This section will address a number of disturbing issues including a testy letter I wrote to Sirhan shortly after receiving a copy of Attorneys Pepper/Dusek October 2010 court filing - ( thoughtfully sent to me by a fellow writer/researcher who asked that I review it for accuracy and what if any errors I discovered)). The documents also included the above referenced Sirhan letter to Pepper/Dusek which was attached as an exhibit ( and now became part of the court record ) So I asked myself “what could be going on?) Can there possibly be a connection to a copyright violation (of my research) by a prominent Mr. X ? The fact is when I first discovered that copyright violation I promptly notified Mr. X by letter with a cc to my attorney. I certainly had no intention of financially harming him, all I require is permission or attribution to use my copyrighted research.
I had to ask myself why this particular time-line for Sirhan to present the court with false and misleading information about my being the sole researcher and author of my research discoveries (Robert F. Kennedy/Sirhan Evidence Report and my Special Exhibit 10 Report) I can see what an opportunistic defense Sirhan’s letter to Pepper/Dusek might offer to Mr. X. in his great and embarrassing dilemma . Of course I make no charge of a link between those two events. However, I ask myself why Sirhan wrote something which is absolutely false - as I will prove in this report by including a copy of Sirhan’s Declaration in Teeter’s court filing which once-and-for-all refutes what Sirhan now writes. I find Sirhan’s conduct to be outrageously offensive.
I am not over-inflating this matter since there currently exists a legal notification of copyright violation and Mr. X’s present position remains unchanged - as far as I am aware of.
So what the court now has to deal with are Sirhan’s own dueling letters !!!
Here is a portion of what Sirhan wrote that I so strongly take issue with: “As I began to develop the conviction that I was innocent based on the newly developed evidence by Rose Lynn Mangan and Larry Teeter…” Since Sirhan brought into question my sole authorship I began to look through my files for past Declarations to the Court and other references ( written by Sirhan ) in which he addresses my research. So far I found two which did not include Teeter’s name in any connection with my research discoveries. By far the most important is Sirhan’s Declaration to the Court dated August 1998. Sirhan specifically wrote about my Special Exhibit 10 Report and that he first learned of it in 1993 from me. Again, I stress no mention of Teeter’s involvement in my research.. In fact that document was included in Teeter’s court filing. The point I make is that this August 1998 Declaration totally refutes what Sirhan wrote to Pepper/Dusek and which P/D included in their Oct 2010 Court filing.. Then there is Sirhan’s letter to me dated March 18, 1996 wherein Sirhan is very clear about my research findings. Again , no suggestion of Teeter’s involvement with my work.
In my letter to Sirhan I asked that either he or his attorney notify me in writing of the specific instance of the “newly developed evidence by Rose Lynn Mangan and Larry Teeter” he relies on. Sirhan well knows I wrote my Robert F. Kennedy/Sirhan Evidence Report - and copyrighted it - as a guide to assist Teeter with his filing of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
After Teeter passed away I was not consulted by Sirhan’s new legal team until Attorney Pepper contacted me a few months ago about my sending him an affidavit for the Supplement he was then preparing for the court.
He ended up not using it. However , I found P/D did include some of my research in their Oct. 2010 court filing without mentioning that I am the author. Aside from any possible legal requirements of using evidence-related information in a court filing without sourcing it, I was deeply offended by Pepper/Dusek not allowing me to review the use of my research for accuracy, and, as it turned out P/D did make a few minor errors when they used information from my Special Exhibit 10 Report.
When I did in fact discover one extremely serious error and the above mentioned lesser additional errors ( the major error was repeated in the April 2011 Supplement) I included this information in my testy letter to Sirhan and asked that he forward information of that major error to Pepper/Dusek as I did not care to have anything to do with them.
Without getting into a lengthy report of the major error which I discovered in the Pepper/Dusek Oct. 2010 court filing and repeated in their April 2011 Supplement I will say this. It erroneously offers up information of an extremely important pre-trial ballistics examination. That is patently untrue since Harper never examined any of the Sirhan evidence bullets before the trial !!.
As I was writing this report, I took a break and googled Lawrence Teeter on you tube and much to my surprise I found Lawrence Teeter talks about CIA and RFK Uploaded by Reprehensor, Part 2/9 . Teeter did in in fact acknowledge my research and gave full credit to me for the research I did in both the Robert F. Kennedy/Sirhan Evidence Report and my Special Exhibit 10 Report . What Teeter also speaks of is his research into the Viet Nam war and its connection to the RFK assassination and CIA involvement. Whereas my research focused on SUS files, Sirhan Trial Transcripts, official documents ,examination of evidence and information supplied to me by criminalist William W. Harper and numerous other official documents. Clearly Teeter and I were traveling on separate research paths. . I want to point out an error in Teeter’s talk (referenced above) He said Dr. Noguchi examined the Kennedy neck bullet (Peo. 47) at the Sirhan trial. That didn’t take place. What Teeter meant to say was Dr. Noguchi examined the Kennedy neck bullet for the third time at the Baxter Ward Hearings (it was an innocent slip of the tongue). Teeter’s talk was without notes or aids and certainly it was one of the best talks about this case by anyone to date. It was quite remarkable.
Several weeks ago in my email to Robert Blair Kaiser I asked him if he had any knowledge of that secret pact (Sirhan Trial Transcript page 3967) between the three prosecutors and the three trial attorneys in trial Judge Walker’s chambers (when prosecutor Fitts admits they do not have adequate foundation for the bullets and in response defense attorney Cooper agrees to stipulate to the bullets) Kaiser’s response was “no” - the defense team couldn’t risk his having any prior knowledge of the treachery they were about to engage in. Everyone of those “officers of the court” who were present that day in trial judge Walker’s court chambers ( including the trial judge) were deeply wounding our justice system. And that is the plain simple reason why I am so suspicious of the integrity of our legal system. These men were not above the law. And equally disturbing, now that page 3967 has been brought to the court’s attention in Teeter’s court filings there is a deafening silence.
I want to write few words about why it is that my research has not in the past and presently not endorsed by a few men who have associated themselves in some measure in the RFK assassination research.
I am going to speak plainly. It will be remembered in Feb. 1969 Dr. Noguchi gave a 1”x1” 35 millimeter negative/ photomicrograph of Special Exhibit 10 to Robert Joling to “hold onto for safekeeping, we may need it someday” But Dr. Noguchi did not say why it was important ( it is an image of two comparison bullets). Why did he give this UNIDENTIFIED negative it to Joling “for safekeeping”? It obviously meant something. But what was it that was so important? The only writings on that photomicrograph appeared on the lower left -” Photo #8” and on the upper left “68- 521466 6-6-68 DW” (Sirhan’s daily report DR#521466) . So we know several things - that was part of a series of photos (what did photos 1-7 depict ?) We also know from the date 6-6-68 that it was on this date that Dr. Noguchi removed the Kennedy neck bullet (Peo. 47) during the autopsy he performed on Sen. Kennedy. But something is clearly wrong because - it will be remembered- this was the Special Exhibit 10 photomicrograph which depicted two comparison bullets. Wolfer declared the bullet on the left was the Kennedy neck bullet and opposite it was his “test” bullet from Peoples 55 envelope (bearing the gun serial number H18602 - the Jake Williams gun - belonging to LAPD Property Division.) Then, later when I carefully examined the engraved markings on the bullet bases in the Patrick Garland’s Evidence Inventory ( an attachment to the 1975 Judge Robert Wenke Court Order) I found what I was looking for..
I had a chance to closely examine that photomicrograph when Robert Joling , at my request, brought it to my home in Nv. in 1992. I wanted to compare it with records in William Harper’s collection. In order to effectively research that negative I needed to have a photocopy. And so when I asked Joling to have one made and send it to me he was kind enough to do so. Now keep in mind that was in 1992. And Joling had it in his possession since Feb. 1969.
The first thing I did was to make a copy for Adel Sirhan and tell him the above story because I never withheld any of my research from him. And that is how a problem of major proportions developed.
Adel wanted more than anything to know what those two bullets were. And so one day Adel and I met with Paul Schrade (in a different meeting than our luncheon with Schrade, Barrett and Teeter) at which time Adel told him the story of how I came into possession of the photo (Special Exhibit 10) because he (Adel) hoped Schrade would inform the Kennedy family that something could be wrong with the evidence.
Joling was livid that I shared the Dr.Noguchi confidence with Adel Sirhan.
That was exactly how it came about that Joling and two other men (whose names I will omit) had a three-way telephonic conference set up by Ted Charach in which these three men discussed my Robert F. Kennedy/Sirhan Evidence Report and jointly agreed that they would not lend their names to it , because , among other things, it was not written in a scientific format ( or some similar expression)!!!!!! When Ted told me why they refused to acknowledge my research I was in shock. Ted sent me a copy of the letter of the above referenced conference. I wondered why those influential men were silencing my research. (but when it was convenient Mr. X used my copyrighted research without my permission or attribution!!!)
My personal opinion of that truly shameful conduct by those three “gentlemen “ is that they were less than thrilled at what I had discovered. I truly suspect some jealousy was involved. The fact is Special Exhibit 10 was an UNCRACKED CODE and remained so until I got my hands on it. Then I meticulously went about studying and researching everything and anything I could locate until I was able to - indeed crack the code. The only problem with that is that I am a housewife without any scientific training or experience.. And I had the good sense to think out of the box. I did the necessary digging until I finally discovered what Special Exhibit 10 actually meant. And how terribly important it turned out to be. That approximately took from December 1992 to the early part of 1996.
While performing my research I felt the great responsibility that was in my hands to report my discoveries with truth, honesty ,fairness and exactness. This more often than not earned me great enmity. By operating as an independent researcher I go where, when and why I wanted (into areas of evidence). I know I have been extremely critical of our judicial system - but that is because I held the prosecutors , defense attorneys and trial judge to the highest standards. My disappointment with the conduct of those gentlemen in this case has never left me . The point I want to stress is that I spoke out against prosecutorial misconduct when I saw it and when I saw rank ineptness, dishonesty and (God forbid) errors in court filings by the defense I spoke out even louder. When a man’s freedom and very life is at stake -there can be no room for anything but the best.
Another word about our prison system. I have noticed that the prison officials are frequently criticized in the press sometimes deservedly so. But what the reader doesn’t hear about are the thousands of life-saving measures the prison officials are daily taking - at great risk of their own lives -to control violence and in fact save prisoner’s lives. As I earlier wrote about the wardens and prison officials in both San Quentin Prison and Corcoran State Prison did in fact save Sirhan’s life. As I wrote about earlier of these incidents the press was never informed. Mary feared the consequences publicity might bring. In talking to my son Brad about the details of that terrible San Quentin incident my son commented “he’s lucky the prisoner told his lawyer about it”. What Brad refers to is that attorney Luke Mcissack learned from an inmate that seven prisoners had a pact to …..and how it was to be carried out. In fact Sirhan had full knowledge of this sinister plot as Sirhan himself told it to his mother and me when we visited with him and it was right after leaving Sirhan that Mary and I went directly into Associate Warden Park’s office to report the plot to him . (Sirhan never knew Mary and I reported the plot to A.W. Park) It will be remembered I memorialized the Park visit by sending him a Western Union Night Letter with a copy sent to Mary’s address.
The San Quentin prison officials literally saved Sirhan’s life. I find it most strange that , to me the real heroes in this case are the prison officials. The public too often hears only negative stories about the prisons, and next to nothing about their true heroic roles. Whenever I visited Sirhan in prison I always - always thought back of how the San Quentin Warden and his staff saved Sirhan’s life. I am glad I finally told this story.
In the end what did I really learn? Perhaps it is that mistakes can and often do happen. On both sides.