Here
are the reasons why I find Sirhan’s latest court appeal falls short:
including
A
brief report of Wm. Harper’s Balliscan camera
photographs, also Lowell Bradford
statement on news media getting it wrong.
“The
bullets talk to us” W.H. (please Click here here for all plain talk seven exhibits)
While
examining Attorneys Pepper/Dusek latest
brief I noted they linked switching the
Kennedy neck bullet in the Sirhan trial frame.
I knew from Sirhan ballistics
records it is not possible to assign a
definite time frame in which bullet switching occurred prior to 1975
Patrick Garland Court Order # 2 Evidence Inventory. That is the first
known documented date in the records of wrong bullet markings and it is
there that I discovered many of the Sirhan/Kennedy bullet bases bore incorrect id markings. Therefore, I find P/D ’s time frame assignment for bullet switching as presented to the court cannot be stated
with an absolute certainty. And for that reason, it is my opinion that their
latest court filing cannot succeed.
They do not submit the necessary documentation.
Additionally,
I was surprised to see that P/D
repeated their incorrect assertion (re
Harper’s examination of Sirhan bullets pre-trial) in this latest
court filing (11-26-11, pages
55&56) When I discovered
that error in P/D April ‘11
Supplemental Brief I wrote to Sirhan asking him to notify P/D of that serious
error - and now to see no correction
was made - I was surprised. Amazing
stuff.
It
is important to note that P/D indeed
used my bullet substitution (switching) research findings to write their 11-26-11 brief. And at no time was I consulted by
either Pepper or Dusek of their intended use. Since they relied on and
used my bullet substitution research I should have been afforded the
opportunity to check their work for
accuracy - but I wasn’t. In spite of
the fact that there is no love lost between P/D and me, I would have reviewed
their latest court filing.
Then
too, I wondered why P/D neglected to
inform the court of the fact that
they based their bullet
-switching information on my research discoveries. I cannot imagine the
extensive use of someone else’s
research in a court filing without sourcing it. Isn’t the court entitled
to know the source of that research and the identity of the researcher/ author who was responsible for those disclosures? (reporting
the serious crime of creating imposter bullets )
Here is what they write:
“…where
the record showed that the trial clerk delivered the substituted bullet in
evidence at the trial to the Wenke Panel Administrator. The way that evidence was handled
irrefutably reveals that this key piece of evidence - the Kennedy neck bullet -
never made it to the courtroom for consideration of the judge and jury. This
was due to the fact that substitute bullet with different markings than those
put on the real evidence bullet upon removal by the medical examiner, was the
one admitted into evidence.”
(Pepper/Dusek 11-26-11 court filing page 61, lines 8-14) hereinafter all future Pepper/Dusek
references will be ( P/D p. --,line--).
It
is precisely here where P/D
go out on a limb and tells the court :
“…the Kennedy neck bullet - never made it to the courtroom…” I ask - how
do they know that? There is,
technically speaking, no record of when the K. neck bullet was switched - let
alone when that bullet made its way to the courtroom . Clearly, what they
present the court with is at best an educated guess.
This
is what P/D writes to the court:
“Petitioner
submits that this extraordinary contradiction means that the bullet in evidence
at the trial which was removed from the body of Senator Kennedy, which was
testified to as being matched with Petitioner’s gun, resulting in his
conviction, was not, in fact, the Kennedy neck bullet which Dr. Noguchi
testified that he had removed before the Grand Jury and the Board of
Supervisors. “DW” “TN” was not the mark he placed on the base. Thus, it is
irrefutable that the prosecution’s case against Petitioner is completely
undermined and must fall away.
“Additionally,
if this were not enough, the Panel’s report lists the Goldstein bullet it
received from the court clerk (Exhibit 52) bearing the mark on the base of “6”
when an “x” was placed on the base by Dr. Max Finkel after removal in the
hospital. (id)
“….
For the first time in the long history of this case it has been possible to
provide new evidence. With respect to the facts set out above it appears to be
undeniable that a fraud has been committed upon the court, in the absence of
which it is more probable than not that no reasonable juror would have voted to
convict and no jury would have
convicted.
“It
is clear that the prosecution’s Chief Criminalist lied to the jury when he
identified Exhibit 47, which was before them, as the bullet that the Medical
Examiner removed from the neck of
Senator Kennedy. He also lied when he said there was a match between that bullet, as well as bullets in Exhibits 52
and 54, when such a match was impossible as the Wenke Panel of experts
confirmed.” (P/D p 29, lines 7-27)
Well,
if P/D are referring to the switched K
neck bullet as being “ new “ when they tell the court : “…For the
first time in the long history of this case it has been possible to provide new
evidence. “ If they are now telling the court that K neck bullet substitution/switching is
new evidence for the court to consider, then they are in error.
As far back as 1996 I discovered
the K neck bullet was
in fact substituted
(switched) and shortly
thereafter I turned over my research
findings along with the supporting evidentiary records to Sirhan Attorney
Lawrence Teeter for him to
include in his Writ of Habeas Corpus court
filing. I was especially interested in learning the
time when that bullet was switched and
in what venue it was first used. In
this I was woefully unsuccessful - I
never learned when the K neck bullet was
actually substituted .
Therefore, when I read what P/D
now writes to the court I was most
anxious to learn how they arrived
at their time frame information? And what was their source? Why didn’t
P/D submit such important
records to the court?
Pepper/Dusek
goes on to tell the court:
“Petitioner
suggests that the discussion and analysis of the evidence in the case and the
documented factual history, supra, where the record showed that the trial clerk
delivered the substituted bullet in evidence at the trial to the Wenke Panel
Administrator. The way that evidence was handled irrefutably reveals that this
key piece of evidence - the Kennedy
neck bullet- never made it to the courtroom for the consideration of the judge
and jury. This was due to the fact that
substitute bullet with different markings than those put on the real evidence
bullet upon removal by the medical examiner, was the one admitted into
evidence. Petitioner has reluctantly concluded that this substitution of vital
evidence constitutes a fraud upon the
court and mortally taints the proceedings. In such instances, the
verdict and sentence are, and must be, set aside” (P/D p 61, lines 7-16
For
the following reasons I challenge their
telling the court : “…the Kennedy neck bullet - never made it to the courtroom
for the consideration of the judge and jury. This was due to the fact that
substitute bullet with different markings than those put on the real evidence
bullet upon removal by the medical examiner, was the one admitted into
evidence.”
Let
us begin by following the Kennedy neck
bullet (Peo. 47) on its way to the trial court.
Dr.
Thomas Noguchi removed this bullet during the autopsy he performed on Sen.
Robert F. Kennedy on 6-6-68 at which
time he inscribed “TN31” on the bullet base.(Autopsy Rep., p. 24)
LAPD
Sgt. W.C. Jordan #7167, Rampart Detective, was present at autopsy and took
custody of K. neck bullet from the hand of Dr. Noguchi. (Autopsy Rep., p. 24)
Jordan
then turned over K. neck bullet to LAPD
Officer L.M. Orozco #11072 (SUS Rep., p. 633)
Thus
it was Orozco - and not Jordon - who filed the LAPD Property Report at which
time Orozco booked that bullet at Ramparts Headquarters. Orozco records: “ item # 53 ; slug .22 cal long, package -
coroner’s case number #68-573 “. He neglects to record “TN31” identity
information inscribed on bullet base in
the column provided for it.(LAPD Property Rep.)
Next,
the K. neck bullet is entered into evidence with the LA County Grand Jury on 6-7-68 as GJ5A at which time
Dr. Noguchi examined GJ5A and testified
to inscribing his initials “TN31” on
the bullet base. (LAC GJ transcript, p.
22)
Next,
the K. neck bullet was stipulated into evidence at the Sirhan trial in Feb.
1969 at which time it became Peo. Ex. 47(agreement reached STT, p. 3967)
Criminalist
William Harper examined Peo. 47, along with other trial bullets, in the
LAC clerk’s office in 1970. But here is where I see a serious problem. You see, Harper’s examination of K.
neck bullet concerned the rifling
angles. I want to emphasize Harper did not examine the id markings on the K.
neck bullet base. He simply assumed this to be the true K neck bullet and wanted to compare K. neck bullet
rifling angles with victim Weisel
bullet rifling angles and then compare
those bullets with the rifling angles
on one of Wolfer’s test bullets in Peo. Ex 55 Evidence envelope.
I am including a statement by Lowell
Bradford, one of the seven members, who opens the door wide on the gun v.
bullets issue. He writes: The findings of the firearms examiners is being
improperly interpreted by the news media”
Following
Harper’s examination of Sirhan evidence
bullets in 1970 (I repeat - for
rifling angles - and not for id markings on the bases of the bullets) there was a call for a Grand Jury
investigation re violation of the Judge Loring/Judge Walker court order. I am
including a copy of the confidential memorandum from Richard W. Hecht, Head
Organized Crime and Pornography Division to Joseph P. Busch, Jr., District
Attorney dated July 28, 1971. That
correspondence addresses additional concerns about the possible mishandling of the Sirhan evidence
and that the evidence might be subject to damage by unauthorized persons having
access to the evidence in violation of the ‘69 court order.
Next
came the Baxter Ward Hearings in the spring of 1974 at which time Dr. Noguchi
examined K. neck bullet and identified his marking “TN31” on the bullet base.
Then
in 1975 Judge Robert Wenke authorized the re-examination of Sirhan ballistics
evidence by a panel of seven experts.
Patrick Garland, Court
Administrator , also served as one of
the seven panel members, wrote a detailed Evidence Inventory as part of Court
Order 2. That is where I made the discovery of the wrong id marking - “DW”
“TN”- on the base of the K. neck bullet. No one had previously discovered
this extraordinary information.
We clearly see the documented proof that K. neck bullet was in fact a switched bullet . I should add, it was easy for me to
immediately spot the K. neck
bullet switch because I had become so familiar with the id markings
on all of the Sirhan evidence bullets
while searching for information about the identity of
the two comparison bullets in Special Exhibit 10 photograph. In short, it
was my truly intensive search for the bullet identities depicted in Special Exhibit 10 photograph ,
#8 which led to my discovery of the switched Kennedy neck bullet!!! Who could have guessed such an amazing fraud
existed?
I
carefully examined evidence records for
the K. neck bullet and was unable to discover the true time line of when that bullet was switched. Nor was I
ever able to learn with an absolute certainty which bullet was entered into evidence as the K. neck
bullet at the Sirhan trial. What we do know is that Dr. Noguchi’s
confirmed the authenticity of K neck bullet shown to him in 1974. It is
for that reason that it is unknown
whether a true or a substituted
K neck bullet was stipulated into
evidence (as Peo. Ex. 47) at Sirhan
trial. In short, Dr. Noguchi’s
1974 confirmation of id marking TN31 on
K neck bullet base turns P/D claim to
the court on its head .
What
we do know from the above is that
bullet switching in the Sirhan case did
in fact take place and that most of the bullets in the 1975 examination
were substitute and/or misrepresented evidence bullets, eg the two damaged
bullets with wood tracings embedded in
them allegedly came from the front passenger seat of the Sirhan
car. (Peo. Ex 38a&b) I suspect
those two spent bullets were actually dug out of the Ambassador kitchen pantry
door post - and did not come from Sirhan car. My suspicion arises from the fact
that one of those deformed bullets
(Peo. Ex 38 - either a or b) had a
flattened area which resembled a knife marking (which logically would be the
case if that bullet was dug out of the pantry door post with a knife). If not
the door post, then where did those two
damaged bullets with wood tracings embedded in them come from? Someone , I do
not recall exactly who, actually suggested Sirhan dug those two
bullets out of the shooting target’s
wood frame at the gun range, then placed those two bullets on the front
passenger seat of his car - and finally, - that Sirhan then covered those two
bullets with a newspaper !!! Goodnight !!!
For the above reasons, I cannot
definitively state that the bullet
which was stipulated into evidence at
the Sirhan trial as K. neck bullet was not marked “TN31” and conversely, I
cannot state that the K. neck bullet at trial was marked “TN31”. I
was never successful in obtaining any documentation of exactly which K. neck bullet was used at Sirhan trial. Was it
“TN31” or an imposter bullet? Where did
P/D find this critical information? If
they had such documentation P/D would most certainly have included it in their 11-26-11 court filing as an exhibit. Why didn’t they?
As
I stated in my earlier reports it is important to remember that Special Unit
Senator (SUS) took complete control of the RFK assassination investigation -
out of the hands of LAPD. This happened
shortly after RFK assassination. Thus it was that SUS’ hand-picked
team was in complete control
of the RFK/Sirhan evidence and the LAPD was left twiddling their thumbs.
Why was it necessary to form SUS and shut out LAPD in the first place?
Here
is a brief outline report of Wm. Harper’s Balliscan photographs
of the Kennedy neck bullet, the Weisel
bullet and a test bullet from Peo. Ex. 55 evidence envelope in 1970:
When
Harper discovered a different gun’s
serial number on Peo Ex 55 Evidence
envelope (# H18602 whereas the Sirhan gun serial number should be #H53725)
his focus became centered on examination of the
rifling angles of the known evidence
bullets (K. neck bullet, victim Weisel bullet and a test bullet from Peo. Ex.
55 evidence envelope). He had no reason
to question the authenticity of these bullets, therefore he did not examine the
id engraving on the bullet bases. That
is a fact.
Here
is what happened ; When Harper gained
access to Sirhan evidence in the clerk’s office in 1970 he discovered gun serial #H18602 on Peo. 55
evidence envelope differed from Sirhan
gun serial # H53725 . He soon learned H18602 gun once belonged to a man named
Jake Williams who had been arrested in March, 1967. Since Williams did not
reclaim that gun it became the property
of LAPD Property Division. Harper
subsequently learned that H18602 gun was destroyed in July, 1968 shortly after
Wolfer test fired it for muzzle distance and sound tests.
What Harper wanted to do next was to compare the
rifling angles of the Kennedy neck
bullet (Peo. Ex. 47) with the Weisel bullet (Peo. Ex. 54) and a test bullet
from Peo. Ex. 55 evidence envelope.
Now, he was involved in the development of a new camera - the Balliscan
camera , and so he enlisted the help of an assistant to carry the bulky Balliscan camera into the
clerk’s office at which time he photographed the above Sirhan evidence bullets.
Harper
received the K. neck bullet from the
court clerk in a coroner evidence envelope which was filled out by Dr. Noguchi. Therefore, he had no reason to
question the authenticity of the K neck
bullet in that envelope.
Harper
chose the Weisel bullet because it was in near perfect
condition and the best test bullet in
Peo. Ex. 55 evidence envelope to photograph
using the Balliscan camera for comparison with the K. neck bullet. His
purpose was to compare the rifling angles of all of those bullets
Again, Harper’s interest focused on two different
guns at the crime scene. At that period
of his investigation he was unaware of bullet switching (which he learned about at a later date
from inside leaks he received from LAPD sources). His research therefore focused on the examination of the rifling angles of Kennedy, Weisel and a Peo. 55 test bullet. And so those were the
bullets he chose to photograph with the Balliscan camera.
By
1974 the LAC Coroner’s Office had
purchased their own Balliscan camera
(CO. # 309260) at a cost of 3,500 dollars. During the 1974 Baxter
Ward Hearings the coroner’s Balliscan
camera was used to take photographs of
the same bullets Harper had
photographed in 1970.
Both
sets of Balliscan photographs (Harper Balliscan photographs and Baxter
Ward Hearing Balliscan photographs)
were given to the seven Wenke Panel
Members for their examination. Harper’s findings were as follows:
“The
mean value of 132 separate readings which we obtained on the RFK bullet (Exh.
#47) is 181 minutes; the mean value of 132 separate readings on the Weisel
bullet is 158 minutes, thus giving a difference of 23 minutes. Since the
rifling angle is a basic class characteristic of a fired bullet, it is my
contention that such a difference would rule out the possibility of these
bullets having been fired from the same weapon. (“The Criminalistics in the RFK
Assassination” by Wm. Harper, 2-19-75) -
What
I found disturbing is that the seven examiners in 1975 were NOT given the coroner’s Balliscan
camera for them to take their OWN photographs of Sirhan evidence bullets
Peo. Ex. 47 , Peo. Ex. 54 and a test bullet from Peo. Ex. 55 evidence
envelope.. The reason given was: “ It is felt that final judgments should be
based on an examination of original
evidence, not photographs of the evidence.” (AFTE Journal Volume 8; No. 3;
October 1976; Special Edition; Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners
- this is found on the last page. That’s nonsense because both sets of
Balliscan photos were given to Wenke examiners for their examination. Why bother to give Harper Balliscan photos
and Baxter Ward Hearing Balliscan
photographs to the seven examiners if
they were not important? And then not permit the seven examiners to take their own Balliscan photos of the K.
neck bullet given to them - with the WRONG id markings on the bullet base (“DW”
“TN”). I wasn’t born yesterday is all I
can say.
Why
didn’t anyone think it was important
for the ’75 examiners to take their OWN Balliscan camera photographs of the bullets presented
to them? It would immediately tell me if Harper/Kennedy Balliscan photo
matched a Balliscan photograph of Kennedy
neck bullet marked “DW” “TN” But that,
unfortunately did not take place. And what about Baxter Ward Balliscan
photographs of the same bullets in 1974? The fact that the seven examiners were
not given the coroner Balliscan camera to take their own photographs of K neck,
Weisel and a test bullet from Peo. Ex 55 evidence envelope was, in my opinion
, a clever ruse. Were they afraid they
would differ from Harper/Baxter Ward Balliscan photographs?
Clearly the imposter K. neck bullet which was presented to the Wenke examiners should not
have taken place. Who was responsible
for that bullet switching in ’75 ? WHY
was it necessary to give a fake K. neck
bullet to Wenke examiners? Was it to
grow an extra cannelure? I say this
because SUS put their foot in it when
they locked in the information that all
of the crime scene shell casings (Peo. Ex 21) were CCI shell casings having two cannelures. So when
Harper Balliscan photo of K neck bullet was shown to have one cannelure
while Balliscan photo of Weisel bullet showed two cannelures that
was enough to raise a red flag. .It is important to note the cannelure count
cannot positively be proven from the
photographs. Peo. Ex 21 shell casings were CCI manufacture having two cannelures Prof . Herbert MacDonell’s Affidavit covers
this very point in great detail. (Affidavit of Herbert Leon MacDonell, p.3,
dated 11-28-73)
And
then to have only one panel member
record the id markings on the bullet bases. And then create a Bullet Worksheet
which did not include a column for each examiner to individually record id
markings of each bullet he was
examining. And what about the information from Wenke Hearing transcript that
there was a custodial gap for the
evidence from 1969- 1973? Even a fall-down drunk knows the difference between swill and the real
thing.
A
word about P/D charge of Wolfer lying on the stand re K neck bullet coming from
his test gun.. Wolfer’s response in the 1970’s was that he attributed receiving
the incorrect serial number from
someone - he did not remember who. This locked-in response has long
plagued everybody connected to the case - because gun H18602 was destroyed in July, 1968. How does one question a dead
witness (gun # H18602)?
Rose
Lynn Mangan, 12-20-11