the bullets in the ceiling? The issue of the cannelures is proof enough on its own.

[Tracy Riddle]

I suspect that the plotters picked Sirhan as the patsy because he was a Palestinian, and there was some attempt to link him to al-Fatah, the Palestinian guerrilla group. The other Arab-looking people he was seen with may have been part of this effort.

We know that James Angleton was very friendly with the Israeli Mossad, and the CIA and Mossad were cooperating with the Shah's SAVAK secret police. Iranian spy Khaiber Khan shows up in the RFK campaign.

I think they wanted a false flag assassination to blame the Palestinians and move American public opinion in the direction of supporting Israel. This was only a year after the Six Day War. The attack on the USS Liberty was probably intended to do the same thing - blame Egypt if the ship had sunk - but in both cases something went wrong and other elements in the US government moved in to cover it all up.

[Tom Bowden]

I would suggest there is much more to the Polka Dot dress lady than has been covered in most books. Including a possible love attachment by Sirhan. We are currently pursuing this angle. We do know that he knew her before the assassination. In my discussions with Adele, he would not address the issue. The family is very protective of Sirhan. After Adele Died, Munir became the contact point and Lynnn Magnum was pushed aside.

[Lauren Johnson]

I would suggest there is much more to the Polka Dot dress lady than has been covered in most books. Including a possible love attachment by Sirhan. We are currently pursuing this angle. We do know that he knew her before the assassination. In my discussions with Adele, he would not address the issue. The family is very protective of Sirhan. After Adele Died, Munir became the contact point and Lynnn Magnum was pushed aside.

Tom,

do you know of any photos of the Polka Dot Dress Lady?

[Tom Bowden]

Yes unfortunately, they are packed away and I have never scanned them in. I will be opening those files in August and will post them.

[R.K. Locke]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6129[/ATTACH]

[Peter Lemkin]

The Gun in the California State Archives arrived without a recorded serial number. (Appendix H: List and Description of Trial Exhibits)
(click here for all exhibits)
This report was actually begun several years ago, but due to an illness had to be delayed. And in fact I did not take it up again until I received a telephone call this past week from Len Osanic from Black Op Radio asking for an interview.
It was in the course of that interview while reviewing my notes I resumed my report. But for Len Osanic's telephone call this report woud not have been written.
In an effort to make it easier for the Reader to follow I determined on the best way to achieve that would be in a letter to Ms. Nancy Zimmelman, Head Archivist at the California State Archives, to ask what she might know about the many serious misidentifications and missing descriptions I found in "Appendix H: List and Description of Trial Exhibits" which accompanied the Sirhan evidence.
Here is my letter to Ms. Zimmelman:
To: Ms. Nancy Zimmelman, Head Archivist, California State Archives
From: Rose Lynn Mangan, Sirhan Researcher
Date: June 22, 2014
Re: Request for information in "Appendix H: List and Description of Trial Exhibits"
Before I present my questions I would like to thank you and your fine staff who were always generous with their time and assistance during my twenty years' research and examination of Sirhan bullets and evidence.
There was one time when my research priveleges were terminated, and I noted the termination order did not come from CSA but from Ms. Lisa Niguel, Attorney for California Secretary of State. No reason was given for that termination.
Sirhan's brother Adel was in a panic and so this quiet man sat down and wrote a letter to Janet Reno, U.S. Attorney General, asking for her help. That good lady listened to him, and without delay, my research privileges were promptly restored. I picked up where I had left off as if nothing had happened. I remember your staff was most welcoming.
Here then are my questions:
Appendix H: List and Description of Trial Exhibits
ID No. Exhibit No. Description
F3906:2 - Motion to Suppress - Peo. 6 - Sirhan's certificate of discharge from California Cadet Corps
(my question: Peo. 6 is the trial exhibit number for the Sirhan gun. Why this misleading description? Also, Peo. 6 is repeated on page 4 under "F3906:152" without recording the serial number. How to explain this ?)
F3906:54 - Trial - Peo. 47 - spent .22 cartridge
(my question: I have to ask why Trial Exhibit Peo. 47 is described as a "spent .22 cartridge" only. There is no mention of Peo. 47 being the Robert F. Kennedy neck bullet. It will be seen that virtually all of the victim bullets in Appendix H: List and Description of Trial Exhibits are in fact correctly described/identified by both the Trial number and the name of the victim the bullet was removed from.
I am sorry to say I strongly suspect F3906:54 is not an oversight. It is a legal disconnect. There is no description which connects this spent .22 cartridge with the actual Robert F. Kennedy neck bullet. And so I ask how would I know with an absolute certainty whether the California State Archives in fact received the authentic Peo. 47 or the switched Peo. 47 bullet in the 1975 Patrick Garland Evidence Report? Remember, we already know Peo. 47 was a switched bullet in 1975 (incorrect "DW" "TN" engraved on Peo. 47 base instead of the correct engraving "TN31") - my question - could this Peo. 47 bullet be the same switched 1975 bullet? We have no way of positively knowing this - but I strongly suspect it is the very same switched 1975 Peo. 47 bullet.
I say this because I brought one of the 1975 examiners, criminalist Lowell Bradford, to CSA in 1994 to have him examine the base of Peo. 47 for me. Bradford reported seeing a grease like coating had been applied to the bullets - including the base of Peo. 47 - and immediately terminated the examination because the coating obliterated the fine identifying markings on the bullets. Bradford's Report covers this very incident.) (see exhibit)
Then too there is another problem with Peo. 47, the Kennedy neck bullet. It begins in the autopsy room when Dr. Thomas Noguchi gave custody of the bullet he removed from Kennedy's neck and engraved his initials and the last coroner case number on the bullet base TN31 to LAPD Sgt. William Jordan.
But, here is where something fishy took place. Somehow, there occurred a break in protocol. Somehow, I know not under what circumstances, LAPD Officer Orozco came in possession of the neck bullet and it was he, Orozco, - and NOT Sgt. Jordan - who placed it in evidence with Los Angeles Police Department Property Report. This official entry, written by Orozco does NOT record the engraving "TN31" in his report.
Unbelievably, what Orozco did was to substitute the Coroner case number in the place of the bullet id number (TN31) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There can be no justification for this breach in the chain of custody for Peo. 47.
And here we see Peo 47 was delivered to CSI for safekeeping/storage but, .literally, unlike virtually ALL of the five victim bullets, Peo 47 and Peo 48 both Kennedy bullets were not described. No engraving , no identifying marking was recorded for these two Kennedy bullets.
These two Kennedy bullets were singled out where they were not only not fully identified but also not described for identification purposes. How do I know where they came from?
With the above wrongdoing in mind, my suspicions lead me to conclude that CSA received substitute evidence in the same way as the Judge Wenke seven examiners were given substitute bullets which were in fact proven to be substitute bullets.
F3906:55 - Trial - Peo. 48 - portion of Court Reporter's transcript; bullet fragments
(my question: Here too we see there is a legal disconnect. There is no legal connection of these bullet fragments with the actual Robert F. Kennedy fatal bullet and its fragments. And so I ask , absent the description, how would I know with an absolute certainty whether the California State Archives received
the authentic Peo. 48 or an imposter Peo. 48?)
With respect to the five victim bullets listed below we learn from the official Patrick Garland Evidence Inventory that Peo. 52, the Ira Goldstein bullet was substituted from the id engraving "X" to the number "6" which also does double duty here because it is an engraving on the bullet base as well as the newly designated Panel Number "6". An extraordinary fact !!!
This Garland Evidence Inventory reveals numerous tampering took place with the evidence envelopes, e.g., the wrong LAPD Penal Code charge - #187 vs.# 217. This And further, that he Kennedy bullet was" fired from barrel with sharper rifling than Weisel" This cannot be explained away.
With respect to the Weisel bullet we see the LAPD Property Report is post dated.
There are only two examinable victim bullets and they suffer from serious problems the wrong id engraving on Goldstein bullet and criminalist William Harper's discovery ( Balliscan photographs) that Peo. 47 and Peo. 54 (Weisel bullet) striations differ.
Due to Harper's extraordinary charge the LAPD sought the opinion of an independent criminalist to examine Harper's charge. This is the famous Baggett Memo. Mr. Baggett agreed with Harper's findings and concluded that the Kennedy (neck) bullet and the Weisel bullet were fired from two different guns and further, the Kennedy bullet appeared to be a Federal or some other bullet. He is telling us the Kennedy neck bullet was not a mini mag bullet. (see exhibit)
F3906:56 - Trial - Peo. 50 - bullet fragments taken from Paul Schrade
F3906:57 - Trial - Peo. 51 - spent .22 cartridge taken from Irwin Stroll
F3906:58 - Trial - Peo. 52 - spent .22 cartridge taken from Ira Goldstein
F3906:59 - Trial - Peo. 52A - clinical report on Goldstein's treatment; receipt of bullet taken from Goldstein
F3906:60 - Trial - Peo. 53 - bullet fragments taken from Elizabeth Evans
F3906:61 - Trial - Peo. 54 - spent .22 cartridge taken from William Weisel
F3906:62 - Trial - Peo. 55 - spent .22 cartridges (2); expended test bullets (3); shell casigs (2)
(Frankly, I hardly know where to begin with F3906:62. This information DOES NOT MATCH the description in Sirhan Trial Transcript for Peo. 55 !!! Again, there is a legal disconnect between the Peo. 55 exhibit in evidence at Sirhan trial and the Peo. 55 exhibit delivered to the California State Archives. But there is more to this false and misleading record. Read on
Where, I ask, did the EXTRA "spent .22 cartridge (2)" come from? And where are they now? It will be remembered, the two shell casings in Peo. 55 were NOT inside the evidence envelope Peo. 55 at the trial. And we see, CSA did receive the two test shell casings in Peo. 55 evidence envelope along with these BONUS "spent .22 cartridge (2)" Additionally, on the many occasions when I examined and photographed Peo. 55 evidence envelope and its contents those two .22 cartridges were not included.
I do not see even a remote possibility that anyone can explain this away.)
F3906:152 - Trial - Peo. 6 - Sirhan's gun
Where is the serial number for the"Sirhan" gun ? Why does the gun, sans its serial number, appear two times in this Report? (page one and page four)
What I am charging is that there is no legal description for Peo. 47; Peo. 48; Peo. 55 and Peo. 6 (F3906:152 - Trial - Peo. 6 - Sirhan's gun). We see all of the victim bullets Peo. 50; Peo. 50A; Peo. 51;, Peo. 52; Peo. 53; and Peo. 54 were in fact correctly described. Why were the two Kennedy bullets treated differently in this official inventory ?
My question - why wasn't the Sirhan gun serial number included? Technically, the CSA received a gun but not its serial number in this extremely important Appendix H: List and Description of Trial Exhibits.
Isn't that what took place on 6-7-68 when the L.A. County Grand Jury received the "Sirhan" gun in evidence WITHOUT recording the serial number of the gun in the Grand Jury Transcript ?
There is positively nothing in Appendix H: List and Description of Trial Exhibits which tells me WITH AN ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY the evidence - Peo. 6; Peo. 47; Peo. 48; Peo. 55 - which was delivered to CSA are in fact authentic.
If Peo. 6; Peo. 47; Peo. 48; Peo. 55 are in fact authentic pieces of evidence, then why were their descriptions NOT recorded in the same way as Peo. 50; Peo. 51; Peo. 52; Peo. 53; Peo. 54 were recorded? I find this to be totally unacceptable. And suspicious.
And so I ask if you can shed any light on my serious charges? Do you have any information concerning Appendix H: List and Description of Trial Exhibits ?
I do not suggest that CSA was in any way connected with these missing descriptions.
I would like to take this opportunity in clearing up the missing 1975 test shell casings I discovered. You will remember I asked you for the 1975 test bullets and shell casings to examine and photograph and your response was that the CSA did not receive them. Therefore, while examining "F3906:128 - Special Hearing - 24 (A-H) - bullets fired from Sirhan's gun on 9-27-1975 (8)" I filed it away with the many errors and misidentifications I found. This is seen in my handwritten correction/notations.
It was not until about a year or so ago when Shane O'Sullivan brought to my attention that CSA does indeed have the 75 test bullets. I can only assume, since I asked for the 75 "test bullets and shell casings" your response that CSA did not receive them was only in part correct. The 75 test shell casings are indeed missing as this inventory shows.
If you can shed any light on the missing 75 test shell casings I would greatly appreciate it.
It is not my intention to in any way place blame on CSA for the issues I raise in this letter. I simply ask what , if anything , you may know of the extremely serious charge I make of doubting the authenticity of - Peo. 6; Peo. 47; Peo. 48 and Peo. 55 which was delivered to the California State Archives? No question, these issues are highly irregular. And, not to forget we are dealing with evidence in the Robert F. Kennedy assassination.
Careful examination of the Howard/Trapp Memorandum 100% supports my charges - no tag number 7 in the envelope (see exhibit). Number 7 of course is the Grand Jury tag. It is not in evidence with CSA. We know this from my asking you and your staff on several occasions for all of the official identifying tags (related to the chain of custody for the Sirhan gun) as I wanted to photograph them alongside the gun. The official Trial tag marked Peo. 6 was the only gun tag I received. This is seen in my photographs of Peo. 6.
Then too, it will be remembered, CII in Sacramento, Ca. destroyed the original triplicate copy of the Dealer Record of Sale for Iver Johnson, .22 ca. rev. # H53725. What CSA has in its possession is a photostatic copy. (A copy of Geoge Hisamoto's letter notifying me of the destruction of the triplicate copy of DROS is in my book Robert F. Kennedy/Sirhan Evidence Report) (see exhibit)
I find it incomprehensible for CII to destroy the original triplicate copy of the DROS and keep the photostatic copy under lock and key at CSA. The reason this disturbs me is that I found evidence of what appeared to be white-outs on the DROS for H-53725 and when I sought to have it examined by an examiner of questioned documents I was notified by Mr. Hisamoto the triplicate copy of the DROS for H53725 Iver Johnson rev. in their custody had been destroyed. And just like that - there ended examination of original triplicate copy of the DROS for gun H53725. Business as usual.
Again, please do not feel I suggest any wrong doing on the part of CSA staff. That is not at all the case. You folks are only safeguarding the evidence you were given. No matter how doubtful it is..
In closing I want to thank you for your help, and I look forward to hearing from you.
Rose Lynn Mangan

[Peter Lemkin]

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.

PART 1

Here's what happened

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?

PART 11

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 Merry-go-round

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

"Exhibit 55
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.

I repeat

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