The official records irrefutably reveal Peo. Exhibit # 6  is in fact an unknown gun (and there is more)


(click here for all exhibits)


This Report includes information found in official documented  records when an unidentified -an unknown gun masqueraded in and out of the court as the authentic gun belonging to Sirhan B. Sirhan. And when this alleged Sirhan gun made its final journey to the California State Archives, where it is currently housed, once again NO GUN NUMBER is recorded in the evidence inventory Appendix H: List and Description of Trial Exhibits which accompanied the Sirhan evidence.


Additionally, I present the serious charge that the California State Archives received two EXTRA “spent .22 cartridges (2)”  in Peo. 55 evidence envelope and that at some point in time these two EXTRA SPENT  .22  CARTRIDGES  were in fact removed from Peo. 55  envelope and are nowhere to be found.


I therefore make the serious charge that official documents prove unquestionably, that Sirhan evidence while in the custody of the California State Archives was illegally tampered with by persons unknown.


The specific document I refer to is the above referenced Appendix H: List and Description of Trial Exhibits , (the evidence tampering charge is found on page 2, “F3906:62      Trial      Peo. 55      spent .22 cartridges (2); expended test bullets (3); shell casings (2)”)


I do not make the charge that CSA staff was involved in this criminal act.


Here are the facts


Rafer Johnson had possession of a pantry scene gun for almost two hours before turning it over to Officer McGann at Ramparts Police Station. While the gun number H 53725 was read into the record, unfortunately, the make and model of the gun was an  unacceptably  vague and woefully inadequate description. Therefore, we do not know with an absolute certainty what gun was actually taken possession of.


(It will be recalled after Robert Kennedy was shot,  Rafer Johnson left the Ambassador Hotel with the pantry scene gun in his jacket pocket. Fortunately, he wrote the gun number down in his diary – but – unfortunately, he has refused to reveal this number)


The L.A.P.D. Property Report dated 6-5-68 records the gun as Item # 11 with the serial number as H 53725 and the shell casings as Item # 12.


Next – note the wrong Item number and no serial number


L.A.P.D. criminalist DeWayne Wolfer is given a gun purported to be the Sirhan gun on 6-5-68. Wolfer writes the wrong identification  number  for the gun in his Log  (he wrote the  incorrect Item # 22 instead of the correct Item # 11). Additionally, Wolfer did NOT  record the serial number of the gun in his Log.


GJ5B – switched bullets and no test shell casings 


On 6-5-68 LAPD Officer Melendrez test fired Iver Johnson .22 ca.  8 shot rev serial # H53725. Four of these test bullets were received in evidence with the Los County Grand Jury on 6-7-68 and marked GJ5B. It should be noted these four test bullets were subsequently proven in official documents/records to be substituted bullets. Additionally, it should be noted there are no test shell casings in GJ5B for test gun H 53725.


Peo 55 –The Police gun # H 18602 is written on Peo. 55 envelope; the two extra .22 cal spent cartridges disappeared at CSA and the two test shell casings in Peo. 55 were blocked from the Sirhan trial records !!!!!


On the following day,  6-6-68,  LAPD Officer DeWayne Wolfer operating head of the LAPD Crime Lab test fired an Iver Johnson  .22 ca 8 shot rev. serial number H 18602 for comparison test bullets.. These three test bullets were stipulated into evidence at the Sirhan trial and marked Peo. 55. But there are two serious problems here. The first problem is that gun H 18602 is the property of LAPD Property Division – and not the alleged Sirhan gun. The second problem is that although there were spent two shell casings in Peo. 55 evidence envelope these two shell casings were removed from the envelope at some point in time prior to Wolfer’s trial testimony. The point being that no shell casings were read into the Sirhan Trial Transcript for Peo. 55. This is an extremely important point since there are no test shell casings in GJ5B coupled with the fact that there are no test shell casings in Sirhan  trial transcript record for Peo. 55.


Simply stated, what I am charging is that there are no test shell casings IN THE OFFICIAL RECORD for either GJ5B or Peo. 55.   (But by some magic, the two test shell casings which were withheld from the Sirhan trial are in fact included in Peo. 55 evidence envelope today !!!)


The Grand Jury gun has no serial number


The Los Angeles County Grand Jury met on 6-7-68 at which time the gun purported to be the Sirhan gun was received in evidence – but – unbelievably – the serial number for this gun WAS NOT RECORDED in the Grand Jury Transcript !


I make the charge that


Gun # H 53725 could not have been the Sirhan gun in the custody of the Grand Jury (6-7-68) for the following reason


In spite of the fact that Grand Jury presiding Judge Arthur Alarcon issued a court order on 6-7-68 which required a court order to access the Grand Jury evidence – on 8-24-68 the eight shot Iver Johnson .22 caliber rev. serial number H 53725 and the eight alleged crime scene shell casings (Item # 12) were transferred to SUS and marked CONFIDENTIAL.


Of course we know the Grand Jury gun could not have been transferred out of the Grand Jury custody on 8-24-68 to SUS because of the Judge Alarcon Court Order. Therefore we must conclude that gun # H 53725 is not the Grand Jury gun.


The dirty stipulation deal


On February 21, 1968 in a secret meeting in trial judge Walker’s chambers with all three defense attorneys and all three prosecutors present, Fitts, one of the prosecutors, conceded that they did not have adequate foundation for the bullets  and it was his understanding there would be a stipulation (STT p. 3967) 


Now comes the Star of the Show


While examining SUS files I came across a document which immediately jumped out at me. It was special.


It is an official LAPD card stamped  “Property Receipt” and what I noticed is that the typewritten description for the gun reads:


“Item No. 11,  Quantity 1, Gun  22 cal., Iver Johnson Cadet” The serial number for the gun is in fact NOT RECORDED.  (next to the word “ Cadet”  the number   “6” is handwritten which was the newly designated trial exhibit number for the  Sirhan gun. The handwritten # 6 was written in by trial judge Herbert C. Walker’s very competent court clerk Alice Nishikawa)


Again, no gun number !


What we do NOT SEE on this official Property Receipt which accompanied the gun to the Sirhan trial is the gun’s serial number !!  This is a replay when the Grand Jury on 6-7-68  received a gun in evidence without recording the gun’s serial number -  and here we see the Property Receipt which accompanied the gun to the trial also does not record the gun’s serial number  and when the “Sirhan”  gun made its way to the California State Archives - lo and behold – AGAIN, no gun number is recorded in  Appendix H: List and Description of Trial Exhibits,  an official inventory of the Sirhan evidence which accompanied the Sirhan evidence to CSA. (see exhibits in my letter to Nancy Zimmelman )  Give me a break


But there is more, in case I’m boring you


At the top of this receipt there is a box which reads “Person issuing this receipt (name, serial no., Div.) “ This box is left blank. (see this document in above exhibits and also on my web site under Plain  Talk 3 exhibits)  Who, I ask, is that invisible person?  Just maybe there is no name in that box because a numberless gun has no business being transferred to the Sirhan trial court. No one is willing to stick their neck out for this slick business.


There is this additional problem to consider


The young man, George Erhard, who sold the gun to Sirhan and/or Munir testified at the Sirhan trial and  when shown the gun for his identification, Erhard testified that the gun was “similar”.


There is also the problem of the torn gun label being hidden from the trial court and jury – one has to wonder why not allow the court and the jury to see this little torn gun label  (from a gun box) with the curiously HANDWRITTEN number “H 53725” ? Why was a handwritten gun numbered label glued to the side end of the gun box? The labels on Iver Johnson gun box I examined were all factory printed serial numbers – not a handwritten gun number.


There is also a document in SUS from Captain Campbell which addresses Defense Attorney Grant Cooper’s belief that a different gun was used in the trial.  This is an example of Cooper’s total lack of interest in any Sirhan ballistics evidence. And the Prosecution pounced on the opportunity.


It will be remembered the Memorandum from DDA Sidney D. Trapp, Jr. to Chief DDA John E. Howard dated 6-7-71 includes the following for the Sirhan gun:


“Exhibit 6

Iver-Johnson .22 caliber revolver, serial number H-53725.

This was contained within one large manila envelope which bore the inscription on the outside “Number 6 and 7.”  It is presumed that since the transcript indicates that the gun was numbered “6” that this is its present number. No exhibit 7 appeared within the envelope”


Here is what DDA  Sidney D. Trapp is actually telling Chief DDA John E. Howard:


At the time the Sirhan gun was received into evidence with the Los Angeles County Grand Jury on 6-7-68  - you , John Howard , while holding the gun in your hands, you  did NOT read the gun’s serial number into the Grand Jury record !


Additionally, what DDA Trapp is telling John Howard when he writes  “within one large envelope which bore the inscription on the outside ‘Number 6 and 7’ “.  is the fact that GJ7 evidence tag is not in the large manila envelope.


This corroborates my charge that  Grand Jury 7 evidence tag is NOT included in CSA evidence items. I specifically asked archivist Nancy Zimmelman for this tag so that I might photograph it next to the gun  and her response to me was that the CSA did not receive it.


In plain English this means that the Grand Jury received a gun in evidence without recording the serial number for the gun and the Grand Jury evidentiary tag GJ7 was NOT delivered to CSA. Then later, sometime in 1988 the gun was transferred to the California State Archives and, I repeat, CSA  did NOT receive the GJ7 evidence tag,  nor did CSA receive the gun’s serial number in the Appendix H: List and Description of Trial Exhibits inventory !!!


This is so stunning I have to repeat myself


In short this means  – no gun number was recorded in the Grand Jury transcript and no Grand Jury evidence tag (GJ7)  was delivered to CSA, and no gun number was recorded in the Appendix H official inventory which accompanied Sirhan evidence to CSA.  All of this subterfuge ultimately leads to the question of just what evidence was truly authentic evidence which was transferred to the California State Archives? Somehow all of this malarkey reminds me of someone trying to sell us the Brooklyn Bridge.


In case I’m putting you to sleep


Appendix H: List and Description of Trial Exhibits, is an evidence inventory which accompanied the Sirhan evidence delivered to the California State Archives. We see, once again, an official document -  Appendix H: List and Description of Trial Exhibits -  DOES NOT RECORD THE SERIAL NUMBER FOR THE GUN !!   (see  The Gun in the California State Archives report & exhibits on my web site


There is still more skullduggery – this one belongs in the major leagues


On page 2 of the above mentioned Appendix H: List and Description of Trial Exibits we see the following:


“F3906: 62      Trial       Peo. 55     spent  .22  cartridges (2); expended test bullets (3);  shell casings (2)”


And so I ask  -  where are those EXTRA  “spent  .22 cartridges (2)” ?


Where are they now ? Where did they come from ?  Who removed them ?  and  What were they doing in the Sirhan Trial Peo. 55  evidence envelope?   Which, it will be remembered recorded  a  Police gun # H 18602   and not # H 53725, the alleged Sirhan gun number.


You bet the SUS rat finks who cooked up that caper are invisible


These unbelievable two EXTRA spent .22 cartridges points to a mind boggling fraud of monumental proportions and I publicly ask for an explanation. Of course this is only a rhetorical request simply because there is no possible explanation on this earth for two extra spent .22 cartridges to be in Peo. 55 evidence envelope with a Police gun number and with the two disappearing test shell casings !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The fact is the SUS rat finks are up to their eyeballs with lies, deceits, switched evidence, destroyed evidence, false documents and all manner of rotten frauds their sick minds cooked up. A real bunch of lousy degenerates – and finally, their fraud is exposed on my tiny little web site for all the world to see. Thank God for the Internet. And thank God for the bravery of Pasadena, Ca. criminalist William W. Harper who shared all of those insider LAPD leaks with me.


There is a very important point I want to make -  Although Harper repeatedly told me of the existence of the SUS Ten Volume Investigative Report – he never laid eyes on it. I repeatedly asked Sirhan attorneys for a copy for Harper to examine and all I ever got was a brush off. It was as if Sirhan attorneys were telling me – get lost. That is a true fact.


Then, in the early 1990’s I learned the SUS Report was available to the public and lost no time in ordering the entire work which was available on microfilm. But it was too late for Harper who died in the early 1980’s. It is fair to say Harper’s constant pressing me for SUS was contagious because once I got my hands on it – there was no turning back.


Rose Lynn Mangan                June 20, 2015




































On February 24, indeed all of the ballistics evidence was stipulated into evidence by the conflicted defense attorney Grant Cooper (he was currently under threat of indictment for lying to Federal Judge Gray in a separate case)  (six red flags)